arXiv:1512.01831v1 [math.AC] 6 Dec 2015

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS
I. ELEMENTARY AND GNOMON DECOMPOSITIONS

James Murdock
Department of Mathematics
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
jmurdock@iastate.edu
and
Theodore Murdock
823 Carroll Ave.
Ames, Iowa 50010
theodoremurdock@gmail.com

This is the final preprint. The published version appears in J. of Pure
and Applied Algebra 219 (2015) 2189-2205. The doi is 10.1016/j.jpaa.2014.07.030.

Running head: BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

Corresponding Author
James Murdock
phone: 515-232-7945
email: jmurdock@iastate.edu
fax: 515-294-5454

1

ABSTRACT: Stanley decompositions are used in invariant theory
and the theory of normal forms for dynamical systems to provide a
unique way of writing each invariant as a polynomial in the Hilbert
basis elements. Since the required Stanley decompositions can be very
long, we introduce a more concise notation called a block decomposition, along with three notions of shortness (incompressibility, minimality of Stanley spaces, and minimality of blocks) for block decompositions. We give two algorithms that generate different block decompositions, which we call elementary and gnomon decompositions, and
give examples. Soleyman-Jahan’s criterion for a Stanley decomposition to come from a prime filtration is reformulated to apply to block
decompositions. We simplify his proof, and apply the theorem to show
that elementary and gnomon decompositions come from “subprime”
filtrations. In a sequel to this paper we will introduce two additional
algorithms that generate block decompositions that may not always be
subprime, but are always incompressible.

2

1. Introduction
Let I ⊂ S = K[x] = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a monomial ideal and let
M be the set of standard monomials, that is, the monomials xk =
xk11 · · · xknn ∈ K[x] that are not in I. Each coset in S/I has exactly
one representative as a standard polynomial in Span(M), and S/I is
isomorphic to Span(M) as a vector space over K, although the ring
structure of S/I is lost. A block decomposition of M (defined precisely
in Section 2) is an expression for M as a disjoint union of rectangular
blocks of standard monomials, regarded as points in Newton space. A
block will be called a Stanley block if its span is a Stanley space; a
block decomposition of A into Stanley blocks is equivalent to a Stanley
decomposition of S/I.
In this paper and its sequel we study algorithms leading from I to
a block decomposition for M, emphasizing that different algorithms
produce block decompositions with different algebraic and geometric
properties. Our long-range goal is to produce block decompositions
that are as simple as possible, with respect to various criteria. In this
first paper we present two algorithms, producing what we call the elementary and gnomon block decompositions respectively, and show that
these are associated with subprime filtrations of I, a natural generalization of prime filtrations. In doing so, we generalize Soleyman-Jahan’s
criterion in [16, Prop. 2.7] for a Stanley decomposition to be associated with a prime filtration, and simplify the proof. The gnomon
decomposition is shorter (contains fewer blocks) than the elementary
decomposition. In the second paper we present algorithms leading to
what we call the organized and stacked block decompositions. These are
incompressible, in the sense that they cannot be shortened by combining blocks. We have not yet found an algorithm that always produces
a minimal block decomposition (one with the fewest blocks), but since
any such block decomposition must be incompressible, these algorithms
are a step in that direction.
From one point of view, block decompositions are a generalization
of Stanley decompositions, and are in general coarser than Stanley
decompositions. From another point of view, each block decomposition
has a unique minimal Stanley refinement, given by Algorithm 2.2 below,
and since this algorithm is very easy, the block decomposition can be
taken as a compressed notation for this Stanley decomposition. From
this viewpoint, we are studying algorithms leading from I to a Stanley
decomposition of S/I. The usual algorithm of this type, [17, Lemma
2.4], proceeds by induction on the variables x1 , . . . , xn . Our gnomon
algorithm works by induction on the generators of I, so that if one has

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

3

determined a block decomposition for S/I and then adds a generator
to I, it is not necessary to start over from the beginning.
In Section 2 we define block decompositions and Stanley decompositions and present Algorithm 2.2 that relates them. Sections 3 and 4
contain the algorithms for the elementary and gnomon block decompositions. Section 5 contains the generalization of Soleyman-Jahan’s
theorem and the proof that elementary and gnomon decompositions
are subprime.
Stanley decompositions are best known among algebraists in connection with the conjecture that the Stanley depth of a module over a
polynomial algebra is an upper bound for the classical depth, but have
a separate life in applied mathematics through their use in describing
subalgebras. This life is based entirely on the first two pages of [17]
and, for one application, on [18]. The motivation for our work comes
from that direction. Let A be a subalgebra of K[y] = K[y1 , . . . , ym ].
It is desired to find a formula, containing finitely many arbitrary polynomial functions, that expresses each element of A exactly once as the
arbitrary functions are varied. A set of polynomials f1 , . . . , fn ∈ A is
a Hilbert basis for A if the monomials f1k1 · · · fnkn span A as a vector
space over K. The expression for a given f in terms of the Hilbert basis
is usually not unique, because the monomials f1k1 · · · fnkn may not be
linearly independent. There always exist linearly independent subsets
of these monomials, which we call preferred sets, and the expression of
any f as a linear combination of these is unique. But a preferred set
of monomials is infinite, and may not have a finite description leading to an expression involving arbitrary polynomial functions. Stanley
decompositions in the manner of [17] provide suitable preferred sets .
Let Φ : K[x] → K[y] be the unique algebra homomorphism such that
Φ(xi ) = fi ; then J = ker Φ is the ideal of relations among the fi . Compute a Gröbner basis for J using an appropriate elimination order on
K[x, y] ([1, p. 81]), and obtain the monomial ideal I of leading terms
of J, which is generated by the leading terms of the Gröbner basis.
The standard monomials of I provide a preferred set of monomials in
f1 , . . . , fn when each xi is replaced by fi . In fact A is isomorphic as an
algebra to K[x]/J, and isomorphic as a vector space to both K[x]/I
and Span(M). Furthermore, a Stanley decomposition for K[x]/I provides the desired formula expressing each element of A uniquely. For
instance, if A has a Hilbert basis of four elements f1 , . . . , f4 with the
single relation f32 − f23 − f12 f4 = 0, and f32 is taken as the leading term,
then I = hx23 i and the Stanley decomposition given by the algorithm

4

of [17] is
(1.1)

K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]/hx32 i ∼
= K[x1 , x2 , x4 ] ⊕ K[x1 , x2 , x4 ]x3 .

