arXiv:1512.02378v1 [math.AC] 8 Dec 2015

EQUATIONS DEFINING RECURSIVE EXTENSIONS AS SET
THEORETIC COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS
TRAN HOAI NGOC NHAN AND MESUT ŞAHİN
Abstract. Based on the fact that projective monomial curves in the plane
are complete intersections, we give an effective inductive method for creating
infinitely many monomial curves in the projective n-space that are set theoretic
complete intersections. We illustrate our main result by giving different infinite
families of examples. Our proof is constructive and provides one binomial and
(n − 2) polynomial explicit equations for the hypersurfaces cutting out the
curve in question.

1. Introduction
One of the most important and longstanding open problems in classical algebraic geometry is to determine the least number of equations needed to define an
algebraic variety. This number which is also known as the arithmetical rank of the
variety is bounded below by its codimension and above by the dimension of the
ambient space, see [4]. Algebraic varieties whose arithmetical ranks coincide with
their codimensions are called set theoretic complete intersections. Hence, an interesting problem is to ask if a given variety is a set theoretic complete intersection
or not. Although there are algorithms for finding minimal generating sets for its
ideal, there is no general theory for providing minimal explicit equations defining
the variety set theoretically. Therefore a related and more challenging problem
is to find codimension many polynomial equations which define a given set theoretic complete intersection. Finding explicit equations for parametrized curves also
attracts attention for applications in geometric modeling (see e.g. [6, 8]).
Let K be an algebraically closed field of any characteristic and m1 < . . . < mn
be some positive integers such that gcd(m1 , . . . , mn ) = 1. Recall that a monomial
curve C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ) in the projective space Pn over K is a curve with generic
zero (umn , umn −m1 v m1 , . . . , umn −mn−1 v mn−1 , v mn ) where u, v ∈ K and (u, v) 6=
(0, 0). It is known that every monomial curve in Pn is a set-theoretic complete
intersection, where K is of characteristic p > 0, see [7, 10, 2]. In the characteristic
zero case, there are partial results [12, 13, 3] and efficient methods for finding new
examples from old, see [5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20] and the references therein for the current
activity.
Even though a monomial curve in n-space is defined by either n−1 or n equations
set theoretically, these equations are given explicitly only in particular situations.
Indeed, Moh provided n − 1 binomial equations defining the curve in question set
Date: March 13, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14M10; 14M25;14H45.
Key words and phrases. set-theoretic complete intersections, monomial curves.
The second author is supported by TÜBİTAK-2219.
1

2

TRAN HOAI NGOC NHAN AND MESUT ŞAHİN

theoretically in positive characteristic, see [10]. In characteristic zero case, Thoma
proved that this is possible, namely a monomial space curve is given by 2 binomial
equations, only if its ideal is generated by these binomials, see [17]. Three binomial
equations cutting out a monomial curve in P3 is given by Barile and Morales in [1].
Later, Thoma generalized these by proving that every monomial curve in n-space is
defined by n binomial equations set theoretically and that n − 1 binomial equations
are sufficient if the curve is an ideal theoretic complete intersection, see [21]. He
also discussed what type of equations would be needed if the monomial curve in P3
was given by 2 equations, see [18]. Eto, on the other hand, studied in [5] monomial
curves defined by n − 2 binomials plus a polynomial.
The aim of this paper is to use the fact that monomial plane curves are complete
intersections and give an elemantary proof of the fact (due to Thoma [19]) that
their recursive extensions are set theoretic complete intersections under a mild
condition. Our main contribution here is to give one binomial and (n − 2) nonbinomial explicit equations for the hypersurfaces cutting out the curves in question.
Our main technique is a combination of the methods of [7, 11] and of [14, 15].

