COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

arXiv:1505.05497v4 [] 17 Mar 2017

STÉPHANE LAMY
Abstract. We study the group Tame(A3 ) of tame automorphisms of the 3dimensional affine space, over a field of characteristic zero. We recover, in a
unified way, previous results of Kuroda, Shestakov, Umirbaev and Wright, about
the theory of reduction and the relations in Tame(A3 ). The novelty in our presentation is the emphasis on a simply connected 2-dimensional simplicial complex
on which Tame(A3 ) acts by isometries.

Contents
Introduction
1. Simplicial complex
1.A. General construction
1.B. Degrees
1.C. The complex in dimension 3
2. Parachute Inequality and Principle of Two Maxima
2.A. Degree of polynomials and forms
2.B. Parachute Inequality
2.C. Consequences
2.D. Principle of Two Maxima
3. Geometric theory of reduction
3.A. Degree of automorphisms and vertices
3.B. Elementary reductions
3.C. K-reductions
3.D. Elementary K-reductions
3.E. Proper K-reductions
3.F. Stability of K-reductions
4. Reducibility Theorem
4.A. Reduction paths
4.B. Reduction of a strongly pivotal simplex
4.C. Vertex with two low degree neighbors
4.D. Proof of the Reducibility Theorem
5. Simple connectedness
5.A. Consequences of the Reducibility Theorem
5.B. Local homotopies
6. Examples
References

Date: March 20, 2017.
This research was partially supported by ANR Grant “BirPol” ANR-11-JS01-004-01.
1

2
5
5
6
7
8
8
9
11
13
15
15
16
18
21
22
26
29
30
31
38
41
43
43
43
46
48

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

2

Introduction
Let k be a field, and let An = Ank be the affine space over k. We are interested in
the group Aut(An ) of algebraic automorphisms of the affine space. Concretely, we
choose once and for all a coordinate system (x1 , . . . , xn ) for An . Then any element
f ∈ Aut(An ) is a map of the form
f ∶ (x1 , . . . , xn ) ↦ (f1 (x1 , . . . , xn ), . . . , fn (x1 , . . . , xn )),
where the fi are polynomials in n variables, such that there exists a map g of
the same form satisfying f ○ g = id. We shall abbreviate this situation by writing
f = (f1 , . . . , fn ), and g = f −1 . Observe a slight abuse of notation here, since we
are really speaking about polynomials, and not about the associated polynomial
functions. For instance over a finite base field, the group Aut(An ) is infinite (for
n ⩾ 2) even if there is only a finite number of induced bijections on the finite number
of k-points of An .
The group Aut(An ) contains the following natural subgroups. First we have the
affine group An = GLn (k) ⋉ kn . Secondly we have the group En of elementary
automorphisms, which have the form
f ∶ (x1 , . . . , xn ) ↦ (x1 + P (x2 , . . . , xn ), x2 , . . . , xn ),
for some choice of polynomial P in n − 1 variables. The subgroup
Tame(An ) = ⟨An , En ⟩
generated by the affine and elementary automorphisms is called the subgroup of
tame automorphisms.
A natural question is whether the inclusion Tame(An ) ⊆ Aut(An ) is in fact an
equality. It is a well-known result, which goes back to Jung (see e.g. [Lam02] for a
review of some of the many proofs available in the literature), that the answer is yes
for n = 2 (over any base field), and it is a result by Shestakov and Umirbaev [SU04b]
that the answer is no for n = 3, at least when k is a field of characteristic zero.
The main purpose of the present paper is to give a self-contained reworked proof
of this last result: see Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2. We follow closely the line of
argument by Kuroda [Kur10]. However, the novelty in our approach is the emphasis
on a 2-dimensional simplicial complex C on which Tame(A3 ) acts by isometries. In
fact, this construction is not particular to the 3-dimensional case: In §1 we introduce,
for any n ⩾ 2 and over any base field, a (n − 1)-dimensional simplicial complex on
which Tame(An ) naturally acts.
We now give an outline of the main notions and results of the paper. Since the
paper is quite long and technical, we hope that this informal outline will serve as
a guide for the reader, even if we cannot avoid being somewhat imprecise at this
point.
● The 2-dimensional complex C contains three kinds of vertices, corresponding to
three orbits under the action of Tame(A3 ). In this introduction we shall focus on
the so-called type 3 vertices, which correspond to a tame automorphism (f1 , f2 , f3 )
up to post-composition by an affine automorphism. Such an equivalence class is
denoted v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ] (see §1.C and Figure 1).
● Given a vertex v3 one can always choose a representative (f1 , f2 , f3 ) such that
the top monomials of the fi are pairwise distinct. Such a good representative is
not unique, but the top monomials are. This allows to define a degree function
(with values in N3 ) on vertices, with the identity automorphism corresponding to
the unique vertex of minimal degree (see §3.A).

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

3

By construction of the complex C, two type 3 vertices v3 and v3′ are at distance
2 in C if and only if they admit representatives of the form v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ] and
v3′ = [f1 + P (f2 , f3 ), f2 , f3 ], that is, representatives that differ by an elementary
automorphism. If moreover deg v3 > deg v3′ , we say that v3′ is an elementary reduction
of v3 . The whole idea is that it is ‘almost’ true that any vertex admits a sequence
of elementary reductions to the identity. However a lot of complications lie in this
‘almost’, as we now discuss.
● Some particular tame automorphisms are triangular automorphisms, of the form
(up to a permutation of the variables) (x1 + P (x2 , x3 ), x2 + Q(x3 ), x3 ). There are
essentially two ways to decompose such an automorphism as a product of elementary
automorphisms, namely
●

(x1 + P (x2 , x3 ), x2 + Q(x3 ), x3 )

= (x1 , x2 + Q(x3 ), x3 ) ○ (x1 + P (x2 , x3 ), x2 , x3 )

= (x1 + P (x2 − Q(x3 ), x3 ), x2 , x3 ) ○ (x1 , x2 + Q(x3 ), x3 ).

This leads to the presence of squares in the complex C, see Figure 3. Conversely,
the fact that a given vertex admits two distinct elementary reductions often leads
to the presence of such a square, in particular if one of the reductions corresponds
to a polynomial that depends only on one variable instead of two, like Q(x3 ) above.
We call ‘simple’ such a particular elementary reduction.
● When v ′ = [f1 + P (f2 , f3 ), f2 , f3 ] is an elementary reduction of v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ],
3
we shall encounter the following situations (see Corollary 4.28):
(i) The most common situation is when the top monomial of f1 is the dominant
one, that is, the largest among the top monomials of the fi .
(ii) Another (non-exclusive) situation is when P depends only on one variable.
As mentioned before this is typically the case when v3 admits several elementary
reductions. This corresponds to the fact that the top monomial of a component is
a power of another one, and we name ‘resonance’ such a coincidence (see definition
in §3.A).
(iii) Finally another situation is when f1 does not realize the dominant monomial,
but f2 , f3 nevertheless satisfy a kind of minimality condition via looking at the degree
of the 2-form df2 ∧ df3 . We call this last case an elementary K-reduction (see §3.C
for the definition, Corollary 3.13 for the characterization in terms of the minimality
of deg df2 ∧ df3 , and §6 for examples). This case is quite rigid (see Proposition 3.35),
and at posteriori it forbids the existence of any other elementary reduction from v3
(see Proposition 5.1).
● Finally we define (see §3.C again) an exceptional case, under the terminology
‘normal proper K-reduction’, that corresponds to moving from a vertex v3 to a
neighbor vertex w3 of the same degree, and then realizing an elementary K-reduction
from w3 to another vertex u3 . The fact that v3 and w3 share the same degree is not
part of the technical definition, but again is true only at posteriori (see Corollary
5.2).
● Then the main result (Reducibility Theorem 4.1) is that we can go from any
vertex to the vertex corresponding to the identify by a finite sequence of elementary
reductions or normal proper K-reductions.
● The proof proceeds by a double induction on degrees which is quite involved.
The Induction Hypothesis is precisely stated on page 36. The analysis is divided
into two main branches:

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

4

(i) §4.B where the slogan is “a vertex that admits an elementary K-reduction
does not admit any other reduction” (Proposition 4.27 is an intermediate technical
statement, and Proposition 5.1 the final one);
(ii) §4.C where the slogan is “a vertex that admits several elementary reductions
must admit some resonance” (see in particular Lemmas 4.32 and 4.34).
For readers familiar with previous works on the subject, we now give a few word
about terminology. In the work of Kuroda [Kur10], as in the original work of Shestakov and Umirbaev [SU04b], elementary reductions are defined with respect to one
of the three coordinates of a fixed coordinate system. In contrast, as explained
above, we always work up to an affine change of coordinates. Indeed our simplicial
complex C is designed so that two tame automorphisms correspond to two vertices
at distance 2 in the complex if and only if they differ by the left composition of an
automorphism of the form a1 ea2 , where a1 , a2 are affine and e is elementary. This
slight generalization of the definition of reduction allows us to absorb the so-called
“type I” and “type II” reductions of Shestakov and Umirbaev in the class of elementary reductions: In our terminology they become “elementary K-reductions” (see
§3.C). On the other hand, the “type III” reductions, which are technically difficult
to handle, are still lurking around. One can suspect that such reductions do not
exist (as the most intricate “type IV” reductions which were excluded by Kuroda
[Kur10]), and an ideal proof would settle this issue. Unfortunately we were not able
to do so, and these hypothetical reductions still appear in our text under the name
of “normal proper K-reduction”. See Example 6.5 for more comments on this issue.
One could say that the theory of Shestakov, Umirbaev and Kuroda consists in
understanding the relations inside the tame group Tame(A3 ). This was made explicit
by Umirbaev [Umi06], and then it was proved by Wright [Wri15] that this can be
rephrased in terms of an amalgamated product structure over three subgroups (see
Corollary 5.8). In turn, it is known that such a structure is equivalent to the action of
the group on a 2-dimensional simply connected simplicial complex, with fundamental
domain a simplex. Our approach allows to recover a more transparent description
of the relations in Tame(A3 ). After stating and proving the Reducibility Theorem
4.1 in §4, we directly show in §5 that the natural complex on which Tame(A3 ) acts
is simply connected (see Proposition 5.7), by observing that the reduction process
of [Kur10, SU04b] corresponds to local homotopies.
We should stress once more that this paper contains no original result, and consists
only in a new presentation of previous works by the above cited authors. In fact,
for the sake of completeness we also include in Section 2 some preliminary results
where we only slightly differ from the original articles [Kur08, SU04a].
Our motivation for reworking this material is to prepare the way for new results
about Tame(A3 ), such as the linearizability of finite subgroups, the Tits alternative or the acylindrical hyperbolicity. From our experience in related settings (see
[BFL14, CL13, Lon16, Mar15]), such results should follow from some non-positive
curvature properties of the simplicial complex. We plan to explore these questions
in some follow-up papers (see [LP16] for a first step).

Acknowledgement
In August 2010 I was assigned the paper [Kur10] as a reviewer for MathSciNet.
I took this opportunity to understand in full detail his beautiful proof, and in November of the same year, at the invitation of Adrien Dubouloz, I gave some lectures

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

5

in Dijon on the subject. I thank all the participants of this study group “Automorphismes des Espaces Affines”, and particularly Jérémy Blanc, Eric Edo, Pierre-Marie
Poloni and Stéphane Vénéreau who gave me useful feedback on some early version
of these notes.
A few years later I embarked on the project to rewrite this proof focusing on the
related action on a simplicial complex. At the final stage of the present version,
when I was somehow loosing faith in my endurance, I greatly benefited from the
encouragements and numerous suggestions of Jean-Philippe Furter.
Finally, I am of course very much indebted to Shigeru Kuroda. Indeed without
his work the initial proof of [SU04b] would have remained a mysterious black box
to me.
1. Simplicial complex
We define a (n − 1)-dimensional simplicial complex on which the tame automorphism group of An acts. This construction makes sense in any dimension n ⩾ 2, over
any base field k.
1.A. General construction. For any 1 ⩽ r ⩽ n, we call r-tuple of components
a morphism
f ∶ An → Ar

x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ↦ (f1 (x), . . . , fr (x))

that can be extended as a tame automorphism f = (f1 , . . . , fn ) of An . One defines n
distinct types of vertices, by considering r-tuple of components modulo composition
by an affine automorphism on the range, r = 1, . . . , n. We use a bracket notation to
denote such an equivalence class:
[f1 , . . . , fr ] ∶= Ar (f1 , . . . , fr ) = {a ○ (f1 , . . . , fr ); a ∈ Ar }

where Ar = GLr (k) ⋉ kr is the r-dimensional affine group. We say that vr =
[f1 , . . . , fr ] is a vertex of type r, and that (f1 , . . . , fr ) is a representative of vr .
We shall always stick to the convention that the index corresponds to the type of a
vertex: for instance vr , vr′ , ur , wr , mr will all be possible notation for a vertex of type
r.
Now given n vertices v1 , . . . , vn of type 1, . . . , n, we attach a standard Euclidean
(n − 1)-simplex on these vertices if there exists a tame automorphism (f1 , . . . , fn ) ∈
Tame(An ) such that for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n}:
vi = [f1 , . . . , fi ].

We obtain a (n − 1)-dimensional simplicial complex Cn on which the tame group acts
by isometries, by the formulas
g ⋅ [f1 , . . . , fr ] ∶= [f1 ○ g−1 , . . . , fr ○ g−1 ].

Lemma 1.1. The group Tame(An ) acts on Cn with fundamental domain the simplex
[x1 ], [x1 , x2 ], . . . , [x1 , . . . , xn ].

In particular the action is transitive on vertices of a given type.
Proof. Let v1 , . . . , vn be the vertices of a simplex (recall that the index corresponds
to the type). By definition there exists f = (f1 , . . . fn ) ∈ Tame(An ) such that vi =
[f1 , . . . , fi ] for each i. Then
[x1 , . . . , xi ] = [(f1 , . . . , fi ) ○ f −1 ] = f ⋅ vi .



COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

6

Remark 1.2.
(1) One could make a similar construction by working with the
full automorphism group Aut(An ) instead of the tame group. The complex Cn we
consider is the gallery connected component of the standard simplex [x1 ], [x1 , x2 ],
. . . , [x1 , . . . , xn ] in this bigger complex. See [BFL14, §6.2.1] for more details.
(2) When n = 2, the previous construction yields a graph C2 . It is not difficult to
show (see [BFL14, §2.5.2]) that C2 is isomorphic to the classical Bass-Serre tree of
Aut(A2 ) = Tame(A2 ).
1.B. Degrees. We shall compare polynomials in k[x1 , . . . , xn ] by using the graded
lexicographic order on monomials. We find it more convenient to work with an
additive notation, so we introduce the degree function, with value in Nn ∪ {−∞},
by taking
deg xa11 xa22 . . . xann = (a1 , a2 , . . . , an )

and by convention deg 0 = −∞. We extend this order to Qn ∪ {−∞}, since sometimes
it is convenient to consider difference of degrees, or degrees multiplied by a rational
number. The top term of g ∈ k[x1 , . . . , xn ] is the uniquely defined ḡ = cxd11 . . . xdnn
such that
(d1 , . . . , dn ) = deg g > deg(g − ḡ).

Observe that two polynomials f, g ∈ k[x1 , . . . , xn ] have the same degree if and only if
their top terms f¯, ḡ are proportional. If f = (f1 , . . . , fr ) is a r-tuple of components,
we call top degree of f the maximum of the degree of the fi :
topdeg f ∶= max deg fi ∈ Nn .

Lemma 1.3. Let f = (f1 , . . . , fr ) be a r-tuple of components, and consider V ⊂
k[x1 , . . . , xn ] the vector space generated by the fi . Then
(1) The set H of elements g ∈ V satisfying topdeg f > deg g is a hyperplane in
V;
(2) There exist a sequence of degrees δr > ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ > δ1 and a flag of subspaces V1 ⊂
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⊂ Vr = V such that dim Vi = i and deg g = δi for any g ∈ Vi ∖ Vi−1 .
Proof.
(1) Up to permuting the fi we can assume topdeg f = deg fr . Then for
each i = 1, . . . , r − 1 there exists a unique ci ∈ k such that deg fr > deg(fi + ci fr ). The
conclusion follows from the observation that an element of V is in H if and only if
it is a linear combination of the fi + ci fr , i = 1, . . . , r − 1.
(2) Immediate, by induction on dimension.

Using the notation of the lemma, we call r-deg f = (δ1 , . . . , δr ) the r-degree of f ,
and deg f = ∑ri=1 δi ∈ Nn the degree of f . Observe that for any affine automorphism
a ∈ Ar we have r- deg f = r- deg(a ○ f ), so we get a well-defined notion of r-degree
and degree for any vertex of type r.
If vr = [f1 , . . . , fr ] ∈ Cn with the deg fi pairwise distinct, we say that f is a good
representative of vr (we do not ask deg fr > ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ > deg f2 > deg f1 ). We use a double
bracket notation such as v2 = Jf1 , f2 K or v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K, to indicate that we are using
a good representative.
Lemma 1.4. Let v1 , . . . , vn be a (n − 1)-simplex in Cn . Then there exists f =
(f1 , . . . , fn ) ∈ Tame(An ) such that vi = Jf1 , . . . , fi K for each n ⩾ i ⩾ 1.
Proof. We pick f1 such that v1 = Jf1 K, and we define the other fi by induction as
follows. If the i-degree of vi = Jf1 , . . . , fi K is (δ1 , . . . , δi ) (recall that by definition the
δj are equal to the degrees of the fj only up to a permutation), then there exist δ ∈ N3

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

[x1 +x3 ]

7

[x1 ,x3 ]

●

[x3 ]

[x1 ]

[x1 ,x2 ,x3 ]

[x2 ,x3 ]

[x1 ,x2 ]

●

●

[x1 +Q(x2 ),x2 ,x3 ]

[x1 ,x2 ,x3 +P (x1 ,x2 )]

[x2 ]

[x1 ,x2 ,x3 +Q(x2 )]

●
[x1 +Q(x2 ),x2 ]

●

[x1 +x3 +Q(x2 ),x2 ]

●
[x2 ,x3 +P (x1 ,x2 )]

[x1 +Q(x2 ),x2 ,x3 +P (x1 ,x2 )]

Figure 1. A few simplexes of the complex C.
and i + 1 ⩾ s ⩾ 1 such that the (i + 1)-degree of vi+1 is (δ1 , . . . , δs−1 , δ, δs , . . . , δi ). That
exactly means that there exists fi+1 of degree δ such that vi+1 = Jf1 , . . . , fi+1 K.

