DIMENSIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FACES OF THE CONES OF
NONNEGATIVE POLYNOMIALS AND SUMS OF SQUARES

arXiv:1305.0642v1 [math.AG] 3 May 2013

GRIGORIY BLEKHERMAN, SADIK ILIMAN, MARTINA KUBITZKE
Abstract. We study dimensions of the faces of the cone of nonnegative polynomials and the cone
of sums of squares; we show that there are dimensional differences between corresponding faces of
these cones. These dimensional gaps occur in all cases where there exist nonnegative polynomials
that are not sums of squares. The gaps occur generically, they are not the product of selecting special
faces of the cones. For ternary forms and quaternary quartics, we completely characterize when
these differences are observed. Moreover, we provide an explicit description for these differences
in the two smallest cases, in which the cone of nonnegative polynomials and the cone of sums
of squares are different. Our results follow from more general results concerning the relationship
between the second ordinary power and the second symbolic power of the vanishing ideal of points
in projective space.

1. Introduction
Let Hn,2d denote the set of homogeneous polynomials (forms) in n variables of degree 2d over R
and let RPn−1 resp. CPn−1 denote the (n − 1)-dimensional real resp. complex projective space. For
a fixed number of variables n and degree 2d, nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares form
closed convex cones in Hn,2d . We call these cones Pn,2d and Σn,2d , respectively, i. e.,

Pn,2d = p ∈ Hn,2d | p(x) ≥ 0 for all x ∈ RPn−1 ,

n
o
X
Σn,2d = p ∈ Pn,2d | p(x) =
qi2 for some qi ∈ Hn,d .

The relationship between the cone of nonnegative polynomials and the cone of sums of squares
has been studied since Hilbert’s seminal paper in 1888 [11]. In this article, Hilbert showed that a
nonnegative form in n variables of even degree 2d has to be a sum of squares of forms only in the
following cases: the form is bivariate, i. e., n = 2, the form is quadratic, i. e., 2d = 2, or the form
is a ternary quartic, i. e., n = 3 and 2d = 4. In all other cases, he proved existence of nonnegative
polynomials that are not sums of squares. It is remarkable that Hilbert’s proof was existential
and not constructive, and the first explicit nonnegative polynomial not being a sum of squares
was found only 70 years later by Motzkin [18, 19]. Recently, in small dimensions, several aspects
of the differences between these cones, such as the structure of the dual cones and the algebraic
boundaries of these cones, were investigated (see [3, 4, 5]).
Understanding the precise relationship between the cones Pn,2d and Σn,2d is interesting from the
point of view of computational complexity in polynomial optimization and also for practical testing
for nonnegativity (see, e. g., [12]). Indeed, while testing whether a polynomial is nonnegative is
NP-hard already in degree 4 [7], testing whether a polynomial is a sum of squares can be reduced
to a semidefinite programming problem, which can be solved efficiently [16].
Unfortunately, except for the cases of n = 2, the univariate case for nonhomogeneous polynomials,
the case 2d = 2 (see [2, Sections II.11 and II.12]), and, to some extent, the case of ternary quartics,
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A15, 14P99 , 26C10.
Key words and phrases. nonnegative polynomial, sums of squares, faces, dimensional differences.
1

neither the structure of these cones nor their precise relationship with each other is very well
understood.
We focus on the study of faces of the cones Pn,2d and Σn,2d , in particular on the investigation of
their possible dimensions. A face F of a convex set K is called exposed if there exists a supporting
hyperplane H such that F = H ∩ K. It is easy to describe exposed faces of Pn,2d . Indeed, the
boundary of the cone Pn,2d consists of all the forms with at least one zero, whereas its interior
consists of all strictly positive forms. In particular, a maximal proper face of Pn,2d consists of all
forms with exactly one prescribed zero [6, Chapter 4].
Let Γ be a set of distinct points in RPn−1 . The forms in Pn,2d vanishing at all points of Γ form
an exposed face of Pn,2d , which we call Pn,2d (Γ):
Pn,2d (Γ) = {p ∈ Pn,2d | p(s) = 0 for all s ∈ Γ}.
Similarly, we let Σn,2d (Γ) be the exposed face of Σn,2d consisting of forms that vanish at all points
of Γ:
Σn,2d (Γ) = {p ∈ Σn,2d | p(s) = 0 for all s ∈ Γ}.
Moreover, any exposed face of Pn,2d has a description of the above form, and the set Γ can
be chosen to be finite [6, Chapter 4]. We note that, despite this simple description of exposed
faces, the full facial structure of Pn,2d “should” be very difficult to fully describe since – as already
mentioned – the problem of testing for nonnegativity is known to be NP-hard. Furthermore, even
for the exposed faces Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ), except for the simple cases of n = 2 and 2d = 2, the
possible dimensions of these faces have not been investigated yet. We close this gap by deriving
estimates for the dimensions of the faces Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ) and by establishing dimensional
differences between those faces in many cases. It is worth remarking that also Hilbert’s original
proof [11] of existence of nonnegative polynomials that are not sums of squares can be viewed as
establishing a dimensional gap of this type. This dimensional point of view was first made explicit
in [19].
For a generic set Γ we reduce the question of dimensions of Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ) to the question
of dimensions of the degree 2d components of certain ideals associated with Γ. To simplify notation,
we set R[x] = R[x1 , . . . , xn ]. For an ideal I ⊂ R[x], let I 2 denote the second ordinary power of
I, and let I (2) denote the second symbolic power of I. Moreover, let Id denote the homogeneous
degree d part of I.
If I(Γ) ⊂ R[x] is the vanishing ideal of a finite set of distinct points Γ ⊂ RPn−1 , then the second
symbolic power I (2) (Γ) of I(Γ) is the ideal of all forms in R[x] vanishing at every point of Γ to
order at least 2:
I (2) (Γ) = {p ∈ R[x] | ∇p(s) = 0 for all s ∈ Γ}.
Since every nonnegative form that is zero on s ∈ Γ must vanish to order 2 on s, it follows that
the face Pn,2d (Γ) is contained in the degree 2d part of I (2) (Γ):
(2)

Pn,2d (Γ) ⊂ I2d (Γ).
On the other hand, we know that the face Σn,2d (Γ) is contained in the 2d part of the ordinary
square of I(Γ), i. e.,
2
(Γ).
Σn,2d (Γ) ⊂ I2d
2 (Γ)
It is easy to see that this inclusion is actually full-dimensional, since we can choose a basis of I2d
consisting of squares and any nonnegative linear combination of these squares lies in Σn,2d (Γ). More
precisely, the following is true.
Proposition 1.1. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a finite set. Then Σn,2d (Γ) is a full-dimensional convex cone
2 (Γ):
in the vector space of all forms of degree 2d in I2d
2
(Γ).
dim Σn,2d (Γ) = dim I2d
2

As for sums of squares, we pose the question, under which assumptions Pn,2d (Γ) is a full(2)
dimensional subcone of I2d (Γ). In order to answer this question, the following crucial definition is
required.
Definition 1.2. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a finite set of distinct points and I = I(Γ) ⊂ R[x] be the
vanishing ideal of Γ. We call Γ ⊂ RPn−1 d-independent if Γ satisfies the following two conditions:
(1.1)

The forms in Id share no common zeroes in CPn−1 outside of Γ. In other words, the
conditions of vanishing at Γ force no additional zeroes on forms of degree d in Hn,d .

(1.2)

For any s ∈ Γ the forms that vanish to order 2 on s and vanish at the rest of Γ
to order 1 form a vector space of codimension |Γ| + n − 1 in Hn,d .

The second condition in the above definition simply states that the constraints of vanishing at
Γ and additionally double vanishing at any point s ∈ Γ are all linearly independent.
The next proposition provides a sufficient condition for full-dimensionality of a face Pn,2d (Γ) in
(2)
I2d (Γ).
Proposition 1.3. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a d-independent set. Then Pn,2d (Γ) is a full-dimensional
(2)
convex cone in I2d (Γ):
(2)
dim Pn,2d (Γ) = dim I2d (Γ).
Though we have seen that for nonnegative forms the condition for full-dimensionality of Pn,2d (Γ)
(2)
2 (Γ), it follows from the next
in I2d (Γ) is not as simple as for full-dimensionality of Σn,2d (Γ) in I2d
(2)
two results that for generic Γ the dimensions of Pn,2d (Γ) and I2d (Γ) agree.
Corollary 1.4. The set of d-independent configurations of k points in RPn−1 is a Zariski open
subset of (RPn−1 )k .

− n.
Proposition 1.5. Let Γ be a generic collection of points in RPn−1 such that |Γ| ≤ n+d−1
d
Then Γ is d-independent.
In view of Propositions 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5 our original question of finding a dimensional difference
between the faces Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ) can be reduced to the following:
Question
1.1. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 (or equivalently CPn−1 ) be a generic set of points such that |Γ| ≤
n+d−1
− n, and let I(Γ) be the vanishing ideal of Γ. For what values of |Γ| do we have
d
(2)

2
(Γ)?
I2d (Γ) = I2d

Indeed, for n = 3, we show that this is true for all d-independent sets up to a certain size.

Theorem 1.6. Let Γ be a d-independent set of points in RP2 such that |Γ| ≤ d+1
2 . Then
(2)

Moreover, if

d+1
2

+ 1 ≤ |Γ| ≤

d+1
2

2
dim I2d (Γ) = dim I2d
(Γ).
(2)

2 (Γ).
+ (d − 2), then dim I2d (Γ) > dim I2d

As already explained, the next corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.6.