2. The Main Result
In this section, we prove our main theorem, which can be used to construct infinitely many set-theoretic complete intersection monomial curves in Pn . Throughout the paper, we study monomial curves C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ) in Pn , where mi ∈
hm1 , m2 , . . . , mi−1 i for every 3 ≤ i ≤ n, so that mi = ai,1 m1 + · · · + ai,i−1 mi−1 for
some nonnegative integers ai,j . Note that each monomial curve C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mi )
in Pi is an extension of C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mi−1 ) in Pi−1 , for every 3 ≤ i ≤ n, in the language of [15, 16]. From now on, C ⊆ Pn denotes a monomial curve C(m1 , . . . , mn )
of this form and is referred to as a recursive extension. Here is the first observation
about these special curves.
Lemma 2.1. If C ⊆ Pn is a recursive extension and 3 ≤ i ≤ n, then the following
equivalent conditions hold.
(I) There are non-negative integers ai , bi and ci satisfying
mi = ci mi−1 + bi m2 + ai m1 , together with mi−1 > ai , mi−1 > bi , and b3 = 0.
(II) There are non-negative integers αi , βi and γi satisfying
mi = γi mi−1 − βi m2 − αi m1 together with mi−1 > αi , mi−1 > βi , β3 = 0.
Proof. In this case, we can easily write mi = Ci mi−1 + Bi m2 + Ai m1 for some
nonnegative integers Ai , Bi and Ci , for all 3 ≤ i ≤ n, where B3 = 0. Denoting by
i
⌋mi−1 , bi =
⌊a⌋ the largest integer less than or equal to a and setting ai = Ai −⌊ mAi−1
i
i
i
Bi − ⌊ mBi−1
⌋mi−1 and ci = Ci + ⌊ mBi−1
⌋m2 + ⌊ mAi−1
⌋m1 , we can further express these
integers, for all 3 ≤ i ≤ n, as

mi = ci mi−1 + bi m2 + ai m1
so that mi−1 > ai ≥ 0, mi−1 > bi ≥ 0, b3 = 0 and ci ≥ 0. This proves the first part.
As for the second part and for the equivalence, one can use the following formulas:


0
if ai = 0
0
if bi = 0
αi =
β =
mi−1 − ai if ai > 0, i
mi−1 − bi if bi > 0,

EQUATIONS DEFINING RECURSIVE EXTENSIONS AS SET THEORETIC COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS
3

and






ci
c i + m2
γi =
c i + m1



ci + m2 + m1

if
if
if
if

ai
ai
ai
ai

=0
=0
>0
>0

and
and
and
and

bi
bi
bi
bi

= 0,
> 0,
= 0,
> 0.


Example 2.2. Consider the monomial curve C(1, 2, 3, 5) ⊂ P4 . Then, the integers
in Lemma 2.1 are not unique as can be seen below.
5= 1·3+1·2+0·1 = 3·3−2·2−0·1
= 1·3+0·2+2·1 = 2·3−0·2−1·1



The following is crutial to prove our main result.
Lemma 2.3. Let C in Pn be a recursive extension and αi , βi and γi are some nonnegative integers as in Lemma 2.1. If γi − βi − αi − 1 ≥ 0 and m1 ≥ βi (m2 − m1 ),
i
then Fi−1 = xm
i−1 + Gi−1 + Hi−1 ∈ I(C) for all 3 ≤ i ≤ n, where


Ni
X
mi−1 kαi kβi mi −kγi k k(γi −βi −αi −1)
x1 x2 xi−1
xi x0
,
Gi−1 =
(−1)k
k
k=1

mi−1

Hi−1 =

X

(−1)k

k=Ni +1



mi−1 ai (mi−1 −k) bi (mi−1 −k) ci (mi−1 −k) k h0
xi x0 ,
x1
x2
xi−1
k

Ni = mi−1 − m1 and h0 = k(ai + bi + ci − 1) − bi (mi−1 − m2 ) − ai (mi−1 − m1 ).
Proof. First we prove that Gi−1 and Hi−1 are polynomials, i.e. their monomials
have non-negative exponents.
For Gi−1 , we only need to check the exponent of xi−1 . By k ≤ Ni , we have
mi −kγi ≥ mi −(mi−1 −m1 )γi . Since mi = γi mi−1 −βi m2 −αi m1 and γi −αi ≥ βi +1
it follows that
mi − kγi ≥ (γi − αi )m1 − βi m2 ≥ (βi + 1)m1 − βi m2 = m1 − βi (m2 − m1 ).
Therefore, mi − kγi ≥ 0 by the hypothesis m1 ≥ βi (m2 − m1 ).
For Hi−1 , we only check if h0 ≥ 0. Since k ≥ Ni + 1 = mi−1 − m1 + 1,
h0 ≥ (mi−1 − m1 + 1)(ci + bi + ai − 1) − bi (mi−1 − m2 + 1) − ai (mi−1 − m1 ).
Thus,
(2.1)

h0 ≥ (mi−1 − m1 + 1)(ci − 1) + bi (m2 − m1 + 1) + ai .

