Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Let $V:=k[x_0,\ldots,x_n]_d$ be the $k$-vector space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$. Let $G:=\mathrm{Gl}(n+1,k)$ act on $V$ induced by the canonical action on the linear forms: For $g=(g_{ij})\in G$, we have $$g.x_j=\sum_{i=0}^n g_{ij} x_i.$$ Now consider the subspace $W:=k[x_1,\ldots,x_j]_d\subseteq V$ of $d$-forms in one less variable. What is the dimension of $G.W$? In particular, is $G.W$ Zariski-dense in $V$? I think this should be well-known, so if someone ran across this before, I'd be glad just to get some pointers to papers or textbooks on this.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

This was a really interesting question, thanks for asking! Two remarks and a result:

(i) For anyone wanting to check that the 'natural induced action' is indeed an action, one can do so 'for free' as follows: for $\sigma: V \rightarrow V$ in $GL(V)$, view $\sigma$ as $$V \rightarrow Sym^1 V \subset Sym V$$The universal property of $Sym$ feeds you $\sigma': Sym V \rightarrow Sym V$, by construction it sends $Sym^n V \rightarrow Sym^n V$ (in the desired way), the uniqueness of extension shows $G \rightarrow Aut(Sym V)$ hence $G \rightarrow Aut(Sym^n V)$ is a homomorphism as desired.

(ii) The answer to the question will depend on $k$. For example, for $k[x,y]_2$, $W = k[x]_2 $ I claim that $G.W = k[x,y]_2$ iff char $k \neq 2$. By considering the basis $x^2, xy, y^2$, permuting $x$ and $y$, and the identity yields $x^2, y^2$, it suffices to show that $xy \in G.W$ iff char $k \neq 2$. Indeed, if char $k \neq 2$, consider linear maps sends $x \mapsto \pm y$, the difference of their action on $x^2$ is $\pm 4xy$, and we may divide out by 4. On the other hand, if $char \; k = 2$, then if $\sigma$ sends $x \mapsto ax + by$, then $\sigma^*$ sends $x^2 \mapsto (ax+by)^2 = a^2x^2 + b^2y^2$ as desired.

(iii) I claim that if $k$ is algebraically closed and characteristic 0, then for just $W = k[x_0]_d$ already we have $G.W = k[x_0, \ldots, x_n]_d$!

To see this, we first need a lemma, essentially borrowed from Dirichlet's theorem.

Consider a power series $$f(x) = \sum_{I \in \mathbb{Z}^n} a_I x^I$$and fix $M = (m_1, \ldots, m_n) \in \mathbb{Z}^n$. I claim we can write $\sum_{I \equiv J \mod M} a_I x^I$ as a linear combination of $f( \zeta_{m_i}^{k_i} x_i)$, for any $J \in \mathbb{Z}^n$. To see this, we use character theory.

Write $A = \oplus_i \mathbb{Z}/m_i \mathbb{Z}$, $A^* = Hom_{Ab}(A, k^*)$, using $$Hom(\oplus_i \mathbb{Z}/m_i, k^*) \simeq \prod_i Hom( \mathbb{Z}/m_i, k^*)$$and that each term in the product is exactly given by $1 \mapsto \zeta_{m_i}^k$ for $k = 0 \ldots m_i - 1$ and $\zeta_{m_i}$ a primitive $m_i^{th}$ root of unity in $k^*$, we see that every element of $A^*$ is given by $e_i \mapsto \zeta_{m_i}^{k_i}$, for $k_i = 0 \ldots m_i$. Recall the orthogonality relation $$\frac{1}{|A|} \sum_{\chi \in A^*} \chi(-a + b) = \frac{1}{|A|}\sum_{\chi \in A^*} \chi(-a) \chi(b) = \delta_{ab}$$ Finally, write $$f(\chi, x) = \sum_{I \in \mathbb{Z}^n} a_I \chi(I) x^I$$where $\chi(I)$ is simply the composition $\mathbb{Z}^n \rightarrow A \rightarrow k^*$. Then from the orthogonality relation we have $$ \frac{1}{|A|} \sum_{\chi \in A^*} \chi(-J) f(\chi, x) = \sum_{I \in \mathbb{Z}^n} a_I \frac{1}{|A|} \sum_{\chi \in A^*} \chi(-J + I) x^I$$$$ = \sum_I a_I \delta_{IJ} x^I = \sum_{I \equiv J \mod M} a_I x^I$$