Corollary 1.7. Let Γ ⊂ RP2 be d-independent with |Γ| ≤ d+1
2 . Then
Furthermore, for

d+1
2

dim P3,2d (Γ) = dim Σ3,2d (Γ).

+ 1 ≤ |Γ| ≤ d+1
+ (d − 2) we have
2
dim P3,2d (Γ) > dim Σ3,2d (Γ).
3

Similarly, for n = 4, we derive the minimal size of a d-independent set Γ such that the dimensions
(2)
of the ideals I42 (Γ) and I4 (Γ) are distinct. We will prove that if Γ ⊂ RP3 with |Γ| ≤ 6 is in general
linear position, then it is d-independent.
Theorem 1.8. Let Γ ⊂ RP3 be a finite set in general linear position. Then the following hold:
(i) If |Γ| = 6, then
(2)
dim I42 (Γ) = 10 < 11 = dim I4 (Γ).
(ii) If |Γ| ≤ 5, then
(2)
dim I42 (Γ) = dim I4 (Γ).
As a direct consequence, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 1.9. Let Γ ⊂ RP3 be a finite set in general linear position. Then the following hold:
(i) If |Γ| = 6, then
dim Σ4,4 (Γ) = 10 < 11 = dim P4,4 (Γ).
(ii) If |Γ| ≤ 5, then
dim Σ4,4 (Γ) = dim P4,4 (Γ).
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 focuses on proving that d-independence is a sufficient
(2)
condition for full-dimensionality of Pn,2d (Γ) in I2d (Γ). Additionally, properties of d-independent
sets are studied, in particular, for sets with bounded size, d-independence turns out to be a generic
condition. In Section 3, ternary forms are considered. Among other results, we prove Theorem
1.6, which completely characterizes the occurence of dimensional differences between exposed faces
P3,2d (Γ) and Σ3,2d (Γ). In Section 4, we are interested in the case (n, 2d) = (4, 4) and derive analogous statements as for ternary forms (Theorem 1.8), which yield a complete classification also in this
case. In the two smallest cases ((n, 2d) ∈ {((3, 6), (4, 4)}), we show that the maximal dimensional
difference between the exposed faces is exactly one. Section 5 provides explicit characterizations of
these one-dimensional differences, yielding nonnegative polynomials that are not sums of squares.
Finally, in Section 6, we compute some a priori bounds for the possible dimensional differences as
well as naive bounds for the minimum cardinality of a d-independent set such that a dimensional
difference occurs. Moreover, we state some open questions for further research.
2. Dimension of faces of Pn,2d
(2)

In this section, we study the inclusion Pn,2d (Γ) ⊂ I2d (Γ) in more detail. In particular, we
are interested in the question of when this inclusion is full-dimensional. Moreover, the proofs of
Propositions 1.3 and 1.5, such as Corollary 1.4 are provided.
2.1. Sum of Squares Certificate. In this section, we provide the proof of Proposition 1.3.
(2)
Let Γ be a finite set of points in RPn−1 and consider I2d (Γ), the vector space of forms of degree
2d vanishing at Γ with multiplicity at least 2. Every double zero forces n linear conditions on
forms vanishing at Γ. Since not all of these conditions are necessarily independent, the following
inequality always holds:
(2.1)

(2)

dim I2d (Γ) ≥ dim Hn,2d − n|Γ|.

However, generically – with a small list of exceptions – the Alexander-Hirschowitz Theorem [15]
tells us that equality holds in (2.1).
(2)
We establish full-dimensionality of Pn,2d (Γ) in I2d (Γ) by finding a form p ∈ Pn,2d (Γ) to which we
can add a suitably small multiple of any double vanishing form such that it will remain nonnegative:
(2)

p + ǫq ∈ Pn,2d (Γ) for some sufficiently small ǫ and any q ∈ I2d (Γ).
4

(2)

The form p can be viewed as a certificate of full-dimensionality of Pn,2d (Γ) in I2d (Γ). The
important point is that p can be any form, in particular, we will focus on finding such p that is
a sum of squares. This approach follows that of [19] and, indeed, it can be traced to the original
proof of Hilbert [11].
For a form p, let the Hessian Hp of p be the matrix of second derivatives of p:
Hp = (hij ),

where

hij =

∂2p
.
∂xi ∂xj

We note that if a form p vanishes at a point s, then, by homogeneity, p needs to vanish at a line
through s. Therefore, s lies in the kernel of the Hessian of p at s: Hp (s)s = 0.
If a form p is nonnegative, then its Hessian at any zero s is positive semidefinite since 0 is a
minimum for p. We call a nonnegative form p round at a zero s ∈ RPn−1 if the Hessian of p at s
is positive definite on the subspace s⊥ of vectors perpendicular to s, i. e.,
p is round at a zero s ⇔ y T Hp (s)y > 0 for all y ∈ s⊥ .
For a form p, we let Z(p) denote the real projective variety of p.
We will need the following “extension lemma”, which follows from Lemma 3.1 of [19].
Lemma 2.1. Let p ∈ Pn,2d be a nonnegative form with a finite zero set Z(p) and suppose that p
is round at every point in Z(p). Furthermore, let q be a form such that q vanishes to order 2 on
Z(p). Then, for a sufficiently small ǫ, the form p + ǫq is nonnegative.
From this, we infer the following immediate corollary, which will be crucial for the proof of
Proposition 1.3.
Corollary 2.2. Let Γ be a finite set in RPn−1 . Suppose that there exists a nonnegative form p
in Pn,2d (Γ) such that Z(p) = Γ and p is round at every point s ∈ Γ. Then the face Pn,2d (Γ) is
(2)
full-dimensional in the vector space I2d (Γ).
(2)

Proof. Let p ∈ Pn,2d (Γ) be as in the assumptions. Then, by Lemma 2.1, for any q ∈ I2d (Γ) we
have p + ǫq ∈ Pn,2d (Γ) for sufficiently small ǫ. Since Pn,2d (Γ) is a convex set, it follows that it is
(2)
full-dimensional in I2d (Γ).

We can finally provide the proof of Proposition 1.3.
P
Proof of Proposition 1.3. Let q1 , . . . , qk be a basis of Id (Γ). We claim that p = ki=1 qi2 has the
(2)
properties of Corollary 2.2 and therefore, the convex cone Pn,2d (Γ) is full-dimensional in I2d (Γ).
Since Γ forces no additional zeroes and since q1 , . . . , qk is a basis of Id (Γ), it follows that the
forms qi have no common zeroes outside of Γ and thus Z(p) = Γ.
Now choose s ∈ Γ. It remains to show that p is round at s, i. e., Hp (s) is positive definite on s⊥ .
Since the forms in Id (Γ) that double vanish at s form a vector space of codimension n − 1 in Id (Γ),
we see that for 1 ≤ i ≤ k the gradients of qi at s must span a vector space of dimension n − 1.
Since, by Euler’s identity (see, e. g., [10, Lemma 11.4]), h∇qi , si = 0 for all i, this implies that the
gradients actually span s⊥ .
Note that the Hessian of p is the sum of the Hessians of qi2 , i. e.,
Hp =

k
X

Hq 2 .

i=1

Since qi (s) = 0 for all i and s ∈ Γ, we conclude that
5

i

∂ 2 qi2
∂qi
∂qi
(s) = 2
(s)
(s).
∂xl ∂xj
∂xl
∂xj
Therefore, we see that the Hessian of qi2 at any s ∈ Γ is actually double the tensor of the gradient
of qi at s with itself:
Hq2 (s) = 2∇qi ⊗ ∇qi (s).
i

It is now straightforward to verify that
∇qj (s)T Hq2 (s)∇qj (s) > 0
i

for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ k and s ∈ Γ, which shows the claim.



From now on, we will focus on the study of the degree 2d part of the second symbolic power
(2)
I2d (Γ) since, by Proposition 1.3, we have the equality
(2)

