TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

arXiv:1310.0916v1 [math.AC] 3 Oct 2013

MICHELA CERIA, TEO MORA, AND MARGHERITA ROGGERO
A BSTRACT. In this paper, we consider a monomial ideal J ⊳ P := A[x1 , . . . , xn ], over
a commutative ring A, and we face the problem of the characterization for the family
Mf (J) of all homogeneous ideals I ⊳ P such that the A-module P/I is free with basis
given by the set of terms in the Gröbner escalier N(J) of J. This family is in general
wider than that of the ideals having J as initial ideal w.r.t. any term-ordering, hence
more suited to a computational approach to the study of Hilbert schemes.
For this purpose, we exploit and enhance the concepts of multiplicative variables, complete sets and involutive bases introduced by Janet in [19, 20, 21] and we generalize the
construction of J-marked bases and term-ordering free reduction process introduced
and deeply studied in [1, 6] for the special case of a strongly stable monomial ideal J.
Here, we introduce and characterize for every monomial ideal J a particular complete
set of generators F (J), called stably complete, that allows an explicit description of the
family Mf (J). We obtain stronger results if J is quasi stable, proving that F (J) is a
Pommaret basis and Mf (J) has a natural structure of affine scheme.
The final section presents a detailed analysis of the origin and the historical evolution
of the main notions we refer to.

1. I NTRODUCTION .
Let P := A[x1 , ..., xn ] be the polynomial ring in n variables over a commutative ring
A. The problem we address is the following.
Problem: Given any monomial ideal J ⊳ P find a characterization for the family Mf (J) of
all homogeneous ideals I ⊳ P such that the A-module P/I is free with basis given by the set of
terms in the Gröbner escalier N(J) of J.
The most relevant examples of ideals that belong to this family are those such that J
is their initial ideal w.r.t. some term-ordering, but in general they form a proper subset
of Mf (J). Therefore, we must overcome the Gröbner framework.
A computational description of the whole family Mf (J) is obtained in [1, 6] for J
strongly stable. These families are optimal for many applications, for instance for an
effective study of Hilbert schemes (see [2]). However, the strong stability of the monomial ideal J is a rather limiting condition.
In the present paper we give an overall view on what can be said about the above
question for an arbitrary monomial ideal J, enhancing some ideas introduced by Janet
in [19, 20, 21].
The ideas we mainly deal with are those of multiplicative variable and complete system,
leading to the so called Janet decomposition for terms. These concepts date back to the
late nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth. In a historical note at the
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14C05, 14Q20, 13P10.
The third author was supported by the framework of PRIN 2010-11 Geometria delle varietà algebriche,
cofinanced by MIUR.
1

2

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

end of the paper we present a detailed overview of their appearances, evolution and
applications.
In Janet’s theory the ideals I are generated by those we call now involutive bases, a set
which contains as a subset those that are also Gröbner bases. Indeed, Janet develops
his ideas assuming to be in generic coordinates. Hence the homogeneous ideals I and J
he considers satisfy many good properties that always hold after having performed a
generic linear change of coordinates. In particular, J is the generic initial ideal of I w.r.t.
the (deg)-revlex ordering.
From a computational point of view, a general change of coordinates is remarkably
heavy. For this reason, we consider interesting enhancing the theory and obtaining
analogous results not assuming this hypothesis. Indeed, Janet’s ideas permit to go
beyond this context and to recover results and techniques of both Gröbner basis theory
and J-marked basis theory. In fact we do not need to impose a term-ordering on the
given polynomial ring.
We identify two essential features that are key points for most computations in both
the above frameworks:
I) I is generated by a set of polynomials, marked on the terms of a suitable generating set of the monomial ideal J;
II) there is a reduction process w.r.t. these marked polynomials, that is used to
rewrite each element of P/I as an element of the free A-module hN(J)i
Janet’s notions of multiplicative variable and complete system allow to construct such
marked set of generators for I and to define an efficient reduction process.
First of all, we examine and compare two different definitions of multiplicative variable that Janet presents in [19, 20] and in [21], that are equivalent in general coordinates.
We underline similarities and differences and introduce the notion of stably complete set
of terms, when both conditions hold. We show that every monomial ideal J has only
one stably complete set of generators (possibly made of infinitely many terms) that we
call star set and denote by F (J).
Furthermore, we define a reduction procedure with respect to a homogeneous set of
polynomials marked on a stably complete system F (J) and prove its noetherianity. As
a consequence we are able to give a first, general answer to Problem 1 .
Of course, the most interesting cases are those of ideals J such that their generating
stably complete set M is finite. We prove that they are the quasi stable ideals and that
F (J) is their Pommaret basis. Among them, those such that F (J) coincides with the
monomial basis are exactly the stable ones.
For the class of quasi stable ideals J we give a more complete and effective answer to
Problem 1. Indeed, we prove that our description of Mf (J) is natural, in the sense that
it defines a representable functor from the category of Z-algebras to the category of
sets. Finally we give an effective procedure computing equations for the scheme that
represents this functor.
After introducing all the notation (section 2), we introduce the Janet decomposition
for semigroup ideals and order ideals (section 3).
More precisely, we recall the notion of multiplicative variables ([19, 20, 21]) and complete system, pointing out that in the cited papers Janet uses two non equivalent definitions of multiplicative variables and completeness.

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

3

For our purpose, we then introduce the notion of stable completeness as a junction
between the two notions. Given a complete system of terms M, we define a decomposition for terms in J = (M), called star decomposition, in analogy with the star product
introduced in [1, 6] for strongly stable ideals.
In section 4 we define a very special stably complete set, i.e. the star set F (J), introducing the stable ideals, for which F (J) is the minimal generating set of J and the quasi
stable ideals for which the finiteness condition is respected.
In section 5, we define M-marked polynomials, bases and families, for a complete set
M, again generalizing the definitions given for the generating set of a strongly stable
ideal. Then, we define a noetherian reduction process for homogeneous polynomial
w.r.t. the elements of a M-marked set. In section 6 we associate to marked families a
representable functor and give a procedure computing equations for the scheme that
defines it.
Finally, section 7 contains the historical note.
2. N OTATION .
L
Consider the polynomial ring P := A[x1 , ..., xn ] = d∈N Pd in n variables and coefficients in the base ring A.
When an order on the variables comes into play, we consider x1 < x2 < ... < xn .
In case of n = 2, 3 we will usually set P = A[x, y], x < y and P = A[x, y, z], x < y < z.
The symbol <Lex will denote the lexicographic term-ordering according to this order
on the set of variables.
The set of terms of P is
T := {xα = xα1 1 · · · xαnn , (α1 , ..., αn ) ∈ Nn }
and we define also
T [1, m] := T ∩ k[x1 , ..., xm ] = {xα1 1 · · · xαmm / (α1 , ..., αm ) ∈ Nm }.
For every polynomial f ∈ P , deg(f ) is its usual degree and degi (f ) is its degree with
respect to the variable xi .
For each p ∈ N, and for all W ⊆ P ,
Wp := {f ∈ W : f homogeneous and deg(f ) = p};
in particular:


p+n−1
.
Tp := {τ ∈ T : deg(τ ) = p}, |Tp | = dimk (Pp ) =
n−1
If f ∈ P , we denote by Supp(f ) the support of f , i.e. the set of all the terms in T , appearing in f with non-zero coefficient.
Fixed a polynomial f ∈ P and a term-ordering <, we call leading term of f the maximal element in Supp(f ) w.r.t. < and we denote it T(f ). Its coefficient is the leading
coefficient of f . Given a term τ = xα1 1 · · · xαnn ∈ T , we set
max(τ ) = max{xi : xi | τ }

,

min(τ ) = min{xi : xi | τ }

the maximal and the minimal variable appearing in τ with non-zero exponent.

4

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

Definition 2.1. Given a term τ ∈ T and a variable xj | τ , the term
cessor of τ .

