NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO
TWISTED COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRAS

arXiv:1501.06925v2 [math.AC] 29 Sep 2015

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Abstract. The resolutions of determinantal ideals exhibit a remarkable stability property:
for fixed rank but growing dimension, the terms of the resolution stabilize (in an appropriate
sense). One may wonder if other sequences of ideals or modules over coordinate rings of
matrices exhibit similar behavior. We show that this is indeed the case. In fact, our main
theorem is more fundamental in nature: it states that certain large algebraic structures
(which are examples of twisted commutative algebras) are noetherian. These are important
new examples of large noetherian algebraic structures, and ones that are in some ways quite
different from previous examples.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Generalities on tca’s
3. ModK and algebraic representations
4. Proof of the main theorems
5. A Gröbner-theoretic approach to the main theorems
References

1
5
8
15
17
20

1. Introduction
Let An be the coordinate ring of the space of symmetric bilinear forms on Cn , that is,
Sym(Sym2 (Cn )). Inside of Spec(An ) is the closed subset V (In,r ) of forms of rank at most r
defined by the determinantal ideal In,r . The resolution of An /In,r over An is explicitly known
by a classical result of Lascoux [L] (see also [We, Chapter 6]). The explicit description of the
resolution reveals an interesting feature: its terms stabilize as n grows. More precisely, the
decomposition of TorpAn (An /In,r , C) into irreducible representations of GLn is independent
of n for n ≫ p, r, when one appropriately identifies irreducibles of GLn with a subset of
those for GLn+1 .
Given this observation, one may wonder if the same phenomenon holds true more generally.
That is, suppose that for each n ≥ 0 we have a finitely generated GLn -equivariant An -module
Mn such that the M• are “compatible” in an appropriate sense. Do the resolutions of the
Mn stabilize?
Date: September 18, 2015.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13E05, 13A50.
SS was supported by a Miller research fellowship. AS was supported by NSF grant DMS-1303082.
1

2

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

The main result of this paper (Theorem 1.1) implies that the answer to this question is
“yes.” In fact, Theorem 1.1 establishes a more fundamental result: compatible sequences of
finitely generated equivariant An -modules are “noetherian” in an appropriate sense.
1.1. Statement of results. Instead of working with a compatible sequence of An -modules,
we prefer to pass to the limit in n and work with a single module over the ring Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )).
This ring, with its GL∞ action, is an example of a twisted commutative algebra (tca);
see §2.1 for the general definition. Given a tca A, there is a notion of (finitely generated) Amodule, and A is said to be noetherian if any submodule of a finitely generated A-module
is again finitely generated.
Our main result is the following theorem:
V
Theorem 1.1. The tca’s Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) and Sym( 2 (C∞ )) are noetherian.
We also prove a variant of the above result. A bivariate tca is like a tca, but where the
group GL∞ × GL∞ acts. We prove:

Theorem 1.2. The bivariate tca Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ) is noetherian.
Remark 1.3. Let FIM be the category whose objects are finite sets and where a morphism
X → Y is a pair (f, Γ) consisting of an injection f : X → Y and a perfect matching Γ on Y \
f (X). Then the category of Sym(Sym2 (C∞ ))-modules is equivalent to the category of FIMmodules over C (see [SS3, §4.3], where FIM is called the upwards Brauer category). Thus
Theorem 1.1 shows that finitely generated FIM-modules are noetherian. This is reminiscent
of the noetherianity result for FI-modules (see [CEF, Theorem 1.3]), but much more difficult.
There are analogous reinterpretations for the other two cases.

1.2. Motivation. We offer a few pieces of motivation for our work.
• Our main theorems generalize and place into the proper context the stability phenomena observed in the resolutions of determinantal ideals and related ideals (such
as those considered in [RW]).
• The algebras appearing in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are closely related to the representation theory of orthogonal and symplectic groups; for example, see [SS3] or Example 1.4 below. We believe our theorems will have useful applications in this area.
• The tca’s we consider provide important new additions to the growing list of large
noetherian algebraic structures; see §1.3 for further discussion.
• FIM-modules are formally very similar to the FI-modules studied in [CEF, CEFN].
Numerous examples of FI-modules have been found, and the noetherian property
for FI-modules often translates to interesting new theorems about the examples
(e.g., representation stability in the cohomology of configuration spaces). We do
not currently have analogous examples of FIM-modules, but when examples are
found (which we expect), Theorem 1.1 will yield interesting new results about them.
Example 1.4. For δ ∈ C define the Brauer category B(δ) as follows: objects are finite
sets, and morphisms are Brauer diagrams, where composition of Brauer diagrams uses the
parameter δ. One can regard FIM as a subcategory of B(δ), and from this one can deduce
noetherianity of B(δ)-modules from Theorem 1.1. Suppose that δ = n − m with integers n
and m. Then one obtains an interesting B(δ)-module by S 7→ (Cn|m)⊗S , where Cn|m is the
super vector space of the indicated super dimension. This module is closely connected to
the representation theory of the orthosymplectic Lie algebra osp(n|m). Our theorem shows

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

3

that any submodule of this module is finitely generated. The second and third author plan
to study B(δ)-modules more closely in a future paper, and the noetherian property will be
of foundational importance.

1.3. Connection to previous work. Theorem 1.1 fits into a theme that has emerged in
recent years where large algebraic structures have been found to be noetherian. See [AH,
Co, HS] for examples of S∞ -equivariant polynomial rings. Some other examples include ∆modules [Sn], FI-modules [CEF, CEFN] (see also [SS1]), FS-modules [SS4], VIC(R)-modules
[PS], and certain spaces of infinite matrices [DK, DE, Eg].
However, the noetherian results of this paper seem fundamentally more difficult than the
previous ones. We do not know how to make this observation precise, but offer the following
observation. One can almost always use Gröbner bases to reduce a noetherianity problem
in algebra to one in combinatorics (see [SS4]). In the previous noetherianity results, the
combinatorial problems ultimately concern words in a formal language, and can be easily
solved using Higman’s lemma. In contrast, the combinatorial problem that naturally arises
in the present case (Question 5.2) is graph-theoretic, and does not seem approachable by
Higman’s lemma. Alternatively, this division can be seen in terms of the asymptotics of
Hilbert functions: in the previous noetherian results, the Hilbert functions have exponential
growth, while in the present case the growth is super-exponential.
Due to this fundamental new difficulty, we have been forced to introduce new methods to
prove the main theorem. We believe these will be useful more generally.
1.4. Outline of proof. We now outline the proof of noetherianity for A = Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )).
Let K = Frac(A) and let Modtors
A be the category of torsion A-modules, where we say that an
A-module M is torsion if M ⊗A K = 0. If I is a non-zero ideal of A then the quotient tca A/I
is “essentially bounded,” and it is not difficult to conclude from this that A/I is noetherian
(see Proposition 2.4); it follows that finitely generated objects of Modtors
are noetherian.
A
,
which
we
denote by ModK .
We next consider the Serre quotient category ModA / Modtors
A
The intuition for ModK comes from the following picture, which is not rigorous:
The scheme Spec(A) is the space of symmetric bilinear forms on C∞ . A-modules
correspond to GL∞ -equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves on Spec(A). Torsion Amodules correspond to sheaves that restrict to zero on the open set U of nondegenerate forms. Thus objects of ModK correspond to equivariant quasi-coherent
sheaves on U. But such sheaves correspond to representations of O∞ , since GL∞
acts transitively on U with stabilizer O∞ .
The above reasoning is fraught with errors. Nonetheless, it leads to a correct statement: we
prove (Theorem 3.1) that ModK is equivalent to the category of algebraic representations of
O∞ , as defined in [SS3]. The results of [SS3] can therefore be transferred to ModK , and give
an essentially complete understanding of this category.
We would now like to piece together what we know about Modtors
and ModK to deduce
A
the noetherianity of A. However, the noetherianity of A is not a formal consequence of what
we have so far: we need to use more information about how ModA is built out of the two
and ModK . We proceed in three steps.
pieces Modtors
A
(1) We show that if M is a finitely generated torsion A-module then M admits a resolution
by finitely generated projective A-modules (Proposition 4.3). The essential input here
is [RW], which explicitly computes the resolutions of certain torsion modules.