It follows that every element of A can be written uniquely in the form
f = F1 (f1 , f2 , f4 ) + F2 (f1 , f2 , f4 )f3 ,
where F1 and F2 are arbitrary polynomials in three variables. (This
example arises for the classical seminvariants of the binary cubic form.)
Notice that the number of arbitrary polynomials is the same as the
number of Stanley spaces. The number of such polynomials can become large in larger problems, and it is natural to ask if this can be
reduced. In part this can be done by a good choice of the term order;
for instance, if f23 was taken as the leading term in the example, there
would be three Stanley spaces instead of two. But even once I is selected, there can be large differences in the number of Stanley terms in
different Stanley decompositions for S/I. This suggests the problem:
Find a minimal Stanley decomposition for S/I given a fixed monomial
ideal I. A related, but different, problem is to find a minimal block
decomposition for M given I; here the minimality is with regard to the
number of blocks, not the number of Stanley spaces.
It is not an accident that the example mentioned above comes from
classical invariant theory. Invariant theory is closely linked with normal form theory for systems of differential equations with nilpotent
linear part. There was a flurry of work on this topic in the late 1980s
and early 1990s ([2], [3], [5], [18], [4], [17]), and a second flurry more
recently ([12], [13], [14, Ch.12], [15], [9], [10], [7], [6]). Additional motivation for our questions comes from these papers. The algebra of scalar
fields that are invariant under the the group {eM t : t ∈ R}, where M
is a nilpotent matrix, plays an important role. These invariants, in
turn, are the same as classical seminvariants of a binary form, or joint
seminvariants of several forms. Knowing the seminvariants of several
forms, transvectants are used to find a Hilbert basis for the the joint
seminvariants. The box product method introduced in [13] lifts this
procedure to the level of Stanley decompositions. The box product of
two Stanley decompositions for the seminvariants of two binary forms
is a Stanley decomposition for the joint seminvariants of the two forms;
thus the uniqueness issue is taken care of automatically, without further
Gröbner basis work. In [?] I (J.M.) have reformulated the box product as a product of block decompositions, in which ⊠ distributes over
disjoint union; the basic unit of computation is the box product of two
blocks, for which algorithms are given, and the final result (expressed
in Stanley decompositions) is shorter than for the method in [13]. It is

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

5

best, then, to start with block decompositions with a minimal number
of blocks.
This research began when I (J.M.) asked T.M., a software engineer,
to write programs for me concerning Stanley decompositions. He created block decompositions as a computer-friendly shorthand for Stanley
decompositions, and the gnomon algorithm to provide an interactive
program in which ideal generators could be added one at a time. I
provided the mathematical write-up, proofs, and examples, and the
material on subprime filtrations. (The word subprime was provided by
the mortgage crisis.)
2. Block decompositions
Let V ⊂ S = K[x] be a vector subspace; V is a monomial space
if it is spanned by the set M = Mon(V ) of monomials in V , which is
then also the unique monomial basis for V . Under the one-to-one correspondence V = Span(M), M = Mon(V ) between monomial spaces and
their monomial bases, a direct sum of two spaces corresponds to the disjoint union of their bases. We often identify xm with m = (m1 , . . . , mn )
in the Newton space Zn≥0 .
A Stanley space is a monomial space of the form
K[X]ϕ = {f ϕ : f ∈ K[X]},
where X is a subset of the set of variables {x1 , . . . , xn } and ϕ is a monomial. An expression exhibiting a monomial space V as a direct sum
of finitely many Stanley spaces is called a Stanley decomposition of
V . (Because of this finiteness requirement, there are monomial spaces,
such as Span{1, x2 , x4 , x6 , . . . } ⊂ K[x], that do not have Stanley decompositions.)
Let I be a monomial ideal in S and let M = Mon(S) r Mon(I) be
the set of standard monomials for I. Then V = Span(M) is the
space of standard polynomials, and as noted in the introduction,
S/I ∼
= V as vector spaces. If S = K[x, y] and I = hxy 3, x3 yi, a Stanley
decomposition for S/I is
(2.1)

K[x] ⊕ K[y]y ⊕ Kxy ⊕ Kx2 y ⊕ Kxy 2 ⊕ Kx2 y 2.

Applying the correspondences above, we replace each Stanley space by
its set of monomials and replace ⊕ by the disjoint union symbol ⊔,
obtaining
{1, x, x2 , . . . } ⊔ {y, y 2, y 3, . . . } ⊔ {xy, xy 2, x2 y, x2 y 2}.
In this way the Stanley decomposition (2.1) becomes the following block
decomposition in Newton space:

6

♣
♣
♣
♣

♣
♣
♣

♣
♣
♣

♣

More generally, let [a, b] denote an integer interval, with the understanding that [a, ∞] does not include ∞ and that [a, b] = ∅ if b < a.
Define a block B in Zn≥0 to be a Cartesian product of n intervals:
  

b
b1 b2 · · · bn
(2.2)
B=
=
= [a1 , b1 ] × · · · × [an , bn ].
a
a1 a2 · · · an

If any bi < ai , the block is empty. The bottom row a of a block is called
its inner corner. The letter B will be used ambiguously to mean the
matrix as such, the set of integer vectors represented by the matrix,
and the set of monomials having those integer vectors as exponents.
Let M ⊂ Mon(S). A block decomposition of M is an expression
(2.3)

M = B1 ⊔ B2 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Bs,

where each B k is a block. For example, the Stanley decomposition
(2.1) can be written as the block decomposition

 
 

∞ 0
0 ∞
2 2
1
2
3
(2.4)
B ⊔B ⊔B =
⊔
⊔
,
0 0
0 1
1 1
corresponding to the diagram shown above in Newton space.

