arXiv:1601.00579v4 [math.AC] 2 Nov 2017

Quadratic polynomial maps with Jacobian rank
two
Michiel de Bondt∗
Institute for Mathematics, Astrophisics and Particle Physics
Radboud University Nijmegen
Email address: M.deBondt@math.ru.nl
November 6, 2017

Abstract
Let K be any field and x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ). We classify all matrices
M ∈ Matm,n (K[x]) whose entries are polynomials of degree at most 1,
for which rk M ≤ 2. As a special case, we describe all such matrices M ,
which are the Jacobian matrix J H (the matrix of partial derivatives) of
a polynomial map H from K n to K m .
Among other things, we show that up to composition with linear maps
over K, M = J H has only two nonzero columns or only three nonzero
rows in this case. In addition, we show that trdegK K(H) = rk J H for
quadratic polynomial maps H over K such that 21 ∈ K and rk J H ≤ 2.
Furthermore, we prove that up to conjugation with linear maps over K,
nilpotent Jacobian matrices N of quadratic polynomial maps, for which
rk N ≤ 2, are triangular (with zeroes on the diagonal), regardless of the
characteristic of K. This generalizes several results by others.
In addition, we prove the same result for Jacobian matrices N of
quadratic polynomial maps, for which N 2 = 0. This generalizes a result by others, namely the case where 21 ∈ K and N (0) = 0.

Key words: quadratic polynomial map, Jacobian rank two, transcendence
degree two, homogeneous, nilpotent, unipotent Keller map, linearly triangularizable, strongly nilpotent, equivalent over K, similar over K.
MSC 2010: 12E05, 12F20, 14R05, 14R10.
∗ The author was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
(NWO).

1

1

Introduction

Throughout this paper, K is an arbitrary ﬁeld and x := (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) is an
n-tuple of indeterminates. We write a|b=c for the result of substituting b by c
in a.
We call a polynomial h ∈ K[x] homogeneous (of degree d) if all terms of h
have the same degree (and deg h = d). We call the terms of degree deg h of
h the leading homogeneous part of h. A linear form is a polynomial h ∈ K[x]
which is homogeneous of degree 1.
Let H ∈ K[x]m . Then H = (H1 , H2 , . . . , Hm ) is a polynomial map from
n
K to K m . The degree of H is deﬁned by deg H := max{deg H1 , deg H2 , . . . ,
deg Hm }. We say that H is homogeneous (of degree d) if y1 H1 + y2 H2 + · · · +
ym Hm is a homogeneous polynomial (of degree d + 1).
We write J H for the Jacobian matrix of H (with respect to x), i.e.




JH = 


∂
∂x1 H1
∂
∂x1 H2

..
.
∂
∂x1 Hm

∂
∂x2 H1
∂
∂x2 H2

..
.
∂
∂x2 Hm

···
···
.. .. ..
...
···

∂
∂xn H1
∂
∂xn H2






..

.
∂
∂xn Hm

We call a matrix a Jacobian matrix if it is the Jacobian matrix of some polynomial map. Note that this polynomial map is not uniquely determined if our
base ﬁeld K has positive characteristic.
Let R be a commutative ring with 1. We write Matm,n (R) for the abelian
group of matrices with m rows and n columns over R. So J H ∈ Matm,n (K[x]).
We write Matn (R) for the ring of matrices with n rows and n columns over
R. We deﬁne GLn (R) as the group of invertible matrices in Matn (R), i.e.
GLn (R) := {M ∈ Matn (R) | det M is a unit in R}.
If R is a K-algebra, then we say that elements M and M̃ of Matm,n (R) are
equivalent over K if there exists matrices S ∈ GLm (K) and T ∈ GLn (K) such
that M̃ = SM T . If m = n and S = T −1 in addition, then we say that M and
M̃ are similar over K.
A matrix M ∈ Matn (R) is upper (lower) triangular if all entries below
(above) the principal diagonal are zero, and triangular (diagonal) if M is either
(both) upper or (and) lower triangular. So a diagonal matrix may only have
nonzero entries on the diagonal which runs from its upper left corner to its lower
right corner. This diagonal is called the (principal) diagonal.
We say that a matrix M ∈ Matn (R) is nilpotent if the exists an r ≥ 1, such
that M r = 0. The reader may verify the following.
Lemma 1.1. Suppose that R is a K-algebra and M ∈ Matn (R).
(i) If M is upper (lower) triangular, then M is similar over K to a lower
(upper) triangular matrix M̃ ∈ Matn (R)
(ii) If M̃ is similar over K to M , then M̃ is nilpotent, if and only if M is
nilpotent.
2

If M ∈ Matm,n (K[x]), then we write M (v) for the matrix


M11 (v) M12 (v) · · · M1n (v)
 M21 (v) M22 (v) · · · M2n (v) 




..
..
.. .. ..
..


.
.
...
.
Mm1 (v) Mm2 (v) · · · Mmn (v)
where v ∈ K n . We say that M ∈ Matm (K[x]) is strongly nilpotent (over K) if
there exists an r ≥ 1, such that
M (v (1) ) · M (v (2) ) · · · · · M (v (r) ) = 0
for all v (1) , v (2) , . . . , v (r) ∈ K n . If K is inﬁnite, then proposition 1.3 below
gives a classiﬁcation of strongly nilpotent matrices over K[x]. For the proof of
proposition 1.3, we need the following lemma, which one can show by induction
on r.
Lemma 1.2. Suppose that M ∈ Matm (K[x]) is of the form




A ∗
A 0
or
0 B
∗ B
Let M̃ := M (v (1) ) · M (v (2) ) · · · · · M (v (r) ), Ã := A(v (1) ) · A(v (2) ) · · · · · A(v (r) )
and B̃ := B(v (1) ) · B(v (2) ) · · · · · B(v (r) ), where v (i) ∈ K[x]n for each i. Then M̃
is of the form.