4

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

(2) We next show that the section functor ModK → ModA , defined as the right adjoint of
the localization functor ModA → ModK , takes finite length objects of ModK to finitely
generated objects of ModA . This follows from step (1) and the structural results for
ModK (see Proposition 4.8).
(3) Finally, the noetherianity of A is deduced from (2), and our knowledge of Modtors
A and
ModK , by a short argument (see Theorem 4.9).
Remark 1.5. Let us offer some broader context for this proof. Suppose that X is a scheme
equipped with an action of a group G. We say that X is topologically G-noetherian if
every descending chain of G-stable Zariski closed subsets in X stabilizes. We say that X is
(scheme-theoretically) G-noetherian if the analogous statement holds for subschemes1 .
Suppose that U is a G-stable open subscheme of X, and let Z be the complement of U. One
would then like to relate the noetherianity of X to that of U and Z.
For topological noetherianity, there is no problem: if U and Z are topologically Gnoetherian then so is X (see [DK, §5]). This is a fundamental tool used in various topological
noetherianity results, such as [DE, DK, Eg]. Unfortunately, the analogous statement for
scheme-theoretic G-noetherianity does not hold: this is why we cannot directly conclude the
and ModK .
noetherianity of A from that of Modtors
A
The main technical innovation in this paper is our method for deducing (in our specific
situation) scheme-theoretic noetherianity of X from that of U and Z, together with some
extra information. This approach is likely to be applicable in other situations, and could
be very useful: for instance, if one could upgrade the topological results of [DK] to schemetheoretic results, it is likely that one could also get finiteness results for higher syzygies in
addition to results about equations (and not just set-theoretic equations).

1.5. Twisted graded-commutative algebras. One can define a notion of twisted gradedcommutative algebra, the basic examples being exterior algebras on finite length polynomial
representations of GL∞ . The noetherianity problem for these algebras is interesting, and has
applications similar to V
the commutative case. Transpose duality interchanges the algebras
∞
∞
Sym(C ⊗ C ) and (C∞ ⊗ C∞ ), and so noetherianity of the latter is an immediate
V
VV
consequence of Theorem 1.2. However, the noetherianity of (Sym2 (C∞ )) and ( 2 (C∞ ))
cannot be formally deduced from the results of this paper. We treat these algebras in a followup paper [NSS]. The main ideas are the same, but the details are more complicated: for
example,
while Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) is closely related to the orthogonal group O∞ , the algebra
V
2
(Sym (C∞ )) is closely related to the periplectic superalgebra pe∞ .

1.6. Open questions. We list a number of open problems related to this paper.
(1) Theorem 1.1 states that the tca Sym(V ) is noetherian when V is an irreducible polynomial representation of degree 2. It would be natural to generalize this result by
allowing V to be a finite length representation of degree ≤ 2. Eggermont [Eg] has
shown that these tca’s are topologically noetherian (i.e., radical ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition). This suggests that they are all noetherian. However, new
ideas are needed to actually prove this.
(2) It is desirable to have results (either positive or negative) when V has degree > 2. One
might begin by trying to prove topological noetherianity for degree 3 representations.
The third author is currently investigating this with H. Derksen and R. Eggermont.
1One

should ask that all G-equivariant coherent sheaves are noetherian, not just the structure sheaf.

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

5

(3) Are the characteristic p analogs of the tca’s considered in this paper noetherian? Our
methods do not apply there. We point out that there are two versions of tca’s in
positive characteristic: one defined in terms of polynomial representations, and one
defined in terms of symmetric groups.
(4) Theorem 1.1 shows that A = Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) is noetherian if we make use of the
GL∞ action. On the other hand, it is known that A is not noetherian if one only
makes use of the S∞ action [Dr, Example 2.4]. What happens for other groups? Is A
noetherian with respect to O∞ or Sp∞ ?
(5) In §4.2, we show that torsion modules over Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ) satisfy the property (FT)
by appealing to [RW], which explicitly computes the resolutions of certain torsion
modules. We also show that torsion modules over Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) satisfy (FT), but
deduce this by a rather clumsy argument from the previous case since the analog of
[RW] is not known in this case. We therefore believe that carrying out the analog of
[RW] for Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) would be a worthwhile undertaking.
(6) Question 5.2 is an interesting and purely combinatorial question that is needed for the
Gröbner approach to Theorem 1.1.
1.7. Outline of paper. In §2, we review definitions and prove some general properties of
tca’s. These include generalities on the localization functor ModA → ModK and the section
functor S : ModK → ModA used in the proof of the main result. In §3 we prove that for the
specific algebras under consideration, the Serre quotient category ModK can be described
in terms of representations of infinite rank classical groups. The proofs of Theorem 1.1 and
Theorem 1.2 are in §4. Finally, §5 discusses an incomplete Gröbner theoretic approach to
the main theorems.
Remark 1.6. Transpose duality [SS2, §7.4] interchanges the two algebras in Theorem 1.1,
so it suffices to prove the noetherianity for either
V one. We give arguments for both when
convenient, but sometimes omit details for Sym( 2 (C∞ )).

2. Generalities on tca’s

2.1. Definitions. A representation of GL∞ is polynomial if it appears as a subquotient
of a (possibly infinite) direct sum of representations of the form (C∞ )⊗k . Polynomial representations are semi-simple, and the simple ones are the Sλ (C∞ ), where Sλ denotes the Schur
functor corresponding to the partition λ. A polynomial representation is said to have finite
length if it is a direct sum of finitely many simple representations. See [SS2] for details.
A twisted commutative algebra (tca) is a commutative associative unital C-algebra
A equipped with an action of GL∞ by C-algebra homomorphisms such that A forms a
polynomial representation of GL∞ . Alternatively, A is a polynomial functor from vector
spaces to commutative algebras [SS2, Theorem 5.4.1]; when used in this perspective, we use
A(V ) to denote its value on a vector space V .
We write |A| when we want to think of A simply as a C-algebra, and forget the GL∞ action.
An A-module is an |A|-module M equipped with an action of GL∞ that is compatible with
the one on A (i.e., g(ax) = (ga)(gx) for g ∈ GL∞ , a ∈ A, and x ∈ M) and such that M
forms a polynomial representation of GL∞ . An ideal of A is an A-submodule of A, i.e., a
GL∞ -stable ideal of |A|. We denote the category of A-modules by ModA . We write |M|
when we want to think of M as a module over |A|, forgetting its GL∞ -structure.

6

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

We say that A is finitely generated if |A| is generated as a C-algebra by the GL∞
orbits of finitely many elements. Equivalently, A is finitely generated if it is a quotient of
a tca of the form Sym(V ), where V is a finite length polynomial representation of GL∞ .
An A-module M is finitely generated if it is generated as an |A|-module by the GL∞
orbits of finitely many elements. Equivalently, M is finitely generated if it is a quotient of an
A-module of the form A ⊗ V , where V is a finite length polynomial representation of GL∞ .
We note that the A ⊗ V are exactly the projective A-modules. An A-module if noetherian
if every submodule is finitely generated. We say that A is noetherian (as an algebra) if
every finitely generated A-module is noetherian.
Remark 2.1. We say that A is weakly noetherian if it is noetherian as a module over itself,
i.e., if ideals of A satisfy ACC. Of course, noetherian implies weakly noetherian. However,
it is not clear if weakly noetherian implies noetherian: not every A-module is a quotient of
a direct sum of copies of A, due to the equivariance, and so there is no apparent way to
connect the noetherianity of A as an A-module to that of general modules.