2.1. Remark. After this research was mostly completed, we learned of
the interval decompositions defined in [8]. They define the interval
[a, b] to be the set of monomials lying between xa and xb in division
partial order. This is essentially the same as our block B in (2.4),
except that they consider only monomials that divide a chosen xc , so
that, in particular, ∞ is not allowed in the top row. This is sufficient
since they only consider interval decompositions for I/J, where I and
J are two monomial ideals in S.
A block decomposition is called compressible if the union of some
subset of the blocks is itself a block. In this case the decomposition
can be simplified by performing the union. However, performing one
such union may prevent another one, so a given decomposition may
be compressible in several ways to give distinct incompressible decompositions. A decomposition is called minimal if there is no decomposition (describing the same set of monomials) having fewer blocks.
Incompressibility and minimality are two possible notions of “simplicity” of a decomposition (as briefly discussed in the introduction). An
incompressible decomposition need not be minimal, and a minimal decomposition need not be unique. The following example shows that

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

7

incompressibility is a global property of a decomposition, and cannot
be detected by examining the decomposition locally: The disjoint union

 
 
 
 

1 0
0 2
1 1
2 1
2 2
⊔
⊔
⊔
⊔
0 0
0 1
1 1
2 0
1 2


2 2
is compressible to the single block
, although no proper subset
0 0
of the five blocks can be compressed.
A Stanley block is a block (2.2) in which each bi equals either ai
or ∞. The span of a Stanley block is a Stanley space, and any Stanley
decomposition can be changed to a block decomposition by replacing
Stanley spaces by Stanley blocks and ⊕ by ⊔. Such a block decomposition can almost always be compressed. For example, K[x1 , x2 , x4 ] ⊕
K[x1 , x2 , x4 ]x3 becomes

 
 

∞ ∞ 0 ∞
∞ ∞ 1 ∞
∞ ∞ 1 ∞
⊔
=
.
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
Any block B can be written as a disjoint union of its bounded part
and its unbounded part; the bounded part is obtained by replacing
the unbounded columns with zeroes, the unbounded part by doing the
same with the bounded columns. For instance,

 
 

∞ 5 ∞ 2
0 5 0 2
∞ 0 ∞ 0
B=
=
⊔
.
1 3 0 1
0 3 0 1
1 0 0 0
Let X be the set of variables associated with unbounded columns of
B (x1 and x3 in the example). Let ψ be the monomial in the bottom
row of the unbounded part (x22 x4 in the example). Let θ1 , . . . , θs be the
finite set of monomials in the bounded part (x32 x4 , x42 x4 , x52 x4 , x32 x24 ,
x42 x24 , x52 x24 , with s = 6). Let ϕk = θk ψ for k = 1, . . . , s. Then the block
B is converted to its minimal Stanley decomposition as follows.
2.2. Algorithm. The Stanley decomposition with the fewest Stanley
spaces that describes the span of the monomials in B is
Span(B) = K(X)ϕ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ K(X)ϕs .
Note that all of the coefficient algebras K(X) in the minimal Stanley
decomposition of a block are equal, and that the number of Stanley
spaces s is the product of the numbers of elements in the intervals
defined by the bounded columns of B. When Algorithm 2.2 is applied
to each block in a block decomposition, the coefficient rings may differ
from block to block, but the total number of Stanley spaces is just the
sum of the number for each block.

8

As an introduction to the next two sections, we now give examples
of the elementary and gnomon block decompositions defined in those
sections. For
(2.5)

I = hx3 y 9, x7 y 5 i ⊂ S = K[x, y],

the elementary decomposition of S/I is the disjoint union of the blocks

 
 
 
 
 

2 4
2 8
2 ∞
6 4
6 8
∞ 4
(2.6)
,
,
,
,
,
.
0 0
0 5
0 9
3 0
3 5
7 0
The gnomon decomposition comes in two forms,

 
 

2 ∞
6 8
∞ 4
(2.7)
⊔
⊔
0 0
3 0
7 0
and
(2.8)


 
 

∞ 4
6 ∞
2 ∞
⊔
⊔
.
0 0
0 5
0 9

The elementary decomposition is compressible to either of the gnomon
decompositions, and (in this case, but not always) the gnomon decompositions are incompressible.
3. The elementary block decomposition
′

In Newton space, the division partial order xm |xm will be written as m  m′ , meaning mi ≤ m′i for i = 1, . . . , n. For variables in
Newton space we use µ = (µ1 , . . . , µn ), reserving m = (m1 , . . . , mn )
for constants, so that an equation such as µ2 = m2 will represent the
“hyperplane” through m perpendicular to the µ2 axis in Zn≥0 . Let
1
r
S = K[x] and let I = hxm , . . . , xm i ⊂ S be the monomial ideal
with the indicated generators; we also write I = hm1 , . . . , mr i. It
is assumed that these generators are minimal, that is, no redundant
generators (divisible by another generator) are included. The elementary block decomposition for S/I is created by first gridding the
Newton space Zn≥0 with the hyperplanes µi = mri for i = 1, . . . , n and
j = 1, . . . , s, passing through all points of the minimal generating set,
and then discarding those of the resulting blocks that belong to Mon(I)
rather than Mon(S) r Mon(I). The following figure illustrates the elementary decomposition (2.6) at the end of Section 2. The solid dots
are the generators at (3, 9) and (7, 5), the dark lines are the boundary
of Mon(I), and the blocks are numbered in the order that they appear
in (2.6).

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

9

3
✉

2 5 ✉
1 4

6

The elementary block decomposition is almost always compressible,
and so is not very desirable in itself, but it shows that a natural block
decomposition always exists. The other decompositions (gnomon, organized, and stacked) in this paper and its sequel can be obtained by
compressing the elementary decomposition, so we will never need to
consider blocks smaller than the blocks in the elementary decomposition, or blocks that are not disjoint unions of elementary blocks.
The following is a precise algorithm to create the elementary decomposition.
3.1. Algorithm. Let I = hm1 , . . . , mr i be presented by its minimal
generating set. The elementary block decomposition is generated as
follows.
1. For i = 1, . . . , n, create the list of exponents of xi in the set of
generators, adding zero at the beginning of each list:
L1 : 0, m11 , . . . , mr1 ;
L2 : 0, m12 , . . . , mr2 ;
..
.
Ln : 0, m1n , . . . , mrn .
2. Delete any repetitions in each list Li , and re-order each list in
increasing numerical order.
3. Create a preliminary list of inner corners as follows. For i =
1, . . . , n, choose an entry ai from Li ; then create an inner corner
a = (a1 , . . . , an ). Do this in all possible ways.
4. Refine the list of inner corners by discarding any a ∈ I, that is,
any a such that mi ≺ a for some i.
5. Create a block B for each inner corner a in the refined list, by
determining its outer corner b, as follows. If ai has a successor
a′i in Li (under the ordering from step 2), put bi = a′i − 1. If ai
is the last element of Li , but bi = ∞.
6. Let s be the number of resulting blocks, and enumerate these as
 k
b
k
B = k
a