τ
xj

is the j-th prede-

Definition 2.2. Let F = {τ1 , ..., τs } ⊆ T be an ordered subset of terms, generating an
ideal J = (F ). The module
s
X
s
Syz(F ) = {(g1, ..., gs ) ∈ P ,
gi τi = 0}
i=1

is the syzygy module of F .
We denote an element in Syz(F ) as (g1 , ..., gs ) and we call it syzygy among F .
Definition 2.3. A set N ⊂ T is called order ideal if
∀s ∈ T , t ∈ N : s|t ⇒ s ∈ N.
Observe that N is an order ideal if and only if the complementary set I := T \ N is a
semigroup ideal, i.e. ∀t ∈ T , τ ∈ I ⇒ tτ ∈ I.
If I is either a monomial ideal or a semigroup ideal, we will denote by N(I) the order
ideal N := T \ I and by G(I) its monomial basis, namely the minimal set of terms
generating I.
Definition 2.4 ([26]). A (monic) marked polynomial is a polynomial f ∈ P together with
a fixed term τ of Supp(f ), called head term of f and denoted by Ht(f ) and such that its
coefficient is equal to 1A .
We can extend to marked polynomials the notion of S-polynomial.
3. J ANET

DECOMPOSITION .

In this section we loosely base on the paper [19], where Janet first defines the notion
of multiplicative variable for a term τ with respect to a given set M ⊆ T .
For completeness’ sake, we recall Janet’s decomposition for terms in the semigroup
ideal generated by M into disjoint classes.
Each of them contains:
(1) a term τ ∈ M;
(2) the set of monomials obtained multiplying τ by products of multiplicative variables, that we call offspring of τ and denote offM (τ ).
The main difference with respect to Janet’s papers is that we remove the finiteness
condition on M, showing that it is not necessary for our purposes.
Definition 3.1. [19, ppg.75-9] Let M ⊂ T be a set of terms and τ = xα1 1 · · · xαnn be an
element of M. A variable xj is called multiplicative for τ with respect to M if there is
β αj+1
no term in M of the form τ ′ = xβ1 1 · · · xj j xj+1
· · · xαnn with βj > αj . We will denote by
multM (τ ) the set of multiplicative variables for τ with respect to M.
Definition 3.2. With the previous notation, the offspring of τ with respect to M is the
set
offM (τ ) := {τ xλ1 1 · · · xλnn | where λj 6= 0 only if xj is multiplicative for τ w.r.t. M}.
Example 3.3. Consider the set M = {x31 , x32 , x41 x2 x3 , x23 } ⊆ k[x1 , x2 , x3 ].
Let τ = x31 , so α1 = 3, α2 = α3 = 0. The variable x1 is multiplicative for τ w.r.t M since
there are no terms τ ′ = xβ1 1 xβ2 2 xβ3 3 ∈ M satisfying both conditions:

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

5

• β1 > 3;
• β2 = β3 = 0.
On the other hand, x2 is not multiplicative for τ since τ ′′ = xγ11 xγ22 xγ33 = x32 ∈ M:
γ2 = 3 > 0 = α2 , γ3 = α3 = 0.
Similarly, x3 is not multiplicative since x23 ∈ M.
In conclusion, we have multM (τ ) = {x1 }.
Remark 3.4. Observe that, by definition of multiplicative variable, the only element in
offM (τ ) ∩ M is τ itself.
Indeed, if τ ∈ M and also τ σ ∈ M for a non constant term σ, then max(σ) cannot be
multiplicative for τ , hence τ σ ∈
/ offM (τ ).
In paper [19], Janet defines multiplicative variables as in Definition 3.1 and he provides both a decomposition for the semigroup ideal T(M) generated by a finite set of
terms M and a decomposition for the complementary set N(M).
On the other hand, in [20, 21], he defines multiplicative variables in the following way.
3.5. A variable xj is multiplicative for τ ∈ T if and only if xj ≤ min(τ ).
These two definitions of multiplicative variables appear to be very different.
First of all, in the first formulation, the set of multiplicative variables for a term in M
depends on the whole set M, while in the second it is completely independent on the
set M. Indeed, the two notions are not equivalent for a general set M, as shown by the
following examples.
Example 3.6. In k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] consider the ideal I = (x21 x2 , x1 x22 ) and let M be its monomial basis. Then, multM (x21 x2 ) = {x1 , x3 } and multM (x1 x22 ) = {x1 , x2 , x3 } while only x1
can be multiplicative according to the other notion of multiplicative variable.
Example 3.7. Taken the set M = {x21 x2 , x1 x22 } ⊆ k[x1 , x2 ], we get multM (x1 x22 ) =
{x1 , x2 }, while of course x1 ≤ min(x1 x22 ) but x2 > min(x1 x22 ).
However, they are equivalent in Janet setting, that is if M is the generating set of the
generic initial ideal of homogeneous ideals I.
More generally, we will see that they turn out to be equivalent also if M is the monomial basis G(J) of a strongly stable ideal J and if M is the special set of generators of
any monomial ideal J that we will introduce in section 4 and denote by F (J).
We will see that stronger results can be proved when a set M is such that the two
definitions of multiplicative variables coincide.
The following definition will be a key point in this paper.
Definition 3.8. [19, ppg.75-9] A set of terms M ⊂ T is called complete if for every τ ∈ M
and xj ∈
/ multM (τ ), there exists τ ′ ∈ M such that xj τ ∈ offM (τ ′ ).
Moreover, M is stably complete if it is complete and for every τ ∈ M it holds multM (τ ) =
{xi | xi ≤ min(τ )}.
If a set M is stably complete and finite, then it is the Pommaret basis of J = (M) and we
denote it by H(J).
Remark 3.9. If M = {τ } ⊆ P is a singleton, it is complete, with mult(τ ) = {x1 , ..., xn }.
Let us examine some examples.

6

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

Example 3.10. In k[x1 , x2 , x3 ] consider the ideal I = (x21 , x1 x2 , x3 ).
Both M0 = {x21 , x1 x2 , x3 } and each generating set of I with the shape
Mi = {x21 , x1 x2 , x3 , x2 x3 , ..., xi2 x3 } are complete systems of terms. In fact, for M0 :
− multM0 (x21 ) = {x1 }, x21 x2 ∈ offM0 (x1 x2 ), x21 x3 ∈ offM0 (x3 );
− multM0 (x1 x2 ) = {x1 , x2 }, x1 x2 x3 ∈ offM0 (x3 );
− multM0 (x3 ) = {x1 , x2 , x3 }.
For Mi , i ≥ 1:
− multMi (x21 ) = {x1 }, x21 x2 ∈ offMi (x1 x2 ), x21 x3 ∈ offMi (x3 );
− multMi (x1 x2 ) = {x1 , x2 }, x1 x2 x3 ∈ offMi (x2 x3 );
− multMi (x3 ) = {x1 , x3 }, x2 x3 ∈ offMi (x2 x3 );
j+1
− multMi (xj2 x3 ) = {x1 , x3 }, xj+1
2 x3 ∈ offMi (x2 x3 ), 0 ≤ j < i;
− multMi (xi2 x3 ) = {x1 , x2 , x3 }.
Example 3.11. Consider the ideal J = (xy) ⊳ k[x, y].
The monomial basis M0 = G(J) = {xy} is a complete system with multM0 (xy) = {x, y}.
Also the set M = {xh y | h ≥ 1} ⊆ k[x, y], x < y, is a complete system, again according to
the first definition. It generates the same ideal (xy), but has infinitely many elements.
Anyway, it is not stably complete. In fact, for each xh y ∈ M, multM (xh y) = {y}, since
no terms of the form xl y e with e > 1 belong to M; on the other hand x ∈
/ multM (xh y)
since xh+1 y ∈ M.
Example 3.12. Let M be the set of terms {x, y 2} in k[x, y], with x < y.
The multiplicative variables for every term in M are those lower than or equal to its
minimal one:
mult(x) = {x} mult(y 2) = {x, y}.
However, M is not complete since yx does not belong to the offspring of any term in
M.
The following example shows that a complete generating set of terms can loose completeness when the ideal is enlarged.
Example 3.13. Let M = {x2 , xy} ⊂ k[x, y] and J = (M). It is a complete system, but it
is not stably complete, since y is multiplicative for xy, although min(xy) = x.
Adding to M a term in N(J), we get a new set M0 and J0 = (M0 ), whose Janet decomposition clearly changes. For example, if M0 = {x2 , xy, y 2} we get a stably complete
system.
On the other hand, if M0 = {x2 , xy, y 3} the system is not complete anymore, since xy 2
does not belong to the offspring of any term in the set.
The following technical lemma will be very useful throughout the paper. As a first
application, we will prove that a system of terms M (possibly infinite) is complete if
and only if the offsprings of the elements in M form a partition of the semigroup ideal
generated by M.
Lemma 3.14. [22, pg.23] Let τ , τ ′ be elements of a set of terms M and xj be a variable such
that xj ∈
/ multM (τ ) and xj τ ∈ offM (τ ′ ). Then τ <Lex τ ′ . If, moreover, xj ≤ min(τ ), then
′
τ xj = τ ∈ M.
Proof. First of all, we observe that τ 6= τ ′ , since xj ∈
/ multM (τ ). By definition of off′ ′
′
spring, we have that τ xj = τ σ , where σ is a product of multiplicative variables for