There are “bivariate” versions of the above concepts. A representation of GL∞ × GL∞ is
polynomial if it appears as a subquotient of a (possibly infinite) direct sum of representations of the form (C∞ )⊗a ⊗ (C∞ )⊗b . Polynomial representations are again semi-simple, and
the simple ones are the Sλ (C∞ ) ⊗ Sµ (C∞ ). A bivariate tca is a commutative associative
unital C-algebra A equipped with an action of GL∞ × GL∞ by C-algebra homomorphisms
such that A forms a polynomial representation of GL∞ × GL∞ . The remaining definitions
in the bivariate case should now be clear.
Since GL∞ sits inside of GL∞ × GL∞ (diagonally), any action of GL∞ × GL∞ can be
restricted to one of GL∞ . Thus bivariate tca’s can be regarded as tca’s, and similarly for
modules. This restriction process preserves finite generation (of algebras and modules) since
the tensor product of finite length polynomial representations is again finite length.
2.2. Annihilators. Let A be a tca and M be an A-module. The annihilator of M, denoted
Ann(M), is the set of elements a ∈ A such that am = 0 for all m ∈ M. This is an ideal of
|A| and GL∞ stable, and thus an ideal of A.
Proposition 2.2. Let A be a tca and let M be an A-module. Suppose am = 0 for some a ∈ A
and m ∈ M. Then there exists an integer n, depending only on m, such that an (gm) = 0 for
all g ∈ GL∞ (C).
Proof. First, we claim that ak+1 Xk · · · X1 m = 0 for any X1 , . . . , Xk ∈ gl∞ . We proceed by
induction on k. The k = 0 case is simply the statement am = 0, which is given. Suppose
now that ak Xk−1 · · · X1 m = 0. Applying Xk , we obtain
kak−1 (Xk a)(Xk−1 · · · X1 m) + ak (Xk · · · X1 m) = 0.
Multiplying by a kills the first term and shows ak+1 Xk · · · X1 m = 0. This completes the
proof of the claim.
Let M ′ ⊂ M be the GL∞ representation generated by m. Suppose that a belongs to A(V )
with V ⊂ C∞ . Pick m′ ∈ M ′ that also generates M ′ and belongs to M ′ (U) with U ∩ V = 0.
We can write m′ = Xm for some X ∈ U(gl∞ ), and so the claim shows that an m′ = 0 for
some n. We claim that this n works for all elements in M ′ . Indeed, given any g ∈ GL∞ , we
can find f : C∞ → C∞ such that f agrees with g on U and is the identity on V . We then
have f∗ (a) = a and f∗ (m′ ) = gm′ , and so 0 = f∗ (an m′ ) = an (gm′ ).


NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

7

Corollary 2.3. Suppose |A| is a domain. Let M be a finitely generated A-module such that
M ⊗A Frac(A) = 0. Then Ann M 6= 0.
Proof. Let m1 , . . . , mr be generators for M. Since M ⊗A Frac(A) = 0, we can find a 6= 0 in
A such that ami = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r. By the proposition, there exists n > 0 such that
an (gmi ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r and all g ∈ GL∞ . Thus 0 6= an ∈ Ann(M).

2.3. Essentially bounded tca’s. We say that a polynomial representation V of GL∞
is essentially bounded if there exist integers r and s such that for any simple Sλ (C∞ )
appearing in V we have λr ≤ s. Similarly, we say that a polynomial representation V of
GL∞ ×GL∞ is essentially bounded if there exist integers r and s such that for any simple
Sλ (C∞ ) ⊗ Sµ (C∞ ) appearing in V we have λr ≤ s and µr ≤ s. The Littlewood–Richardson
rule [SS2, (2.14)] implies that the tensor product of essentially bounded representations is
again essentially bounded. In particular, if V is an essentially bounded representation of
GL∞ × GL∞ then its restriction to the diagonal GL∞ is still essentially bounded. Note also
that any finite length representation is essentially bounded.
Proposition 2.4. Let A be a finitely generated and essentially bounded (bivariate) tca. Then
A is noetherian.
Proof. We treat only the univariate case, the bivariate case is similar. Let P be a finitely
generated projective A-module. Note that P is essentially bounded. We must show that P
is noetherian. Suppose that every partition appearing in P has at most r rows and at most
s columns. Let Cr|s be a super vector space with r-dimensional even part and s-dimensional
odd part.
For any symmetric monoidal category C and choice of object V ∈ C, there is a symmetric
monoidal functor Reppol (GL∞ ) → C that sends Sλ (C∞ ) to Sλ (V ). We apply this with C
the category of super vector spaces, equipped with the usual tensor product and the signed
symmetry (see [SS2, (7.3.3)]), and V = Cr|s . We thus obtain a natural map
{A-submodules of P } → {A(Cr|s )-submodules of P (Cr|s)}.
It follows from [BR, Theorem 3.20] that this map is injective. Since A(Cr|s ) is a finitely
generated superalgebra, the finitely generated module P (Cr|s) is noetherian. Thus the right
side satisfies ACC and so the left side does as well.

Remark 2.5. This argument is modeled on the discussion in [SS2, §9.1].



2.4. Serre quotients. Let A be a tca with |A| a domain, and let K = Frac(|A|). The
field K has an action of GL∞ , and we write |K| when we want to disregard this action. A
K-module is a |K|-vector space V equipped with a compatible action of GL∞ such that
V is spanned over |K| by polynomial elements (i.e., elements generating a polynomial Csubrepresentation). We write ModK for the category of K-modules. If V is a polynomial
representation of GL∞ then K ⊗ V is a K-module. All K-modules are quotients of such
K-modules. Note, however, that K ⊗ V is usually not projective as a K-module.
An A-module M is torsion if M ⊗A K = 0. Write Modtors
for the category of torsion
A
gen
tors
modules. We let ModA be the Serre quotient ModA / ModA , and we let T : ModA →
Modgen
A be the localization functor. The functor ModA → ModK given by M 7→ M ⊗A K
gen
is exact and kills Modtors
A , and thus induces an exact functor F : ModA → ModK . Note
that F (T (M)) = M ⊗A K, by definition. Given a K-module M, let S(M) = M pol be the

8

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

set of polynomial elements in M. This is naturally an A-module, and the resulting functor
S : ModK → ModA is right adjoint to F T . The following diagram summarizes the situation.
ModAdd■

t
T ttt
t
t
t
yy t
t

Modgen
A

F

■■
■■S
■■
■■
// ModK

Proposition 2.6. Let M be a K-module. Then the natural map M pol ⊗A K → M is an
isomorphism of K-modules. In particular, we have a natural isomorphism F T S = id.
Proof.
Injectivity is free. For surjectivity, pick v ∈ M. By definition, we can write v =
Pn
x
i=1 i wi , where xi ∈ K and wi ∈ M is polynomial. Again, by definition, we can write
xi = ai /bi ,Qwhere ai and bi are P
polynomial elements of K. We therefore have v = b−1 w,
n

where b = i=1 bi ∈ K and w = ni=1 (ai b/bi )wi is a polynomial element of M.
Proposition 2.7. The functor F is an equivalence of categories.

Proof. Proposition 2.6 shows that F has a right quasi-inverse, and so is therefore essentially
surjective and full. We show that F is faithful. Let M and N be A-modules, and consider
a morphism fe: M → N in Modgen
mapping to 0 in ModK . Write fe = T (f ) for some
A
′
′
morphism f : M → N/N in ModA , where M ′ and N ′ are submodules of M and N with
M/M ′ and N ′ torsion. Since f : M ′ ⊗ K → N/N ′ ⊗ K is 0, it follows that the image of f
is a torsion submodule of N/N ′ , and therefore of the form N ′′ /N ′ , where N ′′ is a torsionsubmodule of N containing N ′ . But then the image f ′ of f in Hom(M ′ , N/N ′′ ) is 0, and
since fe = T (f ) = T (f ′ ) we have fe = 0.


Proposition 2.8. Let W be a finite length polynomial representation with W GL∞ = 0. Set
A = Sym(W ). Then S(K ⊗ V ) = A ⊗ V for any polynomial representation V .
P
Proof. Suppose that x = si=1 (fi /g) ⊗ vi is a polynomial element of K ⊗ V , written in lowest
terms (that is, gcd(g, f1, . . . , fs ) = 1 and {v1 , . . . , vs } is linearly independent). Let m ≫ 0 be
such that g and each fi belong to A(Cm ), and let n = m + 1. We can think of x as a section
of a vector bundle on Cn having a pole along the divisorP
g = 0. Since x ∈ (K ⊗ V )pol , it
generates a finite dimensional representation of GLn . Let k (fj,k /gj ) ⊗ vj,k for 1 ≤ j ≤ r be
a basis; then every element can be written with common denominator g1 · · · gr . In particular,
the GLn -orbit of the divisor g = 0 is contained in g1 · · · gr = 0 and hence is finite. But GLn
is connected, so the irreducible components of g = 0 are preserved. Thus g is semi-invariant
under GLn . Any one-dimensional polynomial representation of GLn must be of the form
Sd,...,d(Cn ). But g ∈ A(Cm ) and is nonzero, and so it must be the case that g is actually
invariant under GLn (d must be zero because otherwise Sd,...,d(Cn ) = 0), and thus under
GL∞ . Since AGL∞ = C, we conclude that g is constant, and so x ∈ A ⊗ V , as required. 
There is also a version of the above discussion for bivariate tca’s. The statements and
proofs are nearly identical.
3. ModK and algebraic representations

S
3.1. The main theorem and its consequences. A representation of O∞ = n≥1 On is
algebraic if it appears as a subquotient of a (possibly infinite) direct sum of tensor powers of