10

for k = 1, . . . , s.
3.2. Remark. The order of enumeration in Step 6 does not matter
except in Section 5. For that section, enumerate the blocks in lexicographic order by their inner corners.
For the example (2.5), the lists from Step 2 are L1 = {0, 3, 7}, L2 =
{0, 5, 9}. The preliminary list of inner corners (in lexicographic order)
is {(0, 0), (0, 5), (0, 9), (3, 0), (3, 5)(3, 9), (7, 0), (7, 5), (7, 9)}. From this
we discard (3, 9), (7, 5), and (7, 9). It is now easy to check that the
outer corners in (2.6) follow from step 5 above.
3.3. Remark. The elementary decomposition has the following property, which will be used in Section 5. Let c ∈
/ I be a monomial. Then
there exists a unique inner corner ak of the elementary decomposition
for S/I that is maximal (under ≺) among all inner corners satisfying
ak  c. The inner corner ak satisfying this condition determines the
block B k that contains c. (The proof is trivial: The block containing
c has for the i-th component of its inner corner the largest element of
Li that is ≤ ci .)
4. The gnomon decomposition
Consider the following Block Subtraction Problem: Given a
block (2.2) and a principal monomial ideal I = hmi, find a block decomposition of B r I. If m is within the block B, there are n! distinct
natural solutions. For n = 2, the following figure shows a block B in
Z2≥0 , an ideal I generated by the heavy dot, and the two block decompositions of B r I. The set of points in B r I is the sort of L-shaped
region the Pythagoreans called a gnomon (γνωµων).
q
q
q
q

q
q
q
q

q
q
q
q

q
q s
q q q
q q q

q
q s
q q q
q q q

The first of these decompositions, expressed algebraically, takes the
form



 

b1 b2
m1 − 1 b2
b1 m2 − 1
(4.1)
r h(m1 , m2 )i =
⊔
.
a1 a2
a1
a2
m1
a2

We will generalize this formula to arbitrary n in such a way that it gives
all n! solutions, one for each permutation of the variables x1 , . . . , xn .
First we focus on the natural order of variables (the trivial permutation), which for n = 2 gives (4.1).

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

11

The following solution for n = 2 is valid whether or not m is in the
interior of B, and reduces to (4.1) when it is:



b1 b2
r h(m1 , m2 )i =
a1 a2

 

min{b1 , m1 − 1} b2
b1
min{b2 , m2 − 1}
⊔
.
a1
a2
max{a1 , m1 }
a2

The first block consists of all monomials in B that are not divisible
1
by xm
1 , and is empty if m1 ≤ a1 . The second block consists of those
1
2
monomials in B that are divisible by xm
but not by xm
1
2 . But this
solution has a defect: it sometimes divides B unnecessarily into two
nonempty blocks whose union is again B. This happens whenever
a1 < m1 < b1 but b2 < m2 . In fact, if mi > bi for i = 1 or 2 or both,
then B ∩ I = ∅ and B r I = B. This observation also simplifies the
formula in the remaining cases (where mi ≤ bi for all i), because then
min{bi , mi − 1} can be replaced by mi − 1.
Generalizing to higher dimensions, we define the gnomon determined by B and I to be the set represented by the 3 × n matrix
  

b
b1 · · · bn
m = m1 · · · mn 
a
a1 · · · an
as follows. (Placing m between a and b is intended to suggest “cutting
B by m”.)
1. If there exists i ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that bi < mi (that is, if m  b),
then

(4.2)

 
 
b
m = b .
a
a

2. If for all i, mi ≤ bi (m  b), let
(4.3)

ci = max{ai , mi }.

12

Then
(4.4)

 


b
m
−
1
b
·
·
·
b
1
2
n
m =
a1
a2 · · · an
a


b1 m2 − 1 b3 · · · bn
⊔
c1
a2
a3 · · · an


b1 b2 m3 − 1 b4 · · · bn
⊔
c1 c2
a3
a4 · · · an


b1 b2 · · · bn−1 mn − 1
⊔···⊔
.
c1 c2 · · · cn
an

The following lemma shows that the solution to the Block Subtraction Problem is a gnomon as defined above.
4.1. Lemma. For all nonnegative values of ai , bi , and mi ,
 
 
b
b
(4.5)
r hmi = m .
a
a

Proof. Assume first that bi < mi for some i. Then the ideal hmi does
not intersect the given block, and (4.5) follows from (4.2).
Next assume that ai < mi ≤ bi for all i, so that ci = mi . Then the
original block can be decomposed into two subblocks by the hyperplane
µ1 = m1 :
  
 

b
m1 − 1 b2 · · · bn
b1 b2 b3 · · · bn
=
⊔
.
a
a1
a2 · · · an
c1 a2 a3 · · · an
(Note that c1 occurs in the lower left corner of the second matrix where
m1 is expected, but these are equal.) The first of these subblocks lies
outside of hxm i, and belongs to the difference we are computing; it
equals the first block of (4.4). The second subblock is carried forward
to the next step in a recursive process: It is split by the hyperplane
µ2 = m2 into two subblocks, one having a2 ≤ µ2 < m2 and the other
having m2 ≤ µ2 ≤ b2 . Again, the first subblock is retained and the
second carried forward to the third step, and so forth.
Finally, if m1 ≤ a1 , then m1 −1 < a1 and the first subblock in (4.6) is
empty. Furthermore the lower left entry in the second matrix should be
a1 (rather than m1 , which would cause the block to include monomials
that are not in the original block). But in this case c1 = a1 , so (4.6)
remains correct. The same reasoning applies if the condition mi ≤ ai
is encountered later in the recursion.


BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

13

Now let I = hm1 , . . . , mr i be a monomial ideal for which a block
decomposition B 1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s is known, and let hmi be a principal
monomial ideal. Let I ′ = I + hmi be the sum of these ideals (in the
usual sense), and note that I ′ = hm1 , . . . , mr , mi. We refer to this as
adding a generator to I.
4.2. Algorithm. A block decomposition for S/I ′ is given by
(B 1 r hmi) ⊔ · · · ⊔ (B s r hmi).

