46 views

Uploaded by Ganesh

save

- (ebook - pdf) - ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
- Neutrosophic Soft Modules
- Mathematics FYUP Syllabus Delhi University
- ring_theory.pdf
- Smarandache Rings, by W.B.Vasantha Kandasamy
- Scientia Magna, Vol. 9, No. 3
- 11
- (Adams) Localizatoins and Completions
- (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1837) Simon Tavaré, Ofer Zeitouni (Auth.), Jean Picard (Eds.)-Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics_ Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXI - 2001-Spring

You are on page 1of 40

**Summer School and Conference Mathematics, Algorithms and Proofs
**

Gert-Martin Greuel

11 - 29 August 2008

Universitaet Kaiserslautern and Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, Germany

Algorithms and Algebraic Geometry

Algorithms and Algebraic Geometry

Gert-Martin Greuel

Universit¨ at Kaiserslautern

and

Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach

May 31, 2008

Contents

1 Gr¨ obner Basics 3

1.1 Rings and Ring Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 Monomial Orderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 Ideal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 Normal Forms and Gr¨ obner Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.5 Gr¨ obner Basis Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 Constructive Ideal and Module Theory 13

2.1 Operations on Ideals and their Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.1 Ideal Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.2 Intersection with Subrings (Elimination of variables) . . . 13

2.2 Gr¨ obner Bases for Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3 Exact Sequences and free Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4 Computing Resolutions and the Syzygy Theorem . . . . . . . . . 16

2.5 Operations on Modules and their Computation . . . . . . . . . . 17

3 Constructive Normalization of Aﬃne Rings 19

3.1 Integral Closure of Rings and Ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Key-Lemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3 A Criterion for Normality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.4 Test Ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.5 Algorithm to Compute the Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.6 Algorithm to Compute the Non-Normal Locus . . . . . . . . . . 23

4 Computation in Local Rings 25

4.1 What is meant by “local” computations ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2 An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.3 Computational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.4 Rings Associated to Monomial Orderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.5 Local Monomial Orderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.6 Rings Associated to Mixed Orderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.7 Leading Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.8 Division with Remainder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.9 Normal Forms and Standard Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.10 Weak Normal Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.11 The Weak Normal Form Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.12 Standard Basis Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5 Singularities 33

5.1 Factorization, Primary Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.2 Singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5.3 Milnor and Tjurina Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.4 Local Versus Global Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.5 Using Milnor and Tjurina Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.6 Application to Projective Singular Plane Curves . . . . . . . . . 36

5.7 Computing the Genus of a Projective Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2

1 Gr¨obner Basics

1.1 Rings and Ring Maps

Deﬁnition 1.1.1. Let A be a ring, always commutative with 1.

(1) A monomial in n variables (or indeterminates) x

1

, . . . , x

n

is a power product

x

α

= x

α1

1

. . . x

αn

n

, α = (α

1

, . . . , α

n

) ∈ N

n

.

The set of monomials in n variables is denoted by

Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

) = Mon

n

:= ¦x

α

[ α ∈ N

n

¦ .

Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

) is a semigroup under multiplication, with

neutral element 1 = x

0

1

. . . x

0

n

.

x

α

[ x

β

(x

α

divides x

β

) ⇐⇒ α

i

≤ β

i

for all i.

(2) A term is a monomial times a coeﬃcient (an element of A),

ax

α

= ax

α1

1

. . . x

αn

n

, a ∈ A.

(3) A polynomial over A is a ﬁnite sum of terms,

f =

¸

α

a

α

x

α

=

ﬁnite

¸

α∈N

n

a

α1...αn

x

α1

1

. . . x

αn

n

,

with a

α

∈ A. For α ∈ N

n

, let [α[ := α

1

+ +α

n

.

deg(f) := max¦[α[ [ a

α

= 0¦ is called the degree of f if f = 0;

deg(f) = −1 for f = 0.

(4) The polynomial ring A[x] = A[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] in n variables over A is the

set of all polynomials together with the usual addition and multiplication:

¸

α

a

α

x

α

+

¸

α

b

α

x

α

:=

¸

α

(a

α

+b

α

)x

α

,

¸

α

a

α

x

α

⎛

⎝

¸

β

b

β

x

β

⎞

⎠

:=

¸

γ

⎛

⎝

¸

α+β=γ

a

α

b

β

⎞

⎠

x

γ

.

Deﬁnition 1.1.2. A morphism of rings is a map ϕ : A →B satisfying

ϕ(a +a

) = ϕ(a) +ϕ(a

), ϕ(aa

) = ϕ(a)ϕ(a

), for all a, a

∈ A, and ϕ(1) = 1.

We call a morphism of rings also a ring map, and B is called an A–algebra.

Lemma 1.1.3. Let A[x

1

, . . . x

n

] be a polynomial ring, ψ : A →B a ring map,

C a B–algebra, and f

1

, . . . , f

n

∈ C (e.g. B = A and ψ = id). Then there exists

a unique ring map

ϕ : A[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] −→C

satisfying ϕ(x

i

) = f

i

for i = 1, . . . , n and ϕ(a) = ψ(a) 1 ∈ C for a ∈ A.

In Singular one can deﬁne polynomial rings over the following ﬁelds:

3

(1) the ﬁeld of rational numbers Q,

(2) ﬁnite ﬁelds F

p

, p a prime number < 2

31

,

(3) ﬁnite ﬁelds GF(p

n

) with p

n

elements, p a prime, p

n

≤ 2

15

,

(4) transcendental extensions of K ∈ ¦Q, F

p

¦, K(a

1

, . . . , a

n

),

(5) simple algebraic extensions of K ∈ ¦Q, F

p

¦, K[a]/minpoly,

(6) arbitrary precision real ﬂoating point numbers,

(7) arbitrary precision complex ﬂoating point numbers.

1.2 Monomial Orderings

Monomial orderings are necessary for constructive ideal and module theory.

Deﬁnition 1.2.1. A monomial ordering or semigroup ordering is a total

(or linear) ordering > on Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

) satisfying

x

α

> x

β

=⇒ x

γ

x

α

> x

γ

x

β

for all α, β, γ ∈ N

n

. We say also > is a monomial ordering on A[x

1

, . . . , x

n

].

A monomial ordering is a total ordering on N

n

, which is compatible with the

semigroup structure on N

n

given by addition.

Example 1.2.2. The lexicographical ordering on N

n

:

x

α

> x

β

if and only if the ﬁrst non–zero entry of α −β is positive.

Deﬁnition 1.2.3. Let > be a ﬁxed monomial ordering. Write f ∈ A[x], f = 0,

in a unique way as a sum of non–zero terms

f = a

α

x

α

+a

β

x

β

+ +a

γ

x

γ

, x

α

> x

β

> > x

γ

,

and a

α

, a

β

, . . . , a

γ

∈ K. We deﬁne:

(1) LM(f) := leadmonom(f):=x

α

, the leading monomial of f,

(2) LE(f) := leadexp(f):= α, the leading exponent of f,

(3) LT(f) := lead(f):= a

α

x

α

, the leading term or head of f,

(4) LC(f) := leadcoef(f):=a

α

, the leading coeﬃcient of f,

(5) tail(f) := f− lead(f)= a

β

x

β

+ +a

γ

x

γ

, the tail of f.

The most important distinction is between global and local orderings.

Deﬁnition 1.2.4. Let > be a monomial ordering on ¦x

α

[ α ∈ N

n

¦.

(1) > is called a global ordering if x

α

> 1 for all α = (0, . . . , 0),

(2) > is called a local ordering if x

α

< 1 for all α = (0, . . . , 0),

(3) > is called a mixed ordering if it is neither global nor local.

4

Local and global (and mixed) orderings have quite diﬀerent properties.

Lemma 1.2.5. Let > be a monomial ordering, then the following conditions

are equivalent:

(1) > is a well–ordering.

(2) x

i

> 1 for i = 1, . . . , n.

(3) x

α

> 1 for all α = (0, . . . , 0), that is, > is global.

(4) α ≥

nat

β and α = β implies x

α

> x

β

.

The last condition means that > is a reﬁnement of the natural partial order-

ing on N

n

deﬁned by

(α

1

, . . . , α

n

) ≥

nat

(β

1

, . . . , β

n

) :⇐⇒ α

i

≥ β

i

for all i .

For the proof (which we leave as an exercise) one needs

Lemma 1.2.6 (Dickson‘s Lemma). Let M ⊂ N

n

be any subset. Then there is

a ﬁnite set B ⊂ M satisfying

∀ α ∈ M ∃ β ∈ B such that β ≤

nat

α.

B is sometimes called a Dickson basis of M.

Proof. We write ≥ instead of ≥

nat

and use induction on n. For n = 1 we can

take the minimum of M as the only element of B.

For n > 1 and i ∈ N deﬁne

M

i

= ¦α

= (α

1

, . . . , α

n−1

) ∈ N

n−1

[ (α

, i) ∈ M¦

and, by induction, M

i

has a Dickson basis B

i

.

Again, by induction hypothesis,

¸

i∈N

B

i

has a Dickson basis B

. B

is ﬁnite,

hence B

⊂ B

1

∪ ∪ B

s

for some s.

We claim that

B := ¦(β

, i) ∈ N

n

[ 0 ≤ i ≤ s, β

∈ B

i

¦

is a Dickson basis of M.

To see this, let (α

, α

n

) ∈ M. Then α

∈ M

αn

and, since B

αn

is a Dickson

basis of M

αn

, there is a β

∈ B

αn

with β

≤ α

. If α

n

≤ s, then (β

, α

n

) ∈ B

and (β

, α

n

) ≤ (α

, α

n

). If α

n

> s, we can ﬁnd a γ

∈ B

**and an i ≤ s such that
**

γ

≤ β

and (γ

, i) ∈ B

i

. Then (γ

, i) ∈ B and (γ

, i) ≤ (α

, α

n

).

Example 1.2.7 (the ﬁrst two are global, the third is local).

(1) lp : x

α

> x

β

⇔∃i : α

1

= β

1

, . . . , α

i−1

= β

i−1

, α

i

> β

i

,

lexicographical ordering (lex)

(2) dp : x

α

> x

β

⇔ [α[ > [β[ or [α[ = [β[ and ∃i : α

i

< β

i

, α

i+1

=

β

i+1

, . . . , α

n

=β

n

,

degree reverse lexicographical ordering (degrevlex).

(3) ds : x

α

> x

β

⇔ [α[ < [β[ or [α[ = [β[ and ∃i : α

i

< β

i

, α

i+1

=

β

i+1

, . . . , α

n

=β

n

,

negative degree reverse lexicographical ordering.

(mixed orderings will be considered later)

5

1.3 Ideal Operations

Ideals are in the centre of commutative algebra and algebraic geometry.

Let A be a ring, as always, commutative and with 1.

Deﬁnition 1.3.1.

(1) A subset I ⊂ A is called an ideal if it is an additive subgroup which is

closed under scalar multiplication.

(2) A family (f

λ

)

λ∈Λ

, Λ any index set, and f

λ

∈ I, is called a system of

generators of I if every element f ∈ I can be expressed as a ﬁnite sum

f =

¸

λ

a

λ

f

λ

for suitable a

λ

∈ A. If Λ is ﬁnite, say Λ = ¦1, . . . , k¦, we say

that I is ﬁnitely generated and we write

I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`

A

= 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` .

(3) If G ⊂ A[x] = A[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] is any set we denote by

• L(G) = 'LT(g) [ g ∈ G`

A[x]

, the leading term ideal of G,

• LM(G) = 'LM(g) [ g ∈ G`

A[x]

, the leading monomial ideal of G,

For A = K a ﬁeld, L(G) = LM(G), and we have for λ ∈ K ` ¦0¦

λx

α

∈ L(G) ⇐⇒ x

α

∈ L(G) ⇐⇒ ∃ g ∈ G : LM(g) [ x

α

.

Often ideals are not given by generators.

If ϕ : A →B is a ring homomorphism and J ⊂ B an ideal, then the preimage

ϕ

−1

(J) = ¦a ∈ A [ ϕ(a) ∈ J¦

is an ideal. In particular, the kernel

Ker ϕ = ¦a ∈ A [ ϕ(a) = 0¦

is an ideal in A. On the other hand, the image

Im ϕ = ϕ(I) = ¦ϕ(a) [ a ∈ I¦

is, in general, only an ideal if ϕ is surjective.

Note 1.3.2. Preimages (hence kernels) can be eﬀectively computed (i.e. a gen-

erating set can be computed) which is, however, not easy. Images are generated

by the images of the generators (for surjective ϕ), hence the computation is

trivial.

Deﬁnition 1.3.3. A ring A is called Noetherian if every ideal in A is ﬁnitely

generated.

Theorem 1.3.4 (Hilbert Basis Theorem). If A is a Noetherian ring then the

polynomial ring A[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] is Noetherian. In particular, if K is a ﬁeld, then

K[x

1

. . . , x

n

] is Noetherian.

For the proof of the Hilbert basis theorem we use

6

Proposition 1.3.5. The following properties of a ring A are equivalent:

(1) A is Noetherian.

(2) Every ascending chain of ideals

I

1

⊂ I

2

⊂ I

3

⊂ . . . ⊂ I

k

⊂ . . .

becomes stationary (that is, there exists some j

0

such that I

j

= I

j0

for all

j ≥ j

0

).

(3) Every non–empty set of ideals in A has a maximal element (with regard

to inclusion).

Condition (2) is called the ascending chain condition and (3) the maximality

condition. We leave the proof of this proposition as an exercise.

Proof of Theorem 1.3.4. We need to show the theorem only for n = 1, the

general case follows by induction.

We argue by contradiction. Let us assume that there exists an ideal I ⊂ A[x]

which is not ﬁnitely generated. Choose polynomials

f

1

∈ I, f

2

∈ I 'f

1

`, . . . , f

k+1

∈ I 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`, . . .

of minimal possible degree. If d

i

= deg(f

i

),

f

i

= a

i

x

di

+ lower terms in x,

then d

1

≤ d

2

≤ . . . and 'a

1

` ⊂ 'a

1

, a

2

` ⊂ . . . is an ascending chain of ideals

in A. By assumption it is stationary, that is, 'a

1

, . . . , a

k

` = 'a

1

, . . . , a

k+1

` for

some k, hence, a

k+1

=

¸

k

i=1

b

i

a

i

for suitable b

i

∈ A. Consider the polynomial

g = f

k+1

−

k

¸

i=1

b

i

x

d

k+1

−di

f

i

= a

k+1

x

d

k+1

−

k

¸

i=1

b

i

a

i

x

d

k+1

+ lower terms .

Since f

k+1

∈ I 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`, it follows that g ∈ I 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` is a polynomial

of degree smaller than d

k+1

, a contradiction to the choice of f

k+1

.

Deﬁnition 1.3.6. For ideals I, J ⊂ A we deﬁne:

(1) The ideal quotient of I by J is deﬁned as

I : J :=

¸

a ∈ A

aJ ⊂ I

¸

.

The saturation of I with respect to J is

I : J

∞

=

¸

a ∈ A

∃ n such that aJ

n

⊂ I

¸

.

(2) The radical of I, denoted by

√

I or rad(I) is the ideal

√

I =

¸

a ∈ A

∃ d ∈ N such that a

d

∈ I

¸

,

I is called reduced or a radical ideal if I =

√

I.

7

(3) a ∈ A is called nilpotent if a

n

= 0 for some n ∈ N; the minimal n is

called index of nilpotency. The set of nilpotent elements of A is equal

to

**'0` and called the nilradical of A.
**

(4) '0` : J = Ann

A

(J) is the annihilator of J and, hence, '0` : 'f` = '0` if

and only if f is a non–zerodivisor of A.

Note 1.3.7. (Generators of) Ideal quotient, saturation, radical can be eﬀectively

computed.

Singular commands:

quotient(I,J); (command in the Singular kernel)

sat(I,J); (procedure in elmi.lib)

radical(I); (procedure in primdec.lib)

1.4 Normal Forms and Gr¨ obner Bases

Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering on Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

), K a ﬁeld and

let

R = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

Deﬁnition 1.4.1. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal. A ﬁnite set G ⊂ R is called a

Gr¨ obner basis or standard basis of I if

G ⊂ I, and L(I) = L(G) .

Hence G ⊂ I is a Gr¨ obner basis, if for any f ∈ I ¦0¦ there exists a g ∈ G

satisfying LM(g) [ LM(f). We say G is a Gr¨ obner (standard) basis if it is a

Gr¨ obner (standard) basis of 'G`

R

.

Existence of a Gr¨ obner basis (non-constructive):

Choose a ﬁnite set of generators m

1

, . . . , m

s

of L(I) ⊂ K[x], which exists, since

K[x] is Noetherian. These generators are leading monomials of suitable elements

g

1

, . . . , g

s

∈ I. The set ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦ is a standard basis for I.

Deﬁnition 1.4.2. Let G ⊂ R be any subset.

(1) G is called interreduced (or minimal) if 0 ∈ G and if LM(g) LM(f)

for any two elements f = g in G.

(2) G is called (completely) reduced if G is interreduced and if, for any g ∈

G, LC(g) = 1 and no monomial of tail (g) is divisible by any LM(f), f ∈ G.

• Every Gr¨ obner basis G can be transformed into an interreduced one

by just deleting elements of G.

• We shall see later that reduced Gr¨ obner bases can always be com-

puted and are unique.

Deﬁnition 1.4.3. Let G ⊂ R be a ﬁnite list. A map

NF : R →R, f →NF(f [ G) ,

is called a normal form on R with respect to G, if

8

(0) NF(0 [ G) = 0 ,

and, for all f ∈ R,

(1) NF(f [ G) = 0 =⇒ LM

NF(f [ G)

∈ L(G).

(2) If G = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦, then r := f −NF(f [ G) has a standard represen-

tation, that is the remainder

r = f −NF(f [ G) =

s

¸

i=1

a

i

g

i

, a

i

∈ R, s ≥ 0 ,

satisﬁes LM(r) ≥ LM(a

i

g

i

) for all i such that a

i

g

i

= 0.

NF is called a reduced normal form, if, moreover, NF(f [ G) has leading

coeﬃcient 1 and no monomial of its tail is divisible by LM(g), g ∈ G.

Lemma 1.4.4. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal, G ⊂ I a standard basis of I and

NF(− [ G) a normal form on R with respect to G.

(1) For any f ∈ R we have f ∈ I if and only if NF(f [ G) = 0.

(2) If J ⊂ R is an ideal with I ⊂ J, then L(I) = L(J) implies I = J.

(3) I = 'G`

R

, that is, the standard basis G generates I as R–ideal.

(4) If NF(− [ G) is a reduced normal form, then it is unique (i.e. depends

only on G and on >).

Proof. (1) If NF(f [ G) = 0 then uf ∈ I and, hence, f ∈ I. If NF(f [ G) = 0,

then LM

NF(f [ G)

**∈ L(G) = L(I), hence NF(f [ G) ∈ I, which implies f ∈ I,
**

since 'G`

R

⊂ I. To prove (2), let f ∈ J and assume that NF(f [ G) = 0.

Then LM

NF(f [ G)

∈ L(G) = L(I) = L(J), contradicting

NF(f [ G) ∈ J.

Hence, f ∈ I by (1).

(3) follows from (2), since L(I) = L(G) ⊂ L('G`

R

) ⊂ L(I), in particular, G

is also a standard basis of 'G`

R

. Finally, to prove (4), let f ∈ R and assume that

h, h

**are two reduced normal forms of f with respect to G. Then no monomial
**

of the power series expansion of h or h

**is divisible by any monomial of L(G)
**

and, moreover, h −h

= (f −h

) −(f −h) ∈ 'G`

R

= I.