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

9

the standard representation C∞ . We write Rep(O∞ ) for the category of such representations.
This category was studied in [SS3].
We let A = Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )) and K = Frac(A) until §3.5. We let e1 , e2 , . . . be a basis
for C∞ , and let xi,j = ei ej , so that A = C[xi,j ]. Define m ⊂ |A| to be the ideal generated
by xi,i − 1 and xi,j for i 6= j. This ideal is not stable by GL∞ , but is stable by O∞ . The
e
quotient A/m is isomorphic to C. For an A-module M, define Φ(M)
= M/mM. This is
naturally a representation of O∞ . The main result of §3 is the following theorem (see §3.5
for analogous results in the other two cases):
e induces an equivalence of categories Φ : ModK → Rep(O∞ ).
Theorem 3.1. The functor Φ

We give the proof in the following subsections. The precise definition of Φ is given in §3.3.
For now, we note the following consequences of this theorem:
Corollary 3.2. We have the following:
(a) Finitely generated objects of ModK have finite length.
(b) If V is a finite length polynomial representation of GL∞ then K ⊗ V is a finite length
injective object of ModK , and all finite length injective objects have this form.
(c) Associating to λ the socle of K ⊗ Sλ (C∞ ) gives a bijection between partitions and
isomorphism classes of simple objects of ModK .
(d) Every finite length object M of ModK has a finite injective resolution M → I• where
each Ik is a finite length injective object.
Proof. These properties are proven for Rep(O∞ ) in [SS3]:
(a) [SS3, Proposition 4.1.5],
(b,c) [SS3, Proposition 4.2.9],
(d) dualize the explicit projective resolutions in [SS3, (4.3.9)].



3.2. Local structure at m of A-modules. The main result of this section is the following:
Proposition 3.3. Let M be an A-module. Then Mm is a free Am -module.
Let M∞ be the set of infinite complex matrices, indexed by Z≥0 . Let B ⊂ M∞ be the
set of upper triangular matrices, and let B ⊂ B be the group of invertible upper triangular
matrices. Let bi,j : M∞ → C be the function taking the (i, j) matrix entry. We let C[B] be
the polynomial ring C[bi,j ]i≤j , and we let C[B] = C[B][b−1
i,i ]. Elements of V ⊗ C[B] can be
thought of as (certain) functions B → V .
If V is a polynomial representation of GL∞ then every v ∈ V spans a finite dimensional
subrepresentation of B. It follows that we can give V the structure of a C[B]-comodule,
that is, we have a map V → V ⊗ C[B]. Explicitly, this map takes v to the function B → V
given by b 7→ bv. In fact, the image of the comultiplication map is contained in V ⊗ C[B].
Let H = B ∩ O∞ . Explicitly, H is the group of diagonal matrices with diagonal entries
±1, almost all of which are 1. If V is a polynomial representation of GL∞ then the map
V → V ⊗ C[B] above actually lands in the H-invariants of the target. Here we let B, and
H, act on C[B] by right translation.
Let M be an A-module. We then obtain a map
M → M ⊗ C[B] → M/mM ⊗ C[B].

10

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

The image lands in the H-invariants (note that m is H-stable, so H still acts on M/mM),
and so we have a map
ϕM : M → (M/mM ⊗ C[B])H .
We now study this map. We first treat the case where M = A. Then A/mA = C, and so
our map takes the form
ϕA : A → C[B]H
The invariant ring C[B]H is easily seen to be the subring of C[B] generated by the bi,j bi,k ,
with i ≤ j, k. Since B acts on A by algebra homomorphisms, the map A → A ⊗ C[B] is
an algebra homomorphism, and so ϕA is an algebra homomorphism as well. Due to this, it
suffices to understand where the generators xi,j go. For m ∈ B, we have
X
mei =
bk,i (m)ek ,
k≤i

and so

m(ei ej ) =

X
k≤i

bk,i (m)ek

!

X

bℓ,j (m)eℓ

ℓ≤j

Thus the map A → A ⊗ C[B] is given by
xi,j 7→

X

!

=

X

bk,i (m)bℓ,j (m)ek eℓ .

k≤i,ℓ≤j

bk,i bℓ,j xk,ℓ .

k≤i, ℓ≤j

To compute ϕA , we now apply the homomorphism A → A/mA = C, which takes xi,j to δi,j .
Set Xi,j = ϕ(xi,j ), we thus find
X
Xi,j = ϕ(xi,j ) =
bk,i bk,j .
k≤i,j

Proposition 3.4. The localization of ϕA at m is an isomorphism.
′
Proof. Let me be the extension of m to C[B]H via ϕA . Let i ≤ j. We have Xi,j = bi,i bi,j +Xi,j
,
′
where Xi,j is the sum of the bk,i bk,j with k < i. Since Xi,j ∈ m for i 6= j and Xi,i − 1 ∈ m,
an easy inductive argument shows that b2i,i − 1 ∈ m and bi,j bi,k ∈ m if i 6= j or i 6= k. In
particular, b2i,i is a unit in the localization. The expression Xi,j Xi,k = b2i,i bi,j bi,k + · · · (where
the missing terms involve only smaller variables) shows, inductively, that bi,j bi,k belongs to
the image of ϕA localized at m. Since these generate C[B]H , the result follows. (It is easy
to see that ϕA , and hence its localization, is injective.)


A monomial character of H is a homomorphism H → C× of the form (z1 , z2 , . . .) 7→
· · · where the ni are integers (it suffices to consider ni ∈ {0, 1}) and ni = 0 for i ≫ 0.
A representation of H is admissible if it is a sum of monomial characters.
z1n1 z2n2

Proposition 3.5. Let V be an admissible representation of H. The localization of (V ⊗
C[B])H at m is a free Am -module, and the fiber at m is canonically isomorphic to V .
Proof. It suffices to treat the case where V is one dimensional. Let χ = zi1 · · · zir be the
corresponding (monomial) character. Then an argument similar to the one in the proof of
Proposition 3.4 shows that for any nonzero v ∈ V , the element v ⊗ (bi1 ,i1 · · · bir ,ir ) is an
H invariant and the localization of (V ⊗ C[B])H at m is a free Am -module generated by

v ⊗ (bi1 ,i1 · · · bir ,ir ). The second statement follows immediately from this.

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

11

Now let M be an A-module, and consider the map
ϕM : M → (M/mM ⊗ C[B])H .
The target is naturally a module over the ring C[B]H , which is itself an A-algebra, and one
easily verifies that ϕM is a map of A-modules.
Proposition 3.6. Let M be an A-module. The localization of ϕM at m is an isomorphism.
Proof. Note that for any M, the quotient M/mM is an admissible representation of H.
Since such representations are semi-simple, it follows that the target of ϕM commutes with
direct limits in M. It therefore suffices to treat the case where M is finitely generated as an
A-module. Let N = (M/mM ⊗ C[B])H
m , and let R be the kernel of (ϕM )m . Since M/mM
is an admissible representation of H, Proposition 3.5 shows that N is a free Am -module
whose fiber at m is isomorphic to M/mM. It follows that (ϕM )m is a surjection, since it is a
surjection mod m and N is free. We thus have an isomorphism Mm = R ⊕ N, which shows
that R is finitely generated. Since (ϕM )m induces an isomorphism on the fiber at m, we see
that R/mR = 0. Thus R = 0 by Nakayama’s lemma, which completes the proof.

Proposition 3.3 follows from the above proposition, since as noted in the above proof, the
target of (ϕM )m is a free Am -module.
3.3. Definition of Φ. We begin with some simple observations.
e ⊗ V ) is isomorphic to
Lemma 3.7. If V is a polynomial representation of GL∞ then Φ(A
e
the restriction of V to O∞ . For any A-module M, Φ(M)
is an algebraic representation of
O∞ .

Proof. The first part is clear. For the second part, pick a surjection A ⊗ V → M of Ae is right exact, there is an induced surjection V → Φ(M).
e
modules. Since Φ
As any quotient
of an algebraic representation is algebraic, the result follows.

Lemma 3.8. If I is a non-zero ideal of A then I + m = A.