1.C. The complex in dimension 3. Now we specialize the general construction to
the dimension n = 3, which is our main interest in this paper. We drop the index and
simply denote by C the 2-dimensional simplicial complex associated to Tame(A3 ).
To get a first feeling of the complex one can draw pictures such as Figure 1, where
we use the following convention for vertices: , ● or corresponds respectively to
a vertex of type 1, 2 and 3. However one should keep in mind, as the following
formal discussion makes it clear, that the complex is not locally finite. A first step
in understanding the geometry of the complex C is to understand the link of each
type of vertex. In fact, we will now see that if the base field k is uncountable, then
the link of any vertex or any edge also has uncountably many vertices.
Consider first the link L(v3 ) of a vertex of type 3. By transitivity of the action of
Tame(A3 ), it is sufficient to describe the link L([id]). A vertex of type 1 at distance
1 from [id] has the form [a1 x1 +a2 x2 +a3 x3 ] where the ai ∈ k are uniquely defined up
to a common multiplicative constant. In other words, vertices of type 1 in L([id])
are parametrized by P2 . We denote by P2 (v3 ) this projective plane of vertices of
type 1 in the link of v3 . Similarly, vertices of type 2 in L(v3 ) correspond to lines in
P2 (v3 ), that is, to points in the dual projective space P̂2 (v3 ). The edges in L(v3 )
correspond to incidence relations (“a point belongs to a line”). We will often refer
to a vertex of type 2 as a “line in P2 (v3 )”. In the same vein, we will sometimes refer
to a vertex of type 1 as being “the intersection of two lines in P2 (v3 )”, or we will
express the fact that v1 and v2 are joined by an edge in C by saying “the line v2
passes through v1 ”.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

8

Now we turn to the description of the link of a vertex v2 of type 2. By transitivity
we can assume v2 = [x1 , x2 ], and one checks that vertices of type 1 in L(v2 ) are
parametrized by P1 and are of the form
[a1 x1 + a2 x2 ], (a1 ∶ a2 ) ∈ P1 .

On the other hand vertices of type 3 in L(v2 ) are of the form
[x1 , x2 , x3 + P (x1 , x2 )], P ∈ k[y, z].

Precisely by taking the P without constant or linear part we obtain a complete set
of representatives for such vertices of type 3 in L(v2 ). Using the transitivity of the
action of Tame(A3 ) on vertices of type 2, the following lemma and its corollary are
then immediate:
Lemma 1.5. The link L(v2 ) of a vertex of type 2 is the complete bipartite graph
between vertices of type 1 and 3 in the link.
Corollary 1.6. Let v2 = [f1 , f2 ] and v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ] be vertices of type 2 and 3.
Then any vertex u3 distinct from v3 such that v2 ∈ P̂2 (u3 ) has the form
u3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )]

where P ∈ k[y, z] is a non-affine polynomial in two variables (that is, not of the form
P (y, z) = ay + bz + c). In particular, v2 is the unique type 2 vertex in P̂2 (v3 ) ∩ P̂2 (u3 ).
The link of a vertex of type 1 is more complicated. Let us simply mention without
proof, since we won’t need it in this paper (but see Lemma 5.6 for a partial result,
and also [LP16, §3]), that in contrast with the case of vertices of type 2 or 3, the link
of a vertex of type 1 is a connected unbounded graph, which admits a projection to
an unbounded tree.
2. Parachute Inequality and Principle of Two Maxima
We recall here two results from [Kur08] (in turn they were adaptations from
[SU04a, SU04b]). The Parachute Inequality is the most important; we also recall
some direct consequences. From now on k denotes a field of characteristic zero.
2.A. Degree of polynomials and forms. Recall that we define a degree function
on k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] with value in N3 ∪{−∞} by taking deg xa11 xa22 xa33 = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and by
convention deg 0 = −∞. We compare degrees using the graded lexicographic order.
We now introduce the notion of virtual degree in two distinct situations, which
should be clear by context.
Let g ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], and ϕ = ∑i∈I Pi y i ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y] where Pi ≠ 0 for all i ∈ I,
that is, I is the support of ϕ. We define the virtual degree of ϕ with respect to g as
degvirt ϕ(g) ∶= max(deg Pi gi ) = max(deg Pi + i deg g).
i∈I

i∈I

Denoting by I¯ ⊆ I the subset of indexes i that realize the maximum, we also define
the top component of ϕ with respect to g as
ϕg ∶= ∑ P̄i y i .
i∈I¯

Similarly if g, h ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], and ϕ = ∑(i,j)∈S ci,j y i z j ∈ k[y, z] with support S,
we define the virtual degree of ϕ with respect to g and h as
degvirt ϕ(g, h) ∶= max deg gi hj = max (i deg g + j deg h).
(i,j)∈S

(i,j)∈S

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

9

Observe that ϕ(g, h) can be seen either as an element coming from ϕh (y) ∶=
ϕ(y, h) ∈ k[h][y] ⊂ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y] or from ϕ(y, z) ∈ k[y, z], and that the two possible notions of virtual degree coincide:
degvirt ϕh (g) = degvirt ϕ(g, h).
Example 2.1. In general we have degvirt ϕ(g) ⩾ deg ϕ(g) and degvirt ϕ(g, h) ⩾
deg ϕ(g, h). We now give two simple examples where these inequalities are strict.
(1) Let ϕ = x23 y − x3 y 2 , and g = x3 . Then ϕ(g) = 0, but
degvirt ϕ(g) = deg x33 = (0, 0, 3).

(2) Let ϕ = y 2 − z 3 , and g = x31 , h = x21 . Then ϕ(g, h) = 0, but
degvirt ϕ(g, h) = deg x61 = (6, 0, 0).
We extend the notion of degree to algebraic differential forms. Given
ω = ∑ fi1 ,⋯,ik dxi1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ dxik

where k = 1, 2 or 3 and fi1 ,⋯,ik ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], we define

deg ω ∶= max{deg fi1 ,⋯,ik xi1 ⋯xik } ∈ N3 ∪ {−∞}.

We gather some immediate remarks for future reference (observe that here we use
the assumption char k = 0).
Lemma 2.2. If ω, ω ′ are forms, and g is a non constant polynomial, we have
deg ω + deg ω ′ ⩾ deg ω ∧ ω ′ ;
deg g = deg dg;
deg gω = deg g + deg ω.
2.B. Parachute Inequality. If ϕ ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y], we denote by ϕ(n) ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y]
the nth derivative of ϕ with respect to y. We simply write ϕ′ instead of ϕ(1) .
Lemma 2.3. Let ϕ ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y] and g ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ]. Then:
(1) If degy ϕg ⩾ 1, then degvirt ϕ′ (g) = degvirt ϕ(g) − deg g.
g

(2) If degy ϕg ⩾ j ⩾ 1, then ϕ(j) = (ϕg )(j) .

Proof. We note as before
ϕ = ∑ Pi y i ,
i∈I

ϕg = ∑ P̄i y i

and

ϕ′ =

i∈I¯

i−1
∑ iPi y ,
i∈I∖{0}

where I is the support of ϕ, and I¯ ⊆ I is the subset of indexes i that realize the
maximum maxi∈I (deg Pi + i deg g).
Now if degy ϕg ⩾ 1, that is, if I¯ ≠ {0}, then the indexes in I¯∖{0} are precisely those
that realize the maximum maxi∈I∖{0} (deg Pi + (i − 1) deg g). Thus we get assertion
g
(1), and ϕ′ = (ϕg )′ . Assertion (2) for j ⩾ 2 follows by induction.

Lemma 2.4. Let ϕ ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y] and g ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ]. Then, for m ⩾ 0, the
following two assertions are equivalent:
(1) For j = 0, . . . , m − 1 we have degvirt ϕ(j) (g) > deg ϕ(j) (g), but
degvirt ϕ(m) (g) = deg ϕ(m) (g).

(2) There exists ψ ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y] such that ψ(ḡ) ≠ 0 and
ϕg = (y − ḡ)m ⋅ ψ.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

10

Proof. Observe that we have the equivalences
degvirt ϕ(g) > deg ϕ(g) ⇐⇒ ϕg (ḡ) = 0 ⇐⇒ y − ḡ divides ϕg .

(2.5)
g

First we prove (2) ⇒ (1). Assuming (2), by Lemma 2.3(2) we have ϕ(j) = (ϕg )(j)
for j = 0, . . . , m − 1. The second equivalence in (2.5) yields (ϕg )(j) (g) = 0 for j =
0, . . . , m − 1, and (ϕg )(m) (g) ≠ 0, and then the first equivalence gives the result.
To prove (1) ⇒ (2), it is sufficient to show that if degvirt ϕ(j) (g) > deg ϕ(j) (g) for
j = 0, . . . , k −1, then ϕg = (y − ḡ)k ⋅ψk for some ψk ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y]. The remark (2.5)
g
gives it for k = 1. Moreover, by Lemma 2.3(2), if ϕg depends on y then ϕ′ = (ϕg )′ ,
hence the result by induction.

In the situation of Lemma 2.4, we call the integer m the multiplicity of ϕ with
respect to g, and we denote it by m(ϕ, g). In other words, the top term ḡ is a
multiple root of ϕg of order m(ϕ, g).
Following Vénéreau [Vén11], where a similar inequality is proved, we call the next
result a “Parachute Inequality”. Indeed its significance is that the real degree cannot
drop too much with respect to the virtual degree. However we follow Kuroda for
the proof.
Recall that (over a field k of characteristic zero) some polynomials f1 , ⋯, fr ∈
k[x1 , . . . , xn ] are algebraically independent if and only if df1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ dfr ≠ 0. Indeed
this is equivalent to asking that the map f = (f1 , . . . , fr ) from An to Ar is dominant,
which in turn is equivalent to saying that the differential of this map has maximal
rank on an open set of An (for details see for instance [HP94, Theorem III p.135]).
Proposition 2.6 (Parachute Inequality, see [Kur08, Theorem 2.1]). Let r = 2 or 3,
and let f1 , ⋯, fr ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be algebraically independent. Let ϕ ∈ k[f2 , ⋯, fr ][y] ∖
{0}. Then
deg ϕ(f1 ) ⩾ degvirt ϕ(f1 ) − m(ϕ, f1 )(deg ω + deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ ω).

where ω = df2 if r = 2, or ω = df2 ∧ df3 if r = 3.
Proof. Denoting as before ϕ′ the derivative of ϕ with respect to y, we have
d(ϕ(f1 )) = ϕ′ (f1 )df1 + other terms involving df2 or df3 .

So we obtain d(ϕ(f1 )) ∧ ω = ϕ′ (f1 )df1 ∧ ω. Using Lemma 2.2 this yields
deg ϕ(f1 ) + deg ω = deg d(ϕ(f1 )) + deg ω ⩾ deg d(ϕ(f1 )) ∧ ω

= deg ϕ′ (f1 )df1 ∧ ω = deg ϕ′ (f1 ) + deg df1 ∧ ω,

which we can write as
− deg df1 ∧ ω + deg ω + deg ϕ(f1 ) ⩾ deg ϕ′ (f1 ).

(2.7)

Now we are ready to prove the inequality of the statement, by induction on
m(ϕ, f1 ).
If m(ϕ, f1 ) = 0, that is, if deg ϕ(f1 ) = degvirt ϕ(f1 ), there is nothing to do.
If m(ϕ, f1 ) ⩾ 1, it follows from Lemma 2.4 that m(ϕ′ , f1 ) = m(ϕ, f1 )−1. Moreover,
the condition m(ϕ, f1 ) ⩾ 1 implies that ϕf1 does depend on y, hence by Lemma 2.3(1)
we have
degvirt ϕ′ (f1 ) = degvirt ϕ(f1 ) − deg f1 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

11

By induction hypothesis, we have
deg ϕ′ (f1 ) ⩾ degvirt ϕ′ (f1 ) − m(ϕ′ , f1 )(deg ω + deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ ω)

= degvirt ϕ(f1 ) − deg f1 − (m(ϕ, f1 ) − 1)(deg ω + deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ ω)
= degvirt ϕ(f1 ) − m(ϕ, f1 )(deg ω + deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ ω)
− deg df1 ∧ ω + deg ω.

Combining with (2.7), and canceling the terms − deg df1 ∧ ω + deg ω on each side, one
obtains the expected inequality.

2.C. Consequences. We shall use the Parachute Inequality 2.6 mostly when r = 2,
and when we have a strict inequality degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ). In this context
the following easy lemma is crucial. Ultimately this is here that lies the difficulty
when one tries to extend the theory in dimension 4 (or more!).
Lemma 2.8. Let f1 , f2 ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be algebraically independent, and ϕ ∈ k[y, z]
such that degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ). Then:
(1) There exist coprime p, q ∈ N∗ such that
p deg f1 = q deg f2 .
In particular, there exists δ ∈ N3 such that deg f1 = qδ, deg f2 = pδ, so that
the top terms of f1p and f2q are equal up to a constant: there exists c ∈ k such
that f¯1p = cf¯2q .
(2) Considering ϕ(f1 , f2 ) as coming from ϕ(y, f2 ) ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y], we have
ϕf1 = (y p − f¯1p )m(ϕ,f1 ) ⋅ ψ = (y p − cf¯2q )m(ϕ,f1 ) ⋅ ψ

for some ψ ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ][y].

Proof.
(1) We write ϕ(f1 , f2 ) = ∑ ci,j f1i f2j . Since degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ),
there exist distinct (a, b) and (a′ , b′ ) such that
deg f1a f2b = deg f1a f2b = degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ).
′

′

Moreover we can assume that a, a′ are respectively maximal and minimal for this
property. We obtain
(a − a′ ) deg f1 = (b′ − b) deg f2 .
Dividing by m, the GCD of a − a′ and b′ − b, we get the expected relation.
(2) With the same notation, we have a = a′ + pm where m ⩾ 1, and in particular degy ϕ(y, f2 ) ⩾ p. So if p > degy P (y, f2 ) for some P ∈ k[f2 ][y], we have
degvirt P (f1 , f2 ) = deg P (f1 , f2 ). By the first assertion, there exists c ∈ k such that
deg f1p > deg (f1p − cf2q ). By successive Euclidean divisions in k[f2 ][y] we can write:
ϕ(y, f2 ) = ∑ Ri (y) (y p − cf2q )

i

with p > degy Ri for all i. Denote by I the subset of indexes such that
f1
i
ϕf1 = ∑ Ri (y p − cf¯2q ) .

(2.9)

i∈I

Let i0 be the minimal index in I. We want to prove that i0 ⩾ m(ϕ, f1 ). By contradiction, assume that m(ϕ, f1 ) > i0 . Since y− f¯1 is a simple factor of (y p −cf¯2q ) = (y p − f¯1p),
f1
and is not a factor of any Ri , we obtain that (y − f¯1 )i0 +1 divides all summands of
f1
(2.9) except Ri (y p − cf¯q )i0 . In particular (y − f¯1 )i0 +1 , hence also (y − f¯1 )m(ϕ,f1 ) ,
0

2

do not divide ϕf1 : This is a contradiction with Lemma 2.4.



COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

12

We now list some consequences of the Parachute Inequality 2.6.
Corollary 2.10. Let f1 , f2 ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be algebraically independent with deg f1 ⩾
deg f2 , and ϕ ∈ k[y, z] such that degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ). Following Lemma
2.8, we write p deg f1 = q deg f2 where p, q ∈ N∗ are coprime. Then:
(1) deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾ p deg f1 − deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 ;
(2) If deg f1 ∈/ N deg f2 , then deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg df1 ∧ df2 ;
(3) Assume deg f1 ∈/ N deg f2 and deg f1 ⩾ deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ). Then p = 2, q ⩾ 3 is odd,
and
deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾ deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
If moreover deg f2 ⩾ deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ), then q = 3.
(4) Assume deg f1 ∈/ N deg f2 and deg f1 ⩾ deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ). Then
deg d(ϕ(f1 , f2 )) ∧ df2 ⩾ deg f1 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .

Proof.

(1) By Lemma 2.8(2), we have
degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾ m(ϕ, f1 )p deg f1 .

(2.11)

On the other hand the Parachute Inequality 2.6 applied to ϕ(y, f2 ) ∈ k[f2 ][y] yields
deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾ degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) − m(ϕ, f1 )(deg f1 + deg f2 − deg df1 ∧ df2 ).

Combining with (2.11), and remembering that m(ϕ, f1 ) ⩾ 1, we obtain
deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾

deg ϕ(f1 , f2 )
⩾ p deg f1 − deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
m(ϕ, f1 )

(2) From Lemma 2.8 we have deg f1 = qδ and deg f2 = pδ for some δ ∈ N3 . The
inequality (1) gives
deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) ⩾ p deg f1 − deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 =

(pq − p − q)δ + deg df1 ∧ df2 . (2.12)

The assumption deg f1 /∈ N deg f2 implies q > p ⩾ 2. Thus pq − p − q > 0, and finally
deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg df1 ∧ df2 .

(3) Again the assumptions imply q > p ⩾ 2. Since qδ = deg f1 ⩾ deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ), we
get from (2.12) that q > pq − p − q. This is only possible if p = 2, and so q ⩾ 3 is odd.
Replacing p by 2 in (2.12), we get the inequality.
If deg f2 ⩾ deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ), we obtain 2δ > (q − 2)δ, hence q = 3.
(4) Denote ϕ(y, z) = ∑ ci,j y i z j , and consider the partial derivatives
ϕ′y (y, z) = ∑ ici,j y i−1 z j ;

ϕ′z (y, z) = ∑ jci,j y i z j−1 .

We have d(ϕ(f1 , f2 )) = ϕ′y (f1 , f2 )df1 +ϕ′z (f1 , f2 )df2 . In particular d(ϕ(f1 , f2 ))∧df2 =
ϕ′y (f1 , f2 )df1 ∧ df2 , and
deg d(ϕ(f1 , f2 )) ∧ df2 = deg ϕ′y (f1 , f2 ) + deg df1 ∧ df2 .

Now we consider ϕ′y (f1 , f2 ) as coming from ϕ′y (y, f2 ) ∈ k[f2 ][y], and we simply
write ϕ′ (f1 ) instead of ϕ′y (f1 , f2 ), in accordance with the convention for derivatives
introduced at the beginning of §2.B. We want to show deg ϕ′ (f1 ) ⩾ deg f1 . Recall
that by (2.11), degvirt ϕ(f1 ) ⩾ 2m(ϕ, f1 ) deg f1 , and so, using also Lemma 2.3(1):
degvirt ϕ′ (f1 ) = degvirt ϕ(f1 ) − deg f1 ⩾ 2(m(ϕ, f1 ) − 1) deg f1 + deg f1 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

13

The Parachute Inequality 2.6 then gives (for the last inequality recall that deg f1 ⩾
deg f2 by assumption):
deg ϕ′ (f1 ) ⩾ degvirt ϕ′ (f1 ) − m(ϕ′ , f1 )(deg f1 + deg f2 − deg df1 ∧ df2 )
⩾ 2(m(ϕ, f1 ) − 1) deg f1 + deg f1

− (m(ϕ, f1 ) − 1)(deg f1 + deg f2 − deg df1 ∧ df2 )

= (m(ϕ, f1 ) − 1)(deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 ) + deg f1
⩾ deg f1 .



Corollary 2.13. Let f1 , f2 , f3 ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be algebraically independent, and ϕ ∈
k[y, z] such that
degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg ϕ(f1 , f2 ),

degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg f3 .