Ã ∗
Ã 0
(1.1)
or
0 B̃
∗ B̃
respectively.
Proposition 1.3. Suppose that L is infinite and an extension field of K. Let
M ∈ Matm (K[x]). Then M is strongly nilpotent over L, if and only if M is
similar over K to a triangular matrix in Matm (K[x]), whose principal diagonal
is totally zero.
Proof. The ‘if’-part is an straightforward exercise, so assume that M is strongly
nilpotent over L. Then there are v (2) , v (3) , . . . , v (r) ∈ Ln such that for all v (1) ∈
Ln ,
M (v (1) ) · M (v (2) ) · · · · · M (v (r) ) = 0 6= M (v (2) ) · M (v (3) ) · · · · · M (v (r) )
Since L is inﬁnite, it follows that
M · M (v (2) ) · · · · · M (v (r) ) = 0 6= M (v (2) ) · M (v (3) ) · · · · · M (v (r) )
so the columns of M are linearly dependent over L. Since L is a vector space
over K, the columns of M are linearly dependent over K. Hence M is similar
over K to a matrix M̃ ∈ Matm (K[x]), of which the last column is zero.
From lemma 1.2, it follows that the upper left submatrix of size (m − 1) ×
(m − 1) of M̃ strongly nilpotent. By induction on m, it follows that M̃ and
hence also M is similar over K to a lower triangular matrix in Matm (K[x]),
whose principal diagonal is totally zero.
3

The above proof has been extracted from that of [dB1, Th. 3.1], which is a
more general result.
Corollary 1.4. Suppose that M ∈ Matm (K[x]) is of the form




A ∗
A 0
or
0 B
∗ B
Then M is similar over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on its principal
diagonal, if and only if A and B are similar over K to triangular matrices with
only zeroes on their principal diagonals.
Proof. From lemma 1.2, it follows that A and B are strongly nilpotent over an
inﬁnite extension ﬁeld L of K if M is strongly nilpotent over L. Hence the ‘only
if’-part follows from proposition 1.3.
To prove the ‘if’-part, suppose that A and B are strongly nilpotent over an
inﬁnite extension ﬁeld L. Then there exists an integer r, such that Ã = B̃ = 0
in (1.1), for every v (1) , v (2) , . . . , v (r) ∈ Ln . It follows that


M (v (1) ) · M (v (2) ) · · · · · M (v (r) ) · M (v (r+1) ) · M (v (r+2) ) · · · · · M (v (2r) ) = 0

for all v (1) , v (2) , v (3) , . . . , v (2r−1) , v (2r) ∈ K n . Hence the ‘if’-part follows from
proposition 1.3 as well.

A minor (determinant) of a matrix M is the determinant of a square submatrix, say N , of M . The submatrix N itself is called a minor matrix. If the
entries of the (principal) diagonal of N lie on the (principal) diagonal of M
as well, then det N and N are called a principal minor (determinant) and a
principal minor matrix respectively.
Notice that a minor matrix N of M is a principal minor matrix of M , if and
only if the indices of the rows of M which N has as a submatrix of M are the
same as the indices of the columns of M which N has as a submatrix.
We call a principal minor matrix of M a leading principal minor matrix if it
extends from the upper left corner of M , and a trailing principal minor matrix
if it extends from the lower right corner of M . Similarly, we deﬁne leading
principal minor (determinant) and trailing principal minor (determinant).
We call λ an eigenvalue of M ∈ Matm (K) if there exists a nonzero v ∈ K m
such that M v = λv. Notice that we must view the vector v as a matrix with
only one column in M v = λv. We will regard vectors as matrices with only one
column in the rest of the paper as well.
Lemma 1.5. Suppose that M ∈ Matm (K). Then the following statements are
equivalent.
(1) M is nilpotent;
(2) every eigenvalue of M equals zero;
(3) for every r ≤ m, the sum of the principal minor determinants of size r × r
is zero.
4

Proof.
(1) ⇒ (2) Suppose that λ is an eigenvalue of M . Then M is similar over K to
a matrix M̃ for which M̃ e1 = λe1 . Since M̃ is nilpotent as well, it follows
from lemma 1.2 that λ = 0.
(2) ⇒ (3) Let f (u) = det(uIm + M ). Then for every r for which 1 ≤ r ≤
m, the coeﬃcient of um−r in f equals the sum of the principal minor
determinants of size r × r of M .
If f (−λ) = 0, then ker(−λIm + M ) 6= {0}, and λ is an eigenvalue of M .
Suppose that (2) holds. Then u = −0 is the only root of f . Hence f = um
and (3) follows.
(3) ⇒ (1) Suppose that (3) holds. Then f = um . From the Cayley-Hamilton
theorem, it follows that (−M )m = 0, which gives (1).
Suppose that M = J H and M̃ = SM T , where H is a polynomial map from
K n to K m , S ∈ GLm (K) and T ∈ GLn (K). Let H̃ := SH(T x). From the
chain rule, it follows that

J H̃ = J SH(T x) = SM |x=T x T = M̃ |x=T x
(1.2)
so M̃ itself is a Jacobian matrix up to an automorphism of K[x]. It follows
that J H̃ is (strongly) nilpotent or upper (lower) triangular, if and only if M̃ is
(strongly) nilpotent or upper (lower) triangular respectively.
The degree of a matrix M ∈ Matm,n (K[x]) is deﬁned by
deg M := max{deg M11 , deg M12 , . . . , deg M1n , deg M21 , deg M22 , . . . , deg Mmn }
and we write rk M for the rank of M .
Let M ∈ Matm,n (R), where R is a ring. Then we denote by M t the transpose
of M , so




Mt = 


M11
M21
..
.