If h −h

= 0, then LM(h −h

) ∈ L(I) = L(G), a contradiction, since

LM(h −h

) is a monomial of either h or h

.

Deﬁnition 1.4.5. Let f, g ∈ R ¦0¦ with LM(f) = x

α

and LM(g) = x

β

. Set

γ := lcm(α, β) :=

max(α

1

, β

1

), . . . , max(α

n

, β

n

)

**and let lcm(x
**

α

, x

β

) := x

γ

be the least common multiple of x

α

and x

β

. The

s–polynomial (spoly, for short) of f and g is

spoly(f, g) := x

γ−α

f −

LC(f)

LC(g)

x

γ−β

g .

9

If LM(g) divides LM(f), say LM(g) = x

β

, LM(f) = x

α

, then the s–polynomial

is particularly simple,

spoly(f, g) = f −

LC(f)

LC(g)

x

α−β

g ,

and LM

spoly(f, g)

**< LM(f). We use in this case the notation
**

f −→

g

h if h = spoly(f, g).

Algorithm 1.4.6 (NFBuchberger(f [ G)). Assume that > is a global mono-

mial ordering.

Input: f ∈ K[x], G ∈ (, where ( denotes the class of ﬁnite lists.

Output: h ∈ K[x], a normal form of f with respect to G.

• h := f;

• while (h = 0 and G

h

:= ¦g ∈ G [ LM(g) divides LM(h)¦ = ∅)

choose any g ∈ G

h

;

h := spoly(h, g);

• return h;

Note that each speciﬁc choice of “any” can give a diﬀerent normal form function.

Algorithm 1.4.7 (redNFBuchberger(f [ G)). Assume that > is a global

monomial ordering.

Input: f ∈ K[x], G ∈ (

Output: h ∈ K[x], a reduced normal form of f with respect to G

• h := 0, g := f;

• while (g = 0)

g := NFBuchberger (g [ G);

if (g = 0)

h := h + LT(g);

g := tail(g);

• return h/ LC(h);

Example 1.4.8. Let > be the ordering dp on Mon(x, y, z),

f = x

3

+y

2

+ 2z

2

+x +y + 1 , G = ¦x

2

, y + z¦ .

NFBuchberger proceeds as follows:

10

LM(f) = x

3

, G

f

= ¦x

2

¦,

h

1

= spoly(f, x

2

) = y

2

+ 2z

2

+x +y + 1, (f −→

x

2

h

1

);

LM(h

1

) = y

2

, G

h1

= ¦y +z¦,

h

2

= spoly(h

1

, y +z) = −yz + 2z

2

+x +y + 1, (h

1

−→

y+z

h

2

);

LM(h

2

) = yz, G

h2

= ¦y +z¦,

h

3

= spoly(h

2

, y +z) = 3z

2

+x +y + 1, (h

2

−→

y+z

h

3

); G

h3

= ∅.

Hence, NFBuchberger(f [ G) = 3z

2

+x +y + 1.

To have shorthand notation we underline the leading terms and then the

reduced normal form acts as

f −→ NF(f [ G) = 3z

2

+x+y+1 −→

y+z

3z

2

+x−z+1 −→ z

2

+

1

3

x −

1

3

z +

1

3

. .. .

=RedNF(f|G)

.

1.5 Gr¨ obner Basis Algorithm

Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering and let R = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]. Let ( be

the class of ﬁnite lists (a list is a sequence).

Algorithm 1.5.1 (Gr¨ obner(G,NF)).

Input: G ∈ (, NF an algorithm returning a normal form.

Output: S ∈ ( such that S is a Gr¨ obner basis of I = 'G`

R

⊂ R

• S := G;

• P := ¦(f, g) [ f, g ∈ S, f = g¦, the pair–set;

• while (P = ∅)

choose (f, g) ∈ P;

P := P ¦(f, g)¦;

h := NF

spoly(f, g) [ S

;

if (h = 0)

P := P ∪ ¦(h, f) [ f ∈ S¦;

S := S ∪ ¦h¦;

• return S;

Termination of Gr¨ obner: if h = 0 then LM(h) ∈ L(S) by property (i) of NF.

Hence, we obtain a strictly increasing sequence of monomial ideals L(S) of K[x],

which becomes stationary as K[x] is Noetherian. That is, after ﬁnitely many

steps, we always have NF

spoly(f, g) [ S

**= 0 for (f, g) ∈ P, and, again after
**

ﬁnitely many steps, the pair-set P will become empty. Correctness follows from

applying Buchberger’s fundamental standard basis criterion below.

11

Theorem 1.5.2 (Buchberger’s criterion). Let I ⊂ R be an ideal and

G = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦ ⊂ I. Let NF(− [ G) be a normal form on R with respect to

G. Then the following are equivalent:

1

(1) G is a standard basis of I.

(2) NF(f [ G) = 0 for all f ∈ I.

(3) Each f ∈ I has a standard representation with respect to NF(− [ G).

(4) G generates I and NF

spoly(g

i

, g

j

) [ G

= 0 for i, j = 1, . . . , s.

Example 1.5.3. Let > be the ordering dp on Mon(x, y), f

1

= x

3

+ y

2

, f

2

=

xyz −y

2

(underline leading terms), G = ¦f

1

, f

2

¦, NF=NFBuchberger.

Gr¨ obner(G,NF) works as follows:

S = ¦f

1

, f

2

¦, P = ¦(f

1

, f

2

)¦

The while–loop gives, in the ﬁrst run:

(f

1

, f

2

):

P = ∅

spoly(f

1

, f

2

) = yzf

1

−x

2

f

2

= y

3

z +x

2

y

2

=: f

3

= NF(f

3

, S)

P = ¦(f

1

, f

3

), (f

2

, f

3

)¦

S = ¦f

1

, f

2

, f

3

¦

In the second run:

(f

1

, f

3

):

P = ¦(f

2

, f

3

)¦

spoly(f

1

, f

3

) = y

2

f

1

−xf

3

= y

4

−xy

3

z −→

f2

0

In the third run:

(f

2

, f

3

):

P = ∅

spoly(f

2

, f

3

) = xyf

2

−zf

3

= −xy

3

−y

3

z

2

=: f

4

= NF(f

4

, S)

P = ¦(f

1

, f

4

), (f

2

, f

4

), (f

3

, f

4

)¦

(Note: spoly(f

1

, f

4

) −→

{f1,f4}

0 by the product criterion, since

LM(f

1

) = x

3

and LM(f

4

) = y

3

z

2

have no common divisor.)

S = ¦f

1

, f

2

, f

3

, f

4

¦

In the fourth run:

(f

2

, f

4

):

P = ¦(f

3

, f

4

)¦

spoly(f

2

, f

4

) = −y

4

z −x

2

y

3

−→

f3

0

In the ﬁfth run:

(f

3

, f

4

):

P = ∅

spoly(f

3

, f

4

) = y

4

z

3

−x

3

y

3

−→

f4

−x

3

y

3

−xy

4

z −→

f1

−xy

4

z +y

5

−→

f2

0

return¦f

1

, f

2

, f

3

, f

4

¦, a Gr¨ obner basis of 'f

1

, f

2

`

R

.

1

Usually, the implication (4) ⇒(1) is called Buchberger’s criterion.

12

2 Constructive Ideal and Module Theory

2.1 Operations on Ideals and their Computation

2.1.1 Ideal Membership

Problem: Given f, f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ K[x], and let I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`. Decide whether

f ∈ I, or not.

Solution: Choose any global monomial ordering > and compute a standard

basis G = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦ of I. Then f ∈ I if and only if NF(f [ G) = 0.

2.1.2 Intersection with Subrings (Elimination of variables)

This is one of the most important applications of Gr¨ obner bases.

Problem: Given f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ K[x] = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

], I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`

K[x]

, ﬁnd

generators of the ideal

I

= I ∩ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

], s < n.

Elements of I

**are said to be obtained from I by eliminating x
**

1

, . . . , x

s

.

> is called an elimination ordering for x

1

, . . . x

s

if for all f ∈ K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

LM(f) ∈ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

] ⇒f ∈ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

]

(e.g.: lex or product orderings).

Solution: Choose an elimination ordering for x

1

, . . . , x

s

on Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

),

and compute a standard basis S = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

k

¦ of I. Those g

i

, for which LM(g

i

)

does not involve x

1

, . . . , x

s

, generate I

.

Even more, they are a standard basis of I

**. This follows from the following
**

Lemma.

Lemma 2.1.1. Let > be an elimination ordering for x

1

, . . . , x

s

on

Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

), and let I ⊂ K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

>

be an ideal. If S = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

k

¦

is a standard basis of I, then

S

:= ¦g ∈ S [ LM(g) ∈ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

]¦

is a standard basis of I

:= I ∩ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

]

>

. In particular, S

generates

the ideal I

.

Proof. Given f ∈ I

⊂ I there exists g

i

∈ S such that LM(g

i

) divides LM(f),

since S is a standard basis of I. Since f ∈ K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

], we have LM(f) ∈

K[x

s+1

, . . . , x

n

] and, hence, g

i

∈ S

. Since > is an elimination ordering S

⊂ I

.

Hence S

is a standard basis of I

.

2.2 Gr¨ obner Bases for Modules

Deﬁnition 2.2.1. Let A be a ring. A set M with two maps, an addition,

+ : M M −→ M and a scalar multiplication, : A M −→ M is called an

A-module if (M, +) is an abelian group and + and satisfy

13

• (a +b) m = a m+b m

• a (m +n) = a m+a n

• (a b) m = a (b m)

• 1 m = m

for all a, b ∈ A, m, n ∈ M.

For r > 0, A

r

with componentwise + and is an A-module which is Noetherian

if A is Noetherian.

More generally, we have

Lemma 2.2.2. Let M be an A-module and N ⊂ M a submodule.

(1) M is Noetherian ⇐⇒ N and the factor module M/N are Noetherian

(2) If A is Noetherian, then M is Noetherian iﬀ M is ﬁnitely generated.

Proof. For the proof see e.g. [GP].

We have to extend the notion of monomial orderings to the free module

K[x]

r

=

¸

r

i=1

K[x]e

i

, e

i

= (0, . . . , 1, . . . , 0) ∈ K[x]

r

, where K is a ﬁeld.

We call

x

α

e

i

= (0, . . . , x

α

, . . . , 0) ∈ K[x]

r

a monomial (involving component i).

Deﬁnition 2.2.3. Let > be a monomial ordering on K[x]. A (module) mono-

mial ordering or a module ordering on K[x]

r

is a total ordering >

m

on the

set of monomials ¦x

α

e

i

[ α ∈ N

n

, i = 1, . . . , r¦, which is compatible with the

K[x]–module structure including the ordering >, that is, satisfying

(1) x

α

e

i

>

m

x

β

e

j

=⇒ x

α+γ

e

i

>

m

x

β+γ

e

j

,

(2) x

α

> x

β

=⇒ x

α

e

i

>

m

x

β

e

i

for all α, β, γ ∈ N

n

, i, j = 1, . . . , r.

Two module orderings are of particular interest:

x

α

e

i

> x

β

e

j

:⇐⇒ i < j or (i = j and x

α

> x

β

) ,

giving priority to the components, denoted by (c,>), and

x

α

e

i

> x

β

e

j

:⇐⇒ x

α

> x

β

or (x

α

= x

β

and i < j) ,

which gives priority to the monomials in K[x], denoted by (>,c).

Fix a module ordering >

m

and denote it also with >. Any vector

f ∈ K[x]

r

¦0¦ can be written uniquely as

f = cx

α

e

i

+f

∗

with c ∈ K ¦0¦ and x

α

e

i

> x

α

∗

e

j

for any non–zero term c

∗

x

α

∗

e

j

of f

∗

: We

deﬁne as before

14

LM(f) := x

α

e

i

, leading monomial

LC(f) := c , leading coeﬃcient

LT(f) := cx

α

e

i

, leading term

tail(f) := f

∗

tail

For I ⊂ K[x]

r

a submodule we call

L

>

(I) := L(I) := ' LT(g) [ g ∈ I ¦0¦ `

K[x]

⊂ K[x]

r

the leading module of 'I`

K

(which coincides with LM(I) = 'LM(g) [ g ∈

I ` ¦0¦`

K[x]

since K is a ﬁeld).

The set of monomials of K[x]

r

may be identiﬁed with N

n

E

r

⊂ N

n

N

r

=

N

n+r

, E

r

= ¦e

1

, . . . , e

r

¦.

We say that x

β

e

j

is divisible by x

α

e

i

if i = j and x

α

[ x

β

.

Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering. Again we write

R := K[x] = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

].

Deﬁnition 2.2.4. Let I ⊂ R

r

be a submodule. A ﬁnite set G ⊂ I is called a

Gr¨ obner or standard basis of I if and only if L(G) = L(I), that is, for any

f ∈ I ¦0¦ there exists a g ∈ G satisfying LM(g) [ LM(f).

The notion of minimal and reduced Gr¨ obner basis is the same as for

ideals. Also the deﬁnitions of normal form and of s–polynomial.

The normal form algorithm and Buchberger’s Gr¨ obner basis algorithm

extend easily to submodules I ⊂ R

r

.

2.3 Exact Sequences and free Resolutions

Deﬁnition 2.3.1. A sequence of A–modules and homomorphisms

→M

k+1

ϕ

k+1

−−−→M

k

ϕ

k

−−→M

k−1

→

is called a complex if Ker(ϕ

k

) ⊂ Im(ϕ

k+1

). It is called exact at M

k

if

Ker(ϕ

k

) = Im(ϕ

k+1

) .

It is called exact if it is exact at all M

k

. An exact sequence

0 −→M

ϕ

−→M

ψ

−→M

−→0

is called a short exact sequence.

Deﬁnition 2.3.2. Let A be a ring and M a ﬁnitely generated A–module. A

free resolution of M is an exact sequence

. . . −→F

k+1

ϕ

k+1

−−−→F

k

−→. . . −→F

1

ϕ1

−→F

0

ϕ0

−→M →0

with ﬁnitely generated free A–modules F

i

for i ≥ 0.

Frequently the complex of free A-modules (without M)

F

•

: . . . −→F

k+1

ϕ

k+1

−−−→F

k

−→. . . −→F

1

ϕ1

−→F

0

−→0

is called a free resolution of M.

A free resolution has (ﬁnite) length n if F

k

= 0 for all k > n and n is minimal

with this property.

15

2.4 Computing Resolutions and the Syzygy Theorem

In the following deﬁnition R can be an arbitrary ring.

Deﬁnition 2.4.1. A syzygy or relation between k elements f

1

, . . . , f

k

of an

R–module M is a k–tuple (g

1

, . . . , g

k

) ∈ R

k

satisfying

k

¸

i=1

g

i

f

i

= 0 .

The set of all syzygies between f

1

, . . . , f

k

is a submodule of R

k

, it is the kernel

of the ring homomorphism

ϕ : F

1

:=

k

i=1

Rε

i

−→M , ε

i

−→f

i

,

where ¦ε

1

, . . . , ε

k

¦ denotes the canonical basis of R

k

. ϕ surjects onto the R–

module I := 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`

R

and

syz(I) := syz(f

1

, . . . , f

k

) := Ker(ϕ)

is called the module of syzygies of I with respect to the generators f

1

, . . . , f

k

.

Theorem 2.4.2 (Hilbert’s Syzygy Theorem). Let R = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]. Then

any ﬁnitely generated R–module M has a free resolution

0 →F

m

→F

m−1

→ →F

0

→M →0

of length m ≤ n, where the F

i

are free R–modules.

Proof. For the proof we refer to [GP].

Algorithm 2.4.3 (syz(f

1

, . . . , f

k

)). Let > be any monomial ordering on

Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

) and R = K[x].

Input: f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ K[x]

r

.

Output: S=¦s

1

, . . . , s

¦ ⊂ K[x]

k

such that 'S` = syz(f

1

, . . . , f

k

) ⊂ R

k

.

• F := ¦f

1

+e

r+1

, . . . , f

k

+e

r+k

¦, where e

1

, . . . , e

r+k

denote the canonical

generators of R

r+k

= R

r

⊕R

k

such that

f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ R

r

=

¸

r

i=1

Re

i

;

• compute a standard basis G of 'F` ⊂ R

r+k

with respect to (c, >);

• G

0

:= G∩

¸

r+k

i=r+1

Re

i

= ¦g

1

, . . . , g

¦, with

g

i

=

¸

k

j=1

a

ij

e

r+j

, i = 1, . . . , ;

• s

i

:= (a

i1

, . . . a

ik

), i = 1, . . . , ;

• return S = ¦s

1

, . . . , s

¦.

Algorithm 2.4.4 (Resolution(I, m)). Let > be a global monomial ordering

on Mon(x

1

, . . . , x

n

) and R = K[x].

16

Input: f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ K[x]

r

, I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` ⊂ R

r

, and m a positive integer.

Output: A list of matrices A

1

, . . . , A

m

with A

i

∈ Mat(r

i−1

r

i

, K[x]), i =

1, . . . , m, such that

. . . −→R

rm

Am

−−→R

rm−1

−→. . . −→R

r1

A1

−−→R

r

−→R

r

/I −→0

is the beginning of a free resolution of R

r

/I.

• i := 1;

• A

1

:= matrix(f

1

, . . . , f

k

) ∈ Mat(r k, K[x]);

• while (i < m)

i := i + 1;

A

i

:= syz(A

i−1

);

• return A

1

, . . . , A

m

.

2.5 Operations on Modules and their Computation

Let K be a ﬁeld, > a global monomial ordering on K[x], x = (x

1

, . . . , x

n

), and

R = K[x].

The module membership problem can be formulated as follows:

Problem: Given polynomial vectors f, f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ K[x]

r

, decide whether

f ∈ I := 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` ⊂ R

r

or not.

Solution: Compute a standard basis G = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦ of I with respect to >

m

and choose a normal form NF on R

r

. Then

f ∈ I ⇐⇒ NF(f [ G) = 0 .

Additional Problem: If f ∈ I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

r

` ⊂ R

r

then express f as a linear

combination f =

¸

k

i=1

g

i

f

i

with g

i

∈ K[x].

Solution: Compute a standard basis G of syz(f, f

1

, . . . , f

k

) ⊂ R

k+1

w.r.t.

the ordering (c, >). Now choose any vector h = (1, −g

1

, . . . , −g

k

) ∈ G. Then

f =

¸

k

i=1

g

i

f

i

.

Intersection with Free Submodules (Elimination of Module Compo-

nents) Let R

r

=

¸

r

i=1

Re

i

, where ¦e

1

, . . . , e

r

¦ denotes the canonical basis of

R

r

, R = K[x].

Problem: Given f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ R

r

, I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` ⊂ R

r

, ﬁnd a (polynomial)

system of generators for the submodule

I

:= I ∩

r

i=s+1

Re

i

.

17

Elements of the submodule I

**are said to be obtained from f
**

1

, . . . , f

k

by

eliminating e

1

, . . . , e

s

.

Solution: Compute a standard basis G = ¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦

of I w.r.t. (c, >). Then

G

:=

g ∈ G

LM(g) ∈

r

i=s+1

K[x]e

i

¸

is a standard basis for I

.

18

3 Constructive Normalization of Aﬃne Rings

3.1 Integral Closure of Rings and Ideals

Let K be a perfect ﬁeld (e.g. char(K) = 0 or K ﬁnite) and A =

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]/'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` reduced (i.e. if a ∈ A and a

p

= 0 for some p > 0

then a = 0).