dim Pn,2d (Γ) = dim I2d (Γ),
whenever Γ is a finite d-independent set. We first provide the following equivalent characterization
of d-independence.
Proposition 2.3. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a finite set of points and let J ⊂ R[x] be the ideal generated
by Id (Γ). Then Γ is d-independent if and only if the Hilbert polynomial of R[x]/J is equal to |Γ|.
Proof. Let J be the ideal generated by Id (Γ). Let IC,d (Γ) be the set of all degree d complex forms
vanishing at Γ. We first observe that linear combinations of forms in Id (Γ) taken with complex
coefficients generate IC,d (Γ). Therefore, if we let JC be the complex ideal generated IC,d (Γ), then
it suffices to show that the Hilbert polynomial of C[x]/JC is |Γ|.
We now apply Bertini’s Theorem (see, e.g., [9, Theorem 17.16]) to the linear system of divisors
IC,d (Γ). Since Γ is d-independent, it follows that a general element of IC,d (Γ) is non-singular at
every point of Γ and thus we may find a smooth hypersurface f1 ∈ IC,d (Γ). Now d-independence
guarantees that a general form in IC,d (Γ) intersects f1 smoothly and therefore we apply Bertini’s
Theorem again to find f2 ∈ IC,d (Γ) such that f1 ∩ f2 is smooth. We proceed in this way repeatedly
applying Bertini’s Theorem until we end up with a transverse zero-dimensional intersection V =
f1 ∩ · · · ∩ fn−1 . By construction we have Γ ⊆ V .
Since JC defines a zero-dimensional ideal and all forms in JC vanish at Γ, it follows that the
Hilbert polynomial of C[x]/JC is a constant and it is greater or equal than |Γ|. Since we have
hf1 , . . . , fn−1 i ⊂ JC and the ideal generated by f1 , . . . , fn−1 is radical, it follows that we just need
to show that for all s ∈ V \ Γ there exists g ∈ JC such that g(s) 6= 0 and g(z) = 0 for all z ∈ V \ {s}.
Since Γ is d-independent, it suffices to show for all s ∈ V \ Γ there exists h ∈ Id (Γ) such that
h(s) 6= 0. Also there exists h′ ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ] such that h′ (s) = 1 and h′ (z) = 0 for all z ∈ V \ {s}.
Therefore hh′ ∈ JC and one direction of the proposition follows.
Now suppose that Γ is not d-independent. First, if all forms in Id (Γ) vanish at a point not in Γ,
then all forms in J vanish on at least |Γ| + 1 points and therefore the Hilbert function of R[x]/J
is at least |Γ| + 1 for all large enough degrees. Therefore the Hilbert polynomial of R[x]/J is not
|Γ|. Now suppose that for some s ∈ Γ and some nonzero w ∈ Rn we have h∇p(s), wi = 0 for all
p ∈ Id (Γ). Then again we find that the Hilbert function of R[x]/J is at least |Γ| + 1 for all high
enough degrees.

We remark that in the above proof h′ may be chosen such that deg h′ ≤ (n − 1)(d − 1). Therefore
we have deg hh′ ≤ (n − 1)(d − 1) + d and for all degrees k ≥ (n − 1)(d − 1) + d the Hilbert function
of C[x]/JC (and of R[x]/J) evaluated at k must be equal to |Γ|. Thus using standard methods
(vanishing determinants) we can express the set of all configurations of k points in RPn−1 that are
6

d-independent as a complement of a closed algebraic set. Hence, the set of configurations Γ of k
points in RPn−1 that are d-independent is Zariski open, which proves Corollary 1.4.

2.2. A d-independent set of size n+d−1
− n. The aim of this section is to provide the proof of
d
Proposition
1.5.
For
this
goal,
we
will
construct
an example of a d-independent set of cardinality
n+d−1
− n. Since, by Corollary 1.4, being d-independent is a Zariski open condition, this will
d
already show the claim.
Define S̄n,d to be the set of points in RPn−1 that correspond to nonnegative integer partitions of
d:
)
(
n
X
αi = d .
S̄n,d = [α1 : . . . : αn ] ∈ RPn−1 αi ∈ Z, αi ≥ 0,
i=1

We can think of the points in S̄n,d as all the possible exponent choices for monomials in n

variables of degree d. Therefore, S̄n,d contains n+d−1
points.
d
Now let Sn,d be the set of points in RPn−1 that correspond to partitions of d with at least 2
nonzero parts. The points in Sn,d again correspond to monomials of degree d but we exclude the

monomials of the form xdi . Therefore, Sn,d contains n+d−1
− n points.
d
Proposition 2.4. The set Sn,d is d-independent.

The proof of the above proposition requires some additional results. The following proposition
is taken from [17, p. 31] and has been known for at least a hundred years. We reproduce the proof
below.
Proposition 2.5. There are no nontrivial forms in Hn,d that vanish at S̄n,d . In other words,
Id (S̄n,d ) = 0.
Proof. For every point s = [s1 : . . . : sn ] ∈ S̄n,d , we will construct a form ps ∈ K[x]n,d that vanishes
at all points in S̄n,d except for s. This shows that the conditions of vanishing at any point in S̄n,d
are linearly independent and since |S̄n,d | = dim Hn,d , we see that dim Id (S̄n,d ) = 0.
Let M = x1 + . . . + xn . For i = 1, . . . , n, let hi be the form defined as follows:
hi =

sY
i −1

(dxi − kM ).

k=0

It is clear that the degree of hi is si and hi vanishes at all partitions in S̄n,d with i-th part less than
si . Now let ps be defined as:
ps =

n
Y

hi .

i=1

P
The form ps has degree ni=1 si = d, and it does not vanish at s. However, for any other partition
of d, there exists i such that the i-th part is less than si . Then, hi will vanish for that i and, thus,
ps will vanish at any partition of d except for s.

As in the proof of Proposition 2.5 let M = x1 + . . . + xn . For i = 1, . . . , n, define a form Qi as
follows:

(2.2)

Qi =

d−1
Y

(dxi − kM ).

k=0
7

We observe that each Qi vanishes at Sn,d . Indeed, let s = [s1 : . . . : sn ] ∈ Sn,d and consider
Qi (s). We know that M (s) = d, because points in Sn,d are partitions of d, and, therefore, the factor
of Qi that corresponds to k = si will vanish at s, forcing Qi (s) = 0. Hence, Qi ∈ Id (Sn,d ) for all
i = 1, . . . , n.
We will now show that the forms Qi actually form a basis of Id (Sn,d ). The fact that we have
such a nicely factoring basis is what, eventually, allows us to prove that Sn,d is d-independent.
Proposition 2.6. The forms Qi form a basis of Id (Sn,d ).
Proof. We first show that the forms Qi are linearly independent. Let e1 , . . . , en be the standard
basis vectors of RPn−1 . It is easy to see that Qi (ej ) = 0 for i 6= j since xi divides Qi . On the
other hand, Qi (ei ) = d!. Therefore, if there exist αi ∈ R such that α1 Q1 + . . . + αn Qn = 0, then,
by evaluating this linear combination at ei , we see that αi = 0 and this works for all i. Thus, the
forms Qi are linearly independent.
We now show that the forms Qi span Id (Sn,d ). Let p ∈ Id (Sn,d ) and let βi = p(ei ). Consider the
form
n
X
βi
Qi .
p̄ = p −
d!
i=1

It is clear that p̄ vanishes at the standard basis vectors ei . Therefore, p̄ vanishes not only on Sn,d
but also on S̄n,d . By Proposition 2.5, it follows that p̄ = 0 and, therefore, p is in the span of Qi .


We now show that the set Sn,d satisfies the two conditions of d-independence from Definition
1.2.
Lemma 2.7. The set Sn,d forces no additional zeroes for forms of degree d.
Proof. Since by Proposition 2.6 the forms Qi form a basis of Id (Sn,d ), the statement of the lemma
is equivalent to showing that Sn,d is projectively equal to ∩ni=1 Z(Qi ).
Let v = [v1 : . . . : vn ] ∈ ∩ni=1 Z(Qi ) be a nonzero point and first suppose that v1 + . . . + vn = 0,
i. e., M (v) = 0. Therefore, by Equation (2.2), we see that Qi (v) = dd vid . Since by assumption
Qi (v) = 0 for all i, it follows that v = 0, which is a contradiction.
Now suppose that v1 + . . . + vn 6= 0. By homogeneity we can assume that v1 + . . . + vn = d. In
this case, from Equation (2.2), it follows that Qi (v) = dd vi (vi − 1) · · · (vi − d + 1). Since Qi (v) = 0
for all i, we infer that each vi is a nonnegative integer between 0 and d − 1 and v1 + . . . + vn = d.
In other words, v ∈ Sn,d .


We know that |Sn,d | = n+d−1
− n. For the second condition of d-independence, we need to show
d
that for any s ∈ Sn,d the vector space of forms double vanishing at s and vanishing at the rest of Sn,d


with multiplicity 1 has codimension |Sn,d | + n − 1 = n+d−1
− 1 in Hn,d . Since dim Hn,d = n+d−1
,
d
d
we thus need to show that the vector space of forms double vanishing at any s ∈ Sn,d and vanishing
at the rest of Sn,d with multiplicity 1 is one-dimensional. This will follow from the next lemma.
Lemma 2.8. For every point s ∈ Sn,d , there is a unique (up to a constant multiple) form in
Id (Sn,d ) singular at s.
Proof. Let s = [s1 : . . . : sn ] ∈ Sn,d and let p ∈ Id (Sn,d ) be a form singular at s.
Since by Proposition 2.6 the forms Qi form a basis of Id (Sn,d ), we may assume that p = α1 Q1 +
. . . + αn Qn for certain αi ∈ R. Now let A = (aij ) be the n × n matrix with entries
aij =

∂Qi
(s).
∂xj
8

The statement of the lemma is equivalent to showing that rank A = n − 1. Recall from Equation
(2.2) the definition of Qi :
Qi =

d−1
Y

dxi − kM .

k=0

The form Qi vanishes at s, because the term dxi − si M corresponding to k = si vanishes at s.
∂Qi
Therefore, the only nonzero term in
evaluated at s will come from differentiating out dxi −si M .
∂xj
Now, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, let
Psi =

Qi
.
dxi − si M

We observe that Psi (s) 6= 0 since we removed from Qi the only factor that vanishes at s.
Recall that M = x1 + . . . + xn and, therefore, if we differentiate out dxi − si M from Qi with
respect to xj and evaluate it at s, we see that
∂Qi
(s) =
∂xj



Psi (s) (d − sj ) if i = j
−Psi (s)sj
if i 6= j.