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

7

τ ′ . Let us assume by contradiction that τ >Lex τ ′ and let xi be the maximal variable
such that degi (τ ) > degi (τ ′ ). Then, xi |σ ′ , hence xi ∈ multM (τ ′ ), but this is impossible by
definition of multiplicative variable, since also τ is in M.
′
Now let us assume that xj ≤ min(τ ) and σ ′ 6= 1. If xj |σ ′ , then τ = xσj τ ′ ∈ M ∩offM (τ ′ ),
which is not possible by Remark 3.4. If, on the contrary, xj 6 |σ ′ we get a contradiction
τ ′ σ′
τ ′ σ′
with the previous assertion, since in this case τ ′ ≤Lex max(σ
= τ.

′ ) <Lex x
j
Theorem 3.15. Let M be a set of terms (possibly infinite).
If τ, τ ′ ∈ M and τ 6= τ ′ , then offM (τ ) ∩ offM (τ ′ ) = ∅.
If, moreover, M is complete and T(M) is the semigroup ideal it generates, then ∀γ ∈ T(M),
∃τ ∈ M such that γ ∈ offM (τ ). Hence, the offsprings of the elements in M give a partition of
T(M).
Proof. To prove the first assertion, let us assume by contradiction that τ σ = τ ′ σ ′ ∈
offM (τ ) ∩ offM (τ ′ ) 6= ∅ and let τ >lex τ ′ . If xi is the maximal variable such that degi (τ ) >
degi (τ ′ ), then xi |σ ′ . By definition of offspring, xi ∈ multM (τ ′ ), but this is impossible by
definition of multiplicative variable, since also τ is in M.
Now we assume that M is complete
and prove the second fact. We argue by contraS
diction. Suppose T(M) ) O := σ∈M offM (σ) and take any term γ in T(M) \ O. As M
generates T(M), there are terms in M that divide γ: let τ be the one which is maximal
with respect to <lex . If γ = τ σ, the term σ contains at least a variable xi which is not
multiplicative for τ , since τ σ ∈
/ offM (τ ). Then γ = τ xi η and τ xi ∈
/ offM (τ ).
By the completeness of M, we have τ xi ∈ O, namely there is a term τ ′ ∈ M such
that τ xi = τ ′ σ ′ ∈ offM (τ ′ ). By Lemma 3.14 i), τ ′ >Lex τ , and this is not possible since

τ ′ |γ = τ xi η = τ ′ σ ′ η.
Thanks to the previous result, if M is a complete system, each term in T(M) can be
written in a unique way as a product of
(1) an element τ ∈ M;
η
(2) a term xη = xηi i · · · xj j , with xi , ..., xj ∈ multM (τ ).
This fact suggests the following
Definition 3.16. Let M be a complete system of terms. The star decomposition of every
term γ ∈ (M) with respect to M, is the unique couple of terms (τ, η), with τ ∈ M, such
that γ = τ η and γ ∈ offM (τ ). If (τ, η) is the star decomposition of γ with respect to M,
we will write γ = τ ∗M η.
Remark 3.17. From the results stated above, we obtain the following explicit formula
for the Hilbert function of P/(M):




X
k − deg(τ ) + sτ − 1
k+n
,
−
H(P/(M))(k) =
sτ − 1
n
τ ∈M deg(τ )≤k

where sτ is the number of multiplicative variables for τ w.r.t M and we set equal to
0 every binomial with a negative numerator or a negative denominator. Thus, this
formula makes sense even if |M| = ∞, since for every k there are only finitely many
non-zero summands.
If M is a finite set of terms and r is the maximal degree of its elements, this formula
gives the value of the Hilbert polynomial for every k ≥ r.

8

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

The following lemma will be very useful for the reduction process we will define in
section 5.
Lemma 3.18. Let M be a stably complete system of terms and let γ be a term such that γ =
τ ∗M η and also γ = ση ′ with σ ∈
/ T(M).
Then η ′ >Lex η.
Proof. By definition of stable completeness, min(τ ) ≥ max(η). If η ′ <Lex η, then η ′ |η and
τ |σ. This is not possible since τ ∈ T(M) and σ ∈
/ T(M).

4. S TAR

SET AND QUASI STABLE IDEALS

We introduce here a special set of terms. We will prove that it is a complete system with many interesting properties in common with the minimal monomial basis of
strongly stable ideals.
Definition 4.1. Given a monomial ideal J ⊳ P we define the star set as
xα
F (J) := {xα ∈ T \ N(J) |
∈ N(J)}.
min(xα )
Theorem 4.2. For every monomial ideal J, the star set F (J) is the unique stably complete
system of generators of J. Hence, if M is stably complete, M = F ((M)).
Proof. Let τ := xαk k · · · xαnn be any monomial in F (J).
Assume xi is not multiplicative, so that xi τ ∈ J, xi τ = τ ′ σ ′ , τ ′ ∈ M. Then Lemma
3.14 implies τ <Lex τ ′ whence xi > min(τ ).
σr−1
Let xi > xk := min(τ ) and set σ0 := τ xi , σr := min(σ
for r = 1 . . . , αk + · · · + αi−1
r−1 )
αi
τ
αn
and note that xi · · · xn ∈
/ J, since it divides min(τ ) , while σ := σ0 ∈ J, since it is a
multiple of τ . Then, in the sequence of terms σi , 0 ≤ i ≤ αk + · · · + αi−1 , we find an
element σj that belongs to J, while the following one does not.
Then σj ∈ F (J), so that xi τ ∈ offF (I) (σj ) and xi is not multiplicative for τ w.r.t. F (I).
/ multF (J) (τ ). By the previous result
Take τ = xαk k · · · xαnn ∈ F (J), and a variable xi ∈
xi > xk = min(τ ). By definition of non-multiplicative variable, there is a term σ ′ =
αi+1
xti xi+1
· · · xαnn ∈ F (J), for some integer t > αi . Let us consider the minimum one.
If t = αi + 1, then xi τ = xαk k · · · xti · · · xαnn ∈ offF (J) (σ ′ ).
If, on the contrary, t > αi + 1, then σ ′′ = xαi i +1 · · · xαnn ∈ N(J) by definition. Let us
σr−1
consider, as in the previous proof, the sequence of terms σ0 := τ xi ∈ J, σr := min(σ
r−1 )
Pk−1
′′
for r = 1 . . . , j=k αj . Since the last one is σ , we can find in this sequence a suitable
σj ∈ I such that σj+1 ∈ N(J), that is σj ∈ F (J) and xi τ ∈ offF (J) (σj ).
In order to prove that every stably complete set of terms M, with J = (M) is exactly
F (J), we first notice that clearly G(J) ⊆ M and G(J) ⊆ F (J).
σ
= ω ∈ N(J).
Moreover, it is sufficient to prove that F (J) ⊆ M. Let σ ∈ F (J), i.e. min(σ)
Then, there exists τ ∈ M such that σ ∈ off(τ ) and so σ = τ η, with either η = 1 or
max(η) ≤ min(τ ).
This implies that either τ = σ or τ | ω, but the second alternative is impossible since
both τ ∈ M and ω ∈ N(J).


TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

9

Remark 4.3.
i. For an arbitrary monomial ideal J the set F (J) can be infinite. For
example, if J = (x) ⊳ k[x, y], x < y, then F (J) = {xy n | n ∈ N}.
ii. Not all the complete systems turn out to be of the form of a star set.
For example, the complete system M = {xh y, h ≥ 1} ⊆ k[x, y] of Example 3.11
is not the star set of the ideal J := (M).
Indeed, N(J) = {xm , m ≥ 0} ∪ {y l , l > 0} and all the terms of the form xy k ,
xy k
k
k > 1, do not belong to M, even if min(xy
k ) = y ∈ N(M).
Moreover, for h > 1,

xh y
x

= xh−1 y ∈ M, so xh y ∈
/ F (J).