It follows that, h0 ≥ 0 as long as ci > 0. We now treat the case where ci = 0, in
which case (2.1) becomes
(2.2)

h0 ≥ bi (m2 − m1 + 1) + ai − (mi−1 − m1 + 1).

Notice first that the assumption γi − βi − αi − 1 ≥ 0 yields
(2.3)

bi − 1 ≥ (mi−1 − m2 ) if

ai = 0 and bi > 0,

ai − 1 ≥ (mi−1 − m1 ) if

ai > 0 and bi = 0,

ai + bi − 1 ≥ (mi−1 − m2 ) + (mi−1 − m1 ) if

ai > 0 and bi > 0.

4

TRAN HOAI NGOC NHAN AND MESUT ŞAHİN

We see immediately that h0 ≥ 0 as soon as ai > 0. If ai = 0, then from (2.2)
and (2.3), we obtain
(2.4)

h0

≥ (mi−1 − m2 + 2)(m2 − m1 + 1) − (mi−1 − m2 )
> (m2 − m1 + 1)(mi−1 − m2 ) ≥ 0.

To accomplish the goal of proving Fi−1 ∈ I(C), we make use the fact that I(C)
is the kernel of the surjective map defined by
φ : K[x0 , . . . , xn ] → K[umn , umn −m1 v m1 , . . . , umn −mn−1 v mn−1 , v mn ],
where φ(xi ) = umn −mi v mi , for i = 0, . . . , n with the convention m0 = 0. Recall that
F ∈ I(C) = ker(φ) iff the sum of the coefficients of F is zero and F is homogeneous
with respect to the grading afforded by degC (xi ) = (mn − mi , mi ). It is not difficult
to check that the monomials in Fi−1 have degree mi (mn P
− mi−1 , mi−1 ) and thus
mi−1
Fi−1 is homogeneous with respect to this grading. Since k=0
(−1)k mi−1
= 0,
k
the proof is complete.

Theorem 2.4. Let C in Pn be a recursive extension and αi , βi and γi are some nonnegative integers as in Lemma 2.1. If γi − βi − αi − 1 ≥ 0 and m1 ≥ βi (m2 − m1 ),
2
1 m2 −m1
then C is a set-theoretic complete intersection on F1 = xm
− xm
and
1
2 x0
F2 , . . . , Fn−1 defined in Lemma 2.3.
Proof. It is clear that F1 ∈ I(C). Together with Lemma 2.3, this reveals that C
lies on the hypersurfaces defined by these polynomials. Therefore, it is sufficient to
prove that the common zeroes of the system F1 = · · · = Fn−1 = 0 lies in C.
If x0 = 0, F1 = 0 yields x1 = 0, and in this case we first prove that x2 = · · · =
xn−1 = 0 by F2 = · · · = Fn−1 = 0. It follows easily from (2.1) that h0 > 0,
when ci ≥ 1, as otherwise we would get ci = 1, bi = ai = 0 and thus mi = mi−1 .
Assume now that ci = 0. If ai = 0 and bi > 0, then h0 > 0 by (2.4). If ai > 0
and bi > 0, ai + bi − 1 > (mi−1 − m1 ) by (2.3) and hence h0 > 0. If ai > 0 and
bi = 0, h0 > 0 except when ai = k = Ni + 1 = mi−1 − m1 + 1 and m1 > 1 in
which case x1 divides the monomial in Hi−1 corresponding to k = Ni + 1. In any
case, Hi−1 = 0 whenever Fi−1 = 0 and x0 = x1 = 0. Similarly, Gi−1 = 0 whenever
Fi−1 = 0 and x0 = x1 = 0, under the assumption α > 0 or γi − βi − αi − 1 > 0.
So, assume that αi = 0 and γi − βi − αi − 1 = 0 for every 3 ≤ i ≤ n. Then, β > 0
for 4 ≤ i ≤ n as otherwise we would get γi = 1 and mi = mi−1 . Since β3 = 0,
α3 = 0 and γ3 − β3 − α3 − 1 = 0 can not occur. So, G2 = 0 whenever F2 = 0 and
x0 = x1 = 0, which together with H2 = 0 implies that x2 = 0. On the other hand,
x2 divides Gi−1 when βi > 0, for every 4 ≤ i ≤ n. Therefore, in any case Gi−1 = 0
whenever Fi−1 = 0 and x0 = x1 = 0, for every 4 ≤ i ≤ n. These prove our claim
that x2 = · · · = xn−1 = 0 by F2 = · · · = Fn−1 = 0. Thus, the common solution is
just the point (0, . . . , 0, 1) which lies on C.
On the other hand, we can set x0 = 1 when x0 6= 0. Therefore, it is sufficient to
show that the only common solution of these equations is xi = tmi , for some t ∈ K
and for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n, which we prove by induction on i. More precisely, we show
that if Fi−1 (1, x1 , . . . , xn ) = 0, and x1 = tm1 , . . . , xi−1 = tmi−1 then xi = tmi , for
all 2 ≤ i ≤ n. Clearly mi = ci mi−1 + bi m2 + ai m1 implies gcd(m1 , . . . , mi−1 ) = 1
for all 3 ≤ i ≤ n. In particular, gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1, which means that there are
integers ℓ1 , ℓ2 such that ℓ1 is positive and ℓ1 m2 + ℓ2 m1 = 1. From the first equation
m1
2
1
F1 = 0, xm
= xm
, we get x2 = εT m2 , where ε is an m1 -st
1
2 . Letting x1 = T