Since Psi (s) 6= 0, we can divide the i-th row of A by Psi (s) to obtain a matrix B = (bij ), where
bij =



d − sj if i = j
−sj
if i 6= j.

By construction, rank B = rank A.
Since s is a partition of d, it is clear that the vector consisting of all 1s is in the kernel of B. Now
let C = (cij ) be the matrix with j-th column having the same entry sj , i. e., cij = sj . We observe
that the rank of C is 1 and B = dI − C, where I is the identity matrix. Therefore, we know that
rank B ≥ rank I − rank C = n − 1. Since we already found a vector in the kernel of B, it follows
that the rank of B is n − 1.

We have now shown that the set Sn,d is d-independent and together with Corollary 1.4 this shows

that d-independence is a generic condition for sets of k points in RPn−1 with k ≤ n+d−1
− n. In
d
particular, this proves Proposition 1.5.
3. Complete characterization of ternary forms
In this section, we study the case of ternary forms and provide a complete characterization for
the occurence of dimensional differences between exposed faces of the cones P3,2d and Σ3,2d . The
desired characterization will require some preparatory lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a finite set and I = I(Γ) ⊂ R[x] be the vanishing ideal. Let I m be
the saturation of the ordinary m-th power of I. Then
I m = I (m) .
T
Proof. Consider the primary decomposition I = p∈S I(p), where I(p) = {f ∈ R[x] | f (p) = 0}.
T
Then, by definition of symbolic powers, we have I (m) = p∈S I(p)m . Moreover, the primary
decomposition of I m contains I(p)m for all p ∈ S and an additional component Q associated to
9

the maximal homogeneous ideal m = (x1 , . . . , xn ). By definition I m =
previous discussion, we obtain


\
I(p)m ∩ Q : mj
I m : mj = 


=

p∈S

\

p∈S

S

j≥0 I

m

: mj . From the



I(p)m : mj  ∩ Q : mj

= (I (m) : mj ) ∩ (Q : mj )
mj

Since Q is m-primary, for sufficiently large j, it follows that Q : mj = R[x]. Moreover, I (m) :
= I (m) , thus, I m : mj = I (m) , for sufficiently large j.


Note that, as a consequence of the above lemma, we clearly have that (I 2 )2d = (I (2) )2d .
Given an ideal I ⊂ R[x], let α(I) be the minimum degree of a generator of I. We make the
following simple observation.
Lemma 3.2. Let I ⊂ R[x] be a homogeneous ideal and let m = α(I). Then (I 2 )2m = (Im )2 .
Proof. Since Im ⊂ I, wePalways have the inclusion (Im )2 ⊂ (I 2 )2m . On the other hand, if f ∈ (I 2 )2m ,
then we can write f = a∈J ga · ha for certain polynomials ga , ha ∈ I and J ⊂ Nn finite. Moreover,
since 2m = deg(f ) = deg(ga ) + deg(ha ) and α(I) = m, we conclude deg(fa ) = deg(ga ) = m for all
a ∈ J. Hence, ga , ha ∈ Im for all a ∈ J.

Recall that for an ideal I ⊂ R[x] the saturation degree of I is defined as
satdeg(I) = min{s | I s = Is },
see, e. g., [8]. Moreover, we use reg(I) to denote the (Castelnuovo-Mumford) regularity of I.
Lemma 3.3. Let Γ ⊂ RPn−1 be a finite set and let I = I(Γ) ⊂ R[x] be the vanishing ideal. If
α(I) = reg(I), then satdeg(I 2 ) ≤ α(I 2 ) = 2α(I).
Proof. As we have seen in the proof of Lemma 3.1, it holds that I 2 = I (2) ∩Q, where Q is m-primary.
More precisely, one has Q = m2α(I) . So, for j ∈ N, one has (I 2 )j = (I (2) ∩ m2α(I) )j . For j ≥ 2α(I),
(2)
the ideal m2α(I) contains all monomials of degree j. Therefore, (I 2 )j = Ij in this case and, by
Lemma 3.1, it follows that (I 2 )j = (I 2 )j , i. e., satdeg(I 2 ) ≤ 2α(I). The equality α(I 2 ) = 2α(I) is
true in general.

We will need the following definition of a set Γ ⊂ Rn being in general linear position, which
naturally extends to RPn−1 .
Definition 3.4. Let Γ ⊂ Rn be a finite set. Γ is in general linear position if one of the following
conditions holds
(i) |Γ| ≤ n and dim Aff(Γ) = |Γ| − 1
(ii) |Γ| ≥ n + 1 and no n of the points in Γ lie on a common hyperplane.
Note that any set Γ with |Γ| ≤ n that is in general linear position can be extended to a set in
general linear position of greater cardinality.

Lemma 3.5. Let Γ ⊂ RP2 be in general linear position with |Γ| = d+1
2 . Then reg(Id (Γ)) = d.

Proof. Due to the minimal resolution conjecture for RP2 (see, e. g., [1, 20]), for Γ ⊂ RP2 it holds that
reg(Id (Γ)) ∈ {d, d+1}. For |Γ| = d+1
it is shown in [13, Section 3] that, indeed, reg(Id (Γ)) = d. 
2
10

We can now prove Theorem 1.6.
Proof of Theorem 1.6. Let Γ ⊂ RP2 be such that |Γ| =
2 (Γ) = dim I (2) (Γ).
prove that dim I2d
2d

i. e., |Γ| = d+1
2 . By Lemma 3.5, we
(2)
2 (Γ).
3.3, we infer that I2d (Γ) = I2d



d+1
2

− k for 0 ≤ k ≤



d+1
2

− 1. We first

We show the claim by induction on k. First assume k = 0,
have α(Id (Γ)) = reg(Id (Γ)) = d and, from Lemmas 3.2 and
(2)

2 (Γ) = dim I
Now suppose that the claim holds for a fixed k and hence we have dim I2d
2d (Γ) =
d+2
d+1
2
+3k
for
any
d-independent
set
Γ
⊂
RP
with
|Γ|
=
−k.
For
the
induction
step
k
7→ k+1,
2
2
d+1
2
2
let Γ ⊂ RP be d-independent with |Γ| = 2 − (k + 1). Let p ∈ RP such that the set T = Γ ∪ {p}

is d-independent and in general linear position. Note that |T | = d+1
− k. Since Γ and T are
2
d-independent, we have

dim Id (T ) = d + 1 + k and dim Id (Γ) = d + 2 + k.

(2)
+ 3k by hypothesis. Now, let Q1 ∈ Id (T ) with
Furthermore, we know that dim I2d (T ) = d+2
2
the additional property that one of its partial derivatives vanishes at p. Without loss of generality,
1
assume ∂Q
∂x1 (p) = 0. We can extend Q1 to a basis B = {Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qd+1+k } of Id (T ). Note that
∂Q

there must be at least one basis element Qj , j 6= 1, such that ∂x1j (p) 6= 0. Otherwise, we arrive at

a contradiction in regard to d-independence of T . By assumption, there exist d+2
+ 3k pairwise
2
2
2
e
products of elements of B forming a basis of I2d (T ). Let B denote this basis of I2d (T ). Furthermore,
extend B to a basis of Id (Γ) by adding a suitable form Q ∈ H3,d . Observe that Q(p) 6= 0 since Γ is
d-independent. We claim that there exist two forms Ql , Qm ∈ B such that the set
e ∪ {Ql Q, Qm Q, Q2 }
L=B

2 (Γ). Suppose that this set L is linearly dependent for any choice of Q , Q ∈ B.
forms a basis of I2d
m
l
Hence, we have
X
(m)
(l)
αij Qi Qj + αl,m Ql Q + αl,m Qm Q + αQ2 = 0
e
Qi Qj ∈B

(l)

(m)

for a nontrivial set of coefficients (αij , αl,m , αl,m , α). To simplify notation we use Pl,m to denote
the above linear combination. Clearly, we have Pl,m (p) = αQ2 (p). Since Q(p) 6= 0, it follows that
e vanish to order 2 at p, whereas the forms Ql Q and Qm Q
α = 0. We remark that the forms in B
vanish to order 1 at p. Therefore, by taking partial derivatives, we get
0=

∂Pl,m
(l) ∂Ql Q
(m) ∂Qm Q
(p) = αl,m
(p) + αl,m
(p)
∂xi
∂xi
∂xi

for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3. Assume that there exists i such that
(m)
αl,m = 0. On
∂Ql Q
∂xj (p) 6= 0.

∂Ql Q
∂xi (p)

= 0 and

∂Qm Q
∂xi (p)

6= 0. This implies

the other hand, since Ql Q only vanishes to order 1 at p, there exists j 6= i such that
(l)

This forces αl,m = 0. Since, we assumed that L is linearly dependent for all pairs
(Ql , Qm ) ∈ B, the just conducted reasoning shows that the following relation holds:
∂Ql Q
∂Qm Q
(p) = 0 ⇔
(p) = 0 for all
∂xi
∂xi

i, l, m

and, hence,
(3.1)

∂Qm
∂Ql
(p) = 0 ⇔
(p) = 0
∂xi
∂xi
11

for all

i, l, m.