We describe algorithms to compute

• the normalisation A of A, that is, the integral closure of A in the total

ring of fractions Q(A),

• an ideal I

N

⊂ A describing the non-normal locus, that is,

V (I

N

) = N(A) := ¦P ∈ Spec A [ A

P

is not normal¦ ,

We can also compute for any ideal I ⊂ A, the integral closure I of I in A

(cf. [GP]).

Deﬁnition 3.1.1. For any ring A we deﬁne the total ring of fractions Q(A)

as the localization of A w.r.t. the multiplicatively closed set S = ¦s ∈ A [

sa = 0 ⇒a = 0 ∀ a ∈ A¦ of non-zero divisors of A. That is

Q(A) = ¦

a

s

[ s ∈ S, a ∈ A¦

with usual + and of fractions. where

a

s

is the equivalence class of pairs (a, s)

with (a, s) ∼ (a

, s

) iﬀ as

= a

s. (Q(A), +, ) is a ring; if A is a domain (i.e.

S = A ` ¦0¦), then Q(A) is a ﬁeld, the ﬁeld of fractions of A.

3.2 Key-Lemma

Deﬁnition 3.2.1. b ∈ Q(A) is integral over A if it satisﬁes a relation

b

n

+a

1

b

n−1

+ +a

n

= 0 , a

i

∈ A.

We deﬁne the normalisation of A as A :=

¸

b ∈ Q(A)

b is integral over A

¸

,

that is, A is the integral closure of A in Q(A).

Lemma 3.2.2 (Key-lemma). Let J ⊂ A be an ideal, containing a non-

zerodivisor f of A. Then

A ⊂ Hom

A

(J, J) ⊂ Hom

A

(J, A) ∩ A ⊂ Hom

A

(J,

√

J)

with

Hom

A

(J, A)

∼

=

−→

¸

h ∈ Q(A)

hJ ⊂ A

¸

⊂ Q(A) , ϕ −→

ϕ(f)

f

.

Remark 3.2.3.

(1) By the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, the characteristic polynomial of ϕ de-

ﬁnes an integral relation of ϕ ∈ Hom

A

(J, J).

(2) Hom

A

(J, J)

∼

=

1

f

(fJ : J) ⊂

¯

A.

Proof. For the proof we refer to [GP], Lemma 3.6.1. and Lemma 3.6.4.

19

3.3 A Criterion for Normality

The following criterion is basically due to Grauert and Remmert (1971).

Proposition 3.3.1 (Criterion for normality). Let A be a reduced Noetherian

ring and J ⊂ A an ideal satisfying

(1) J contains a non-zerodivisor of A,

(2) J =

√

J,

(3) V (J) ⊃ N(A) = V (C), C = Ann

A

(A/A).

Then

A = A ⇐⇒ A = Hom

A

(J, J).

An ideal J with (1), (2), (3) is called test ideal for the normalization.

Proof. “⇐=” (3) ⇒ ∃ d ≥ 0 minimal s.th. AJ

d

⊂ A.

Assume d > 0

⇒ ∃ h ∈ A, a ∈ J

d−1

: ha ∈ A, haJ ⊂ hJ

d

⊂ AJ

d

⊂ A

⇒ ha ∈ A ∩ Hom

A

(J, A) = Hom

A

(J, J)

. .. .

= A

(key-lemma)

That is a contradiction and we conclude that d = 0 and thus A = A.

3.4 Test Ideals

Let R = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

], A = R/I reduced, I = 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`, K a perfect ﬁeld.

Let

Sing(A) = ¦P ∈ Spec A [ A

P

is not regular¦

be the singular locus of A. We have N(A) ⊂ Sing(A).

If A is equidimensional of codimension c, then the Jacobian ideal

J =

f

1

, . . . , f

k

, c-minors of

∂f

i

∂x

j

deﬁnes Sing(A).

In general, we can use an equidimensional or primary decomposition

to compute an ideal J s.th. V (J) = Sing(A). Since A is reduced, J contains a

non-zerodivisor of A.

Hence we can compute test ideals as follows (all steps are eﬀective):

• compute J such that V (J) = Sing(A)

• compute

√

J

Then

√

J is a test ideal for the normalization. Note that we can as well compute

any ideal J

**⊂ J containing a non-zero divisor, then
**

√

J

**is also a test ideal.
**

20

3.5 Algorithm to Compute the Normalization

The idea of the algorithm is to compute the endomorphism ring A

(1)

=

Hom

A

(J, J) for some test ideal J ⊂ A. If A = A

(1)

then A is already nor-

mal by Proposition 3.3.1. If not, we compute A

(2)

= Hom

A

(1) (J

(1)

, J

(1)

) for a

test ideal J

(1)

⊂ A

(1)

. If A

(1)

= A

(2)

then A = A

(1)

, otherwise we continue in

the same way to obtain a sequence of rings

A ⊂ A

(1)

⊂ . . . ⊂ A

(i)

⊂ . . . ⊂ A.

The process must stop since A is aﬃne, by a theorem of M. Noether. In order

to do the computations eﬀectively, we must present A

(i)

as aﬃne ring. This is

described in the following lemma.

Lemma 3.5.1. Let A be a reduced Noetherian ring, let J ⊂ A be an ideal and

x ∈ J a non–zerodivisor. Then

(1) A = Hom

A

(J, J) if and only if xJ : J = 'x`.

Moreover, let ¦u

0

= x, u

1

, . . . , u

s

¦ be a system of generators for the A–module

xJ : J. Then we can write

(2) u

i

u

j

=

s

¸

k=0

xξ

ij

k

u

k

with suitable ξ

ij

k

∈ A, 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s.

Let (η

(k)

0

, . . . , η

(k)

s

) ∈ A

s+1

, k = 1, . . . , m, generate the syzygy module

syz(u

0

, . . . , u

s

), and let I ⊂ A[t

1

, . . . , t

s

] be the ideal

I :=

t

i

t

j

−

s

¸

k=0

ξ

ij

k

t

k

1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s

¸

,

s

¸

ν=0

η

(k)

ν

t

ν

1 ≤ k ≤ m

¸¸

,

where t

0

:= 1. Then

(3) t

i

→u

i

/x, i = 1, . . . , s, deﬁnes an isomorphism

A[t

1

, . . . , t

s

]/I

∼

=

−→Hom

A

(J, J)

∼

=

1

x

(xJ : J) .

Proof. (1) follows immediately from Remark 3.2.3(2).

To prove (2), note that Hom

A

(J, J) = (1/x) (xJ : J) is a ring, which is

generated as A–module by u

0

/x, . . . , u

s

/x. Therefore, there exist ξ

ij

k

∈ A such

that (u

i

/x) (u

j

/x) =

¸

s

k=0

ξ

ij

k

(u

k

/x).

(3) Obviously, I ⊂ Ker(φ), where φ : A[t

1

, . . . , t

s

] →(1/x) (xJ : J) is the

ring map deﬁned by t

i

→u

i

/x, i = 1, . . . , s. On the other hand, let h ∈ Ker(φ).

Then, using the relations t

i

t

j

−

¸

s

k=0

ξ

ij

k

t

k

, 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s, we can write

h ≡ h

0

+

¸

s

i=1

h

i

t

i

mod I, for some h

0

, h

1

, . . . , h

s

∈ A.

Now φ(h) = 0 implies h

0

+

¸

s

i=1

h

i

(u

i

/x) = 0, hence, (h

0

, . . . , h

s

) is a

syzygy of u

0

= x, u

1

, . . . , u

s

and, therefore, h ∈ I.

Example 3.5.2. Let A := K[x, y]/'x

2

−y

3

` and J := 'x, y` ⊂ A. Then x ∈ J

is a non–zerodivisor in A with xJ : J = x'x, y` : 'x, y` = 'x, y

2

`, therefore,

21

Hom

A

(J, J) = '1, y

2

/x` (using Remark 3.2.3(2)). Setting u

0

:= x, u

1

:= y

2

, we

obtain u

2

1

= y

4

= x

2

y, that is, ξ

11

0

= y. Hence, we obtain an isomorphism

A[t]/'t

2

−y, xt −y

2

, yt −x`

∼

=

−→Hom

A

(J, J) .

of A–algebras. Note that A[t]/'t

2

−y, xt −y

2

, yt −x` · K[t].

Now, using Proposition 3.3.1 and Lemma 3.5.1 we obtain an algorithm to

compute the integral closure. We describe the algorithm for the case that

A = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]/I is an integral domain over a ﬁeld K of characteristic 0,

that is, especially I is prime.

Algorithm 3.5.3 (normalization(I)).

Input: I := 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

` ⊂ K[x] a prime ideal, x = (x

1

, . . . , x

n

).

Output: A polynomial ring K[t], t = (t

1

, . . . , t

N

), a prime ideal P ⊂ K[t] and

π : K[x] →K[t] such that the induced map π : K[x]/I →K[t]/P is the

normalization of K[x]/I.

• if I = '0` then return (K[x], '0`, id

K[x]

);

• compute r := dim(I);

• if we know that the singular locus of I is V (x

1

, . . . , x

n

)

2

J := 'x

1

, . . . , x

n

`;

else

compute J := the ideal of the (n −r)–minors of the Jacobian matrix I;

• J := radical(I +J);

• choose a ∈ J ¦0¦;

• if aJ : J = 'a` return (K[x], I, id

K[x]

);

• compute a generating system u

0

= a, u

1

, . . . , u

s

for aJ : J;

• compute a generating system

¸

(η

(1)

0

, . . . , η

(1)

s

), . . . , (η

(m)

0

, . . . , η

(m)

s

)

¸

for the

module of syzygies syz(u

0

, . . . , u

s

) ⊂ (K[x]/I)

s+1

;

• compute ξ

ij

k

such that u

i

u

j

=

¸

s

k=0

a ξ

ij

k

u

k

, i, j = 1, . . . s;

• change ring to K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

, t

1

, . . . , t

s

], and set (with t

0

:= 1)

I

1

:=

¦t

i

t

j

−

¸

s

k=0

ξ

ij

k

t

k

¦

1≤i≤j≤s

, ¦

¸

s

ν=0

η

(k)

ν

t

ν

¦

1≤k≤m

+IK[x, t];

• return normalization(I

1

).

Note that I

1

is again a prime ideal, since

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

, t

1

, . . . , t

s

]/I

1

∼

= Hom

A

(J, J) ⊂ Q(A)

is an integral domain.

Example 3.5.4 (normalization). Let us illustrate the normalization with Whit-

ney’s umbrella

2

This is useful information because, in this case, we can avoid computing the minors of the

Jacobian matrix and the radical (which can be expensive). The property of being an isolated

singularity is kept during the normalization loops.

22

ring A = 0,(x,y,z),dp;

ideal I = y2-zx2;

LIB "surf.lib";

plot(I,"rot_x=1.45;rot_y=1.36;rot_z=4.5;");

list nor = normal (I);

def R = nor[1]; setring R;

norid;

//-> norid[1]=0

normap;

//-> normap[1]=T(1) normap[2]=T(1)*T(2) normap[3]=T(2)^2

Hence, the normalization of A/I is K[T

1

, T

2

] with normalization map x →T

1

,

y →−T

2

2

, z →−T

1

T

2

.

(t

1

, t

2

) →(t

1

, t

1

t

2

, t

2

2

)

Figure 1: The normalization of Whitney’s umbrella.

3.6 Algorithm to Compute the Non-Normal Locus

As a corollary of the Grauert-Remmert criterion, we obtain:

Corollary 3.6.1. Let A be a reduced Noetherian ring, J ⊂ A a test ideal, f ∈ J

a non-zerodivisor of A, and set

I

N

:= Ann

A

Hom

A

(J, J)/A

∼

= (fJ : J) : f .

Then V (I

N

) is the non-normal locus of A.

Algorithm 3.6.2 (non–normal locus).

Input: f

1

, . . . , f

k

∈ S = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

], I := 'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`.

Assume:

√

I = I, K perfect.

Output: Generators for I

N

s.th. V (I

N

) = N(S/I).

• Compute an ideal

¯

J s.th. V (

¯

J) = Sing(S/I).

• Compute a non-zerodivisor f ∈

¯

J: choose a linear combination f of the

generators of

¯

J and test

f non-zerodivisor ⇐⇒(I : f) :=

¸

g ∈ S

gf ∈ I

¸

= ¦0¦.

• Compute the radical

'f, I` =: J.

23

• Compute generators g

1

, . . . , g

for (fJ : J) : f as S-module.

• Return ¦g

1

, . . . , g

¦.

Example 3.6.3. We compute the non–normal locus of

A := K[x, y, z]/'zy

2

−zx

3

−x

6

`.

LIB"primdec.lib";

ring A = 0,(x,y,z),dp;

ideal I = zy2-zx3-x6;

ideal sing = I+jacob(I);

ideal J = radical(sing);

qring R = std(I);

ideal J = fetch(A,J);

ideal a = J[1];

ideal re = quotient(a,quotient(a*J,J));

re;

//-> re[1]=y

//-> re[2]=x

From the output, we read that the non–normal locus is the z–axis (the zero–set

of 'x, y`).

24

4 Computation in Local Rings

4.1 What is meant by “local” computations ?

There are several concepts of “local” in algebraic geometry:

• sometimes it means just an aﬃne neighbourhood of a point, the algebraic

counterpart being aﬃne rings, that is, rings of the form C[x]/I, where

I ⊂ C[x] = C[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] is an ideal;

• sometimes it means the study of the localization at a prime ideal

p ⊂ C[x], C[x]

p

/I, with I ⊂ C[x]

p

some ideal;

• sometimes it means convergent power series rings C¦x¦/I, or even

formal power series rings C[[x]]/I.

Actually, we have for the maximal ideal 'x` = 'x

1

, . . . , x

n

`

C[x] ⊂ C[x]

x

⊂ C¦x¦ ⊂ C[[x]]

where the ﬁrst ring is the “least local” and the last one the “most local”.

3

Hence, when considering “local” properties of a variety V , that is, properties

of the germ (V, P) (= the equivalence class of all open neighbourhoods of P

in V ) of the variety at a given point P, one has to specify what “local” should

mean, in particular, what is meant by “neighbourhood”.

4.2 An Example

We want to study the germ at 0 = (0, 0) of the plane curve with aﬃne equation

y

2

−x

2

(1 +x) = 0:

The picture indicates:

• in a small Euclidean neighbourhood of 0 the curve has two irre-

ducible components, meeting transversally, but

• in the aﬃne plane, and, hence, in each Zariski neighbourhood

4

of 0 the

curve is irreducible.

3

Note that C[x]/I is not a local ring (except when the variety deﬁned by I consists of only

one point) while the other three rings are local.

4

Such a neighbourhood consists of the curve minus ﬁnitely many points diﬀerent from 0.

But a connected open subset of C minus ﬁnitely many points is irreducible (here, the above

real picture is misleading).

25

Let’s prove this: consider f = y

2

−x

2

(1 +x) as element of C¦x, y¦. We have

a non-trivial decomposition

5

f =

y −x

√

1 +x

y +x

√

1 +x)

with y ±x

√

1 +x ∈ C¦x, y¦. The zero-sets of the factors correspond to the two

components of ¦f = 0¦ in a small neighbourhood of 0.

However, f is irreducible in C[x, y], even in C[x, y]

x,y

. Otherwise, there

would exist g, h ∈ C[x, y]

x,y

satisfying f =

y +xg

y +xh

, hence g = −h

and g

2

= 1 +x. But, since 1 + x is everywhere deﬁned, g

2

and, hence, g must

be a polynomial which is impossible, since g

2

has degree 1.

4.3 Computational Aspects

We shall show in the following, that (and how) the concept of Gr¨ obner basis

computations can be generalized to the local rings C[x]

x

, C¦x¦ and C[[x]],

respectively.

In practice, however, we can basically treat only C[x] and C[x]

x

(or

factor rings of those) in a computer algebra system

6

. In particular, we can

neither put a polynomial into Weierstraß normal form (cf. below), nor factorize

it in C[[x]] eﬀectively (except for power series in two variables where the Newton

algorithm for computing Puiseux series provides a method) and we do not know

any algorithm which would be able to do this even if the input is a polynomial.

Nevertheless, many invariants of (analytic) germs can be computed in

C[x]

x

, since we have the following

Facts: Let K be any ﬁeld and I ⊂ K[x]

x

an ideal.

• If dim

K

(K[x]

x

/I) < ∞, then, as local k–algebras,

K[x]

x

/I

∼

= K[[x]]/IK[[x]] .

In particular, both vector spaces have the same dimension and a common

basis represented by monomials.

• The inclusion K[x]

x

/I ⊂ K[[x]]/IK[[x]] is faithfully ﬂat, that is, a

sequence of K[x]

x

/I–modules

0 −→M

−→M −→M

−→0

is exact if and only if the induced

7

sequence of K[[x]]/IK[[x]]–modules is

exact.

4.4 Rings Associated to Monomial Orderings

To implement local rings in a computer algebra system one has to abort the

restriction that monomial orderings are well-orderings. Hence, we deﬁne:

5

This is, up to units, also the factorization in C[[x, y]], since the factorization is unique.

6

Singular is apparently the only existing computer algebra system which systematically

has incorporated standard basis algorithms in local rings.

7

by applying ⊗

K[x]

x

/I

K[[x]]/IK[[x]]

26

Deﬁnition 4.4.1. A monomial ordering is a total ordering > on the set of

monomials x

α

:= x

α1

1

. . . x

αn

n

which is compatible with the semigroup struc-

ture, that is, satisﬁes

x

α

> x

β

=⇒ x

γ

x

α

> x

γ

x

β

for all α, β, γ ∈ Z

n

≥0

.

To any such monomial ordering > we associate the multiplicatively closed set

S

>

:= ¦u ∈ K[x] ` ¦0¦ [ LM(u) = 1¦

and the ring

K[x]

>

:= S

−1

>

K[x] =

f

u

f, u ∈ K[x], LM(u) = 1

.

The following lemma follows easily from Lemma 1.2.5.

Lemma 4.4.2.

(1) The following are equivalent:

(a) K[x]

>

= K[x].

(b) x

α

> 1 for all α = (0, . . . , 0), i.e. > is global.

(2) In genaral we have

K[x] ⊂ K[x]

>

⊂ K[[x]].

Recall that in Singular the global orderings are indicated by p as 2nd letter

(referring to “polynomial ring”): lp, dp, etc.

4.5 Local Monomial Orderings

The following Lemma follows again from Lemma 1.2.5.

Lemma 4.5.1. The following are equivalent:

(a) K[x]

>

= K[x]

x

.

(b) x

α

< 1 for all α = (0, . . . , 0), i.e. > is local.

(c) the inverse ordering

x

α

>

x

β

:⇔x

α

< x

β

is global.

Example 4.5.2. The following are (the probably most important) local mono-

mial orderings:

• Negative degree reverse lexicographical ordering >

ds

:

x

α

>

ds

x

β

:⇐⇒ deg x

α

< deg x

β

,

or

deg x

α

= deg x

β

and ∃ 1 ≤ i ≤ n :

α

n

= β

n

, . . . , α

i+1

= β

i+1

, α

i

< β

i

.

• Weighted negative degree reverse lexicographical orderings >

ws(w)

, deﬁned

as >

ds

, but replacing the degree of x

α

by the weighted degree

wdeg(x

α

) = w

1

α

1

+. . . +w

n

α

n

,

where w

1

> 0, w

2

, . . . , w

n

≥ 0

• Negative lexicographical ordering >

ls

, which is deﬁned to be the inverse of

the lexicographical ordering.