Proof. Suppose I is a non-zero ideal of A. Let An = Sym(Sym2 (Cn )), regarded as a subring
of |A|. Then A is the union of the An , and so for n sufficiently large, I ′ = I ∩ An is a nonzero GLn -stable ideal of An . Of course, m′ = m ∩ An is a maximal ideal of An . The scheme
Spec(An ) is the space of symmetric bilinear forms on Cn , and m′ ∈ Spec(An ) represents the
sum of squares form, which has maximal rank. Since V (I ′ ) is a proper closed GLn -stable
subset of Spec(An ), it cannot contain any form of maximal rank (as the orbit of any such
form is dense), and so I ′ 6⊂ m′ . It follows that I 6⊂ m, and so I + m = A.

e
Lemma 3.9. If M is a torsion A-module then Φ(M)
= 0.

e commutes with direct limits, it suffices to treat the case where M is finitely
Proof. Since Φ
generated and torsion. By Corollary 2.3, M has non-zero annihilator I, and I + m = A by
the Lemma 3.8. Thus
M/mM = M ⊗A/I (A/(I + m)) = 0.

e is exact.
Lemma 3.10. The functor Φ

Proof. This follows immediately from Proposition 3.3.



12

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

e is an exact functor killing Modtors . It follows that Φ
e factors through the Serre
Thus Φ
A
tors
quotient ModA / ModA , which we identify with ModK . In other words, there exists an exact
e
functor Φ : ModK → Rep(O∞ ), unique up to isomorphism, such that Φ(M)
= Φ(M ⊗A K).
e
Since Φ is compatible with direct limits, so is Φ.
3.4. Proof of Theorem 3.1. We now prove that Φ is an equivalence. We first prove that
it is faithful, then full, and finally essentially surjective.
Lemma 3.11. Φ is faithful.
e ) = 0. The square
Proof. Let f : M → N be a map of A-modules, and suppose Φ(f
M

ϕM

(M/mM ⊗ C[B])H

//

f

f ⊗1



N

ϕN

//



(N/mN ⊗ C[B])H

e ) = f = 0, the right map is 0. Since ϕM and ϕN are isomorphisms
commutes. Since Φ(f
after localizing at m, the induced map f : Mm → Nm is 0. This implies that the induced map
f : M ⊗A K → N ⊗A K is 0, and so f = 0 in ModK . This shows that Φ is faithful.

In what follows, we give GL∞ and B the direct limit topology (thinking of them as the
direct limits of GLn and B ∩ GLn in the Zariski topology).
Lemma 3.12. Let M be an A-module and let x ∈ M ⊗A K. Then there exists a dense
Zariski open subset V of B such that bx ∈ Mm for all b ∈ V .
Proof. Given h ∈ C[B], let Uh = {b ∈ B | h(b) 6= 0} be the corresponding Zariski open subset
of B. Let V = {b ∈ B | bx ∈ Mm }. We can find nonzero a ∈ A such that ax ∈ M. Note that
b ∈ UϕA (a) if and only if ba ∈
/ m; since ϕA (a) is not the zero function by Proposition 3.4, we
can find such a b. Then bx ∈ Mm and so V 6= ∅.
P
We claim that V is open. Suppose b ∈ V and write bx = i mi ⊗ (fi /c) with mi ∈ M,
fi ∈ A, and c ∈ A \ m. Then 1 ∈ UϕA (c) and b′ bx ∈ Mm for each b′ ∈ UϕA (c) . So UϕA (c) b ⊆ V ,
showing that V is open. Finally, since B is a directed union of irreducible spaces, a nonempty
open subset, like V , is dense.

Lemma 3.13. Let M be an A-module, and let x ∈ M ⊗A K. Suppose that there exists a
dense Zariski open subset U of B such that for all b ∈ U we have bx ∈ Mm and bx = 0,
where the overline denotes reduction mod m. Then x = 0.
Proof. Replacing x with ax, for an appropriate a ∈ A, it suffices to treat the case x ∈ M.
Then b 7→ bx defines a function B → M/mM which is continuous for the Zariski topology.
The hypothesis implies that it vanishes on a dense subset of B, and therefore it vanishes on
all of B. So ϕM (x) = 0, and so x = 0 since ϕM is injective after localizing at m.

Lemma 3.14. Let U be a dense Zariski open subset of B. Then for all g ∈ GL∞ the set
O∞ Ug −1 ∩ B contains a dense Zariski open subset of B.
Proof. Pick g ∈ GL∞ ; then g ∈ GLn for n large enough. Since On ∩ Un is a finite set,
the multiplication map On × Un → GLn has dense image (by a dimension count). Since it
is also constructible, it contains a dense open subset which we may assume is closed under
multiplication by On . In particular, we conclude that O∞ Ug −1 contains a Zariski dense open

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

13

subset V such that O∞ V = V . By a similar argument O∞ B contains a dense open subset
of GL∞ . This implies that V ∩ O∞ B is nonempty and hence there exists h ∈ O∞ such that
V ∩ hB is nonempty. Multiplying on the left by h−1 shows that V ∩ B is a nonempty open
subset of B. Since B is a directed union of irreducible spaces, we conclude that V ∩ B is a
dense open subset of B.

We now begin the proof of fullness. Let M and N be torsion-free A-modules and let
f : M/mM → N/mN be a map of O∞ representations. The diagram in Lemma 3.11 allows
us to define a map fm : Mm → Nm , and this induces a map f : M ⊗A K → N ⊗A K a |K|linear map. By definition, the map fm is characterized as follows: if x ∈ Mm and y ∈ Nm
then y = fm (x) if and only if f (bx) = by for all b ∈ B, where overlines denote reduction
modulo m. Using Lemma 3.13, we can say more: if f (bx) = by for all b in some dense Zariski
open subset U ⊂ B then y = fm (x). Indeed, putting y ′ = fm (x) we have f (bx) = by ′ for all
b ∈ B, and so by = by ′ for all b ∈ U, and so y = y ′ by the lemma. We now give a similar
characterization for f .
Lemma 3.15. Let x ∈ M ⊗A K and y ∈ N ⊗A K. Then y = f (x) if and only if the following
condition holds:
(∗) There exists a dense Zariski open dense subset U of B such that for all b ∈ U we
have bx ∈ Mm and by ∈ Nm and f (bx) = by.
Proof. Suppose y = f (x). Pick non-zero a ∈ A such that ax ∈ M. Let V be a dense Zariski
open subset of B such that ba ∈ Am and ba−1 ∈ Am and bx ∈ Mm and by ∈ Nm for all b ∈ V
(Lemma 3.12). Put z = f (ax). Since ax ∈ Mm we have z = fm (ax), and so bz = f (bax)
for all b ∈ B. For b ∈ V we have f (bax) = ba · f (bx) and bz = bay = ba · by, and so
ba · by = ba · f (bx). Since ba−1 ∈ Am , it follows that ba 6= 0, and so by = f (bx). So (∗) holds.
Now suppose (∗) holds. Let a be a non-zero element of A such that ax ∈ M. Let z = f (ax).
Since ax ∈ M, we have z = fm (ax), and so bz = f (bax) for all b ∈ B. Let V be a dense
Zariski open subset of B such that ba ∈ Am for all b ∈ V (Lemma 3.12). Then for b ∈ U ∩ V
we have bz = f (bax) = ba · f (bx) = ba · by = bay. It follows from Lemma 3.13 that z = ay,
and so ay = f (ax). Since f is K-linear, we conclude y = f (x).

Lemma 3.16. The map f : M ⊗A K → N ⊗A K is GL∞ -equivariant.
Proof. Let x ∈ M ⊗A K and let y = f (x) and let g ∈ GL∞ . We must show gy = f (gx). Let
U be a dense Zariski open subset of B such that bx ∈ Mm and by ∈ Nm and by = f (bx) for
all b ∈ U (Lemma 3.15). Let V = O∞ Ug −1 ∩ B, and let b ∈ V . We can then write bg = h′ b′
with h′ ∈ O∞ and b′ ∈ U. We have bgx = h′ b′ x ∈ Mm since b′ x ∈ Mm and Mm is stable by
O∞ . Similarly, bgy ∈ Nm . Furthermore,
f (bgx) = f (h′ b′ x) = h′ f (b′ x) = h′ b′ y = bgy.
This is the only place where we use the O∞ -equivariance of f . Since this holds for all
b ∈ V and V contains a dense Zariski open of B (Lemma 3.14), it follows that gy = f (gx)
(Lemma 3.15). This completes the proof.

We have shown that Φ is full. The following lemma completes the proof of the theorem.
Lemma 3.17. Φ is essentially surjective.

