Symbolic powers of perfect ideals of codimension 2
and birational maps

arXiv:1209.2899v2 [math.AC] 28 Oct 2013

Zaqueu Ramos1

Aron Simis2

To Wolmer Vasconcelos on his 75th birthday, for his seminal mathematical ideas

Abstract
This work is about symbolic powers of codimension two perfect ideals in a standard
polynomial ring over a field, where the entries of the corresponding presentation matrix
are general linear forms. The main contribution of the present approach is the use of the
birational theory underlying the nature of the ideal and the details of a deep interlacing
between generators of its symbolic powers and the inversion factors stemming from the
inverse map to the birational map defined by the linear system spanned by the generators
of this ideal. A full description of the corresponding symbolic Rees algebra is given in some
cases. An application is an affirmative solution of a conjecture of Eisenbud–Mazur in [11,
Section 2].

Introduction
Let I ⊂ R denote an ideal in a Noetherian ring and let r ≥ 0 be an integer. The rth symbolic
power I (r) of I can be defined as the inverse image of S −1 I r under the natural homomorphism
R → S −1 R of fractions, where S is the complementary set of the union of the associated
primes of R/I. There is a known hesitation as to whether one should take the whole set of
associated primes of R/I or just its minimal primes or even those of minimal codimension or
maximal dimension. In this work we need not worry about this dilemma because the notion
will only be employed in the case of a codimension 2 perfect ideal in a Cohen–Macaulay ring –
actually, a polynomial ring over a field. In this setup there is no ambiguity and I (r) is precisely
the intersection of the primary components of the ordinary power I r relative to the associated
primes of R/I, i.e., the unmixed part of I r .
A more serious problem is the characteristic of the base field. In characteristic zero, if I is a
radical ideal, one has the celebrated Zariski–Nagata differential characterization of I (r) (see [9,
3.9] and the references there). The subject in positive characteristic or mixed characteristic gives
a quite different panorama, often much harder but with different methods anyway. Essential
parts of this work assume characteristic zero. This is not due to a need of using the Zariski–
Nagata criterion upfront, but rather to an urge of dealing with Jacobian matrices and using
Bertini’s theorem. Many technical results will be valid just over an infinite field, hence there
has been an effort to convey when the characteristic is an issue at specific places. On the other
hand, since we will draw quite substantially on aspects of birational maps, it may be a good
idea in those instances to think about k as being algebraically closed.
0

2010 AMS Mathematics Subject Classification: 13A30, 13C14, 13C40, 13D02, 13E15, 13H10, 13P10, 14E05,
14E07.
1
Parts of this work were done while this author held a Doctoral Fellowship (CAPES, Brazil).
2
Partially supported by a CNPq grant.

1

The main object of concern is an m × (m − 1) matrix whose entries are general 1-forms
in a polynomial ring R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] over an infinite field k – called herein general linear
matrices. We will focus on the ideal I ⊂ R generated by the (m − 1)-minors of the matrix. The
group Gl(m, k) × Gl(n, k) × Gl(m − 1, k) acts on the set of all linear m × (m − 1) matrices over
k. Depending on the relative values of m and n, these matrices may fail to be 1-generic in the
sense of [8, Proposition-Definition 1.1]. For m × (m − 1) linear matrices the condition of being
1-generic implies that n ≥ 2(m − 1). Though natural in various contexts, 1-genericity goes only
“half” way the cases. For n < m, e.g., the above triple action does not preserve the property of
being general linear, as is clear that one may introduce a certain number of zero entries in the
resulting matrix. The property is preserved if the action is restricted to a suitable open set of
Gl(m, k) × Gl(n, k) × Gl(m − 1, k). As a simple example, take m = 2, n = 1. Then the 2 × 1
matrix (αx, βx)t (α 6= 0) can be converted to (αx, 0)t by the left action of the element


1
0
g=
−β/α 1
(identified with g × 1 × 1), but not if the acting group element has general coefficients. This
scrambling in the orbit of a general linear matrix in the present sense is often a root of difficulty
when handling ideal theoretic properties stemming from the data.
For practical purposes, a set of general 1-forms of the sort we assume can be taken to be a set
of random k-linear combinations of the variables. Any such set of cardinality m(m − 1) can be
ordered as the entries of a matrix, so there are plenty of such matrices. However, for the sake of
subsequent ideal theoretic development we introduce a more formal definition right at the outset
(see Definition 2.1). A weaker form would require that the entries individually be general forms
in general linear position (i.e., every subset of the entries of cardinality at most n be k-linearly
independent). There are even weaker forms that have been considered in the literature. It is not
clear whether all the main results of the paper go through in those environments. Examples are
given to show that some of the crucial results obtained no longer subsist in a less general frame.
The idea behind the present subject is akin to other places where one introduces an object
in terms of suitable general data – such is the case of the notion of the generic initial ideal of a
polynomial ideal in Gröbner base theory (see, e.g., [4]). One starts out with some random like
definition and then pursues some well-defined algebraic behavior for these data. If one thinks
about it, the apparent difficulty surfaces at once. This often justifies why some of the arguments
spelled in such a setup are long and detailed, whereas they often appear nearly obvious.
Now, for a homogeneous ideal I ⊂ R generated in fixed degree, whose syzygies are generated
by “enough” linear syzygies, its generators are very close to span a linear system defining a
birational map from a projective space onto its image. This strategy has been largely explored
in recent years by several authors. Thus, the details of the geometry of birational maps can be
accommodated in terms of numerical invariants from commutative algebra. However, finding
room in this accommodation for symbolic powers has not, to our knowledge, been brought up so
far. This is one of our main observations in this work. Together with a good grip of the algebraic
and homological properties of the base ideal I, it constitutes the main bulk of the paper.
The main results of this paper are shown in Theorem 2.2, Theorem 2.8, Theorem 2.14,
Theorem 2.15, Theorem 2.19 and Theorem 2.23. A consequence of Theorem 2.14 is a solution,
over a field of characteristic zero, of a conjecture stated by Eisenbud–Mazur in [11, Section 2] –
we are not aware of a previous solution in the literature.
2

We now briefly describe the contents of each section.
The first section, divided in two parts, gives an overview of the basic material on symbolic
powers and on birational maps. The first part gives the tool used to approach the nature of
the symbolic algebra in the present context. It is based on an idea of Vasconcelos that brought
in the management of the ideal transform in this setup. The second part discusses a couple of
useful facts, apparently thus far unnoticed in such generality. They have to do with the so-called
inversion factor of a birational map. These properties are proved in Lemma 1.2, Proposition 1.3
and Proposition 1.4.
The second section contains the main results of the paper. It starts with some preliminaries
on a perfect ideal I ⊂ R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ](n ≥ 3) of codimension 2 whose structural m × (m − 1)
matrix is a general linear matrix. We first show that the other Fitting ideals attain an expected
codimension and that I enjoys typical properties which depend on the values of m, n. Thus,
for n ≥ 4, I is a normal prime ideal provided char(k) = 0 (and possibly in general); moreover,
it is of linear type if (and only if) m ≤ n and it is normally torsionfree if and only if m < n.
Therefore, such an ideal is only really of new substance in the case where m ≥ n. In the sequel
we show that I satisfies a generalized property of Artin–Nagata, called (Gn ) and that, for any
exponent r, the symbolic power I (r) coincides with the (X)-saturation of I r (in other words, the
unmixed part of I r is its saturation). Since I is prime for n ≥ 4, the symbolic power I (r) is just
the I-primary component of I r and the latter has at most one further associated prime, namely,
(X). To go one step forward, we introduce certain graded pieces of the approximation complex,
along with other techniques and a recent result of A. B. Tchernev, to deduce that if I (r) 6= I r
then necessarily r ≥ n − 1. This result becomes an important tool for the rest of the work.
So much for the main ideal theoretical and homological properties. On a second part of the
same section, we deal with the ‘equations’ of I. Namely, we bring up the role of Rees algebra
of I in the underlying birational map based on the linear system spanned by the generators of
I. Specifically, we show that for m ≥ n ≥ 3 the ideal I is the base ideal of a birational map of
Pn−1 onto the image in Pm−1 . This result is based on the fiber type nature of I – i.e., its Rees
algebra is simplest beyond the linear type situation – and on a special case of the criterion of
birationality established in [7].
In this part we bring in detail the role of the inversion factors associated to the birational map
in question, showing that they are natural elements in the symbolic power I (n−1) not belonging
to the ordinary power I n−1 . Inversion factors have appeared before in the classical theory of
plane Cremona maps, where they are a version of the principal curves (see, e.g., [1, Chapter
3]). However, to our knowledge the notion has never been explicitly addressed for Cremona
maps in higher dimension, much less for birational maps onto their images (classically called
“rational representations” of projective space). We introduce them here in this larger generality
and dimension. A bit surprisingly, they keep in certain cases a strong relation to a Jacobian
determinant – so to say, an analogue of the relationship between principal curves and factors
of the classical Jacobian curve (see, e.g., Proposition 2.11). Our main interest here in these
inversion factors is the significant role they play as regards the generation of some symbolic
powers.
We succeed in going this far for general values m ≥ n ≥ 3. To thrive deeper, we assume that
either m = n (the “Cremona case”) or m = n + 1 (the “implicitization case”). Our main drive
is to tell the precise structure of the symbolic algebra R(I) of I. When m = n our main results
follows by drawing on some of the results of the earlier subsections and collecting various pieces
throughout the previous literature. The main result says that R(I) is generated in degrees 1 and
3

n−1, with only one fresh generator in degree n−1 which may be taken to be the source inversion
factor of the Cremona map defined by the n-minors of L. Moreover, in characteristic zero, this
generator coincides up to a scalar with the Jacobian determinant of those same minors.
The case m = n + 1 requires a full tour de force across the material and does not follow
straightforwardly from the previously stated results in the paper. First, the generation of R(I) is
more involved, occurring in degrees 1, n−1 and n(n−1)−1. This time around, showing that the
source inversion factors constitute a minimal set of fresh generators in degree n − 1 is far from
straightforward. Here we resorted to local duality as applied to H0(X) (R/I n−1 ) ≃ I (n−1) /I n−1
and to a subtle result on the R-dual of the last nonfree syzygy module in the minimal free
resolution of R/I n−1 . The argument here depends strongly on the basic assumption that I is
the ideal of n-minors of a matrix whose entries are general linear forms – the result crumbles
down for matrices with linear entries lacking this property.
This is the first step. In order to advance into proving the generation of the symbolic algebra
we describe a set of generators of its defining ideal, much in the spirit of [23, Sections 5–8], but
quite a bit more involved. Making these generators explicit forced us to uncover a whole world of
very tight relation between the various constructs coming from the melange of symbolic power
and birational theories. A particular aspect that makes a case for this assertion is the long
proof required to show that a certain variable is not a zerodivisor modulo the ideal generated
by the ‘expected’ symbolic relations (proof of Theorem 2.23). We have applied Gröbner basis
theory via a case-by-case S-polynomial analysis in which the conclusions depend strongly on
the theoretical material developed before. Thus, it is not really the algorithm that matters,
but rather the use of the previous theory as a quality control. Due to the amount of technical
passages, we refer the reader to the appropriate places in the paper.

1
1.1

Terminology
Generalities on symbolic powers

We will assume throughout that R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] is a standard graded polynomial ring over
an infinite field k. Given an ideal I ⊂ R and an integer r ≥ 1, the rth symbolic power I (r) of I
is the contraction of S −1 I r under the natural homomorphism R → S −1 R of fractions, where S
is the complementary set of the union of the associated primes of R/I. In this work I will be a
codimension 2 perfect ideal, hence R/I is Cohen–Macaulay and so I is a pure (unmixed) ideal.
In this setup then I (r) is precisely the intersection of the primary components of the ordinary
power I r relative to the associated primes of R/I, i.e., the unmixed part of I r .
A slightly different way to envisage symbolic powers is by noting that the (I (r) ∩ I r−1 )/I r is
the R/I-torsion of the conormal module I r−1 /I r of order r. Taking the direct sum over all r ≥ 0
yields the R/I-torsion of the associated graded ring of I, hence the non triviality of symbolic
powers gives a measure of the torsion of the latter. In particular, there is no nonzero torsion
if and only if I (r) = I r for every r ≥ 0 – in which case one says that the ideal I is normally
torsionfree. However, this information is most of the times pretty useless once it holds. What
matters for a substantial class of ideals – codimension 2 perfect ones included – is to guess some
sort of asymptotic behavior for the equality of the two powers, more like an “inf-asymptotic”
such behavior in the sense that one has equality throughout up to a certain exponent order,
thereafter comparison gets disorganized or even chaotic.
We observe that, like the ordinary powers, the symbolic powers constitute a decreasing
4

(I)

multiplicative
filtration, so one can consider the corresponding symbolic Rees algebra RR =
L
(r) tr ⊂ R[t]. However, unlike the ordinary Rees algebra, this algebra may not be finitely
I
r≥0
(I)

generated over R. Alas, there are no definite effective ways to check when RR is Noetherian.
The necessary and sufficient conditions of Huneke ([14, Theorems 3.1 and 3.25]) obtained in
dimension 3 are not effective and neither is the necessary condition of Cowsik–Vasconcelos ([6],
[20, Proposition 3.5]). Nevertheless, the latter becomes quite effective provided one has a good
guess about what finitely generated subalgebra looks like a strong candidate. In a precise way,
one has the following strategy.
First recall that, given an ideal I ⊂ R, where R is a Noetherian domain with field of fractions
K, the ideal transform of R relative to I is the R-subalgebra TR (I) := R :K I ∞ ⊂ K. We will
draw on the following two fundamental facts:
• ([23, Proposition 7.1.4]) If C ⊂ TR (I) is a finitely generated R-subalgebra such that
depthIC (C) ≥ 2 then C = TR (I).
• ([23, Proposition 7.2.6]) If R moreover satisfies the condition (S2 ) of Serre then
(I)

RR ≃ TR(I) (J) ⊂ R[t]
as R-subalgebras of R[t] for suitable choice of the ideal J ⊂ R.
Our idea of applying these principles is summarized in the following result, of immediate verification:
Proposition 1.1. Let R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] denote a standard graded polynomial ring over an
infinite field k, with irrelevant maximal ideal (X) := (X1 , . . . , Xn ). Let I ⊂ R stand for a
homogeneous ideal satisfying the following properties:
(i) For every r ≥ 0, the R-module I (r) /I r is either zero or (X)-primary.
(I)

(ii) depth(X)C (C) ≥ 2 for some finitely generated graded R-subalgebra C ⊂ RR containing
the Rees algebra RR (I).
(I)

Then C = RR .
(I)

We observe that the typical graded R-subalgebra C ⊂ RR containing the Rees algebra
RR (I) as above has the form C = R[It, I (2) t2 , . . . , I (s) ts ] ⊂ R[t], for suitable s ≥ 1. Although
the non-vanishing of certain of the R-modules I (r) /I r gives a measure of how far one has to go
(provided the symbolic Rees algebra is finitely generated), it is really the R-modules
P