(4.6)

Proof. The standard monomials of I ′ are the monomials that are standard for I and, in addition, are not divisible by xm . We remove the
monomials divisible by xm from each block B k of standard monomials
for I by finding the gnomons B k r hmi. Since these are disjoint, their
union is a block decomposition.

4.3. Remark. For Section 5, where the order of terms in a decomposition matters, we write the result of Algorithm 4.2 in the form
!
s
n
G
G
ki
= (B 11 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B 1n ) ⊔ · · · ⊔ (B s1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B sn ).
B
k=1

i=1

Here B k1 , . . . , B kn are the terms of B k r hmi in the order shown in
equation (4.4), retaining any empty blocks, or, if (4.2) applies, then
B k1 = B k and B ki = ∅ for i = 2, . . . , n. Retaining the empty sets
allows a uniform notation in the proof of Theorem 5.5.
Let I = hm1 , . . . , mr i be a monomial ideal given by its minimal
generators. The gnomon decomposition of S/I, with respect to the
standard order x1 , . . . , xn of the variables, is defined to be the result of
applying Algorithm (4.4) below. The result may depend on the order
in which the generators are indexed; this noncommutativity of the
generators is illustrated in the examples below.
4.4. Algorithm. Apply Algorithm 4.2 repeatedly, beginning with I = ∅
1
r
and adding the generators xm , . . . , xm in that order.
Let π be a permutation of the integers (1, . . . , n), regarded as specifying an order xπ1 , . . . , xπn of the variables. The π-gnomon decomposition of S/I is defined by changing variables temporarily to yi = xπi ,
applying algorithm (4.4) using the new variables, and then returning to
the original variables. (The generators are still taken in their indicated
order.)
The blocks of the gnomon decomposition are unions of blocks of the
elementary decomposition, because whenever a block is subdivided in
Algorithm 4.4, the subdivision occurs along a portion of a hyperplane

14

µi = mji for some i and j. The subdivisions for elementary blocks occur
along these same hyperplanes (but along the entire hyperplane, not a
portion of it.)
4.5. Example. For the example (2.5), I = h(3, 9), 
(7, 5)i. According
to

∞ ∞
Algorithm 4.4, we begin with the decomposition
for K[x, y]
0 0
and add the generator (3, 9) using Algorithm 4.2, which in turn calls
for using Lemma 4.1 to compute



 

∞ ∞
2 ∞
∞ 8
r h(3, 9)i =
⊔
.
0 0
0 0
3 0
The first block contains the monomials that are not divisible by x3 , the
second those that are divisible by x3 but not by y 9. Next we find




2 ∞
2 ∞
r h(7, 5)i =
0 0
0 0
since 2 < 7 and (7, 5) is not in the block. Finally



 

∞ 8
6 8
∞ 4
7 5
r hx y i =
⊔
.
3 0
3 0
7 0

The result of these calculations is (2.7).
The same problem works out as follows if we take I = h(7, 5), (3, 9)i,
that is, add the generators in the opposite order:



 

∞ ∞
6
∞
∞
4
7 5=
⊔
0 0
7 0
0 0



 

6 ∞
3 9  = 2 ∞ ⊔ 6 8
0 0
3 0
0 0




∞ 4
 3 9 = ∞ 4 .
7 0
7 0
The last line is an instance of equation (4.2). The result is again (2.7),
so there is no noncommutativity in the generators in this example. The
π-gnomon decomposition with π = (2, 1) is (2.8).

4.6. Example. To show noncommutativity of generators, the gnomon
decomposition of K[x, y, z]/h(5, 3, 7), (10, 6, 2)i is

 
 
 
 

4 ∞ ∞
∞ 2 ∞
9 ∞ 6
∞ 5 6
∞ ∞ 1
⊔
⊔
⊔
⊔
,
0 0 0
5 0 0
5 3 0
10 3 0
10 6 0

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

15

which is incompressible; the opposite order of generators gives instead

 
 

4 ∞ ∞
9 2 ∞
9 ∞ 6
⊔
⊔
0 0 0
5 0 0
5 3 0

 
 

∞ 2 ∞
∞ 5 6
∞ ∞ 1
⊔
⊔
⊔
.
10 0 0
10 3 0
10 6 0
This is compressible (to the previous result), since

 
 

9 2 ∞
∞ 2 ∞
∞ 2 ∞
⊔
=
.
5 0 0
10 0 0
5 0 0
4.7. Example. The next example will be used in Remark 5.6 to illustrate Theorem 5.5. Let S = K[x, y, z] and I = hz 5 , y 2z 3 , x3 yzi. Then




∞ ∞ ∞
∞
∞
4
0 0 5=
0 0 0
0 0 0



 

∞ ∞ 4
∞
1
4
∞
∞
2
 0 2 3 =
⊔
0 0 0
0 2 0
0 0 0



 
 

∞ 1 4
2
1
4
∞
0
4
∞
1
0
 3 1 1 =
⊔
⊔
0 0 0
3 0 0
3 1 0
0 0 0






∞ ∞ 2
2
∞
2
∞
∞
0
 3 1 1 =
⊔ ∅ ⊔
.
0 2 0
3 2 0
0 2 0
The gnomon decomposition for S/I is the union of the last two lines.

We conclude this section with two lemmas that will be used in Section
5.
4.8. Lemma. With ci as in (4.3),




b1 · · · bn
b1 · · · bn
m1
mn
(4.7)
∩ hx1 · · · xn i =
.
a1 · · · an
c1 · · · cn
Proof. If mi > bi for any i, both sides are empty. Otherwise, continue
the reasoning in the proof of Lemma 4.1. Observe that the right-hand
side of 4.7 would be the next matrix added to (4.4) if the pattern of
(4.4) is continued.

4.9. Lemma. Assume that m  b, so that (4.4) is valid. Let the
blocks on the right-hand side of (4.4) be labeled B 1 , . . . , B n . Then for

16

any i = 1, . . . , n we have

  
b
b1 · · · bi−1 bi · · · bn
B ⊔···⊔B ⊔
=
.
c
c1 · · · ci−1 ai · · · an
i

n

Proof. Compute the unions successively starting from the right and
working to the left, noticing that each union is between matrices that
differ only in one column. For instance, if n = 3 the first step is


 
 

b1 b2 m3 − 1
b1 b2 b3
b1 b2 b3
⊔
=
.
c1 c2
a3
c1 c2 c3
c1 c2 a3

If c3 = m3 the result is clear; if c3 = a3 then the left-hand block is
empty and again the result is clear. (The lemma and proof remain
valid without assuming m  b, but in that case it does not apply to
the gnomon decomposition, which is governed instead by (4.2).)