• Product orderings of the latter.

27

4.6 Rings Associated to Mixed Orderings

If the monomial ordering is neither local nor global then we call it a mixed

ordering. In this case:

K[x] K[x]

>

K[x]

x

,

and (K[x]

>

)

∗

∩ K[x] = S

>

= ¦u ∈ K[x] ` ¦0¦ [ LM(u) = 1¦, where R

∗

denotes

the group of units in the ring R.

Example 4.6.1. Consider K[x, y] = K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

, y

1

, . . . , y

m

], equipped with a

product ordering (>

1

, >

2

). Then we have

(1) >

1

global , >

2

local :

K[x, y]

>

= (K[y]

y

)[x] = K[y]

y

⊗

K

K[x] .

(2) >

1

local , >

2

global :

(K[x]

x

)[y] K[x, y]

>

K[x, y]

x

,

(3) >

1

global , >

2

arbitrary :

K[x, y]

>

= (K[y]

>2

)[x] .

Deﬁnition 4.6.2 (Ring maps). Let >

1

, >

2

be monomial orderings on K[x],

respectively K[y]. Then f

1

, . . . , f

n

∈ K[y]

>2

deﬁne a unique ring map

ϕ : K[x]

>1

→K[y]

>2

, x

i

→f

i

,

provided that h(f

1

, . . . , f

n

) ∈ S

>2

for all h ∈ S

>1

.

4.7 Leading Data

Let > be any monomial ordering and f ∈ K[x]

>

. Then we can (and do) choose

a u ∈ K[x] such that LM(u) = 1 and uf ∈ K[x] and deﬁne

LM(f) := LM(uf) , the leading monomial of f,

LC(f) := LC(uf) , the leading coeﬃcient of f,

LT(f) := LT(uf) , the leading term of f,

and tail(f) := f −LT(f).

Moreover, we deﬁne for any G ⊂ K[x]

>

the leading ideal

L

>

(G) := L(G) := 'LM(g) [ g ∈ G` ¦0¦`

K[x]

.

Note that these deﬁnitions are independent of the choice of u.

It is useful to consider K[x]

>

as a subring of K[[x]], the formal power se-

ries ring. Then LT(f) corresponds to the largest (w.r.t. >) term in the

power series expansion of f and tail(f) is the power series of f with the lead-

ing term deleted. In particular, these notions are compatible with the obvious

extension of leading data to formal power series rings (w.r.t. a local monomial

ordering).

28

Example 4.7.1. Let f =

2x

1−x

+x = 3x +

¸

∞

k=2

2x

k

, then

LT(f) = LT((1 +x)f) = 3x.

As in the polynomial ring, the leading ideal L(I) encodes much information

about the ideal I, for instance:

Theorem 4.7.2. Let > be any monomial ordering on K[x], and let I ⊂ K[x]

be an ideal. Then

(a) dim(K[x]

>

/IK[x]

>

) = dim(K[x]/L(I)) ,

(b) dim

K

(K[x]

>

/IK[x]

>

) = dim(K[x]/L(I)) .

Moreover, if dim(K[x]

>

/IK[x]

>

) < ∞, then the monomials in K[x] ` L(I)

represent a K-basis of K[x]

>

/IK[x]

>

.

Since the leading ideal of an ideal is ﬁnitely generated, we can transfer the

concept of Gr¨ obner bases to R = K[x]

>

, respectively to R = K[[x]], and obtain

the notion of a standard basis (as introduced independently by Hironaka (1964)

and Grauert (1972)): a ﬁnite set G ⊂ R is called a standard basis (SB) of I if

G ⊂ I, and L(I) = L(G) .

Moreover, we can extend the latter notions without further modiﬁcations to free

R-modules with ﬁnite basis e

1

, . . . , e

r

.

4.8 Division with Remainder

The Division Theorems by Weierstraß and Grauert generalize division with re-

mainder to free modules over formal power series rings:

Theorem 4.8.1 (Division Theorem (Grauert)). Let F be a free K[[x]]-module

with a ﬁnite basis e

1

, . . . , e

r

, let > be a local monomial ordering on F, and let

f, f

1

, . . . , f

m

∈ F ` ¦0¦. Then there exist g

1

, . . . , g

r

∈ K[[x]] and a remainder

h ∈ F such that

f =

m

¸

j=1

g

j

f

j

+h

and, for all j = 1, . . . , m,

(a) LM(f) ≥ LM(g

j

f

j

) ;

(b) if h = 0 then no monomial of h is divisible by LM(f

j

).

Again, we call any such expression a standard expression for f in terms

of the f

i

and h the reduced normal form of f with respect to I. As before,

for a “normal form” we weaken the condition (b) to LM(h) is not divisible by

any LM(f

j

).

29

4.9 Normal Forms and Standard Bases

The existence of a reduced normal form is the basis to obtain, in the formal

power series ring K[[x]], the properties of standard bases already proved for GB

in K[x]:

• If S, S

**are two standard bases of the ideal I, then the reduced normal
**

forms with respect to S and S

coincide.

• Buchberger’s criterion holds.

• Reduced standard bases are uniquely determined.

The following theorem is one further reason, why for many computations in

local analytic geometry it is suﬃcient to compute in K[x]

x

.

Theorem 4.9.1. Let > be a local degree ordering on K[[x]] and let I be an

ideal in K[x]. Then

S is a standard basis of I (w.r.t. >) =⇒ S is a standard basis of IK[[x]].

So far everything was a straight forward transition from polynomial rings

to power series rings. But it was theoretical. From the computational point of

view there are several problems:

Example 4.9.2. Consider in R = K[x, y]

x,y

with >=>

ls

.

f = y , g = (y −x)(1 −y) , G = ¦g¦ .

Assume h ∈ K[x, y] is a normal form of f w.r.t. G. We have:

f ∈ 'G`

R

= 'y −x`

R

=⇒ h = 0

=⇒ LM(h) ∈ L(G) = 'y` .

Moreover, h −y = h −f ∈ 'G`

R

= 'y −x`

R

=⇒ LM(h) < 1.

Therefore, h = xh

for some h

**(because of the chosen ordering >
**

ls

). However,

y − xh

∈ '(y − x)(1 − y)`

K[x,y]

(substitute (0, 1) for (x, y)) and, therefore no

polynomial normal form of f w.r.t. G exists.

4.10 Weak Normal Forms

The fact that for polynomial input data there does not necessarily exist a poly-

nomial normal form leads to the following

Deﬁnition 4.10.1. Let R = K[x]

>

for some monomial ordering >. Let G =

¦g

1

, . . . , g

s

¦ be a ﬁnite subset of the free R–module F. A polynomial vector

h ∈ F is called a (polynomial) weak normal form for f with respect to G if

there exists a polynomial unit u ∈ R

∗

such that h is a normal form for uf w.r.t.

G, that is uf satisﬁes a relation (with a

i

polynomials)

uf =

s

¸

i=1

a

i

g

i

+h, LM(u) = 1,

with LM(

¸

s

i=1

a

i

g

i

) ≥ LM(a

k

g

k

) for all k such that a

k

g

k

= 0 and, if h = 0 then

LM(h) is not divisible by any LM(g

i

).

30

Example 4.10.2 (Example 4.9.2 continued). Setting u := (1 −y) and

h := x(1 −y), we obtain uy = (y −x)(1 −y) +h, hence, h is a (polynomial)

weak normal form.

The same diﬃculty arises when trying to generalize Buchberger’s algorithm.

Look at the following

Example 4.10.3. Consider in K[x]

x

the polynomial f := x and the standard

basis G := ¦g = x −x

2

¦. The analogue to the Buchberger algorithm in K[[x]]

“computes” the normal form 0 as

x −

∞

¸

i=0

x

i

(x −x

2

) = 0 ,

hence it will produce inﬁnitely many terms (and not the ﬁnite expression

1/(1 −x)). Again, this problem would be solved when computing

(1 −x) x −g = 0 .

In the following we present the general (weak) normal form algorithm (due

to Greuel and Pﬁster) as implemented in Singular. The basic idea for this

algorithm for local rings is due to Mora, but our algorithm is slightly diﬀerent

and more general (works for any monomial ordering).

4.11 The Weak Normal Form Algorithm

Deﬁnition 4.11.1. Let f ∈ K[x] ` ¦0¦. Then we set

ecart(f) := deg f −deg LM(f).

Algorithm 4.11.2 (weakNF). Let > be any monomial ordering.

Input: f ∈ K[x], G = ¦f

1

, . . . , f

r

¦ ⊂ K[x].

Output: h ∈ K[x], a weak normal form of f.

• h := f;

• T := G;

• while(h = 0 and T

h

:= ¦g ∈ T [ LM(g) divides LM(h)¦ = ∅)

¦

choose g ∈ T

h

with ecart(g) minimal;

if (ecart(g) > ecart(h)) ¦T := T ∪ ¦h¦¦;

h := spoly(h, g);

¦

• return h;

Note 4.11.3. The latter algorithm also applies to free K[x]

>

-modules with a

ﬁnite base. Moreover:

• If the input is homogeneous, then the ecart is always 0, hence, we

obtain Buchberger’s Algorithm.

• If > is global, then LM(g) [ LM(h) implies LM(g) ≤ LM(h). Hence, even

if added to T during the algorithm, h cannot be used in further reductions.

• The reduce command in Singular returns h while the division com-

mand also returns the factors u, g

1

, . . . , g

r

.

31

4.12 Standard Basis Algorithm

Having the above (weak) normal form algorithm, we can proceed as in K[x] to

compute a standard basis of a given ideal:

Algorithm 4.12.1 (std). Let > be any monomial ordering, and R := K[x]

>

.

Input: G = ¦f

1

, . . . , f

r

¦ ⊂ K[x].

Output: S ⊂ K[x], such that S is a standard basis for 'G`

R

.

• S := G;

• P := ¦(f, g) [ f, g ∈ S, f = g¦, the pair–set;

• while (P = ∅)

¦

choose (f, g) ∈ P;

P := P ` ¦(f, g)¦;

h := weakNF

spoly(f, g), S

;

if (h = 0)

¦

P := P ∪ ¦(h, f) [ f ∈ S¦;

S := S ∪ ¦h¦;

¦

¦

• return S;

The algorithm terminates, since otherwise we would obtain a strictly in-

creasing sequence of monomial ideals L(S) in K[x]. Correctness follows from

Buchberger’s criterion.

The generalization to submodules of a ﬁnitely generated free module over R

is immediate.

32

5 Singularities

5.1 Factorization, Primary Decomposition

Note 5.1.1. In Singular the factorization of polynomials, and, more generally,

the primary decomposition of ideals, are implemented only for the polyno-

mial ring K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] and not for the localization K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

x

.

However, this is not a restriction, since after the factorization in

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] we can pass to the local ring, where all factors not vanishing

at 0 become units (see also Application 2).

ring r0=0,(x,y),ls;

poly f=(1-y)*(x^2-y^3)*(x^3-y^2)*(y^2-x^2-x^3);

f;

factorize(f);

//-> [1]:

//-> _[1]=1

//-> _[2]=-y2+x2+x3

//-> _[3]=-y2+x3

//-> _[4]=-y3+x2

//-> _[5]=-1+y

//-> [2]:

//-> 1,1,1,1,1

Warning: Factorization in the power series ring K[[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]] is not pos-

sible except for K[[x, y]] (using Hamburger–Noether expansion, implemented in

Singular in hnoether.lib).

5.2 Singularities

An (aﬃne) algebraic variety in K

n

is the set

X = V (I) = ¦x ∈ K

n

[ f(x) = 0 ∀ f ∈ I¦

where I ⊂ K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

] is any ideal (I is part of the structure).

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]/I =: O

X

(X) is called the coordinate ring of X and O

X

the ideal

sheaf of X.

From now on we assume that K is an algebraically closed ﬁeld.

Deﬁnition 5.2.1. Let X ⊂ K

n

be an aﬃne algebraic variety and p ∈ X.

The analytic local ring of X at p is the factor ring of the ring of formal

power series, centered at p = (p

1

, . . . , p

n

),

O

an

X,p

:= K[[x

1

−p

1

, . . . , x

n

−p

n

]]/I(X) K[[x

1

−p

1

, . . . , x

n

−p

n

]] .

The ring

O

X,p

= K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

x1−p1,...,xn−pn

is called the algebraic local ring of X at the point p = (p

1

, . . . , p

n

).

33

Lemma 5.2.2. Let O

X,p

be the algebraic local ring and let I ⊂ O

X,p

be an ideal

such that dim

K

(O

X,p

/I) < ∞. Then

O

X,p

/I

∼

= O

an

X,p

/IO

an

X,p

.

In particular, both vector spaces have the same dimension and a common basis

represented by monomials.

Note 5.2.3. In general,

dim

K

O

X,0

/I = dim

K

K[[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]]/'f

1

, . . . , f

n

`

= dim

K

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]/'f

1

, . . . , f

k

`.

5.3 Milnor and Tjurina Number

Deﬁnition 5.3.1.

(1) f ∈ K[x], x = (x

1

, . . . , x

n

), has an isolated critical point at p if p is an

isolated point of V (∂f/∂x

1

, . . . , ∂f/∂x

n

). Similarly, we say that p is an

isolated singularity of f, or of the hypersurface V (f) ⊂ A

n

K

, if p is an

isolated point of V (f, ∂f/∂x

1

, . . . , ∂f/∂x

n

).

(2) We call the number

μ(f, p) := dim

K

K'x

1

−p

1

, . . . , x

n

−p

n

`

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

**the Milnor number, and
**

τ(f, p) := dim

K

K'x

1

−p

1

, . . . , x

n

−p

n

`

f,

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

**the Tjurina number of f at p. We write μ(f) and τ(f) if p = 0.
**

Note 5.3.2. The Milnor number μ(f, p) is ﬁnite iﬀ p is an isolated critical point

of f. Similarly, p is an isolated singularity of V (f) iﬀ the Tjurina number τ(f, p)

is ﬁnite.

By Lemma 5.2.2 we can compute the Milnor number μ(f), resp. the Tjurina

number τ(f), by computing a standard basis of '∂f/∂x

1

, . . . , ∂f/∂x

n

`, respec-

tively 'f, ∂f/∂x

1

, . . . , ∂f/∂x

n

` with respect to a local monomial ordering and

then apply the Singular command vdim.

5.4 Local Versus Global Ordering

We can use the interplay between local and global orderings to check the exis-

tence of critical points and of singularities outside 0. For this we use the (easy)

facts for a polynomial f ∈ K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]:

• μ(f, p) = 0 if and only if p is a non–critical point of f, that is,

p ∈ V

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

=: Crit(f ) ,

34

• τ(f, p) = 0 if and only if p is a non–singular point point of V (f), that

is,

p ∈ V

f,

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

=: Sing(f ) .

Note 5.4.1. We have the following equalities for the total Milnor number,

respectively the total Tjurina number, of f:

dim

K

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

=

¸

p∈Crit(f)

μ(f, p) ,

dim

K

K[x

1

, . . . , x

n

]

f,

∂f

∂x

1

, . . . ,

∂f

∂x

n

=

¸

p∈Sing(f)

τ(f, p) ,

5.5 Using Milnor and Tjurina Numbers

We compute the local and the total Milnor, respectively Tjurina, number and

check in this way, whether there are further critical, respectively singular,

points outside 0. We use ﬁrst the commands milnor and tjurina from

sing.lib:

We ﬁrst compute the local Milnor and Tjurina number at 0:

LIB "sing.lib";

ring r = 0,(x,y,z),ds; //local ring

poly f = x7+y7+(x-y)^2*x2y2+z2;

milnor(f);

//-> 28 //Milnor number at 0

tjurina(f);

//-> 24 //Tjurina number at 0

Without using milnor and tjurina, we have to compute

vdim (std(jacob (f))); //the same as milnor

vdim (std(ideal(f)+jacob(f))); //the same as tjurina

Now we compute the total Milnor and Tjurina number by choosing a global

ordering.

ring R = 0,(x,y,z),dp; //affine ring

poly f = x7+y7+(x-y)^2*x2y2+z2;

milnor(f);

//-> 36 //total Milnor number

tjurina(f);

//-> 24 //total Tjurina number

We see that the diﬀerence between the total and the local Milnor number is 8;

hence, f has eight critical points (counted with their respective Milnor numbers)

outside 0. On the other hand, since the total Tjurina number coincides with

the local Tjurina number, V (f) ⊂ A

3

has no other singular points except 0, i.e.

f(p) = 0 for all critical points p = 0. In other words, the extra critical points of

f do not ly on the zero-set V (f) of f.

35

5.6 Application to Projective Singular Plane Curves

Problem: Let

f(x, y) := y

2

−2x

28

y −4x

21

y

17

+ 4x

14

y

33

−8x

7

y

49

+x

56

+ 20y

65

+ 4x

49

y

16

.

Determine the local Tjurina number

τ

loc

(f) := dim

C

C¦x, y¦

f,

∂f

∂x

,

∂f

∂y

**of the singularity at the origin and check whether this is the only singularity of
**

the corresponding complex plane projective curve C.

Note 5.6.1. The projective curve C ⊂ P

2

is the curve deﬁned by F = 0, where

F is the homogenization of f w.r.t. a new variable.

ring s = 0,(x,y),ds; // the local ring

poly f = y2-2x28y-4x21y17+4x14y33-8x7y49+x56+20y65+4x49y16;

ideal I = f,jacob(f);

vdim(std(I));

//-> 2260 // the local Tjurina number of f at 0

From 5.4.1 we know that the global Milnor number

τ(f) := dim

C

C[x, y]

f,

∂f

∂x

,

∂f

∂y

**equals the sum of the local Tjurina number of all aﬃne singular points of C.
**

We compute

ring r = 0,(x,y),dp; // the affine ring

ideal I = fetch(s,I);

vdim(std(I));

//-> 2260

We see that the global (aﬃne) and local Tjurina number of f coincide.

Hence, the aﬃne singular locus consists only of the origin (0, 0), at all other

points V (f) is smooth.

Now, we check singularities at inﬁnity:

ring sh = 0,(x,y,z),dp;

poly f = fetch(s,f);

poly F = homog(f,z); // homogeneous polynomial

// defining C

ring r1 = 0,(y,z),dp;

map phi = sh,1,y,z;

poly g = phi(F); // F in affine chart (x=1)

ideal J = g,jacob(g);

vdim(std(J));

//-> 120 // the global Tjurina number in the

// chart x=1

ring r2 = 0,(y,z),ds; // local ring at (1:0:0)

ideal J = fetch(r1,J);

vdim(std(J));

//-> 120 // the local Tjurina number at (1:0:0)

36

We have considered all points at inﬁnity except (0:1:0) which is obviously

not on C. Hence, we can conclude that there is (precisely) 1 singularity of C at

inﬁnity (at (1 : 0 : 0)) with Tjurina number 120. A closer analysis shows that

it is of topological type x

9

−y

16

= 0.

5.7 Computing the Genus of a Projective Curve

Recall: Let C be a projective curve, then the Hilbert polynomial is of the form

H

C

(t) = deg(C) t −p

a

(C) + 1 ,

where deg(C) is called the degree of the curve and p

a

(C) the arithmetic

genus. The procedure hilbPoly from poly.lib computes the Hilbert polyno-

mial.

Deﬁnition 5.7.1. The geometric genus g(C) is the arithmetic genus of the

normalization

¯

C of C:

g(C) := p

a

(

¯

C).