I (r)
(r−j) · I (j)
1≤j≤r−1 I

that count for the search of fresh (or genuine) generators of the algebra. Although this is a
well-known simple observation, it often encrypts some subtleties in a particular case.
5

1.2

Birational maps and inversion factors

Our reference for the basics in this part is [18], which contains enough of the introductory
material in the form we use here (see also [7] for a more general overview).
Let k denote an arbitrary infinite field – further assumed to be algebraically closed in a geometric discussion. A rational map G : Pn−1 99K Pm−1 is defined by m forms g = {g1 , . . . , gm } ⊂
R := k[X] = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] of the same degree d ≥ 1, not all null. We naturally assume throughout that n ≥ 2. We often write G = (g1 : · · · : gm ) to underscore the projective setup and
assume that gcd{g1 , · · · , gm } = 1 (in the geometric terminology, the linear system defining G
“has no fixed part”), in which case we call d the degree of G.
Although the the definition of the rational map G depends on the linear system spanned by
the defining coordinates, its scheme theoretic indeterminacy locus is defined by the ideal of R
generated by the members of this system. For convenience, this ideal will slightly improperly
be referred to as the base ideal of G.
The image of G is the projective subvariety W ⊂ Pm−1 whose homogeneous coordinate ring
is the k-subalgebra k[g] ⊂ R after degree renormalization. Write k[g] ≃ k[Y]/I(W ), where
I(W ) ⊂ k[Y] = k[Y1 , . . . , Ym ] is the homogeneous defining ideal of the image in the embedding
W ⊂ Pm−1 .
We say that G is birational onto the image if there is a rational map Pm−1 99K Pn−1 with
defining coordinate forms f = {f1 , . . . , fn } ⊂ k[Y] (not simultaneously vanishing modulo I(W ))
satisfying the relations
(f1 (g) : · · · : fn (g)) = (X1 : · · · : Xn ), (g1 (f ) : · · · : gm (f )) ≡ (Y1 : · · · : Ym ) (mod I(W ))
Let K denote the field of fractions of k[g]. The coordinates {f1 , · · · , fn } defining the “inverse”
map are not uniquely defined; any other set {f1′ , · · · , fn′ } inducing the same element of the pron−1
= Pnk ⊗k Spec(K) will do as well – both tuples are called representatives of the
jective space PK
rational map. Furthermore, one can choose a finite minimal set f1 , . . . , fs of these representatives
such that any other representative belongs to the k[Y]/I(W )-submodule generated by f1 , . . . , fs .
More exactly, any such a minimal representative is the transpose of a minimal generator of
the syzygy module of the so-named weak Jacobian dual matrix (for complete details see [18],
particularly Proposition 1.1 and [7, Section 2]). Such a set will be referred to in the sequel as a
complete set of minimal representatives of the inverse map.
Having information about the inverse map – e.g., about its degree – will be quite relevant in
the sequel. For instance, the first of the above structural congruences
(f1 (g1 , . . . , gm ), . . . , fn (g1 , . . . , gm )) ≡ (X1 , . . . , Xn )

(1)

involving the inverse map, in terms of a given representative lifted to k[y], yields a uniquely
defined form D ∈ R up to a nonzero scalar in k, such that fi (g1 , . . . , gm ) = Xi D, for every
i = 1, . . . , n. This is merely a consequence of factoriality. Indeed, the congruence means that
there are forms D, D ′ such that D ′ fi (g) = Dxi for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Now, a prime factor of D ′
that does not divide D would have to divide all n ≥ 2 variables, which is only possible if D ′ ∈ k.
Otherwise, necessarily D ′ divides D; in any case we are through.
We call D the source inversion factor of G associated to the given representative. There is
a counterpart target inversion factor, defined in a parallel way by exchanging the roles of f and
g in (1). However, for that to be seen one has to be slightly more careful, as we now explain.
For convenience we state the result in the form of a lemma.
6

Lemma 1.2. Let G : Pn−1 99K Pm−1 be a rational map defined by forms g = {g1 , . . . , gm } ⊂
R := k[X] = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] of the same degree. Suppose that G is birational onto a nondegenerate subvariety W ⊂ Pm−1 . Then the inverse map admits a representative by forms
f = {f1 , . . . , fn } ⊂ k[Y] of the same degree such that there exists a uniquely defined form
E ⊂ k[Y] modulo I(W ) satisfying the congruences
(g1 (f ), · · · , gm (f )) ≡ E · (Y1 , · · · , Ym ) (mod I(W )).
Proof. The proof is strongly based on the results and proof of [7, Theorem 2.18]. We follow
verbatim the line of argument of the proof of [7, Theorem 2.18, Supplement, (ii)]. First, a
representative of the inverse map f = {f1 , . . . , fn } can be taken in which fi denotes a signed
(n − 1)th order minor of an (n − 1) × n submatrix of the weak Jacobian dual matrix of G. Next,
drawing upon the so-called Koszul–Hilbert Lemma ([7, Proposition 2.1]) one derives a set of
simpler congruences:
gm (f ) Yj = gj (f ) Ym

(mod I(W )), 1 ≤ j ≤ m.

(2)

Since W ⊂ Pm−1 is non-degenerate, the ideal (Ym , I(W )) ⊂ k[Y] is prime. We read the above
congruences as gm (f ) Yj ∈ (Ym , I(W )), for 1 ≤ j ≤ m. If gm (f ) 6∈ (Yn , I(W )) then Yj ∈
(Ym , I(W )) for 1 ≤ j ≤ m. This gives (Y1 , . . . , Ym ) ⊂ (Yn , I(W )) which implies that I(W ) has
codimension m − 1, hence dim W = 0. But this is impossible since the map is birational and
n ≥ 2. Therefore, one must conclude that gm (f ) ∈ (Ym , I(W )), and hence Ym is cancellable in
(2).
We remark that E depends on the choice of the forms {f1 , . . . , fn } representing the inverse
map, which is by no means uniquely given (see [7] for the details of this nature).
A fundamental property of the inversion factor of a Cremona map in characteristic zero does
not seem to have been observed before in the following generality and explicitness. We give a
neat algebraic proof.
Proposition 1.3. (char(k) = 0) Let G denote a Cremona map of Pn−1 defined by forms
g : {g1 , . . . , gn } in R without fixed part and let Θ(g) denote the Jacobian matrix of g. Then
det(Θ(g)) divides a power of the source inversion factor G of G. In particular, if det(Θ(g)) is
reduced then it divides G.
Proof. Let f : {f1 , . . . , fn } define the inverse map. Applying the chain rule of derivatives to
the structural equation f (g) = G · (X), it obtains
Θ(f )(g) · Θ(g) = G · I + (X)t · Grad(G)

(3)

where I is the identity matrix and Grad(G) = (∂G/∂X1 . . . ∂G/∂Xn ). Note that the right
side of (3) is the result of evaluating λ 7→ G in the characteristic matrix λI − A, where A =
−(X)t · Grad(G).
Recall that, quite generally the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial p(λ) = λn +
n−1
a1 λ
+ . . . + an−1 λ + an of A can be recursively computed as:
− a1 = s 1
−rar = sr +

r−1
X
i=1

7

si ar−i

(4)

where sr is the trace of the matrix Ar , for 1 ≤ r ≤ n.
Now, one has
n
X
∂G
= d G,
Xi
Trace((X)t · Grad(G)) =
∂Xi

(5)

i=1

where d = deg(G). On the other hand, a calculation yields the equality A2 = (d G)A. By an
immediate recursion it follows that
((X)t · Grad(G))r = (dr−1 Gr−1 )(X)t · Grad(G)

(6)

From this, applying (4) recursively yields a2 = a3 = · · · = an = 0, hence p(t) = tn + (d G)tn−1 .
Evaluating λ 7→ G yields p(G) = Gn + (d G)Gn−1 = (d + 1)Gn . But this is (det G · I + (X)t ·
Grad(G)), hence (3) gives
det(Θ(f )(g)) · det(Θ(g)) = (d + 1)Gn .

(7)

Therefore, det(Θ(g)) indeed divides Gn .
From the other end, the basic result relating inversion factors to symbolic powers is the
following proposition showing how the former become genuine generators of the latter. We are
not aware of this result having been explicitly pointed out in the previous literature.
Proposition 1.4. Let I ⊂ R = k[x] denote the base ideal of a birational map F : Pn−1 99K Pm−1
onto the image, satisfying the canonical restrictions. Let D ⊂ R denote the source inversion
factor relative to a given minimal representative of the inverse map. Suppose that I is a radical
′
′
ideal such that I (ℓ) = I ℓ for every ℓ ≤ d′ − 1, but I (d ) 6= I d , where d′ is the degree of the
coordinates of the representative. Then
P
′
′
′
(a) D ∈ I (d ) \ 1≤j≤d′ −1 I (d −j) · I (j) = I d .
′

(b) Moreover, if I (d ) is generated in standard degree ≥ dd′ − 1, where d is the degree of the
coordinates of F, then D is a homogeneous minimal generator of the symbolic Rees algebra.
′

Proof. The characteristic property of D is the congruence (1). In particular, D ∈ I d : (x).
We may assume that F is not the identity map of Pn−1 . Since I is radical, it has codimension
at most dim R − 1; hence, there is a form h ∈ (x) \ P , for every minimal prime P of R/I, such
′
′
that hD ∈ I d . This means that D ∈ I (d ) .
The rest of (a) follows straightforwardly under the present hypothesis.
Part (b) is clear since deg(D) = dd′ − 1.

2
2.1

Ideals of general linear forms
Arithmetic and homological properties

Let k stand for an infinite field and let R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] denote a standard graded polynomial
ring over k. We will often require that char(k) = 0, but some of the results will be valid in any
characteristic. Our basic object is an m × (m − 1) matrix of general linear forms over R. For
the sake of subsequent ideal theoretic properties, we introduce our main notion in a more formal
way, by emphasizing its nature as a specialization out of a generic m × (m − 1) matrix over a
larger polynomial ring.
8

Definition 2.1. Let m, n be given positive integers such that m(m − 1) ≥ n. Let Z = (Zi,j )
denote an m×(m−1) generic matrix over k. Write S := k[Z] = k[Zi,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ m−1]
for the corresponding polynomial ring over k. Setting s := m(m − 1) − n, let L := (L1 , . . . , Ls ) ⊂
S denote a regular sequence of general 1-forms (i.e., the entire set of coefficients is random) – such
regular sequences abound by taking a regular sequences of s forms of degree 1 with indeterminate
coefficients (see, e.g., [15, Proposition 4.3])) and then randomly evaluating these indeterminates
to elements of k. Denote R := S/(L) and let L stand for the m × (m − 1) matrix over R whose
entries are the images of the variables Zij under the surjection of k-algebras S ։ R. For lack
of better terminology, we call L a general linear matrix of size m × (m − 1).
Clearly then R is isomorphic to the ring of polynomials over k on n variables. For the
sake of subsequent development, we make this setup more explicit in the following way. Namely,
consider the revlex monomial order of S with the following ordering of the variables: Z1,1 > · · · >
Z1,m−1 > Z2,1 · · · > Zm,m−1 . It is a simple inductive argument on s using elementary operations
on the generators to see that the first s = m(m − 1) − n variables in this order generate an ideal
contained in the initial ideal of L. But since the former is a prime ideal of codimension s it must
coincide with the latter. Likewise, the inductive procedure used also gives that L is generated
by 1-forms Li,j := Zi,j − λi,j , where {i, j} runs through the first m(m − 1) − n entry indices and
the corresponding λi,j is an 1-form depending only on the last n variables. One notes that the
entire set of coefficients of the set {λi,j | i, j} of 1-forms is a result of simple operations on the
original coefficients of the set {L1 , . . . , Ls }, hence is itself general, if not strictly random. Then
R is isomorphic to the ring of polynomials over k on these variables. We now rename these
variables to X1 , . . . , Xn , and henceforth write R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ]. With this proviso, the matrix
L is an m × (m − 1) matrix over R where the first m(m − 1) − n entries (in the entry ordering
as above) are the forms ℓij obtained by evaluating the forms λi,j on X1 , . . . , Xn and the last n
entries are the variables X1 , . . . , Xn themselves.
One can harmlessly trade the last n entries for n additional random linear forms in X1 , . . . , Xn .
We emphasize once more that the entire set of the forms ℓi,j appearing as entries of the matrix
is general, i.e., the totality of all coefficients is random.
Following common usage, one denotes by It (Ψ) ⊂ R the ideal generated by the t × t minors
of a matrix Ψ. In the present setup, one has It (L) = (It (Z), L)/(L).
Our first basic result is about the codimension of these ideals of minors.
Theorem 2.2. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] as
above, with n ≥ 3 and m ≥ 2. Then, for every 1 ≤ t ≤ m − 1, one has
ht (It (L)) = min{n, (m − t + 1)(m − t)}.
Proof. Because S/(It (Z), L) ≃ R/It (L), the assertion is equivalent to the following one
dim S/(It (Z), L) = max{0, n − (m − t + 1)(m − t)}.
More precisely, we will now show that, for 1 ≤ t ≤ m − 1 and 1 ≤ r ≤ s = m(m − 1) − n:

0
if D < r
dim S/(It (Z), L1 , . . . , Lr ) =
D − r if D ≥ r
where D := dim S/It (Z) = m(m − 1) − (m − t + 1)(m − t).
9

(8)

We proceed by induction on r. Obviously, D > 0 if and only if t ≥ 2. Now, for every t in this
range, clearly L1 is a non-zero-divisor on S/It (Z) since L1 is a linear form and all the associated
primes are contained in the one single prime I2 (Z) generated in degree 2. Therefore, one has

0
if D = 0
dim S/(It (Z), L1 ) =
D − 1 if D ≥ 1
Let now m(m − 1) − n ≥ j ≥ 2. By the inductive hypothesis, one has

0
if D < j − 1
dim S/(It (Z), L1 , . . . , Lj−1 ) =
D − (j − 1) if D ≥ j − 1
Now consider the set Ass(S/It (Z), L1 , . . . , Lj−1 ), with t in the range for which D ≥ j − 1. This
is a finite set of primes. Let J[1] denote the part of degree 1 of a homogeneous ideal J in R.
Since Lj is a general form and S
randomly chosen with respect to the forms L1 , . . . , Lj−1 , we have
Lj ∈
/ P[1] for every prime P ∈ t Ass(S/It (Z), L1 , . . . , Lj−1 ).
Then the dimension again drops by 1, i.e., we get

0
if D < j
dim S/(It (Z), L1 , . . . , Lj ) =
D − j if D ≥ j
Applying with j = m(m − 1) − n yields