M12
M22
..
.

···
···
.. .. ..
...

M1n
M2n
..
.

Mm1

Mm2

···

Mmn

t







 := 



M11
M12
..
.

M21
M22
..
.

···
···
.. .. ..
...

Mm1
Mm2
..
.

M1n

M2n

···

Mmn







Notice that the symbol t is upright to distinguish from taking the tth power.
We call M symmetric if M t = M and antisymmetric if M t = −M .
Suppose that K is a subﬁeld of a ﬁeld L. Then we write trdegK L for the
transcendence degree of L over K, i.e.
trdegK L = max{#S | S ⊆ L and S is algebraically independent over K }
Here, a subset S of L is algebraically independent over K if the result of substituting elements of S in a nonzero polynomial in ﬁnitely many variables over K
will never be zero.
5

§2 In section 2, we classify all matrices M ∈ Matm,n (K[x]) for which deg M =
1 and rk M ≤ 2. Furthermore, we classify all such matrices M such that M =
J H for some polynomial map H. Among other things, we show that M = J H
is equivalent over K to a matrix M̃ which has either only two nonzero columns
or only three nonzero rows.
In addition, we show that rk J H = trdegK K(H) for quadratic polynomial maps H over K such that 12 ∈ K and rk J H ≤ 2. In general rk J H ≤
trdegK K(H) for a rational map H of any degree, with equality if K(H) ⊆ K(x)
is separable, in particular if K has characteristic zero. This is proved in [dB3,
Th. 1.3], see also [PSS, Ths. 10, 13].
§3 In section 3, we prove that nilpotent Jacobian matrices N for which deg N =
1 and rk N ≤ 2 are similar over K to a triangular matrix (with zeroes on the
diagonal), regardless of the characteristic of K. This generalizes [dBY, Th. 3.4]
(the case where K has characteristic zero) and [PC, Th. 1] (the case where
1
2 ∈ K and N (0) = 0). In [PC, Th. 1], which is the main result of [PC], the
authors additionally assume that K is inﬁnite, but one can derive the ﬁnite case
from the inﬁnite case by way of proposition 1.3 above.
At the end of section 3, we prove that nilpotent Jacobian matrices N for
which deg N = 1 and N 2 = 0 are similar over K to a triangular matrix (with
zeroes on the diagonal), regardless of the characteristic of K. This generalizes
[MO, §4] and [PC, Lm. 4] (the case where 12 ∈ K and N (0) = 0).
We additionally show that N (v (1) ) · N (v (2) ) · N (v (3) ) = 0 if 21 ∈ K, where
(1) (2) (3)
v , v , v are as in the proof of proposition 1.3, using the fact that the proof
of [PC, Lm. 4] shows that N (v (1) ) · N (v (2) ) = 0 if N (0) = 0 in addition.

2

(Jacobian) matrices of degree one and rank at
most two

A matrix of rank zero can only be the zero matrix, so we only need to distinguish
rank one and rank two. Let us start with rank one.
Theorem 2.1. Let M be a matrix whose entries are polynomials of degree at
most 1 over K. If rk M = 1, then M is equivalent over K to a matrix M̃ for
which one of the following statements holds.
(1) Only the first column of M̃ is nonzero.
(2) Only the first row of M̃ is nonzero.
If M is the Jacobian matrix of a (quadratic) polynomial map in addition, then
the following assertion can be added to (1).
(1) The first column of M̃ is of the form (∗, 12 , 0, . . . , 0).

6

Proof. If the constant part M (0) of M is zero, then we can replace M by the
result of substituting xi = xi + 1 in M , where xi is an indeterminate which
appears in M , to obtain M (0) 6= 1. So we may assume that M (0) 6= 0.
Since rk M (0) = 1, we can choose M̃ such that


1 0 0 ···
 0 0 0 ··· 


M̃ (0) =  0 0 0 · · · 


.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . ...
Looking at the linear parts of the 2 × 2 minor determinants, we see that only
the ﬁrst row and the ﬁrst column of M̃ may be nonzero.
Suppose that (1) does not hold. Then we may assume that the second entry
of the ﬁrst row of M̃ is nonzero. Suppose that (2) does not hold. Then we may
assume that the ﬁrst entry of the second row of M̃ is nonzero. This contradicts
that the leading principal 2 × 2 minor determinant of M̃ is zero.
So we have proved the ﬁrst part of this theorem. To prove the second part
of this theorem, assume that M = J H for a polynomial map H. If we remove
/ K for all i, then M = J H is preserved,
terms xk11 xk22 · · · of H for which k1i ∈
and for every term t of H, there exists an i such that
∂
t 6= 0
∂xi
Since deg J H ≤ 1, it follows that H becomes a polynomial map with terms of
degree 1 and 2 only. So we may assume that H(0) = 0 and deg H ≤ 2.
Say that M̃ = SM T for invertible matrices S, T over K. Let H̃ := SH(T x)
and suppose that M̃ is as in (1). From (1.2), it follows that J H̃ is as in (1) as
well, i.e. only the ﬁrst column of J H̃ is nonzero.
If 21 ∈ K, then for all j, H̃j is linearly dependent over K on x21 and x1 only.
If x1 and x21 are in turn linearly dependent over K on H̃1 , H̃2 , · · · , then we can
get the ﬁrst column of J H̃ and M̃ of the given form by way of row operations.
Otherwise, we can get the ﬁrst column of J H̃ and M̃ of the form (∗, 0, 0, · · · , 0)
by way of row operations, so (2) is satisﬁed.
So assume that 21 ∈
/ K. Then for all j, H̃j is dependent over K on x1 , x21 , x22 ,
2
x3 , . . .. Hence the ﬁrst column of J H̃ is constant. By way of row operations,
we can get the ﬁrst column of J H̃ and M̃ of the form (∗, 0, 0, · · · , 0). Hence
only the ﬁrst row of J H̃ is nonzero and M̃ is as in (2).
In [dB2, Th. 1.8], it is proved that over ﬁelds of characteristic zero, polynomial maps with an antisymmetric Jacobian matrix are linear. With essentially
the same proof, one can draw the same conclusion if the characteristic of the
ﬁeld exceeds the degree of the polynomial map.
Lemma 2.2. Let H be a polynomial map of degree at most d over K, such that
d! 6= 0 in K. If J H is antisymmetric, then deg H ≤ 1.