Following Lemma 2.8, we write p deg f1 = q deg f2 where p, q ∈ N∗ are coprime. Then
deg(f3 + ϕ(f1 , f2 )) > p deg f1 − deg df2 ∧ df3 − deg f1 ,

Proof. The Parachute Inequality 2.6 applied to ψ = f3 + ϕ(y, f2 ) ∈ k[f2 , f3 ][y] gives
deg(f3 + ϕ(f1 , f2 )) ⩾ degvirt ψ(f1 )

− m(ψ, f1 )(deg df2 ∧ df3 + deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ df2 ∧ df3 ). (2.14)

By assumption degvirt ϕ(f1 , f2 ) > deg f3 . Thus not only degvirt ψ(f1 ) = degvirt ϕ(f1 ),
f1
but also ψ = ϕf1 , hence m(ψ, f1 ) = m(ϕ, f1 ) ⩾ 1. By Lemma 2.8(2), we obtain
degvirt ψ(f1 ) ⩾ m(ϕ, f1 )p deg f1 = m(ψ, f1 )p deg f1

Replacing in (2.14), and dividing by m(ψ, f1 ), we get the result.



2.D. Principle of Two Maxima. The proof of the next result, which we call the
“Principle of Two Maxima”, is one of the few places where the formalism of Poisson
brackets used by Shestakov and Umirbaev seems to be more transparent (at least
for us) than the formalism of differential forms used by Kuroda. In this section we
propose a definition that encompasses the two points of view, and then we recall the
proof following [SU04a, Lemma 5].
Proposition 2.15 (Principle of Two Maxima, [Kur08, Theorem 5.2] and [SU04a,
Lemma 5]). Let (f1 , f2 , f3 ) be an automorphism of A3 . Then the maximum between
the following three degrees is realized at least twice:
deg f1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 ,

deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df3 ,

deg f3 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .

Let Ω be the space of algebraic 1-forms ∑ fi dgi where fi , gi ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ]. We
consider Ω as a free module of rank three over k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], with basis dx1 , dx2 , dx3 ,
and we denote by
∞

T = ⊕ Ω⊗p
p=0

the associative algebra of tensorial powers of Ω, where as usual Ω⊗0 = k[x1 , x2 , x3 ].
The degree function on Ω extends naturally to a degree function on T. Recall that
T has a natural structure of Lie algebra: For any ω, µ ∈ T, we define their bracket as
[ω, µ] ∶= ω ⊗ µ − µ ⊗ ω.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

14

In particular, if df, dg ∈ Ω are 1-forms, we have
[df, dg] = df ⊗ dg − dg ⊗ df = df ∧ dg.
It is easy to check that the bracket satisfies the Jacobi identity: For any α, β, γ ∈ T,
we have
[[α, β], γ] + [[β, γ], α] + [[γ, α], β]
= α⊗β ⊗γ −β ⊗α⊗γ −γ ⊗α⊗β +γ ⊗β ⊗α
+β ⊗γ ⊗α−γ ⊗β ⊗α−α⊗β ⊗γ +α⊗γ ⊗β
+γ ⊗α⊗β −α⊗γ ⊗β −β ⊗γ ⊗α+β ⊗α⊗γ
=0
since each one of the six possible permutations appears twice, with different signs.
Lemma 2.16. The nine elements [dxi ∧ dxj , dxk ], for 1 ⩽ i < j ⩽ 3 and 1 ⩽ k ⩽ 3
generate a 8-dimensional free submodule in T, the only relation between them being
the Jacobi identity:
[dx1 ∧ dx2 , dx3 ] + [dx2 ∧ dx3 , dx1 ] − [dx1 ∧ dx3 , dx2 ] = 0.
Proof. We work inside the 27-dimensional free sub-module of T generated by the
dxi ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxk for 1 ⩽ i, j, k ⩽ 3. We compute, for i < j:
[dxi ∧ dxj , dxi ] = [dxi ⊗ dxj − dxj ⊗ dxi , dxi ]
= 2dxi ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxi − dxj ⊗ dxi ⊗ dxi − dxi ⊗ dxi ⊗ dxj ,

[dxi ∧ dxj , dxj ] = [dxi ⊗ dxj − dxj ⊗ dxi , dxj ]
= −2dxj ⊗ dxi ⊗ dxj + dxi ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxj + dxj ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxi .
This shows that the elements [dxi ∧ dxj , dxi ] and [dxi ∧ dxj , dxj ], for i < j, generate
a 6-dimensional free submodule. On the other hand, for {i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3}:
[dxi ∧ dxj , dxk ] = [dxi ⊗ dxj − dxj ⊗ dxi , dxk ]
= dxi ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxk − dxj ⊗ dxi ⊗ dxk − dxk ⊗ dxi ⊗ dxj + dxk ⊗ dxj ⊗ dxi ,
so that [dx1 ∧ dx2 , dx3 ] and [dx2 ∧ dx3 , dx1 ] are independent, and together with the
above family they generate a 8-dimensional free submodule.

The proof of the Principle of Two Maxima 2.15 now follows from the observation:
Lemma 2.17. Let f, g, h ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], with h non-constant. Then
deg [[df, dg] , dh] = deg h + deg df ∧ dg.

Proof. We have
dh = ∑
1⩽k⩽3

and

[df, dg] = df ∧ dg =

∂h
∂xk dxk

∂f ∂g
∑ ( ∂xi ∂xj −

1⩽i<j⩽3

∂f ∂g
∂xj ∂xi ) dxi

∧ dxj .

Thus
[[df, dg], dh] = ∑

∑

1⩽k⩽3 1⩽i<j⩽3

∂h
∂xk

∂f ∂g
∂f ∂g
( ∂x
− ∂x
) [dxi ∧ dxj , dxk ] .
i ∂xj
j ∂xi

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

15

∂h
dxk , k = 1, 2, 3, then
If the degree of dh is realized by at most two of the terms ∂x
k
by Lemma 2.16 the terms realizing the maximum of the degrees
∂f ∂g
∂h
deg ( ∂x
( ∂x
−
i ∂xj
k

∂f ∂g
∂xj ∂xi ) [dxi

∧ dxj , dxk ])

(2.18)

are independent (because at most two of them occur in the Jacobi relation), hence
the result since deg [dxi ∧ dxj , dxk ] = deg xi xj xk .
∂h
dxk have the same degree, then among
On the other hand if the three terms ∂x
k
the indexes (i, j, k) that realize the maximum of the degrees in (2.18), we must find
some with k = i or k = j, hence again we get the conclusion since by Lemma 2.16
such terms cannot cancel each other.

Proof of the Principle of Two Maxima 2.15. Since by the Jacobi identity
[[df1 , df2 ], df3 ] + [[df2 , df3 ], df1 ] + [[df3 , df1 ], df2 ] = 0,
the dominant terms must cancel each other. In particular the maximum of the
degrees, which are computed in Lemma 2.17, is realized at least twice: This is the
five lines proof of the Principle of Two Maxima by Shestakov and Umirbaev!

3. Geometric theory of reduction
In this section we mostly follow Kuroda [Kur10], but we reinterpret his theory of
reduction in a combinatorial way, using the complex C. Recall that k is a field of
characteristic zero.
3.A. Degree of automorphisms and vertices. Recall that in §3.A we defined
a notion of degree for an automorphism f = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) ∈ Tame(A3 ). The point is
that we want a degree that is adapted to the theory of reduction of Kuroda, so for
instance taking the maximal degree of the three components of an automorphism is
not good, because we would not detect a reduction of the degree on one of the two
lower components (such reductions do exist, see §6). We also want a definition that
is adapted to working on the complex C, so directly taking the sum of the degree of
the three components is no good either, since it would not give a degree function on
vertices of C.
Recall that the 3-degree of f ∈ Tame(A3 ), or of the vertex v3 = [f ], is the triple
(δ1 , δ2 , δ3 ) given by Lemma 1.3, where in particular δ3 > δ2 > δ1 . By definition the
top degree of v3 is δ3 ∈ N3 , and the degree of v3 is the sum
deg v3 ∶= δ1 + δ2 + δ3 ∈ N3 .
Similarly we have a 2-degree (ν1 , ν2 ) associated with any vertex v2 of type 2, a top
degree equal to ν2 and a degree deg v2 ∶= ν1 + ν2 . Finally for a vertex of type 1 the
notions of 1-degree, top degree and degree coincide.
Lemma 3.1. Let v3 be a vertex of type 3. Then
deg v3 ⩾ (1, 1, 1)

with equality if and only if v3 = [id].

Proof. If v3 = [f ] with deg v3 = (1, 1, 1), then the 3-degree (δ1 , δ2 , δ3 ) of v3 must be
equal to ((0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1)), hence the result.


COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

16

Let v3 be a vertex with 3-degree (δ1 , δ2 , δ3 ). The unique m1 ∈ P2 (v3 ) such that
deg m1 = δ1 is called the minimal vertex in P2 (v3 ), and the unique m2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 )
such that deg m2 = (δ1 , δ2 ) is called the minimal line in P2 (v3 ). If v2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 )
has 2-degree (ν1 , ν2 ), there is a unique degree δ such that v3 has degree ν1 + ν2 + δ.
We denote this situation by δ ∶= deg(v3 ∖ v2 ). Observe that, by definition, deg(v3 ∖
v2 ) = deg v3 − deg v2 . There is also a unique v1 such that v2 passes through v1 and
deg v1 = ν1 : we call v1 the minimal vertex of v2 . Observe that if v2 = m2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ),
then the minimal vertex of v2 coincides with the minimal vertex of v3 , and if v2 ≠ m2 ,
then v1 is the intersection of v2 with m2 .
We call triangle T in P2 (v3 ) the data of three non-concurrent lines. A good
triangle T in P2 (v3 ) is the data of three distinct lines m2 , v2 , u2 , such that m2 is
the minimal line, v2 passes through the minimal vertex m1 , and u2 does not pass
through m1 . Equivalently, a good triangle corresponds to a good representative
v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K with deg f1 > deg f2 > deg f3 , by putting m2 = Jf2 , f3 K, v2 = Jf1 , f3 K,
u2 = Jf1 , f2 K. If v1 , v2 , v3 is a simplex in C, we say that a good triangle T in P2 (v3 ) is
compatible with this simplex if v2 is one of the lines of T , and v1 is the intersection
of v2 with another line of T . Each simplex v1 , v2 , v3 admits such a compatible
good triangle (not unique in general): Indeed it corresponds to a choice of good
representatives as given by Lemma 1.4.
Let v2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ) be a vertex with 2-degree (δ1 , δ2 ). We say that v2 has inner
resonance if δ2 ∈ Nδ1 . We say that v2 has outer resonance in v3 if deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) ∈
Nδ1 + Nδ2 .

3.B. Elementary reductions. Let v3 , v3′ be vertices of type 3. We say that v3′
is a neighbor of v3 if v3′ ≠ v3 and there exists a vertex v2 of type 2 such that
v2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ) ∩ P̂2 (v3′ ). Equivalently, this means that v3 and v3′ are at distance 2 in C.
We denote this situation by v3′ ≬ v3 , or if we want to make v2 explicit, by v3′ ≬v2 v3
We also say that v2 is the center of v3 ≬ v3′ . Recall that the center v2 is uniquely
defined, and that we can choose representatives as in Corollary 1.6.
We say that v3′ is an elementary reduction (resp. a weak elementary reduction)
of v3 with center v2 , if deg v3 > deg v3′ (resp. deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′ ) and v3′ ≬v2 v3 . Let v1
be the minimal vertex in the line v2 . We say that v1 , v2 , v3 is the pivotal simplex
of the reduction, and that v1 is the pivot of the reduction. Moreover we say that
the reduction is optimal if v3′ has minimal degree among all neighbors of v3 with
center v2 . We say that v3′ is a simple elementary reduction (resp. a weak simple
elementary reduction) of v3 if there exist good representatives v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K and
v3′ = Jf1 + P (f2 ) + af3 , f2 , f3 K for some a ∈ k and non-affine polynomial P , satisfying
deg f1 > max{f1 + P (f2 ), f1 + P (f2 ) + af3 };

(resp. f1 ⩾ max{f1 + P (f2 ), f1 + P (f2 ) + af3 }).
In this situation we say that v2 = Jf2 , f3 K, v1 = Jf2 K is the simple center of the
reduction, and when drawing pictures we represent this relation by adding an arrow
on the edge from v2 to v1 (see Figure 2). Beware that this representation is imperfect,
since the arrow does not depend only on the edge from v2 to v1 but indicates a
relation between the two vertices v3 and v3′ .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

17

v1 = [f2 ]

v3 = Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K

●
v2 = Jf2 ,f3 K
v3′ = Jf1 +P (f2 )+af3 ,f2 ,f3 K

Figure 2. Simple reduction with simple center v2 , v1 .
Remark 3.2. In the definition of a (weak) simple elementary reduction, if deg f3 =
topdeg v3 , then we must have a = 0. For instance in the following example:
v3 = Jx1 + x22 , x2 , x3 + x22 + x32 K = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K,
v3′ = Jx1 − x3 , x2 , x3 + x22 + x32 K = Jf1 + f23 − f3 , f2 , f3 K,
we do not want to call v3′ a simple reduction of v3 because deg(f1 + f23 ) > deg f1 .
On the other hand, consider the following example:
v3 = Jx1 + x22 + x32 , x2 , x3 + x22 K = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K,
v3′ = Jx1 − x3 , x2 , x3 + x22 K = Jf1 − f23 − f3 , f2 , f3 K.
Here v3′ is a simple elementary reduction of v3 , and the coefficient a = −1 is necessary
to get a good representative.
Lemma 3.3. Let v3′ be a neighbor of v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ] with center v2′ = Jf1 , f2 K. Then
there exists a non-affine polynomial P ∈ k[y, z] such that v3′ = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )K.
Moreover:
(1) If v3′ is a weak elementary reduction of v3 , then deg f3 ⩾ deg P (f1 , f2 );
(2) If v3′ is an elementary reduction of v3 , then deg f3 = deg P (f1 , f2 ).
Proof. From Corollary 1.6 we know that v3′ has the form v3′ = [f1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )].
Since by assumption deg f1 ≠ deg f2 , there exist a, b ∈ k such that (f1 , f2 , f3 +
P (f1 , f2 ) + af1 + bf2 ) is a good representative for v3′ . So up to changing P by a
linear combination of f1 and f2 we can assume v3′ = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )K.
If v3′ is a weak elementary reduction of v3 , then we have
deg f1 + deg f2 + deg f3 ⩾ deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′ = deg f1 + deg f2 + deg(f3 + P (f1 , f2 )).

So deg f3 ⩾ deg(f3 + P (f1 , f2 )), which implies deg f3 ⩾ deg P (f1 , f2 ).
Finally if v3′ is an elementary reduction of v3 , that is, deg v3 > deg v3′ , then the
same computation gives deg f3 > deg(f3 + P (f1 , f2 )), which implies that deg f3 =
deg P (f1 , f2 ).

Lemma 3.4 (Square Lemma). Let v3 , v3′ , v3′′ be three vertices such that:
● v ′ ≬v′ v3 and v ′′ ≬v′′ v3 for some v ′ ≠ v ′′ that are part of a good triangle of v3
3
3
2
2
2
2
(this is automatic if v2′ or v2′′ is the minimal line of v3 );
● Denoting v1 the common vertex of v ′ and v ′′ , v ′′ is a (possibly weak) simple
2
2
3
elementary reduction of v3 with simple center v2′′ , v1 ;
● deg v3 ⩾ deg v ′ , deg v3 ⩾ deg v ′′ , with at least one of the inequalities being strict.
3
3
Then there exists u3 such that u3 ≬ v3′ , u3 ≬ v3′′ and deg v3 > deg u3 .
Proof. We pick f2 such that v1 = [f2 ], and then we take good representatives v2′ =
Jf1 , f2 K, v2′′ = Jf2 , f3 K. Since v2′ and v2′′ are part of a good triangle, we have v3 =

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

18

v3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K
v2′′ =Jf2 ,f3 K

●

●

v2′ =Jf1 ,f2 K

v1 =[f2 ]

v3′′ =Jf1 +af3 +Q(f2 ),f2 ,f3 K

●

v3′ =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 +P (f1 ,f2 )K

●

u′2 =[f1 +Q(f2 ),f2 ]

u′′
2 =Jf2 ,f3 +P (f1 ,f2 )K
u3 =[f1 +Q(f2 ),f2 ,f3 +P (f1 ,f2 )]

Figure 3. Square Lemma 3.4.
Jf1 , f2 , f3 K. By Lemma 3.3, and since v3′′ is a (possibly weak) simple reduction of v3 ,
there exist a ∈ k, Q ∈ k[f2 ] and P ∈ k[f1 , f2 ] such that
v3′ = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )K;

v3′′ = Jf1 + af3 + Q(f2 ), f2 , f3 K.
We have
deg f3 ⩾ deg(f3 + P (f1 , f2 )),

deg f1 ⩾ max{deg(f1 + af3 + Q(f2 )), deg(f1 + Q(f2 ))},
with one of the two inequalities being strict. We define
u3 ∶= [f1 + Q(f2 ), f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )].

Observe that u3 is a neighbor of both v3′ , with center Jf2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )K, and v3′′ ,
with center [f1 + Q(f2 ), f2 ] (see Figure 3). The inequality on degrees follows from:
deg v3 = deg f3 + deg f2 + deg f1

> deg(f3 + P (f1 , f2 )) + deg f2 + deg(f1 + Q(f2 ))
⩾ deg u3 .



3.C. K-reductions. If f1 , f2 ∈ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] are two algebraically independent polynomials with deg f1 > deg f2 , we introduce the degree
∆(f1 , f2 ) ∶= deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 ∈ Z3 .

Assuming that v2 = Jf1 , f2 K is a vertex of type 2, we define
d(v2 ) ∶= deg df1 ∧ df2

and

∆(v2 ) ∶= ∆(f1 , f2 ).

We call d(v2 ) and ∆(v2 ) respectively the differential degree and the delta degree of v2 . It is easy to check that these definitions do not depend on a choice of
representative. In fact, for any ( αγ βδ ) ∈ GL2 (k) we have
d(αf1 + βf2 ) ∧ d(γf1 + δf2 ) = (αδ − βγ)df1 ∧ df2 ,

so in the definition of d(v2 ) we could use any representative. On the other hand in
the definition of ∆(v2 ), because of the term deg f1 − deg f2 , we really need to work
with a good representative. Observe also that, by definition, for any vertex v2 we
have
∆(v2 ) > d(v2 ).

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

v3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K

↺●
v1 =[f2 ]

19

w3 =Jg1 ,f2 ,f3 K

v2 =Jf1 ,f2 K
u3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,g3 K

m2 =Jf2 ,f3 K

w2 =Jg1 ,f2 K

↺●

●

v3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K

u3 =Jg1 ,f2 ,g3 K
v1 =[f2 ]

Figure 4. Elementary and proper K-reductions, with good representatives as in Set-Up 3.5.
We now introduce the key concept of K-reduction, where we let the reader decide
for himself whether the K should stand for “Kuroda” or for “Kazakh”.
More precisely by a K-reduction we shall mean either an elementary K-reduction,
or a proper K-reduction, two notions that we now define. Let v3 and u3 be vertices
of type 3.
We say that u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 if u3 ≬ v3 and:
(K0)
(K1)
(K2)
(K3)
(K4)

deg v3 > deg u3 ;
the center v2 of v3 ≬ u3 has no inner resonance;
v2 has no outer resonance in v3 ;
v2 is not the minimal line in P2 (v3 );
∆(v2 ) > deg(u3 ∖ v2 ).