If we are able to compute the normalization, we can compute the geometric

genus. But this is often very time consuming.

Facts. Let δ(C) :=

¸

p∈C

dim

K

O

e

C,p

/O

C,p

=

¸

p∈C

δ(C, p).

• p

a

(C) = g(C)+δ(C), where δ(C) is the sum over the local delta invariants

in the singular points.

• For a generic projection C −→D to a plane curve D which has the same

degree d and normalization as C, we have

g(C) = p

a

(D) −δ(D) =

(d −1)(d −2)

2

−δ(D)

.

Let D ⊂ P

2

be a (reduced) plane projective curve given by the homogeneous

polynomial F(x, y, z). To compute δ(D) we have to compute the singularities

of D and then compute δ(D, p) for each singular point p ∈ D (by using the

library hnoether.lib in Singular) or to use the normalization.

The procedure genus in normal.lib oﬀers both possibilities (genus( ); and

genus( ,1);):

ring R = 0,(x,y,z),dp;

poly f = (y3-x2)*(y-1); // a cuspidal cubic with a transversal

// line

poly F = homog(f,z); // defining the projective closure D

LIB "all.lib"; // loads all libraries

hilbPoly(F);

//-> -2,4 // p_a(D)=3, deg(D)=4

genus(F); // computes delta at the singular points

//-> -1 // hence D is reducible,

// delta(D)=p_a(D)-g(D)=4

genus(F,1); // uses the normalization

//-> -1

37

Remark 5.7.2. The computation shows that δ(D) = 4. We can compute in this

example δ(D) by applying some theory without using Singular:

By construction f has a cusp singularity (δ = 1) at (0, 0) and two nodes at

(±1, 1), the two intersection points of y

3

− x

2

= 0 and y − 1 = 0 (both having

δ = 1). By B´ezout’s theorem the line y = 1 intersects the cubic y

3

= x

2

at ∞

with multiplicity 1. Hence, D must have a node at ∞ = (0 : 0 : 1), counting

with δ = 1. Hence, the sum of the deltas is δ(D) = 4.

38

References

[GP] G.-M. Greuel, G. Pﬁster, A Singular Introduction to Commutative Al-

gebra, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007.

[GPS1] G.-M. Greuel, G. Pﬁster and H. Sch¨ onemann, Singular online manual.

[GPS2] G.-M. Greuel, G. Pﬁster and H. Sch¨ onemann, Singular 3-0-4 (2007),

http://www.singular.uni-kl.de.

[DL] W. Decker, C. Lossen, Computing in Algebraic Geometry, Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, 2006.

Fachbereich Mathematik, Universit¨ at Kaiserslautern, Erwin-

Schr¨ odinger-Straße, D – 67663 Kaiserslautern

E–mail address: greuel@mathematik.uni-kl.de

singular@mathematik.uni-kl.de to reach the Singular team

39

**Algorithms and Algebraic Geometry
**

Gert-Martin Greuel Universit¨t Kaiserslautern a and Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach May 31, 2008

Contents

1 Gr¨bner Basics o 1.1 Rings and Ring Maps . . . . . . . 1.2 Monomial Orderings . . . . . . . . 1.3 Ideal Operations . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Normal Forms and Gr¨bner Bases o 1.5 Gr¨bner Basis Algorithm . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4 6 8 11 13 13 13 13 13 15 16 17 19 19 19 20 20 21 23 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 29

2 Constructive Ideal and Module Theory 2.1 Operations on Ideals and their Computation . . . 2.1.1 Ideal Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Intersection with Subrings (Elimination of 2.2 Gr¨bner Bases for Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . o 2.3 Exact Sequences and free Resolutions . . . . . . 2.4 Computing Resolutions and the Syzygy Theorem 2.5 Operations on Modules and their Computation . 3 Constructive Normalization of Aﬃne Rings 3.1 Integral Closure of Rings and Ideals . . . . . . 3.2 Key-Lemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 A Criterion for Normality . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Test Ideals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Algorithm to Compute the Normalization . . . 3.6 Algorithm to Compute the Non-Normal Locus 4 Computation in Local Rings 4.1 What is meant by “local” computations ? 4.2 An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Computational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Rings Associated to Monomial Orderings 4.5 Local Monomial Orderings . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Rings Associated to Mixed Orderings . . . 4.7 Leading Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Division with Remainder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . variables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12

Normal Forms and Standard Bases Weak Normal Forms . . . . . . . . The Weak Normal Form Algorithm Standard Basis Algorithm . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

30 30 31 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 36 37

5 Singularities 5.1 Factorization, Primary Decomposition . . . . . . 5.2 Singularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Milnor and Tjurina Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Local Versus Global Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Using Milnor and Tjurina Numbers . . . . . . . . 5.6 Application to Projective Singular Plane Curves 5.7 Computing the Genus of a Projective Curve . . .

2

1

1.1

Gr¨bner Basics o

Rings and Ring Maps

Deﬁnition 1.1.1. Let A be a ring, always commutative with 1. (1) A monomial in n variables (or indeterminates) x1 , . . . , xn is a power product xα = xα1 · . . . · xαn , n 1 α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) ∈ Nn .

The set of monomials in n variables is denoted by Mon(x1 , . . . , xn ) = Monn := {xα | α ∈ Nn } . Mon(x1 , . . . , xn ) is a semigroup under multiplication, with neutral element 1 = x0 · . . . · x0 . 1 n xα | xβ (xα divides xβ ) ⇐⇒ αi ≤ βi for all i. (2) A term is a monomial times a coeﬃcient (an element of A), axα = axα1 · . . . · xαn , n 1 a ∈ A.

**(3) A polynomial over A is a ﬁnite sum of terms,
**

ﬁnite

f=

α

aα xα =

α∈Nn

aα1 ...αn xα1 · . . . · xαn , n 1

with aα ∈ A. For α ∈ Nn , let |α| := α1 + · · · + αn . deg(f ) := max{|α| | aα = 0} is called the degree of f deg(f ) = −1 for f = 0. if f = 0;

(4) The polynomial ring A[x] = A[x1 , . . . , xn ] in n variables over A is the set of all polynomials together with the usual addition and multiplication: aα xα +

α

bα xα :=

α

(aα + bα )xα ,

α

⎛ ·⎝

β

⎞

⎛ ⎝

α+β=γ

⎞ aα bβ ⎠ xγ .

aα xα

α

bβ xβ ⎠ :=

γ

Deﬁnition 1.1.2. A morphism of rings is a map ϕ : A → B satisfying ϕ(a + a ) = ϕ(a) + ϕ(a ), ϕ(aa ) = ϕ(a)ϕ(a ), for all a, a ∈ A, and ϕ(1) = 1. We call a morphism of rings also a ring map, and B is called an A–algebra. Lemma 1.1.3. Let A[x1 , . . . xn ] be a polynomial ring, ψ : A → B a ring map, C a B–algebra, and f1 , . . . , fn ∈ C (e.g. B = A and ψ = id). Then there exists a unique ring map ϕ : A[x1 , . . . , xn ] −→ C satisfying ϕ(xi ) = fi for i = 1, . . . , n and ϕ(a) = ψ(a) · 1 ∈ C for a ∈ A. In Singular one can deﬁne polynomial rings over the following ﬁelds: 3

1. . and aα . xn ) satisfying xα > xβ =⇒ xγ xα > xγ xβ for all α. . aβ . (2) LE(f ) := leadexp(f):= α. (2) > is called a local ordering if xα < 1 for all α = (0. K[a]/minpoly. Write f ∈ A[x].2. γ ∈ Nn . . which is compatible with the semigroup structure on Nn given by addition. . the tail of f . 0).2. the leading exponent of f . . the leading monomial of f . 4 . .2 Monomial Orderings Monomial orderings are necessary for constructive ideal and module theory. an ). K(a1 . (6) arbitrary precision real ﬂoating point numbers. (3) > is called a mixed ordering if it is neither global nor local. Fp }. the leading term or head of f . . The most important distinction is between global and local orderings. . . . xn ]. (7) arbitrary precision complex ﬂoating point numbers.(1) the ﬁeld of rational numbers Q. 0). β. . 1. (1) > is called a global ordering if xα > 1 for all α = (0. (4) transcendental extensions of K ∈ {Q.2. p a prime number < 231 . . . xα > xβ > · · · > xγ . . A monomial ordering is a total ordering on Nn . . . p a prime. . (2) ﬁnite ﬁelds Fp . Deﬁnition 1.3. aγ ∈ K. Let > be a ﬁxed monomial ordering. in a unique way as a sum of non–zero terms f = aα xα + aβ xβ + · · · + aγ xγ . Deﬁnition 1. We deﬁne: (1) LM(f ) := leadmonom(f):= xα . We say also > is a monomial ordering on A[x1 . A monomial ordering or semigroup ordering is a total (or linear) ordering > on Mon(x1 .2. Let > be a monomial ordering on {xα | α ∈ Nn }. Fp }. The lexicographical ordering on Nn : xα > xβ if and only if the ﬁrst non–zero entry of α − β is positive. Example 1. f = 0. . (5) simple algebraic extensions of K ∈ {Q. (5) tail(f ) := f − lead(f)= aβ xβ + · · · + aγ xγ . . . (4) LC(f ) := leadcoef(f):= aα . the leading coeﬃcient of f . Deﬁnition 1.2.4. (3) ﬁnite ﬁelds GF(pn ) with pn elements. pn ≤ 215 . . . . . (3) LT(f ) := lead(f):= aα xα .

αn = βn . degree reverse lexicographical ordering (degrevlex). there is a β ∈ Bαn with β ≤ α . the third is local). (4) α ≥nat β and α = β implies xα > xβ . . . n. . If αn ≤ s. . i∈N Bi has a Dickson basis B . . αn−1 ) ∈ Nn−1 | (α . . . . αi+1 = βi+1 . Example 1. > is global. Then (γ . . we can ﬁnd a γ ∈ B and an i ≤ s such that γ ≤ β and (γ . i) ≤ (α . Then there is a ﬁnite set B ⊂ M satisfying ∀ α ∈ M ∃ β ∈ B such that β ≤nat α . Again. that is. Let > be a monomial ordering. For n = 1 we can take the minimum of M as the only element of B.2. For the proof (which we leave as an exercise) one needs Lemma 1. B is ﬁnite.6 (Dickson‘s Lemma). . . (3) xα > 1 for all α = (0. . lexicographical ordering (lex) (2) dp : xα > xβ ⇔ |α| > |β| or |α| = |β| and ∃i : αi < βi .Local and global (and mixed) orderings have quite diﬀerent properties. αi > βi . (1) lp : xα > xβ ⇔ ∃i : α1 = β1 . αn ) ≥nat (β1 . hence B ⊂ B1 ∪ · · · ∪ Bs for some s. αi+1 = βi+1 . . . Let M ⊂ Nn be any subset. To see this. by induction. . (2) xi > 1 for i = 1. . . i) ∈ M } and. . by induction hypothesis.7 (the ﬁrst two are global.5. . . .2. αi−1 = βi−1 . let (α . αn ). . β ∈ Bi } is a Dickson basis of M . i) ∈ Nn | 0 ≤ i ≤ s. Lemma 1. negative degree reverse lexicographical ordering. . For n > 1 and i ∈ N deﬁne Mi = {α = (α1 . αn = βn . βn ) :⇐⇒ αi ≥ βi for all i . αn ) ∈ B and (β . αn ) ∈ M . Mi has a Dickson basis Bi . . . We claim that B := {(β . Then α ∈ Mαn and. 0). . . . i) ∈ Bi . since Bαn is a Dickson basis of Mαn . αn ). αn ) ≤ (α . then (β . . . If αn > s. B is sometimes called a Dickson basis of M . (3) ds : xα > xβ ⇔ |α| < |β| or |α| = |β| and ∃i : αi < βi . We write ≥ instead of ≥nat and use induction on n. The last condition means that > is a reﬁnement of the natural partial ordering on Nn deﬁned by (α1 . . (mixed orderings will be considered later) 5 . . i) ∈ B and (γ . then the following conditions are equivalent: (1) > is a well–ordering. Proof.2.

1. . For the proof of the Hilbert basis theorem we use 6 . the image Im ϕ = ϕ(I) = {ϕ(a) | a ∈ I} is. . . not easy. Theorem 1. . For A = K a ﬁeld. fk . hence the computation is trivial. If Λ is ﬁnite. . xn ] is any set we denote by • L(G) = LT(g) | g ∈ G A[x] .3 Ideal Operations Ideals are in the centre of commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. . . . . . Deﬁnition 1. only an ideal if ϕ is surjective. L(G) = LM (G).e. a generating set can be computed) which is. we say that I is ﬁnitely generated and we write I = f 1 . Λ any index set. as always. . In particular. Note 1.3. then the preimage ϕ−1 (J) = {a ∈ A | ϕ(a) ∈ J} is an ideal. . fk A = f 1 . (3) If G ⊂ A[x] = A[x1 . xn ] is Noetherian. . xn ] is Noetherian. . and we have for λ ∈ K \ {0} λxα ∈ L(G) ⇐⇒ xα ∈ L(G) ⇐⇒ ∃ g ∈ G : LM(g) | xα . . is called a system of generators of I if every element f ∈ I can be expressed as a ﬁnite sum f = λ aλ fλ for suitable aλ ∈ A. say Λ = {1. A ring A is called Noetherian if every ideal in A is ﬁnitely generated.2. .3. Preimages (hence kernels) can be eﬀectively computed (i. In particular. Often ideals are not given by generators. . and fλ ∈ I. then K[x1 . If ϕ : A → B is a ring homomorphism and J ⊂ B an ideal. if K is a ﬁeld.3. Let A be a ring. the leading term ideal of G.3. k}. . If A is a Noetherian ring then the polynomial ring A[x1 . however. Deﬁnition 1. commutative and with 1.4 (Hilbert Basis Theorem). On the other hand. .3. . in general. (2) A family (fλ )λ∈Λ . (1) A subset I ⊂ A is called an ideal if it is an additive subgroup which is closed under scalar multiplication. Images are generated by the images of the generators (for surjective ϕ). the leading monomial ideal of G. • LM (G) = LM(g) | g ∈ G A[x] . . the kernel Ker ϕ = {a ∈ A | ϕ(a) = 0} is an ideal in A.1. . .

. . Deﬁnition 1. (3) Every non–empty set of ideals in A has a maximal element (with regard to inclusion). denoted by I or rad(I) is the ideal √ I = a ∈ A ∃ d ∈ N such that ad ∈ I . ak+1 = i=1 bi ai for suitable bi ∈ A. We argue by contradiction. i=1 Since fk+1 ∈ I f1 . Let us assume that there exists an ideal I ⊂ A[x] which is not ﬁnitely generated. . . .4. a1 . J ⊂ A we deﬁne: (1) The ideal quotient of I by J is deﬁned as I : J := a ∈ A aJ ⊂ I . . . . The following properties of a ring A are equivalent: (1) A is Noetherian. . For ideals I. . there exists some j0 such that Ij = Ij0 for all j ≥ j0 ). . ak+1 for k some k. then d1 ≤ d2 ≤ .. . By assumption it is stationary. Choose polynomials f1 ∈ I. (2) Every ascending chain of ideals I1 ⊂ I2 ⊂ I3 ⊂ . fi = ai xdi + lower terms in x . If di = deg(fi ). . . . becomes stationary (that is. We leave the proof of this proposition as an exercise. . fk . ak = a1 .3.3. the general case follows by induction. fk+1 ∈ I f 1 . . . The saturation of I with respect to J is I : J ∞ = a ∈ A ∃ n such that aJ n ⊂ I . We need to show the theorem only for n = 1. fk . . of minimal possible degree.. . f2 ∈ I f1 . ⊂ Ik ⊂ . √ (2) The radical of I.3. is an ascending chain of ideals in A. . . ... hence. Condition (2) is called the ascending chain condition and (3) the maximality condition. . Proof of Theorem 1. . that is.Proposition 1. . .6. . fk is a polynomial of degree smaller than dk+1 . . . and a1 ⊂ a1 . I is called reduced or a radical ideal if I = 7 √ I. a contradiction to the choice of fk+1 . Consider the polynomial k g = fk+1 − i=1 bi xdk+1 −di fi = ak+1 xdk+1 − k bi ai xdk+1 + lower terms . a2 ⊂ . .5. it follows that g ∈ I f1 . .

which exists. and L(I) = L(G) .2. xn ] Deﬁnition 1. Let G ⊂ R be any subset. • Every Gr¨bner basis G can be transformed into an interreduced one o by just deleting elements of G. if 8 .7.4. . for any g ∈ G. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal. if for any f ∈ I {0} there exists a g ∈ G o satisfying LM(g) | LM(f ). LC(g) = 1 and no monomial of tail (g) is divisible by any LM(f ). xn ). (Generators of) Ideal quotient. (2) G is called (completely) reduced if G is interreduced and if. 0 : f = 0 if and only if f is a non–zerodivisor of A. . . A map NF : R → R. . f ∈ G.J). • We shall see later that reduced Gr¨bner bases can always be como puted and are unique. These generators are leading monomials of suitable elements g1 .4. Note 1. . since K[x] is Noetherian. We say G is a Gr¨bner (standard) basis if it is a o Gr¨bner (standard) basis of G R . Hence G ⊂ I is a Gr¨bner basis. . Singular commands: quotient(I. .4.1.lib) 1.lib) (procedure in primdec. . . . o Existence of a Gr¨bner basis (non-constructive): o Choose a ﬁnite set of generators m1 . . sat(I. ms of L(I) ⊂ K[x]. The set of nilpotent elements of A is equal to 0 and called the nilradical of A. . gs ∈ I. (command in the Singular kernel) (procedure in elmi. (4) 0 : J = AnnA (J) is the annihilator of J and.3. hence. is called a normal form on R with respect to G. . . radical can be eﬀectively computed. .3. . radical(I). f → NF(f | G) . saturation.4 Normal Forms and Gr¨bner Bases o Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering on Mon(x1 .(3) a ∈ A is called nilpotent if an = 0 for some n ∈ N. Deﬁnition 1. The set {g1 . . the minimal n is called index of nilpotency. . gs } is a standard basis for I. . Deﬁnition 1.J). Let G ⊂ R be a ﬁnite list. . K a ﬁeld and let R = K[x1 . A ﬁnite set G ⊂ R is called a Gr¨bner basis or standard basis of I if o G ⊂ I. (1) G is called interreduced (or minimal) if 0 ∈ G and if LM(g) LM(f ) for any two elements f = g in G.

for short) of f and g is spoly(f. xβ ) := xγ be the least common multiple of xα and xβ . to prove (4). G ⊂ I a standard basis of I and NF(− | G) a normal form on R with respect to G. then r := f − NF(f | G) has a standard representation. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal. depends only on G and on >). f ∈ I. and. Let f. (3) follows from (2). contradicting NF(f | G) ∈ J. (4) If NF(− | G) is a reduced normal form. which implies f ∈ I. (2) If G = {g1 . h are two reduced normal forms of f with respect to G. Set γ := lcm(α. in particular. Then no monomial of the power series expansion of h or h is divisible by any monomial of L(G) and. If NF(f | G) = 0. . . since L(I) = L(G) ⊂ L( G R ) ⊂ L(I). Deﬁnition 1.4. G is also a standard basis of G R . Hence. max(αn . let f ∈ R and assume that h. ai ∈ R . If h − h = 0. the standard basis G generates I as R–ideal. a contradiction. if. . let f ∈ J and assume that NF(f | G) = 0. then it is unique (i. hence NF(f | G) ∈ I. . NF(f | G) has leading coeﬃcient 1 and no monomial of its tail is divisible by LM(g). LC(g) 9 . then LM(h − h ) ∈ L(I) = L(G). s ≥ 0 . (3) I = G R.4. β1 ). for all f ∈ R. The s–polynomial (spoly. . Finally. Lemma 1. that is.4. βn ) and let lcm(xα . β) := max(α1 . (1) For any f ∈ R we have f ∈ I if and only if NF(f | G) = 0. To prove (2).(0) NF(0 | G) = 0 . h − h = (f − h ) − (f − h) ∈ G R = I. moreover. moreover. g ∈ G. (2) If J ⊂ R is an ideal with I ⊂ J. Proof. . hence. then L(I) = L(J) implies I = J. (1) If NF(f | G) = 0 then uf ∈ I and. then LM NF(f | G) ∈ L(G) = L(I).e. satisﬁes LM(r) ≥ LM(ai gi ) for all i such that ai gi = 0. . f ∈ I by (1). Then LM NF(f | G) ∈ L(G) = L(I) = L(J). gs }. NF is called a reduced normal form. g ∈ R {0} with LM(f ) = xα and LM(g) = xβ . that is the remainder s r = f − NF(f | G) = i=1 a i g i . since LM(h − h ) is a monomial of either h or h . . (1) NF(f | G) = 0 =⇒ LM NF(f | G) ∈ L(G). since G R ⊂ I. g) := xγ−α f − LC(f ) γ−β ·x g.5.