Recall that the basis B was constructed in the way that

∂Q1
∂x1 (p)

= 0. Furthermore, as already
∂Q

remarked, due to d-independence of T , there has to exist j 6= 1 such that ∂x1j (p) 6= 0. Setting
l = 1, m = j and i = 1, this yields a contradiction to (3.1). Hence, there have to exist two forms

(2)
Ql , Qm ∈ B such that L is a linearly independent set. We have |L| = d+2
2 + 3(k + 1) = dim I2d (Γ).


It remains to consider the case d+1
+ 1 ≤ |Γ| ≤ d+1
+ (d − 2). It is routine to check that in this
2
2
case



 d+2
!
d
+
2
−
|Γ|
+
1
(2)
2
2
(Γ) =
dim I2d (Γ) − dim I2d
− 3|Γ| −
> 0.
2
2

From Theorem 1.6 we can immediately infer
Corollary

 1.7. Observe that the maximal size of a
d+2
d+1
2
d-independent set Γ ⊂ RP is equal to 2 − 3 = 2 + (d − 2). Hence, Theorem 1.6 covers all
d-independent sets concerning the occurence of dimensional differences.
4. The case (n, 2d) = (4, 4)
We now fully describe the situation with respect to Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ) for sets Γ in R4 with
|Γ| ≤ 6. In the following, we will work with affine representatives in R4 rather than projective
points in RP3 . Let Γ = {s1 , . . . , s6 } be a set of six points in R4 in general linear position so that
any 4 of them span R4 . We will show that Γ is 2-independent. In particular, this implies that the
conditions of vanishing at si ∈ Γ are linearly independent and therefore dim I1,2 (Γ) = 52 − 6 = 4.
It follows that the dimension of the vector space I42 (Γ) spanned by squares from Id (Γ) is at most
5
2 = 10. We will show that it is equal to 10.
On the other
 hand, the Alexander-Hirschowitz Theorem tells us that, generically, the dimension
of I2,4 (Γ) is 74 − 6 · 4 = 11. It is not hard to show that for 6 points in R4 in general linear position
this dimension count is actually correct. Therefore, we should have a gap of 1 dimension between
P4,4 (Γ) and Σ4,4 (Γ).
We now state the main result of this section, which is Theorem 1.8 from the Introduction.
Theorem 4.1. Let Γ ⊂ RP3 be a finite set in general linear position. Then the following hold:
(i) If |Γ| = 6, then
(2)
dim I42 (Γ) = 10 < 11 = dim I4 (Γ).
(ii) If |Γ| ≤ 5, then
(2)
dim I42 (Γ) = dim I4 (Γ).
The proof of the above theorem will require several preparatory results. We start with a special
construction for (i).
To every 3 element subset T = {t1 , t2 , t3 } of {1, . . . , 6}, we can associate the hyperplane LT
spanned by the vectors st1 , st2 and st3 .
We want to construct a double covering of s1 , . . . , s6 by 4 hyperplanes of the form LT with some
nice combinatorial properties. We select 4 triples Ti such that any two of them intersect in exactly
one element of {1, . . . , 6} and each element is contained in precisely two triples. Here is an example
of such a covering, which is not unique:
T1 = {1, 2, 3},

T2 = {1, 4, 5},

T3 = {2, 4, 6},

T4 = {3, 5, 6}.

To every such covering, we can associate the complementary covering, where we replace the triple
Ti with its complement T i . So, in the given example, T 1 = {4, 5, 6}, T 2 = {2, 3, 6}, T 3 = {1, 3, 5}
and T 4 = {1, 2, 4}. We observe that the complementary covering also shares the property that any
two triples intersect in exactly one point and that every point is contained in exactly two triples.
12

To each triple T , we associate the linear functional with kernel LT . We can think of this functional
as the inner product with the unit normal vector to LT , which is unique up to a sign. The choice
of sign will not make a difference to us. We let ui and vi be a unit normal vector to LTi and LT i ,
respectively.
The vectors ui and vi form a pair of bases of R4 . The key is to work with the dual configurations.
We define u∗i to be vectors such that

1 if i = j
∗
hui , uj i =
0 if i 6= j.

One way to think about u∗i is that if we form the matrix U with rows ui , then u∗i form the columns
of U −1 . We define vectors vi∗ in the same way for vi .
We will show that the four forms
Q1 (x) = hx, u1 ihx, v1 i,
Q3 (x) = hx, u3 ihx, v3 i,

Q2 (x) = hx, u2 ihx, v2 i,
Q4 (x) = hx, u4 ihx, v4 i

form a basis of I2 (Γ). This factoring basis will allow us to prove 2-independence of Γ, and pairwise
products Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 4 will form a basis of I42 (Γ).
The vectors ui and vi are not just two arbitrary sets of bases of R4 . Since they come from a
configuration of 6 points in general linear position, they carry some structure. The following simple
lemma will be crucial to our proofs.
Lemma 4.2. For all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 4 the following hold:
hui , vj∗ i 6= 0 and hvi , u∗j i 6= 0.
Proof. By symmetry, it suffices to prove only one of the two assertions. Again, by symmetry, it
will be enough to show that hu∗1 , v1 i 6= 0 and hu∗1 , v2 i 6= 0.
Suppose that hu∗1 , v1 i = 0. Then, it follows that v1 is in the span of u2 , u3 , u4 . Let
v1 = α2 u2 + α3 u3 + α4 u4 .
Now consider the inner product hv1 , s4 i. Recall that v1 came from the triple {4, 5, 6}, u2 from
{1, 4, 5}, u3 from {2, 4, 6} and u4 from {3, 5, 6}. It follows that
hv1 , s4 i = 0 = α4 hs4 , u4 i.
Being the points si in general linear position implies that hs4 , u4 i 6= 0 and, therefore, α4 = 0. By
considering inner products of v1 with s5 and s6 , we can also show that α2 = α3 = 0, which yields
a contradiction.
Similarly, if hu∗1 , v2 i = 0, then v2 is in the span of u2 , u3 , u4 . Let
v2 = α2 u2 + α3 u3 + α4 u4 .
Recall that v2 came from the triple {2, 3, 6}, u2 from {1, 4, 5}, u3 from {2, 4, 6} and u4 from {3, 5, 6}.
By an analogous argument as before, we can establish that α2 = 0 by taking inner products with s6 .
Then, we use the inner product with s2 to show that α4 = 0 and we will arrive at a contradiction. 
Lemma 4.3. The forms Qi , 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 form a basis of I2 (Γ). Furthermore, the pairwise products
Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 4 form a basis of I42 (Γ) and dim I42 (Γ) = 10.
Proof. It is not hard to show that I2 (Γ) has dimension 4. To show this claim, it suffices to prove
that the polynomials Qi are linearly independent. Consider the values of Qi at the points u∗i .
From the definition of the dual points u∗i and Lemma 4.2, it follows that Qi (u∗i ) = hu∗i , vi i =
6 0
and Qi (u∗j ) = 0 if i 6= j. Therefore, if P = α1 Q1 + α2 Q2 + α3 Q3 + α4 Q4 = 0 for αi ∈ R, then, by
considering P (u∗i ), we can see that αi = 0 for each i and, therefore, the Qi are linearly independent.
13

Now consider pairwise products Qi Qj for 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 4. These forms clearly belong to I42 (Γ),
and we need to show their linear independence. Of all the pairwise products only Q2i does not
vanish at u∗i . Therefore, the squares Q2i are linearly independent from all other pairwise products
and it remains to show linear independence of Qi Qj for 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 4.
By Lemma 4.2, only the products Qi Qj vanish at u∗i to order 1. If both indices are distinct from
i, then the product vanishes to order 2. Suppose that these products are linearly dependent, i. e.,
there exists a linear combination such that
X
αij Qi Qj = 0,
1≤i<j≤4

where not all αij are zero. Differentiating and subsequently evaluating this equation at u∗1 , we
obtain
X

α1j

1<j≤4

which is equivalent to

X

1<j≤4

∂Q1 Qj ∗
(u1 ) = 0,
∂xk

α1j

∂Qj ∗
(u ) = 0,
∂xk 1

1 ≤ k ≤ 4,

1 ≤ k ≤ 4.

This is a 4 × 3 system of linear equations in the variables α12 , α13 , α14 . Denote the corresponding
coefficient matrix by A. Assume that this system has a nontrivial solution, meaning that all 3 × 3
minors of A must vanish. Considering the cross product of the three vectors u2 , u3 , u4 ∈ R4 (see,
e. g., [14]), we can see that the entries of the cross product are exactly equal to an alternating 3 × 3
minor of A. Hence, we conclude that the cross product is the zero vector, implying that the three
vectors u2 , u3 , u4 are linearly dependent, which is a contradiction since u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 form a basis
of R4 . Hence, we conclude that α12 = α13 = α14 = 0. Analogously, by following this procedure
with u∗2 , u∗3 and u∗4 , we can infer that α23 = α24 = α34 = 0 and, hence, all pairwise products are
linearly independent. Since pairwise products Qi Qj span I42 (Γ) and are linearly independent, it
finally follows that dim I42 (Γ) = 10.