14

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Proof. Since Φ is full and compatible with direct limits, it suffices to show that all finitely
generated objects of Rep(O∞ ) are in the essential image of Φ. Thus let M be such an object.
By the results of [SS3, §4], we can realize M as the kernel of a map f : I → J, where I and
J are injective objects of Rep(O∞ ). Every injective object of Rep(O∞ ) is the restriction to
O∞ of a polynomial representation of GL∞ . Thus I = Φ(M) and J = Φ(N) for some M
and N in ModK , and f = Φ(f ′ ) for some f ′ : M → N in ModK . The exactness of Φ shows
that M ∼

= Φ(ker(f ′ )), and so Φ is essentially surjective.
V
3.5. The other two cases. Everything in this section can be adapted to Sym( 2 (C∞ )).
This is straightforward (and not even logically necessary, per Remark 1.6), so we do not
comment further on it.
Everything can also be adapted to the bivariate tca A = Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ). We will make a
few comments on how this goes. First, we state the analogs of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.2.
A representation of GL∞ is algebraic if it appears as a subquotient of a (possibly infinite)
⊗b
∞
direct sum of representations of the form (C∞ )⊗a ⊗ (C∞
∗ ) . Here C∗ is the restricted dual
∞
∗
of C , defined as the span of the dual basis {ei } in the usual dual space (C∞ )∗ . One easily
checks that C∞
∗ is indeed a representation of GL∞ . We write Rep(GL∞ ) for the category
of algebraic representations. This was also studied in [SS3].
By the “twisted diagonal embedding” GL∞ → GL∞ × GL∞ , we mean the embedding
given by g 7→ (g, t g −1). We note that the algebraic representations of GL∞ are exactly
those appearing as a subquotient of the restriction of a polynomial representation from
GL∞ × GL∞ via the twisted diagonal embedding.
We identify A with C[xi,j ] in the obvious manner, and let m ⊂ |A| be the ideal generated
by xi,i − 1 and xi,j for i 6= j. This ideal is stable under the twisted diagonal GL∞ . For an
e
A-module M, define Φ(M)
= M/mM. This is naturally a representation of GL∞ .
e induces an equivalence Φ : ModK → Rep(GL∞ ).
Theorem 3.18. The functor Φ
Corollary 3.19. We have the following:

(a) Finitely generated objects of ModK have finite length.
(b) If V is a finite length polynomial representation of GL∞ × GL∞ then K ⊗ V is a finite
length injective object of ModK , and all finite length injective objects have this form.
(c) Associating to (λ, µ) the socle of K ⊗Sλ (C∞ ) ⊗Sµ (C∞ ) gives a bijection between pairs
of partitions and isomorphism classes of simple objects of ModK .
(d) Every finite length object M of ModK has finite injective resolution M → I• where
each Ik is a finite length injective object.
Proof. These properties are proven for Rep(GL∞ ) in [SS3]:
(a) [SS3, Proposition 3.1.5],
(b,c) [SS3, Proposition 3.2.14],
(d) dualize the explicit projective resolutions in [SS3, (3.3.7)].



The proof of Theorem 3.18 closely follows that of Theorem 3.1. The main differences occur
in the analog of §3.2. In the present case, one takes B ⊂ M∞ × M∞ to be the set of pairs
of upper-triangular matrices. The group H is replaced with the intersection of B and the
twisted diagonal GL∞ inside of GL∞ × GL∞ , and consists of pairs (h, h−1 ) where h ∈ GL∞
is a diagonal matrix. With these definitions, everything proceeds in a similar way.

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

15

4. Proof of the main theorems
4.1. The structure of ideals. We have the following multiplicity-free decompositions:
M
Sym(Sym2 C∞ ) =
S2λ (C∞ )
M
V
Sym( 2 C∞ ) =
S(2λ)† (C∞ )
M
Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ) =
Sλ (C∞ ) ⊗ Sλ (C∞ ).

For a proof, see [M, §I.5, Example 5] for the first two decompositions and [M, §I.4, (4.3)] for
the last one. In all cases, the sum is over partitions λ. For the purposes of stating the next
result we write Eλ for the λ summand. Let Iλ be the ideal generated by Eλ .
Proposition 4.1. Eµ ⊆ Iλ if and only if λ ⊆ µ.
V
Proof. For Sym(Sym2 C∞ ), see [Ab], for Sym( 2 C∞ ), see [AdF, Theorem 3.1], and for
Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ), see [CEP, Theorem 4.1]. Since [Ab] is a difficultVreference to obtain, we
note that the result for Sym(Sym2 C∞ ) follows from that of Sym( 2 C∞ ) because the two
are transpose dual (see [SS2, §7.4]). Proofs of these results will also appear in [NSS].

Corollary 4.2. Let A be one of the three algebras above, and let I be any non-zero ideal of
A. Then A/I is essentially bounded, and, in particular, noetherian.
Proof. Suppose that I is a non-zero ideal of A. Then I contains some Eλ , and thus Iλ . Thus
by the proposition, A/I contains no partition µ satisfying λ ⊂ µ, and is therefore essentially

bounded. Noetherianity of A/I follows from Proposition 2.4.
4.2. The (FT) property. Let B be a (bivariate) tca with B0 = C, so that B+ (the ideal of
B generated by positive degree elements) is maximal. We say that a B-module M is (FT)
over B if TorB
i (M, C) is a finite length representation of GL∞ (or GL∞ × GL∞ ) for all
i ≥ 0. The i = 0 case implies that M is finitely generated as a B-module, by Nakayama’s
lemma [SS2, Proposition 8.4.2]. Conversely, if B is noetherian then any finitely generated
B-module satisfies (FT). We note that if
0 → M1 → M2 → M3 → 0
is a short exact sequence of B-modules and two of the modules are (FT) then so is the third.
The main result we need concerning (FT) is the following proposition:
V
Proposition 4.3. Let A be one of Sym(Sym2 C∞ ), Sym( 2 C∞ ), or Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ), and
let M be a finitely generated torsion A-module. Then M satisfies (FT) over A.
We begin with some lemmas.
Lemma 4.4. Let B → B ′ be a homomorphism of (bivariate) tca’s, with B0 = B0′ = C, and
let M be a B ′ -module. Suppose that B ′ is (FT) over B. Then M is (FT) over B if and only
if M is (FT) over B ′ .
Proof. First suppose that M is (FT) over B ′ . Starting with a free resolution of M over B ′ ,
and a free resolution of B ′ over B, we get an acyclic double complex of B-modules resolving
M. This leads to a spectral sequence
′

B
B
′
E2p,q = TorB
p (Torq (M, C), B ) =⇒ Torp+q (M, C).

16

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN
′

Note that TorB
q (M, C) is a trivial B module (meaning B+ acts by 0), and so
′

′

B
B
B
′
′
TorB
p (Torq (M, C), B ) = Torq (M, C) ⊗C Torp (B , C).

Each of the Tor’s on the right has finite length by assumption, and so the left side also has
finite length. It follows that TorB
i+j (M, C) has finite length, and so M is (FT) over B.
Now suppose that M is (FT) over B. In particular, M is a finitely generated B-module,
′
and so also a finitely generated B ′ -module. This shows that TorB
0 (M, C) is finite length. Let
P → M → 0 be a minimal projective cover and let N be the kernel. Since B ′ is (FT) over
B, we conclude that P , and hence N are both (FT) over B. In particular, N is a finitely
′
generated as a module over B, and hence over B ′ . This shows that TorB
1 (M, C) is finite
′
length; to get the statement for TorB

i (M, C), we can iterate this argument i times.
Lemma 4.5. Let A be the bivariate tca Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ). Then A/Iλ satisfies (FT) over A
for all rectangular partitions λ.
Proof. This follows from [RW, Theorem 1.2], taking m = n = ∞ (the results there are
stated for finite m and n, but since the answer is given in terms of Schur functors, it can be
extended to the infinite case): one has to show that the coefficient of w i , as a polynomial
in z, is of bounded degree. To see that, note that fixing w i means that q is bounded from
above, and then the result is clear from the form of the polynomials hr×s (z, w).