G ∈ G. • while (h = 0 and Gh := {g ∈ G | LM(g) divides LM(h)} = ∅) choose any g ∈ Gh . z). y + z} . LC(g) and LM spoly(f. Assume that > is a global monomial ordering. g := tail(g).6 (NFBuchberger(f | G)).If LM(g) divides LM(f ). if (g = 0) h := h + LT(g).7 (redNFBuchberger(f | G)). g). LM(f ) = xα . y. Let > be the ordering dp on Mon(x. g) < LM(f ). • while (g = 0) g := NFBuchberger (g | G). Algorithm 1.4. Example 1. 10 . say LM(g) = xβ .4. then the s–polynomial is particularly simple. • h := f . g) = f − LC(f ) α−β ·x g. • return h. where G denotes the class of ﬁnite lists. spoly(f. a reduced normal form of f with respect to G • h := 0. NFBuchberger proceeds as follows: G = {x2 . h := spoly(h. a normal form of f with respect to G. f = x3 + y 2 + 2z 2 + x + y + 1 . Input: f ∈ K[x]. Assume that > is a global monomial ordering.8. g := f . Note that each speciﬁc choice of “any” can give a diﬀerent normal form function. G ∈ G Output: h ∈ K[x]. Output: h ∈ K[x]. g). g Algorithm 1. We use in this case the notation f −→ h if h = spoly(f.4. Input: f ∈ K[x]. • return h/ LC(h).

xn ]. we obtain a strictly increasing sequence of monomial ideals L(S) of K[x]. f = g}. y+z LM(h2 ) = yz. . Let G be the class of ﬁnite lists (a list is a sequence). Gf = {x2 }. • return S. (f −→ h1 ). 2 h2 = spoly(h1 . the pair-set P will become empty. g) ∈ P . after ﬁnitely many steps. (h2 −→ h3 ).5. • while (P = ∅) choose (f. Gh2 = {y + z}. S := S ∪ {h}.LM(f ) = x3 . h := NF spoly(f. g)}. g) ∈ P . again after ﬁnitely many steps. Correctness follows from applying Buchberger’s fundamental standard basis criterion below. 2 x LM(h1 ) = y . f ) | f ∈ S}. 11 . To have shorthand notation we underline the leading terms and then the reduced normal form acts as 1 1 1 f −→ NF(f | G) = 3z 2 + x+ y + 1 −→ 3z 2 + x− z + 1 −→ z 2 + x − z + . g) | f. R Output: S ∈ G such that S is a Gr¨bner basis of I = G o • S := G. g) | S = 0 for (f. ¨ Algorithm 1. y+z Hence. and. NF an algorithm returning a normal form. Gh1 = {y + z}. y+z 3 3 3 =RedNF(f |G) 1. . NFBuchberger(f | G) = 3z 2 + x + y + 1.1 (Grobner(G. which becomes stationary as K[x] is Noetherian. . h1 = spoly(f. ⊂R ¨ Termination of Grobner: if h = 0 then LM(h) ∈ L(S) by property (i) of NF. we always have NF spoly(f.NF)).5 Gr¨bner Basis Algorithm o Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering and let R = K[x1 . y + z) = −yz + 2z 2 + x + y + 1. the pair–set. Hence. . x2 ) = y 2 + 2z 2 + x + y + 1. g ∈ S. P := P {(f. if (h = 0) P := P ∪ {(h. That is. Gh3 = ∅. (h1 −→ h2 ). • P := {(f. h3 = spoly(h2 . Input: G ∈ G. g) | S . y + z) = 3z 2 + x + y + 1.

f4 ): P =∅ spoly(f3 . (2) NF(f | G) = 0 for all f ∈ I. f2 }. gj ) | G = 0 for i. f1 = x3 + y 2 . (f3 . f4 )} spoly(f2 . f4 ) {f1 . S) P = {(f1 .5.) S = {f1 . f3 ): P = {(f2 . f4 ). f3 ) = xyf2 − zf3 = −xy 3 − y 3 z 2 =: f4 = NF(f4 . . f3 . S) P = {(f1 . f4 } In the fourth run: (f2 . f3 ). R. f2 = xyz − y 2 (underline leading terms). f3 )} spoly(f1 . Let I ⊂ R be an ideal and G = {g1 . 12 . . f4 ) = y 4 z 3 − x3 y 3 −→ − x3 y 3 − xy 4 z −→ − xy 4 z + y 5 −→ 0 f f f 4 1 2 o return{f1 . P = {(f1 . j = 1. . f4 ) = −y 4 z − x2 y 3 −→ 0 f 3 In the ﬁfth run: (f3 . the implication (4) ⇒ (1) is called Buchberger’s criterion.Theorem 1.3. . s. (4) G generates I and NF spoly(gi . Let NF(− | G) be a normal form on R with respect to G.2 (Buchberger’s criterion). (f2 . f2 . f2 )} The while–loop gives. f3 ) = y 2 f1 − xf3 = y 4 − xy 3 z −→ 0 f 2 In the third run: (f2 . f4 }. Example 1. since LM(f1 ) = x3 and LM(f4 ) = y 3 z 2 have no common divisor. NF=NFBuchberger. f4 ). (3) Each f ∈ I has a standard representation with respect to NF(− | G). f2 . y). f4 ): P = {(f3 . f2 . . Let > be the ordering dp on Mon(x. (f2 .5. f3 )} S = {f1 . a Gr¨bner basis of f1 . . f3 ): P =∅ spoly(f2 . . f2 }.f4 } −→ 0 by the product criterion. in the ﬁrst run: (f1 . G = {f1 . f2 ): P =∅ spoly(f1 . f3 } In the second run: (f1 .NF) works as follows: S = {f1 . f2 ) = yzf1 − x2 f2 = y 3 z + x2 y 2 =: f3 = NF(f3 . f4 )} (Note: spoly(f1 . Then the following are equivalent: 1 (1) G is a standard basis of I. gs } ⊂ I. ¨ Grobner(G. f3 . f2 1 Usually. .

Since f ∈ K[xs+1 . Hence S is a standard basis of I . xn ). . . . . and let I ⊂ K[x1 . +) is an abelian group and + and · satisfy 13 . . Solution: Choose an elimination ordering for x1 . . xn ). . . .1 Constructive Ideal and Module Theory Operations on Ideals and their Computation Ideal Membership Problem: Given f. gs } of I. Since > is an elimination ordering S ⊂ I . . . Proof. . . . . Solution: Choose any global monomial ordering > and compute a standard basis G = {g1 .g. gk } is a standard basis of I. . . . we have LM(f ) ∈ K[xs+1 . . xn ]. . + : M × M −→ M and a scalar multiplication. xn ]. > is called an elimination ordering for x1 . . . . . . s < n. A set M with two maps. xs . This follows from the following Lemma. . S generates the ideal I . then S := {g ∈ S | LM(g) ∈ K[xs+1 . . . Decide whether f ∈ I. Let > be an elimination ordering for x1 . xs . . . since S is a standard basis of I. . xn ] LM(f ) ∈ K[xs+1 . .2 Gr¨bner Bases for Modules o Deﬁnition 2. . . . .1. xn ]} is a standard basis of I := I ∩ K[xs+1 . xn ] (e.2. .2 2. I = f1 . . fk ∈ K[x]. . . . .2 Intersection with Subrings (Elimination of variables) This is one of the most important applications of Gr¨bner bases. . f1 . and compute a standard basis S = {g1 . . they are a standard basis of I . Even more. . In particular. o Problem: Given f1 . xs if for all f ∈ K[x1 . gi ∈ S . xn ]. . xn ] and. . . . .1. . · : A × M −→ M is called an A-module if (M. xs on Mon(x1 . . . . If S = {g1 . generate I . . . . . .1 2. . xn ]> be an ideal. . . . xn ] ⇒ f ∈ K[xs+1 . an addition. . . . .1. . . . . ﬁnd Elements of I are said to be obtained from I by eliminating x1 . fk ∈ K[x] = K[x1 . for which LM(gi ) does not involve x1 .1. Given f ∈ I ⊂ I there exists gi ∈ S such that LM(gi ) divides LM(f ). xn ]> . . Let A be a ring. . . . . . . Those gi . . . . . . Lemma 2. fk generators of the ideal I = I ∩ K[xs+1 . . xs on Mon(x1 . . 2. 2. . .: lex or product orderings). and let I = f1 . Then f ∈ I if and only if NF(f | G) = 0. . gk } of I. . . K[x] . or not. . . . fk . hence.1. . .

γ ∈ Nn . More generally. . Fix a module ordering >m and denote it also with >. denoted by (>. b ∈ A. .2. . For the proof see e.>). that is. r}. then M is Noetherian iﬀ M is ﬁnitely generated. . Let M be an A-module and N ⊂ M a submodule. . giving priority to the components. .• (a + b) · m = a · m + b · m • a · (m + n) = a · m + a · n • (a · b) · m = a · (b · m) • 1·m= m for all a.g. . m. . . β. . f ∈ K[x]r {0} can be written uniquely as f = cxα ei + f ∗ with c ∈ K {0} and xα ei > xα ej for any non–zero term c∗ xα ej of f ∗ : We deﬁne as before 14 ∗ ∗ Any vector . . For r > 0. . where K is a ﬁeld. . Ar with componentwise + and · is an A-module which is Noetherian if A is Noetherian. Deﬁnition 2. . n ∈ M . (1) M is Noetherian ⇐⇒ N and the factor module M/N are Noetherian (2) If A is Noetherian. i = 1. we have Lemma 2. r. . .2. 0) ∈ K[x]r a monomial (involving component i). (2) xα > xβ =⇒ xα ei >m xβ ei for all α. Let > be a monomial ordering on K[x].3. . denoted by (c. Two module orderings are of particular interest: xα ei > xβ ej :⇐⇒ i < j or (i = j and xα > xβ ) . . satisfying (1) xα ei >m xβ ej =⇒ xα+γ ei >m xβ+γ ej . and xα ei > xβ ej :⇐⇒ xα > xβ or (xα = xβ and i < j) . A (module) monomial ordering or a module ordering on K[x]r is a total ordering >m on the set of monomials {xα ei | α ∈ Nn . . . . . xα . i=1 We call xα ei = (0. . Proof.2.c). which gives priority to the monomials in K[x]. [GP]. We have to extend the notion of monomial orderings to the free module K[x]r = r K[x]ei . i. j = 1. 1. . which is compatible with the K[x]–module structure including the ordering >. ei = (0. 0) ∈ K[x]r .

The notion of minimal and reduced Gr¨bner basis is the same as for o ideals.2. . 2. for any o f ∈ I {0} there exists a g ∈ G satisfying LM(g) | LM(f ). LT(f ) := cxα ei . tail(f ) := f ∗ For I ⊂ K[x]r a submodule we call leading monomial leading coeﬃcient leading term tail {0} ⊂ K[x]r L> (I) := L(I) := LT(g) | g ∈ I K[x] the leading module of I K (which coincides with LM (I) = LM(g) | g ∈ I \ {0} K[x] since K is a ﬁeld).3. . that is.3 Exact Sequences and free Resolutions · · · → Mk+1 − − Mk −→ Mk−1 → · · · −→ − ϕk+1 ϕk Deﬁnition 2. The set of monomials of K[x]r may be identiﬁed with Nn × E r ⊂ Nn × Nr = n+r N . Deﬁnition 2. A ﬁnite set G ⊂ I is called a Gr¨bner or standard basis of I if and only if L(G) = L(I). −→ F1 − F0 −→ 0 −→ → is called a free resolution of M . A free resolution has (ﬁnite) length n if Fk = 0 for all k > n and n is minimal with this property. −→ Fk+1 − − Fk −→ . Deﬁnition 2. . Frequently the complex of free A-modules (without M ) F• : .2. .1. . .LM(f ) := xα ei .4. . Let > be a ﬁxed global monomial ordering. We say that xβ ej is divisible by xα ei if i = j and xα | xβ . . xn ]. An exact sequence 0 −→ M − M − M −→ 0 → → is called a short exact sequence. It is called exact at Mk if Ker(ϕk ) = Im(ϕk+1 ) . −→ F1 − F0 − M → 0 −→ → → with ﬁnitely generated free A–modules Fi for i ≥ 0. LC(f ) := c . Let I ⊂ Rr be a submodule. . −→ Fk+1 − − Fk −→ . E r = {e1 . A sequence of A–modules and homomorphisms is called a complex if Ker(ϕk ) ⊂ Im(ϕk+1 ). . It is called exact if it is exact at all Mk . The normal form algorithm and Buchberger’s Gr¨bner basis algorithm o extend easily to submodules I ⊂ Rr . .3. . A free resolution of M is an exact sequence . 15 ϕk+1 ϕ1 ϕk+1 ϕ1 ϕ0 ϕ ψ . . er }. Also the deﬁnitions of normal form and of s–polynomial. Let A be a ring and M a ﬁnitely generated A–module. . . . Again we write R := K[x] = K[x1 .

. . . . . . . . . m)). fk + er+k }.4. . fk R and syz(I) := syz(f1 . Algorithm 2. . . . i = 1. . . . . • return S = {s1 . . . >). 16 . Theorem 2. . . . . where the Fi are free R–modules. . . . . gk ) ∈ Rk satisfying k gi fi = 0 . fk of an R–module M is a k–tuple (g1 . where e1 . it is the kernel of the ring homomorphism k ϕ : F1 := i=1 Rεi −→ M . • F := {f1 + er+1 . For the proof we refer to [GP]. . . . . . . . .3 (syz(f1 . xn ) and R = K[x]. . . . Algorithm 2. .1. Let > be a global monomial ordering on Mon(x1 . Proof. . ϕ surjects onto the R– module I := f1 . . . . aik ). • compute a standard basis G of F ⊂ Rr+k with respect to (c. fk )). . • G0 := G ∩ r+k Rei = {g1 . . . Input: f1 . Let R = K[x1 . . . . . . Output: S = {s1 . Deﬁnition 2.4 (Resolution(I. εi −→ fi . . fk is a submodule of Rk . . s } ⊂ K[x]k such that S = syz(f1 . . . . . . with i=r+1 k gi = j=1 aij er+j . . . . .4. s }. . fk ) := Ker(ϕ) is called the module of syzygies of I with respect to the generators f1 . g }. xn ) and R = K[x]. fk . . fk ∈ K[x]r . Let > be any monomial ordering on Mon(x1 .4. . . • si := (ai1 . Then any ﬁnitely generated R–module M has a free resolution 0 → Fm → Fm−1 → · · · → F0 → M → 0 of length m ≤ n. . . where {ε1 . i=1 The set of all syzygies between f1 . . . . εk } denotes the canonical basis of Rk .4 Computing Resolutions and the Syzygy Theorem In the following deﬁnition R can be an arbitrary ring. fk ) ⊂ Rk . .2. . . . . i = 1. . . . xn ]. . . . .2 (Hilbert’s Syzygy Theorem). . . A syzygy or relation between k elements f1 . . . .4. er+k denote the canonical generators of Rr+k = Rr ⊕ Rk such that r f1 . . fk ∈ Rr = i=1 Rei .

. • A1 := matrix(f1 . fk ∈ K[x]r . . . and m a positive integer.r. i = 1. Problem: Given f1 . . Then k f = i=1 gi fi . 2. > a global monomial ordering on K[x]. . The module membership problem can be formulated as follows: Problem: Given polynomial vectors f. . fk ⊂ Rr . . . xn ). . . . . fk ⊂ Rr . . . >). . such that 1 . . . decide whether f ∈ I := f1 . . . . . fk ) ⊂ Rk+1 w. . . . . . . where {e1 . . −→ Rrm − m Rrm−1 −→ . the ordering (c. . er } denotes the canonical basis of Rr . fk ⊂ Rr or not. . . Solution: Compute a standard basis G = {g1 . Then f ∈ I ⇐⇒ NF(f | G) = 0 . . Additional Problem: If f ∈ I = f1 . . . gs } of I with respect to >m and choose a normal form NF on Rr . . f1 . . . I = f1 . .t. . fk ) ∈ Mat(r × k. . .5 Operations on Modules and their Computation Let K be a ﬁeld. Am with Ai ∈ Mat(ri−1 × ri . −g1 . ﬁnd a (polynomial) system of generators for the submodule r I := I ∩ i=s+1 Rei . . • return A1 . . . fk ∈ Rr . . Now choose any vector h = (1. . Output: A list of matrices A1 . . f1 . −gk ) ∈ G. • i := 1. fk ∈ K[x]r . . . . x = (x1 . . . .Input: f1 . I = f1 . . −→ Rr1 −→ Rr −→ Rr /I −→ 0 − → − A A is the beginning of a free resolution of Rr /I. . 17 . . Intersection with Free Submodules (Elimination of Module Compor nents) Let Rr = i=1 Rei . . fr ⊂ Rr then express f as a linear k combination f = i=1 gi fi with gi ∈ K[x]. • while (i < m) i := i + 1. . m. K[x]). and R = K[x]. Solution: Compute a standard basis G of syz(f. . Ai := syz(Ai−1 ). . . . . . K[x]). . . . . Am . R = K[x].