We are now ready to show 2-independence of Γ.
Proposition 4.4. Let Γ be a set of 6 points in R4 in general linear position. Then Γ is 2independent.
Proof. We first show that Γ forces no additional zeroes on quadratic forms. Recall that Qi =
hx, ui ihx, vi i and the forms Qi form a basis of I2 (Γ). It suffices to show that the forms Qi have no
common zeroes outside of Γ.
Let ZC (Qi ) denote the complex zero set of the forms Qi , 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 and let z be a nonzero point
in the intersection ∩4i=1 ZC (Qi ). First assume that z ∈ ∩4i=1 ZR (Qi ). It follows that, for each i, we
either have hz, ui i = 0 or hz, vi i = 0. Since ui and vi form a basis of R4 , the vector z cannot be
orthogonal to all four ui or vi . If hz, ui i = 0 for three indices i, which we may assume, without loss
6 0 and,
of generality, to be 1, 2 and 3, then it follows that z is a multiple of u∗4 . But then hz, u4 i =
from Lemma 4.2, we know that hz, v4 i 6= 0. Therefore, Q4 (z) 6= 0, which is a contradiction.
It thus must happen that z is orthogonal to at most two of the vectors ui and to two of the
vectors vi . Again, without loss of generality, we may assume that z is orthogonal to u1 , u2 , v3 and
v4 . Since u1 comes from the triple {1, 2, 3}, u2 comes from {1, 4, 5}, v3 comes from {1, 3, 5} and v4
comes from {1, 2, 4}, it follows that z lies in the intersection of the spans of {s1 , s2 , s3 }, {s1 , s4 , s5 },
{s1 , s3 , s5 } and {s1 , s2 , s4 }. Since the points si are in general linear position, we infer that s1 spans
this intersection. The other points si arise in the same manner from choosing different pairs of ui ’s
14

and vi ’s. If z is complex, then the same arguments as before applied to the real and imaginary part
of z imply the claim.
For the second condition of 2-independence, we need to show that for any si ∈ S there exists a
unique (up to a constant multiple) form in I2 (Γ) that is singular at si . Again, by symmetry, we only
need to prove this for s1 . By construction, s1 is orthogonal to u1 , u2 , v3 and v4 . Therefore, it follows
that ∇Q1 (s1 ) = hv1 , s1 iu1 , ∇Q2 (s1 ) = hv2 , s1 iu2 , ∇Q3 (s) = hu3 , s1 iv3 and ∇Q4 (s) = hu4 , s1 iv4 .
The coefficients of the vectors u1 , u2 , v3 and v4 are nonzero, and since the points si are in general
linear position, it follows that u1 ,u2 , v3 and v4 span the vector space s⊥
1 . Therefore, there is only
one (up to a constant multiple) linear combination of gradients of Qi that vanishes at s1 .

Note that from the above proofs, it follows that dim Σ4,4 (Γ) = 10. On the other hand, by the
Alexander-Hirschowitz Theorem we know that dim P4,4 (Γ) = 11. We have thus shown part (i) of
Theorem 4.1. In the remaining part of this section, we will provide the proof of Theorem 4.1 (ii).
Proposition 4.5. Let Γ ⊂ R4 be in general linear position with |Γ| ≤ 6. Then Γ is 2-independent.
Proof. For |Γ| = 6, the statement is already proven in Proposition 4.4. Let now |Γ| ≤ 5. It is easy
to see that the first condition of 2-independence is still satisfied whenever points are in general
linear position. Indeed, we already know that the forms Q1 , . . . , Q4 do not have any zeroes outside
of {s1 , . . . , s6 }. We define Q5 (x) = hx, u1 ihx, u2 i, which extends Q1 , . . . , Q4 to a basis of I2 (Γ).
Since the points are in general linear position, we have Q5 (s6 ) 6= 0. Hence, we see that the first
condition of 2-independence is satisfied for |Γ| = 5. If Γ is of smaller cardinality, we can always
e of cardinality 5 that is in general linear position. In the next step, one can
extend Γ to a set Γ
e to a basis of I2 (Γ). Using that those new polynomials do not
extend a basis Q1 , . . . , Q5 for I2 (Γ)
e and using that Γ
e satisfies the first condition of 2-independence, one can infer that
vanish at all of Γ
also Γ satisfies this condition.
It remains to verify the second condition of 2-independence. I. e., we need to show that the vector
space of quadratic forms vanishing at Γ and that are singular at exactly one point of Γ is of
dimension 7 − |Γ|. We proceed by induction on |Γ|. For |Γ| = 6, the claim follows from Proposition
e with |Γ|
e = 6 in general linear position. By induction, we
6.3. For |Γ| < 6, we extend Γ to a set Γ
know that the vector space of quadratic forms vanishing at Se and that are singular at one point
of Γ is of dimension 1. This already implies that the dimension of the vector space of quadratic
forms vanishing atly on Γ and that are singular at exactly one point of Γ is of dimension at most
e \ Γ|. Hence, it suffices to show that, when decreasing the number of points in Γ, we gain one
1 + |Γ
new linearly independent relation per point. We demonstrate this explicitly only for |Γ| = 5 since
P
all the other cases follow the same line of arguments. Let P = 5i=1 αi Qi be singular at s1 , where
P
αi ∈ R. Then ∇P (s1 ) = 4i=1 αi ∇Qi (s1 ). As in the proof of Proposition 4.4 (up to multiples),
there is only one possible solution of this equation. Moreover, Q5 is clearly double-vanishing at s1
and linearly independent of the former linear combination, which shows that the dimension of the
vector space of quadratic forms vanishing at s1 , . . . , s5 and being singular at s1 is 2. For s2 , . . . , s5 ,
the situation is a bit different since ∇Q5 (si ) 6= 0 for 2 ≤ i ≤ 5. If P is singular at s2 , then
∇P (s2 ) = (α1 hs2 , v1 i + α5 hs2 , u2 i)u1 + α2 hs2 , u2 iv2 + α3 hs2 , v3 iu3 + α4 hs2 , u4 iv4 .
The same arguments as before show that α1 hs2 , v1 i + α5 hs2 , u2 i, α2 , α3 , α4 are uniquely determined
(up to multiples). This gives one additional degree of freedom for choosing α1 and α5 . Hence,
again, the required dimension is 2. For the other cases, one proceeds in an analogous way.

We remark that for n = 4 the above proposition is stronger than the consequence of Proposition
1.5 since it explicitly classifies which generic point configurations in R4 are 2-independent.
Consider the following forms
Q5 = hx, u1 ihx, u2 i, Q6 = hx, u1 ihx, u3 i, Q7 = hx, u2 ihx, u4 i, Q8 = hx, u1 ihx, u4 i.
15

Finally, we can provide the proof of Theorem 4.1 (ii).
Proof of Theorem 4.1(ii). First, consider the case |Γ| = 5. Then, dim I2 (Γ) = 5 and the forms
Q1 , .. . , Q5 form a basis of I2 (Γ) (to see this, evaluate at u∗1 , . . . , u∗4 and s6 ). We claim that all
5+1
= 15 pairwise products Qi Qj , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 5 are linearly independent, which is the right
2
(2)

dimension count, since dim I4 (Γ) = 35 − 20 = 15. Again, by evaluating at the points u∗1 , . . . , u∗4
and s6 , we see that the pairwise products Q2i , 1 ≤ i ≤ 5 are linearly independent from the pairwise
products Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 5. Hence, it remains to prove linear independence of the latter
ones. For this aim, we use similar techniques as before. Suppose that those forms are linearly
dependent, i. e., there exists a linear combination
X
(4.1)
αij Qi Qj = 0,
1≤i<j≤5

where not all αij are zero. Consider the evaluation of (4.1) at the point u∗4 . The only forms that
vanish with order 1 at u∗4 are Q1 Q4 , Q2 Q4 and Q3 Q4 . The remaining ones vanish to higher order.
Hence, differentiating P and subsequently evaluating at u∗4 yields the following 4 × 3 system of
linear equations (note that Qi (u∗i ) 6= 0):

∂Q2 ∗
∂Q3 ∗
∂Q1 ∗
(u4 ) + α24
(u4 ) + α34
(u ) = 0, 1 ≤ k ≤ 4.
∂xk
∂xk
∂xk 4
By the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 4.3, we can conclude that α14 = α24 = α34 = 0.
Now evaluate (4.1) at u∗3 . This time, the forms Q1 Q3 , Q2 Q3 are the only pairwise products vanishing
with order 1. This yields a 4 × 2 system of linear equations, from which we infer α13 = α23 = 0
since, in this case, vanishing of all 2 × 2 minors implies linear dependence of u1 , u2 contradicting the
fact that u1 , . . . , u4 form a basis of R4 . Analogously, evaluating (4.1) at u∗1 yields α12 = α15 = 0 by
exactly the same arguments as before. So, we are left with the pairwise products Q2 Q5 , Q3 Q5 , Q4 Q5 .
These forms are clearly linearly independent since the forms Qi , 2 ≤ i ≤ 4 are linearly independent.
Hence, the claim follows.
Now, assume |Γ| < 5. In this case, note that there is always
an overcount in the pairwise

products. For example, in the case |Γ| = 4, there are 6+1
=
21 pairwise products. Since
2
α14

(2)

dim I4 (Γ) = 35 − 16 = 19, we need to prove that, out of these 21 pairwise products, there exist
19 pairwise products that are linearly independent. Since the proof uses exactly the same strategy
as in the case |Γ| = 5 and does not contain new arguments, in the next table, we only provide a
basis for I42 (Γ) for |Γ| < 5. For |Γ| = m, the forms Qi , 1 ≤ i ≤ 10 − m form a basis of I2 (Γ). We
set L = {Qi Qj |i ≤ j} and use B(Γ) ⊂ L to denote a basis of I42 (Γ).
(2)

|Γ| dim I42 (Γ) dim I4 (Γ)
B(Γ)
4
19
19
L \ {Q2 Q6 , Q3 Q5 }
3
23
23
L \ {Q1 Q7 , Q2 Q6 , Q3 Q5 , Q4 Q5 , Q5 Q6 }
2
27
27
L \ {Q1 Q7 , Q2 Q6 , Q2 Q8 , Q3 Q8 , Q4 Q6 , Q5 Q7 , Q6 Q7 , Q6 Q8 , Q7 Q8 }
(2)

Note that, for |Γ| = 1, we always have dim I42 (Γ) = dim I4 (Γ), and, hence, the proof is finished.