Denoting by v1 the minimal point in v2 , as before (see definition from page 16) we
call v1 the pivot, and v1 , v2 , v3 the pivotal simplex of the elementary K-reduction
(denoted by ↺ on Figure 4).
We say that u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3 via the auxiliary vertex w3 if
v3 is a weak elementary reduction of w3 with center the minimal line of w3 , and
u3 is an elementary K-reduction of w3 . Formally, this corresponds to the following
conditions:
(K0′ )
(K1′ )
(K2′ )
(K3′ )
(K4′ )
(K5′ )
(K6′ )

deg w3 > deg u3 ;
the center w2 of w3 ≬ u3 has no inner resonance;
w2 has no outer resonance in w3 ;
w2 is not the minimal line in P2 (w3 );
∆(w2 ) > deg(u3 ∖ w2 ).
deg w3 ⩾ deg v3 ;
the center m2 of w3 ≬ v3 is the minimal line in P2 (w3 ).

Observe that the pivot v1 of the elementary K-reduction from w3 to u3 is the common
vertex of the distinct lines m2 and w2 in P2 (w3 ). The simplex v1 , w2 , w3 is still called
the pivotal simplex of the proper K-reduction. It will be proved in Proposition
3.26 that the above conditions (K0′ ) to (K6′ ) imply deg v3 > deg u3 , so that the
terminology of “reduction” is not misleading, even if by no means obvious at this
point.
Let v1 , v2 , v3 be a simplex, and let s ⩾ 3 be an odd integer. We say that the
simplex v1 , v2 , v3 has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) if
(↺1)
(↺2)
(↺3)
(↺4)

deg v1 = 2δ and 2-deg v2 = (2δ, sδ) for some δ ∈ N3 ;
v2 has no outer resonance in v3 ;
v2 is not the minimal line in P2 (v3 );
deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) ⩾ ∆(v2 ).

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

20

In all the previous definitions we took care of working with vertices, and not
with particular representatives. However for writing proofs it will often be useful to
choose representatives.
Set-Up 3.5.
(1) Let u3 be an elementary K-reduction of v3 , with pivotal simplex
v1 , v2 , v3 . Then there exist representatives
v1 = [f2 ]

v2 = Jf1 , f2 K

v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K
u3 = Jf1 , f2 , g3 K

such that g3 = f3 + ϕ3 (f1 , f2 ), where ϕ3 ∈ k[x, y]. Observe that, by definition,
deg f1 > deg f2 and deg f1 > deg f3 > deg g3 .
(2) Let u3 be a proper K-reduction of v3 , with pivotal simplex v1 , w2 , w3 . Then
there exist representatives
v1 = [f2 ]

w3 = Jg1 , f2 , f3 K

m2 = Jf2 , f3 K

v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K

w2 = Jg1 , f2 K

u3 = Jg1 , f2 , g3 K

such that g1 = f1 + ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) and g3 = f3 + ϕ3 (g1 , f2 ), where ϕ1 , ϕ3 ∈ k[x, y].

Proof.
(1) Pick any good representatives v1 = [f2 ], v2 = Jf1 , f2 K, v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K
as given by Lemma 1.4, and apply Lemma 3.3 to get g3 .
(2) Pick any representative v1 = [f2 ], and then pick f3 , g1 such that v2 = Jf2 , f3 K
and w2 = Jg1 , f2 K. Since m2 is the minimal line in P̂2 (w3 ), we have deg g1 > deg f2
and deg g1 > deg f3 , hence (g1 , f2 , f3 ) is a good representative for w3 . Now apply

Lemma 3.3 twice to get f1 and g3 .
We establish a first property of a simplex with Strong Pivotal Form.
Lemma 3.6. Let v1 , v2 , v3 be a simplex with Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) for some
odd s ⩾ 3. Then the minimal line m2 in P2 (v3 ) has no inner resonance.

Proof. We pick representatives v1 = [f2 ], v2 = Jf1 , f2 K, v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K as given by
Lemma 1.4. By (↺1) we have deg f1 = sδ > 2δ = deg f2 . Since v2 is not the
minimal line by (↺3), the minimal line must be m2 = Jf2 , f3 K. Then by (↺4)
we have deg f3 > (s − 2)δ ⩾ δ, so that deg f2 /∈ N deg f3 . Since by (↺2) we also
have deg f3 ∈/ N deg f2 , we conclude that the minimal line m2 = Jf2 , f3 K has no inner
resonance.

We can rephrase results from Corollary 2.10 with the previous definitions (see
also Example 6.3 for some complements):
Proposition 3.7. Let v3 be a vertex that admits an elementary reduction with pivotal simplex v1 , v2 , v3 .
(1) Assume v2 has no inner resonance, and no outer resonance in v3 . Then
deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) > d(v2 ).

(2) If moreover v2 is not the minimal line in P2 (v3 ), then v1 , v2 , v3 has Strong
Pivotal Form ↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3.
Proof.
(1) We pick good representatives v1 = [f2 ], v2 = Jf1 , f2 K, v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K as
given by Lemma 1.4. By Lemma 3.3, the elementary reduction has the form u3 =

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

21

Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 , f2 )K with deg f3 = deg P (f1 , f2 ). Since v2 has no outer resonance
in v3 , we have deg f3 /∈ N deg f1 + N deg f2 , hence
degvirt P (f1 , f2 ) > deg P (f1 , f2 ).

Since moreover v2 has no inner resonance, we can apply Corollary 2.10(2) to get the
inequality deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) > d(v2 ).
(2) By assumption the simplex v1 , v2 , v3 already satisfies conditions (↺2) and
(↺3). The condition that v2 is not the minimal line in P2 (v3 ) is equivalent to
max{deg f1 , deg f2 } > deg f3 = deg P (f1 , f2 ),

hence we can apply Corollary 2.10(3), which yields conditions (↺1) and (↺4). 
3.D. Elementary K-reductions. Here we list some properties of an elementary
K-reduction. First we have the following corollary from Proposition 3.7.
Corollary 3.8. The pivotal simplex of a K-reduction has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s)
for some odd s ⩾ 3.
Proof. First, let v1 , v2 , v3 be the pivotal simplex of an elementary K-reduction. We
know that, by (K1), v2 has no inner resonance, by (K2), v2 has no outer resonance
in v3 , and by (K3), v2 is not the minimal line in v3 , so we can apply Proposition
3.7(2).
Now the pivotal simplex of proper K-reduction is by definition the pivotal simplex
of an elementary K-reduction from the auxiliary vertex, so that the above argument
applies.

Lemma 3.9. Let u3 be an elementary K-reduction of v3 with center v2 , m2 the
minimal line in P2 (v3 ), and u2 ∈ P2 (v3 ) a line not passing through the pivot v1 of
the reduction. Then
(1) d(m2 ) ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) + d(v2 );
(2) d(u2 ) > d(m2 ) > d(v2 );
(3) The function
t2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ) ↦ d(t2 ) ∈ N3

only takes the three distinct values d(u2 ) > d(m2 ) > d(v2 ), and it takes its
minimal value only at the point v2 ;
(4) deg(v1 ) + d(u2 ) > 2 deg(v3 ∖ m2 ).

Proof. The assumption means that v2 , m2 , u2 form a (not necessarily good) triangle.
We use the notation from Set-Up 3.5, we therefore have m2 = Jf2 , f3 K, v2 = Jf1 , f2 K
and v1 = [f2 ].
(1) On the one hand:
df2 ∧ df3 = df2 ∧ dg3 − df2 ∧ d(ϕ3 (f1 , f2 )).
On the other hand, the following sequence of inequalities holds, where the first one
comes from Corollary 2.10(4), the second one from (K4), and the third one from
Lemma 2.2:
deg df2 ∧ d(ϕ3 (f1 , f2 )) ⩾ deg f1 + deg df1 ∧ df2 > deg f2 + deg g3 ⩾ deg df2 ∧ dg3 . (3.10)

So deg df2 ∧ df3 = deg df2 ∧ d(ϕ3 (f1 , f2 )), and replacing in (3.10) we obtain the expected inequality:
d(m2 ) = deg df2 ∧ df3 ⩾ deg f1 + deg df1 ∧ df2 = deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) + d(v2 ).

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

22

(2) By the previous point we have
deg f1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg f3 + deg df1 ∧ df2 ,
hence by the Principle of Two Maxima 2.15 we get
deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df3 = deg f1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 .

(3.11)

Since deg f1 > deg f2 we get deg df1 ∧ df3 > deg df2 ∧ df3 , and finally
deg df1 ∧ df3 > deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg df1 ∧ df2 .

(3.12)

The general form of u2 being u2 = Jf1 + αf2 , f3 + βf2 K, we have
d(u2 ) = deg(df1 + α df2 ) ∧ (df3 + β df2 ) = deg df1 ∧ df3 ,
so that the expected result is exactly (3.12).
(3) We just saw that if t2 is any line not passing through [f2 ], then d(t2 ) =
deg df1 ∧ df3 = d(u2 ).
Now consider t2 passing through [f2 ] but not equal to v2 . Then t2 = [f2 , f3 + αf1 ]
for some α ∈ k and, using (3.12):
d(t2 ) = deg (df2 ∧ df3 − α df1 ∧ df2 ) = deg df2 ∧ df3 = deg(m2 ).
We obtain that v2 is the unique minimum of the function
t2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ) ↦ d(t2 ).
(4) By (3.11) we have
deg(v1 ) + d(u2 ) = deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) + d(m2 ).

Since by assertion (1) we have d(m2 ) > deg(v3 ∖ m2 ), the result follows.



As an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.9(3) we get:
Corollary 3.13. Assume that v3 admits an elementary K-reduction, and that one
of the following holds:
(1) There exists a (non necessarily good) triangle u2 , v2 , w2 ∈ P̂2 (v3 ) such that
d(u2 ) > d(w2 ) > d(v2 );

(2) m2 is the minimal line in P2 (v3 ), and v2 is another line in P2 (v3 ) such that
d(m2 ) > d(v2 ).

Then v2 is the center of the K-reduction.
3.E. Proper K-reductions. In this section we list some properties of proper Kreductions, and introduce the concept of a normal K-reduction.
Proposition 3.14. Let u3 be a proper K-reduction of v3 , via w3 . Then (using
notation from Set-Up 3.5):
(1) g1 = f1 + ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) with degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ).
(2) If the pivotal simplex has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) with s ⩾ 5, then v3 is
a weak simple elementary reduction of w3 , with simple center m2 , v1 , and
deg v3 = deg w3 .
Proof. First observe that by Corollary 3.8 we know that the pivotal simplex v1 , w2 , w3
has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s). In particular by Lemma 3.6 the minimal line m2 =
Jf2 , f3 K of w3 has no inner resonance.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

23

(1) Assume by contradiction that degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ).
By non resonance of Jf2 , f3 K we can apply Corollary 2.10(2) and Lemma 3.9(1) to
get the contradiction
deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg df2 ∧ df3 = d(m2 ) > deg g1 .
(2) We just established
deg g1 ⩾ deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ).

Since v1 , w2 , w3 has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s), we have deg g1 = sδ, deg f2 = 2δ
and deg f3 > (s − 2)δ, so that deg(f2 f3 ) > deg g1 . As soon as s ⩾ 5 we also have
2(s − 2) > s, hence deg f32 > deg g1 . This implies that if s ⩾ 5 then ϕ1 has the form
ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = af3 + Q(f2 ), as expected. Moreover since deg Q(f2 ) = 2rδ for some
r ⩾ 2 and since s is odd, we have deg g1 > degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = deg ϕ(f2 , f3 ) hence
deg f1 = deg g1 and deg v3 = deg w3 .

In view of the previous proposition, we introduce the following definition. We say
that u3 is a normal K-reduction of v3 in any of the two following situations:
● either u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 ;
● or u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3 via an auxiliary vertex w3 , and, denoting
by v1 the pivot of the reduction and m2 the minimal line in w3 , the vertex
v3 is not a weak simple elementary reduction of w3 with center m2 , v1 .
Given a proper K-reduction, Corollary 3.8 and Proposition 3.14(2) say that if the
reduction is normal then the pivotal simplex has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(3). We
now prove the converse, and give some estimations on the degrees involved.
Lemma 3.15. Assume that u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3 , via w3 , and that the
pivotal simplex has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(3). Then the reduction is normal, and
using representatives as from Set-Up 3.5, we have:
deg g1 = 3δ,

deg f2 = 2δ,

3
2δ

⩾ deg f3 > δ,

(3.16)

deg df1 ∧ df3 = δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 ⩾ 4δ + deg dg1 ∧ df2 ,

(3.17)

deg df1 ∧ df2 = deg f3 + deg df2 ∧ df3 .

(3.18)

Moreover we have the implications:
deg w3 > deg v3 Ô⇒ deg f3 = 32 δ,

deg f1 > 52 δ.

deg w3 = deg v3 Ô⇒ deg f1 = deg g1 = 3δ.

(3.19)
(3.20)

In any case we have
deg f1 > deg f2 > deg f3 ,
(3.21)
deg df1 ∧ df2 > deg df1 ∧ df3 > deg df2 ∧ df3 ,
(3.22)
2
m2 = Jf2 , f3 K is the minimal line of v3 , and for any other line ℓ2 ∈ P̂ (v3 ), we have
d(ℓ2 ) > d(m2 ).

(3.23)

Proof. The equalities deg g1 = 3δ and deg f2 = 2δ come from the fact that the pivotal
simplex has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(3). Property (↺4) gives deg f3 > δ, and
Proposition 3.14(1) says that degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ). Hence apart from
f2 , f3 and f32 , any monomial in f2 , f3 has degree strictly bigger than g1 . So there
exists a, b, c ∈ k such that
w3 = Jg1 = f1 + af32 + bf2 + cf3 , f2 , f3 K.
Moreover, since w3 ≠ v3 , we have a ≠ 0, which implies 3δ = deg g1 ⩾ 2 deg f3 . This
proves (3.16), and the fact that the K-reduction is normal.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

24

By Lemma 3.9(1) we have
deg df2 ∧ df3 = d(m2 ) ⩾ deg(w3 ∖ m2 ) + d(w2 ) = deg g1 + deg dg1 ∧ df2 .

(3.24)

This implies
deg g1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg f3 + deg dg1 ∧ df2 .
By the Principle of Two Maxima 2.15, we get
deg g1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 = deg f2 + deg dg1 ∧ df3 .

(3.25)

Now dg1 ∧ df3 = df1 ∧ df3 + bdf2 ∧ df3 , and the previous equality implies deg dg1 ∧ df3 >
deg df2 ∧ df3 , so that
deg dg1 ∧ df3 = deg df1 ∧ df3 .
Now combining (3.24) and (3.25) we get the expected inequality (3.17):
deg df1 ∧ df3 = δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 ⩾ 4δ + deg dg1 ∧ df2 .
Observe that deg w3 > deg v3 is equivalent to deg g1 = deg f32 > deg f1 . So in this
situation deg f3 = 32 δ, and since by Lemma 2.2 we have deg f1 + deg f3 ⩾ deg df1 ∧ df3 ,
from (3.17) we also get deg f1 > 4δ − 32 δ = 25 δ. This proves (3.19), and (3.20) is
immediate. These two assertions imply that we always have deg f1 > 25 δ, so that we
get (3.21), and the minimal line m2 = Jf2 , f3 K of w3 also is the minimal line of v3 .
For the equality (3.18) we start again from g1 = f1 + af32 + bf2 + cf3 , which gives
dg1 ∧ df2 = df1 ∧ df2 − 2af3 df2 ∧ df3 − c df2 ∧ df3 .
Since (3.24) implies deg(f3 df2 ∧ df3 ) > deg dg1 ∧ df2 , the first two terms on the righthand side must have the same degree, which is the expected equality.
Now (3.17), (3.18) and the inequality deg f3 > δ from (3.16) immediately implies
(3.22).
Finally, for any line ℓ2 distinct from m2 = Jf2 , f3 K, we have
d(ℓ2 ) = deg(α df1 ∧ df2 + β df1 ∧ df3 + γ df2 ∧ df3 )

with (α, β) ≠ (0, 0), from which we obtain (3.23).



Now we can justify the terminology of “reduction”, as announced when we gave
the definition of a proper K-reduction:
Proposition 3.26. Let u3 be a proper K-reduction of a vertex v3 . Then
deg v3 > deg u3 .
Proof. We use the notation from Set-Up 3.5. Observe that if deg w3 = deg v3 , then
the proposition is obvious from (K0′ ).
Assume first that the reduction is not normal, that is, g1 = f1 + af3 + Q(f2 ). We
know by Corollary 3.8 that deg g1 = sδ, deg f2 = 2δ and sδ > deg f3 > (s − 2)δ, where
s ⩾ 3 is odd. An inequality deg g1 > deg f1 would imply sδ = deg(g1 ) = deg Q(f2 ) =
2rδ for some integer r (the degree of Q), a contradiction with s odd. Thus we obtain
deg g1 = deg f1 > deg(af3 + Q(f2 )), hence deg w3 = deg v3 and we are done.
Now assume we have a normal proper K-reduction, and that deg w3 > deg v3 . By
Proposition 3.14(2) (see also the discussion just before Lemme 3.15), we are in the
setting of Lemma 3.15. By condition (K4′ ) we have
δ + deg dg1 ∧ df2 > deg g3 .
Adding 3δ = deg g1 , and using (3.17) from Lemma 3.15, we get
deg df1 ∧ df3 ⩾ 4δ + deg dg1 ∧ df2 > deg g1 + deg g3 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

25

Finally adding deg f2 we get
deg v3 = deg f1 + deg f2 + deg f3
⩾ deg df1 ∧ df3 + deg f2
> deg g1 + deg g3 + deg f2
= deg u3 .

by Lemma 2.2


In the following result we prove that if a vertex admits a non-normal proper Kreduction, then it already admits an elementary (and therefore normal) K-reduction.
It follows that any vertex admitting a K-reduction admits a normal K-reduction.
Lemma 3.27 (Normalization of a K-reduction). Let u3 be a non-normal proper
K-reduction of v3 , via w3 . Then there exists u′3 such that
(1) u′3 ≬ v3 and u′3 ≬ u3 ;
(2) u′3 is an elementary (hence by definition normal) K-reduction of v3 .

w3 =Jg1 ,f2 ,f3 K
m2 =Jf2 ,f3 K

●

↺ ●

w2 =Jg1 ,f2 K

v3 =Jf1 =g1 −af3 −Q(f2 ),f2 ,f3 K

u3 =Jg1 ,f2 ,f3 +P (g1 ,f2 )K

↺
●
v2 =Jg1 −Q(f2 ),f2 K

v1 =[f2 ]

●
u2 =Jf2 ,f3 +P (g1 ,f2 )K

u′3 =Jg1 −Q(f2 ),f2 ,f3 +P (g1 ,f2 )K

Figure 5. Normalization of a K-reduction.
Proof. By Corollary 3.8 the pivotal simplex of the reduction has Strong Pivotal
Form ↺(s) for some odd s, and by Lemma 3.15 we have s ⩾ 5. Note also that
by Proposition 3.14 we have deg v3 = deg w3 , and v3 is a weak simple elementary
reduction of w3 with simple center m2 , v1 : see the upper-half of Figure 5, where we
use the notation of Set-Up 3.5.
By the Square Lemma 3.4, we get the existence of u′3 with u′3 ≬ v3 , u′3 ≬ u3 and
deg w3 > deg u′3 : see Figure 5. In particular deg v3 > deg u′3 , which is (K0).
Since v3 and w3 have the same 3-degrees, the vertices v2 and w2 also have the
same 2-degrees. So Properties (K1′ ) and (K2′ ) for the initial proper K-reduction
from v3 to u3 imply (K1) and (K2) for the elementary reduction from v3 to u′3 .
Finally m2 is the minimal line of v3 , and is distinct from v2 , which gives (K3),

and v2 = Jg1 − Q(f2 ), f2 K so that d(v2 ) = d(w2 ), which gives (K4).
Corollary 3.28. If v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K admits a K-reduction, then one of the following
holds:
(1) Any line in P2 (v3 ) has no inner resonance;
(2) Up to permuting the fi , we have deg f1 = 2 deg f3 and 2 deg f1 = 3 deg f2 . In
particular with this numbering [f3 ] is the minimal vertex of v3 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

26

Proof. Any line in P2 (v3 ) has 2-degree (δ1 , δ2 ) with δi ∈ {deg f1 , deg f2 , deg f3 } for
i = 1, 2. So there exists a line in P2 (v3 ) with inner resonance if and only if there
exist two indexes i ≠ j in {1, 2, 3} such that deg fi ∈ N deg fj .
If the K-reduction is elementary, using the notation from Set-Up 3.5(1), we have
deg f1 = sδ, deg f2 = 2δ and sδ > deg f3 > (s − 2)δ for some odd s ⩾ 3. Moreover
an inner resonance in Jf2 , f3 K would be of the form deg f3 = (s − 1)δ = s−1
2 deg f2 for
s ⩾ 5, but this is impossible by Property (K2). So the only possible resonance is
between deg f1 and deg f3 , in the case s = 3, as stated in (2).
If the K-reduction is proper, we use the notation from Set-Up 3.5(2). Either
deg g1 = deg f1 and we are reduced to the previous case; or deg g1 > deg f1 and by
Lemma 3.27 we can assume that the K-reduction is normal (and proper, otherwise
again we are reduced to the previous case). Then by Lemma 3.15 we have 3δ >
deg f1 > 25 δ, deg f2 = 2δ, deg f3 = 32 δ, hence there is no relation of the form deg fi ∈
N deg fj for any i ≠ j and we are in case (1).