5. Subprime filtrations
A filtration of S by monomial ideals is a finite nested sequence
(5.1)

I = I0 ⊂ I1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Is = S.

This is often called a filtration of S/I, and it does induce an actual
filtration of S/I by subrings, namely {0} ⊂ I1 /I ⊂ I2 /I ⊂ · · · ⊂ S/I.
If each set difference Mon(Ik ) r Mon(Ik−1 ) is a block Bk , we call (5.1)
a subprime filtration. If, further, each block Bk is a Stanley block,
we call (5.1) a prime filtration; this is simpler than the usual definition in the literature, but is equivalent, as pointed out at the end
of this section. A block decomposition, with the blocks indexed in a
specific order, will be called subprime (or prime) if it is associated
in this way with a subprime (or prime) filtration. In this section all
block decompositions are taken as ordered block decompositions.
This simplifies the discussion, in that we need not consider all possible orderings before deciding whether a given block decomposition is
subprime.
The following equations hold trivially for subprime filtrations. Quotients, direct sums, and isomorphisms are to be understood as quotients, direct sums, and isomorphisms of vector spaces, and M is the

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

17

set Mon(S) r Mon(I) of standard monomials for I in S.
(5.2)
Ik /Ik−1 ∼
= SpanBk
(5.4)

S/I ∼
= SpanB1 ⊕ · · · SpanBs
M = B1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Bs

(5.5)

Mon(Ik−1 ) ⊔ Bk = Mon(Ik )

(5.6)

Ik−1 ⊕ Span(Bk ) = Ik .

(5.3)

That is, with each subprime filtration of S/I is associated a block decomposition in which the blocks are naturally ordered so that the i-th
block Bi = Mon(Ii )rMon(Ii−1 ), and when the block spaces are successively added (by direct sum) to the I (considered as a vector space), the
ideals of the filtration are reconstructed. Thus the subprime filtration
and the (ordered) block decomposition contain the same information.
Prime filtrations and (ordered) Stanley decompositions are related in
the same way.
A convenient notation to exhibit the relationship between ideals and
blocks in a subprime filtration is
I = I0

⊂ I1 ⊂ I2 · · · Is−1 ⊂ Is = S.
|
|
|
B1
B2
Bs

For example, the block decomposition (2.4) is associated with a subprime filtration as follows:
hxy 3 , x3 yi

⊂ hxyi ⊂ hyi ⊂ h1i,
|
|
|
B1
B2
B3

with B1 = B 3 , B2 = B 2 , and B3 = B 1 .
5.1. Remark. Observe that the ideals in the filtration can be found
by adding the inner corner of each block to the generators of the previous ideal. For instance, adding the inner corner (1, 1) of B1 = B 3 to
hxy 3, x3 yi gives hxy 3 , x3 y, xyi = hxyi. See Lemma 5.3 below.
It is known that there exist Stanley decompositions that are not
associated in this way with prime filtrations; thus there are also block
decompositions that are not associated with subprime decompositions.
The standard example, introduced in [11], is S = K[x, y, z], I = hxyzi,
(5.7)
S/I ∼
= K ⊕ K[x, y]x ⊕ K[y, z]y ⊕ K[x, z]z.
In this example, the Stanley blocks cannot be ordered in such a way
that when added successively to I, they produce monomial ideals. Here

18

is our version of Soleyman-Jahan’s theorem characterizing Stanley decompositions that come from prime filtrations.
5.2. Theorem. An ordered block decomposition B1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Bs for S/I
is subprime if and only if I ⊕ SpanB1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Span(Bi ) is a monomial
ideal for each i = 1, . . . , s.
Proof. The ⇒ direction has already been proved. For the ⇐ direction,
the hypothesis implies that Mon(I) ⊔ B1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Bk is a vector space
basis for an ideal Ik for each k, and that these ideals form a filtration.
It is equally clear that each Mon(Ik )rMon(Ik−1 ) = Bk , so the filtration
is subprime.

Note that when written as a block decomposition, the blocks of (5.7)
are unions of blocks from the elementary decomposition of S/I, just
as is the gnomon decomposition. This shows that although the elementary decomposition itself is subprime (Theorem 5.4 below), the
result of compressing an elementary decomposition is not in general
subprime. But the gnomon decomposition, which is a compression of
the elementary decomposition, is subprime (Theorem 5.5).
If B is any block (2.2), and bi < ∞, we define the ith outer adjacent
face of B to be the block


b1 . . . bi−1 bi + 1 bi+1 . . . bn
i
F (B) =
.
a1 . . . ai−1 bi + 1 ai+1 . . . an
(This is not a subset of B, but is displaced by one step in the direction
i from the ordinary ith outer face of B.) If bi = ∞ we set F i (B) = ∅.

5.3. Lemma. Let B be a block with inner corner a, and let I be a
monomial ideal disjoint from B. Let M = B ⊔ Mon(I). Then M spans
a monomial ideal (or equivalently, M = Mon(J) for some monomial
ideal J) if and only if the outer adjacent faces of B are contained in I.
In this case B ⊔ Mon(I) = Mon(hxa i) ∪ Mon(I) and J = I + hxa i.
Proof. A set M of monomials spans an ideal if and only if every monomial divisible by () an element of M belongs to M. Let M =
B⊔Mon(I) and suppose that M spans a monomial ideal. Let c ∈ F i (B)
for some i. Then a ≺ c, so c ∈ M. But c ∈
/ B, so c ∈ I. Therefore
i
F (B) ⊂ I for each i. Conversely, suppose that F i (B) ⊂ I for each
i. Since every element of hai that is not in B is divisible by some element of F i (B), and therefore belongs to I, we conclude that hai ⊂ M.
Therefore M = Mon(I) ∪ Mon(hai) = Mon(I + hxa i), so M spans an
ideal.

We are now ready to prove that elementary and gnomon decompositions (with suitable orderings) are subprime.