Better results hold if the monomial ideal J satisfies one of the following conditions,
weaker then the strongly stable property (see section 6).
Definition 4.4. A monomial ideal J is called stable if it holds
xj τ
τ ∈ J, xj > min(τ ) =⇒
∈J
min(τ )
A monomial ideal J is called quasi stable if it holds
τ ∈ J, xj > min(τ ) =⇒ ∃t ≥ 0 :

xtj τ
∈ J.
min(τ )

We will show that this notion of quasi stable ideal coincides with the one in [37], by
proving that J actually has a Pommaret basis.
Remark 4.5.
• Obviously, a stably complete system M is also stable, and a stable
set is also quasi stable.
• In order to verify whether the conditions above are satisfied for a given ideal J
it is sufficient to check the terms in the basis G(J).
Proposition 4.6. Let J be a monomial ideal. Then TFAE:
i) J is stable
ii) F (J) = G(J)
Proof. i) ⇒ ii) The inclusion G(J) ⊆ F (J) is true for every monomial ideal by definition
of star set. We prove now that γ ∈
/ F (J) for every term γ ∈ J \ G(J).
By hypothesis, ∃τ ∈ G(J), such that γ = τ σ and σ 6= 1.
γ
Let xk := min(γ). If xk |σ, then min(γ)
= τ xσk ∈ J, so that γ ∈
/ F (J).
If, on the other hand, xk 6 |σ and xj is any variable dividing σ, then xj > xk and
x τ
x
xk = min(τ ). By the stability of J we have xjk ∈ J, hence xγk = τxσj xkj ∈ J, hence again
γ∈
/ F (J).
ii) ⇒ i) If ii) holds, then G(J) is the only stably complete system generating J. By
remark 4.5, we can check the stability on the terms xα ∈ G(J). Let xj > xk := min(xα ).
By hypothesis there exists xβ ∈ G(J) such that xj xα ∈ offG(J) (xβ ), and, since xα ∈ G(J),
x xα
xα x
of course xα xj ∈
/ G(J). Hence xβ | xj k and so xk j ∈ J.

Proposition 4.7. Let J be a monomial ideal. Then TFAE:
i) J is quasi stable
ii) |F (J)| < ∞
iii) F (J) = H(J) is the Pommaret basis of J.

10

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proof. i) ⇒ ii) Let a be the maximum of the degrees of elements in G(J) and let t be such
xt xα

j
α
that min(x
∈ G(J) and xj > min(xα ). We prove that F (J) is contained
α ) ∈ J for every x
in P<d where d := a + tn. Let xα xη ∈ J≥d with xα ∈ G(J) and xk be min(xα xη ). If xk |xη ,
η
α η
/ F (J). If, on the other hand, xk 6 |xη , then
then obviously xxkx = xα xxk ∈ J, so xα xη ∈
xk = min(xα ). Moreover, every variable dividing xη is higher than xk and at least one of

them , let us call it xj , appears in xη with exponent ≥ t, as deg(xη ) ≥ nt. Then
hence

xα xη
xk

=

xtj xα
xk

·

xη
xtj

xtj xα
xk

∈ J,

∈ J and xα xη ∈
/ F (J).

ii) ⇒ iii) By ii) F (J) is finite, and by 4.2 is stably complete, so it is clearly the Pommaret basis of J.
iii) ⇒ i) By remark 4.5, we check the quasi stability on the terms xα ∈ G(J). Let
xj > xk := min(xα ). By the hypothesis on the finiteness of F (J), there exists m ≫ 0
such that xα xm
/ F (J). Moreover, being F (J) a stably complete system, there exists
j ∈
α
β
β
xβ ∈ F (J) such that xm
j x ∈ offF (J) (x ) and x |
quasi stable.

α
xm
j x
.
xk

Therefore,

α
xm
j x
xk

∈ J, namely J is


Example 4.8. In k[x, y, z] with x < y < z:
• considered J = (z, y 2 ), we get M = F (J) = G(J) = {z, y 2 }, since J is stable;
• taken the ideal J ′ = (z 2 , y), we get M = F (J) = {z 2 , yz, y} ⊃ G(J).
In fact, J is quasi stable, but it is not stable;
• given J = (y), the star set is M = F (J) = {z k y | k ≥ 0}, and it holds |F (J)| = ∞,
since J is not stable.
5. M - MARKED

SETS AND REDUCTION PROCESS .

In this section, we generalize the notions of J-marked polynomial, J-marked basis
and J-marked family given in [1, 6] for J strongly stable.
In those papers, the involved polynomials are marked on the monomial basis of the
given monomial ideal J. Here, we give the analogous definitions for any monomial
ideal, provided that the involved polynomials are marked on a complete generating
system in the sense of definition 3.8.
After determining the setting, we extend to it the reduction process of the quoted papers.
At the end, we will see that such a generalized procedure does not need to be noetherian for every complete system of terms. We will need to add some hypotheses on the
given complete system in order to overcome this problem.
We point out that, as in [1, 6], we do not introduce any term-ordering and this represents an important difference w.r.t. Janet’s papers.
Moreover, we consider polynomials with coefficients in a ring, not necessarily in a
field.
Definition 5.1. Let M be a complete system of terms and J be the ideal it generates.
• A M-marked
Pset is a finite set G of homogeneous (monic) marked polynomials
fα = xα − cαγ xγ , with Ht(fα ) = xα ∈ M and Supp(fα − xα ) ⊂ N(J), so that
|Supp(f ) ∩ J| = 1.

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

11

• A M-marked basis G is a M-marked set such that N(J) is a basis of P/(G) as
A-module, i.e. P = (G) ⊕ hN(J)i as an A-module.
• The M-marked family Mf (M) is the set of all homogeneous ideals I that are
generated by a M-marked basis.
Remark 5.2. Observe that the above definition of marked family Mf (M) is consistent
with that given in the Introduction of Mf (J) for a monomial ideal J. Indeed, if I ∈
Mf (M), then I ∈ Mf (J) with J = (M). On the other hand, for every given J there are
complete systems M that generate it, for instance M = F (J) and Mf (J) = Mf (M).
In fact, if I ∈ Mf (J), every polynomial h can be uniquely written as a sum f + g with
f ∈ I and g ∈ hN(J)i; especially for every xα ∈ M, we have
(1)

xα = fα + gα , fα ∈ I and gα ∈ hN(J)i.

Then I contains the M-marked basis
G = {fα = xα − gα , xα ∈ M}.
Furthermore G is a M-marked basis since (G) ⊆ I and P = (G) + hN(J)i = I ⊕ hN(J)i.
The only difference between the two notations Mf (J) and Mf (M) with M a complete system generating J, is that using the second one we present every ideal of the
family by means of a special set of generators depending on M. Note that, by the definition itself of Mf (J), we can assert that for every ideal I ∈ Mf (J) the M-marked
basis generating it is unique.
We define now a reduction procedure for terms and polynomials, with respect to an
homogeneous set G of polynomials, marked on a complete system of terms M.
The usual reduction process with respect to G consists of substituting each term xα xη ,
multiple of an head term xα = Ht(fα ), with the polynomial (xα − fα )xη = gα xη .
We add an extra condition to the standard procedure, namely that this substitution can
be performed only in the case xα xη = xα ∗M xη .
Definition 5.3. Let M be a complete system and G a M-marked set. We will denote by
G
G
−
→ the transitive closure of the relation h −
→ h − cfα xη , where xα xη = xα ∗M xη is a term
G
that appears in h with a non-zero coefficient c. We will say that −
→ is noetherian if the
G
G
G
length r of any sequence h = h0 −
→ h1 −
→ ... −
→ hr is bounded by an integer number
m = m(h). This is equivalent to say that if we continue rewriting terms in this way
we always obtain, after a finite number of reductions, a polynomial whose support is
contained in N(J).
G
G
We will write h −
→∗ g if h −
→ g and Supp(g) ⊂ N(J).
G

In general, the relation −
→ is not noetherian, namely there are sequences of reduction
of infinite length.
Example 5.4. Let M := {xz, yz, y 2 } a set of terms in k[x, y, z] with x < y < z. We find
the following sets of multiplicative variables:
• multM (xz) = {x, z}
• multM (y 2) = {x, y}
• multM (yz) = {x, y, z}