7

Proof. There is nothing to prove if
J H is antisymmetric. Then

1
2

∈
/ K, so assume that

1
2

∈ K. Suppose that

∂ ∂
∂ ∂
∂ ∂
∂ ∂
Hk = −
Hj =
Hi = −
Hk
∂xi ∂xj
∂xi ∂xk
∂xj ∂xk
∂xi ∂xj
∂
∂
Hk = 0, for all i, j, k. As 2d! 6= 0 in K, it follows that
and hence 2 ∂x
i ∂xj
deg H ≤ 1.

Using lemma 2.2 above, we can proceed with rank two.
Theorem 2.3. Let M be a matrix whose entries are polynomials of degree at
most 1 over K. If rk M = 2, then M is equivalent over K to a matrix M̃ for
which one of the following statements holds.
(1) Only the first two columns of M̃ are nonzero.
(2) Only the first two rows of M̃ are nonzero.
(3) The first row and the first column of M̃ are nonzero, and M̃ is zero elsewhere.
(4) The leading principal 3 × 3 minor matrix of M̃ is anti-symmetric, with
only zeroes on the diagonal, and M̃ is zero elsewhere. Furthermore, the
three entries below the diagonal of this principal minor matrix are linearly
independent over K.
If M is the Jacobian matrix of a (quadratic) polynomial map in addition, then
the following assertions can be added to (3) and (4) respectively.
(3) The first column of M̃ is of the form (∗, ∗, 12 , 0, . . . , 0).
(4) M̃ is symmetric, i.e.

1
2

∈
/ K.

Proof. We ﬁrst show that we may assume that

0 −1 0
 1 0 0

M (0) =  0 0 0

..
..
..
.
.
.

···
···
···
.. .. ..
...







(2.1)

Notice that this is indeed the case if rk M (0) ≥ 2. Otherwise, we can follow the
proof of theorem 2.1, to deduce that we may assume that rk M (0) = 1. So we
may assume that


0 0 0 ···
 1 0 0 ··· 


M (0) =  0 0 0 · · · 


.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . ...
8

Suppose that an M̃ as in (3) cannot be obtained by interchanging the ﬁrst and
the second row of M . Then M has a nonzero entry outside the second row and
the ﬁrst column. Without loss of generality, we may assume that the second
entry of the ﬁrst row of M is nonzero.
Say that the coeﬃcient of xj of this entry of M is nonzero. Let C be the
coeﬃcient matrix of xj of M . Then

x−1
M − xj C + x0j C
j
is the expansion of the matrix x−1
j M to powers of xj (which may be negative),
because M − xj C and C are the coeﬃcient matrices of x−1
and x0j of x−1
j
j M
−1
−1
∗
respectively. Let C be the matrix one gets by substituting xj = xj in xj M .
Then


C ∗ = x+1
M − xj C + x0j C = xj M − M (0) − xj C + xj M (0) + C
j

If rk C ≥ 2, then we can interchange C and M (0) as coeﬃcient matrices of M
without aﬀecting rk M = 2, namely by replacing M by the result of substituting
∗
xi = x−1
j xi for all i 6= j in C , to obtain rk M (0) ≥ 2 as above.
So assume that rk C = 1. Since the second entry of the ﬁrst row of C is
nonzero, we may assume that the ﬁrst row of C equals (0 1 0 0 · · · 0). Since
rk C = 1, it follows that only the second column of C is nonzero, so we may
assume that C is the transpose of M (0). Now replace M by the result of
substituting xj = xj − 1 in M , to obtain that M (0) is as in (2.1).
So M (0) is as in (2.1). Looking at the linear parts of the 3 × 3 minor
determinants, we see that only the ﬁrst two rows and the ﬁrst two columns of
M may be nonzero. Take i ≥ 3 arbitrary.
Suppose that (2) does not hold. Then we may assume that the third row of
M is nonzero. Suppose ﬁrst that the ﬁrst entry of the third row of M is zero.
Then the second entry of the third row cannot be zero. Now we can replace
M by the result of adding the second column and the second row to the ﬁrst
column and the ﬁrst row respectively in M , to make the ﬁrst entry of the third
row of M nonzero as well, without aﬀecting M (0).
So we may assume that the ﬁrst entry of the third row of M is nonzero.
Looking at the quadratic part of the leading principal 3 × 3 minor determinant,
we see that the third column is dependent on the transpose of the third row. If
i > 3, then we could interchange the third and the ith column of M , so the ith
column of M is dependent on the transpose of the third row.
Suppose that (1) does not hold. Then we may assume that the third column
of M is nonzero. Just like the ith column of M is dependent on the transpose
of the third row, we can deduce that the ith row of M is dependent on the
transpose of the third column. So the ith row of M is dependent on the third
row. In addition, the ith column of M is dependent on the third column.
Since the third column is dependent on the transpose of the third row, the
third entry of the ﬁrst row of M is nonzero along with the ﬁrst entry of the
third row. Furthermore, we may assume that the leading principal 3 × 3 matrix
9

of M is of the form


∗
 ∗
a


∗ −a
c −b 
b 0

or



∗
 ∗
a

∗
c
λa


b
λb 
0

(2.2)