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

19

5.4. Theorem. Let I ⊂ S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a monomial ideal and
let B 1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s be the elementary block decomposition of S/I, ordered
according to Remark 3.2. Let Bk = B s−k+1 for k = 1, . . . , s; that is,
reverse the ordering of the blocks. Then B1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ Bs is a subprime
decomposition.
Proof. We work in the superscript notation, restating the criterion of
Theorem 5.2 as
(5.8) B k ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s ⊔ Mon(I) spans an ideal for each k = 1, . . . , s.
The proof begins with k = s and works backward. Let A = {a1 , . . . , as }
be the refined list of inner corners of elementary blocks for S/I, created
in step 4 of Algorithm 3.1, in lexicographic order according to Remark
3.2. Since m ≺ m′ implies m <lex m′ , as is a maximal element of A
under ≺.
We claim that each outer adjacent face F i (B s ) is contained in I. Let
c ∈ F i (B s ). Then as ≺ c and c ∈
/ B s . But by Remark 3.3, if c ∈
/ I then
c belongs to the block of S/I whose inner corner is maximal among
inner corners less than c. But this inner corner must be as , so c ∈ B s ,
a contradiction. Therefore c ∈ I, proving the claim.
By Lemma 5.3 we conclude that
B s ⊔ I = I + has i = I ′
is an ideal. Setting A′ = {a1 , . . . , as−1 }, we see that A′ is the list of
inner corners of elementary blocks for S/I ′ , which has B 1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s−1
for its elementary decomposition. Now the argument can be repeated,
with as−1 as the maximal element.

Lexicographic ordering is not the only ordering that gives a subprime
decomposition. It is only necessary to select a maximal element of A,
remove it, and repeat.
5.5. Theorem. The π-gnomon decomposition B 1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s of S/I is
subprime, for any π, under the ordering Bk = B s−k+1 .
The proof of this theorem actually establishes more, namely, that
if Algorithm 4.2 is used to “add a generator” to a subprime block
decomposition, the result will be subprime.
Proof. Since any π-gnomon decomposition becomes a standard gnomon
decomposition by renumbering the variables, it suffices to prove the
standard case. The argument is by induction on the number r of minimal generators of I. If r = 1, then


∞ ··· ∞
Mon(I) =
m1 · · · mn

20

and the gnomon decomposition

∞
m1
0

is

··· ∞
· · · mn  .
··· 0

In this case Lemma 4.9 shows that when the terms of the gnomon decomposition are added in reverse order to the ideal, an ideal is obtained
at each stage.
Now make the induction hypothesis that the theorem is true for all
monomial ideals I having r minimal generators. Let I ′ be a monomial
ideal with r + 1 generators, and write I ′ = I + hmi, where I has r
generators. Suppose that B 1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s is the gnomon decomposition
for S/I. The gnomon decomposition for S/I ′ is
!
n
s
G
G
B ki
(B 1 r hmi) ⊔ · · · ⊔ (B s r hmi) =
k=1

i=1

in the notation of Remark 4.3. We need to prove that for any p ∈
{1, . . . , s} and q ∈ {1, . . . , n},
!
s
n
G
G
(5.9)
(B pq ⊔ · · · ⊔ B pn ) ⊔
B ki ⊔ Mon(I ′ )
k=p+1

i=1

spans an ideal. From here on we assume p and q are fixed. By the
induction hypothesis,
(5.10)

B k ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s ⊔ Mon(I)

spans an ideal for each k = 1, . . . , s. This will be used for k = p + 1
and k = p. For k = p + 1, let J be the ideal spanned by
(5.11)

B p+1 ⊔ · · · ⊔ B s ⊔ Mon(I).

For k = p, (5.10) together with Lemma 5.3 implies that the outer
adjacent faces of B p belong to J.
Let
 k
b
k
B = k
and
cki = max{aki , mi }.
a
By Lemma 4.8 we have

 k
b
= B k ∩ hmi ⊂ I ′ ,
ck
so we can include these terms in (5.9) without changing the result,
provided we change the last disjoint union to an ordinary union because

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

21

at that point there is now an overlap. Thus (5.9) equals

 p 
b
pq
pn
B ⊔···⊔B ⊔ p
(5.12)
c
!  !
n
s
G
G
bk
B ki ⊔ k
∪ Mon(I ′ ).
⊔
c
k=p+1

i=1

By Lemmas 4.1 and 4.8 we have
!  
n
G
bk
B ki ⊔ k = B k .
c
i=1

Since (5.11) spans J and Mon(J) ∪ Mon(I ′ ) = Mon(J + I ′ ),
!
s
G
B k ∪ Mon(I ′ )
k=p+1

spans J ′ = J + I ′ . These calculations reduce (5.12) to

 p 
b
pq
pn
(5.13)
B ⊔···⊔B ⊔ p
∪ Mon(J ′ ).
c

The induction is completed by considering two cases.
1. If mp  bp , then (4.2) applies at the point when the generator mp
is added during the construction of the gnomon decomposition.
So by Remark 4.3, B p1 = B p and B pi = ∅ for i = 2, . . . , n. So
(5.13) is trivial unless p = 1. But in that case, (5.13) reduces to
B p ∪ Mon(J ′ ). The outer adjacent faces of B p belong to J, and
therefore also to J ′ . So (5.13) spans an ideal.
2. If mp  bp , then Lemma 4.9 implies
 p  p

b1 · · · bpq−1 bpq · · · bpn
b
pq
pn
(5.14)
B ⊔···⊔B ⊔ p = p
.
c
c1 · · · cpq−1 apq · · · apn
The outer adjacent faces of this block are contained in those of

 p
b1 · · · bpn
p
,
B = p
a1 · · · apn

but as noted above, these belong to J ′ , so again, (5.13) spans an
ideal.