12

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

and check that M is complete.
Let G the M-marked set {fxz = xz − xy, fyz = yz − z 2 , fy2 = y 2 }.
Then we have the infinite sequence of reductions:
G

G

xz 2 = xz ∗M z −
→ xz 2 − fxz z = xyz = yz ∗M x −
→ xyz − fyz x = xz 2
G

However, the reduction −
→ is always noetherian if G is marked on a stably complete
system. In order to prove this fact we will use the following special subset of the ideal
(G).
Definition 5.5. Let G be a M-marked set on a complete system of terms M and let
J := (M). For each degree s, we will denote by G (s) the set of homogeneous polynomial
G (s) := {fα xη | xα ∗M xη ∈ (M)s }
marked on the terms of Js in the natural way Ht(fα xη ) = xα xη .
Remark 5.6. Observe that if G is a M-marked set on a stably complete system of terms
G
M,
for
every
homogeneous
polynomial
g
of
degree
s,
g
−
→
h implies that g − h =
Pm
ηi
(s)
i=1 ci fαi x ∈ hG i.
It is worth noticing as a direct consequence of Lemma 3.18 that if fα xη ∈ G, then
′
′
every term in Supp(xα xη − fα xη ) either belongs to N((M)) or is of the type xα ∗M xη
′
with xη <Lex xη .
Lemma 5.7. Let G be a M-marked set on the stably complete system of terms M = F (J).
(1) Every term in Supp(xβ xǫ − fβ xǫ ) either belongs to N((M)) or is of the type xα ∗M xη
with xη <Lex xǫ .
(2) If fβ ∈ F (J), then all the polynomials fαi xηi ∈ G (s) used in the reduction of xβ xǫ
(exceptP
fβ xǫ if it belongs to G (s) ) are such that xǫ >Lex xηi .
(s)
ηi
ηi
pairwise different, then g 6= 0
(3) If g = m
i=1 ci fαi x , with ci ∈ k −{0} and fαi x ∈ G
and its support contains some term of the ideal J.
Proof. (1) is a direct consequence of Lemma 3.18.
′
′
′
(2) Assume that the statement holds for every term xβ xǫ , with xǫ <Lex xǫ . At a
first step of reduction of xβ xǫ we use the polynomial fα xη where xβ xǫ = xα ∗M xη , so
that xη ≤Lex xǫ ; moreover every term in the support of the obtained polynomial either
′
′
′
belongs to N((M)) or is of the type xα ∗M xη with xη <Lex xη (Remark 5.6). Then we
conclude since we assumed the property holds for all those terms.
(3) We assume that the summands in g are ordered so that xη1 ≥Lex xηi for every
i = 1, . . . , m and show that xη1 +α1 belongs to the support of g.
The term xα1 +η1 cannot appear as the head of fαi xηi for some i 6= 1 because the star
decomposition of a term is unique. Moreover it cannot appear in fαi xηi − xαi +ηi since
xα1 +η1 = xβ xηi , with xβ ∈ N(J) would imply xηi >Lex xη1 (see Lemma 3.18), against the
assumption.

Theorem 5.8. Let G be a M-marked set on a stably complete system of terms M and let J be
the ideal generated by M.
G
Then the reduction process −
→ is noetherian and, for every integer s, Ps = hG (s) i ⊕ hN(J)s i.
Indeed, for every h ∈ Ps
G

h = f + g with f ∈ hG (s) i and g ∈ hN(J)s i ⇐⇒ h −
→∗ g and f = h − g

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

13

Proof. Let G = {fα | xα ∈ M}.
We observe that we have hG (s) i ∩ hN(J)s i = {0} by Lemma 5.7.
In order to prove that the module hG (s) i + hN(J)s i coincides with Ps it is sufficient to
show that it contains all the terms in Js \ M, being obvious for those in M, for which
xα = fα + gα (see 1).
Let τ be a term in Js .
If τ = xα ∗M xη , we may assume of having already proved the statement for all the
′
′
′
terms τ ′ = xα ∗M xη with xη <Lex xη .
We have xα xη = fα xη + (xα − fα )xη where Supp(xα − fα ) ⊂ N(J). If xβ is any term in
′
′
′
this support, then either xβ+η ∈ N(J) or xβ+η = xα ∗M xη with xη <Lex xη by Lemma
3.18. This allows us to conclude Ps = hG (s) i + hN(J)s i.
G

Finally, in order to prove that −
→ is noetherian it is sufficient to observe that every
step of reduction substitutes a term of J of the type xα ∗M xη with xα xη − fα xη . Indeed,
′
′
′
by remark 5.6, each τ ∈ Supp(xα xη − fα xη ) \ N((M)) has the form xα ∗M xη , xη <Lex xη
and this permits to conclude by induction.

As a straightforward consequence of the previous result, we obtain the following
Corollary 5.9. If M is a stably complete system and G is a M-marked set, the following are
equivalent:
• G is a M-marked basis
• for every s: hG (s) i = (G)s
G
• for every h ∈ (G): h −
→∗ 0
G
• if h − g ∈ (G) and Supp(g) ⊂ N(J), then h −
→∗ g.
Remark 5.10. We point out that if G is a M-marked set, but not a M-marked basis, then
there are polynomials in the ideal (G) whose support is contained in N((M)). Hence,
we do not have a ”normal form” of a polynomial h modulo (G), since, in general, there
are several polynomials g ′ such that Supp(g ′) ⊂ N(J) and h − g ′ ∈ (G). However, the
G
reduction process h −
→∗ g with respect to a F (J)-marked set G gives a unique reduced
polynomial g for every polynomial h.
Using the reduction process, we can now answer Problem 1 and characterize the
ideals I that belong to the marked family Mf (J).
Theorem 5.11. Let G be a F (J)-marked set. Then:
G

→∗ 0
(G) ∈ Mf (J) ⇐⇒ ∀fβ ∈ G, ∀xi > min(xβ ) : fβ xi −
Proof. Since ”⇒” is a straightforward consequence of Corollary 5.9, we only prove
”⇐”. More precisely, we prove that (G)m = (G (m) ), showing that if fβ ∈ G and
deg(xβ+ǫ ) = m, then fβ xǫ is either an element of G (m) itself or a linear combination
of polynomials in G (m) .
If this were not true, we can choose an element fβ xǫ ∈
/ hG (m) i with xǫ minimal with
respect to <Lex . As fβ xǫ ∈
/ G (m) , at least one variable xi appearing in xǫ with nonzero
G
β
ǫ
ǫ′
fβ xi −
→∗ 0, so that
exponent is non-multiplicative
Pfor x .ηiLet x = xi x . By hypothesis
fβ xi is a linear combination
ci fαi x of polynomials in G (|β|+1) . By Lemma 5.7 we
have xηi <Lex xi .

14

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

P
P
′
′
′
′
′
Now fβ xǫ = (fβ xi )xǫ = ( ci fαi xηi )xǫ =
ci fαi xηi +ǫ , where xηi +ǫ <Lex xi xǫ = xǫ .
′
Now we get a contradiction, since fαi xηi +ǫ ∈ hG (m) i by the minimality of xǫ .