Solution: Compute a standard basis G = {g1 . >).Elements of the submodule I are said to be obtained from f1 .t. .r. . . . . . . . gs } of I w. . . es . . fk by eliminating e1 . Then r G := is a standard basis for I . g ∈ G LM(g) ∈ i=s+1 K[x]ei 18 . . (c.

s) ∼ (a . the multiplicatively closed set S = {s ∈ A | sa = 0 ⇒ a = 0 ∀ a ∈ A} of non-zero divisors of A.6. then Q(A) is a ﬁeld. . J).1. Deﬁnition 3. ai ∈ A . Deﬁnition 3. Lemma 3.3.2. if A is a domain (i.2 Key-Lemma bn + a1 bn−1 + · · · + an = 0 .2 (Key-lemma). char(K) = 0 or K ﬁnite) and A = K[x1 . S = A \ {0}). . = 1 Proof. the characteristic polynomial of ϕ deﬁnes an integral relation of ϕ ∈ HomA (J. V (IN ) = N (A) := {P ∈ Spec A | AP is not normal} . a ∈ A} s with usual + and · of fractions. that is. the ﬁeld of fractions of A. fk reduced (i.e.1. ·) is a ring.3 3.g.4. . b ∈ Q(A) is integral over A if it satisﬁes a relation We deﬁne the normalisation of A as A := b ∈ Q(A) b is integral over A . 19 ∼ = ϕ −→ ϕ(f ) f . the integral closure I of I in A (cf. 3. J ) with HomA (J. that is. that is. (Q(A).1. Let J ⊂ A be an ideal. xn ]/ f1 .1 Constructive Normalization of Aﬃne Rings Integral Closure of Rings and Ideals Let K be a perfect ﬁeld (e. Remark 3. For any ring A we deﬁne the total ring of fractions Q(A) as the localization of A w. +. • an ideal IN ⊂ A describing the non-normal locus. J) ∼ f (f J : J) ⊂ A. if a ∈ A and ap = 0 for some p > 0 then a = 0). and Lemma 3.2.e. A is the integral closure of A in Q(A). . J) ⊂ HomA (J. s) s with (a. where a is the equivalence class of pairs (a.2. (1) By the Cayley-Hamilton theorem. . ¯ (2) HomA (J. We describe algorithms to compute • the normalisation A of A. . For the proof we refer to [GP].1. Lemma 3. containing a nonzerodivisor f of A. . That is Q(A) = { a | s ∈ S. We can also compute for any ideal I ⊂ A. A) −→ h ∈ Q(A) hJ ⊂ A ⊂ Q(A) . . A) ∩ A ⊂ HomA (J. [GP]).t. s ) iﬀ as = a s. Then √ A ⊂ HomA (J. . the integral closure of A in the total ring of fractions Q(A).r.6.

then the Jacobian ideal J= f1 . I = f1 . then J is also a test ideal. Let A be a reduced Noetherian ring and J ⊂ A an ideal satisfying (1) J contains a non-zerodivisor of A. . Assume d > 0 ⇒ ∃ h ∈ A. “⇐=” (3) ⇒ ∃ d ≥ 0 minimal s. . Proposition 3.3. Since A is reduced. . c-minors of ∂fi ∂xj deﬁnes Sing(A).4 Test Ideals Let R = K[x1 . V (J) = Sing(A). (3) V (J) ⊃ N (A) = V (C).1 (Criterion for normality). A = R/I reduced. √ (2) J = J. fk . (2). K a perfect ﬁeld. J contains a non-zerodivisor of A. . Hence we can compute test ideals as follows (all steps are eﬀective): • compute J such that V (J) = Sing(A) √ • compute J √ Then J is a test ideal for the normalization. . . If A is equidimensional of codimension c. We have N (A) ⊂ Sing(A). . . 3. . Then C = AnnA (A/A). 20 .th. A = A ⇐⇒ A = HomA (J. . . Let Sing(A) = {P ∈ Spec A | AP is not regular} be the singular locus of A. fk . Note that we can as well compute √ any ideal J ⊂ J containing a non-zero divisor. haJ ⊂ hJ d ⊂ AJ d ⊂ A ⇒ ha ∈ A ∩ HomA (J.3 A Criterion for Normality The following criterion is basically due to Grauert and Remmert (1971).3.th. AJ d ⊂ A. . In general. A) = HomA (J. we can use an equidimensional or primary decomposition to compute an ideal J s. J). An ideal J with (1). xn ]. Proof. (3) is called test ideal for the normalization. a ∈ J d−1 : ha ∈ A. J) (key-lemma) =A That is a contradiction and we conclude that d = 0 and thus A = A.

therefore. there exist ξk ∈ A such s ij that (ui /x) · (uj /x) = k=0 ξk · (uk /x). . . .3(2). If A = A(1) then A is already normal by Proposition 3. . . . . J (1) ) for a test ideal J (1) ⊂ A(1) . On the other hand. . . To prove (2). . (3) Obviously. let J ⊂ A be an ideal and x ∈ J a non–zerodivisor.3.5. 21 . . . by a theorem of M. J) = (1/x) · (xJ : J) is a ring. . J) for some test ideal J ⊂ A. . ts ] be the ideal s s ij ξk tk 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s . . In order to do the computations eﬀectively. hs ) is a i=1 syzygy of u0 = x. . Noether. . u1 . hence. Example 3. . . we can write s h ≡ h0 + i=1 hi ti mod I. u1 . This is described in the following lemma. 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s. y 2 . Now φ(h) = 0 implies h0 + s hi · (ui /x) = 0. . h ∈ I. . . . k = 1. . Moreover. . . . . ts ] → (1/x) · (xJ : J) is the ring map deﬁned by ti → ui /x.2. Then we can write s (2) ui · uj = k=0 (k) ij ij xξk uk with suitable ξk ∈ A. . m. If not. J) ∼ · (xJ : J) .1.1. . . h1 . If A(1) = A(2) then A = A(1) . k=0 ν=0 the syzygy module I := ti tj − (k) ην tν 1 ≤ k ≤ m . s. . where φ : A[t1 . . us } be a system of generators for the A–module xJ : J. . let {u0 = x. us /x. . s. hs ∈ A. deﬁnes an isomorphism ∼ 1 = A[t1 . . . . . ⊂ A(i) ⊂ . for some h0 . i = 1. .3. . Then x ∈ J is a non–zerodivisor in A with xJ : J = x x. 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ s. generate syz(u0 . Then (3) ti → ui /x. = x Proof. using the relations ti tj − k=0 ξk tk . therefore. Therefore. otherwise we continue in the same way to obtain a sequence of rings A ⊂ A(1) ⊂ .5. we compute A(2) = HomA(1) (J (1) . I ⊂ Ker(φ). . . Let A be a reduced Noetherian ring. . y : x. . us and. .5 Algorithm to Compute the Normalization The idea of the algorithm is to compute the endomorphism ring A(1) = HomA (J. which is ij generated as A–module by u0 /x. y]/ x2 − y 3 and J := x. note that HomA (J. . let h ∈ Ker(φ). s ij Then. Let A := K[x. (k) Let (η0 . . and let I ⊂ A[t1 . . . . ts ]/I −→ HomA (J. (h0 . ⊂ A. Lemma 3. J) if and only if xJ : J = x . us ). y ⊂ A. where t0 := 1. . we must present A(i) as aﬃne ring. i = 1. .2. y = x. (1) follows immediately from Remark 3. The process must stop since A is aﬃne. . . ηs ) ∈ As+1 . Then (1) A = HomA (J. .

0 . . . . xt − y 2 . xn ]/I is an integral domain over a ﬁeld K of characteristic 0. . t]. a prime ideal P ⊂ K[t] and π : K[x] → K[t] such that the induced map π : K[x]/I → K[t]/P is the normalization of K[x]/I. . u1 := y 2 . xn .5. especially I is prime. . . we 11 obtain u2 = y 4 = x2 y. that is.5.1 and Lemma 3. • compute a generating system u0 = a. Hence. us ) ⊂ (K[x]/I)s+1 . . . . . us for aJ : J. yt − x K[t]. i. . . . .3. fk ⊂ K[x] a prime ideal. . Let us illustrate the normalization with Whitney’s umbrella 2 This is useful information because. . . using Proposition 3. u1 . s. . . we can avoid computing the minors of the Jacobian matrix and the radical (which can be expensive). . • if I = 0 then return (K[x]. . . idK[x] ). else compute J := the ideal of the (n − r)–minors of the Jacobian matrix I. idK[x] ). . .3 (normalization(I)). . y 2 /x (using Remark 3. t = (t1 . Note that I1 is again a prime ideal. . . .HomA (J. Algorithm 3. • compute r := dim(I). . . . . • return normalization(I1 ). ts ]/I1 ∼ HomA (J. and set (with t0 := 1) (k) s s ij I1 := {ti tj − k=0 ξk tk }1≤i≤j≤s . . 22 . (η0 . . . ∼ = Now. . We describe the algorithm for the case that A = K[x1 . xn . I.5. xn ). ηs ). • choose a ∈ J {0}.2. .4 (normalization). we obtain an isomorphism 1 A[t]/ t2 − y. in this case. ts ]. • J := radical(I + J). Setting u0 := x. J) ⊂ Q(A) = is an integral domain. . since K[x1 . that is. . Input: I := f1 . tN ). . (1) (1) (m) (m) ) for the • change ring to K[x1 . ξ0 = y. . The property of being an isolated singularity is kept during the normalization loops. xt − y 2 . . J) = 1. . ij • compute ξk such that ui · uj = s k=0 ij a · ξk uk . • if aJ : J = a return (K[x]. of A–algebras. ηs module of syzygies syz(u0 . t1 .1 we obtain an algorithm to compute the integral closure. { ν=0 ην tν }1≤k≤m + IK[x. . . . J) . xn . t1 . j = 1. . • if we know that the singular locus of I is V (x1 . . . . yt − x −→ HomA (J. . . . . . • compute a generating system (η0 . . . . Note that A[t]/ t2 − y.3(2)). . . x = (x1 . . xn )2 J := x1 . Example 3. Output: A polynomial ring K[t]. .

. • Compute a non-zerodivisor f ∈ J: choose a linear combination f of the generators of J and test f non-zerodivisor ⇐⇒ (I : f ) := g ∈ S gf ∈ I • Compute the radical f. setring R. I := f1 . . fk . (t1 .ring A = 0. I =: J. z → −T1 T2 . Output: Generators for IN s.6.y. V (IN ) = N (S/I).lib". ideal I = y2-zx2.2 (non–normal locus).5. V (J) = Sing(S/I). 3. J)/A ∼ (f J : J) : f . = Then V (IN ) is the non-normal locus of A.1.(x."). √ Assume: I = I. LIB "surf. xn ]. .dp. and set IN := AnnA HomA (J. Input: f1 . t2 ) 2 Figure 1: The normalization of Whitney’s umbrella. 2 y → −T2 . Let A be a reduced Noetherian ring. //-> norid[1]=0 normap. . we obtain: Corollary 3. .6. norid. . • Compute an ideal J s. . t1 t2 . . list nor = normal (I). T2 ] with normalization map x → T1 . Algorithm 3. 23 = {0}.36."rot_x=1.rot_z=4. the normalization of A/I is K[T1 .th. .z). . plot(I. .rot_y=1. . t2 ) → (t1 . J ⊂ A a test ideal. K perfect. //-> normap[1]=T(1) normap[2]=T(1)*T(2) normap[3]=T(2)^2 Hence.6 Algorithm to Compute the Non-Normal Locus As a corollary of the Grauert-Remmert criterion.45.th. f ∈ J a non-zerodivisor of A. fk ∈ S = K[x1 . def R = nor[1]. .

re. We compute A := K[x.lib". ideal J = fetch(A. ideal sing = I+jacob(I).J). ideal I = zy2-zx3-x6.3.quotient(a*J.• Compute generators g1 .(x. g for (f J : J) : f as S-module. ideal a = J[1]. //-> re[1]=y //-> re[2]=x From the output. .z).6. ring A = 0.dp. we read that the non–normal locus is the z–axis (the zero–set of x. . . qring R = std(I). y ). . . 24 . the non–normal locus of LIB"primdec. • Return {g1 . .y.J)). y. ideal J = radical(sing). z]/ zy 2 − zx3 − x6 . ideal re = quotient(a. g }. . . Example 3.

with I ⊂ C[x]p some ideal. in particular. that is. where I ⊂ C[x] = C[x1 . 0) of the plane curve with aﬃne equation y 2 − x2 (1 + x) = 0: The picture indicates: • in a small Euclidean neighbourhood of 0 the curve has two irreducible components. 3 Note that C[x]/I is not a local ring (except when the variety deﬁned by I consists of only one point) while the other three rings are local. 4 Such a neighbourhood consists of the curve minus ﬁnitely many points diﬀerent from 0. xn ] is an ideal. . C[x]p /I. . . . Actually. 25 . . rings of the form C[x]/I.3 Hence. P ) (= the equivalence class of all open neighbourhoods of P in V ) of the variety at a given point P . 4.4 4. the above real picture is misleading). . But a connected open subset of C minus ﬁnitely many points is irreducible (here. in each Zariski neighbourhood4 of 0 the curve is irreducible. meeting transversally. hence. that is. or even formal power series rings C[[x]]/I. • sometimes it means the study of the localization at a prime ideal p ⊂ C[x]. when considering “local” properties of a variety V . . what is meant by “neighbourhood”. and. we have for the maximal ideal x = x1 . .1 Computation in Local Rings What is meant by “local” computations ? There are several concepts of “local” in algebraic geometry: • sometimes it means just an aﬃne neighbourhood of a point. xn C[x] ⊂ C[x] x ⊂ C{x} ⊂ C[[x]] where the ﬁrst ring is the “least local” and the last one the “most local”. properties of the germ (V. the algebraic counterpart being aﬃne rings.2 An Example We want to study the germ at 0 = (0. but • in the aﬃne plane. • sometimes it means convergent power series rings C{x}/I. one has to specify what “local” should mean.

up to units. respectively. a sequence of K[x] x /I–modules 0 −→ M −→ M −→ M −→ 0 is exact if and only if the induced7 sequence of K[[x]]/IK[[x]]–modules is exact. Nevertheless. we deﬁne: is. nor factorize it in C[[x]] eﬀectively (except for power series in two variables where the Newton algorithm for computing Puiseux series provides a method) and we do not know any algorithm which would be able to do this even if the input is a polynomial. y] x. y]].Let’s prove this: consider f = y 2 − x2 (1 + x) as element of C{x. below). In practice. since 1 + x is everywhere deﬁned. since we have the following Facts: Let K be any ﬁeld and I ⊂ K[x] • If dimK (K[x] x x an ideal. The zero-sets of the factors correspond to the two components of {f = 0} in a small neighbourhood of 0. But. hence. g must be a polynomial which is impossible. that is. then. we can basically treat only C[x] and C[x] x (or factor rings of those) in a computer algebra system6 .y .y satisfying f = y + xg y + xh .4 Rings Associated to Monomial Orderings To implement local rings in a computer algebra system one has to abort the restriction that monomial orderings are well-orderings. as local k–algebras.3 Computational Aspects We shall show in the following. since the factorization is unique. there would exist g. • The inclusion K[x] x /I ⊂ K[[x]]/IK[[x]] is faithfully ﬂat. 4. = In particular. however. many invariants of (analytic) germs can be computed in C[x] x . that (and how) the concept of Gr¨bner basis o computations can be generalized to the local rings C[x] x . 7 by applying ⊗ K[x] x /I K[[x]]/IK[[x]] 6 Singular 5 This 26 . y}. is apparently the only existing computer algebra system which systematically has incorporated standard basis algorithms in local rings. since g 2 has degree 1. y] x. g 2 and. Hence. y]. 4. /I) < ∞. y}. We have a non-trivial decomposition5 √ √ f = y − x 1 + x y + x 1 + x) √ with y ± x 1 + x ∈ C{x. hence g = −h and g 2 = 1 + x. C{x} and C[[x]]. Otherwise. K[x] x /I ∼ K[[x]]/IK[[x]] . both vector spaces have the same dimension and a common basis represented by monomials. we can neither put a polynomial into Weierstraß normal form (cf. In particular. f is irreducible in C[x. However. also the factorization in C[[x. even in C[x. h ∈ C[x.

dp. satisﬁes xα > xβ =⇒ xγ xα > xγ xβ for all α. . β. Lemma 4. . Lemma 4.2.4. or deg xα = deg xβ and ∃ 1 ≤ i ≤ n : αn = βn . (b) xα < 1 for all α = (0. LM(u) = 1 . .2. . i.1. .5. . etc. Example 4.5. wn ≥ 0 • Negative lexicographical ordering >ls . A monomial ordering is a total ordering > on the set of monomials xα := xα1 · .5.2. .2. where w1 > 0. . 0). (1) The following are equivalent: (a) K[x]> = K[x]. 27 . • Product orderings of the latter. . . (b) xα > 1 for all α = (0. 0). . (c) the inverse ordering xα > xβ :⇔ xα < xβ is global. i. . that is. w2 .Deﬁnition 4. u ∈ K[x].1. Recall that in Singular the global orderings are indicated by p as 2nd letter (referring to “polynomial ring”): lp. (2) In genaral we have K[x] ⊂ K[x]> ⊂ K[[x]]. deﬁned as >ds . 4.4. . ≥0 To any such monomial ordering > we associate the multiplicatively closed set S> := {u ∈ K[x] \ {0} | LM(u) = 1} and the ring −1 K[x]> := S> K[x] = f u f. αi < βi . + wn αn .5. The following are (the probably most important) local monomial orderings: • Negative degree reverse lexicographical ordering >ds : xα >ds xβ :⇐⇒ deg xα < deg xβ . . . . αi+1 = βi+1 .e. The following are equivalent: (a) K[x]> = K[x] x . > is global. . . . > is local. but replacing the degree of xα by the weighted degree wdeg(xα ) = w1 α1 + .5 Local Monomial Orderings The following Lemma follows again from Lemma 1. The following lemma follows easily from Lemma 1. γ ∈ Zn . which is deﬁned to be the inverse of the lexicographical ordering. .e. · xαn which is compatible with the semigroup strucn 1 ture. • Weighted negative degree reverse lexicographical orderings >ws(w) .

LM(uf ) . Then LT(f ) corresponds to the largest (w. )[y] K[x. we deﬁne for any G ⊂ K[x]> the leading ideal L> (G) := L(G) := LM(g) | g ∈ G \ {0} K[x] . .t. the leading monomial of f . . >2 be monomial orderings on K[x]. .6. (3) >1 global . equipped with a product ordering (>1 . y] = K[x1 . these notions are compatible with the obvious extension of leading data to formal power series rings (w. Moreover. . Deﬁnition 4. and (K[x]> )∗ ∩ K[x] = S> = {u ∈ K[x] \ {0} | LM(u) = 1}. Then f1 . . >) term in the power series expansion of f and tail(f ) is the power series of f with the leading term deleted. 28 . LT(uf ) .r. . . 4. In this case: K[x] K[x]> K[x] x . the formal power series ring.2 (Ring maps). y] x . . the leading term of f .7 Leading Data Let > be any monomial ordering and f ∈ K[x]> .4. . >2 global : (K[x] x y )[x] = K[y] y ⊗K K[x] .6 Rings Associated to Mixed Orderings If the monomial ordering is neither local nor global then we call it a mixed ordering. LC(uf ) . .t. Example 4. . >2 arbitrary : K[x. . xi → fi . Then we have (1) >1 global . y]> = (K[y]>2 )[x] . y]> = (K[y] (2) >1 local . fn ) ∈ S>2 for all h ∈ S>1 . where R∗ denotes the group of units in the ring R. respectively K[y]. . . Consider K[x. It is useful to consider K[x]> as a subring of K[[x]]. .6. In particular. Then we can (and do) choose a u ∈ K[x] such that LM(u) = 1 and uf ∈ K[x] and deﬁne LM(f ) := LC(f ) := LT(f ) := and tail(f ) := f − LT(f ). provided that h(f1 . ym ].1. >2 ). y1 . the leading coeﬃcient of f . a local monomial ordering).r. Note that these deﬁnitions are independent of the choice of u. . >2 local : K[x. Let >1 . y]> K[x. xn . fn ∈ K[y]>2 deﬁne a unique ring map ϕ : K[x]>1 → K[y]>2 .