where a, b and c are linear forms over K and λ ∈ K.
Suppose ﬁrst that the leading principal 3×3 matrix of M is of the form of the
rightmost matrix of (2.2). Then we can replace M by the result of subtracting
the ﬁrst column and the ﬁrst row λ times from the second column and the
second row respectively in M , to obtain λ = 0 in the rightmost matrix of (2.2),
without aﬀecting M (0). After that, we can look at the leading principal 3 × 3
minor determinant to deduce that c has become zero. So (3) is satisﬁed.
Suppose next that the leading principal 3 × 3 matrix of M is of the form
of the leftmost matrix of (2.2), but not of the form of the rightmost matrix
of (2.2). Then a and b are independent linear forms. Looking at the leading
principal 3 × 3 minor determinant, we see that b | a2 c, so b | c and c = µb
for some µ ∈ K. Now replace M by the result of subtracting the third row µ
times from the second row, to obtain µ = 0, without aﬀecting M (0). So we may
assume that c = 0 in the leftmost matrix of (2.2). In a similar manner, we can
clean the upper left corner of M , so we may assume that the diagonal of the
leftmost matrix of (2.2) is zero.
Now it is straightforward to check that the leading principal 3 × 3 matrix
of M is antisymmetric. Furthermore, the three entries below its diagonal are
linearly independent over K, because a, b and f + 1 are linearly independent
over K for every linear form f . Since a and b are linearly independent, it follows
that the ith row of M is dependent over K on the third row. Since −a and −b
are linearly independent, it follows that the ith column of M is dependent over
K on the third column. So we can make M̃ as in (4) from M by way of row
and column operations.
So we have proved the ﬁrst part of this theorem. To prove the second part
of this theorem, assume that M = J H for a polynomial map H. Just as in the
proof of theorem 2.1, we may assume that H(0) = 0 and deg H ≤ 2. Say that
M̃ = SM T for invertible matrices S, T over K, and let H̃ := SH(T x). The
case where M̃ is as in (3) follows in a similar manner as the case where M̃ is as
in (1) in the proof of theorem 2.1.
Hence assume that M̃ is as in (4) and that 12 ∈ K. Then J H̃ is as in
(4) as well, and deg H̃ ≤ 2. From lemma 2.2, it follows that deg H̃ = 1. This
contradicts that M̃ has three entries which are linearly independent over K.
Corollary 2.4. Let H be a quadratic polynomial map over K, such that r :=
rk J H ≤ 2. If 12 ∈ K, then K[H] ⊆ K[f1 , . . . , fr ] for polynomials fi . In
particular, rk J H = trdegK K(H).
Proof. From

1
2

∈ K, it follows that for every term t of H,
∂
t 6= 0 ⇐⇒ xi | t
∂xi
10

If r = 0, then H is constant. If r = 1, then it follows from theorem 2.1 that
we may assume that either K[H] = K[x1 ] or K[H] = K[H1 ]. So assume that
r = 2. Then it follows from theorem 2.3 that we may assume that either
K[H] ⊆ K[x1 , x2 ] or K[H] = K[H1 , H2 ] or K[H] = K[H1 , x1 ], because (4) of
theorem 2.3 for M = J H requires 12 ∈
/ K.
Lemma 2.5. Let H be a polynomial map over K and suppose that J H is
symmetric. If for each i, the ith entry of the diagonal of J H has no terms whose
degrees with respect to xi are equal to −2 in K, then there exists a polynomial
h ∈ K[x] such that H = (J h)t and J H = Hh.
Proof. Assume that the diagonal of J H is as indicated above. Then for each i,
Hi has no terms whose degrees with respect to xi are equal to −1 in K. From the
proof of [vdE, Lem. 1.3.53], it follows that there exists a polynomial h ∈ K[x]
such that H = (J h)t (the αi in that proof are nonzero). So J H = Hh.
Corollary 2.6. Suppose that H is a polynomial map of degree at most 2 in
dimension 3 over K, such that J H is antisymmetric with only zeroes on the
diagonal. Suppose that J H is not constant. Then there exist a λ ∈ K ∗ and
c1 , c2 , c3 ∈ K, such that

J H = H λ(x1 + c1 )(x2 + c2 )(x3 + c3 )
Furthermore,

1
2

∈
/ K and rk J H = 2 < 3 = trdegK K(H).

Proof. From lemma 2.2, it follows that 12 ∈
/ K and that J H is symmetric. From
lemma 2.5, it follows that J H = Hh for some polynomial h.
Since deg H ≤ 2, it follows that terms of degree greater than 3 of h cannot
/ K, it follows that terms of degree at most 3 of h which
aﬀect Hh. Since 12 ∈
are divisible by x2i for some i cannot aﬀect Hh. So we can remove terms of
h of degree greater than 3 and terms of h which are divisible by x2i for some
i. Furthermore, we can remove terms of h of degree at most 1. After these
removals, h will be of the form
h = λx1 x2 x3 + c̃1 x2 x3 + c̃2 x3 x1 + c̃3 x1 x2
In particular deg h ≤ 3. Suppose that J H is not constant. Then deg h = 3, so
λ 6= 0. Hence J H is of the given form, with ci = λ−1 c̃i for each i. Furthermore,
rk J H = 2.
Suppose that trdegK K(H) ≤ 2. Then there exists a polynomial f such that
f (H) = 0. If f¯ is the leading homogeneous part of f and H̄ is the leading
homogeneous part of H, then f¯(H̄) = 0, so trdegK K(H̄) ≤ 2. From [dB3,
Th. 2.7], it follows that there exists an S ∈ GL3 (K) such that
S H̄ = (p, q, 0)

or

S H̄ = (p2 , pq, q 2 )