0
if D < m(m − 1) − n
dim S/(It (Z), L) =
D − m(m − 1) + n if D ≥ m(m − 1) − n
Substituting for the value of D yields the required result.
Next is the first basic structural result.
Proposition 2.3. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with n ≥ 3 and m ≥ 2. Set I = Im−1 (L) ⊂ R. Then:
(i) I has codimension 2 and Im−2 (L) ⊂ R has codimension min{6, n}.
(ii) (char(k) = 0) R/I satisfies the condition (Rr ) of Serre, with r = min{3, n − 2 − 1} ; in
particular, if n ≥ 4 then R/I is normal and I is a prime ideal.
(iii) I is of linear type if and only if m ≤ n.
(iv) (char(k) = 0) I is normally torsionfree if and only if m < n.
Proof. (i) This follows from Theorem 2.2.
(ii) Since Z is a generic matrix, the Jacobian ideal of S/Im−1 (Z) is Im−2 (Z)/Im−1 (Z).
Applying Bertini’s theorem ([12]) gives that the singular scheme of the scheme-theoretic general hyperplane section S/(Im−1 (Z), L1 ) is the scheme associated to S/(Im−2 (Z), L1 ). Inducting on the number m(m − 1) − n of general hyperplane sections yields that the singular
scheme of the scheme-theoretic linear section S/(Im−1 (Z), L) ≃ R/I is the scheme associated to
S/(Im−2 (Z), L) ≃ R/Im−2 (L). By Theorem 2.2, the latter has codimension at least min{6, n}
on R. Since I = Im−1 (L) has codimension 2, R/I satisfies the Serre condition (Rmin{3,n−2−1} ).
Thus, if n ≥ 4 then R/I satisfies (R1 ). At the other end, R/I is Cohen–Macaulay. It follows
10

that, for n ≥ 4, R/I is normal and, since I is homogeneous, R/I must be a domain. (If n = 3
then I is still a radical ideal.)
(iii) Let us apply the result of Theorem 2.2 in this case. We claim that
min{n, (m − t + 1)(m − t)} ≥ m − t + 1, for 1 ≤ t ≤ m − 1.
This is obvious if the minimum is attained by (m − t + 1)(m − t); if the minimum is n instead
then m ≤ n certainly implies m − t + 1 ≤ n.
This shows that I satisfies the property (F1 ), hence it is an ideal of linear type in this
case (see [13]). The converse is evident since the linear type property implies the inequality
µ(I) ≤ dim R.
(iv) Suppose first that m < n. By part (iii), I is of linear type. Since I is strongly Cohen–
Macaulay ([3, Theorem 2.1(a)]) then the Rees algebra of I is Cohen–Macaulay ([13, Theorem
9.1]), and hence so is the associated graded ring of I. On the other hand, we may assume that
n ≥ 4 given that for n = 3 the ideal I is generated by a regular sequence of two elements.
Therefore, by part (ii), the ideal I is prime. By [10, Proposition 3.2 (1)], the assertion is
equivalent to having
ℓP (I) ≤ max{ht P − 1, ht I},
for every prime ideal P ⊃ I. Since I is homogeneous, it suffices to take P homogeneous.
We may assume that ht P ≥ 3 since I is a height 2 prime. Therefore, we have to show that
ℓP (I) ≤ ht P − 1. If P = (X) the result is clear since ℓ(X) ≤ µ(I) = m ≤ n − 1 = ht (X) − 1.
Therefore, we may assume that P ( (X), hence ht P ≤ n − 1.
Set t0 := max{1 ≤ s ≤ m − 2 | Is (L) 6⊂ P }. Therefore, It0 +1 (L) ⊂ P , hence ht It0 +1 (L) ≤
ht P ≤ n − 1. By Theorem 2.2 one must have ht It0 +1 (L) = (m − t0 )(m − t0 − 1). Pick a t0 -minor
∆ of L not contained in P , so that, in particular, RP is a localization of the ring of fractions
R∆ = R[∆−1 ] ⊂ k(X). By a standard row-column elementary operation procedure, there is an
(m − t0 ) × (m − t0 − 1) matrix Le over RP such that
e
IP = Im−1−t0 (L).

Assume first that t0 ≤ m−3. Then (m−t0 ) ≤ (m−t0 )(m−t0 −1)−1 = ht It0 +1 (L)−1 ≤ ht P −1.
Therefore
e ≤ min{µ(Im−1−t (L)),
e ht P } = min{m − t0 , ht P } ≤ ht P − 1.
ℓP (I) = ℓ(Im−1−t0 (L))
0

If t0 = m − 2, one gets ℓP (I) = min{2, ht P } = 2 ≤ ht P − 1 since it has been assumed that
ht P ≥ 3.
Therefore, I is normally torsionfree. The converse will follow from Theorem 2.10.
The proof of the main theorem stated further down will draw on several results of independent
interest.
Recall the following notation: for a given integer s ≥ 1, one says that the ideal I ⊂ R satisfies
condition (Gs ) if µ(IP ) ≤ ht P , for every prime ideal P such that ht P ≤ s − 1.
Proposition 2.4. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 3. Set I := Im−1 (ϕ). Then
(i) I satisfies condition (Gn ).
11

(ii) (char(k) = 0) Given an integer r ≥ 0 such that I (r) /I r 6= {0} then I (r) /I r is an (X)primary R-module (in other words, I (r) is the saturation of I r ).
Proof. (i) Let P ⊂ R be a prime of height ≤ n − 1. Set
t∞ := min{1 ≤ t ≤ m − 1 | It (L ⊂ P )}.
Then ht It∞ (L) ≤ n−1, hence ht It∞ (L) = (m−t∞ +1)(m−t∞ ) by Proposition 2.3 (i). Inverting
e for a suitable (m − t∞ + 1)(m − t∞ ) matrix
a (t∞ − 1)-minor of L in RP we get IP = Im−t∞ (L)
Le over RP . Collecting the information yields
e = m − t∞ + 1 ≤ (m − t∞ + 1)(m − t∞ )
µ(IP ) = µ(Im−t∞ (L))
= ht It∞ (L) ≤ ht (P ).

(ii) Fixing an r ≥ 0, suppose that I (r) /I r 6= {0}. By Proposition 2.3 (iv), we have m ≥ n. The
assertion is equivalent to saying that a power of (X) annihilates I (r) /I r i.e., that I (r) P = I r P for
every prime P 6= (X). Letting r ≥ 0 run, this is in turn equivalent to claiming that the associated
graded ring grI (R) is torsionfree over R/I locally on the punctured spectrum Spec(R) \ (X).
Thus, let P 6= (X) be a prime containing I. Then the condition (Gn ) of part (i) implies
that IP satisfies the condition (F1 ) (same as (G∞ )) as an ideal of RP . As in the proof of
Proposition 2.3 (iv), we know that the associated graded ring grIP (RP ) is Cohen–Macaulay.
Therefore, by the same token and since ht I = 2, one has to show the local estimates
ℓQ (I) = ℓQP (IP ) ≤ ht (QP ) − 1 = ht Q − 1,
for every prime Q ⊂ P .
Fixing such a prime Q, set t0 := max{1 ≤ s ≤ m − 2 | Is (L) 6⊂ Q}. The argument is now the
same as the one in the proof of Proposition 2.3 (iv).
Corollary 2.5. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 3. Set I := Im−1 (ϕ). Then Sr (I) ≃ I r in the range 1 ≤ r ≤ n − 1.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 2.4 (i) as applied through the result of [22, Theorem 5.1].
For an integer in the range 1 ≤ r ≤ n − 3, recall the rth approximation complex associated
to the ideal I (see [23, Section 3]):
Mr : 0 → Hr → Hr−1 ⊗ S1 → · · · → H1 ⊗ Sr−1 → Sr .

(9)

Here Hi stands for the ith Koszul homology module on the generators of I and Si denotes the
ith homogeneous part of the polynomial ring S := R/I[Y1 . . . , Ym ]. One has H0 (Mr ) ≃ Sr (I/I 2 ).
Proposition 2.6. The approximation complex Mr is acyclic in the range 1 ≤ r ≤ n − 3.
Proof. We show that the complex is acyclic locally everywhere. Suppose first that P 6= (X) is
a non-irrelevant prime. In this case, using Corollary 2.5, the result is contained in [13, Theorem
5.1].
12

Thus, we can assume that P = (X) and that Mr is acyclic locally at any prime properly
contained in (X). We show acyclicity stepwise from the left. Thus, suppose the partial complex
0 → Hr → · · ·

→ Hk+2 ⊗r−k−2 → Hk+1 ⊗ Sr−k−1
ց
Bk
ց
0

is exact. Since I is a strongly Cohen–Macaulay ideal ([3, Theorem 2.1(a)]), one has depth (Hi ) =
n−2 for every 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Chasing depths from left to right, one gets depth (Bk ) ≥ n−(r−k+1) =
(n − r) + k − 1 ≥ 3 + k − 1 = k + 2 ≥ 2.
Now, letting Zk ⊂ Hk ⊗ Sr−k denote the subsequent module of cycles, write Dk := Zk /Bk .
Suppose Dk 6= 0 and take Q ∈ Ass(Dk ). Since the entire complex is acyclic off (X), we must
have Q = (X). Applying HomR (R/(X), −) yields the exact sequence
0 = HomR (R/(X), Zk ) → HomR (R/(X), Dk ) → Ext 1R (R/(X), Bk ).
The rightmost term of this sequence vanishes as well since the depth of Bk is at least 2, hence
also does the middle term; this is absurd since (X) is an associated prime of Dk . Therefore, we
conclude that Dk = 0.
Denote by pdR (M ) the projective dimension of a finitely generated R-module M .
Corollary 2.7. pdR (I r /I r+1 ) ≤ r + 2 for 1 ≤ r ≤ n − 3. In particular, (X) ∈
/ Ass(I r /I r+1 ).
Proof. Since (9) is acyclic by Proposition 2.6, depth chasing all the way to the right yields
depth Sr (I/I 2 ) ≥ n − (r + 2). Therefore, pdR (Sr (I/I 2 )) ≤ r + 2. But Sr (I/I 2 ) ≃ I r /I r+1 by
Corollary 2.5.
Theorem 2.8. (char(k) = 0) Ass(R/I r ) = Ass(R/I) for 1 ≤ r ≤ n − 2.
Proof. By Proposition 2.4 (ii), Ass(R/I r ) ⊂ Ass(R/I) ∪ {(X)} - note that the assumption that
I is prime holds for n ≥ 4; for n = 3, I is still radical, hence the statement is obvious directly.
Proceed by induction on r. It is clear for r = 1 since I is a radical unmixed ideal for n ≥ 3
and ht (I) = 2 < n.
Supposing (X) ∈ Ass(R/I r ), the exact sequence 0 → I r−1 /I r → R/I r → R/I r−1 → 0 and
the inductive hypothesis force us to conclude that (X) ∈ Ass(I r−1 /I r ). But since r + 1 ≤ n − 1,
the latter is forbidden by Corollary 2.7.

2.2

The role of the inverse factor

An ideal I ⊂ R generated by m forms of the same degree is of fiber type if the bihomogeneous
defining ideal J ⊂ R[Y] = R[Y1 , . . . , Ym ] of the Rees algebra R(I) is generated by its Y-linear
forms and the defining equations of the special fiber R(I)/(X)R(I).
Proposition 2.9. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with m ≥ n ≥ 3. Setting I := Im−1 (L) ⊂ R, one has:
(a) The rational map G : Pn−1 99K Pm−1 defined by the (m − 1)-minors is birational onto its
image.
13

(b) I is an ideal of fiber type and the Rees algebra R(I) is a Cohen–Macaulay domain.

(c) The map G admits m−1
n−1 source inversion factors, each associated to a minimal representative of the inverse map ; moreover, any of them is an element of the symbolic power
I (n−1) of degree (m − 1)(n − 1) − 1.
Proof. (a) By [7, Theorem 3.2], it suffices to prove that the dimension of the k-subalgebra
of R generated by the minors has dimension n, i.e., that I has maximal analytic spread. The
case where m = n follows from Proposition 2.3 (iii). Now assume that m > n. Since R/I is
Cohen–Macaulay and satisfies µP (I) ≤ ht P , for ht P ≤ n − 1 (Proposition 2.4 (i)), the result
follows from [21, Theorem 4.3].
(b) For m = n there is nothing to prove regarding the fiber type property, while the symmetric
algebra is even a complete intersection. Thus, assume that m > n. In this case the result
follows from [16, Theorem 1.3]. In addition, the defining ideal of the Rees algebra R(I) is
(I1 (X · B), In (B)), where B denotes the Jacobian dual matrix of L.
(c) Since I is of fiber type, a weak Jacobian dual matrix of I as in [7] coincides with the
transpose B t of the matrix introduced in the previous item; B t is an (m − 1) × n matrix of linear
forms in the Y-variables, whose rank over the special fiber of I is n − 1. By part (a) and [7],
any (n − 1) × n submatrix has rank n − 1 and its n (ordered, signed) maximal
minors are the
m−1
coordinates of a representative of the inverse map; thus, there are n−1 such representatives.
By construction, the degree of any one of these representatives (i.e., of its coordinates as
elements of the special fiber) is exactly n − 1. It follows from Proposition 1.4 that each such
representative gives rise to a source inversion factor that is an element of the symbolic power
I (n−1) and has degree (m − 1)(n − 1) − 1.
One gets immediately the following preamble to the subsequent main results.
Proposition 2.10. Let L denote an m × (m − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with m ≥ n ≥ 3. Set I = Im−1
(L) ⊂ R. Then I (r) = I r for 1 ≤ r ≤ n−2, and Dj ∈ I (n−1) \I n−1 ,
m−1
where Dj (j = 1, . . . , n−1 ) are the source inversion factors associated to a complete set of
minimal representatives of the inverse map.
Proof. The first assertion follows immediately from Theorem 2.8 and the second assertion
stems from Proposition 1.4.
Thus far, the available features of the theory work for m ≥ n. In the subsequent part we
come to grips with a richer amount of information, by focusing on the cases where m = n or
m = n + 1. We will have to go a long way to obtain the nature of the corresponding symbolic
Rees algebras. Structure theorems for m ≥ n + 2 are this far unknown (see Remark 2.25).

2.3

The symbolic algebra: Cremona case m = n

The classical theory of plane Cremona maps in characteristic zero relates the Jacobian of a homaloidal net with the principal curves of the corresponding Cremona map. Our first proposition
for this part is a far-fetched analogue of this result.
Proposition 2.11. (char(k) = 0) Let R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] be a polynomial ring over a field k
of characteristic zero, with its standard grading and let L = (ℓij ) be an n × (n − 1) matrix
14

whose entries are linear forms in R. For every i = 1, . . . , n write ∆i for the signed (n − 1)minor of L obtained by omitting the i-th row and let Θ = Θ(∆) denote the Jacobian matrix of
∆ := {∆1 , . . . , ∆n }.
If the ideal In−1 (L) := (∆) ⊂ R is of linear type then the rational map Pn−1 99K Pn−1 defined
1
det(Θ).
by ∆ is a Cremona map and the associated source inversion factor is n−1

Proof. The first assertion to the effect that the map is birational is [17, Examples 2.4] (also
[18, Theorem 3.12]).
We proceed to determine the source inversion factor. Consider the Jacobian dual matrix of
[18] which is the Jacobian matrix with respect to X1 , . . . , Xn of the linear forms in the target
variables Y1 , . . . , Yn induced by the columns of L. This is the following matrix:
 Pn



∂ℓr1
r=1 ∂X1 Yr

Pn

r=1

...