EQUATIONS DEFINING RECURSIVE EXTENSIONS AS SET THEORETIC COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS
5

root of unity. Setting t = εℓ1 T , we get x1 = tm1 and x2 = tm2 , which completes
the base statement for the induction.
Now, we assume that x0 = 1, x1 = tm1 , . . . , xi−1 = tmi−1 for some 3 ≤ i ≤ n.
Substituting these to the equation Fi−1 = 0, we get


Ni
X
mi−1
(tm1 )kαi (tm2 )kβi (tmi−1 )mi −kγi xki
0 = (tmi−1 )mi +
(−1)k
k
k=1

mi−1

+



mi−1
(tm1 )ai (mi−1 −k) (tm2 )bi (mi−1 −k) (tmi−1 )ci (mi−1 −k) xki .
(−1)
k

X

k

k=Ni +1

Since mi = γi mi−1 − βi m2 − αi m1 = ci mi−1 + bi m2 + ai m1 , this is nothing but


mi−1
X
mi−1
(−1)k
(tmi )mi−1 −k xki = (tmi − xi )mi−1 = 0.
k
k=0
mi

Hence xi = t

completing the proof.


4

Example 2.5. Consider the monomial curve C(1, 2, 3, m4 ) ⊂ P , where m4 > 3.
Note that m1 ≥ βi (m2 − m1 ) is satisfied if and only if βi ∈ {0, 1}. Clearly, we have
3 = 1 · 2 + 1 · 1 = 2 · 2 − 1 · 1 so β3 = 0 and γ3 = β3 + α3 + 1. By Theorem 2.4,
the rational normal curve C(1, 2, 3) ⊂ P3 is a set theoretic complete intersection on
F1 , F2 , where
F1

=

x21 − x0 x2 ,

F2

=

x32 − 2x1 x2 x3 + x23 x0 .

Either m4 = 3c4 , for some integer c4 > 1; or for some positive integer c4 , we have
m4 = 3c4 + 1 or m4 = 3c4 + 2. If m4 = 3c4 , then m4 = c4 · 3 − 0 · 2 − 0 · 1, so β4 = 0
and γ4 ≥ β4 + α4 + 1 for every c4 > 1. So, C(1, 2, 3, m4) ⊂ P4 is a set theoretic
complete intersection on F1 , F2 , F3 , where F3 is as follows
2c4
c4 −1
4
x3c
+ 3xc34 x24 x02c4 −2 − x34 x03c4 −3 , if m4 = 3c4 ≥ 6.
3 − 3x3 x4 x0