Remark 3.29. We shall see later in Corollary 5.3 that in fact Case (2) in the
previous corollary never happens.
3.F. Stability of K-reductions. Consider v3 a vertex that admits a normal Kreduction. In this section we want to show that most elementary reductions of v3
still admit a K-reduction. First we prove two lemmas that give some constraint on
the (weak) elementary reductions that such a vertex v3 can admit.
Lemma 3.30. Let u3 be a normal K-reduction of v3 , with pivot v1 . Let u2 be any
line in P2 (v3 ) not passing through v1 . Then v3 does not admit a weak elementary
reduction with center u2 .
Proof. We start with the notation v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K from Set-Up 3.5(1) when u3 is an
elementary K-reduction of v3 , and with the Set-Up 3.5(2) to which we apply Lemma
3.15 when u3 is a normal proper K-reduction of v3 . It follows that m2 = Jf2 , f3 K
is in both cases the minimal line of v3 . We have u2 = Jh1 , h3 K where h1 = f1 + af2 ,
h3 = f3 + bf2 for some a, b ∈ k. Then [f2 , h3 ] is the minimal line m2 in P2 (v3 ),
however it is possible that [f2 , h3 ] is not a good representative of m2 . There are two
possibilities:
● either (h1 , f2 , h3 ) is still a good representative for v3 , and we have deg h3 =
deg f3 , deg f2 = deg(v3 ∖ u2 );
● or deg f2 = deg h3 > deg m1 where m1 = [f3 ] is the minimal point of v3 , and
deg f2 > deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) = deg f3 .
In both cases we have
deg h1 = topdeg v3 ,

deg f2 ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) and

deg h3 ⩾ deg f3 .

Assume by contradiction that v3 admits a weak elementary reduction with center
u2 . By Lemma 3.3 there exists a non-affine polynomial P ∈ k[y, z] such that
deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) ⩾ deg P (h1 , h3 ).
On the other hand we know from Corollary 3.8 that the pivotal simplex of the
K-reduction has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3, hence
deg h3 ⩾ deg f3 > (s − 2)δ ⩾ δ which implies 2 deg h3 > 2δ = deg f2 .
In consequence, since deg h1 > deg h3 , we have
degvirt P (h1 , h3 ) ⩾ 2 deg h3 > deg f2 ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ u2 ),

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

so that

27

degvirt P (h1 , h3 ) > deg P (h1 , h3 ).

If u2 has no inner resonance, then we get a contradiction as follows, in both cases
of an elementary or a normal proper K-reduction:
deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) ⩾ deg P (h1 , h3 )

> deg dh1 ∧ dh3 = d(u2 )

> d(m2 )

> deg(v3 ∖ m2 )

by Corollary 2.10(2),
by Lemma 3.9(2) or (3.23),
by Lemma 3.9(1).

More precisely, in the case of a normal proper K-reduction the last inequality comes
from d(m2 ) > deg(w3 ∖ m2 ) ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) by Lemma 3.9(1) and by (K5′ ).
Now consider the case where u2 = Jh1 , h3 K has inner resonance. By Corollary
3.28(2) we have deg h3 = min{deg f2 , deg f3 }, and since by assumption deg h3 ⩾ deg f3
we get deg h3 = deg f3 . Then Corollary 3.28(2) gives the two relations
1
2
2
3

deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) = 21 deg h1 = deg h3 ,

deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) = 32 deg h1 = deg f2 ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ u2 ).

(3.31)

In particular we have deg f1 > deg f2 > deg f3 , and b = 0, that is, h3 = f3 . We apply
Corollary 2.10(1) which gives
deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) ⩾ deg P (h1 , h3 ) ⩾ d(u2 ) − deg h3 ,
which we rewrite as
deg h3 + 2 deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) + d(u2 ).

(3.32)

deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) + d(u2 ) > 2 deg(v3 ∖ m2 ).

(3.33)

If u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 , and since in our situation deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) =
deg[f2 ], by Lemma 3.9(4) we have
If on the other hand u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3 via w3 , let us prove that
(3.33) still holds, by using Lemma 3.15. First note that deg(v3 ∖ u2 ) = deg f2 ,
deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) = deg f1 and
d(u2 ) = deg dh1 ∧ dh3 = deg d(f1 + af2 ) ∧ df3 = deg df1 ∧ df3 by (3.17).

Then, using (3.16) and (3.17) from Lemma 3.15, we get
deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df3 > 2δ + 4δ = 2 deg g1 ⩾ 2 deg f1
as expected.
Adding the first equality of (3.31) to twice the second one, and combining with
(3.32) and (3.33), we get the contradiction
( 12 + 2.2
3 ) deg(v3 ∖ m2 ) > 2 deg(v3 ∖ m2 ).



Lemma 3.34. Let u3 be a normal proper K-reduction of v3 , with pivot v1 . Let
v2′ ≠ m2 be a line in P2 (v3 ) passing through v1 . If v3′ is a weak elementary reduction
of v3 with center v2′ , then this reduction is simple with center v2′ , v1 .
Proof. We use the notation from Set-Up 3.5(2), and set v2′ = Jh1 , f2 K with h1 =
f1 + af3 . By Lemma 3.15, h1 realizes the top degree of v3 . Then v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K =

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

28

Jh1 , f2 , f3 K, and by Lemma 3.3 we have v3′ = Jh1 , f2 , f3 + P (h1 , f2 )K for some nonaffine polynomial P . We want to prove that P (h1 , f2 ) ∈ k[f2 ]. It is sufficient to
prove deg h1 > degvirt P (h1 , f2 ). Assume the contrary. Then
degvirt P (h1 , f2 ) ⩾ deg h1 > deg f3 ⩾ deg P (h1 , f2 ).

By Lemma 3.15, we have deg f1 > deg f2 > deg f3 , so that by Corollary 3.28 we have
deg h1 = deg f1 ∈/ N deg f2 . Thus we can apply Corollary 2.10(2) to get
deg f1 > deg P (h1 , f2 ) > deg dh1 ∧ df2 .

By (3.18) of Lemma 3.15 we get
deg dh1 ∧ df2 = deg(df1 ∧ df2 − adf2 ∧ df3 ) = deg df1 ∧ df2 > deg df2 ∧ df3 .
Then by (3.17) and (3.16) of Lemma 3.15 we have
deg df2 ∧ df3 ⩾ 3δ = deg g1 ⩾ deg f1 ,
hence the contradiction deg f1 > deg dh1 ∧ df2 ⩾ deg f1 .



Proposition 3.35 (Stability of a K-reduction). Let u3 be a normal K-reduction
of v3 , and v3′ a weak elementary reduction of v3 with center v2′ . Denote by m2 the
minimal line of v3 . If u3 is an elementary K-reduction, assume moreover that the
centers of v3′ ≬ v3 and u3 ≬ v3 are distinct. Then u3 is a K-reduction of v3′ , and
more precisely, we are in one of the following cases:
(1) u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 , and v2′ = m2 : then u3 is a (possibly
non-normal) proper K-reduction of v3′ , via v3 ;
(2) u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 , and v2′ ≠ m2 : then u3 is a (possibly non-normal) proper K-reduction of v3′ , via an auxiliary vertex w3′ that
satisfies deg w3′ = deg v3 ;
(3) u3 is a normal proper K-reduction of v3 via w3 , and v3′ = w3 : then u3 is an
elementary K-reduction of v3′ ;
(4) u3 is a normal proper K-reduction of v3 via w3 , and v2′ = m2 : then u3 also
is a normal proper K-reduction of v3′ via w3 .
Proof. First assume that u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 . We denote by
v1 = [f2 ], v2 = Jf1 , f2 K, v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K the pivotal simplex of the K-reduction u3
(following Set-Up 3.5(1)). By Lemma 3.30, the line v2′ passes through v1 .
(1). If v2′ = m2 , since by assumption deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′ , we directly get that u3 is a
proper K-reduction of v3′ , via v3 .
(2). Now assume that v2′ ≠ m2 , so that v2′ = Jf1 + af3 , f2 K for some a ∈ k, and a ≠ 0
since we assume v2′ ≠ v2 . Then by Lemma 3.3 we can write
v3′ = Jf1 + af3 , f2 , f3 + P (f1 + af3 , f2 )K with deg f3 ⩾ deg P (f1 + af3 , f2 ).
If we can show that P depends only on f2 we are done: indeed then deg f3 ≠
deg P (f2 ), because m2 = Jf2 , f3 K has no inner resonance by Corollary 3.28, hence we
have deg f3 = deg(f3 + P (f2 )). It follows that u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3′ via
w3′ = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P (f2 )K, where m′2 = Jf2 , f3 + P (f2 )K is the minimal line of w3′ (see
Figure 6, Case (2)).
To show that P depends only on f2 it is sufficient to show that deg f3 ⩾ degvirt P (f1 +
af3 , f2 ). By contradiction, assume that this is not the case. Then
degvirt P (f1 + af3 , f2 ) > deg f3 ⩾ deg P (f1 + af3 , f2 ).

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

29

v3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K
v3 =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 K

v2 =Jf1 ,f2 K
u3

v2′ =Jf1 +af3 ,f2 K ●
v2′ =m2 =Jf2 ,f3 K

↺ ●

v2 =Jf1 ,f2 K

↺●

●

v1

v3′

u3

↺

v3′ =Jf1 +af3 ,f2 ,f3 +P (f2 )K
w3′ =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 +P (f2 )K

v1 =[f2 ]
m′2 =Jf2 ,f3 +P (f2

Case (1)

●
)K

Case (2)

v3′ =w3

w3
v3′

v2′ =m2

v2′ =m2

w2

↺●

●

v3

↺●

●

u3

v3

u3

v1

v1

Case (3)

Case (4)
Figure 6. Stability of a K-reduction.

Since v2′ has the same 2-degree as v2 , it has no inner resonance by (K1), and by
Corollary 2.10(2) we get
deg P (f1 + af3 , f2 ) > deg(df1 ∧ df2 − adf2 ∧ df3 ).
By Lemma 3.9(1) we have deg df2 ∧ df3 > df1 ∧ df2 and deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg f3 , so finally
we obtain the contradiction
deg P (f1 + af3 , f2 ) > deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg f3 .
Now assume that u3 is a normal proper K-reduction of v3 , via an auxiliary vertex
w3 . Recall that the minimal line m2 of v3 is also the minimal line of the intermediate
vertex w3 (last assertion of Lemma 3.15).
(3). If v3′ = w3 , then by definition u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3′ .
(4). If v3′ ≠ w3 , but v2′ = m2 , then the conclusion is also direct, because deg w3 ⩾
deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′ .
Finally we prove that the situation where v2′ ≠ m2 leads to a contradiction. By
Lemma 3.34 the reduction from v3 to v3′ is simple with center v2′ , v1 . But then
by Remark 3.2 (or directly from the proof of Lemma 3.34) we should have v2′ =
Jf1 + af3 , f2 K and v3′ = Jf1 + af3 , f2 , f3 + P (f2 )K. By Lemma 3.15 we have
deg f2 = 2δ > 23 δ ⩾ deg f3 ,
so deg P (f2 ) > deg f3 and we get a contradiction with deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′ .



4. Reducibility Theorem
In this section we state and prove the main result of this paper, that is, the
Reducibility Theorem 4.1.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

30

4.A. Reduction paths. Given a vertex v3 with a choice of good triangle T , we call
elementary T -reduction any elementary reduction with center one of the three lines
of T .
We now define the notion of a reducible vertex in a recursive manner as follows:

We declare that the vertex [id] is reducible, where by Lemma 3.1 [id] is the
unique type 3 vertex realizing the minimal degree (1, 1, 1).
● Let µ > ν be two consecutive degrees, and assume that we have already defined
the subset of reducible vertices among type 3 vertices of degree at most ν. Then
we say that a vertex v3 with deg v3 = µ is reducible if for any good triangle T in
P2 (v3 ), there exists either a T -elementary reduction or a (proper or elementary)
K-reduction from v3 to u3 , with u3 reducible.
●

Let v3 , v3′ be vertices of type 3. A reduction path of length n ⩾ 0 from v3 to v3′
is a sequence of type 3 vertices v3 (0), v3 (1), . . . , v3 (n) such that:
●
●
●

v3 (0) = v3 and v3 (n) = v3′ ;
v3 (i) is reducible for all i = 0, . . . , n;
For all i = 0, . . . , n − 1, v3 (i + 1) is either an elementary reduction, or a
K-reduction, of v3 (i).

Observe that, by definition, a reducible vertex v3 admits a reduction path from
v3 to the vertex [id].
In the following sections we shall prove the main result:
Theorem 4.1 (Reducibility Theorem). Any vertex of type 3 in the complex C is
reducible.
Directly from the definition, this theorem has the following consequence: For any
vertex v3 ≠ [id] of type 3 in the complex C, and for any good triangle T in P2 (v3 ),
the vertex v3 admits either a T -elementary reduction or a (proper or elementary)
K-reduction.
We remark that this result immediately implies that Tame(A3 ) is a proper subgroup of Aut(A3 ):
Corollary 4.2. The Nagata’s automorphism
f = (x1 + 2x2 (x22 − x1 x3 ) + x3 (x22 − x1 x3 )2 , x2 + x3 (x22 − x1 x3 ), x3 )
is not tame.
Proof. Denote f = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) the components of f . Assume that f is tame. Let v3 =
Jf1 , f2 , f3 K be the associated vertex in C, and let T be the good triangle associated
with this representative. We have deg f1 = (2, 0, 3), deg f2 = (1, 0, 2) and deg f3 =
(0, 0, 1).
On the one hand, if f admits a K-reduction, by Corollary 3.8 one of the fi (the
pivot of the reduction) should have a degree of the form 2δ: this is not the case.
On the other hand, the degrees of the fi are pairwise Z-independent, so for any
distinct i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3} and any polynomial P we have degvirt P (fi , fj ) = deg P (fi , fj ).
This implies that if f admits an elementary T -reduction, then one of the deg fi should
be a N-combination of the other two. Again this is not the case.
Thus v3 is not reducible, a contradiction.

We shall prove Theorem 4.1 in §4.D. In the next two sections we establish preliminaries technical results.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

31

4.B. Reduction of a strongly pivotal simplex. First we describe the set-up
that we shall use in this section.
Set-Up 4.3. Let v1 , v2 , v3 be a simplex in C with Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) for
some odd s ⩾ 3. We choose some good representatives v1 = [f2 ], v2 = Jf1 , f2 K and
v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K. Condition (↺1) means that
deg f1 = sδ,

deg f2 = 2δ.

By (↺3) we have deg f1 > deg f3 . we have
deg f3 ⩾ (s − 2)δ + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
Condition (↺2) is equivalent to the condition
deg f3 /∈ N deg f2 .

Since deg f3 > (s − 2)δ ⩾ δ, we also obtain

deg f32 > deg f2 and deg f2 ∈/ N deg f3 .

(4.4)

deg f1 /∈ N deg f3 except if s = 3 and deg f1 = 2 deg f3 .

(4.5)

In particular, as already noticed in Lemma 3.6, the minimal line m2 = Jf2 , f3 K of v3
has no inner resonance. Observe also that

Lemma 4.6. Assume Set-Up 4.3. Then v3 does not admit a normal proper Kreduction.
Proof. Assume v3 admits a normal proper K-reduction, via w3 . Then we get a
contradiction as follows:
d(m2 ) > deg(w3 ∖ m2 )
⩾ deg(v3 ∖ m2 )

> deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) ⩾ ∆(v2 )
> d(v2 ) > d(m2 )

by Lemma 3.9(1)
by (K5′ )
by (↺3) and (↺4)
by (3.23) in Lemma 3.15.



Lemma 4.7. Assume Set-Up 4.3, and deg f1 ≠ 2 deg f3 . Assume that v3 admits a
weak elementary reduction v3′ with center v2′ . Then v2′ passes through v1 .
Proof. By contradiction, assume that v2′ does not pass through v1 . Recall that
v1 = [f2 ] and v2 = Jf1 , f2 K with deg f1 > deg f2 . Up to replacing f1 by f1 + af2 for
some a ∈ k, we can assume v2 ∩ v2′ = [f1 ] while keeping all the properties stated in
Set-Up 4.3. Then let [h3 ] = [f3 + af2 ] be the intersection of v2′ with the minimal line
Jf2 , f3 K of P2 (v3 ). Then we have v2′ = Jf1 , h3 K, v3 = [f1 , f2 , h3 ], and by Lemma 3.3
v3′ = Jf1 , f2 + ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ), h3 K for some non-affine polynomial ϕ2 , with deg f1 > deg f2 ⩾
deg ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ). We have either deg f2 = deg h3 or deg f3 = deg h3 , hence in any case
by (4.4)
degvirt ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ) > deg ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ).
In particular ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ) /∈ k[h3 ], and then the inequality deg f1 > deg f2 implies
degvirt ϕ2 (f1 , h3 ) > deg f2 .