for homogeneous polynomials p, q of the same degree. In the ﬁrst case, the rows
of J H̄ are dependent over K. In the second case, deg(p, q) = 1 and the columns
11

of J H̄ are dependent over K. This is however

0 x3
J H̄ = λ  x3 0
x2 x1

not the case for

x2
x1 
0

so trdegK K(H) = 3.
Corollary 2.7. Let M be a matrix whose entries are polynomials of degree at
most 1 over K. Suppose that rk M ≤ 2 and that M is the Jacobian matrix of
a polynomial map H. Then it is impossible to choose H such that rk J H =
trdegK K(H) (and J H = M ), if and only if M is as in (4) of theorem 2.3. In
/ K and rk J H = 2 < 3 = trdegK K(H) for every polynomial map
that case, 21 ∈
H such that J H = M .
Proof. The ‘if’-part follows from corollary 2.6. The last claim follows from
corollary 2.6 as well. The ‘only if’-part follows from theorem 2.3 and the proof
of corollary 2.4.

3

Nilpotent Jacobian matrices of degree one and
rank at most two

Before we prove the main result of this section, which is theorem 3.2 below, we
formulate a lemma about nilpotent matrices N of degree 1 and size 2 × 2 or
3 × 3, for which N (0) has a simple structure.
Lemma 3.1. Let K be a field and N be a nilpotent matrix whose entries are
polynomials of degree 1. Then the following holds.
(i) If
N (0) =



0 0
0 0



then N is similar over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the
diagonal.
(ii) If
N (0) =



0 0
1 0



then N is lower triangular with only zeroes on the diagonal.
(iii) If


0
N (0) =  0
0

0
0
0


1
0 
0

then N is similar over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the
diagonal.
12

(iv) If


0
N (0) =  0
0

1
0
0


0
1 
0

and N is not upper triangular, then N is similar over K to a matrix of
the form


0 f +1
0
 b
0
f +1 
(3.1)
0
−b
0
where f and b are linear forms and b 6= 0.

Proof. Since N is nilpotent, it follows from lemma 1.5 that for every r ≤ n, the
sum of the principal minor determinants of size r × r is zero. This gives us the
trace condition if r = 1, the 2 × 2 principal minors condition if r = 2, and the
determinant condition if r = n.
(i) Using the trace condition, we see that


a b
N=
c −a
for linear forms a, b. Using the determinant condition, we see that bc = a2 ,
so b | a2 . As polynomial rings have unique factorization, b = λa for some
λ ∈ K. Since c = λ−1 a, the entries of a−1 N are contained in K. Hence
a−1 N is strongly nilpotent over an inﬁnite extension ﬁeld of K. From
proposition 1.3, it follows that a−1 N is similar over K to a triangular
matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal, and so is N .
(ii) Using the determinant condition,
N=



∗ 0
∗ ∗



(because the linear part is zero). Hence N is lower triangular. From
lemma 1.2, it follows that N has only zeroes on the diagonal.
(iii) Using the principal 2 × 2 minors condition, we see that


∗ ∗ ∗
N = b ∗ ∗ 
0 c ∗
for linear forms b, c (because the linear part is zero). On account of the
determinant condition, bc = 0 (because bc is the quadratic part of det N ).
If b = 0,
principal
If c = 0,
principal

then the leading principal 1 × 1 minor matrix and the trailing
2 × 2 minor matrix of N are nilpotent on account of lemma 1.2.
then the leading principal 2 × 2 minor matrix and the trailing
1 × 1 minor matrix of N are nilpotent on account of lemma 1.2.
13

In both cases, the principal 1 × 1 minor matrix is zero, because Mat1 (K)
is a reduced ring. From (i), we deduce that in both cases, the principal
2 × 2 minor matrix is similar over K to a triangular matrix with only
zeroes on the diagonal. On account of corollary 1.4, N is similar over K
to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal.
(iv) Using all principal minors conditions

−a
∗
N = b a+c
0
−b


∗
∗ 
−c

for linear forms a, b, c (because the linear parts are zero). If b = 0, then N
is upper triangular, so assume that b 6= 0. On account of the determinant
condition, a = c (quadratic part) and b | a(a + c)c (cubic part). So b | a
if 12 ∈ K. If 21 ∈
/ K, then b | a2 on account of the principal 2 × 2 minors
condition, so b | a in any case.
Since b | a and b | c, we may assume that a = c = 0, because we can
replace N by T −1 N T , where




0
1 − ab
1 ab ac
b2
T :=  0 1 − bc 
and
T −1 =  0 1 cb 
0 0
1
0 0 1
On account of the determinant condition, the upper right corner of N is
zero. On account of the principal 2 × 2 minors condition, N is of the form
of (3.1) for some linear form f .
A square matrix over K is similar over K to its so-called Jordan normal
form, if and only if all its eigenvalues are contained in K. Hence it follows from
lemma 1.5 that every nilpotent matrix over K is similar over K to its Jordan
normal form.
This fact about Jordan normal forms is used in the proof of theorem 3.2
below. The reader who is not familiar with Jordan normal forms has to show
some required similarities by hand, using the result of proposition 1.3 that
nilpotent matrices over K are similar over K to triangular matrices with zeroes
on their diagonals.
Theorem 3.2. Suppose that H is a quadratic polynomial map in dimension n
over a field K of any characteristic, such that rk J H ≤ 2 and J H is nilpotent.
Then J H is similar over K to a triangular matrix.
Proof. Let M = J H. Suppose ﬁrst that rk M = 1. From theorem 2.1, it
follows that there exists S, T ∈ GLn (K), such that M̃ := SM T satisﬁes one of
the following:
• M̃ is as in (1) of theorem 2.1.
Then M̃ and T −1 M T are lower triangular, because only their ﬁrst columns
are nonzero. So M is similar over K to a triangular matrix.
14