When m4 = 3c4 + 1, then m4 = (c4 + 1) · 3 − 0 · 2 − 2 · 1, so β4 = 0 and the condition
γ4 ≥ β4 + α4 + 1 is satisfied for every c4 > 0 except c4 = 1. So, C(1, 2, 3, m4) ⊂ P4
is a set theoretic complete intersection on F1 , F2 , F3 , where F3 is as follows
c4 −2
4 +1
4
4 −4
4 −2
x3c
− 3x21 x2c
+ 3x41 xc34 −1 x24 x2c
− x34 x3c
, if m4 = 3c4 + 1 ≥ 7.
3
3 x4 x0
0
0

For the exception m4 = 4, we see that 4 = 0 · 3 + 2 · 2 + 0 · 1 = 2 · 3 − 1 · 2 − 0 · 1
so β4 = 1 and γ4 − β4 − α4 − 1 = 0. Hence, C(1, 2, 3, 4) ⊂ P4 is a set theoretic
complete intersection on F1 , F2 , F3 , where
F3 = x43 − 3x2 x23 x4 + 3x22 x24 − x34 x0 .
Finally, if m4 = 3c4 + 2, then m4 = (c4 + 2) · 3 − 2 · 2 − 0 · 1 and the condition γ4 ≥
β4 + α4 + 1 is satisfied for every c4 > 0 but β4 = 2 meaning that m1 ≥ β4 (m2 − m1 )
is not satisfied. The latter condition was just to make sure that the power of xi−1
in Gi−1 is non-negative. Since,
c4 −1
4 +2
4
4 −2
4 −1
F3 = x3c
− 3x22 x2c
+ 3x42 xc34 −2 x24 x2c
− x34 x3c
3
3 x4 x0
0
0

and the powers of x3 are non-negative for every c4 ≥ 2 and F3 is clearly a polynomial. Thus, Theorem 2.4 still applies and C(1, 2, 3, 4) ⊂ P4 is a set theoretic
complete intersection on F1 , F2 , F3 if m4 = 3c4 + 2 ≥ 8. For the exceptional case
where m4 = 5, we have 5 = 3 · 3 − 2 · 2 − 0 · 1 = 2 · 3 − 0 · 2 − 1 · 1 so in both

6

TRAN HOAI NGOC NHAN AND MESUT ŞAHİN

cases γ4 − β4 − α4 − 1 = 0. But, in the first case β4 = 2 and in the second case
β4 = 0 and we can apply Theorem 2.4 with the second presentation. Therefore,
C(1, 2, 3, 5) ⊂ P4 is a set theoretic complete intersection on F1 , F2 , F3 , where
F3 = x53 − 3x1 x33 x4 + 3x21 x3 x24 − x34 x20 .
Remark 2.6. In [5], Eto studies necessary and sufficient conditions under which a
monomial curve is a set theoretic complete intersection on n − 2 binomials and one
polynomial. In contrast, our curves are set theoretic complete intersections on one
binomial F1 and n − 2 polynomials F2 , . . . , Fn−1 with more than two monomials.
Remark 2.7. Only when βi = 0 and m1 = 1, Theorem 2.4 is a special case of
Theorem 2.1 in [11] but as long as βi > 0 or m1 > 1 it improves upon the condition
that mi must satisfy, for i = 3, . . . , n. Namely, Theorem 2.1 in [11] requires for
mi = γi mi−1 −βi m2 −αi m1 that γi ≥ βi m2 +αi m1 if m1 > 1 and γi ≥ βi m2 +αi +1
if m1 = 1 whereas our main result needs only γi ≥ βi + αi + 1. It is an improvement
also of Theorem 5.8 in [15] in that starting from a monomial curve in P2 our main
result can produce infinitely many new examples in Pn for every n ≥ 3 whereas
Theorem 5.8 in [15] can only produce them for n = 3. Finally, Theorem 3.4 in [19]
implies Theorem 2.4 but its proof is not as elemantary as our proof and does not
give the equations cutting out the curves.
The following consequence, which illustrates the strength of our main theorem,
can be proved by imitating the proof of Proposition 2.4 in [11].
Proposition 2.8. If gcd(mi−1 , m1 ) = 1 and mi ≥ max{mi−1 m1 , mi−1 (mi−1 −
m1 )}, for all 3 ≤ i ≤ n, then the monomial curve C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ) in Pn is a
set-theoretic complete intersection.
Proof. From the condition gcd(mi−1 , m1 ) = 1, there exist positive integers Ai and
Bi such that mi = Ai mi−1 − Bi m1 . Since mi ≥ mi−1 (mi−1 − m1 ), we have
Ai mi−1 − Bi m1 ≥ mi−1 (mi−1 − m1 ). Subtracting Bi mi−1 from both hand sides
and rearranging, we obtain the following
Ai mi−1 − Bi mi−1 ≥ −Bi mi−1 + Bi m1 + mi−1 (mi−1 − m1 ).
Dividing both hand sides by mi−1 (mi−1 − m1 ) yields
Bi
Ai − Bi
≥−
+ 1.
mi−1 − m1
mi−1
On the other hand, the hypothesis mi ≥ mi−1 m1 yields
Ai
Bi
mi
−
=
≥ 1,
m1
mi−1
mi−1 m1