..
.

∂ℓrn−1
∂X1 Yr

...

Pn

∂ℓr1
r=1 ∂Xn Yr

Pn

r=1

..
.

∂ℓrn−1
∂Xn Yr





Now, by [17, Examples 2.4] the inverse map is defined by the (signed) maximal minors of
this matrix. Therefore, letting di denote the signed (n − 1)-minor of this matrix omitting the ith
row, by definition of the source inversion factor we are to show that the outcome of evaluating
1
det(Θ) Xi .
di via the map Yi 7→ ∆i is n−1
To this purpose, we first note the following equality, where now ∆i denotes the respective
non-signed minor:
n
X

(−1)n+r

r=1

X
∂∆r
∂ℓrj
∆r =
(−1)n+r+1 ℓrj
, for 1 ≤ k ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1,
∂Xk
∂Xk

from which we gather:











 P


n
n+r+1
(−1)
ℓ
di (∆) = det 

r1
r=1









∂∆r
∂X1

..
.

∂∆r
∂Xi−1
∂∆r
∂Xi+1

..
.

∂∆r
∂Xn













Pn


m+r+1
(−1)
ℓ

 ...
rn−1
r=1









∂∆r
∂X1

..
.

∂∆r
∂Xr−1
∂∆i
∂Xr+1

..
.

∂∆r
∂Xn

 






















Write [r1 . . . rP
n−1 ] for the (n − 1)-minor of L with rows r1 , . . . , rn−1 and let αr1 ...rn−1 :=
(n + 1)(n − 1) + ns=1 rs . By the multi-linearity of determinants, the result of evaluating di is
then
15



X

αr1 ...rn−1

(−1)

1≤r1 <...<rn−1 ≤n





!

X

(−1)σ ℓσ(r1 )1 · · · ℓσ(rn−1 )n−1 det 

σ











X

αr1 ...rn−1
=
[r1 . . . rn−1 ] det 
(−1)

1≤r1 <...<rn−1 ≤n












= det 






∂∆1
∂X1

..
.

∂∆1
∂Xi−1

∆1
∂∆1
∂Xi+1
..
.

∂∆1
∂Xn

...
..
.
...
...
...
..
.
...

∂∆n
∂X1

..
.

∂∆n
∂Xi−1

∆n
∂∆n
∂Xi+1
..
.

∂∆n
∂Xn



∂∆r1
∂X1

...
..
.

∂∆r1
∂Xi−1
∂∆r1
∂Xi+1

...

..
.

...
..
.

∂∆r1
∂Xn

...

..
.

∂∆r1
∂X1

...
..
.

∂∆r1
∂Xi−1
∂∆r1
∂Xi+1

...

..
.

...
..
.

∂∆r1
∂Xn

...

..
.

∂∆rn−1
∂X1

..
.

∂∆rn−1
∂Xi−1
∂∆rn−1
∂Xi+1

..
.

∂∆rn−1
∂Xn

∂∆rn−1
∂X1

..
.

∂∆rn−1
∂Xi−1
∂∆rn−1
∂Xi+1

..
.

∂∆rn−1
∂Xn



































Xi

det Θ
=
 n−1





where we have expanded the determinant by Laplace according to the ith row and used Euler’s
formula.
Corollary 2.12. (char(k) = 0) Let R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] be a polynomial ring over a field k of
characteristic zero, with its standard grading and let L be an n × (n − 1) general linear matrix.
Then In−1 (L) is the base ideal of a Cremona map of Pn−1 and the associated source inversion
1
det(Θ), where Θ denotes the Jacobian matrix of the (n − 1)-minors of L.
factor is n−1
Proof. The first assertion follows from Proposition 2.3. The second assertion is a consequence
of Proposition 2.11.
Remark 2.13. An alternative to prove the second assertion of the previous corollary would
come out of Proposition 1.3 by noticing that the inversion factor and det(Θ) have the same
degree. Then it would suffice to argue that the latter is an irreducible polynomial since the
(n − 1)-minors of L are sufficiently general forms.
Here is the main theorem in the case m = n:
Theorem 2.14. Let L denote an n × (n − 1) general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with n ≥ 3. Set I := In−1 (L) ⊂ R and let R(I) denote its symbolic Rees algebra. Then
(a) R(I) is a Gorenstein normal domain.
16

(b) (char(k) = 0) R(I) is generated by the (n − 1)-minors of L, viewed in degree 1 and by
the source inversion factor of the Cremona map defined by these minors, viewed in degree
n − 1.
Moreover, this inversion factor coincides with a nonzero scalar multiple of the Jacobian
determinant of the very minors.
Proof. (a) The symbolic Rees algebra R(I) of I is a Gorenstein ring; indeed, it is a quasiGorenstein Krull domain since ht I = 2 ([19]). On the other hand, by the proof of [20, Corollary
2.4 (b)], one has an isomorphism R(I) ≃ R(I)[t−1 ] = R[It, t−1 ], hence R(I) is finitely generated.
Moreover, the latter is Cohen–Macaulay since R(I) is Cohen–Macaulay by Proposition 2.9 (b).
It follows that R(I) is a Gorenstein normal domain.
(b) To get the explicit generation, let d1 , . . . , dn ∈ k[Y] be forms of the same degree, with
gcd = 1, defining the inverse map and let D ∈ R denote the corresponding source inversion
factor. Write J = (d1 , . . . , dn ) ⊂ k[Y]. By definition, one has
D = di (∆1 , . . . , ∆n )/Xi , 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
where ∆ := {∆1 , . . . , ∆n } are the (signed) minors generating I. Identifying the two Rees algebras RR (I) = R[It] ⊂ R[t] and Rk[Y] (J) = k[Y][Ju] ⊂ k[Y][u] by a k-isomorphism that maps
Yi 7→ ∆i t and Xi 7→ di u, then D is identified with d1 /X1 in the common field of fractions. Drawing on Proposition 2.4 (ii) (here we need char(k) = 0), then the symbolic algebra is generated
by It and Dtn−1 as a consequence of [23, Corollary 7.4.3 (b)] (note that the notation for the
two ideals is reversed in the latter).
The additional statement follows from Corollary 2.12 (again in characteristic zero).
As an application of the results so far in the case m = n, we give an affirmative solution, in
characteristic zero, of the following conjecture stated in [11, Section 2]:
Conjecture. If I is the ideal of minors of a generic (that is, random) 2 × 3 matrix of linear
forms in 3 variables, then the annihilator of I (d) /I d is F1 (I)e , where e is the greatest integer
≤ d/2.
There is certainly a misprint in this statement since by definition the Fitting ideal F1 (I)e is
the ideal of 2-minors of the matrix, which is the ideal I itself. The correct Fitting should be
F2 (I)e , the ideal of 1-minors of the matrix. But since the entries are general linear forms, this
ideal is the irrelevant ideal m := (x, y, z) ⊂ R := k[x, y, z] with k a field.
Proof of the conjecture.
Let ϕ denote the given matrix. A consequence of Theorem 2.14 (b) above is that I (2) =
(I 2 , D), where D ∈ R is the inversion factor of the Cremona map defined by the 2-minors of ϕ,
and, moreover, for every d ≥ 1 the following equalities hold
(
d
(I (2) ) 2
if d is even
(d)
I =
d−1
(2)
if d is odd
I (I ) 2
By definition of the inversion factor, one has Dm ∈ I 2 . It follows that the annihilator of
I (2) /I 2 is m. We also know that deg(D) = 3 since the inverse map to the Cremona map defined
by the 2-minors is also defined by forms of degree 2, and so deg(D) = 2.2 − 1 = 3.
Consider separately the even and the odd cases.
17

d even.
One has md/2 I (d) = md/2 (I (2) )d/2 = (mI (2) )d/2 ⊂ (I 2 )d/2 = I d .
Conversely, let f ∈ m be a form such that f I (d) ⊂ I d . Since the annihilator of I (2) /I 2 is
the entire maximal ideal m, it suffices to show that deg(f ) ≥ d/2. Since I (d) = (I (2) )d/2 and
I (2) = (I 2 , D), in particular we get f D d/2 ∈ I d . Reading degrees on both sides one has that
deg(f ) + 3d/2 ≥ 2d. Therefore, deg(f ) ≥ d/2, hence f ∈ md/2 as required.
d odd.
One has
m(d−1)/2 I (d) = m(d−1)/2 I(I (2) )(d−1)/2 = I (mI (2) )(d−1)/2 ⊂ I (I 2 )(d−1)/2 = I I d−1 = I d .
The hypothesis is that f D (d−1)/2 I ⊂ I d . In particular, taking a minor ∆ among the
generators of I, we find f D (d−1)/ ∆ ⊂ I d . Again, reading degrees, we get the inequality
deg(f ) + 3((d − 1)/2) + 2 ≥ 2d, from which follows that deg(f ) ≥ (d − 1)/2.
We conclude as before. Since in the odd case, (d − 1)/2 = ⌊d/2⌋, we are done.

2.4

The symbolic algebra: implicitization case m = n + 1

We will now assume that m = n + 1.
2.4.1

Homological prelims

The arguments in this part will draw on the following results of independent interest. To describe
their contents, recall that Sn−1 (I) ≃ I n−1 by Corollary 2.5. Therefore, by [2, 22, 25] one has a
free resolution of I n−1
Kn−1 : 0 → Fn−1 → Fn−2 → . . . → F1 → F0 → 0
where
Fi :=
and d : Fi → Fi−1 is given by

i
^

Rn ⊗R S(n−1)−i (Rn+1 )

d(e1 ∧ . . . ∧ ei ⊗ g) :=

i
X
l=1

e1 ∧ . . . ∧ ebl ∧ . . . ∧ ei ⊗ ϕ(el )g,

with {e1 , . . . , en } denoting a basis of Rn and ϕ : Rn → Rn+1 standing for the map defined by
the (n + 1) × n presentation matrix L = (ℓij ) of the ideal I.
Consider the R-dual map to dn−1 : Fn−1 → Fn−2 . Since I n−1 is generated in (standard)
degree n(n − 1), after identification and taking in account the degrees shift, the dual map is of
the form
η := d∗n−1 : RN ((n + 1)(n − 1) − 1) → Rn ((n + 1)(n − 1)),
(10)

where N = (n + 1) n2 . Let M denote the cokernel of η. Shifting by −((n + 1)(n − 1)), we get a
homogeneous presentation
η

RN (−1) → Rn → M (−(n + 1)(n − 1)) → 0.
18

Theorem 2.15. With the above notation, there is a homogeneous isomorphism
M (−(n + 1)(n − 1)) ≃ Rn /(X)Rn = kn .
Proof. Picking up from the above preliminaries, let us make explicit the dual map to dn−1 :
Fn−1 → Fn−2 . Note that
Fn−1 =

n−1
^

n

R ⊗R S0 (R

n+1

n

) ≃ R , Fn−2 =

n−2
^

n

Rn ⊗R S1 (Rn+1 ) ≃ R(n−2) ⊗R Rn+1 .

Applying these identifications, the basis vector e1 ∧ · · · ∧ ebk ∧ · · · ∧ en gets identified with ek and
n
we write a1,...,k̂,...,l̂,...,n for a basis vector of R(n−2) corresponding to e1 ∧ · · · ∧ ebj ∧ · · · ∧ ebl ∧ · · · ∧ en .
Further, let {b1 , . . . , bn+1 } stand for a basis of Rn+1 With this notation, for k = 1, . . . , n, the
map is quite simply

ek 7→
=

n−1
X

a1,...,k̂,...,l̂,...,n ⊗ ϕ(el ) =

l=1
n+1
X n−1
X

n−1
X

a1,...,k̂,...,l̂,...,n ⊗

l=1

n+1
X

ℓil bi

i=1

ℓil a1,...,k̂,...,l̂,...,n ⊗ bi ,

i=1 l=1

where L = (ℓij ) is as above.
From this the transposed matrix has the following block shape
η = (Mn−1,n | . . . |M1,n | . . . |Mj−1,j | . . . |M1,j | . . . |M1,2 ) ,
where, for 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ n, Mij is

0
 ..
 .

 ℓ1i


Mi,j =  ...

 ℓ1j

 ..
 .
0

the following n × (n + 1) matrix up to signs

0 ...
0

..
..

. ...
.

← (n + 1 − j)th row
ℓ2i . . . ℓ(n+1)i 


..
..

.
. ...

ℓ2j . . . ℓ(n+1)j 
 ← (n + 1 − i)th row

..
..

.
. ...
0 ...
0

g
Next let M
i,j denote the submatrix of Mi,j consisting of the first n columns and consider the
following block submatrix of η
^
]
^
(M
n−1,n | . . . |M1,n | Mn−2,n−1 ),

consisting of n square blocks of order n each; in particular, the matrix has n2 columns.
We claim that the R-submodule of Rn generated by the columns of the above matrix coincides
with (X)Rn . For this, since the columns have standard degree 1, it suffices to show that the
columns are k-linearly independent as elements of the k-vector space ((X)R)1 .
Suppose that a nontrivial k-linear combination of these columns vanishes, with coefficients
α1 , . . . , αn2 ∈ k. Grouping the coefficients corresponding to the variables X1 , . . . , Xn one gets
19

an n × n linear system with coefficients in k such that {X1 , . . . , Xn } is a non zero solution. But
then every row of the system gives a k-linear relation of these variables. Clearly this is only
possible if all the coefficients of this system vanish. Writing this condition as a new square linear
system, this time around of order n2 with solution {α1 , . . . , αn2 } and appropriate coefficients in
k. Since the latter coefficients are nothing but the coefficients of all linear forms ℓij , they can
be expressed as partial derivatives of these forms, so the corresponding n2 × n2 matrix has the
following form (up to signs)







Θ=





Θn−1 Θn−2 Θn−3
Θn
0
0
0
Θn
0
0
0
Θn
..
..
..
.
.
.
0
0
0
0
0
0

. . . Θ2
... 0
... 0
... 0
.
. . . ..
. . . Θn
... 0

Θ1
0
0 Θn−2
0 Θn−1
0
0
..
..
.
.
0
0
Θn
0













where Θi is the transpose of the Jacobian matrix of {ℓi1 , . . . , ℓin } and 0 denotes the null matrix
of order n. We note that Θi is non-singular since {ℓi1 , . . . , ℓin } is a set of k-linearly independent
1-forms. The system has only the trivial solution if and only if the determinant of this matrix
does not vanish. One can see that, after appropriate elementary row operations, the above
determinant is non-vanishing if and only if the following matrix has nonzero determinant












I 0 0 ...
0 I 0 ...
0 0 I ...
.. .. ..
. . . ...
0 0 0 ...
0 0 0 ...
0 0 0 ...