• M̃ is as in (2) of theorem 2.1.
Then M̃ and SM S −1 are upper triangular, because only their ﬁrst rows
are nonzero. So M is similar over K to a triangular matrix.
Suppose next that rk M = 2. From theorem 2.3, it follows that there exists
S, T ∈ GLn (K), such that M̃ := SM T satisﬁes one of the following:
• M̃ is as in (1) of theorem 2.3.
Then only the ﬁrst two columns of M̃ and T −1 M T are nonzero. On
account of lemma 1.2, the leading principal 2 × 2 minor matrix N of
T −1 M T is nilpotent.
Since the Jordan normal form of N (0) is equal to (that of) N (0) in (i)
or (ii) of lemma 3.1, it follows from (i) and (ii) of lemma 3.1 that N is
similar over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal.
From corollary 1.4, we deduce that M is similar over K to a triangular
matrix as well.
• Only the first three rows of M̃ may be nonzero.

Then only the ﬁrst three rows of M̃ , SM S −1 and J SH(S −1 x) =
SM |x=S −1 x S −1 are nonzero. On account of lemma 1.2, the leading principal 3 × 3 minor matrix N of SM S −1 is nilpotent.
In order to show that M is similar over K to a triangular matrix, it
suﬃces to show that SM S −1 is similar over K to a triangular matrix.
From corollary 1.4, we deduce that it suﬃces to show that N is similar
over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal. For that
purpose, we distinguish three cases.
rk N (0) = 0. Then we can replace M by the result of substituting xi =
xi +1 in M for some i, to obtain rk N (0) 6= 0, because of the following.
M becomes J (H|xi =xi +1 ), which is a Jacobian matrix as well, and
the linear part of N is not aﬀected.
So if N is similar over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes
on the diagonal in the new situation, then N is similar over K to a
triangular matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal originally.
rk N (0) = 1. Then the Jordan normal form of N (0) is equal to that of
N (0) in (iii) of lemma 3.1. So we can choose S, such that N (0) is as in
(iii) of lemma 3.1. It follows from (iii) of lemma 3.1 that N is similar
over K to a triangular matrix with only zeroes on the diagonal.
rk N (0) ≥ 2. Then the Jordan normal form of N (0) is equal to (that of)
N (0) in (iv) of lemma 3.1. So we can choose S, such that N (0) is as
in (iv) of lemma 3.1.
Suppose ﬁrst that N is upper triangular. From lemma 1.2, it follows
that the leading principal minor matrix of size 1 × 1 and the trailing
principal minor matrix of size 2 × 2 of N are nilpotent. By applying
lemma 1.2 on the trailing principal minor matrix of size 2 × 2, we
15

see that every principal minor matrix of size 1 × 1 is nilpotent. As
Mat1 (K) is a reduced ring, the diagonal of N is totally zero.
So assume that N is not upper triangular. Then it follows from (iv)
of lemma 3.1 that we can choose S, such that N is of the form of
(3.1), where f and b are linear forms and b 6= 0, because N (0) will
not be aﬀected. Deﬁne

 

0 0 −1
0
−f − 1 0
0
−b 
Ñ := N ·  0 −1 0  =  f + 1
1 0
0
0
b
0
Notice that Ñ is antisymmetric. By deﬁnition of Ñ and M̃ , we can
choose T such that Ñ is the leading principal 3 × 3 minor matrix of
M̃ .
Since the leading principal 2 × 2 minor matrix of Ñ (0) has full rank,
we can clean the parts outside Ñ (0) of the ﬁrst two rows of M̃ (0)
by way of column operations. In other words, we can choose T such
that the submatrix of the ﬁrst two rows of M̃ (0) equals


0 −1 0 0 · · · 0
1 0 0 0 ··· 0
Looking at the constant parts of the 3 × 3 minor determinants, we
see that the third and subsequent entries of the third row of M̃ (0)
are zero.
Looking at the linear parts of the 3 × 3 minor determinants, we see
that the second entry of the third row of M̃ is the only nonzero entry
in that row. So the third row of M̃ is of the form

0 b 0 0 ··· 0
On account of (1.2), J H̃ = M̃ |x=T x . Hence the second entry b̃ of the
third row of J H̃ is the only nonzero entry in that row. Furthermore,
b̃ is a nonzero linear form just like b.
Consequently, b̃ = λx2 for some nonzero λ ∈ K. So the coeﬃcient of
x22 in H̃3 equals 12 λ. In particular,
1
2

∈K

and

degx2 H̃3 > 1

Since Jx1 ,x2 ,x3 (H̃1 , H̃2 , H̃3 ) = Ñ |x=T x is antisymmetric, it follows
from lemma 2.2 that
degx2 H̃3 ≤ degx1 ,x2 ,x3 (H̃1 , H̃2 , H̃3 ) ≤ 1
Contradiction, so N is upper triangular.

16

In the proof of [PC, Lem. 4], it is shown that J H 2 = 0 implies (J H)(x) ·
(J H)(y) = 0 if H is quadratic homogeneous and 12 ∈ K, where y = (y1 , y2 , . . . ,
yn ) is another n-tuple of indeterminates. The maps

H = 0, x1 , x21 , x1 x2 − 21 x3
and

H = 0, 0, 0, x2 x3 , x3 x1 , x1 x2 , x1 x4 + x2 x5 + x3 x6



show that the conditions that H is (quadratic) homogeneous and
necessary respectively.