which implies −

Bi
m1 − Ai
≥
.
mi−1
m1

Therefore, we can choose positive integers θi satisfying the condition
−Bi
Bi
m1 − Ai
Ai − Bi
≥
+ 1 > θi ≥ −
≥
.
mi−1 − m1
mi−1
mi−1
m1
Then we can set γi = Ai + m1 θi and αi = Bi + mi−1 θi so that
mi = γi mi−1 − αi m1 where mi−1 > αi ≥ 0, γi ≥ m1 , γi − αi − 1 ≥ 0.
Since βi = 0, the condition m1 ≥ βi (m2 −m1 ) holds and it follows from Theorem 2.4
that the monomial curve C(m1 , m2 , . . . , mn ) is a set-theoretic complete intersection.


EQUATIONS DEFINING RECURSIVE EXTENSIONS AS SET THEORETIC COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS
7

3. Finding the Equations
In this section, we briefly explain how we find the equations cutting out the
set theoretic complete intersections. We work within the most general set up but
explain how we construct the polynomial Fn for a fixed n ≥ 2. Assume that
mn+1 = βmn −

n−1
X

αi mi =

n
X

a i mi

i=1

i=1

for some non-negative ai and αi . These give us two homogeneous binomials:
α

α1
n−1
mn
(xβn − x∆
0 x1 · · · xn−1 xn+1 )

and
(xa1 1 · · · xann − xδ0 xn+1 )mn .
As in the proof of Theorem 2.4 when we substitute x0 = 1, x1 = tm1 , . . . , xn =
n+1
− xn+1 )mn = 0. If
tmn , in our equation Fn = 0, we would like to end up with (tm
Pn−1
βmn
−Pt i=1 αi mi xn+1 )mn = 0
we do the substituation in the first binomial we get (t
n−1

α m

instead. To resolve this we divide the first polynomial by xn i=1 i i and to get the
samePdegree in the monomials of both expressions we divide the second binomial
n−1

a (m −m )

by x0 i=1 i n i . But some monomials will have negative powers and these
two expressions are not polynomials anymore. If there exist anP
integer N with
1 < N < mn such that mn+1 ≥ βk for 1 ≤ k ≤ N and mn+1 ≥ k + ni=1 ai (mn − k)
for N + 1 ≤ k ≤ mn , then we can make up a polynomial Fn by taking the first
N + 1 monomials from the first expression and by taking the rest from the second
one. This explains why we restrict ourself in the main theorem. Let us illustrate
this by an example:
Consider the rational normal curve C = C(1, 2, . . . , n, n + 1) ⊆ Pn+1 . We have
n + 1 = 2 · n − 1 · (n − 1) = 1 · n + 1 · 1.
These give us the following binomials:
(x2n − xn−1 xn+1 )n = x2n
n +

n
X

(−1)k

k=1

(x1 xn − x0 xn+1 )n =

n−1
X

(−1)k

k=0



n
k





n
k



xn2n−2k xkn−1 xkn+1

and

x1n−k xnn−k xk0 xkn+1 + (−1)n xn0 xnn+1 .