By Lemma 2.8 there exist coprime q > p such that

q deg h3 = p deg f1 = psδ.
Moreover if p = 1, we would have deg h3 = deg f3 and deg f1 = 2 deg f3 , in contradiction with our assumption. Hence we have q > p ⩾ 2.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

32

Observe that even if (f2 , h3 ) is not a good representative of the minimal line in
P2 (v3 ), in any case we have deg h3 ⩾ deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) = deg f3 , and Property (↺4) gives
deg h3 ⩾ (s − 2)δ + deg df1 ∧ df2 .

Then Corollary 2.13 yields:
2δ = deg f2 ⩾ deg(f2 + ϕ2 (f1 , h3 )) ⩾ q deg h3 − deg df1 ∧ df2 − deg h3

⩾ q deg h3 − deg h3 + (s − 2)δ − deg h3 .

Multiplying by q and replacing q deg h3 = psδ we get:

0 ⩾ (pqs − 2ps + sq − 4q)δ,
hence
0 ⩾ ps(q − 2) + q(s − 4).
This implies s = 3, and we get the contradiction:
0 ⩾ 3pq − 6p − q = (3p − 1)(q − 2) − 2 ⩾ 5 − 2.



Lemma 4.8. Assume Set-Up 4.3. Assume that v3 admits an elementary reduction
v3′ with center m2 , the minimal line of v3 . Assume moreover that v3′ is reducible.
Then v3′ also admits an elementary reduction with center m2 .
Proof. By Lemma 3.3 we can write v3′ = Jf1′ , f2 , f3 K, where f1′ has the form
f1′ = f1 + ϕ1 (f2 , f3 )

for some non-affine polynomial ϕ1 , with deg f1 = deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg f1′ . Without
loss in generality we can assume that ϕ1 has no constant term. Moreover we can
also assume
(4.9)
deg f1′ ∈/ N deg f2 + N deg f3 ,
otherwise the result is immediate.
Working with the good triangle associated with the representative (f1′ , f2 , f3 ), we
want to prove that v3′ does not admit a K-reduction, nor an elementary reduction
with center Jf1′ , f2 K or Jf1′ , f3 K: Indeed since v3′ is reducible by assumption, the only
remaining possibility will be that v3′ admits an elementary reduction with center
m2 = Jf2 , f3 K, as expected. The proof is quite long, so we prove several facts along
the way. The first one is:
Fact 4.10. If degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) then Lemma 4.8 holds.

Proof. If degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) then by Lemma 2.8, there exist coprime
p, q such that q deg f2 = p deg f3 . Observe that (↺2) and (4.4) imply p, q ≠ 1. We
have
sδ = deg f1 > deg f1′ = deg(f1 + ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ))
> p deg f3 − deg df1 ∧ df2 − deg f3
⩾ p deg f3 − (deg f3 − (s − 2)δ)) − deg f3
= (p − 2) deg f3 − 2δ + sδ.

by Lemma 3.3
by Corollary 2.13
by (↺4)

Multiplying by p, recalling that deg f2 = 2δ, p deg f3 = q deg f2 and putting δ in factor
we get:
0 > 2q(p − 2) − 2p = (2p − 4)(q − 1) − 4 ⩾ 2p − 8.
(4.11)
It follows that 3 ⩾ p. Now we deduce p = 3. If p = 2, then deg f3 = qδ. Condition
(↺4) gives
sδ > deg f3 > (s − 2)δ,

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

33

so q = s − 1, which contradicts q coprime with 2.
Replacing p = 3 in the first inequality of (4.11) we get 6 > 2q, hence q = 2. We
obtain deg f3 = 34 δ, and the condition deg f3 > (s − 2)δ yields s = 3. Finally
deg f1 = 3δ,

deg f2 = 2δ,

deg f3 = 34 δ,

3δ > deg f1′ > 37 δ.

(4.12)

v3′

First we observe that these values are not compatible with
admitting a Kreduction. Indeed, by Corollary 3.8 an elementary K-reduction would imply 2 deg f1′ =
s′ deg fj for some odd integer s′ ⩾ 3 and j ∈ {2, 3}, and one checks from (4.12) that
′
there is no such relation. Indeed if s′ = 3, we have 2 deg f1 > 14
3 δ > 4δ = s deg f3 ,
′
′
and if s′ ⩾ 5 we have s′ deg f3 ⩾ 20
3 δ > 6δ > 2 deg f1 . Finally, for any s ⩾ 3 we have
′
′
s deg f2 ⩾ 6δ > 2 deg f1 .
Now if v3′ admits a normal proper K-reduction, then, noting that deg f1′ > deg f2 >
deg f3 , there should exist δ′ ∈ N3 such that all the conclusions of Lemma 3.15 hold,
with f1′ , f2 , f3 , δ′ instead of f1 , f2 , f3 , δ. In particular (3.19) gives deg f2 = 2δ′ , hence
δ′ = δ. Now since 3δ > deg f1′ , by (3.19) and (3.20) from Lemma 3.15 would imply
deg f3 = 23 δ, incompatible with deg f3 = 34 δ.
On the other hand, if v3′ admits an elementary reduction with center Jf1′ , fj K with
j = 2 or 3, then, denoting by k the integer such that {j, k} = {2, 3}, there would exist
a non-affine polynomial ϕ such that deg fk > deg(fk + ϕ(f1′ , fj )), and in particular
deg f1′ > deg fk = deg ϕ(f1′ , fj ). Since Jf2 , f3 K has no inner resonance this implies
ϕ(f1′ , fj ) ∈/ k[fj ], so that degvirt ϕ(f1′ , fj ) ⩾ deg f1′ , and finally degvirt ϕ(f1′ , fj ) >
deg ϕ(f1′ , fj ). Now by (4.9) we can apply Corollary 2.10(3) to get an odd integer
q ′ ⩾ 3 such that 2 deg f1′ = q ′ deg fj : again this is not compatible with (4.12).

From now on we assume degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ).
Fact 4.13. deg f1 = 2 deg f3 .
Proof. By contradiction, assume deg f1 ≠ 2 deg f3 . Then deg f1 ∈/ N deg f3 by (4.5).
Moreover we know that deg f1 ∈/ N deg f2 and deg f2 + deg f3 > deg f1 . This is not
compatible with the equalities
deg f1 = deg ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = degvirt ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ).



We deduce from (4.5) and Fact 4.13 that s = 3, so that
deg f1 = 3δ,

deg f2 = 2δ,

deg f3 = 32 δ,

and there exist a, c, e ∈ k such that (recall that ϕ1 has no constant term):
ϕ1 (f2 , f3 ) = af32 + cf3 + ef2 with a ≠ 0.
Now come some technical facts.
Fact 4.15. deg df1 ∧ df3 = deg df1′ ∧ df3 = δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 .
Proof. Recall from Set-Up 4.3 that we have 32 δ = deg f3 > deg df1 ∧ df2 , so
3δ > deg f3 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
Since deg f1 = 3δ we get
deg f1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 > deg f3 + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
By the Principle of Two Maxima 2.15 we have
deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df3 = deg f1 + deg df2 ∧ df3 .

(4.14)

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

34

Passing deg f2 to the right-hand side we get one of the expected equalities
deg df1 ∧ df3 = deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df2 ∧ df3 = δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 .
From (4.14) we get
df1′ ∧ df3 = df1 ∧ df3 + e df2 ∧ df3 .
By the previous equality we obtain deg df1 ∧ df3 = deg df1′ ∧ df3 .



Fact 4.16. deg df1′ ∧ df2 = 32 δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 .
Proof. From (4.14) we get
df1′ ∧ df2 = df1 ∧ df2 + 2af3 df3 ∧ df2 + c df3 ∧ df2 .
By (↺4) we have deg f3 > deg df1 ∧ df2 , so 2af3 df3 ∧ df2 has strictly larger degree
than the two other terms of the right-hand side. Finally,
deg df1′ ∧ df2 = deg f3 df3 ∧ df2 = 23 δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 .



Fact 4.17. deg f1′ > δ.
Proof. Consider P = f1 + ay 2 + cy + ef2 ∈ k[f1 , f2 ][y]. We have

degvirt P (f3 ) = deg f1 > deg f1′ = deg P (f3 ).

On the other hand P ′ = 2ay + c, so that degvirt P ′ (f3 ) = deg P ′ (f3 ) = deg f3 . Thus
m(P, f3 ) = 1, and the Parachute Inequality 2.6 yields
deg f1′ = deg P (f3 ) ⩾ degvirt P (f3 ) + deg df1 ∧ df2 ∧ df3 − deg df1 ∧ df2 − deg f3
> deg f1 − deg df1 ∧ df2 − deg f3
= deg f3 − deg df1 ∧ df2 .

Recall that by (↺4) we have
deg f3 ⩾ deg f1 − deg f2 + deg df1 ∧ df2 = δ + deg df1 ∧ df2 .
Replacing in the previous inequality we get the result.



Fact 4.18. The vertices Jf1′ , f2 K and Jf1′ , f3 K do not have outer resonance in v3′ =
Jf1′ , f2 , f3 K.
Proof. We have (the last inequality is Fact 4.17):
deg f2 = 2δ,

deg f3 = 23 δ,

deg f1′ > δ.

Moreover these degrees are pairwise distinct, because (f1′ , f2 , f3 ) is a good representative of v3′ . This implies that deg f3 is not a N-combination of deg f1′ and deg f2 ,
and deg f2 is not a N-combination of deg f1′ and deg f3 .

Now we are ready to finish the proof of Lemma 4.8. Observe that by Lemma 3.27,
to prove that v3′ does not admit a K-reduction it is sufficient to exclude normal Kreductions. Recall also that from Facts 4.15 and 4.16 we have
deg f1′ ∧ f2 > deg f1′ ∧ f3 > deg f2 ∧ f3 .

(4.19)

Fact 4.20. v3′ does not admit an elementary K-reduction.
Proof. By contradiction, assume that v3′ admits an elementary K-reduction. By
(4.19) and Corollary 3.13(1), it follows that the center of the reduction is Jf2 , f3 K.
But then by Corollary 3.8 we should have 2 deg f2 = s′ deg f3 for some odd integer
s′ ⩾ 3, and this is not compatible with deg f2 = 2δ and deg f3 = 23 δ.

Fact 4.21. v3′ does not admit a normal proper K-reduction.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

35

Proof. By contradiction, assume that v3′ admits a normal proper K-reduction u3 via
w3 . By comparing (4.19) with (3.22) from Lemma 3.15, we obtain that the center
v2′ of v3′ ≬ w3 is equal to v2′ = Jf2 , f3 K, that v2′ is the minimal line of v3′ , and that
deg w3 = 3δ + deg f2 + deg f3 = deg v3 . Since Jf2 , f3 K is also the minimal line of v3 , we
get that u3 is also a proper K-reduction of v3 via w3 . This is a contradiction with
Lemma 4.6.

Now we are left with the task of proving that v3′ does not admit an elementary
reduction with center Jf1′ , f2 K or Jf1′ , f3 K.
Fact 4.22. v3′ does not admit an elementary reduction with center Jf1′ , f2 K.
Proof. By contradiction, assume there exists ϕ3 (f1′ , f2 ) such that
deg ϕ3 (f1′ , f2 ) = deg f3 .

By Fact 4.18 we have degvirt ϕ3 (f1′ , f2 ) > deg ϕ3 (f1′ , f2 ), and on the other hand
Proposition 3.7(1) gives
3
2δ

= deg f3 = deg ϕ3 (f1′ , f2 ) > deg df1′ ∧ df2 .

This is a contradiction with Fact 4.16.



Fact 4.23. v3′ does not admit an elementary reduction with center Jf1′ , f3 K.
Proof. By contradiction, assume there exists ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 ) such that deg f2 > deg(f2 +
ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 )), which implies
deg ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 ) = deg f2 .

By Fact 4.18 we have degvirt ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 ) > deg ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 ). By Lemma 2.8 there exist
coprime p, q ∈ N∗ and γ ∈ N3 such that
deg f1′ = pγ,

deg f3 = qγ.

Corollary 2.10(1) then yields
2δ = deg f2 = deg ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 ) ⩾ pqγ + deg df1′ ∧ df3 − pγ − qγ.
By Fact 4.15 we know that deg df1′ ∧ df3 = δ + deg df2 ∧ df3 , so that
δ ⩾ deg df2 ∧ df3 + (pq − p − q)γ.

(4.24)

We know that qγ = deg f3 = 23 δ > δ, and by Fact 4.17 we have pγ = deg f1′ > δ, so
min{p, q} > pq − p − q.
By Fact 4.18 we know that p ≠ 1 and q ≠ 1. The only possibilities for the pair (p, q)
are then (2, 3) or (3, 2).
If (p, q) = (2, 3) then Fact 4.17 gives the contradiction
3δ = 2 deg f3 = 3 deg f1′ > 3δ.
If (p, q) = (3, 2), the equalities deg f1′ = 3γ and deg f3 = 2γ = 32 δ yield
γ = 43 δ,

deg f1′ = 94 δ,

pq − p − q = 1.

The inequality (4.24) becomes
δ
4

⩾ deg df2 ∧ df3 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

36

Corollary 2.13 then yields
deg(f2 + ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 )) > 2 deg f1′ − deg df2 ∧ df3 − deg f1′
⩾ ( 94 − 41 ) δ
= 2δ.

This is a contradiction with 2δ = deg f2 > deg(f2 + ϕ2 (f1′ , f3 )).
This finishes the proof of Lemma 4.8.




We now introduce an induction hypothesis that will be the corner-stone for the
proof of the Reducibility Theorem 4.1.
Induction Hypothesis 4.25 (for degrees ν, µ in N3 ). Let v3 be a reducible vertex
such that ν ⩾ deg v3 . Then any neighbor u3 of v3 with µ ⩾ deg u3 also is reducible.
We shall refer to this situation by saying that we can apply the (ν, µ)-Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 to v3 ≬ u3 .
Lemma 4.26. Let µ > ν ∈ N3 be two consecutive degrees, and assume Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, ν. Let v3 be a reducible vertex distinct from [id], with
µ ⩾ deg v3 , and let T be a good triangle for v3 . Then there exists a reducible vertex
u3 such that
● either u3 is an optimal elementary T -reduction or an optimal elementary
K-reduction of v3 ;
● or u3 is a normal proper K-reduction of v3 .
Proof. Let v3 (1) be the first step of a reduction path from v3 , with respect to the
triangle T . By this we mean that v3 (1) is a reducible vertex that is either a T elementary reduction of v3 , or a K-reduction of v3 .
First assume that v3 (1) is an elementary reduction of v3 . If this reduction is
optimal, we can take u3 = v3 (1) and we are done. If the reduction is non-optimal,
denote by v2 the center of v3 ≬ v3 (1). Then let u3 be an optimal elementary
reduction of v3 with the same center v2 . Since µ > ν are two consecutive degrees,
the inequalities
µ ⩾ deg v3 ,

deg v3 > deg v3 (1)

and

deg v3 > deg u3

imply

ν ⩾ deg v3 (1) and ν ⩾ deg u3 .
By the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied to v3 (1) ≬ u3 we get that u3 is
reducible, as expected. Moreover since u3 is an elementary reduction with center v2 ,
by construction u3 is an optimal elementary T -reduction or an optimal elementary
K-reduction of v3 .
Now assume that v3 (1) is a proper K-reduction of v3 . If this reduction is normal,
we are done. Otherwise, by Lemma 3.27, there exists u′3 an elementary K-reduction
of v3 , such that u′3 ≬ v3 (1). By the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied to
v3 (1) ≬ u′3 we get that u′3 is reducible. So we can take u′3 as the first step of a
reduction path from v3 , and we are reduced to the first case of the proof.

Proposition 4.27. Let µ > ν ∈ N3 be two consecutive degrees, and assume Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, ν. Let v3 be a vertex that is part of a simplex v1 , v2 , v3
with Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3. Let T be any good triangle
compatible with the simplex v1 , v2 , v3 . Assume that v3 is reducible, and that µ ⩾
deg v3 . Then

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

37

(1) There exists a reduction path from v3 to [id] that starts with an elementary
T -reduction or an elementary K-reduction;
(2) Any elementary T -reduction or elementary K-reduction of v3 admits v2 as
a center;
(3) Any optimal elementary T -reduction of v3 is an elementary K-reduction;
(4) There exists an elementary K-reduction u3 of v3 with center v2 , such that
u3 is reducible.
Proof. Let v3 (1) be the first step of a reduction path from v3 to [id], with respect to
the choice of good triangle T . By Lemma 4.26 we can assume that if this first step
is a K-reduction, then it is a normal K-reduction. Moreover we know from Lemma
4.6 that v3 does not admit any normal proper K-reduction. This gives (1).
We write v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K as in Set-Up 4.3, such that the triangle T corresponds
to the choice of representative (f1 , f2 , f3 ). The remaining possibilities for the first
step v3 (1) of the reduction path are:
(i) An elementary T -reduction with center Jf2 , f3 K;
(ii) An elementary T -reduction with center Jf1 , f3 K;
(iii) An elementary K-reduction;
(iv) An elementary T -reduction with center v2 = Jf1 , f2 K.
In case (i), by Lemma 4.26 we can moreover assume that the elementary reduction
is optimal. Then Lemma 4.8 gives a contradiction.
In case (ii), Lemma 4.7 implies that deg f1 = 2 deg f3 , so there exists a ∈ k such
that w3 ∶= [f1 + af32 , f2 , f3 ] satisfies deg v3 > deg w3 . By the Square Lemma 3.4, there
exists u3 such that u3 ≬ w3 , u3 ≬ v3 (1) and deg v3 > deg u3 . By the (ν, ν)-Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 applied successively to v3 (1) ≬ u3 and u3 ≬ w3 , we obtain that w3
is reducible, and so could be chosen as the first step of a reduction path. We are
reduced to case (i), which leads to a contradiction.
In case (iii), by Lemma 3.9(1) we have
d(m2 ) > topdeg v3 .
Moreover by (↺4) we have
topdeg v3 > deg(v3 ∖ v2 ) ⩾ ∆(v2 ) > d(v2 ).
By Corollary 3.13(2) we conclude that v2 is the center of the K-reduction, hence we
also are in case (iv), which gives (2).
Now assume that u3 is an optimal elementary T -reduction of v3 . By (2), we
know that the center of this reduction is v2 , and by the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis
4.25 applied to v3 (1) ≬v2 u3 , we get that u3 is reducible. We want to prove that
∆(v2 ) > deg(u3 ∖ v2 ), that is, Property (K4), which will imply that u3 is a Kreduction of v3 . By contradiction, assume deg(u3 ∖ v2 ) ⩾ ∆(v2 ), which is condition
(↺4) for the simplex v1 , v2 , u3 . Moreover conditions (↺1) and (↺3) for the simplex
v1 , v2 , u3 directly follow from the analogous conditions for the simplex v1 , v2 , v3 , and
condition (↺2) follows from the optimality of the reduction u3 . Thus v1 , v2 , u3 has
Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s), and from assertions (1) and (2) we conclude that u3
admits an elementary reduction with center v2 . This contradicts the optimality of
the reduction from v3 to u3 , and so we obtain (3).
Finally to prove (4), consider a first step of a reduction path from v3 to [id],
with respect to the good triangle T , as given by Lemma 4.26. By Lemma 4.6 this
first step is not a normal proper K-reduction, so that it is an optimal elementary

reduction, hence by (3) this is an elementary K-reduction, as expected.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

38

Corollary 4.28. Let µ > ν ∈ N3 be two consecutive degrees, and assume Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, ν. Let v3 be a reducible vertex with µ ⩾ deg v3 , and assume that u3 is an optimal elementary reduction of v3 with pivotal simplex v1 , v2 , v3 .
If v2 has no inner resonance, and no outer resonance in v3 , then either v2 is the
minimal line of v3 , or u3 is an elementary K-reduction of v3 .
Proof. Assume v2 is not the minimal line of v3 . By Proposition 3.7(2), the simplex
v1 , v2 , v3 has Strong Pivotal Form. Let T be a good triangle compatible with the
simplex v1 , v2 , v3 . In particular u3 is an optimal elementary T -reduction of v3 , so
we can conclude by Proposition 4.27(3).