0 0 Θn−2
0 0 Θn−1
0 0
0
.. ..
..
. .
.
I 0
0
0 I
0
0 0
Ω













where I stands for the n × n identity matrix and Ω = Θn−1 Θn−2 − Θn−2 Θn−1 . Thus, det(Θ) 6= 0
if and only if det(Ω) 6= 0. Now, the entries of the matrices Θn−1 , Θn−2 are among the coefficients
of the entries of the matrix L = (ℓij ). Since these are random, det(Ω) 6= 0.
Now, to conclude, we have shown that the image of the map η in (10) is the R-submodule
(X)Rn . Therefore, M (−(n + 1)(n − 1)) ≃ Rn /(X)Rn as required.
Example 2.16. The above discussion has many common points with [23, Section 8.2] which
treats the case of linearly presented perfect ideals in dimension n = 3. However, the above proof
draws on the hypothesis that L is a general linear matrix – and, in fact, it may be false for
other linearly presented ideals. We are indebted to A. Tchernev for having provided us with the
following counter-example to Theorem 2.15 in the context of arbitrary linearly presented ideals:



X1 X2 X3
 X2 X3 0 

ϕ=
 X3 0 X1 
0 X1 X2
20

(11)

Here the vector space dimension of the linear forms in Im(η) is 8, where η denotes the correspondingly defined matrix as in the proposition. We note that by changing 6 out of the 9 nonzero
entries of the Tchernev matrix into general 1-forms, the resulting matrix gives the maximal value
9 for the vector space dimension of the linear forms in Im(η).
Proposition 2.17. Let L denote an (n + 1) × n general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ],
with n ≥ 3. Set I = In (L) ⊂ R. Then
I (n−1) /I n−1 ≃ kn (−(n(n − 1) − 1)),
as graded R-modules.
Proof. By Theorem 2.15, one has a (shifted) homogeneous isomorphism
M (−n) ≃ kn (n(n − 1) − 1).
On the other hand, by definition there is a homogeneous isomorphism
M ≃ ExtnR (R/I n−1 , R).
Therefore, it obtains
0
I (n−1) /I n−1 ≃ H(X)
(R/I n−1 ) (since I (n−1) /I n−1 has finite length)

≃ HomR (ExtnR (R/I n−1 , R(−n)), E(k))

(by graded local duality)

n

≃ HomR (M (−n), E(k)) ≃ HomR (k (n(n − 1) − 1), E(k))
≃ HomR (k, E(k))⊕n (−(n(n − 1) − 1)) ≃ kn (−(n(n − 1) − 1)),
where the last isomorphism is given in [5, Lemma 3.2.7 (b)].
Example 2.18. Corollary 2.17 fails for arbitrary perfect ideals of codimension 2 admitting linear
presentation. For n = 3, Example 2.16 is a counter-example. Letting I ⊂ R = k[X1 , X2 , X3 ]
denote the ideal of 3-minors, then I (2) /I 2 is a cyclic R-module generated by the residue class of
a form F ∈ I (2) of degree 4 < n(n − 1) − 1 = 5. The map defined by the minors is still birational
onto the image, with inversion factors X1 F, X2 F, X3 F . In particular, the latter are not minimal
generators of I (2) . Even if we slightly ‘perturb’ Tchernev’s matrix the result equally fails, such
as in the following matrix


X1
X2
X3
 X2

X3
0

.
 X3
0
X1 − X2 
0 X1 − X3 X2 − X3
Perturbing more entries, such as in the following matrix

X1
X2
X3

X2
X3
X1 − X2


X3
X1 − X3 X2 − X3
X1 + X2 X2 + X3 X1 + X3




,


the result of Proposition 2.17 still holds true – and so does the one of Theorem 2.15. However,
now the statement in Theorem 2.19 (i) fails as those generators have a nontrivial common
21

divisor. Cooking up some of these examples require some extra care to make sure that I is a
radical ideal, otherwise the whole known repository of symbolic power theory crumbles down.
Therefore, slightly perturbing a linear (n + 1) × n matrix whose n-minors generate a radical
ideal may lead us astray. As an example, changing the lower right corner entry of the first of
the above matrices into X1 − X2 + X3 gives a non-radical ideal.
2.4.2

The trick of the transposed Jacobian dual

A good deal of the subsequent development rests on a simple construction.
Namely, let ∆ = {∆, . . . , ∆n+1 } denote the signed maximal minors of L. Let B denote the Jacobian dual matrix of L, whose entries belong to the polynomial ring k[Y] = k[Y1 , . . . , Yn , Yn+1 ].
By definition, one has an equality Y · L = X · B t , where the superscript t denotes transpose. We
can similarly write an equality Y · L′ = Z · B, for a unique matrix L′ whose entries are linear
forms in a set of duplicate variables Z of X.
We observe that L′ only differs from L by the rearrangement of the (same) coefficients of
the linear forms. Since the notion of general linear forms is dictated by the randomness of the
total set of coefficients, it follows that L′ it too is a matrix whose entries are general linear
forms in the variables Z. Therefore, by Proposition 2.9 (a), its n-minors δ = {δ1 , . . . , δn+1 }
define a birational map onto the image, with B t as its Jacobian dual matrix and corresponding set {d1 (Z), . . . , dn (Z)} of source inversion factors associated to a complete set of minimal
representatives of the corresponding inverse map.
As usual, the set of n-minors is taken with the correct signs. Keeping the above notation,
one has the following basic structural result:
Theorem 2.19. (char(k) = 0) Let L denote an (n + 1) × n (n ≥ 3) general linear matrix
over R = k[X] = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ] with n-minors ∆ = {∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 }, let {D1 , . . . , Dn } be as in
Proposition 2.10, and {d1 (Z), . . . , dn (Z)} as above. Then:
(i) {D1 , . . . , Dn } ⊂ R and {d1 (Z), . . . , dn (Z)} ⊂ k[Z] both generate ideals of codimension 2.
(ii) {D1 , . . . , Dn } defines a Cremona map D of Pn−1 whose inverse map is (d1 (Z) : · · · : dn (Z)).
(iii) Writing I := (∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 ), the R-module I (n−1) /I n−1 is minimally generated by the
classes of D1 , . . . , Dn ; in particular, the symbolic power I (n−1) is minimally generated by
D1 , . . . , Dn and by the minimal generators of I n−1 which are not of the form Xi Dj , 1 ≤
i, j ≤ n.
(iv) The source inversion factor of D is the (n − 1)th power of an element E ∈ I (n(n−1)−1) .
Supplement: Moreover, E coincides with the Jacobian determinant of D1 , . . . , Dn whenever the latter is irreducible.
(v) The minimal graded resolution of the ideal (D1 , . . . , Dn ) ⊂ R is
Xt

Ψ

0 → R(−n2 ) → R(−(n2 − 1))n → R(−(n(n − 1) − 1))n → R,

(12)

where Ψ denotes the Jacobian dual matrix of the signed n-minors of L evaluated orderly on
these signed minors, while Xt stands for the transpose of the vector of the source variables.
22

Proof. (i) We only discuss the ideal (D1 , . . . , Dn ) since the line of argument is analogous for
(d1 (Z), . . . , dn (Z)).
Being a subideal of I := (∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 ), the codimension of (D1 , . . . , Dn ) is at most 2. Thus,
it suffices to show that it is at least 2. Start from scratch by observing that k[∆] ≃ k[Y]/(β),
where β := det(B) and B stands for the Jacobian dual matrix of ∆. Since β(∆) = 0, the chain
rule of derivatives gives the short polarization complex
Θ

∂

R −→ Rn+1 −→ Rn ,

(13)

where Θ denotes the transposed Jacobian matrix of ∆ and ∂ is the transpose of


∂β
∂β
(∆) . . .
(∆) .
∂Y1
∂Yn+1

On the other hand, since dim k[∆] = n, the rank of Θ is n (since char(k) = 0), hence ker (Θ) is
generated by the single (column) vector whose jth coordinate is the n-minor of Θ omitting the
jth column of Θ further divided by the gcd of all the n-minors. Since ∆ are maximal minors of
a general linear matrix, they are sufficiently general n-forms, and so are any of their derivatives
(the entries of Θ). Since having a proper common divisor is a closed condition on the coefficients
while the coefficients of the entries are products and sums of random coefficients, then the ideal
In (Θ) generated by the maximal minors of Θ has codimension 2.
This implies that ker (Θ) is generated by a single vector in degree (n − 1)n (the degree of
an n-minor of Θ). On the other hand, a simple calculation shows that the coordinates of ∂ are
also of degree n(n − 1). Since by (13) the jth coordinate of∂ is a multiple of the n-minor
of Θ

∂β
∂β
omitting the jth column, we must conclude that the ideals ∂Y1 (∆), . . . , ∂Yn+1 (∆) and In (Θ)
coincide.
In particular, the first of these ideals has codimension 2. We proceed to show that it is
further contained in the ideal (D1 , . . . , Dn ), thus showing that the latter has codimension at
least 2.
Let L = (ℓij ) denote the given general linear (n + 1) × n matrix. Then

 Pn+1 ∂ℓr,1
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,n
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,2
r=1 ∂X1 Yr
r=1 ∂X1 Yr . . .
r=1 ∂X1 Yr

 P
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,2
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,n


n+1 ∂ℓr,1
Y
Y
.
.
.
Y


r
r
r
r=1 ∂X2
r=1 ∂X2
r=1 ∂X2
t
.

B =

..
..
..
..


.
.
.
.


Pn+1 ∂ℓr,n
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,2
Pn+1 ∂ℓr,1
r=1 ∂Xn Yr
r=1 ∂Xn Yr . . .
r=1 ∂Xn Yr
Expanding the determinant of B, it obtains (up to signs)
!
!#
" n+1
n+1
X ∂ℓr,j
X ∂ℓr,j
X
n
1
.
Yr · · ·
Yr
β=
∂X1
∂X1
1≤j1 ≤···≤jn ≤n

r=1

r=1

Taking the kth derivative yields

!
!


n+1
n+1
X
X
X
X
∂ℓk,js
∂β
∂ℓr,jn
∂ℓr,j1

=
Yr · · ·
Yr 
···
∂Xk
∂X1
∂Xs
∂X1
r=1
1≤j1 ≤···≤jn ≤n 1≤s≤n r=1

!
!


n+1
n+1
X
X ∂ℓr,j
X
X
∂ℓk,js
∂ℓr,jn
1

Yr · · ·
Yr 
···
=
∂X1
∂Xs
∂X1
1≤s≤n

1≤j1 ≤···≤jn ≤n

r=1

r=1

23

Note that for any given 1 ≤ s ≤ n, the expression inside the square brackets in the last line
above is (up to signs) the determinant of the matrix
 Pn+1






Bs := 






∂ℓr,1
r=1 ∂X1 Yr

..
.

Pn+1

∂ℓr,2
r=1 ∂X1 Yr

...

Pn+1

∂ℓr,n
r=1 ∂X1 Yr

..
.

..

∂ℓk,1
∂Xs

∂ℓk,2
∂Xs

...

∂ℓk,n
∂Xs

..
.

..
.

..

..
.

Pn+1

∂ℓr,1
r=1 ∂Xn Yr

Pn+1

∂ℓr,2
r=1 ∂Xn Yr

.

.

...

..
.

Pn+1

∂ℓr,n
r=1 ∂Xn Yr








.






Expanding this determinant once again, this item around by Laplace along the ith row of Bs ,
P
∂ℓ
[s]
[s]
gives det(Bs ) = nt=1 ∂Xk,ts σt , where σt denotes the (n − 1)-minor of Bs omitting the sth row
[s]

[s]

and the tth column. Coming from the other end, for given s, (σ1 : · · · : σn ) is a representative
of the inverse map to the map defined by ∆ ([7, Theorem 2.18, Supplement]). By definition, say,
[s]
Ds is the source inversion factor corresponding to this representative, hence σt (∆) = Xt Ds ,
for 1 ≤ s, t ≤ n. Assembling the information, we get
n

n

X ∂ℓk,t [n]
X ∂ℓk,t [1]
∂β
(∆) = det(B1 )(∆) + · · · + det(Bn )(∆) =
σt (∆) + · · · +
σ (∆)
∂Xk
∂X1
∂Xn t
t=1
t=1
!
!
n
n
X
X
∂ℓk,t
∂ℓk,t
Xt D1 + · · · +
Xt Dn ,
=
∂X1
∂Xn
t=1

t=1

which proves our contention.
(ii) Let δ = {δ1 , . . . , δn+1 } ⊂ k[Z] stand for the n-minors of the general linear matrix L′ as
explained above. We have seen in the preliminaries of this section that they define a birational
map onto the image, with B t as its Jacobian dual matrix. Thus, for any j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, the
(i, j)-cofactors of B t
t
t
{Bj1
, . . . , Bjn
}
taken modulo det(B) define an inverse to the map defined by δ. By Lemma1.2 this yields the
following structural congruencies
t
t
δi (Bj1
, . . . , Bjn
) ≡ Ej Yi

mod (det B t ),

(14)

where Ej denote the corresponding target inversion factor.
Claim. I1 (X · B t (δ)) is contained in the presentation ideal of the Rees algebra of the ideal
(D1 , . . . , Dn ) ⊂ k[X], defined over the ring k[X, Z].
To see this it suffices to prove that the entries of X · B t vanish by evaluating Yk 7→
δk (D1 , . . . , Dn ), k = 1, . . . , n + 1, or, equivalently, by evaluating Yk 7→ δk (Xn D1 , . . . , Xn Dn ),
k = 1, . . . , n + 1. Letting, as previously, ∆ = {∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 } denote the signed n-minors of L,
one has the relations
t
Xn Di = Bin (∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 ) = Bni
(∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 ),

24

(15)

since Di is inversion factor for ∆, where Bij is the cofactor of B corresponding to the entry
indexed by (i, j) and Bin (∆1 , . . . , ∆n+1 ) is the result of evaluating this cofactor on ∆. Since
t , one gets
Bij = Bji

X · B t (δ(Xn D1 , . . . , Xn Dn )) =

=

 Pn+1


X·

n+1
X

∂ℓi1
i=1 ∂X1 δi (Xn D)

Pn+1

..
.

∂ℓi1
i=1 ∂X3 δi (Xn D)

ℓi1 δi (Xn D), . . . ,

i=1

X

=

En (∆)

=

(0, . . . , 0)

n+1
X

ℓin δi (Xn D)

i=1

ℓi1 ∆i , . . . ,

Pn+1 ∂ℓin
...
i=1 ∂X1 δi (Xn D)
..
..
.
.
Pn+1 ∂ℓin
...
i=1 ∂Xn δi (Xn D)
!