5.6. Remark. To find the subprime filtration associated with a gnomon
decomposition, as in Remark 5.1, one should delete any generators that
are divisible by each new inner corner that is added. The proof of Theorem 5.5 shows that when a sequence of blocks B pn , . . . , B p1 is added to

22

Mon(J ′ ), their inner corners decrease in ≺. Therefore each new corner
added will replace the previous one (and may also remove others). For
instance, in Example 4.7 the inner corners (3, 2, 0), (0, 2, 0), (3, 1, 0),
(3, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0) are added to the starting ideal with generators (0, 0, 5),
(0, 2, 3), (3, 1, 1). The sequences (3, 2, 0), (0, 2, 0) and (3, 1, 0), (3, 0, 0),
(0, 0, 0) each arise from a single gnomon, so the inner corners decrease
in ≺. The subprime filtration is
h(0, 0, 5), (0, 2, 3), (3, 1, 1)i ⊂ h(0, 0, 5), (0, 2, 3), (3, 1, 1), (3, 2, 0)i
⊂ h(0, 0, 5), (3, 1, 1), (0, 2, 0)i ⊂ h(0, 0, 5), (0, 2, 0), (3, 1, 0)i
⊂ h(0, 0, 5), (0, 2, 0), (3, 0, 0)i ⊂ h(0, 0, 0)i.
When (0, 2, 0) is added, it eliminates both (3, 2, 0), as expected, and
also (0, 2, 3), which is not predicted by this remark.
We conclude the section with some technical remarks concerning the
usual definition of prime filtration. Recall that a monomial ideal P ⊂ S
is prime if and only if it is generated by a subset Y of the variables
x1 , . . . , xn . Since S is a Zn -graded algebra, and monomial ideals in S
inherit this multi-grading, quotients of monomial ideals are Zn -graded
modules. If P is a monomial ideal and a ∈ Zn≥0 , the symbol S/P (−a)
denotes S/P with its Zn -grading shifted so that (S/P )(−a)b = (S/P )b+a .
If P = hY i is a prime ideal, S/P is isomorphic as a vector space to
K[X], where X is the complementary set of variables to Y . Then
S/P (−a) is isomorphic as a vector space to the Stanley space K[X]xa .
Now (5.1) is defined to be a prime filtration if there exist monomial
prime ideals Pi and integer vectors ai ∈ Zn≥0 such that Ii /Ii+1 is isomorphic as a Zn -graded S-module to S/P (−ai ). It is therefore also
isomorphic as a vector space to K[X]xa , but this is not part of the
definition.
Using these definitions, Soleyman-Jahan proved Theorem 5.2 above
for the case of prime filtrations, with the blocks being Stanley blocks.
The difficulty of his proof seems to result from the fact that the association of Ii /Ii−1 with a particular S/Pi (−ai ) is only specified by an
isomorphism, and not by a concrete construction as we have done. It
seems to be the case that if S/P (−a) is isomorphic as a Zn -graded Smodule to S/P ′ (−a′ ), then P = P ′ and a = a′ . In other words, Pi and
ai are uniquely determined by Ii and Ii−1 . This observation (if correct)
would bring his treatment closer to ours. However, this uniqueness
is only possible if the isomorphism Ii /Ii−1 ∼
= S/Pi (−ai ) is interpreted
as an S-module homomorphism; neither algebra homomorphism nor
vector space homomorphism is strong enough to achieve the desired

BLOCK STANLEY DECOMPOSITIONS I

23

uniqueness. With our approach there is no need to bring in the Zn
grading or the S-module structure.
References
[1] William W. Adams and Philippe Loustaunau. An Introduction to Gröbner
Bases. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1994.
[2] R. Cushman and J. A. Sanders. Nilpotent normal forms and representation
theory of sl(2,r). In M. Golubitsky and J Guckenheimer, editors, Multiparameter Bifurcation Theory, volume 56 of Contemporary Mathematics, pages 31–51.
American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1986.
[3] R. Cushman and J. A. Sanders. Nilpotent normal form in dimension 4. In S.N. Chow and J. K. Hale, editors, Dynamics of Infinite Dimensional Systems,
volume F37 of NATO ASI series, pages 61–66. Springer, Berlin, 1987.
[4] R. Cushman and J. A. Sanders. A survey of invariant theory applied to normal
forms of vectorfields with nilpotent linear part. In Dennis Stanton, editor,
Invariant Theory and Tableaux, pages 82–106. Springer, New York, 1990.
[5] R. Cushman, J. A. Sanders, and N. White. Normal form for the (2;n)-nilpotent
vector field, using invariant theory. Physica D, 30:399–412, 1988.
[6] Grace Gachigua, David Malonza, and Johana Sigey. Normal form for systems
with linear part N3(n) . Applied Mathematics, 3:1641–1647, 2012. Since several
journals have the same name, this one has ISSN 2152-7385 (print), 2152-7393
(online).
[7] Grace Gachigua, David Malonza, and Johana Sigey. Ring of invariants systems with linear part N3(n) . American International Journal of Contemporary
Research, 2(11):86–99, 2012.
[8] Justin Herzog, Marius Vladiou, and Xinxian Zheng. How to compute the Stanley depth of a monomial ideal. Journal of Algebra, 322:3151–3169, 2009.
[9] David Malonza. Normal forms for coupled Takens-Bogdanov systems. Journal
of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics, 11:376–398, 2004.
[10] David Malonza. Stanley decompositions for coupled Takens-Bogdanov systems. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics, 17:69–85, 2010.
[11] Diane McLagan and Greg Smith. Uniform bounds on multigraded regularity.
J. Alg. Geo., pages 137–164, 2005.
[12] James Murdock. On the structure of nilpotent normal form modules. Journal
of Differential Equations, 180:198–237, 2002. Errata in Lemma 4: s should be
the minimum weight of the two chain tops, not the minimum length of the
chains; the transvectant is undefined, not zero, when i > s.
[13] James Murdock and Jan A. Sanders. A new transvectant algorithm for nilpotent normal forms. Journal of Differential Equations, 238:234–256, 2007.
[14] Jan Sanders, Ferdinand Verhulst, and James Murdock. Averaging Methods in
Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Springer, New York, 2007.
[15] Jan A. Sanders. Stanley decomposition of the joint covariants of three quadratics. Regular and Chaotic Dynamics, 12:732–735, 2007.
[16] Ali Soleyman-Jahan. Prime filtratins of monomial ideals and polarizations.
Journal of Algebra, 312:1011–1032, 2007.
[17] B. Sturmfels and N. White. Computing combinatorial decompositions of rings.
Combinatorica, 11:275–293, 1991.

24

[18] B. Sturmfels and N. White. Stanley decompositions of the bracket ring. Math.
Scand., 67:183–189, 1991.