From Theorem 4.1 we can immediately infer Corollary 1.9.
5. Explicit characterization of 1-dimensional differences
The aim of this section is to explicitly characterize a dimensional difference between Pn,2d (Γ)
and Σn,2d (Γ) for (n, 2d) = (4, 4) and (n, 2d) = (3, 6). By Theorems 1.8 and 1.6, the first time
16

those differences occur is exactly for |Γ| = 6, respectively, |Γ| = 7, and it follows by dimension
counting that the dimensional difference in these cases is exactly one. Hence, constructing forms in
(2)
2 (Γ) already yields a complete characterization of the occuring dimensional differences
I2d (Γ) \ I2d
in the two smallest cases, in which nonnegative forms that are not sums of squares exist.
5.1. The case (n, 2d) = (4, 4). In order to describe the dimensional difference, we need to construct
(2)
a form R of degree 4 such that R ∈ I4 (Γ) \ I42 (Γ).
Proposition 5.1. Let Γ ⊂ R4 be in general linear position with |Γ| = 6. Set R = hx, u1 ihx, u2 ihx, u3 ihx, u4 i.
(2)
Then R ∈ I4 (Γ) \ I42 (Γ).
Proof. We know that products Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 4 form a basis of I42 (Γ). We observe that
R(u∗i ) = 0 for all i, and the only form from the spanning set that does not vanish at u∗i is Q2i .
Therefore, if we assume that R is spanned by Qi Qj , then R needs to be spanned by products Qi Qj
with i 6= j.
Now consider R(vk∗ ). By Lemma 4.2, we know that R(vk∗ ) 6= 0. However, Qi Qj (vk∗ ) = 0 since
hvi∗ , vk i = 0 for i 6= k. Therefore, we arrive at a contradiction.

Corollary 5.2. Let Γ ⊂ R4 be in general linear position with |Γ| = 6. There exists p ∈ P4,4 (Γ) \
Σ4,4 (Γ) with Γ ⊂ Z(p). These forms can be constructed via Q21 + Q22 + Q23 + Q24 + εR for sufficiently
small ε > 0.
We now provide an explicit example for a form as described in the above corollary.
Example 1. Let s1 = (0, 0, 1, 1), s2 = (0, 1, 0, 1), s3 = (0, 1, 1, 0), s4 = (1, 0, 0, 1), s5 = (1, 0, 1, 0)
and s6 = (1, 1, 0, 0) and Γ = {s1 , . . . , s6 }. The following polynomials form a basis of I2 (Γ).
Q1 (x) = x1 (x1 − x2 − x3 − x4 ),

Q2 (x) = x2 (x2 − x1 − x3 − x4 ),

Q3 (x) = x3 (x3 − x1 − x2 − x4 ),

Q4 (x) = x4 (x4 − x1 − x2 − x3 )

The form R = hx, u1 ihx, u2 ihx, u3 ihx, u4 i from Proposition 5.1 becomes
R = hx, e1 ihx, e2 ihx, e3 ihx, e4 i = x1 x2 x3 x4 .
One can verify that

Q21

+

Q22

+ Q23 + Q24 + R ∈ P4,4 (Γ) \ Σ4,4 (Γ).

5.2. The case (n, 2d) = (3, 6). We consider the case (n, 2d) = (3, 6) and Γ ⊂ R3 with |Γ| = 7.
Compared to the case (n, 2d) = (4, 4) from the previous section, the situation becomes more
involved. Let Γ = {s1 , . . . , s7 }. Let u1 , u2 , u3 be the normal vectors to the hyperplanes passing
through s1 , s2 , respectively, s3 , s4 , respectively, s5 , s6 . Note that, generically, u1 , u2 , u3 are a basis
of R3 . Let u∗1 , u∗2 , u∗3 be the dual basis to u1 , u2 , u3 . Furthermore, we define K1 , K2 , K3 to be the
conics passing through the points si with i ∈ {3, 4, 5, 6, 7}, respectively i ∈ {1, 2, 5, 6, 7}, respectively
i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 7}. Generically, we can assume that Ki (u∗j ) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ i 6= j ≤ 3.
Lemma 5.3. Let Q1 (x) = hx, u1 iK1 , Q2 (x) = hx, u2 iK2 and Q3 (x) = hx, u1 iK3 .
Then {Q1 (x), Q2 (x), Q3 (x)} is a basis of I3 (Γ).
Proof. Assume that Q1 (x), Q2 (x) and Q3 (x) are linearly dependent, i. e., there exist (α1 , α2 , α3 ) ∈
R3 \ {(0, 0, 0)} such that
(5.1)

0 = α1 Q1 (x) + α2 Q2 (x) + α3 Q3 (x).
u∗i

Evaluating (5.1) at
and using that hu∗i , uj i = 0, for i 6= j, and Ki (u∗j ) 6= 0, for all 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 3,
we infer (α1 , α2 , α3 ) = (0, 0, 0).

(2)

We now construct an explicit form R ∈ I6 (Γ) \ I62 (Γ).
17

Proposition 5.4. Let R = Khx, u1 ihx, u2 ihx, u3 i, where K is the unique cubic double vanishing
at the point s7 and vanishing at s1 , . . . , s6 with multiplicity 1 such that K(u∗i ) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.
(2)
Then R ∈ I6 (Γ) \ I62 (Γ).
(2)

Proof. By construction, it is clear that R ∈ I6 (Γ). We have to prove that R together with
all pairwise products Qi Qj , 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 3 form a linearly independent set of polynomials.
SupposePthese forms were linearly dependent, i. e., there exists a nontrivial linear combination
αR R + 1≤i≤j≤3 αij Qi Qj = 0. By evaluating this relation at u∗i , we get αii = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.
Hence, the squares are linearly independent from the pairwise products Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 3
and it remains to prove linear independence of the forms Qi Qj with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 3. Suppose that
these forms are linearly dependent. The forms Q1 Q2 and Q1 Q3 vanish to order 1 at u∗1 , whereas
the forms Q2 Q3 and R vanish to order 2. Hence, by taking the partial derivatives and subsequently
evaluating them at u∗1 , we get for k ∈ {2, 3}


∂Q1 Qk ∗
∂Q1
∂Qk
∂Qk ∗
α1k
(u1 ) = α1k
· Qk + Q1 ·
(u ) = 0 , 1 ≤ j ≤ 3
(u∗1 ) = α1k Q1 (u∗1 ) ·
∂xj
∂xj
∂xj
∂xj 1
and hereby the following 3 × 2 system of linear equations:
∂Q2 ∗
∂Q3 ∗
α12 Q1 (u∗1 ) ·
(u1 ) + α13 Q1 (u∗1 ) ·
(u ) = 0 ,
∂xj
∂xj 1

1 ≤ j ≤ 3.

Suppose that this system has a nontrivial solution. This is the case if and only if the rank of the
corresponding coefficient matrix is one. Hence, all 2 × 2 minors must vanish. One can check (by
taking the partial derivatives and considering Ki (u∗j ) 6= 0) that the rank is one if and only if the
cross product of the two vectors u2 and u3 is zero, impliyng that u2 and u3 are linearly dependent.
But this is a contradiction since u1 , u2 and u3 form a basis of R3 . Hence, the above system can only
have the trivial solution α12 = α13 = 0, and we are now left with the equation α23 Q2 Q3 + αR R = 0.
However, since the form Q2 Q3 vanishes to order 1 at u∗2 and the form R with order 2 at u∗2 , we get
α23 = 0 by taking the partial derivatives and, hence, αR = 0, which finishes the proof.

Corollary 5.5. Let Γ ⊂ R3 be 3-independent and |Γ| = 7. Under the assumptions of the previous
lemma there exists p ∈ P3,6 (Γ) \ Σ3,6 (Γ) with Γ ⊂ Z(p). These forms can be constructed via
Q21 + Q22 + Q23 + εR for sufficiently small ε > 0.
Example 2. Note that the condition Ki (u∗j ) 6= 0 is essential. Let Γ = {s1 , . . . , s7 } with
s1 = (1, 0, 0), s2 = (0, 1, 0), s3 = (0, 0, 1), s4 = (1, 1, 0), s5 = (1, 0, 1), s6 = (0, 1, 1), s7 = (1, 1, 1).