Example 5.12. Let J be the monomial ideal (x3 , xy, y 3) in k[x, y] with x < y. Its star
set is F (J) = {x3 , xy, xy 2, y 3}. Using the criterion given in Theorem 5.11, we can easily
check that the F (J)-marked set G := {f1 := x3 , f2 := xy − x2 − y 2, f3 := xy2 , f4 = y3 }
(in bold the head terms) is a F (J)-market basis:
G

• yf1 = xf1 + x2 f2 + xf3 −
→∗ 0,
G
• yf2 = f1 − xf2 − f4 −
→∗ 0
G
• yf3 = xf4 −
→∗ 0.
This is a simple example of a marked basis which is not a Gröbner basis. In fact, it is
obvious that Ht(f2 ) = xy cannot be the leading term of f2 with respect to any termordering and, more generally, that J cannot be the initial ideal of the ideal (G), even
though (G) ⊕ N(J) = k[x, y].
A wider family of ideals of this type are presented in [6, Example 3.18 and Appendix].
Remark 5.13. Observe that we can perform the first step of reduction of the polynomial
fβ xi rewriting the head xβ xi throughout fα xη with xβ xi = xα xη ∈ off(xα ). In this way
G
we obtain fβ xi −
→ fβ xi − fα xη , namely the S-polynomial
lcm(xβ , xα )
lcm(xβ , xα )
f
−
fα .
β
xβ
xα
Therefore we could reformulate the criterion given by Theorem 5.11 as follows:
S(fβ , fα ) :=

G

(G) ∈ Mf (J) ⇐⇒ ∀fα , fβ ∈ G : S(fα , fβ ) −
→∗ 0.
However Theorem 5.11 shows that it is sufficient to check a special subset of the Spolynomials that corresponds to the basis for the first syzygies of the terms in F (J). If
J is quasi stable, this basis is the one considered in [36]. It is obvious that the maximal
degree of these special S-polynomials cannot exceed 1 + max{deg(xα ) | xα ∈ F (J)}.
Indeed, if J is quasi stable, reg(J) = max{deg(τ ), τ ∈ F (J)} as proved in [19, 37, 16].
Remark 5.14. If J is a quasi stable monomial ideal and G is a F (J)-marked set, then
there are only a finite number of reduction to perform in order to decide if a F (J)marked set G is a basis. We will use this algorithm in order to endow the marked
family Mf (J) of a structure of affine scheme
If the considered monomial ideal is not quasi stable, then the (unique) stably complete generating set is infinite. Actually this does not necessarily exclude we can exploit
it even from a computational point of view.
6. M ARKED

FAMILIES , SCHEMES AND FUNCTORS

In this section we follow [1, 6] and show how it is possible to associate a scheme to
each marked family Mf (J). Due to the naturality of this construction, we can mimic
that of [23], and define marked families as functors.
Our results are very similar, but more general, than those of [1, 6, 23]; in fact in those
papers the ideal J is assumed to be strongly stable. Recall that a monomial ideal J is

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

15

called strongly stable if for every term τ ∈ J and pair of variables xi , xj such that xi |τ
τx
and xi < xj , then also xij belongs to J.
Obviously, a strongly stable ideal is also stable, so that F (J) = G(J). If J is strongly
stable, the notions of G(J)-marked sets, G(J)-marked bases and G(J)-marked family
introduced in the previous sections exactly correspond to those of J-marked sets, JG
marked bases, J-marked family considered in [1, 6] and the reduction procedure −
→
with respect to a G(J)-marked set G introduced in definition 5.3 coincides with the one
used in those papers.
Moreover, for such an ideal J, the scheme structure that we will define is the same
obtained in [1, 6] and used in [2, 23] for a local study of Hilbert schemes. Indeed, for
every monomial ideal J, if I ∈ Mf (J), then the ideals I and J share the same Hilbert
polynomial (and also the same Hilbert function), so that they correspond to points in
the same Hilbert scheme.
The scheme we associate to Mf (J) only depends on the monomial ideal J, but the
way we use in order to define it needs a set of generators M complete, finite and such
G
that for every M-marked set G the reduction procedure −
→ is noetherian.
Then, in the following J will be a quasi stable monomial ideal and M will be its
finite star-set F (J), that is its Pommaret basis H(J).
Let {xα1 , ..., xαs } be the monomials in M and consider the polynomial ring B := A[C],
where C is a compact notation for the set of variables Ci,β i = 1, . . . , s and xβ ∈ N(J)|αi | .
We also define the M-marked set in B[x1 , ..., xn ]
X
G := {fαi := xαi +
Ci,β xβ | xβ ∈ N(J)|αi | , Ht(fαi ) = xαi }.

Clearly, every M-marked set can be obtained specializing G, namely as φ(G) for a suitable morphism of A-algebras φ : A[C] → A. Moreover, by the uniqueness of the
M-marked basis generating each ideal in Mf (J), we can assert that for every ideal
I ∈ Mf (J) there exists a unique specialization φ such that (φ(G)) = I.
We use Theorem 5.11 in order to construct a set of polynomials R that will define the
scheme we associate to M. If g is a polynomial in B[x1 , ..., xn ], we denote with coeff x (g)
the set of coefficients of g with respect to the only set of variables x1 , . . . , xn ; hence
coeff x (g) ⊂ B = A[C] is a set of polynomials in the variables C. For every xαi ∈ M and
G
xj > min(xαi ), let gαi ,j ∈ B[x1 , . . . , xn ] be such that fαi xj −
→∗ gαi ,j .
Definition 6.1. Let M be a stably complete system in T , A be any ring, and R be the
union of coeff x (gαi ,j ) for every xαi ∈ M and xj > min(xαi ).
We will call M-marked scheme over the ring A, and denote with Mf M (A) the affine
scheme Spec(A[C]/(R)).
Remark 6.2. Every M-marked set in A[x1 , . . . , xn ] is a M-marked basis if and only if
the coefficients of the terms in the tails satisfy the conditions given by R.
In particular, if A = k is an algebraically closed field, then the closed points of
Mf M (A) correspond to the ideals in the marked family Mf (J) where J is the ideal
in k[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated by M.

16

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

Remark 6.3. The above construction of R is in fact independent from the fixed commutative ring A, in the sense that it is preserved by extension of scalars. We can first
choose Z as the coefficient ring and then apply the standard map Z → A.
More formally, for every stably complete set of terms M we can define a functor
between the category of Z-algebras to the category of sets
Mf M : Z-Alg → Set
that associates to any Z-algebra A the set Mf M (A) := Mf (MA[x1 , . . . , xn ]) and to any
morphism φ : A → B the map
Mf J (φ) : Mf M (A) −→ Mf M (B)
7−→ I ⊗A B.
I
Moreover, again following [23], it is possible to prove that Mf M is a representable
functor represented by the scheme Mf M (Z) = Spec(Z[C]/(R)).

7. H ISTORICAL

NOTES .

Through the trivial interepretation of derivatives
∂ α1 +α2 +...+αn
1
,
α1 ! · · · αn ! ∂xα1 1 ∂xα2 2 . . . ∂xαnn
in terms of the corresponding term τ = xα1 1 xα2 2 . . . xαnn ∈ T , Riquier [27, 28, 29] was able
to algebraically transform the problem of solving differential partial equations in terms
of ideal membership.
After introducing the concept (but not the notion) of S-polynomials he proved that
if the normal form (in terms of Gauss-Buchberger reduction) of each S-polynomial
among the elements of the basis G goes to zero then
• the given basis G generates the related ideal;
• the generic solution of the PDE can be given (and computed) as series in terms
of initial conditions which can be described and formulated in terms of a HironakaGalligo-like decomposition [18, 10] (but more general) of the related escalier N;
if not all normal forms are 0, then, exactly as in Buchberger Algorithm, the non-zero
normal forms are included in the basis and the procedure is repeated.
For instance, the system [29, pp.188-9]
∂3u
= A(x, y, z),
∂y 3

∂2u
= B(x, y, z),
∂x∂z

∂3u
= C(x, y, z),
∂x2 ∂y

must satisfy the integrability conditions
∂2A
∂3B
=
,
∂x∂z
∂y 3

∂2A
∂2C
=
,
∂x2
∂y 2

∂2B
∂C
=
;
∂x∂y
∂z

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

17

in which case the initial conditions have the shape


u = φ0 (z)




∂u

=
φ
(z)
1

x − x0 = y − y0 = 0,
∂y



∂2u


= φ2 (z)

∂y 2





∂u
= α0

∂x

∂2u

=
α

x − x0 = y − y0 = z − z0 = 0,
1
∂x∂y




∂3u

=
α

2
∂x∂y 2





 ∂2u
y − y0 = z − z0 = 0.
= ψ(x)
∂x2

In his theory, Riquier was assuming that the set T of the terms was ordered by a
term-ordering; he was mainly using [29, p.67] the deglex ordering induced by x1 >
x2 > · · · > xn , but he gave a large class of term-orderings to which his theory was
applicable; actually (but he never stated that) his characterization is the classical one
of all term-orderings [9, 30]. He was however forced to restrict himself to degreecompatible term-orderings in order to be granted convergency.
In his gaussian reduction, Riquier, as Buchberger, considered as head term of each
”marked” polynomial its maximal term.
In his considerations on generic initial ideal, Delassus [7], followed by Robinson [31]
used (deg)-rev-lex induced by x1 < x2 · · · < xn and the minimal term as head term of
each “marked” polynomial.
In order to ”harmonize” the two notations, Janet in [19, 22] applied deglex induced
by x1 < x2 < · · · < xn and chose the maximal term as head term, but expressed all
αn−1
terms as (!) xαnn xn−1
. . . xα1 1 , while in [20] went back to use deglex induced by x1 >
x2 > · · · > xn .
What is worst, in [21] Janet not only applied deglex induced by x1 < x2 , · · · < xn but
presented all results within his notation; so, in his presentation of Delassus’s result, the
head term is again, à la Buchberher, the maximal one.
This is not helpful, as regards his reformulation of the previous results on generic
initial ideals and stability; thus while, for Robinson [31, 32] and Gunther [14, 15] a
generic initial ideal ǫ(I) satisfies
µ ∈ ǫ(I), xh | µ, i < h =⇒ xi