This proves the lemma (since $f(\chi, x) = f( x_i \zeta_{m_i}^{k_i})$).

With this, let's see that $G.k[x_0]_d = k[x_0, \ldots , x_n]_d$. Indeed, the trick is to consider any $\sigma \in GL_n(k)$ which sends $x_0$ to $\sum_i x_i$, and hence $\sigma^*$ sends $x_0^d$ to $(\sum x_i)^d = \sum_I c_I x^I$, where $c_I$ are multinomial coefficients and $x^I$ runs over the monomial basis for $k[x_i]_d$. With that, using the previous lemma, applied to $f = (\sum x_i)^d$, $M = (d, d, d, \ldots, d)$, and any fixed $J$, and observing that $f(\chi, x)$ is simply $\sigma^* \circ \eta^*$, where $\eta: x_i \mapsto \zeta_{m_i}^{k_i} x_i$, we have that a linear combination of terms in the orbit of $x_0^d$ sums to $c_J x^J$, hence $x^J$ is in $G.k[x_0]_d$ for each $J$, as desired.

share|improve this answer
    
You have shown that all monomials $x^J$ are in $G.W$, and this is interesting - but unfortunately, it does not say much about the dimension of $G.W$ as a subvariety of $V$: Note that $G$ does not act linearly on $V$, and $G.W$ is not a linear subspace (in general). In other words, showing that a basis is contained in it does not imply that it is equal to $V$. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Nov 25 '12 at 18:55
    
Thanks for the reply! Okay, (i) I could have sworn $G$ would act $k$ linearly on $V$, and based on this indeed (ii) I assumed (wrongly :p) that $G.W$ denoted the span of the orbit, not the orbit itself - I agree this in general isn't a subspace. In fact I showed that $x^J$ are in the span of the orbit, not the orbit itself $(\frac{1}{|A|} \sum_\chi \chi(-J) f(\chi, x)$ is the crucial linear combo) :(. Would you mind explaining (i)? Cheers –  uncookedfalcon Nov 25 '12 at 22:59
    
I just came back to correct my mistake, of course $G$ does act linearly, so that's not the problem here. I jumped the gun on that one because something cannot be quite right about your proof: I know there are certain polynomials that can not be made to require less variables under any linear transformation, namely the determinant. It's an old result by Frobenius. I will need to reed your answer more carefully. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Nov 25 '12 at 23:27
    
Alright. $G$ acts linearly, but that only means that $g\in G$ acts as a linear map. However, the action $x_0\mapsto g.x_0$ is not "linear" in $g$, it isn't even clear what that should mean. In other words, when $x^{J_1}=g_1.x_0$ and $x^{J_2}=g_2.x_0$, then what is $x^{J_1}+x^{J_2}$? –  Jesko Hüttenhain Nov 26 '12 at 16:04
    
Hey man - all I use is that the "action" is a group homomorphism $G \rightarrow Aut_k(k[x_i]_d)$; that is each $g$ acts linearly and composition goes to composition. I agree "linear" in $g$ doesn't make sense, I certainly do not use it! Let me stress again what I think the issue might be: there's two possible interpretations of $G.W$; (i) $$G.W = \{ g \cdot w : \forall g \in G, w \in W \}$$and (ii) is the vector space spanned by (i). I proved that (ii) is all of $V$, not (i). Does this address your concern? –  uncookedfalcon Nov 27 '12 at 0:05

Your Answer

 
discard

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.