It can be checked that this set of points is 3-independent. However, one can verify that u∗3 = 21 , 12 , 0
and hence it represents the same projective point as s4 . In particular, we always have K1 (u∗3 ) = 0
by construction. However, we can perturb the point s4 to s˜4 = (1, −2, 2). The new set of points
remains 3-independent, and we have Ki (u∗j ) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 3. The three basis polynomials are
then given by
Q1 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (3x1 x2 − x1 x3 − 2x2 x3 )(−x3 + x2 + x1 ),
Q2 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (x2 − x3 )(x1 − x3 )(2x1 + x2 ),
Q3 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = x3 (8x21 + x22 − 8x1 x3 − x2 x3 ).
Furthermore, we have
R = −x3 (2x1 + x2 )2 (x1 + x2 − x3 )(x2 − x3 )(−x3 + x1 ).
One can check that
Q21 + Q22 + Q23 + R ∈ P3,6 (Γ) \ Σ3,6 (Γ).
18

6. General (naive) bounds for dimensional differences between Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ)
We now want to derive some naive dimension counts for the dimensions of Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ),
which help to understand when, theoretically, dimensional gaps between these faces can occur.
Moreover, these counts yield some a priori bounds on the minimal size of Γ such that dimensional
gaps between these faces can be observed. A first step in this direction is the following lemma.

Lemma 6.1. Let Γ be a d-independent set of k points in RPn−1 . Then dim Pn,2d (Γ) ≥ n+2d−1
−kn
2d
n+d−1

−k+1
(
)
d
and dim Σ
(Γ) ≤
.
n,2d

2


(2)
− kn since we are imposing at most kn linearly
Proof. The dimension of I2d (Γ) is at least n+2d−1
2d
independent conditions by forcing forms to double vanish at all points of Γ. From Proposition
(2)
1.3 we know that Pn,2d (Γ) is full-dimensional in I2d (Γ) and, thus, the bound for the dimension of
Pn,2d (Γ) follows.

Since Γ
we know that the dimension of Id (Γ) is n+d−1
− k. We can have
d
 is d-independent,

at most

dim Id (Γ)+1
2

linearly independent pairwise products coming from Id (Γ) and, therefore,
 n+d−1

( d )−k+1 . Since the containment Σ
2 (Γ) is at most
2
the dimension of I2d
n,2d (Γ) ⊂ I2d (Γ) is
2
full-dimensional by Proposition 1.1, the bound for Σn,2d (Γ) follows.

For a d-independent set Γ of size k let Gn,2d (k) be the size of the minimal gap between the
dimensions of Pn,2d (Γ) and Σn,2d (Γ) which by Lemma 6.1 is given by:
!


n+d−1
n + 2d − 1
−
k
+
1
d
(6.1)
Gn,2d (k) =
− kn −
.
2d
2

From Section 2.2 we know that there exist d-independent sets of any cardinality k ≤ n+d−1
− n.
d
We want to determine the smallest positive integer k for which Gn,2d (k) > 0, and we want to find
the maximum of Gn,2d (k).

−n. Its value and the largest
Proposition 6.2. The function Gn,2d (k) is maximized at k = n+d−1
d
gap are



  
n + 2d − 1
n+d−1
n
(6.2)
−n
+
.
2d
d
2

The smallest value of k such that Gn,2d (k) > 0 is the smallest integer strictly greater than:
s







1 2
n + 2d − 1
n+d−1
n+d−1
1
n−
+2
− 2n
.
(6.3)
−n+ −
2
2
2d
d
d

Proof. We observe that Gn,d (k) is a quadratic function of k witha negativeleading coefficient. It
n+d−1
1
is easy to show that Gn,d (k) attains its maximum value at k =
− n + . Therefore,
2
d 
n+d−1
the maximum value of Gn,2d (k) for an integer k will occur with k =
− n and it is a matter
d
of easy simplification to obtain equation (6.2).
The bound in equation (6.3) comes from simply calculating the smallest root of Gn,2d (k). We
skip the routine application of the quadratic formula.

We make several remarks. First we observe that the largest gap number from Proposition 6.2



  
n + 2d − 1
n+d−1
n
−n
+
2d
d
2
19

is zero in all cases, where the cones Pn,2d and Σn,2d coincide. However, this number is strictly
positive in the cases, where there are nonnegative forms that are not sums of squares. In the
smallest cases n = 4, 2d = 4 and n = 3, 2d = 6, in which Pn,2d is strictly larger than Σn,2d , the gap
number is 1.
However, as either n or d grows, we can see that the dimensional gap between exposed faces
of Pn,2d and Σn,2d grows and, asymptotically, it approaches the full dimension of the vector space
Pn,2d .
We note that the
 bound from Equation 6.3 simplifies remarkably for n = 3. In this case, we get
the bound of d+2
− d − 1, and we need to take the smallest integer above that, which leads to
2




d+2
d+1
k=
−d=
+ 1.
2
2

This is actually the correct bound for the case of n = 3 as we proved in Theorem 1.6.
Though, in general, for n ≥ 4 the formula does not appear to simplify and the bound given is not
going to be optimal, Theorem 4.1 implies optimality of the naive dimension count also in the case
(n, 2d) = (4, 4). The non-optimality in the general case is caused by an overcount in the bound for
2 (Γ).
the dimension of the vector space I2d

n+d−1
We note that for k =
− n, which leads to the largest gap, the bound on the dimension of
d
2 (Γ) is also optimal, generically. We can see this from the example of the d-independent set S
I2d
n,d
from Section 2.2, which has exactly this cardinality. Indeed, for Sn,d , it is not hard to show that
all pairwise products of the forms Qi , which form the basis
 of Id (Sn,d ), are linearly independent in
n+1
2 (S
)
is
Hn,2d . This shows that the dimension of I2d
n,d
2 , which is exactly equal to the bound we
use.
Question 6.1. From the above discussion it is natural to ask the following questions.
(i) In addition to the known cases ((n, 2d) ∈ {(3, 2d), (4, 4)}), are there other cases, in which the
naive bound from Proposition 6.2 for the smallest cardinality of a set Γ forcing a dimensional
gap between the corresponding faces is correct?
(ii) Given n, d, is it possible to characterize the set of integers S such that dim Pn,2d (Γ) >
dim Σn,2d (Γ) if and only if |Γ| ∈ S?
(iii) Can the naive bounds from Proposition 6.2 be further improved?
(iv) Is it possible to characterize more cases for which dim Pn,2d (Γ) − dim Σn,2d (Γ) = 1?
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Aldo Conca for his explanations concerning symbolic powers of ideals.
References
[1] E. Ballico and A.V. Geramita. The minimal free resolution of the ideal of s general points in P3 . In Proceedings
of the 1984 Vancouver conference in algebraic geometry, volume 6 of CMS Conf. Proc., pages 1–10, Providence,
RI, 1986. Amer. Math. Soc.
[2] A. Barvinok. A course in convexity, volume 54 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical
Society, Providence, RI, 2002.
[3] G. Blekherman. Nonnegative polynomials and sums of squares. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 25(3):617–635, 2012.
[4] G. Blekherman. Positive Gorenstein Ideals. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3775, 2012.
[5] G. Blekherman, J. Hauenstein, J.C. Ottem, K. Ranestad, and B. Sturmfels. Algebraic boundaries of Hilbert’s
SOS cones. Compos. Math., 148(6):1717–1735, 2012.
[6] G. Blekherman, P.A. Parrilo, and R.R. Thomas. Semidefinite Optimization and Convex Algebraic Geometry, volume 13 of MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization. SIAM and the Mathematical Optimization Society, Philadelphia,
2013.
20

[7] L. Blum, F. Cucker, M. Shub, and S. Smale. Complexity and real computation. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
With a foreword by Richard M. Karp.
[8] D. Eisenbud. Commutative algebra, volume 150 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995. With a view toward algebraic geometry.
[9] J. Harris. Algebraic Geometry: A First Course, volume 133 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Philadelphia, 1992.
[10] B. Hassett. Introduction to algebraic geometry. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
[11] D. Hilbert. Ueber die Darstellung definiter Formen als Summe von Formenquadraten. Math. Ann., 32(3):342–
350, 1888.
[12] M. Laurent. Sums of squares, moment matrices and optimization over polynomials. In Emerging applications of
algebraic geometry, volume 149 of IMA Vol. Math. Appl., pages 157–270. Springer, New York, 2009.
[13] A. Lorenzini. Betti numbers of points in projective space. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 63(2):181–193, 1990.
[14] W. S. Massey. Cross products of vectors in higher-dimensional Euclidean spaces. Amer. Math. Monthly,
90(10):697–701, 1983.
[15] R. Miranda. Linear systems of plane curves. Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 46(2):192–201, 1999.
[16] P.A. Parrilo. Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems. Math. Program., 96(2, Ser.
B):293–320, 2003. Algebraic and geometric methods in discrete optimization.
[17] B. Reznick. Sums of even powers of real linear forms. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 96(463):viii+155, 1992.
[18] B. Reznick. Some concrete aspects of Hilbert’s 17th Problem. In Real algebraic geometry and ordered structures
(Baton Rouge, LA, 1996), volume 253 of Contemp. Math., pages 251–272. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
2000.
[19] B. Reznick. On Hilbert’s construction of positive polynomials. http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2156, 2007.
[20] C.H. Walter. The minimal free resolution of the homogeneous ideal of s general points in P4 . Math. Z., 219(2):231–
234, 1995.
Georgia Inst. of Technology, Atlanta, USA
E-mail address: greg@math.gatech.edu
Goethe-Universität, FB 12 – Institut für Mathematik, Postfach 11 19 32, D-60054 Frankfurt am
Main, Germany
E-mail address: {iliman,kubitzke}@math.uni-frankfurt.de

21