X

ℓin ∆i








(16)

(17)
(18)
(19)

where equality (18) follows from (14), (15) and (17) – keep in mind that the result of evaluating
det(B t ) by YK 7→ ∆k is zero. As to equality (19), it is a consequence of (18) using that L is a
syzygy matrix of ∆. This proves the claim.
As a consequence, the matrix B(δ) is a submatrix of the full Jacobian dual matrix of D :=
{D1 , . . . , Dn }. On the other hand, we have det(B(δ)) = (det(B))(δ) = (det(B t ))(δ) = 0 since
det(B t ) is a polynomial relation of δ. Therefore, B(δ) has rank ≤ n − 1. But since δ defines
a birational map, not all (n − 1)-minors vanish modulo det(B t ). Thus, B(δ) has rank n − 1.
For even more reason, the rank of the Jacobian dual matrix of D is ≥ n − 1 (hence = n − 1, its
maximal possible value). Using again the criterion of [7] we derive that D defines a Cremona
map.
Now, we prove the additional statement of this item. Let s denote the minimal number of
generators of the Rees ideal of D of bidegree (1, ∗), with ∗ representing any value ≥ 1. Then
the full Jacobian dual matrix of D is an s × n matrix over k[Y] of rank n − 1 which, as we have
just shown, contains the n × n submatrix B(δ). By [7, Theorem 2.18, Supplement] we know
that the inverse map to the Cremona map defined by D takes as its coordinate functions the
(n − 1)-minors of any (n − 1) × n submatrix of rank n − 1 of the Jacobian dual matrix of D,
further divided by their gcd. Since B(δ) has rank n − 1, one can take, say, the submatrix of
B(δ) formed with the first n − 1 rows of B(δ). Write ∂i (Z) for the (n − 1)th minor omitting the
t (δ) = X d (Z), where d (Z) as before denotes
ith column. Then we get ∂i (Z) = Bni (δ) = Bni
n i
i
the corresponding source inversion factor of the birational map defined by δ. It follows that
(d1 (Z) : · · · : dn (Z)) defines the inverse map to D.
(iii) By Proposition 2.9, one has (I n−1 , D1 , . . . , Dn ) ⊂ I (n−1) . On the other hand, by Proposition 2.17, I (n−1) /I n−1 is minimally generated by n elements of degree n(n−1)−1. To conclude
that the residues of D1 , . . . , Dn on I (n−1) /I n−1 form a set of minimal generators of the latter it
suffices to show that they are k-linearly independent. By part (i) they are even k-algebraically
independent.
(iv) By (i) and (ii), {d1 = d1 (Z), . . . , dn = dn (Z)} generate an ideal of codimension 2 defining
the inverse map to D. Write
hi = hi (Z1 , . . . , Zn ) := Zi di (= Biit (δ)), i = 1, . . . , n
25

Evaluate hi on Xi D = (Xi D1 , . . . , Xi Dn ) (i.e., through Zj 7→ Xi Dj ):
hi (Xi D1 , . . . , Xi Dn ) = Xi Di di (Xi D1 , . . . , Xi Dn )
n(n−1)

= Xi
=

Di di (D1 , . . . , Dn )
n(n−1)+1
Xi
Di G

where G := Xi−1 di (D1 , . . . , Dn ) is the source inversion factor of the Cremona map defined by
D.
On the other hand, one has
t
hi (Xi D1 , . . . , Xi Dn ) = Bi,i
(δ1 (Xi D), . . . , δn (Xi D))
t
= Bi,i
(Ei (∆)∆1 , . . . , Ei (∆)∆n+1 )
t
= Ei (∆)n−1 Bi,i
(∆1 , . . . , ∆n )

= Ei (∆)n−1 Xi Di ,
where Ei , i = 1, . . . , n are a complete set of target inversion factors of the birational map defined
by δ, as in (14). This implies the relation
n(n−1)

Xi

G = Ei (∆)n−1 .

(20)

Extracting (n − 1)th roots yields
Xin G1/n−1 = Ei (∆)
(X1n , . . . , Xnn )G1/n−1

(21)
I n(n−1)−1 ,

⊂
from which follows
Since Ei has degree n(n − 1) − 1 then
1/n−1
(n(n−1)−1)
E := G
∈I
.
The supplementary statement follows from Proposition 1.3 by admitting the irreducibility
of det(Θ(D)). This is because as it divides a power of E then it will divide E itself, and since
deg(det(Θ(D))) = deg(E), they coincide up to a nonzero scalar. (To hypothetically argue for
the irreducibility of det(Θ(D)), note that each Di is an inversion factor of a Cremona map whose
defining coordinates ∆ are sufficiently general forms; for such a reason one can expect that it
too be a sufficiently general polynomial (e.g., because in characteristic zero it corresponds to a
“general contracted divisor”.) But then also its partial derivatives are sufficiently general forms,
hence det(Θ(D)) is an irreducible polynomial, since having a proper factor is a closed condition
on the coefficients and these are products and sums out of a set of general coefficients.)
(v) We first check that (12) is indeed a complex. For this, using that {D1 , . . . , Dn } is a
complete set of inversion factors of the birational map defined by ∆, the cofactor matrix of Ψ is


X1 D1 X1 D2 . . . X1 Dn
 X2 D1 X2 D2 . . . X2 Dn 


adj(Ψ) = 
(22)

..
..
..


.
.
...
.
Xn D1 Xn D2 . . . Xn Dn

Since Ψ has rank n − 1, the cofactor equation gives

adj(Ψ) · Ψ = 0

(23)

Ψ · adj(Ψ) = 0

(24)

and

26

From (22), (23) implies that Ψ is a matrix of syzygies of D, while (24) gives that Xt is a second
syzygy thereof. This shows that one has indeed a complex. To finish we check the required
Fitting codimension by the Buchsbaum–Eisenbud acyclicity criterion. The verification at the
tail of the complex is immediate, while at the middle the codimension of
In−1 (Ψ) = I1 (adj(Ψ)) = (X)(D1 , . . . , Dn )
is 2 because (i) showed that the ideal (D1 , . . . , Dn ) has codimension 2.
Remark 2.20. Assertion (i) in the last theorem depends once more on the general linear assumption; thus, in Example 2.18 the polarization complex is not exact and, in fact, {D1 , D2 , D3 }
admit a proper common factor.
2.4.3

The structure of the symbolic algebra

Here is the degree numerology so far:
• deg(di ) = deg(Di ) = n(n − 1) − 1, for i = 1, . . . , n
• deg(G) = (n(n − 1) − 1)n(n − 1) − n(n − 1) = (n − 1)n(n(n − 1) − 2) – from (20).
• deg(E) = deg(G)/(n − 1) = n(n(n − 1) − 2).
Further consideration is given in the following strategic lemma:
Lemma 2.21. Let L denote an (n + 1) × n general linear matrix over R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ], with
n ≥ 3. Set I := In−1 (L) ⊂ R and let R(I) denote its symbolic Rees algebra. Let D1 , . . . , Dn ∈
I (n−1) and E ∈ I (n(n−1)−1) be as above. Let X = {X1 , . . . , Xn }, Y = {Y1 , . . . , Yn+1 }, Z =
{Z1 , . . . , Zn }, W denote mutually independents sets of indeterminates. Consider the surjective
homomorphism of R-algebras:
π : k[X, Y, Z, W ] ։ R[It, D1 tn−1 , . . . , Dn tn−1 , Etn(n−1)−1 ]
such that Xi 7→ Xi , Yj 7→ ∆j t, Zr 7→ Dr tn−1 and W 7→ Etn(n−1)−1 . Then ker (π) contains the
following polynomials:
(1) The entries of X · B t (n such polynomials)
(2) The entries of Z · B (n such polynomials)
(3) The entries of Xt · Z − adj(B) (n2 such polynomials)
(4) The polynomials of the shape {X1 W n−1 − d1 (Z), . . . , Xn W n−1 − dn (Z)}, where d1 , . . . , dn
are forms defining the inverse of D1 , . . . , Dn (n such polynomials)
(5) The polynomials of the shape {Y1 W − δ1 (Z), . . . , Yn+1 W − δn+1 (Z)}, coming from (26)
below (n + 1 such polynomials).
Proof. The first four blocks were discussed before, namely:
(1) These are equations defining the Rees algebra R[It] of I on the polynomial ring k[X, Y]. Since
R[It] is a subalgebra of R[It, D1 tn−1 , . . . , Dn tn−1 , Etn(n−1)−1 ], then the equations obviously
vanish under π.
27

(2) Note that the matrix B evaluated by Yj 7→ ∆j t is a syzygy matrix of {D1 , . . . , Dn } by
Theorem 2.19 (iv). Since Zi maps to Di tn−1 the vanishing of I1 (Z · B) is clear as well by the
same token.
(3) One argues as in the previous item based on the proof of Theorem 2.19 (iv).
(4) These equations under π just express the fact that G = E n−1 is inversion factor of the
Cremona map defined by {D1 , . . . , Dn }.
(5) To discuss these equations, recall the relation obtained in (14):
t
t
δj (Bn1
(∆), . . . , Bnn
(∆)) = En (∆)∆j

(25)

On the other hand, we have
t
t
(∆)) = δj (Bn1 (∆), . . . , Bnn (∆))
δj (Bn1
(∆), . . . , Bnn

= δj (Xn D1 , . . . , Xn Dn )
= Xnn δj (D1 , . . . , Dn ).
Therefore,
En (∆)∆j = Xnn δj (D)
Collecting the two resulting expressions yields
Xnn ∆j E = Xnn δj (D)
and hence
∆j E = δj (D)

(26)

as was to be shown.
We note that the intended generator of symbolic order n(n − 1) − 1 is E and not its (n − 1)th
power G; this raises a suspicion as to whether the polynomials of type (4) above are minimal
generators of ker (π). And indeed, we have the following tightening result:
Proposition 2.22. Keeping the notation of the previous lemma, in the generation of the ideal
ker (π) one may replace the n equations of the form Xi W n−1 − di (Z) by n equations of the form
Xi W − Qi (Y, Z), where Qi (Y, Z) is a polynomial in k[Y, Z] of the shape
X
tn−2
Qi (Y, Z) =
Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjn−2
Pt1 ,...,tn−2 (Z).
(27)
{j1 , . . . , jn−2 } ⊂ {1, . . . , n + 1}
t1 + . . . + tn−2 = n − 2

In particular, (X)E ⊂ I n−2 (I (n−1) )n−1 .
Proof. Let as above δ1 = δ1 (Z), . . . , δn+1 = δn+1 (Z) denote the n-minors of the matrix L′ and
let π as be as given.
We claim that for any collection of non-negative integers t1 , . . . , ts , with s ≤ n + 1, and for
every subset {j1 , . . . , js } ⊂ {1, . . . , n + 1}, the polynomials
Yjt11 · · · Yjtss W t1 +...+ts − δj1 (Z)t1 · · · δjs (Z)ts ∈ ker (π)
28

belong to the ideal generated by the polynomials from block (5) in the statement of the previous
lemma.
We proceed by induction on s.
The result is clear for s = 1 because Yj W − δj ∈ ker (π) by the previous lemma and is a
factor of Yjt W t − δj t , for any t.
Thus, assume that s > 1 and that, without loss of generality, t1 6= 0 (the result is trivially
satisfied if all t’s are null). Write
Yjt11 W t1 − δjt11



Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t2 +...+ts = Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t1 +...+ts − δjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t2 +...+ts
Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t1 +...+ts − δjt11 · · · δjtss + δjt11 · · · δjtss − δjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t2 +...+ts


Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t1 +...+ts − δjt11 · · · δjtss − δjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t2 +...+ts − δjt22 · · · δjtss

=
=

Applying the inductive hypothesis on the two ends of this strand of inequalities shows that the
polynomial
Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjtss W t1 +...+ts − δj1 (Z)t1 · · · δjs (Z)ts
also belongs to ker (π). In particular, taking s = n − 2 and t1 , . . . , tn−2 any partition of n − 2,
the polynomial
tn−2
Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjn−2
W n−2 − δj1 (Z)t1 · · · δjn−2 (Z)tn−2
(28)
belongs to ker (π).
On the other hand, as seen in Theorem 2.19 (ii), the coordinate forms {d1 = d1 (Z), . . . , dn =
dn (Z)} defining the inverse of the Cremona map defined by {D1 , . . . , Dn } also constitute a
complete set of source inversion factors of the birational map defined by the n-minors δ1 , . . . , δn
of the general linear matrix L′ . Therefore, Proposition 2.9 gives
(d1 , . . . , dn ) ⊂ (δ1 , . . . , δn+1 )(n−1)
and, for even more reason
(d1 , . . . , dn ) ⊂ (δ1 , . . . , δn+1 )(n−2) = (δ1 , . . . , δn+1 )n−2 .
Fixing i ∈ {1, . . . , n} we can write
X
di (Z) =

Pt1 ,...,tn−2 (Z)δj1 (Z)t1 · · · δjn−2 (Z)tn−2 .

(29)

(30)

t1 +...+tn−2 =n−2

Thus, one gets that the polynomial
Xi W n−1 − di (Z)

−

X



tn−2
W n−2 − δj1 (Z)t1 · · · δjn−2 (Z)tn−2
Pt1 ,...,tn−2 (Z) Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjn−2

t1 +...+tn−2 =n−2

=


W n−2 Xi W −


t
Pt1 ,...,tn−2 (Z)Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yj n−2 ,

X

n−2

t1 +...+tn−2 =n−2

for arbitrary subsets {j1 , . . . , jn−2 } ⊂ {1, . . . , n + 1}, belongs to ker (π). Since ker (π) is a prime
ideal and W 6∈ ker (π), we conclude that
X
tn−2
Xi W −
Pt1 ,...,tn−2 (Z)Yjt11 Yjt22 · · · Yjn−2
∈ ker (π)
t1 +...+tn−2 =n−2

as was to be shown.
The second statement is clear.
We now come to the main result of this part.
29

Theorem 2.23. (char(k) = 0) Let L denote an (n + 1) × n general linear matrix over R =
k[X1 , . . . , Xn ], with n ≥ 3. Set I := In−1 (L) ⊂ R and let R(I) denote its symbolic Rees algebra.
Let π : R[Y, Z, W ] ։ R[It, D1 tn−1 , . . . , Dn tn−1 , Etn(n−1)−1 ] stand for the R-algebra homomorphism as defined in Lemma 2.21. Then
(a) The kernel of π is the ideal P generated by the polynomials
I1 (X · B t ), I1 (Z · B), I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)), Yj W − δj (Z) (1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1), Xi W − Qi (Y, Z) (1 ≤ i ≤ n),

where Qi (Y, Z) is described in Proposition 2.22.
(b) R(I) = R[It, D1 tn−1 , . . . , Dn tn−1 , Etn(n−1)−1 ]
Proof. We first claim that W is a nonzerodivisor on R[Y, Z, W ]/P. For this, we will use
Gröbner basis theory. Namely, consider the degrevlex order with Z > Y > X > W . As is
well-known, it suffices to show that W is not a factor of a minimal generator of in(P). Now,
none of the monomials Yj W (1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1), Xi W (1 ≤ i ≤ n) is a minimal generator of in(P)
since the order first breaks a tie by the degree, while both δj (Z), Qi (Y, Z) have degree at least
n ≥ 3. However, a multiple thereof could be a fresh generator of in(P). We must exclude this
possibility.
For subsequent frequent use, we single out the following fact: any δj = δj (Z) is an irreducible
polynomial. For n ≥ 4 this follows from the fact that δj is a minimal generator of the prime
ideal In (L′ ) (Proposition 2.3 and the general linear nature of L′ ). For n = 3, the ideal In (L′ )
is only radical, hence one needs a more direct approach. We may assume that L′ – just as L –
being a general linear matrix, up to sufficiently general elementary row operations, has the form


0
ℓ1 ℓ2
 ℓ4
0
ℓ3 

,
 ℓ5 ℓ6
0 
X1 X2 X3
where the six ℓi ’s constitute mutually general 1-forms. Since the ℓi ’s are general 1-forms and
the minors involving the last row have a similar shape, it suffices to consider the minors of the
first 3 rows and the one of the last 3 rows. These are, respectively:
δ1 = X1 ℓ3 ℓ6 − X2 ℓ3 ℓ5 + X3 ℓ4 ℓ6 , δ4 = ℓ1 ℓ3 ℓ5 + ℓ2 ℓ4 ℓ6 .