Dividing the first one by xnn−1 and the second one by x0n−1 , we get the following:


n
X
n
n+1
k
xn+1−2k
xkn−1 xkn+1 and
xn +
(−1)
n
k
k=1

n−1
X

(−1)k

k=0



n
k



x1n−k xnn−k x0k−n+1 xkn+1 + (−1)n x0 xnn+1 .

It is now clear that xn+1−2k
is no longer a monomial for k satisfying 2k > n + 1 in
n
the first expression and x0k−n+1 defines a monomial only for the last two terms in

8

TRAN HOAI NGOC NHAN AND MESUT ŞAHİN

the second expression. Thus, if we take N = n − 2 and replace the last two terms of
the first expression with the last two monomials, we get the following expression:


N
X
n
n−1
k
xn+1−2k
xkn−1 xkn+1 +(−1)n−1 nx1 xn xn+1
+(−1)n x0 xnn+1 .
Fn = xn+1
+
(−1)
n
n
k
k=1

Note that this is a polynomial if and only if n+1−2k ≥ 0 for all 1 ≤ k ≤ N = n−2,
which holds if and only if n ≤ 5.
References
1. M. Barile and M. Morales, On the equations defining projective monomial curves, Comm.
Algebra 26 (1998), 1907-1912.
2. M. Barile, M. Morales, and A. Thoma, On simplicial toric varieties which are set-theoretic
complete intersections, J. Algebra 226 (2000), 880-892.
3. M. Barile, M. Morales, A. Thoma, Set-theoretic complete intersections on binomials, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), 1893-1903.
4. D. Eisenbud, and E. G. Evans, Every algebraic set in n-space is the intersection of n hypersurfaces, Invent. Math. 19 (1973), 107-112.
5. K. Eto, Set-theoretic complete intersection lattice ideals in monoid rings, J. Algebra 299
(2006), 689-706.
6. R. Goldman and R. Krasauskas (eds.), Topics in algebraic geometry and geometric modeling,
Contemp. Math. 334, 2003.
7. R. Hartshorne, Complete intersections in characteristic p > 0, Amer. J. Math. 101 (1979),
380-383.
8. B. Jüttler and R. Piene (eds.), Geometric Modeling and Algebraic Geometry, Springer 2008.
9. A. Katsabekis, Projection of cones and the arithmetical rank of toric varieties, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 199 (2005), 133-147.
10. T. T. Moh, Set-theoretic complete intersections, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 94 (1985), 217-220.
11. T. H. N. Nhan, Set-theoretic complete intersection monomial curves in Pn , Arch. Math. 99
(2012), 37-41.
12. L. Robbiano, G. Valla, On set-theoretic complete intersections in the projective space, Rend.
Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 53 (1983), 333-346.
13. L. Robbiano, G. Valla, Some curves in P3 are set-theoretic complete intersections, in: Algebraic Geometry-Open problems, Proceedings Ravello 1982, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
Vol 997 (Springer, New York, 1983), 391-346.
14. M. Şahin, On symmetric monomial curves in P3 , Turk. J. Math. 33 (2009), 107-110.
15. M. Şahin, Producing set-theoretic complete intersection monomial curves in Pn , Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 137 (2009), 1223-1233.
16. M. Şahin, Extensions of toric varieties, Electron. J. Comb. 18(1) (2011), P93, 1-10.
17. A. Thoma, Monomial space curves in P3k as binomial set-theoretic complete intersection, Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 107 (1989), 55-61.
18. A. Thoma, On the equations defining monomial curves, Comm. Algebra 22 (1994), 2639-2649.
19. A. Thoma, On the set-theoretic complete intersection problem for monomial curves in An
and Pn , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 104 (1995), 333-344.
20. A. Thoma, Construction of set-theoretic complete intersections via semigroup gluing, Beiträge
Algebra Geom. 41(1) (2000), 195-198.
21. A. Thoma, On the binomial arithmetical rank, Arch. Math. 74 (2000), 22-25.
Department of Mathematics, Dong Thap University, Viet Nam
E-mail address: tranhoaingocnhan@gmail.com
Department of Mathematics, Hacettepe University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey
E-mail address: mesutsahin@gmail.com