4.C. Vertex with two low degree neighbors.
Set-Up 4.29. Let µ > ν ∈ N3 be two consecutive degrees, and assume the Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, µ. Let v3 , v3′ , v3′′ be vertices such that
●
●
●
●

µ ⩾ deg v3 , deg v3 > deg v3′ (hence ν ⩾ deg v3′ ), deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′′ ;
v3′ ≬v2′ v3 and v3′′ ≬v2′′ v3 with v2′ ≠ v2′′ ;
v3′ is reducible (hence v3 also is by the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis);
v2′ is minimal, in the sense that if u3 is an elementary reduction of v3 with
center u2 , which is the first step of a reduction path, then deg u2 ⩾ deg v2′ .

We denote by v1 = [f2 ] the intersection point of the lines v2′ and v2′′ . We fix choices
of f1 , f3 such that v2′ = Jf1 , f2 K and v2′′ = Jf2 , f3 K. Observe that it is possible that
deg f1 = deg f3 , and in this case (f1 , f2 , f3 ) is not a good representative of v3 . In any
case by Lemma 3.3 there exist some non-affine polynomials in two variables P1 , P3
such that (see Figure 7):
v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ];

v3′ = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + P3 (f1 , f2 )K;

v3′′ = Jf1 + P1 (f2 , f3 ), f2 , f3 K.

v3 =[f1 ,f2 ,f3 ]
v2′′ =Jf2 ,f3 K

●

●

v3′′ =Jf1 +P1 (f2 ,f3 ),f2 ,f3 K

v2′ =Jf1 ,f2 K
v3′ =Jf1 ,f2 ,f3 +P3 (f1 ,f2 )K

v1 =[f2 ]

Figure 7. Set-Up 4.29.
In this section we shall prove:
Proposition 4.30. Assume Set-Up 4.29. Then v3′′ is reducible.
We divide the proof in several lemmas. The proposition will be a direct consequence of Lemmas 4.32, 4.33, 4.34 and 4.35. We start with a consequence from the
minimality of v2′ .
Lemma 4.31. Assume Set-Up 4.29. If v2′ has inner resonance, then v2′ is the minimal line of v3 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

39

Proof. Assume first that there exists a ∈ k and r ⩾ 2 such that deg f2 > deg(f2 +af1r ).
Then consider the vertex w3 = [f1 , f2 + af1r , f3 ], which satisfies deg v3 > deg w3 .
Assume by contradiction that v2′ is not the minimal line of v3 . Then we have
deg f2 > deg f3 , hence m2 = [f1 , f3 ] is the minimal line of v3 . By the Square Lemma
3.4, we find u3 such that u3 ≬ w3 , u3 ≬ v3′ and deg v3 > deg u3 . By applying the
(ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 successively to v3′ ≬ u3 and u3 ≬ w3 , we find that
w3 is reducible. So we can take w3 as the first step of a reduction path from v3 ,
which contradicts the minimality of v2′ .
Now assume that there exist a ∈ k∗ and r ⩾ 2 such that deg f1 > deg(f1 + af2r ). If
′
v2 is not the minimal line, we have deg f1 ⩾ deg f3 .
If deg f1 = deg f3 , there exists b ∈ k∗ such that deg f1 > deg(f1 + bf3 ). Then
[f2 , f1 + bf3 ] is the minimal line of v3 , and we consider w3′ = [f1 + af2r , f2 , f1 + bf3 ],
which satisfies deg v3 > deg w3′ . As above, by the Square Lemma 3.4 and the (ν, µ)Induction Hypothesis 4.25, we obtain that w3′ can be chosen to be the first step of
a reduction path from v3 . This contradicts the minimality of v2′ .
If deg f1 > deg f3 , v2′′ = Jf2 , f3 K is the minimal line of v3 . We consider w3′′ =
[f1 + af2r , f2 , f3 ] which satisfies deg v3 > deg w3′′ . As before w3′′ can be chosen to be
the first step of a reduction path from v3 , with center v2′′ : again this contradicts the
minimality of v2′ .

Lemma 4.32. Assume Set-Up 4.29. If v2′ is not the minimal line in v3 , and has
outer resonance in v3 , then v3′′ is reducible.
Proof. Since v2′ = Jf1 , f2 K is not the minimal line in v3 , one of the degrees deg f1 or
deg f2 must realize the top degree of v3 .
First consider the case deg f2 = topdeg v3 . In this case, we have deg f1 ≠ deg f3 .
Indeed, assuming by contradiction that deg f1 = deg f3 , there would exist α ∈ k∗ such
that f3′ = f3 − αf1 satisfies deg f3 > deg f3′ . Then, we would have deg f2 > deg f1 >
deg f3′ , and the line v2′ = Jf1 , f2 K could not have outer resonance in v3 . Therefore,
(f1 , f2 , f3 ) is a good representative of v3 , and the assumption on outer resonance
means that deg f3 = deg f1r for some r ⩾ 2. Recall that by Lemma 3.3, the nonaffine polynomial P1 ∈ k[y, z] associated with the weak elementary reduction v3′′
of v3 satisfies deg f1 ⩾ P1 (f2 , f3 ). We have deg f2 /∈ N deg f3 , otherwise we would
have deg f2 ∈ N deg f1 , that is, v2′ would have inner resonance, and by Lemma 4.31
this would contradict v2′ ≠ m2 . Corollary 2.10(3) then gives 2 deg f2 = 3 deg f3 ,
and deg(v3 ∖ v2′′ ) ⩾ ∆(v2′′ ). But then the existence of δ ∈ N such that deg f2 =
3δ, deg f3 = 2δ and deg f1 > δ is not compatible with the existence of r ⩾ 2 such that
deg f3 = r deg f1 : contradiction.
Now consider the case deg f1 = topdeg v3 . In particular deg f1 > deg f2 and v1 =
[f2 ] is on the minimal line of v3 . Now we distinguish two subcases (see Figure 8):
● Case deg f1 > deg f3 . Then there exist a ∈ k and r ⩾ 2 such that deg f3 >
deg(f3 + af2r ), and v2′′ is the minimal line of v3 . We apply the Square Lemma 3.4 to
get u3 a common neighbor of v3′′ and w3′ = [f1 , f2 , f3 + af2r ] satisfying deg v3 > deg u3 ,
and then we conclude by the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied successively
to w3′ ≬ u3 and u3 ≬ v3′′ .
● Case deg f1 = deg f3 . Then there exists b ∈ k∗ such that deg f1 > deg(bf1 + f3 ).
As in the first case of the proof, the assumption on outer resonance implies that
(f1 , f2 , f3 + bf1 ) is a good representative of v3 , and there exists r ⩾ 2 such that
deg(bf1 +f3 ) = deg f2r . Then there exists a ∈ k such that u′3 = [f1 , f2 , bf1 +f3 +af2r ] and
u′′3 = [bf1 + f3 + af2r , f2 , f3 ] are (simple) elementary reductions of v3 with respective
centers v2′ and v2′′ . Moreover u′3 and u′′3 are neighbors, with center [bf1 + f3 + af2r , f2 ].

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

v3

40

v3
v3′

v3′′

●

●

●

●

●

v3′′

w3′

●

u′′
3

v3′

u′3

●

u3

deg f1 > deg f3

deg f1 = deg f3

Figure 8. Lemma 4.32, case deg f1 = topdeg v3 .
Again we conclude by applying the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 to v3′ ≬ u′3 ,
u′3 ≬ u′′3 and u′′3 ≬ v3′′ successively.

We conclude the case where v2′ is not equal to the minimal line m2 of v3 with the
following:
Lemma 4.33. Assume Set-Up 4.29, v2′ ≠ m2 (where m2 is the minimal line in v3 ),
and has no outer resonance in v3 . Then there exists u3 an elementary K-reduction
of v3 with center v2′ . Moreover, v3′′ is reducible, and there exists a reduction path
starting with a proper K-reduction from v3′′ to u3 .
Proof. By Lemma 4.31, we know that v2′ has no inner resonance. Then Corollary 4.28
says that any optimal elementary reduction u3 of v3 with center v2′ is an elementary
K-reduction. By the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied to v3′ ≬ u3 , we get
that u3 is reducible. The last assertion follows by the Stability of K-reductions 3.35,

Case (1) or (2).
Now we treat the situation where v2′ = m2 is the minimal line of v3 , and first we
identify some cases that we can handle with the Square Lemma 3.4.
Lemma 4.34. Assume Set-Up 4.29, and v2′ = m2 . In the following cases, v3′′ is
reducible:
(1) v3 admits a simple elementary reduction with simple center v2′ , v1 ;
(2) v3 admits a simple elementary reduction with simple center v2′′ , v1 ;
(3) v3′′ is a simple weak elementary reduction of v3 with simple center v2′′ , v1 .

v3
v3′′

●

v2′

●

v3′

v3′′

w3′

w3′′

v3
v2′′

●

●

v3′

v3′′

●

v1

v1

●

v3
v2′′

●

u3

Case (1)

●

●

u3

Case (2)

●

v3′

v1

●

●

u3

Case (3)

Figure 9. Lemma 4.34.
Proof. Since m2 = Jf1 , f2 K, we have v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K with deg f3 = topdeg v3 .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

41

(1) Denote by w3′ a simple elementary reduction of v3 with simple center v2′ , v1 .
By the Square Lemma 3.4, there exists u3 a neighbor of both w3′ and v3′′ such that
deg v3 > deg u3 (see Figure 9). Then we conclude by applying the (ν, µ)-Induction
Hypothesis 4.25 successively to v3′ ≬ w3′ , w3′ ≬ u3 and u3 ≬ v3′′ .
(2) Denote by w3′′ a simple elementary reduction of v3 with simple center v2′′ , v1 .
By the Square Lemma 3.4, there exists u3 a neighbor of both w3′′ and v3′ such that
deg v3 > deg u3 . Then we conclude by applying the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25
successively to v3′ ≬ u3 , u3 ≬ w3′′ and w3′′ ≬ v3′′ .
(3) By the Square Lemma 3.4, there exists u3 a neighbor of both v3′′ and v3′ such
that deg v3 > deg u3 . Again the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied successively
to v3′ ≬ u3 and u3 ≬ v3′′ yields that v3′′ is reducible.

The last logical step to finish the proof of Proposition 4.30 is the following lemma.
However, we should mention that we will be able to prove a posteriori that this case
never happens: see Corollary 5.4.
Lemma 4.35. Assume Set-Up 4.29, v2′ = m2 , and that we are not in one of the
cases covered by Lemma 4.34. Then there exists u′′3 an elementary K-reduction of
v3 with center v2′′ such that u′′3 is reducible. In particular, by the (ν, µ)-Induction
Hypothesis 4.25, v3′′ is reducible.
Proof. It is sufficient to check that the simplex v1 , v2′′ , v3 has Strong Pivotal Form
↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3: Indeed then one can apply Proposition 4.27(4) to get the
result.
On the one hand deg f3 > deg f1 ⩾ deg P1 (f2 , f3 ), and on the other hand since we
are not in the situation of Lemma 4.34(3) we have P1 (f2 , f3 ) ∈/ k[f2 ], so that
degvirt P1 (f2 , f3 ) > deg P1 (f2 , f3 ).

We also have deg f3 ∈/ N deg f2 since otherwise we could apply Lemma 4.34(1). So
we are in the hypotheses of Corollary 2.10(3), and there exist a degree δ ∈ N3 and
an odd integer s ⩾ 3 such that deg f2 = 2δ, deg f3 = sδ and
sδ > deg P1 (f2 , f3 ) ⩾ ∆(f3 , f2 ).
It remains to check (↺2): if v2′′ = Jf2 , f3 K had outer resonance in v3 then we would
have deg f1 ∈ N deg f2 , and we could apply Lemma 4.34(2), contrary to our assumption.

4.D. Proof of the Reducibility Theorem. Clearly Theorem 4.1 is a corollary of
Proposition 4.36. If a vertex v3 of type 3 in the complex C is reducible, then any
neighbor of v3 also is reducible.
Proof. We plan to prove Proposition 4.36 by induction on degree: we need to prove
that for any ν ∈ N3 , the Induction Hypothesis 4.25 holds for degrees ν, ν. Clearly
when ν = (1, 1, 1) this is true (because empty!).
Let µ > ν be two consecutive degrees in N3 . It is sufficient to prove the two
following facts.
Fact 4.37. Assume the Induction Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, ν. Then it also
holds for degrees ν, µ.
Fact 4.38. Assume the Induction Hypothesis 4.25 for degrees ν, µ. Then it also
holds for degrees µ, µ.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

42

To prove Fact 4.37, consider v3′ a reducible vertex with ν ⩾ deg v3′ , and let v3 be
a neighbor of v3′ , with center v2′ , and with deg v3 = µ (otherwise there is nothing to
prove). We want to prove that v3 is reducible.
If v2′ is the minimal line of v3 , then v3′ is a T -reduction of v3 for any good triangle
T and we are done.
If v2′ is not the minimal line of v3 , and has no inner or outer resonance in v3 , then
by Corollary 4.28 any optimal reduction u3 of v3 with respect to the center v2′ is
an elementary K-reduction of v3 . Since u3 is a neighbor of v3′ and ν ⩾ deg u3 , we
conclude by the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 that u3 is reducible. Hence v3 also
is reducible, with first step of a reduction path the K-reduction to u3 .
Finally assume that v2′ has resonance, and that v2′ is not the minimal line of v3 .
By Lemma 3.3 we can write
v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K,

v3′ = Jf1 , f2 , g3 K,

v2′ = Jf1 , f2 K,

with deg f1 > max{deg f3 , deg f2 } and g3 = f3 + P (f1 , f2 ) for some polynomial P .
If v2′ has inner resonance, then deg f1 = r deg f2 for some r ⩾ 2. There exists a ∈ k
such that v3′′ = [f1 + af2r , f2 , f3 ] is a simple elementary reduction of v3 with center
Jf2 , f3 K, which is the minimal line of v3 , hence belongs to any good triangle T . Then
we can apply the Square Lemma 3.4 to get u3 with ν ⩾ deg u3 and u3 ≬ v3′ , u3 ≬ v3′′ .
We conclude by the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25, applied successively to v3′ ≬ u3
and u3 ≬ v3′′ , that v3′′ is reducible, hence v3 also is.
If v2′ has no inner resonance, but has outer resonance in v3 , then deg f1 > deg f3 >
deg f2 and deg f3 = r deg f2 for some r ⩾ 2. There exists Q(f2 ) such that deg f3 >
deg(f3 + Q(f2 )) and deg(f3 + Q(f2 )) ∈/ N deg f2 . Let T be a good triangle of v3 . One
of the lines in T has the form u2 = Jf1 + af3 , f2 K. Set u3 = Jf1 + af3 , f2 , f3 + Q(f2 )K,
which is an elementary T -reduction of v3 with center u2 , and a neighbor of w3 =
Jf1 , f2 , f3 + Q(f2 )K. By the (ν, ν)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 applied successively to
v3′ ≬ w3 and w3 ≬ u3 , we obtain that u3 is reducible, hence v3 also is.
To prove Fact 4.38, consider v3 a reducible vertex with deg v3 = µ, and let v3′′ be
a neighbor of v3 , with center v2′′ , such that
deg v3 ⩾ deg v3′′ .
We want to prove that v3′′ is reducible.
First assume that v3 admits a reduction path such that the first step v3′ is an
elementary reduction, with center v2′ . Moreover we assume that v2′ has minimal
degree between all possible such first center of a reduction path. If v2′ = v2′′ , then v3′′
is a neighbor of v3′ and by the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis 4.25 we are done. If on
the contrary v2′ and v2′′ are two different lines in P2 (v3 ), we are in the situation of
Set-Up 4.29. Then we conclude by Proposition 4.30.
Finally assume that v3 admits a reduction path such that the first step is a
proper K-reduction v3′ . If this proper K-reduction is normal, then by Stability of
K-reduction 3.35, Case (3) or (4), we obtain that v3′ is also a K-reduction of v3′′ ,
and we are done. On the other hand if v3′ is a non-normal proper K-reduction of v3 ,
then by Lemma 3.27 we get the existence of a vertex u3 that is both an elementary
K-reduction of v3 and a neighbor of v3′ . By applying the (ν, µ)-Induction Hypothesis
4.25 to v3′ ≬ u3 we get that u3 is reducible, and we are reduced to the previous case
of the proof.


COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

43

5. Simple connectedness
In this section we prove that the complex C is simply connected, which amounts
to saying that the group Tame(A3 ) is the amalgamated product of three subgroups
along their pairwise intersections.
5.A. Consequences of the Reducibility Theorem. Now that the Reducibility
Theorem 4.1 is proved, all previous results that were dependent of a reducibility
assumption become stronger. This is the case in particular for:
● The Induction Hypothesis 4.25, which is always true;
● Lemma 4.8, which now implies that if v3 is part of a simplex with Strong
Pivotal Form, then v3 does not admit an elementary reduction with center
m2 the minimal line of v3 : see the proof of Proposition 5.1 below;
● Proposition 4.27 and Corollary 4.28;
● Set-Up 4.29, hence also all results in §4.C.
In particular we single out the following striking consequences of the Reducibility
Theorem 4.1.
Proposition 5.1. Let u3 be an elementary K-reduction of v3 , with center v2 . Then
v3 does not admit any elementary reduction with center distinct from v2 .
Proof. By contradiction, assume that v3′ is an elementary reduction of v3 , with center
v2′ distinct from v2 . Then by Stability of K-reduction 3.35, Case (1) or (2), there
exists w3′ with deg w3′ = deg v3 such that u3 is a proper K-reduction of v3′ via w3′ . In
particular, v3′ is an elementary reduction of w3′ with center m2 , the minimal line of
w3′ . Moreover, by Corollary 3.8, the pivotal simplex of this proper K-reduction has
Strong Pivotal Form. Now consider v3′′ an optimal elementary reduction of w3′ with

center m2 : Lemma 4.8 gives a contradiction.
Corollary 5.2. Let u3 be a proper K-reduction of v3 , via w3 . Then deg w3 = deg v3 .
Proof. By Proposition 5.1 we cannot have deg w3 > deg v3 .