(31)

Now replacing every ℓi by a new variable Yi , the corresponding minors become
(X1 Y6 − X2 Y5 )Y3 + X3 Y4 Y6 , Y1 Y3 Y5 + Y2 Y4 Y6 ,
respectively. The first polynomial is irreducible since it is a primitive polynomial with respect
to the variable Y3 . The second is irreducible since it is a binomial whose terms have gcd = 1.
Since the ℓi ’s are general then mapping Yi 7→ ℓi shows that the polynomials (31) are irreducible
as well.
We note en passant that if the ℓi ’s are not general, some minor may have proper factors –
see, e.g, the matrix (11).
We now proceed to the Gröbner base argument. Any fresh initial generator is found by an
iteration of the so-called S-polynomials ([24, Section 1.2]) associated to pairs of elements of P
30

starting out with pairs of the given set of generators thereof. Since any generator coming from
the part I1 (X · B t ), I1 (Z · B), I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)) does not involve W , we must use at least one
among the equations Yj W (1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1), Xi W (1 ≤ i ≤ n). We now analyze the nature of
such S-polynomials and their iterations stemming from the given starting pair of generators of
P.
(1) Starting pair {Yj W − δj (Z), Yk W − δk (Z)} (j 6= k)
Consider the respective initial terms, which are pure monomials in Z – this is because, as
already remarked, deg(δj (Z)) = n > 2. Say, Mj = Mj (Z), Mk = Mk (Z) are the respective initial
terms and set H := gcd(Mj , Mk ), so Mj = Nj H, Mk = Nk H, with gcd(Nj , Nk ) = 1. Then the
associated S-polynomial has the shape
S := (Nk Yj − Nj Yk )W − (Nk δj′ − Nj δk′ ),

(32)

where δj = Mj + δj′ , δk = Mk + δk′ . By a similar token, deg(Nk δj′ ) = deg(Nj δk′ ) > deg(Nk Yj W ) =
deg(Nj Yk W ), and hence the initial term of (32) has to come from either Nk δj′ or Nj δk′ , provided
we make sure that the Nk δj′ −Nj δk′ does not vanish. But since Nj Mk −Nk Mj = 0 by construction,
this vanishing would imply the relation Nk δj − Nj δk = 0. However, δj , δk are non-associate
irreducible polynomials, hence are relatively prime. This would force a trivial relation, hence
Nj would be multiples of δj – this is absurd since Nj is a monomial.
Repeat the S-polynomial procedure using (32) and any other equation of type Yp W − δp
obtaining a new S-polynomial. To make it explicit, say, the initial term of old S comes from
Nk δj′ ; then write δj′ = Mj′ + δj′′ , where Mj′ is the initial term. Also write, as above, δp = Mp + δp′ ,
with Mp its initial term. Finally, set Mj′ = Nj′ H, Mp = Np′ H, where gcd(Nj′ , Np′ ) = 1. Then the
updated S-polynomial is


S ′ := Np′ (Nk Yj − Nj Yk ) − Nk Nj′ Yp W


− Np′ (Nk δj′′ ) − Np′ (Nj δk′ ) − Nk (Nj′ δp′ ) .

Counting degrees as before, we that the degree of the top part is lower than that of the bottom
part. Therefore, the initial term of S ′ will come off the bottom part provided we show it does not
vanish. Supposing this were the case, using the basic S-pair relation Np′ (Nk Mj′ )− (Nk Nj′ )Mp , we
get the relation Np′ (Nk δj′ − Nj δk′ ) − Nk Nj′ δp = 0. Since gcd(Nj′ , Np′ ) = 1, we see that N ′ p divides
Nk δp . But δp is an irreducible, hence Np′ divides Nk . Substituting in the previous relation and
simplifying yields Nk δj′ − Nj δk′ = N δp , for some monomial N ∈ k[Z]. But this implies that
our initial S-polynomial in (32) has the form (Nk Yj − Nj Yk )W − N δp . Using Yp − δp , one gets
(Nk Yj −Nj Yk −N Yp )W = 0 and hence Nk Yj −Nj Yk −N Yp = 0. This is nonsense since Nk , Nj , N
are polynomials in k[Z].
Now the general iterated step is clear, therefore the iteration of S-polynomials using only
this packet of equations gives fresh initial generators which are monomials in Z exclusively.
(2) Starting pair {Xi W − Qi (Y, Z), Xl W − Ql (Y, Z)} (i 6= l)
The argumentative strategy is analogous to the one in the previous case: write


Qi = Mi + Q′i , Ql = Ml + Q′l
Ml = Ml′ H,
Mi = Mi′ H,
31

where Mi = in(Qi ), Ml = in(Ql ) and gcd(Mi′ , Ml′ ) = 1. Note that, from (30) and since
deg(di (Z)) = n(n − 1) − 1 and deg(δ(Z)) = n(n − 2), one has deg(Qi ) = 2n − 3. Then the
resulting polynomial is the sum of two homogeneous polynomials
S := (Ml′ Xi − Mi′ Xl )W − (Ml′ Q′i − Mi′ Q′l ),
where deg(Ml′ Xi W ) = 2n − 3 − h + 2 = 2n − 1 − h, deg(Ml′ Q′i ) = 2n − 3 − h + 2n − 3 = 4n − 6 − h,
with h = deg(H). Again, we have the strict inequality 4n − 6 > 2n − 1, for n ≥ 3. To show that
the initial term of the above polynomial belongs to the rightmost polynomial we need to know
that the latter does not vanish. But if it did, then we would have the equality Ml′ Qi = Mi′ Ql ,
where gcd(Mi′ , Ml′ ) = 1. Now, since the multipliers Mi′ , Ml′ are relatively prime then Mi′ is a
factor of Qi . By (30), evaluating we would get that di has a monomial factor in k[Z]; this is
ruled out by fact that di is a coordinate function of the inverse map to the Cremona map defined
by {D1 , . . . Dn } which are sufficiently general forms.
We can now iterate as in case (1). Thus, let

X
Ni (Y, Z)Xi W − P (Y, Z)
SX =

(33)

i

stand for an iterated S-polynomial out of the “Xi W ” packet, with M = M (Y, Z) denoting the
corresponding initial term. By induction, we have deg(Ni ) + 2 < deg(P ). Write P = M + P ′ =:
in(P ) + P ′ and Qr = Mr + Q′r := in(Qr ) + Q′r . Then the new S-polynomial has the shape
X

Mr′ Ni Xi W − M ′ Xr W − (Mr′ P ′ − M ′ Q′r ),

i

where M = M ′ H, Mr = Mr′ H, with gcd(M ′ , Mr′ ) = 1. We assume that deg(H) > 0 as otherwise
there is nothing to prove by [24, Exercise 1.2.2]. Then deg(Mr′ Ni Xi W ) = 2n − 3 + deg(Ni ) +
2 − h < 2n − 2 + deg(P ) − h = deg(Mr′ P ′ ) and, similarly, deg(M ′ Xr W ) = deg(M ) + 2 − h =
deg(P ) + 2 − h < deg(P ) + 2n − 3 − h = deg(Mr′ P ′ ). Moreover, if Mr′ P ′ = M ′ Q′r then Mr′ P =
M ′ Qr as well. If gcd(P, Qr ) = 1 then Mr′ must be a multiple of Qr , which is impossible since
deg(Mr′ ) < deg(Qr ) by hypothesis. Then P and Qr must have a proper common factor. Now,
since the multipliers Mr′ , M ′ are relatively prime then Mr′ is a factor of Qr . Under Yj 7→ δj (Z)
we would get that dr has a monomial factor in k[Z]; this is again ruled out as above.
Thus, the initial term of an S-polynomial from pairs consisting of any previous S-polynomial
obtained and any other equation Xr W − Qr (Y, Z) is a monomial in Y and Z alone.
(3) (Mixed starting pair) One of the pairs
{Yj W − δj (Z), SX }

or

{Xi W − Qi (Y, Z), SY },

for some 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1 and some 1 ≤ i ≤ n, where SY (respectively, SX ) is any S-polynomial
from the “Y W ” packet (respectively, from the “XW ” packet).
Let us deal with these pairs separately. For the first pair, let SX have the expression as in
(33). Then the new S-polynomial has the form
X

Mj′ Ni Xi W − M ′ Yj W − (Mj′ P ′ − M ′ δj′ ),

i

32

where gcd(M ′ , Mj′ ) = 1. Degree counting gives deg(Mj′ Ni Xi W ) = n + deg(Ni ) + 2 − h <
n + deg(P ) − h. Moreover, vanishing of the rightmost polynomials would lead to Mj′ P = M ′ δj .
As before, we are forced to conclude that δj has a factor which is a monomial. But this is
impossible since δj is irreducible.
For the pair of the second kind, let
X
X
<s >
SY = (
Nj Yj )W −
Nj δj j
j

j

<s >

denote an S-polynomial as iterated from the “Yj W ” packet. Here δj j denotes a suitable
summand of δj and the initial term of SY . Form the S-polynomial with some Xi W − Qi ,
Qi = Qi (Y, Z), getting:
Mi′

X
j



X

<s′ >
Nj δj j − Mj′0 Q′i ,
Nj Yj W − Mj′0 Xi W − Mi′
j

where
(

<sj >

Mj0 = in(δj 0 )
Mi = in(Qi )

and



Nj0 Mj0 = Mj′0 H
Mi = Mi′ H

<s′ >

with gcd(Mj′0 , Mi′ ) = 1 and δj j are the updated summands of δj . Once again, an immediate
degree count tells us that the initial term of the new S-polynomial comes from the right most
difference above,Pas long as the latter does not vanish. Supposing it did, we would as before get
<s >
the relation Mi′ j Nj δj j = Mj′0 Qi , with monomial multipliers relatively prime. This implies
P
<s >
that Mi′ is a factor of Qi , which leadsP
to a relation j Nj δj j = Mj′0 Q′′i with, say, Qi = Mi Q′′i .
Substituting back in SY gives SY P
= ( j Nj Yj )W −Mj′0 Q′′i . Multiplying SYPby Mi and Xi W −Qi
′
by Mj0 , and subtracting yields ( j Mi′ Nj Yj − Mj′0 Xi )W = 0. Therefore, j Mi′ Nj Yj = Mj′0 Xi ,
which implies that Mj′0 belong to the ideal generated by a nonempty subset of the of the Y
variables; this is absurd since Mj′0 ∈ k[Z].
To conclude these cases, note that iterating these two types of S-polynomials, we obtain
similarly that any pair {SY , SX } yields an S-polynomial whose initial term is not divisible by
W.
(4) Starting pair {Yj W − δj (Z), q}
Here q is a generator out of I1 (X · B t ), I1 (Z · B), I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)).
Let q come from I1 (X · B t ). Then its initial term is of the form αYk Xi . Since the initial term
of Yj W − δj (Z) is a monomial in Z alone, these two monomials are relatively prime. Therefore,
the resulting S-polynomial reduces to zero relative to the pair {Yj W − δj (Z), q} ([24, Exercise
1.2.2]) and hence, produces no fresh initial generator.
Assume now that q comes from the packet I1 (Z · B). By a similar token, the initial term of
q has the form βZi Yk . Since the initial term of Yj W − δj (Z) is a monomial in Z alone, the only
way to get away from reducing to zero as before is that βZi divide this Z-monomial. Thus, let
M (Z)Zi denote the initial term of δj (Z) and write δj = βM (Z)Zi + P (Z). Then the resulting
polynomial is
S := Yk Yj W − Yk P (Z) + M (Z)q(Z, Y),
33

where q(Z, Y) is a 2-form of bidegree (1, 1) in Z, Y. Clearly, 3 = deg(Yk Yj W ) < 1 + n =
deg(Yk P (Z)) = deg(M (Z)q(Z, Y)), hence the initial term of S involves only Z and Y variables
provided we show that −Yk P (Z) + M (Z)q(Z, Y) does not vanish. Now, a similar reasoning as
employed at the end of the argument of (1), shows that this vanishing entails a monomial syzygy
between δj (Z) and the quadric q with relatively prime multipliers. This then forces δj (Z) and
q to have a common factor. But q is bihomogenous, so a common factor would have to be a
variable Zl . On the other hand, δj (Z) is irreducible, so cannot admit such a factor.
Keeping the essential shape of the S-polynomial obtained, namely, S = Yk Yj − P (Y, Z),
with P (Y, Z) homogeneous of degree n + 1 involving effectively both Y and Z variables, let us
iterate with the pair {S, Yr W − δr (Z)}, for given 1 ≤ r ≤ n + 1. Write P (Y, Z) = M (Y, Z) +
P ′ (Y, Z), δr (Z) = N (Z) + δr′ (Z), where M = M (Y, Z), N = N (Z) are the respective initial
terms, and M = M ′ H, N = N ′ H, with gcd(M ′ , N ′ ) = 1. Then the new S-polynomial is
N ′ Yk Yj − M ′ Yr )W − (N ′ P ′ − M ′ δr′ ),
where the leftmost polynomial is homogeneous of degree n + 3 − h, with h = deg(H), while the
rightmost polynomial has degree 2n + 1 − h > n + 3 − h, for n ≥ 3. On the other hand, the
rightmost polynomial is nonzero because, otherwise, it would imply that N ′ P = M ′ δr . Since
N ′ , M ′ are relatively prime, δr would be a multiple of P = P (Y, Z). But this is absurd since
δr ∈ k[Z] while P ∈
/ k[Z]. Therefore, the initial term of the updated S-polynomial comes from
the rightmost polynomial and does not involve W . The inductive procedure is now clear: the
“new” S-polynomial is a sum of two polynomials, the first involving W and degree growing like
(s − 1)n + 3 − t, for s ≥ 2 and some t ≥ 0, the second a nonzero polynomial involving effectively
the variables Y, Z and with degree growing like sn + 1 − t > (s − 1)n + 3 − t (for n ≥ 3).
Finally, consider the case where q comes from the packet I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)). If n ≥ 4,
the initial term is decided by degree and has to come from some cofactor of B – the latter
having degree n − 1 ≥ 3 > 2 = deg(Xi Zl ), for any choice of i, l. In this case, once again, the
S-polynomial reduces to zero. Finally, let n = 3. Since we are assuming the revlex order upon
monomials of same degree, the initial term of P comes from a cofactor of B, so we are done
again.
Remark 2.24. To close this case, we ought to consider the S-polynomial from the pair consisting
of a polynomial of the “Yj W ” packet and some previous S-polynomial among one of the three
kinds. But, as we have seen, the only iterated S-polynomials that play any role come from the
pairs
{Yj W − δj (Z), q ∈ I1 (Z · B)}.
One can see that this iteration follows a pattern analogous to the first iterate, in which the
initial term lives in k[Y, Z].
(5) Starting pair {Xi W − Qi (Y, Z), q}
Here q is again a generator out of I1 (X · B t ), I1 (Z · B), I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)).
The initial term of Xi W − Qi (Y, Z) involves both Y and Z. This breaks the symmetry with
respect to the discussion in case (4).
Let first q come from I1 (X · B t ). Then q = αYj Xl + q ′ , where in(q) = αYj Xl . Note that
′
q 6= 0 – i.e., q is not a monomial – since the entries of a column of B t are partial X-derivatives of
minors of a general linear matrix. Write as before Qi = Mi + Q′i , where in(Qi ) = Mi = Ni · αYj .
34