V
Lemma 4.6. Let B be Sym(Sym2 C∞ ) or Sym( 2 C∞ ). Then B/Iλ satisfies (FT) over B
for all rectangular partitions λ.

e be the
Proof. Let A = Sym(C∞ ⊗C∞ ). Let Jλ be the ideal in A generated by Sλ ⊗Sλ . Let A
tca obtained from A by restricting to the diagonal GL∞ action. Then there is a surjection of
e → B, induced by the natural map (C∞ )⊗2 → Sym2 (C∞ ), and ϕ(Jλ ) ⊂ Iλ . (Note
tca’s ϕ : A
that ϕ(Jλ ) is nonzero: if λ is a single column, then this is an ideal generated by minors
of a given size and the image of every power of Jλ is nonzero; in general, some power of
a determinantal ideal belongs to Jλ after we specialize to large enough finite-dimensional
vector spaces.)
Since A/Jλ is (FT) over A (Lemma 4.5), each TorA
i (A/Jλ , C) is a finite length GL∞ ×GL∞
module, and hence remains finite length under the restriction to the diagonal copy of GL∞ .
e λ is (FT) over A.
e Also A/J
e λ is essentially bounded (since the bivariate tca A/Jλ is)
So A/J
e λ , thus
and hence noetherian (Proposition 2.4). It follows that B/ϕ(Jλ ) is (FT) over A/J
e as well (Lemma 4.4).
over A
e (the resolution of B over A
e is a Koszul complex) so another
Next, B is (FT) over A
application of Lemma 4.4 gives that B/ϕ(Jλ ) is (FT) over B. Finally, B/Iλ is a finitely
generated module over B/ϕ(Jλ ) and the latter is noetherian (Corollary 4.2), so B/Iλ is (FT)

over B/ϕ(Jλ ). We apply Lemma 4.4 again to deduce that B/Iλ is (FT) over B.
Remark 4.7. It would be interesting to prove directly that B/Iλ satisfies (FT) over B by
∞
∞
computing TorB

i (B/Iλ , C), as is done in [RW] for Sym(C ⊗ C ).

Proof of Proposition 4.3. Let I be the annihilator of M. This is non-zero by Corollary 2.3.
Thus I contains an ideal generated by a rectangular partition; replace I with this ideal.
Since A/I is noetherian (Corollary 4.2), M is (FT) over A/I. By Lemma 4.5 or 4.6, A/I is
(FT) over A. Thus by Lemma 4.4, M is (FT) over A.


NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

4.3. Completion of the proofs. Let A be one of the tca’s Sym(Sym2 C∞ ) or Sym(
or the bivariate tca Sym(C∞ ⊗ C∞ ), and let K = Frac(A).

17

V2

C∞ ),

Proposition 4.8. If M is a finite length K-module then S(M) satisfies (FT) over A.
Proof. We prove this by induction on the injective dimension of M, which is possible by
Corollary 3.2(d) (and its analogs). If M is injective then S(M) is a finitely generated
projective A-module (Corollary 3.2(b), Proposition 2.8), and thus satisfies (FT). Now let M
be a finite length object of ModK with positive injective dimension. We can then find an
exact sequence
0 → M → I → N → 0,
where I is injective and N has smaller injective dimension than M. Applying S, we obtain
an exact sequence
0 → S(M) → S(I) → S(N) → (R1 S)(M) → 0.
By induction, S(N) is (FT) over A, and so finitely generated. It follows that (R1 S)(M)
is finitely generated. By Proposition 2.6 and the fact that localization is exact, we have
(R1 S)(M) ⊗A K = 0, and so (R1 S)(M) satisfies (FT) over A by Proposition 4.3. Thus S(I),
S(N), and (R1 S)(M) all satisfy (FT) over A, and so S(M) satisfies (FT) over A as well. 
The following completes the proof of our main results: Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 4.9. A is noetherian.
Proof. Let P be a finitely generated projective A-module, and let N1 ⊂ N2 ⊂ · · · be an
ascending chain of A-submodules of P . Since P ⊗A K is finite length (Corollary 3.2(a)),
it follows that the ascending chain Ni ⊗A K stabilizes, and so we may as well assume it is
stationary to begin with. Let M ⊂ P be the common value of S(Ni ⊗A K), which is finitely
generated by Proposition 4.8. Then N• is an ascending chain in M. Let M ′ = M/N1 and
Ni′ = Ni /N1 ⊂ M ′ , so that N•′ is an ascending chain in M ′ . Since M ′ is finitely generated
and M ′ ⊗ K = 0, Corollary 2.3 implies that I = Ann(M ′ ) is non-zero. Thus M is a module
over A/I, which is noetherian (Corollary 4.2), and so N•′ stabilizes. This implies that N•
stabilizes, and so P is noetherian.

Remark 4.10. The above proof has three key ingredients:
(1) Finitely generated objects of ModK are noetherian.
(2) If I is a non-zero ideal of A then A/I is noetherian.
(3) If M is a finite length object of ModK then S(M) is a finitely generated A-module.
Let us make one comment regarding (3). Given a finite length object M in ModK , we can
realize M as the kernel of a map I → J where I and J are finite length injective objects of
ModK . Since S is left-exact, it follows that S(M) is the kernel of the map S(I) → S(J),
and we know that S(I) and S(J) are finitely generated projective A-modules. Thus finite
generation of S(M) would follow immediately if we knew A to be coherent (which exactly
says that the kernel of a map of finitely generated projective modules is finitely generated).
Since coherence is a weaker property than noetherianity, it should be easier to prove; however,
we have not found any way to directly prove coherence.

5. A Gröbner-theoretic approach to the main theorems
In this section we outline a possible approach to proving Theorem 1.1 using Gröbner bases.
This leads to an interesting combinatorial problem that we do not know how to resolve.

18

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

5.1. Admissible weights. A weight of GL∞ is a sequence of non-negative integers w =
(w1 , w2 , . . .) such that
L wi = 0 for i ≫ 0. Every polynomial representation V of GL∞
decomposes as V =
Vw , where Vw is the w weight space. A weight is admissible if wi is 0
or 1 for all i. An admissible weight vector is an element of some Vw with w an admissible
weight. We require the following fact: if V is a polynomial representation of GL∞ then V
is generated, as a representation, by its admissible weight vectors.
5.2. Degree one tca’s. We begin by sketching a Gröbner-theoretic proof that the tca
A = Sym(C∞ ⊕ C∞ ) is noetherian. This proof comes from transferring the proof in [SS4]
that Rep(FI2 ) is noetherian through Schur–Weyl duality, and can easily be adapted to treat
all tca’s generated in degree ≤ 1. Let x1 , x2 , . . . be a basis for the first C∞ , and let y1 , y2 , . . .
be a basis for the second C∞ , so that A is the polynomial ring C[x1 , x2 , . . . , y1 , y2 , . . .].
Let M be the set of pairs Γ = (S, ϕ), where S is a finite subset of N = {1, 2, . . .} and
ϕ : S → {red, blue} is a function. Given Γ, Γ′ ∈ M, we define Γ → Γ′ (a “move”) if one of
the following two conditions hold:
• S ′ is obtained from S by adding a single element and leaving the colors unchanged
(i.e., ϕ′ |S = ϕ).
• There exists some i ∈ S such that i + 1 6∈ S and S ′ is obtained from S by replacing
i with i + 1 (and leaving all colors unchanged).
We define Γ ≤ Γ′ if there is a sequence of moves taking Γ to Γ′ . This partially orders M.
We also define a total order  on M, as follows. Given two finite subsets S and S ′ of N,
define S  S ′ if max(S) < max(S ′ ), or max(S) = max(S ′ ) = n and S \{n}  S ′ \{n}. Given
S ⊂ N and ϕ, ϕ′ : S → {red, blue}, define ϕ  ϕ′ by thinking of ϕ and ϕ′ as words in R
and B and using the lexicographic order (with R  B, say). Finally, define (S, ϕ)  (S ′ , ϕ′ )
using the lexicographic order (i.e., S ≺ S ′ , or S = S ′ and ϕ  ϕ′ ).
Given Γ ∈ M, define
(
Y xi if ϕ(i) = red
mΓ =
.
yi if ϕ(i) = blue
i∈S
If f ∈ A is an admissible weight vector of weight w, then f is a linear combination of the
mΓ ’s where Γ has the same support as w. We define the initial variable of f , denoted in(f ),
to be the largest Γ (under ) such that mΓ appears in f with non-zero coefficient.
Now let I be an ideal of A. Let in(I) ⊂ M be the set of in(f )’s where f varies over the
admissible weight vectors in I. One then proves the following two statements:
(1) in(I) is a poset ideal of M, that is, in(I) is closed under moves, and
(2) if I ⊂ J and in(I) = in(J) then I = J.
From this, weak noetherianity of A follows from noetherianity of M, which is an easy exercise.
A slight modification of this argument shows that A is noetherian.
5.3. Degree two tca’s. We now sketch our Gröbner approach to the noetherianity of A =
Sym(Sym2 (C∞ )). Let xi,j , with i ≤ j, be a basis for Sym2 (C∞ ), so that A = C[xi,j ].
Let M be the set of undirected matchings Γ on N. (Recall that a graph is a matching if
each vertex has valence 0 or 1.) Given Γ, Γ′ ∈ M, we define Γ → Γ′ if one of the following
two conditions hold:
• Γ′ is obtained from Γ by adding a single edge.
• There exists an edge (i, j) in Γ such that j + 1 is not in Γ, and Γ′ is obtained from
Γ by replacing (i, j) with (i, j + 1). (Here we allow i < j or j < i.)