As in the polynomial ring. we call any such expression a standard expression for f in terms of the fi and h the reduced normal form of f with respect to I. for a “normal form” we weaken the condition (b) to LM(h) is not divisible by any LM(fj ). . Moreover.7. (a) LM(f ) ≥ LM(gj fj ) . (b) if h = 0 then no monomial of h is divisible by LM(fj ). Since the leading ideal of an ideal is ﬁnitely generated. . Moreover. As before. gr ∈ K[[x]] and a remainder h ∈ F such that m f= j=1 gj fj + h and. then the monomials in K[x] \ L(I) represent a K-basis of K[x]> /IK[x]> . and L(I) = L(G) .1 (Division Theorem (Grauert)). let > be a local monomial ordering on F . . . f1 .8. . and let I ⊂ K[x] be an ideal. 4. we can extend the latter notions without further modiﬁcations to free R-modules with ﬁnite basis e1 . .1.7. for all j = 1. fm ∈ F \ {0}.Example 4. Then (a) dim(K[x]> /IK[x]> ) = dim(K[x]/L(I)) . respectively to R = K[[x]]. er . Let > be any monomial ordering on K[x]. if dim(K[x]> /IK[x]> ) < ∞.8 Division with Remainder The Division Theorems by Weierstraß and Grauert generalize division with remainder to free modules over formal power series rings: Theorem 4. (b) dimK (K[x]> /IK[x]> ) = dim(K[x]/L(I)) . and obtain o the notion of a standard basis (as introduced independently by Hironaka (1964) and Grauert (1972)): a ﬁnite set G ⊂ R is called a standard basis (SB) of I if G ⊂ I. er . . . . Let f = 2x 1−x + x = 3x + ∞ k=2 2xk . . .2. . . . the leading ideal L(I) encodes much information about the ideal I. . Again. . Then there exist g1 . m. . . . for instance: Theorem 4. . then LT(f ) = LT((1 + x)f ) = 3x . we can transfer the concept of Gr¨bner bases to R = K[x]> . and let f. 29 . Let F be a free K[[x]]-module with a ﬁnite basis e1 .

Moreover. with LM( s ai gi ) ≥ LM(ak gk ) for all k such that ak gk = 0 and. • Reduced standard bases are uniquely determined.2. h = xh for some h (because of the chosen ordering >ls ). . Let > be a local degree ordering on K[[x]] and let I be an ideal in K[x].9. in the formal power series ring K[[x]].t.9 Normal Forms and Standard Bases The existence of a reduced normal form is the basis to obtain. then the reduced normal forms with respect to S and S coincide. h − y = h − f ∈ G R = y − x R =⇒ LM(h) < 1. x. Assume h ∈ K[x. that is uf satisﬁes a relation (with ai polynomials) s uf = i=1 ai gi + h. . Let R = K[x]> for some monomial ordering >.1. why for many computations in local analytic geometry it is suﬃcient to compute in K[x] x . So far everything was a straight forward transition from polynomial rings to power series rings. 30 .y with > = >ls. From the computational point of view there are several problems: Example 4. S are two standard bases of the ideal I. LM(u) = 1. y] is a normal form of f w.t. the properties of standard bases already proved for GB in K[x]: • If S. We have: f∈ G R = y−x R =⇒ h = 0 =⇒ LM(h) ∈ L(G) = y .t. . Let G = {g1 . therefore no polynomial normal form of f w. . gs } be a ﬁnite subset of the free R–module F . g = (y − x)(1 − y) .r. y] f = y.4. Then S is a standard basis of I (w. G.10 Weak Normal Forms The fact that for polynomial input data there does not necessarily exist a polynomial normal form leads to the following Deﬁnition 4.y] (substitute (0.r. 4. y)) and.r. if h = 0 then i=1 LM(h) is not divisible by any LM(gi ). Therefore. But it was theoretical.r.1. Consider in R = K[x. G exists. However. >) =⇒ S is a standard basis of IK[[x]].9. 1) for (x. Theorem 4. G = {g} . The following theorem is one further reason.10. G.t. • Buchberger’s criterion holds. y − xh ∈ (y − x)(1 − y) K[x. A polynomial vector h ∈ F is called a (polynomial) weak normal form for f with respect to G if there exists a polynomial unit u ∈ R∗ such that h is a normal form for uf w.

4. The basic idea for this algorithm for local rings is due to Mora. Let f ∈ K[x] \ {0}.3. Note 4. . we obtain uy = (y − x)(1 − y) + h. • If > is global.Example 4. g).10. 31 .2 (Example 4. Again. even if added to T during the algorithm. } • return h. . h cannot be used in further reductions.3. . Output: h ∈ K[x].11.1. hence. Input: f ∈ K[x]. Hence. this problem would be solved when computing (1 − x) · x − g = 0 .11. g1 .2 (weakNF). then LM(g) | LM(h) implies LM(g) ≤ LM(h). gr . • T := G. Setting u := (1 − y) and h := x(1 − y). . we obtain Buchberger’s Algorithm. . Then we set Algorithm 4.11 The Weak Normal Form Algorithm ecart(f ) := deg f − deg LM(f ). . hence. but our algorithm is slightly diﬀerent and more general (works for any monomial ordering). . Deﬁnition 4. • The reduce command in Singular returns h while the division command also returns the factors u. Let > be any monomial ordering. • while(h = 0 and Th := {g ∈ T | LM(g) divides LM(h)} = ∅) { choose g ∈ Th with ecart(g) minimal. The analogue to the Buchberger algorithm in K[[x]] “computes” the normal form 0 as ∞ x− i=0 xi (x − x2 ) = 0 . then the ecart is always 0. Look at the following Example 4. a weak normal form of f .9. Consider in K[x] x the polynomial f := x and the standard basis G := {g = x − x2 }. h := spoly(h. The same diﬃculty arises when trying to generalize Buchberger’s algorithm.2 continued). G = {f1 . if (ecart(g) > ecart(h)) {T := T ∪ {h}}. Moreover: • If the input is homogeneous. In the following we present the general (weak) normal form algorithm (due to Greuel and Pﬁster) as implemented in Singular. The latter algorithm also applies to free K[x]> -modules with a ﬁnite base. .10. fr } ⊂ K[x]. hence it will produce inﬁnitely many terms (and not the ﬁnite expression 1/(1 − x)).11. • h := f . h is a (polynomial) weak normal form.

The algorithm terminates. g ∈ S. • while (P = ∅) { choose (f. Let > be any monomial ordering. The generalization to submodules of a ﬁnitely generated free module over R is immediate. such that S is a standard basis for G • S := G. and R := K[x]> .1 (std). the pair–set. since otherwise we would obtain a strictly increasing sequence of monomial ideals L(S) in K[x]. g). .4. g) ∈ P . 32 . f ) | f ∈ S}. Input: G = {f1 . g)}. Correctness follows from Buchberger’s criterion. we can proceed as in K[x] to compute a standard basis of a given ideal: Algorithm 4. . R. . g) | f. S := S ∪ {h}. fr } ⊂ K[x]. h := weakNF spoly(f. P := P \ {(f. if (h = 0) { P := P ∪ {(h. . Output: S ⊂ K[x]. f = g}. } } • return S. • P := {(f. S .12.12 Standard Basis Algorithm Having the above (weak) normal form algorithm.

. . factorize(f). . . . the primary decomposition of ideals. . . xn ] x1 −p1 .p := K[[x1 − p1 .ls. . 5. . f. From now on we assume that K is an algebraically closed ﬁeld. . xn ] x . . . . .1. where all factors not vanishing at 0 become units (see also Application 2). K[x1 .. xn − pn ]] .2. . . . . more generally.p = K[x1 .1 Warning: Factorization in the power series ring K[[x1 . xn − pn ]]/I(X) · K[[x1 − p1 . Deﬁnition 5. an OX. pn ). . Primary Decomposition Note 5. . . . 33 . xn ] is any ideal (I is part of the structure). In Singular the factorization of polynomials. poly f=(1-y)*(x^2-y^3)*(x^3-y^2)*(y^2-x^2-x^3). .(x.1. Let X ⊂ K n be an aﬃne algebraic variety and p ∈ X. centered at p = (p1 . . since after the factorization in K[x1 . .1. .1. . this is not a restriction. .xn −pn is called the algebraic local ring of X at the point p = (p1 . . pn ). and. The ring OX. are implemented only for the polynomial ring K[x1 . . .1. .. .1. .5 5. //-> [1]: //-> _[1]=1 //-> _[2]=-y2+x2+x3 //-> _[3]=-y2+x3 //-> _[4]=-y3+x2 //-> _[5]=-1+y //-> [2]: //-> 1.lib). .. . . The analytic local ring of X at p is the factor ring of the ring of formal power series. . . xn ]/I =: OX (X) is called the coordinate ring of X and OX the ideal sheaf of X. However. ring r0=0. xn ]] is not possible except for K[[x. . xn ] we can pass to the local ring. . . xn ] and not for the localization K[x1 . .2 Singularities X = V (I) = {x ∈ K n | f (x) = 0 ∀ f ∈ I} An (aﬃne) algebraic variety in K n is the set where I ⊂ K[x1 .1 Singularities Factorization.y). implemented in Singular in hnoether.. y]] (using Hamburger–Noether expansion. .

p be an ideal such that dimK (OX.2.. . .2. . . . . = an In particular. xn ]/ f1 . . . we say that p is an isolated singularity of f . p is an isolated singularity of V (f ) iﬀ the Tjurina number τ (f.2.. Note 5.3.p . . .. . ∂f /∂xn ....p /IOX. (1) f ∈ K[x]. xn − pn ∂f ∂f . Then an OX. .2.p be the algebraic local ring and let I ⊂ OX.p /I) < ∞. p) = 0 if and only if p is a non–critical point of f .p /I ∼ OX. .3. . has an isolated critical point at p if p is an isolated point of V (∂f /∂x1 . ∂x1 ∂xn the Tjurina number of f at p. xn − pn f.0 /I = = dimK K[[x1 . ∂f ∂f . ∂f /∂x1 . . the Tjurina number τ (f ). . Similarly. x = (x1 . both vector spaces have the same dimension and a common basis represented by monomials. . . .2 we can compute the Milnor number μ(f ). .2. that is. Similarly. . resp.1. . ∂f /∂x1 . . By Lemma 5. We write μ(f ) and τ (f ) if p = 0. . p∈V ∂f ∂f . 5. ∂f /∂xn ). p) is ﬁnite. Let OX. xn ]]/ f1 . ∂f /∂xn ). p) := dimK K x1 − p1 . . . and τ (f. (2) We call the number μ(f. 34 . . p) is ﬁnite iﬀ p is an isolated critical point of f . . .. .. ∂f /∂xn with respect to a local monomial ordering and then apply the Singular command vdim. ∂x1 ∂xn the Milnor number. . .3 Milnor and Tjurina Number Deﬁnition 5. . For this we use the (easy) facts for a polynomial f ∈ K[x1 . .. . by computing a standard basis of ∂f /∂x1 . . . .4 Local Versus Global Ordering We can use the interplay between local and global orderings to check the existence of critical points and of singularities outside 0. if p is an K isolated point of V (f. The Milnor number μ(f. . . . . respectively f. xn ]: • μ(f. 5. fk . . . xn ).3. . . p) := dimK K x1 − p1 . .. or of the hypersurface V (f ) ⊂ An . . fn dimK K[x1 .. Note 5.Lemma 5.. ∂x1 ∂xn =: Crit(f ) . In general. dimK OX.

we have to compute vdim (std(jacob (f))). . ∂f ∂f .. //-> 36 //total Milnor number tjurina(f). 5.y.z). 35 . of f : dimK K[x1 . that is. whether there are further critical. ∂f ∂f p ∈ V f. //-> 24 //total Tjurina number We see that the diﬀerence between the total and the local Milnor number is 8. xn ] ∂f ∂f . . //-> 28 //Milnor number at 0 tjurina(f)... milnor(f). p) . //the same as milnor vdim (std(ideal(f)+jacob(f))).• τ (f. . . p) . f has eight critical points (counted with their respective Milnor numbers) outside 0. ring R = 0.. . p) = 0 if and only if p is a non–singular point point of V (f ).. xn ] = p∈ Sing(f ) τ (f. //-> 24 //Tjurina number at 0 Without using milnor and tjurina. ∂x1 ∂xn f. hence. the extra critical points of f do not ly on the zero-set V (f ) of f . points outside 0..(x.(x. milnor(f). //affine ring poly f = x7+y7+(x-y)^2*x2y2+z2.. V (f ) ⊂ A3 has no other singular points except 0.y. .. We use ﬁrst the commands milnor and tjurina from sing. .4. f (p) = 0 for all critical points p = 0. ..5 Using Milnor and Tjurina Numbers We compute the local and the total Milnor. =: Sing(f ) .e. since the total Tjurina number coincides with the local Tjurina number. number and check in this way.lib: We ﬁrst compute the local Milnor and Tjurina number at 0: LIB "sing. //the same as tjurina Now we compute the total Milnor and Tjurina number by choosing a global ordering. In other words. . ∂x1 ∂xn Note 5. i. respectively the total Tjurina number. We have the following equalities for the total Milnor number..lib".. respectively singular.dp. ring r = 0. ∂x1 ∂xn = p∈ Crit(f ) μ(f.ds. dimK K[x1 . //local ring poly f = x7+y7+(x-y)^2*x2y2+z2.1. On the other hand..z). respectively Tjurina.

y.dp.(y.J). 0). Now. poly f = fetch(s.(x. // // ring r1 = 0. We compute ring r = 0. // ideal J = g. we check singularities at inﬁnity: ring sh = 0. y] f. //-> 120 homogeneous polynomial defining C F in affine chart (x=1) the global Tjurina number in the chart x=1 // local ring at (1:0:0) // the local Tjurina number at (1:0:0) 36 . The projective curve C ⊂ P2 is the curve deﬁned by F = 0. y) := y 2 − 2x28 y − 4x21 y 17 + 4x14 y 33 − 8x7 y 49 + x56 + 20y 65 + 4x49 y 16 .dp.6.z).(x.ds.y). vdim(std(I)). the aﬃne singular locus consists only of the origin (0.dp. ∂f ∂x ∂y of the singularity at the origin and check whether this is the only singularity of the corresponding complex plane projective curve C.1 we know that the global Milnor number τ (f ) := dimC C[x. //-> 2260 // the local Tjurina number of f at 0 From 5.ds. ideal I = f.y). where F is the homogenization of f w. Hence.t.6 Application to Projective Singular Plane Curves Problem: Let f (x. ideal I = fetch(s. a new variable.(x. //-> 120 // // ring r2 = 0. ideal J = fetch(r1. //-> 2260 // the affine ring We see that the global (aﬃne) and local Tjurina number of f coincide. vdim(std(J)). map phi = sh. Determine the local Tjurina number τloc (f ) := dimC C{x. poly g = phi(F).1.1.z).I).r.y.z). vdim(std(I)). ∂f . poly F = homog(f. ∂f ∂x ∂y equals the sum of the local Tjurina number of all aﬃne singular points of C. Note 5. vdim(std(J)).(y.4.f). // the local ring poly f = y2-2x28y-4x21y17+4x14y33-8x7y49+x56+20y65+4x49y16. at all other points V (f ) is smooth.z.jacob(g). y} f.jacob(f). ring s = 0.5.z). ∂f .

p = e p∈C δ(C.): ring R = 0.lib". p).(x. // // poly F = homog(f.y. • pa (C) = g(C)+δ(C). y.p /OC. z).1.1). delta(D)=p_a(D)-g(D)=4 uses the normalization (d − 1)(d − 2) − δ(D) 2 37 . we can conclude that there is (precisely) 1 singularity of C at inﬁnity (at (1 : 0 : 0)) with Tjurina number 120. p) for each singular point p ∈ D (by using the library hnoether. Deﬁnition 5.We have considered all points at inﬁnity except (0:1:0) which is obviously not on C. To compute δ(D) we have to compute the singularities of D and then compute δ(D. If we are able to compute the normalization.7.z).4 // genus(F).7 Computing the Genus of a Projective Curve HC (t) = deg(C) · t − pa (C) + 1 . // //-> -1 a cuspidal cubic with a transversal line defining the projective closure D loads all libraries p_a(D)=3. The geometric genus g(C) is the arithmetic genus of the normalization C of C: g(C) := pa (C). • For a generic projection C −→ D to a plane curve D which has the same degree d and normalization as C. The procedure hilbPoly from poly.1). where δ(C) is the sum over the local delta invariants in the singular points. The procedure genus in normal. Let D ⊂ P2 be a (reduced) plane projective curve given by the homogeneous polynomial F (x. // //-> -1 // // genus(F. //-> -2.lib oﬀers both possibilities (genus( ). But this is often very time consuming. // LIB "all. poly f = (y3-x2)*(y-1). deg(D)=4 computes delta at the singular points hence D is reducible. Hence. Recall: Let C be a projective curve.lib in Singular) or to use the normalization. we have g(C) = pa (D) − δ(D) = . then the Hilbert polynomial is of the form where deg(C) is called the degree of the curve and pa (C) the arithmetic genus.z). 5. we can compute the geometric genus. Facts. Let δ(C) := p∈C dimK OC.lib computes the Hilbert polynomial. and genus( .dp. // hilbPoly(F). A closer analysis shows that it is of topological type x9 − y 16 = 0.

the two intersection points of y 3 − x2 = 0 and y − 1 = 0 (both having δ = 1). 38 . Hence.Remark 5.2. The computation shows that δ(D) = 4. D must have a node at ∞ = (0 : 0 : 1). the sum of the deltas is δ(D) = 4.7. By B´zout’s theorem the line y = 1 intersects the cubic y 3 = x2 at ∞ e with multiplicity 1. 0) and two nodes at (±1. Hence. counting with δ = 1. 1). We can compute in this example δ(D) by applying some theory without using Singular: By construction f has a cusp singularity (δ = 1) at (0.

uni-kl. Springer-Verlag. Singular online manual.-M. Lossen. Pﬁster and H.uni-kl.singular. C. [GPS1] G. 2006. Greuel. [DL] W. Greuel. Decker.de singular@mathematik. Erwin¨ Schrodinger-Straße. ¨ Fachbereich Mathematik. Berlin.de. G. Pﬁster. G. 2nd edition. Sch¨nemann. D – 67663 Kaiserslautern E–mail address: greuel@mathematik.References [GP] G. Greuel.uni-kl. A Singular Introduction to Commutative Algebra.-M. o http://www. Berlin. Pﬁster and H. Springer-Verlag. Universitat Kaiserslautern. Computing in Algebraic Geometry. Singular 3-0-4 (2007). 2007. G. o [GPS2] G. Sch¨nemann.-M.de to reach the Singular team 39 .

- (ebook - pdf) - ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRYUploaded bymertcris
- Neutrosophic Soft ModulesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Mathematics FYUP Syllabus Delhi UniversityUploaded byShivam Shekhar
- ring_theory.pdfUploaded bySofia Fuentes
- Smarandache Rings, by W.B.Vasantha KandasamyUploaded bymarinescu
- Scientia Magna, Vol. 9, No. 3Uploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- 11Uploaded byEzhilarasi Periyathambi
- (Adams) Localizatoins and CompletionsUploaded byJosh Roberts
- (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1837) Simon Tavaré, Ofer Zeitouni (Auth.), Jean Picard (Eds.)-Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics_ Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXI - 2001-SpringUploaded byedgardupinho10