Clearly, Xl does not divide Ni . The resulting S-polynomial is Xl Xi W − (Xl Q′i − Ni q ′ ). One
has deg(Xl Q′i − Ni q ′ ) = 1 + 2n − 3 = 2n − 3 − 1 + 2 = 2n − 2 > 3, for n ≥ 3. Moreover,
if Xl Q′i = Ni q ′ then Xl Qi = Ni q. This forces Xl to be a factor of q, which implies that q is
monomial, contradicting its nature as pointed out.
Now assume that q come from I1 (Z · B). Then q = βZk Yj + q ′ , where in(q) = βZk Yj . The
same remarks about the nature of q hold as above. Keeping the same notation, Qi = Mi + Q′i ,
where in(Qi ) = Mi . If Zk Yj divides Mi altogether, then the resulting polynomial is of the form
Xi W − (Q′i − Pi q ′ ), for suitable Pi ∈ k[Y, Z] homogeneous of degree 2n − 3 − 2 + 2 = 2n − 3 > 2.
Thus, we may assume that either Zk divides Mi and Yj does not divide Mi , or vice versa.
Although the role of Y and Z are not quite symmetric in the data, the pattern is pretty much
the same (and much the same as the previous case). Say, Mi = Ni · βZk , with Yj not dividing
Mi . The resulting S-polynomial is Yj Xi − (Yj Q′i − Ni q ′ ). Again the inequality 2n − 2 > 3 says
that the initial term is part of Yj Q′i − Ni q ′ . Moreover, Yj Qi = Ni q would imply that Yj divide
q, again a contradiction.
Finally, we settle the last case where q comes from the packet I1 (Xt · Z − adj(B)). If
n ≥ 4, the initial term is decided by degree and has to come from some cofactor of B – the
latter having degree n − 1 ≥ 3 > 2 = deg(Xi Zl ), for any i, l. Say, q = C(Y) + q ′ , with
in(q) = C = C(Y) of degree n − 1. As before, Qi = Mi + Q′i , where in(Qi ) = Mi . Set
C = C ′ H, Mi = Ni H, gcd(C ′ , Ni ) = 1. The resulting S-polynomial is C ′ Xi W − (C ′ Q′i − Ni q ′ ),
where deg(C ′ Q′i − Ni q ′ ) = n − 1 + 2n − 3 = 3n − 4 > n + 1 = deg(C ′ Xi W ). Furthermore, if
C ′ Qi = Ni q would imply that C ′ divide q; this is absurd since q is of the form Xi Zl − p(Y).
At last, let n = 3. Since we are assuming the revlex order upon monomials of same degree,
the initial term of P comes from a cofactor of B, so we are done again.
To close this item, we refer to Remark 2.24, noting that here one has to consider iterated
S-polynomials form all three kinds, as none reduces to zero right at the outset.
(a) Let P ⊂ R[Y, Z, W ] denote the ideal generated by those many equations in the statement. By Lemma 2.21 and Proposition 2.22, we have P ⊂ ker (π). The two ideals have same
codimension: 2n + 1. Indeed, the algebra A := R[It, D1 tn−1 , . . . , Dn tn−1 , Etn(n−1)−1 ] has the
same dimension as the Rees algebra R[It], which is n+1; this shows that ker (π) has codimension
2n + 1. As for P, we localize at the powers of W . Then P and P[W −1 ] ⊂ k[X, Y, Z, W, W −1 ]
have the same codimension. But in the latter the generators
{Yj − W −1 δj (Z), Xi − W −1 Qi (Y, Z) | 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1, 1 ≤ i ≤ n}
form a regular sequence of length n + 1 + n = 2n + 1.
Therefore, to show that P = ker (π) it suffices to prove that P is a prime ideal. By localizing
at the powers of W , one gets an isomorphism of k-algebras
^
−1 ]
k[X, Y, Z, W, W −1 ]/P[W −1 ] ≃ k[Z, W, W −1 ]/P[W

(34)

by mapping Xi 7→ W −1 Qi (Y, Z) and subsequently Yj →
7 W −1 δj (Z). Since k[Z, W, W −1 ] has
^
−1 ] = 0. (As a control of quality one has that,
dimension n + 1, we must conclude that P[W
t
e.g., I1 (X · B ) maps to I1 (d1 (Z) · · · dn (Z)) · B t (δ1 (Z), . . . , δn+1 (Z)), which vanishes as seen in
the proof of Theorem 2.19 (ii).)
Therefore, P[W −1 ] is a prime ideal, and hence so is P.
35

(b) We apply to the algebra A the criterion of Vasconcelos ([23, Propositions 7.1.4 and
10.5.1]) mentioned in the first section of this paper (Proposition 1.1). By Proposition 2.4 (ii)
the required hypothesis is satisfied – note the need for characteristic zero at this point. Therefore,
it suffices to prove that the grade of the extended ideal (X)A is at least 2. For this we claim
that the grade of (X)A is the same as the grade of its extension to the localization Aw at the
powers of the image w of W . To see this it is enough to show that w avoids some associated
prime ℘ of A/(X)A such that grade((X)A) = grade(℘). We show more, namely:
Claim: w is regular on A/(X)A.
Proof. Now, by (a) we know that ker (π) = P. Thus, we have to show that W is a
non-zero-divisor modulo the larger ideal


X, P = X, I1 (Z · B), In−1 (B), Qi (Y, Z) (1 ≤ i ≤ n), Yj W − δj (Z) (1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1) .

We follow the same Gröbner basis line of argument as before to show that W does not divide any
generator of in(X, P). Note that we can overlook the pairs {Yj W − δj (Z), q}, with q ∈ In−1 (B).
Indeed, this is clear since the initial degree of the first of these polynomials comes from δj (Z)
due to its degree being n ≥ 3. The only remaining relevant pairs are then {Yj W − δj (Z), q},
with q ∈ I1 (Z · B), and {Yj W − δj (Z), Qi (Y, Z)}. The first kind, as well as its descendants,
have been dealt with in part (4) and Remark 2.24.
Consider the pair {Yj W − δj (Z), Qi (Y, Z)}. Say, Mj = Mj (Z), Mi = Mi (Z) are the respective initial terms of δj = δj (Z) and Qi = Qi (Y, Z); set H := gcd(Mj , Mi ), so Mj =
Nj H, Mi = Ni H, with gcd(Nj , Ni ) = 1. Then the associated S-polynomial has the shape
S := Ni Yj W − (Nk δj′ − Nj Q′i ), where δj = Mj + δj′ , Qi = Mi + Q′i . By a similar token,
deg(Ni δj′ ) = deg(Nj Q′i ) > deg(Ni Yj W ), and hence the initial term of S has to come from either Ni δj′ or Nj Q′i , provided we make sure that the Ni δj′ − Nj Q′i does not vanish. But since
Nj Mi − Ni Mj = 0 by construction, this vanishing would imply the relation Ni δj = Nj Qi . Evaluating Yl 7→ δl for all l and using that δj is irreducible implies that δj divide di . But this is
impossible because, as was already remarked, di is a general form.
This analysis is repeated with a pair {(Ni Yj W − (Nk δj′ − Nj Q′i , Qi (Y, Z)} and so forth, by
an obvious recursion. So much for the proof that W is a non-zero-divisor on A/(X)A.
We are now left with computing grade((X)Aw ). By (34), Aw ≃ k[Z, W, W −1 ], which is a
Cohen–Macaulay graded ring. Since the image of (X)Aw is a graded ideal, its grade coincides
with its codimension. Now, the image of (X)Aw by the isomorphism is the ideal

Q1 (W −1 δj (Z), Z), . . . , Qn (W −1 δj (Z), Z) ⊂ k[Z, W, W −1 ].

By homogeneity we can pull out W −1 . Then (30) shows that this ideal is generated by the coordinate functions {d1 , . . . , dn } of the inverse map of the Cremona map defined by D1 , . . . , Dn . By
construction, these forms have trivial gcd, hence the ideal they generate has indeed codimension
at least 2.

Remark 2.25. (1) Note that in the proof of part (b) of the theorem it would suffice to show
that A satisfies the Serre property (S2 ). As a matter of fact, one wonders if the symbolic algebra
is Cohen–Macaulay, in which case it would be a Gorenstein normal domain by [19]. We have
verified this in the case n = 3 by writing an explicit regular sequence of length n + 1 = 4.
The terms of the sequence can actually be taken to be linear forms involving only the X and
Z variables and W – this exploits the fact that in this dimension one can change to a grading
36

where the X, Y, Z part is standard and the variable W has weight 2. In this grading the Hilbert
series is (1 + 7t + 13t2 + 7t3 + t4 )/(1 − t)4 . For n ≥ 4 some of such facilitating features are
not available. On the other hand, even for n = 3, the property that W is a non-zero-divisor on
A/(X)A is really on the edge as the ideal (X, Y, Z)A is an associated prime ideal of A/(X)A.
(2) In the case m ≥ n + 2 it may happen that elements of I (n−1) have standard degree less
than (m − 1)(n − 1) − 1. The simplest such situation occurs with n = 3 and m = 7, in which case
I (2) admits 3 minimal generators of degree 10. This implies that, in this range, the inclusion
(X)I (r) ⊂ I r for every r ≥ 0 fails. This is an indication that, for general values of m, n, it may be
difficult to guess bounds for the value of the saturation exponent, so as to have Proposition 2.4
(ii) become more precise.
(3) Computational evidence showed that in the smallest possible numerology (n = 3, m = 5)
the behavior of the symbolic powers is quite erratic: in the range 2 ≤ r ≤ 5 there are genuine
generators in I (r) . The subsequent symbolic powers have an unpredictable behavior with genuine
generators creeping up on irregular intervals; we found new symbolic generators even in I (23) .
It seems reasonable to wonder whether for m > n + 1 ≥ 4 the symbolic Rees algebra R(I) of I
is finitely generated.
We close with a couple of more general questions.
Question 2.26. (1) It would be interesting to describe classes of (characteristic free) perfect,
codimension 2, homogeneous, prime ideals I ⊂ R = k[X1 , . . . , Xn ], generated in fixed degree
such that R/I is normal and I admits non-ordinary symbolic powers I (m) of order m ≤ n − 2.
(2) Note that in the setup of this paper, the two alternatives in [24, Proposition 3.5.13] coincide set-theoretically, namely, the radical of the Jacobian ideal is read off the free presentation
of the ideal. This phenomenon played a central role in the preliminaries of this work. It seems
appropriate to ask when this is the case beyond the present assumptions.

References
[1] M. Alberich-Carramiñana, Geometry of the Plane Cremona Maps, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, 1769, Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg, 2002.
[2] L. Avramov, Complete intersections and symmetric algebras, J. Algebra 73 (1981), 248–263
[3] L. Avramov and J. Herzog, The Koszul algebra of a codimension 2 embedding, Math. Z.
175 (1980) 249–260.
[4] A. M. Bigatti, A. Conca and L. Robbiano, Generic initial ideals and distractions, Comm.
in Algebra, 33 (2005) 1709-1732.
[5] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen–Macaulay Rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[6] R. C. Cowsik, Symbolic powers and number of defining equations, in Algebra and its Applications, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics 91, M. Dekker, New York, 1984,
13–14.
[7] A. V. Dória, S. H. Hassanzadeh and A. Simis, A characteristic (chracteristic) free criterion
of birationality, Advances in Math., 230 (2012), 390–413.
37

[8] D. Eisenbud, Linear sections of determinantal varieties, Amer. J. Mathematics, 110 (1988),
541–575.
[9] D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a view toward Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1995.
[10] D. Eisenbud and C. Huneke, Cohen–Macaulay Rees algebras and their specializations, J.
Algebra 81 (1983), 202–224.
[11] D. Eisenbud and B. Mazur, Evolutions, Symbolic Squares, and Fitting Ideals, J. Reine
Angew. Math. 488 (1997), 189–201.
[12] H. Flenner, L. O’ Carroll, W. Vogel, Joins and Intersections, Springer, 1999.
[13] J. Herzog, A. Simis and W. V. Vasconcelos, Koszul homology and blowing-up rings, Commutative Algebra, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Math., Vol. 84, 79–169, Marcel-Dekker,
New York, 1983.
[14] C. Huneke, Hilbert functions and symbolic powers, Michigan Math. J. 34 (1987), 293-318.
[15] J. P. Jouanolou, Le formalisme du résultant, Adv. in Math., 90 (1980), 117–263.
[16] S. Morey and B. Ulrich, Rees algebras of ideals with low codimension, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 124 (1996), 3653–3661.
[17] F. Russo and A. Simis, On birational maps and Jacobian matrices, Compositio Math. 126
(2001), 335–358.
[18] A. Simis, Cremona transformations and some related algebras, J. Algebra 280 (2004),
162–179.
[19] A. Simis and N. V. Trung, Divisor class group of ordinary and symbolic blow-ups, Math.
Z. 198 (1988), 479–491.
[20] A. Simis, B. Ulrich and W. Vasconcelos, Jacobian dual fibrations, Amer. J. Math. 115
(1993), 47–75.
[21] B. Ulrich and W. V. Vasconcelos, The equations of Rees algebras of ideals with linear
presentation, Math. Z. 214 (1993), 79–92.
[22] A. B. Tchernev, Torsion freeness of symmetric powers of ideals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
359 (2007), 3357–3367.
[23] W. Vasconcelos, Arithmetic of Blowup Algebras, London Mathematical Society, Lecture
Notes Series 195, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[24] W. V. Vasconcelos, Computational Methods in Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, Springer, Heidelberg, 1998.
[25] J. Weyman, Resolutions of the exterior and symmetric powers of a module, J. Algebra 58
(1979), 333–341.
38

Authors’ addresses:
Zaqueu Ramos, Departamento de Matemática, CCET, Universidade Federal de Sergipe
49100-000 São Cristovão, Sergipe, Brazil
e-mail: zaqueu@gmail.com
Aron Simis, Departamento de Matemática, CCEN, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
50740-560 Recife, PE, Brazil.
e-mail: aron@dmat.ufpe.br

39