µ
∈ ǫ(I),
xh

according [21] the formula is
µ ∈ ǫ(I), xh | µ, i > h =⇒ xi

µ
∈ ǫ(I).
xh

Under the suggestion of Hadamard [24], Janet dedicated his doctorial thesis [19] to
a reformulation of Riquier’s results in terms of Hilbert’s results [17].
In particular, given a finite set of monomials M, he associates to each term τ ∈ M, as
functions of its relation with the other elements of M, a set of variables which he labels
multiplicative (Definition 3.1) and a subset of terms in (M) which he called his class and
which we labelled as its offspring and considered M complete (Definition 3.8) when the
disjoint offsprings of M cover (M).

18

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

He then gave [19, p.80] a procédé régulier pour obtenir un système complet base d’un
module donné which ne pourra se prolonger indéfiniment; it simply consisted to enlarge M
with the elements xt ∈
/ ∪τ ∈M offM (τ ), t ∈ M, x non-multiplicative for t.
Janet can now formulate [22, p.75] Riquier’s procedure; we can assume to have a
finite basis G ⊂ P; denoting M = {T(f ) : f ∈ G},
• we enlarge M in order to made it complete and at the same time
• we similarly enlarge G, adding xg to G when we add xT(g) ∈
/ ∪τ ∈M offM (τ );
• we then perform Riquier’s test, which, for a complete systems, consists in computing the normal form of each element xg, g ∈ G, x non-multiplicative for T(g).
Janet [19, p.112-3] further remarks (in connection with Hilbert’s syzygy theory) that
the reduction-to-zero of all such elements give a basis S of the syzygy module of G.
Actually he repeatedly applied the same procedure to S, thus computing a resolution
of G and anticipating Schreyer’s Algorithm [33].
Next, in 1924, Janet [20] moved his interest in extending the study to the homogeneous case, adapting his approach on one side to the solution of partial differential
equation given by E. Cartan [3, 4, 5] via his characters and test and on the other side to
the introduction by Delassus [7] of the concept of generic initial ideal and the precise
description of it given by Robinson [31, 32] and Gunther [14, 15]; he thus discussed the
notion of système de forms (de même ordere) en involution. The notion, as he explains, is
independent from the variable chosen and allows to assign to the system a series of
(p)
values σi , 1 ≤ i ≤ n, p ∈ N which [22, p.87] sont évidemment invariables lorsq’on fait
un changement linéaire et homogène des variables indépendantes which, under the assumption of generality, allow to describe the structure of the generic escalier of the considered
ideal.
The procedure, given a finite set G of forms, repeatedly produces à la Macaulay a linear
basis Bp of (G)p by performing linear algebra on the set {xi g : g ∈ Bp−1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ n};
termination is granted when the formula (2) below is satisfied.
Given a homogeneous ideal I ⊂ k[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ], where the variables are assumed to
be generic, so that N(I) is stable, Janet defined [20, pp.30-2],[21, p.30],[22, pp.90-1],[24,
(p)
(p)
p.93, p.99] multiplicative variables according 3.5, introduced values σi (I) (or σi for
short when no confusion is possible) for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and p ∈ N, which can be
described as
(p)
σi := # {τ ∈ N(I), deg(τ ) = p, min(τ ) = i}
(p)

(p+1)

and, fixing a value p and denoting σi := σi , and σi′ := σi

proved

Proposition 7.1 (Janet). It holds,
. . . + nσn ;
. + σn′ ≤ σ1 + 2σ2 +P
(1) P
σ1′ + σ2′ + . .P
n
′
(2) i=1 σ i = ni=1 iσi =⇒ σ ′ j = ni=j σi for each j.
P
Pn
P
P
(P )
(P +1)
= ni=1 iσi for each P > p.
(3) ni=1 σ ′ i = ni=1 iσi =⇒
i=1 σi
He can then state

Definition 7.2 (Janet). [22, pp.90-1] A finite set E ⊂ P of forms of degree at most p
generating the ideal I ⊂ P , is said to be involutive1 if, with the present notation, it
1

en involution.

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

19

satisfes the formula
(2)

n
X

(p+1)
σi

=

i=1

n
X

(p)

iσi .

i=1


Thus, once the iterated Macaualy-like procedure satisfies (2) at degree p̄ then it successfuly terminates and the finite bases produced by it is involutive; Janet is therefore
able to present the ideal {τ ∈ T(I), deg(τ ) ≥ p̄} by explicitly producing[22] the decomposition
{τ ∈ T(I), deg(τ ) ≥ p̄} = ⊔τ ∈M offM (τ )
where M is the stably complete set M = {τ ∈ T(I), deg(τ ) ≥ p̄} and to express its
Hilbert polynomial as

n−1 
X
t − p + h − 1 (p)
h
σh (I).
HI (t) =
h
−
1
h=1
(p)

In our context, the characterization of σi and definition 7.2 lead to the following
Proposition 7.3. With the previous notation, if J is a quasi stable monomial ideal, then
n
X
i=1

(p+1)
σi
(J)

=

n
X

(p)

iσi (J).

i=1

The same equality holds if I is a homogeneous ideal generated by a J-marked basis G with J
quasi stable.
Therefore G is an involutive basis.
Proof. For the first statement we observe that if p ≥ p every term τ ∈ Jp+1 can be written
in a unique way as a product τ = θxi , with θ ∈ Jp and xi a multiplicative variable for
θ, i.e. xi ≤ min(θ).
If I is the homogeneous ideal generated by a J-marked set G, then for the corresponding fτ ∈ G (p+1) we have fτ = fθ xi with fθ in G (p) and of course xi ≤ min(θ).
If G is a J-marked basis, then we get the equality since (G)t = (G (t) ) for every t
(Corollary 5.9).

Note that for an ideal I generated by a J-marked set G which is not a marked basis,
P
P
(p+1)
(p)
only the inequality ni=1 σi
≤ ni=1 iσi holds true, since (G)t ⊇ (G (t) ).

The iterated Macaualy-like procedure gives also a fine decomposition of N(I)≥p̄−1 as
follows:
n−1
• he partitions the set N(I)p−1 as Np−1 = ⊔i=0
Ni associating to
– N0 the monomials τ ∈ Np−1 (I) for which x1 τ ∈ T(I);
– while each of the σ1 elements τ = xυ1 ∈ N(I)p−1 \ N0 , class(υ) = 1, is
inserted in Ni if it is one of the σi elements which can be expressed as
τ = xυii , class(υi ) = i but is not one of the σi+1 elements which can be ex, class(υi+1 ) = i + 1.
pressed as τ = υxi+1
i+1
• he then associate to each τ ∈ Ni mult(τ ) = {xj , 1 ≤ j ≤ i} as multiplicative
variables and off(τ ) := {τ ω, ω ∈ T [1, i]} as its offspring

20

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

• and states
n−1
{τ ∈ N(I), deg(τ ) ≥ p̄ − 1} = ⊔i=0
⊔τ ∈Ni off(τ ).