1
2

∈ K are

Theorem 3.3. Suppose that H is a quadratic polynomial map in dimension n
over a field K of any characteristic, such that J H 2 = 0. Then the following
holds.
(i) J H is similar over K to a triangular matrix.
(ii) If

1
2

∈ K and H is homogeneous, then
(J H)(x) · (J H)(y) = 0

where y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) is another n-tuple of indeterminates.
(iii) If

1
2

∈ K and H is not (necessarily) homogeneous, then
(J H)(x) · (J H)(y) · (J H)(z) = 0

where z = (z1 , z2 , . . . , zn ) is yet another n-tuple of indeterminates.
Proof. Let y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) be an n-tuple of indeterminates. From deg J H ≤
1, it follows that

(J H) tx + (1 − t)y = t(J H)(x) + (1 − t)(J H)(y)
Taking squares on both sides, we deduce that


0 = t(1 − t) (J H)(x) · (J H)(y) + (J H)(y) · (J H)(x)

Consequently,

(J H)(y) · (J H)(x) = −(J H)(x) · (J H)(y)
(i) Let




Z=


Z11
Z21
..
.

Z12
Z22
..
.

···
···
.. .. ..
...

Z1n
Z2n
..
.

Zn1

Zn2

···

Znn

17







(3.2)

be a matrix of indeterminates. Since we can substitute elements of any
ﬁeld L ⊇ K in the indeterminates of the matrix (Z | x | y), it follows from
proposition 1.3 that it suﬃces to show that
n
Y


(J H)(Zei ) · (J H)(x) · (J H)(y) = 0

i=1

Just as in the proof of (iii) below, we can reduce to the case where H is
homogeneous, at the cost of losing (J H)(y) as a factor. So if we show
that
n

Y
(J H)(Zei ) · (J H)(x) = 0
(3.3)
i=1

then we may assume that H is homogeneous.
Hence suppose that H is homogeneous. From (ii) of [PC, Prop. 3] and
(3.2), it follows that
n
Y

i=1


2
...
(J H)(Zei ) · (J H)(x) · Zej = .. .. .. · (J H)(Zej ) · x = 0

for every j ≤ n. Consequently
n
Y


(J H)(Zei ) · (J H)(x) · Z = 0

i=1

As rk Z = n, (3.3) follows.
(ii) This is shown in the proof of [PC, Lem. 4].
(iii) Let H̄ be the quadratic part of H. Notice that
3
Y

(J H)(Zei ) =

3
Y

i=1

i=1


(J H̄)(Zei ) + (J H)(0)

(3.4)

and that every term of the expansion of the right hand side of (3.4) either
has two factors (J H)(0), or two distinct (but not necessarily diﬀerent)
factors (J H̄)(Zei ) and (J H̄)(Zej ), where 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 3.
From (3.2), it follows that
2
2
(J H̄)(x) = (J H)(x) − (J H)(0)
2
2
= (J H)(x) + (J H)(0) = 0

From (ii), we subsequently deduce that

(J H̄)(x) · (J H̄)(y) = 0

18

(3.5)

Furthermore, it follows from (3.2) that

(J H̄)(x) · (J H)(0) = (J H)(x) − (J H)(0) · (J H)(0)


= −(J H)(0) · (J H)(x) − (J H)(0)

= −(J H)(0) · (J H̄)(x)

Consequently, the factors of the terms of the expansion of the right hand
2
side of (3.4) anticommute. From (3.5) and (J H)(0) = 0, we deduce
that every term of the expansion of the right hand side of (3.4) equals
zero. So (J H)(Ze1 ) · (J H)(Ze2 ) · (J H)(Ze3 ) = 0.
The conclusions of (ii) and (iii) of theorem 3.3 can be reformulated as properties of a triangular matrix to which JH is similar over K, see [dB1, Th. 2.1]
and [dB1, Cor. 2.2]. Using this reformulation more generally, one can deduce
the following.
Proposition 3.4. Let H be a polynomial map, such that J H is similar over
K to a triangular matrix. If J H is nilpotent and r = rk J H, then
(J H)(Ze1 ) · (J H)(Ze2 ) · · · · · (J H)(Zer ) · (J H)(Zer+1 ) = 0
where Z is as in the proof of (i) of theorem 3.3.
It follows that the conclusions of (ii) and (iii) of theorem 3.3 can be added
to the cases rk J H = 1 and rk J H = 2 of theorem 3.2 respectively as well.

References
[dB1]

Michiel de Bondt. The strong nilpotency index of a matrix. Linear
Multilinear Algebra, 62(4):486–497, 2014.

[dB2]

Michiel de Bondt. Symmetric Jacobians. Cent. Eur. J. Math., 12(6):787–
800, 2014.

[dB3]

Michiel de Bondt. Rational maps H for which K(tH) has transcendence
degree 2 over K. arXiv:1501.06046, 2015.

[dBY] Michiel de Bondt and Dan Yan. Triangularization properties of
power linear maps and the structural conjecture. Ann. Polon. Math.,
112(3):247–266, 2014.
[vdE]

Arno van den Essen. Polynomial automorphisms and the Jacobian conjecture, volume 190 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Verlag,
Basel, 2000.

[FMN] Piotr Faliszewski, Anca Muscholl, and Rolf Niedermeier, editors. 41st
International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer
Science, MFCS 2016, August 22-26, 2016 - Kraków, Poland, volume 58
of LIPIcs. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016.
19

[MO]

Gary H. Meisters and Czeslaw Olech. Strong nilpotence holds in dimensions up to ﬁve only. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 30(4):231–255,
1991.

[PSS]

Anurag Pandey, Nitin Saxena, and Amit Sinhababu. Algebraic independence over positive characteristic: New criterion and applications to
locally low algebraic rank circuits. In Faliszewski et al. [FMN], pages
74:1–74:15.

[PC]

Kevin Pate and Charles Ching-An Cheng. Quadratic homogeneous
Keller maps of rank two. Linear Algebra Appl., 476:16–27, 2015.

20