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

19

We call Γ → Γ′ a “type I move”. We define Γ ≤ Γ′ if there is a sequence of type I moves
transforming Γ to Γ′ . This partially orders M.
We also define a total order  on M as follows. First, suppose that i < j and k < ℓ are
elements of N. Define (i, j)  (k, ℓ) if j < ℓ, or j = ℓ and i ≤ k. Now, let Γ and Γ′ be two
elements of M, and let e1  · · ·  en and e′1  · · ·  e′m be their edges, listed in increasing
order. We define Γ  Γ′ if m > n, or if m = n and (e1 , . . . , en )  (e′1 , . . . , e′m ) under the
lexicographic order.
Q
Given Γ ∈ M, define mΓ = (i,j)∈Γ xi,j . Once again, every admissible weight vector is a
sum of mΓ ’s, and we define the initial term in(f ) of an admissible weight vector f to be the
largest Γ (under the order ) for which the coefficient of mΓ is non-zero in f .
Let I be an ideal of A. Define in(I) as before. Once again, in(I) is closed under type I
moves, and therefore forms a poset ideal of (M, ≤). The weak noetherianity of A would
follow from the noetherianity of the poset (M, ≤), but the latter property fails:
Example 5.1. For n ≥ 3, define Γn ∈ M to have edges (2i + 1, 2i + 4) for i = 0, 1, . . . , n − 2
and (2, 2n − 1). Then Γn is supported on {1, . . . , 2n}. It is easy to verify that the Γn are
incomparable, so (M, ≤) is not a noetherian poset.

The above observation is not the end of the road, however: the set in(I) is closed under
more than just type I moves. Suppose Γ ∈ in(I) and that e = (i, j) and e′ = (k, ℓ) are edges
appearing in Γ, with i < j and k < ℓ and j < ℓ. We then have the following observations:
• Suppose k < i < j < ℓ and that every number strictly between k and i that appears
in Γ is connected to a number larger than j. Let Γ′ be the graph obtained by replacing
e and e′ with (k, j) and (i, ℓ). Then Γ′ ∈ in(I).
• Suppose i < k < j < ℓ and that every number strictly between k and j that appears
in Γ is connected to a number larger than j. Let Γ′ be the graph obtained by replacing
e and e′ with (i, k) and (j, ℓ). Then Γ′ ∈ in(I).
Write Γ ⇒ Γ′ to indicate that Γ′ is related to Γ by one of the above two modifications. We
call this a “type II move.” Here is a pictorial representation of these moves (we use labels
a < b < c < d, and the dotted lines indicate that any element there is either not on an edge,
or is connected to a number larger than c):
a

b

c

d

⇒

a

b

c

⇒

d

a

b

c

d

′

We define a new partial order ⊑ on M as follows: Γ ⊑ Γ if there exists a sequence of moves
(of any type) taking Γ to Γ′ . The above observations show that in(I) is a poset ideal of
(M, ⊑). This leads to the important open question:
Question 5.2. Is the poset (M, ⊑) noetherian?
Remark 5.3. The sequence defined in Example 5.1 is comparable in (M, ⊑). Let σi be the
element (i, i + 1) · · · (3, 4)(2, 3) of the symmetric group S2n . For each 2 ≤ i ≤ 2n − 4, we
have type II moves σi Γn → σi+1 Γn , so Γn ⊑ σ2n−3 Γn . Finally, (2n − 1, 2n) is a valid type II
move for σ2n−3 Γn . It is now easy to check that ((2n − 1, 2n)σ2n−3 )Γn embeds into Γm (via
type I moves) for any m > n. This shows Γn ⊑ Γm for any m > n ≥ 3.

A positive answer to Question 5.2 would show that A is weakly noetherian. A slight
modification of this question would give noetherianity. Furthermore, this approach would
even give results in positive characteristic.

20

ROHIT NAGPAL, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

References
Silvana Abeasis, The GL(V )-invariant ideals in S(S 2 V ), Rend. Mat. (6) 13 (1980), no. 2, 235–262.
S. Abeasis, A. Del Fra, Young diagrams and ideals of Pfaffians, Adv. in Math. 35 (1980), no. 2,
158–178.
[AH]
Matthias Aschenbrenner, Christopher J. Hillar, Finite generation of symmetric ideals, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 5171–5192, arXiv:math/0411514v3.
[BR]
A. Berele, A. Regev, Hook Young diagrams with applications to combinatorics and to representations of Lie superalgebras, Adv. in Math. 64 (1987), 118–175.
[CEF] Thomas Church, Jordan Ellenberg, Benson Farb, FI-modules and stability for representations of
symmetric groups, Duke Math. J. 164 (2015), no. 9, 1833–1910, arXiv:1204.4533v4.
[CEFN] Thomas Church, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Benson Farb, Rohit Nagpal, FI-modules over Noetherian
rings, Geom. Top. 18 (2014), 2951–2984, arXiv:1210.1854v2.
[Co]
D. E. Cohen, On the laws of a metabelian variety, J. Algebra 5 (1967), 267–273.
[CEP] C. de Concini, David Eisenbud, C. Procesi, Young diagrams and determinantal varieties, Invent.
Math. 56 (1980), no. 2, 129–165.
[Dr]
Jan Draisma, Noetherianity up to symmetry, Combinatorial algebraic geometry, Lecture Notes in
Math. 2108, Springer, 2014, arXiv:1310.1705v2.
[DE]
Jan Draisma, Rob H. Eggermont, Plücker varieties and higher secants of Sato’s Grassmannian, J.
Reine Angew. Math., to appear, arXiv:1402.1667v3.
[DK]
Jan Draisma, Jochen Kuttler, Bounded-rank tensors are defined in bounded degree, Duke Math. J.
163 (2014), no. 1, 35–63, arXiv:1103.5336v2.
[Eg]
Rob H. Eggermont, Finiteness properties of congruence classes of infinite-by-infinite matrices, Linear
Algebra Appl. 484 (2015), 290–303, arXiv:1411.0526v1.
[HS]
Christopher J. Hillar, Seth Sullivant, Finite Gröbner bases in infinite dimensional polynomial rings
and applications, Adv. Math. 221 (2012), 1–25, arXiv:0908.1777v2.
[L]
Alain Lascoux, Syzygies des variétés déterminantales, Adv. in Math. 30 (1978), no. 3, 202–237.
[M]
I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, second edition, Oxford Mathematical
Monographs, Oxford, 1995.
[NSS] Rohit Nagpal, Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Noetherianity of some degree two twisted skewcommutative algebras; in preparation.
[RW]
Claudiu Raicu, Jerzy Weyman, The syzygies of some thickenings of determinantal varieties,
arXiv:1411.0151v1.
[PS]
Andrew Putnam, Steven V Sam, Representation stability and finite linear groups,
arXiv:1408.3694v2.
[SS1]
Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, GL-equivariant modules over polynomial rings in infinitely many
variables, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear, arXiv:1206.2233v3.
[SS2]
Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Introduction to twisted commutative algebras,
arXiv:1209.5122v1.
[SS3]
Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Stability patterns in representation theory, Forum Math., Sigma
3 (2015), e11, 108 pp., arXiv:1302.5859v2.
[SS4]
Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Gröbner methods for representations of combinatorial categories,
arXiv:1409.1670v2.
[Sn]
Andrew Snowden, Syzygies of Segre embeddings and ∆-modules, Duke Math. J. 162 (2013), no. 2,
225–277, arXiv:1006.5248v4.
[We]
Jerzy Weyman, Cohomology of Vector Bundles and Syzygies, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics
149, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[Ab]
[AdF]

NOETHERIANITY OF SOME DEGREE TWO TCA’S

Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Current address: Department of Mathematics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
E-mail address: nagpal@math.uchicago.edu
URL: http://math.uchicago.edu/~nagpal/
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA
Current address: Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
E-mail address: svs@math.wisc.edu
URL: http://math.wisc.edu/~svs/
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
E-mail address: asnowden@umich.edu
URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~asnowden/

21