Riquier’s and Janet’s results were introduced to the Computational Algebra commutative at the MEGA-90 Symposium in 1990 by a survey by Pommaret [25] of his theory
and, two years later, through a paper by F. Schwarz [34] where he remarked:
The concept of a Gröbner base and algorithmic methods for constructing
it for a given system of multivariate polynomials has been established
as an extremaly important tool in commutative algebra. It seems to be
less well known that similar ideas have been applied for investigating
partial differential equations (pde’s) around the turn of the century in
the pioneering work of the French mathematicians Riquier and Janet. [...]
[T]heir theory [...] is basically a critical-pair/completion procedure. All
basic concepts like a term-ordering, reductions and formation of critical
pairs are already there.
This prompted V. Gerdt to suggest his coworkers Zharkov and Blinkov to investigate
whether the results by Janet and Pommaret were translatable from pde’s to polynomial
rings in order to produce an effective alternative approach to Buchberger’s Algorithm;
the conclusion of this investigation [39, 40] was successful — the proposed algorithm
was able to give a solution with a speed-up of 20 w.r.t. degrevlex Buchberger’s algorithm on classical test-suites and caused sensation in the community.
Unfortunately, among the two constructions proposed by Janet, they hitted the involutive one, which is not a Buchberger-like procedure and presented it as such, remarking that in general does not terminate and that the basis is not necessarily finite unless
the ideal is 0-dimensional. What is worst, they attributed to Pommaret their mistakes,
thus introducing in literature a “bad” fictional Pommaret division compared with the
“good” Janet division (related to Janet completion [19] procedure).
An algorithm based on Janet’s notion [19] of completeness is reported in [12, 13, 11]
Involutiveness is the argument of the Habilitation thesis (2002) of Seiler [35, 36, 37];
an improved version has recently appeared as [38]. Finiteness is a required condition
for the notion of Pommaret bases [16].
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Bertone, F. Cioffi, P. Lella, M. Roggero, Upgraded methods for the effective computation of marked schemes on a
strongly stable ideal, J. Symb. Comput. 50 (2013), 263–290.
[2] C. Bertone, P. Lella, M.Roggero, A Borel open cover of the Hilbert scheme, J. Symbolic Comput. 53 (2013), 119–
135.
[3] E. Cartan Sur l’intégration des systèmes d’équations aux différentielles totals. Ann. Éc. Norm. 3e série 18 (1901)
241.
[4] E. Cartan Sur la structure des groupes infinis de transformations. Ann. Éc. Norm. 3e série 21 (1904) 153.
[5] E. Cartan Sur les systèmes en involution d’équations aux dérivées partielles du second ordre à une fonction inconnue
de trois variables indépendentes. Bull. Soc. Marth. 39 (1920) 356.
[6] F. Cioffi, M. Roggero, Flat families by strongly stable ideals and a generalization of Gröbner bases, J. Symb. Comput,
Vol. 46, Issue 9, September 2011, 1070–1084.
[7] Delassus E., Extension du théorème de Cauchy aux systèmes les plus généraux d’équations aux dérivées partielles.
Ann. Éc. Norm. 3e série 13 (1896) 421–467
[8] S. Eliahou and M. Kervaire, Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals, J. Algebra, 129 (1), (1990) 1–25.
[9] Erdös J., On the structure of ordered real vector spaces, Publ. Math. Debrecen 4 (1956), 334–343
[10] Galligo A., Theoreme de Division et stabilité en géometrie analytique, Ann. Inst. Fourier Grenoble 29 (1979),
107–184

TERM-ORDERING FREE INVOLUTIVE BASES

21

[11] Gerdt V.P. Involutive Algorithms for Computing Gröbner Bases. In Computational Commutative and NonCommutative Algebraic Geometry, S.Cojocaru, G.Pfister and V.Ufnarovski (Eds.), NATO Science Series, IOS
Press, (2005), 199-225
[12] Gerdt V.P., Blinkov Y.A. Involutive bases of Polynomial Ideals, Math. Comp. Simul. 45 (1998), 543–560
[13] Gerdt V.P., Blinkov Y.A. Minimal involutive bases, Math. Comp. Simul. 45 (1998), 519–541
[14] Gunther, N. Sur la forme canonique des systèmes déquations homogènes (in russian) [Journal de l’Institut des
Ponts et Chaussées de Russie] Izdanie Inst. Inz̆. Putej Soobs̆c̆enija Imp. Al. I. 84 (1913) .
[15] Gunther, N. Sur la forme canonique des equations algébriques C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 157 (1913), 577–80
[16] A. Hashemi , M. Schweinfurter, W. M. Seiler, Quasi-Stability versus Genericity, Computer Algebra in Scientific
Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 7442, (2012), 172–184.
[17] Hilbert D., Uber die Theorie der algebraicschen Formen, Math. Ann. 36 (1890), 473–534
[18] Hironaka, H. Idealistic exponents of singularity In: Algebraic Geometry, The Johns Hopkins Centennial Lectures
(1977) 52-125
[19] M. Janet, Sur les systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partelles, J. Math. Pure et Appl., 3, (1920), 65-151.
[20] M. Janet, Les modules de formes algébriques et la théorie générale des systemes différentiels, Annales scientifiques
de l’École Normale Supérieure, 1924.
[21] M. Janet, Les systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partelles, Gauthier-Villars, 1927.
[22] M. Janet, Lecons sur les systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partelles , Gauthier-Villars.
[23] P. Lella, M.Roggero, On The Functoriality Of Marked Families, Available at arXiv:1307.7657 [math.AG].
Preprint.
[24] Pommaret J. F., Systems of partial differential equations and Lie pseudogroups, Gordon and Brach (1978)
[25] Pommaret J. F., Akli H. Effective Methods for Systems of Algebraic Partial Differential Equations, Progress in
Mathematics 94 (1990), 411–426, Birkhäuser
[26] A. Reeves and B. Sturmfels, A note on polynomial reduction, J. Symbolic Comput. 16 (1993), n.3, 273-277.
[27] Riquier C., De l’existence des intégrales dans un système differentiel quelconque Ann. Éc. Norm. 3e série 10 (1893)
65–86.
[28] Riquier C., Sur une questione fondamentale du Calcul intégral Acta mathematica 23 (1899), 203
[29] Riquier C., Les systèmes d’équations aux dérivées partielles (1910), Gauthiers-Villars.
[30] Robbiano L. Term orderings on the polynomial ring L. N. Comp. Sci. 204 (1985), 513–7, Springer
[31] Robinson, L.B. Sur les systémes d’équations aux dérivées partialles C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 157 (1913), 106–108
[32] Robinson, L.B. A new canonical form for systems of partial differential equations American Journal of Math. 39
(1917), 95–112
[33] Schreyer F.O., A standard basis approach to syzygies of canonical curves, J. Reine angew. Math. 421 (1991), 83–123
[34] Schwartz F., Reduction and Completion Algorithm for Partial Differential Equations, Proc. ISSA’92 (1992), 49–56
ACM
[35] W. M. Seiler, Involution - The Formal Theory of Differential Equations and its Applications in
Computer Algebra and Numerical Analysis Habilitation Thesis (2002)Universität Mannheim,
http://www.mathematik.uni-kassel.de/∼seiler/Papers/habil.html
[36] W. M. Seiler, A Combinatorial Approach to Involution and Delta-Regularity I: Involutive Bases in Polynomial
Algebras of Solvable Type , Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 20 (2009),
207 − 259
[37] W. M. Seiler, A Combinatorial Approach to Involution and Delta-Regularity II: Structure Analysis of Polynomial Modules with Pommaret Bases, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 20
(2009) 261 − 338.
[38] W. M. Seiler, Involution - The Formal Theory of Differential Equations and its Applications in Computer Algebra,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg 2010, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, Vol. 24.
[39] Zarkov A., Blinkov Y., Involution Approach to Investing Polynomial Systems, Math. Comp. Simul. 42 (1996),
323–332
[40] Zarkov A., Solving zero-dimensional involutive systems, Progress in Mathematics 143 (1996), 389–399,
Birkhäuser

22

M. CERIA, T. MORA, AND M. ROGGERO

M ICHELA C ERIA , D IPARTIMENTO DI M ATEMATICA
10, 10123 T ORINO , I TALY.
E-mail address: michela.ceria@unito.it

DELL’U NIVERSIT À DI

T ORINO , V IA C ARLO A L -

BERTO

T EO M ORA , D IPARTIMENTO DI M ATEMATICA DELL’U NIVERSIT À DI G ENOVA , V IA D ODECANESO 35,
16146 G ENOVA , I TALY.
E-mail address: theomora@disi.unige.it
M ARGHERITA R OGGERO , D IPARTIMENTO DI M ATEMATICA DELL’U NIVERSIT À DI T ORINO , V IA C ARLO
A LBERTO 10, 10123 T ORINO , I TALY.
E-mail address: margherita.roggero@unito.it