Corollary 5.3. Let v3 admitting a K-reduction, then any line u2 in P (v3 ) has no
inner resonance. In other words, Case (2) in Corollary 3.28 never happens.
2

Proof. We use the notation v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K from Corollary 3.28, which says that if
there exists a line in v3 with inner resonance, then deg f1 = 2 deg f3 and deg f1 =
3
2
2 deg f2 . But in this case we would have an elementary reduction [f1 + af3 , f2 , f3 ]
of v3 with center the minimal line Jf2 , f3 K ≠ v2 , in contradiction with Proposition
5.1

We also obtain that the situation of Lemma 4.35 never happens:
Corollary 5.4. Assume Set-Up 4.29, and v2′ = m2 . Then we are in one of the cases
covered by Lemma 4.34.
Proof. Otherwise by Lemma 4.35 there would exist an elementary K-reduction of
v3 with center v2′′ , in addition to the elementary reduction with center v2′ : This is
not compatible with Proposition 5.1.

5.B. Local homotopies. To prove the simple connectedness of C, the following
terminology will be convenient.
We call combinatorial path a sequence of vertices v3 (i), i = 0, . . . , n, such
that for all i = 0, . . . , n − 1, v3 (i) ≬ v3 (i + 1). Denoting by v2 (i) the center of

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

44

v3 (i) ≬ v3 (i + 1), we think of such a sequence as equivalent to a path γ∶ [0, 2n] → C
where for each i = 0, . . . , n − 1, the interval [2i, 2i + 2] is mapped isometrically onto
the union of the two edges v3 (i), v2 (i) and v2 (i), v3 (i + 1). In particular we have
these parameterizations in mind when we say that two such combinatorial paths are
homotopic in C. We say that a combinatorial path is locally geodesic if for all i,
v2 (i) ≠ v2 (i+1) (and v3 (i) ≠ v3 (i+1), but this is already contained in the definition of
v3 (i) ≬ v3 (i + 1)). Observe that starting from any combinatorial path, by removing
some vertices we can always obtain a locally geodesic one. If v3 (0) = v3 (n) we say
that the path is a combinatorial loop with base point v3 (0). If v3 (0) = [id], the
maximal vertex of such a loop is defined as the vertex v3 (i0 ) that realizes the
maximum max deg v3 (i), with i0 maximal. In particular, we have
deg v3 (i0 ) > deg v3 (i0 + 1)

and

deg v3 (i0 ) ⩾ deg v3 (i0 − 1).

Lemma 5.5. Let v3 (i), i = 0, . . . , n, be a locally geodesic loop with base point at [id],
and let v3 (i0 ) be the maximal vertex. Then the combinatorial path v3 (i0 − 1), v3 (i0 ),
v3 (i0 + 1) is homotopic in C to a combinatorial path from v3 (i0 − 1) to v3 (i0 + 1)
where all type 3 intermediate vertices have degree strictly less than deg v3 (i0 ).

Proof. Since deg v3 (i0 ) > deg v3 (i0 + 1), we know that v3 (i0 ) admits an elementary
reduction, so it makes sense to choose v2′ a vertex of minimal degree such that
v3 = v3 (i0 ) admits an elementary reduction v3′ with center v2′ . Then we are going to
apply Set-Up 4.29 twice, taking v3′′ to be successively v3 (i0 − 1) and v3 (i0 + 1). It is
sufficient to prove that in both cases the combinatorial path v3′′ , v3 , v3′ is homotopic
to a combinatorial path from v3′′ to v3′ where all type 3 intermediate vertices have
degree strictly less than deg v3 . Observe that there are degenerate cases which are
easy to handle. First if v3′ = v3′′ , we just take the combinatorial path with one single
vertex v3′ . Second, if v3′ and v3′′ share the same center with v3 , we can just discard
v3 to obtain a combinatorial path from v3′′ to v3′ without any intermediate vertex, so
we can indeed assume that the centers v2′ and v2′′ are distinct as required in Set-Up
4.29.
If v2′ = m2 then by Corollary 5.4 we are in one of the cases covered by Lemma
4.34, and the homotopy is clear in all cases (see Figure 9). For instance in Case (1)
we replace the path v3′′ , v3 , v3′ by v3′′ , u3 , w3′ , v3′ , and the other cases are similar.
If v2′ ≠ m2 , and v2′ has outer resonance in v3 , then we are in one of the two cases
covered by Lemma 4.32, and again the homotopy is clear (see Figure 8).
If v2′ ≠ m2 , and v2′ has no outer resonance in v3 , then by Lemma 4.33 there
exists u3 an elementary K-reduction of v3 with center v2′ . Therefore, in that case,
up to replacing v3′ by u3 we may assume without loss in generality that v3′ is an
elementary K-reduction of v3 . By Proposition 5.1, this can only happen in the case
v3′′ = v3 (i0 − 1), and deg v3 (i0 ) = deg v3 (i0 − 1). By Stability of K-reduction 3.35,
Case (1) or (2), v3′ is a proper K-reduction of v3 (i0 − 1), and up to a local homotopy
(see Figure 6, Case (2)) we can assume that the intermediate vertex is v3 = v3 (i0 ).
If this proper K-reduction is not normal, we obtain the expected homotopy from
the normalization process of Lemma 3.27 (see Figure 5). Otherwise, By Stability of
K-reduction 3.35, Case (3) or (4), we get that v3′ is a normal proper K-reduction of
v3 (i0 − 2), with v2 (i0 − 2) = v2 (i0 − 1) the minimal line of v3 (i0 ): This contradicts
our assumption that we started with a locally geodesic loop.

We need one last ingredient before proving the simple connectedness of the complex C.
Lemma 5.6. The link L(v1 ) of a vertex of type 1 is a connected graph.

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

45

Proof. By transitivity of the action of Tame(A3 ) on vertices of type 1, it is sufficient
to work with the link L([x3 ]). Let v3 = Jf1 , f2 , x3 K be a vertex of type 3 in L([x3 ]),
where we choose our representative such that deg f1 > deg f2 .
First observe that v3 does not admit any elementary K-reduction. Indeed by
Corollary 3.8 the pivotal simplex of such a reduction should have Strong Pivotal
Form ↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3. In particular there exist δ ∈ N3 and a reordering
{g2 , g3 } = {f2 , x3 } such that
deg f1 = sδ,

deg g2 = 2δ

and

sδ > deg g3 > (s − 2)δ.

But since deg x3 = (0, 0, 1) is the minimal possible degree of a component of an
automorphism, both cases g2 = x3 or g3 = x3 are impossible.
It follows that v3 also does not admit a proper K-reduction: such a reduction
would be via w3 = Jg1 , f2 , x3 K, but we just proved that such a w3 cannot admit an
elementary K-reduction.
By Theorem 4.1, we conclude that v3 admits an elementary reduction v3′ , which
clearly must admit [x3 ] as pivot, since there is no non-constant polynomial P ∈
k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] with deg x3 > deg P . In particular, v3′ also is in L([x3 ]), and by induction on degree, we obtain the existence of a reduction path from v3 to [id] that stays
in L([x3 ]).

Now we recover a result of [Umi06] and [Wri15], about relations in Tame(A3 ).
Precisely, Umirbaev gives an algebraic description of the relations, and Wright shows
that this result can be rephrased in terms of an amalgamated product structure over
three subgroups. Our proof follows the same strategy as in [BFL14, Proposition
3.10].
Proposition 5.7. The complex C is simply connected.
Proof. Let γ be a loop in C. We want to show that it is homotopic to a trivial loop.
Without loss in generality, we can assume that the image of γ is contained in the
1-skeleton of the square complex, and that γ(0) = Jx1 , x2 , x3 K is the vertex of type 3
associated with the identity.
A priori (the image of) γ is a sequence of edges of arbitrary type. By Lemma 5.6,
we can perform a homotopy to avoid each vertex of type 1. So now we assume that
vertices in γ are alternatively of type 2 and 3. Precisely, up to a reparametrization
we can assume that for each i, γ(2i) has type 3 and γ(2i + 1) has type 2, so that γ
defines a combinatorial path by setting v3 (i) = γ(2i) for each i. By removing some
of these vertices we can also assume that γ is a locally geodesic loop.
Let v3 (i0 ) be the maximal vertex of the loop, and δ0 its degree. Then by Lemma
5.5 we can conclude by induction on the couple (δ0 , i0 ), ordered with lexicographic
order.

Since Tame(A3 ) acts on a simply connected 2-dimensional simplicial complex with
fundamental domain a simplex, we can recover the group from the data of the stabilizers of each type of vertex. This is a simple instance of the theory of developable
complexes of groups in the sense of Haefliger (see [BH99, III.C]). Following Wright
we can phrase this fact as follows:

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

46

Corollary 5.8 ([Wri15, Theorem 2]). The group Tame(A3 ) is the amalgamated
product of the three following subgroups along their pairwise intersections:
Stab([x1 , x2 , x3 ]) = A3 ;

Stab([x1 , x2 ]) = {(ax1 + bx2 + c, a′ x1 + b′ x2 + c′ , αx3 + P (x1 , x2 ))};
Stab([x1 ]) = {(ax1 + b, f2 (x1 , x2 , x3 ), f3 (x1 , x2 , x3 )}.
6. Examples

We gather in this last section a few examples of interesting reductions.
Example 6.1 (Elementary K-reduction with s = 3). Let
g = (x1 , x2 , x3 + x21 − x32 ),

t1 = (x1 + αx2 x3 + x33 , x2 + x23 , x3 ).
Clearly in the composition g ○ t1 the terms of degree 6 cancel each other. Moreover,
if we choose α = 32 this is also the case for terms of degree 5:
g ○ t1 = (x1 + 32 x2 x3 + x33 , x2 + x23 , x3 + x21 − x32 + 3x1 x2 x3 +

x23
4 (8x1 x3

− 3x22 )) .

Consider now a triangular automorphism preserving the quadratic form 8x1 x3 − 3x22
that appears as a factor:
t2 = (x1 , x2 + x21 , x3 + 34 x1 x2 + 38 x31 ).

A direct computation shows that the components of f = g ○t1 ○t2 = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) admits
the following degrees:
(9, 0, 0), (6, 0, 0), (7, 0, 1).
Finally, u3 = [t1 ○ t2 ], whose degrees of components are
(9, 0, 0), (6, 0, 0), (3, 0, 0),

is an elementary K-reduction of v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ]. Following notation from the definition of Strong Pivotal Form, we have s = 3 and δ = (3, 0, 0). Moreover
2
9 2
3
df1 ∧ df2 = − 23 (x21 − x2 )dx2 ∧ dx3 + ( 27
16 x1 x2 + 8 x2 + 2 x1 x3 + 1)dx1 ∧ dx2

+ (− 49 x31 − 32 x1 x2 + 2x3 )dx1 ∧ dx3 .

so that deg df1 ∧ df2 = (4, 0, 1), from the contribution of the factor x31 dx1 ∧ dx3 .

Example 6.2 (Elementary K-reduction with s = 5, see also [Kur09]). One can
apply the same strategy to produce examples of K-reduction with s ⩾ 3 an arbitrary
odd number. We give the construction for s = 5, and leave the generalization to the
reader. Let
g = (x1 , x2 , x3 + x21 − x52 ),

t1 = (x1 + αx22 x3 + βx2 x33 + x53 , x2 + x23 , x3 ).
Observe that αx22 x3 + βx2 x33 + x53 is homogeneous of degree 5, by putting weight 1
5
on x3 and weight 2 on x2 . By choosing α = 15
8 , β = 2 , we minimize the degree of the
composition:
g ○ t1 = (x1 +

15 2
8 x2 x3

+ 52 x2 x33 + x53 , x2 + x23 , x3 + 81 x43 (16x1 x3 − 5x32 ) + ⋯) .

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

47

Now take the following triangular automorphism, which preserves the polynomial
16x1 x3 − 5x32 :
5
t2 = (x1 , x2 + x21 , x3 + 16
(3x1 x22 + 3x31 x2 + x51 )) .

We compute the degrees of the components of f = g ○ t1 ○ t2 = (f1 , f2 , f3 ):
(25, 0, 0), (10, 0, 0), (20, 3, 0).

Finally, u3 = [t1 ○ t2 ], whose degrees of components are

(25, 0, 0), (10, 0, 0), (5, 0, 0),

is an elementary K reduction of v3 = [f1 , f2 , f3 ]. Here we have s = 5 and δ = (5, 0, 0).
Moreover
(x21 + x2 ) dx2 ∧ dx3 + (2x3 − 85 (5x51 − 9x31 x2 − 3x1 x22 )) dx1 ∧ dx3
df1 ∧ df2 = − 15
8
2

75
(5x41 x22 + 9x21 x32 + 3x42 ) +
+ ( 128

3
15
8 (x1 x3

+ 2x1 x2 x3 ) + 1) dx1 ∧ dx2 ,

so that deg df1 ∧ df2 = (5, 3, 0), from the contribution of the factor x41 x22 dx1 ∧ dx2 .

Example 6.3 (Elementary reduction without Strong Pivotal Form). We give examples of elementary reduction that show that the three assumptions in Proposition
3.7 are necessary to get Strong Pivotal Form.
(1) Let f = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) ∈ Tame(A3 ) and r ⩾ 2 such that
deg f1 > deg f3 = r deg f2 .
In particular there exists a ∈ k such that deg f3 > deg(f3 + af2r ). For instance
f = (x1 + x33 , x2 , x3 + x22 ) is such an automorphism, for r = 2 and a = −1. Then
u3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 + af2r K is an elementary reduction of v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K, and the pivotal
simplex does not have Strong Pivotal Form. Observe that v2 = Jf1 , f2 K has outer
resonance in v3 .
(2) Let u3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 +P (f1 , f2 )K be an elementary K-reduction of w3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K,
with 2 deg f1 = s deg f2 for some odd s ⩾ 3. For instance we can start with one of the
′
r
r
examples 6.1 or 6.2. Pick any integer r ⩾ s+1
2 . Then v3 = Jf1 +f2 , f2 , f3 +P (f1 −f2 , f2 )K
r
is an elementary reduction of v3 = Jf1 + f2 , f2 , f3 K, and the pivotal simplex does not
have Strong Pivotal Form. Observe that the center v2 = Jf1 + f2r , f2 K has inner
resonance.
(3) With the notation of Example 6.1 or 6.2, the elementary reduction from Jg○t1 K
to Jt1 K gives an example of an elementary reduction where the center m2 , which is
the minimal line, does not have inner or outer resonance, and again the pivotal
simplex does not have Strong Pivotal Form.
Example 6.4 (Non-normal proper K-reduction). Pick the elementary K-reduction
from Example 6.2, and set v3′ = [f1 +f22 , f2 , f3 ], which is a weak elementary reduction
of v3 . Then u3 is a non-normal proper K-reduction of v3′ , via v3 . This corresponds
to Case (1) of Stability of a K-reduction 3.35. We mention again that it is an open
question whether there exists any normal proper K-reduction.
Non Example 6.5 (Hypothetical type II and type III reductions). From Corollary
3.8 we know that if v3 admits an elementary K-reduction, then the pivotal simplex
has Strong Pivotal Form ↺(s) for some odd s ⩾ 3. In particular if s = 3, then
v3 = Jf1 , f2 , f3 K with deg f1 = 3δ, deg f2 = 2δ and deg f3 > δ for some δ ∈ N3 . It is
not clear if there exists an example of such a reduction with 32 δ > deg f3 , or even
2δ > deg f3 . Observe that such an example would be the key for the existence of

COMBINATORICS OF THE TAME AUTOMORPHISM GROUP

48

the following reductions (for the definition of a reduction of type II or III, see the
original paper [SU04b], or [Kur10, §7]):
(1) If 32 δ > deg f3 , then v3′ = Jf1 + f32 , f2 , f3 K would admit a normal proper Kreduction, via v3 : This would correspond to a type III reduction.
(2) If 2δ > deg f3 > 23 δ, then v3 would admit an elementary K-reduction such
that the pivot [f2 ] is distinct from the minimal vertex [f3 ]: This would
correspond to a type II reduction.
(3) If 32 δ > deg f3 , then v3′′ = Jf1 , f2 + f32 , f3 K would be an example of a vertex
that admits a reduction along a center with outer resonance in v3′′ , but that
does not admit a reduction with center the minimal line of v3′′ (see Lemma
4.32).
References
[BFL14] C. Bisi, J.-P. Furter & S. Lamy. The tame automorphism group of an affine quadric
threefold acting on a square complex. Journal de l’École Polytechnique - Mathématiques,
1:161–223, 2014.
[BH99] M. R. Bridson & A. Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, volume 319 of
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[CL13] S. Cantat & S. Lamy. Normal subgroups in the Cremona group. Acta Math., 210(1):31–94,
2013. With an appendix by Yves de Cornulier.
[HP94] W. Hodge & D. Pedoe. Methods of algebraic geometry. Vol. I. Cambridge Mathematical
Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. Book I: Algebraic preliminaries,
Book II: Projective space, Reprint of the 1947 original.
[Kur08] S. Kuroda. A generalization of the Shestakov-Umirbaev inequality. J. Math. Soc. Japan,
60(2):495–510, 2008.
[Kur09] S. Kuroda. Automorphisms of a polynomial ring which admit reductions of type I. Publ.
Res. Inst. Math. Sci., 45(3):907–917, 2009.
[Kur10] S. Kuroda. Shestakov-Umirbaev reductions and Nagata’s conjecture on a polynomial automorphism. Tohoku Math. J. (2), 62(1):75–115, 2010.
[Lam02] S. Lamy. Une preuve géométrique du théorème de Jung. Enseign. Math. (2), 48(3-4):291–
315, 2002.
[Lon16] A. Lonjou. Non simplicité du groupe de Cremona sur tout corps. Ann. Inst. Fourier,
66(5):2021–2046, 2016.
[LP16] S. Lamy & P. Przytycki. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of the three-dimensional tame automorphism group. arXiv:1610.05457, 2016.
[Mar15] A. Martin. On the acylindrical hyperbolicity of the tame automorphism group of SL2 (C).
arXiv:1512.07526, 2015.
[SU04a] I. P. Shestakov & U. U. Umirbaev. Poisson brackets and two-generated subalgebras of
rings of polynomials. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 17(1):181–196, 2004.
[SU04b] I. P. Shestakov & U. U. Umirbaev. The tame and the wild automorphisms of polynomial
rings in three variables. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 17(1):197–227, 2004.
[Umi06] U. U. Umirbaev. Defining relations of the tame automorphism group of polynomial algebras
in three variables. J. Reine Angew. Math., 600:203–235, 2006.
[Vén11] S. Vénéreau. A parachute for the degree of a polynomial in algebraically independent ones.
Math. Ann., 349(3):589–597, 2011.
[Wri15] D. Wright. The generalized amalgamated product structure of the tame automorphism
group in dimension three. Transform. Groups, 20(1):291–304, 2015.
Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, 118 route de
Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
E-mail address: slamy@math.univ-toulouse.fr

