Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm reading the introductory bits in Procesi's Lie Groups, and on p. 22 we have (paraphrasing)

Theorem 2. $\mathcal{B}=\{x_1^{\large h_1}\cdots x_n^{\large h_n}: 0\le h_k\le n-k\}$ is a basis for the ring $\Bbb Z[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ considered over $\Bbb Z[e_1,\cdots,e_n]$, where $e_i$ are the elementary symmetric polynomials in the $x_i$.

I haven't been able to see why this is though. The previous theorem was the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials, which was proven inductively with a recursive algorithm:

If $x_n|f$ then $x_1\cdots x_n|f$, and dividing out we are left with a symmetric polynomial of smaller degree than before. Otherwise, write $f(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1},0)$ as a polynomial $p$ in the elementary symmetric polynomials $\hat{e}_i$ of the first $n-1$ variables, $p(\hat{e}_1,\cdots,\hat{e}_{n-1})$. Now the polynomial $$f(x_1,\cdots,x_n)-p(e_1,\cdots,e_{n-1})$$ is symmetric in all of $x_1,\cdots,x_n$ and evaluates to $0$ at $x_n=0$ ie is divisible by $x_n$. Induct.

Is there a straightforward adaptation of this with which we can argue for theorem 2? Or is there perhaps another way to see that it must be true? I feel I am missing something simple here.

share|cite|improve this question
Dear anon: You may look at Part 2 of Section G of Galois Theory: Lectures Delivered at the University of Notre Dame, by Emil Artin, freely and legally available here. – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Apr 16 '12 at 9:27
@Pierre-Yves Cool, thanks. – anon Apr 16 '12 at 9:41
Dear anon: In fact Artin proves the statement over $\mathbb Q$. Some extra work is needed to prove it over $\mathbb Z$. It is proved in Bourbaki (Alg. IV.6.5, Prop. 5). I wrote a short text about this. – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Apr 16 '12 at 12:04
The above link will expire soon. Here is the new link. – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Sep 8 '14 at 17:23
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I suppose I should actually come back to answer this. Main idea: for $1\le d<n$ we have

$$\Bbb Z[x_1,\cdots,x_n]^{S_d}=\bigoplus_{j=0}^d \Bbb Z[x_1,\cdots,x_n]^{S_{d+1}}x_{d+1}^j. \tag{$\circ$}$$

They're both equal to $\Bbb Z[x_1,\cdots,x_n]^{S_{d+1}}[x_{d+1}]$. Using $(\circ)$ we can begin unpeeling $\Bbb Z[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ by setting $d=1,2,\cdots,n-1$. What I found interesting about this argument is that the outer layers of the onion are the smaller indices rather than the larger - initially I believed it'd be the reverse.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.