Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 know that the zero-set of a non-zero polynomial in $\mathbb{C}[x_1,...,x_n]$ can not have interior points, but I'm trying to find a proof that doesn't require a knowledge of complex analysis like holomorphic functions, etc...

So, suppose that $V=\{(x_1,\cdots, x_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n: p(x_1,\cdots,x_n)=0\}$. Now if there is an interior point in $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,\cdots,y_n) \in V$ then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that $\displaystyle N_\epsilon(\mathbf{y}) \subseteq V$. But we know that in every metric space open balls are convex, so for all $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ the point $\mathbf{\bar{y}}=\lambda\cdot\mathbf{y}+(1-\lambda)\cdot \mathbf{y'} \in N_\epsilon(\mathbf{y})$ lies in $V$where $\mathbf{y'} \in N_\epsilon(\mathbf{y})$.

If I plug $\mathbf{\bar{y}}$ into $p(x_1, \cdots, x_n)=0$ I'll get a new non-zero polynomial $p_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n,\lambda)=0$. Now, if I fix $x_1,\cdots,x_n$ and consider $p_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n,\lambda)$ as a polynomial only in $\lambda$ then I see that $f(\lambda)=p_1(x_1,\cdots,x_n,\lambda)$ then because of convexity $f(\lambda)$ must vanish on every $\lambda \in [0,1]$, but from the fundamental theorem of algebra we know that every non-zero polynomial in $\mathbb{C}[\lambda]$ can have a finite number of roots, so, $f(\lambda)=0$. But I don't see how $f(\lambda)=0$ could lead me to a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this question
I don't see why this question was downvoted. It was asked clearly, and the OP showed a good effort. – Bruno Joyal Nov 12 '13 at 0:18
up vote 13 down vote accepted

By induction on $n$, I prove that the only closed subvariety $V$ of $\mathbf C^n$ having $0$ as an interior point is $V=\mathbf C^n$. For $n=1$, it is obvious. Now suppose $V \subseteq \mathbf C^n$ and that $0$ is an interior point of $V$. For each complex hyperplane $H$ passing through $0$, $V \cap H$ is a subvariety of $H \cong \mathbf C^{n-1}$. Moreover $0$ is contained in the interior of $V \cap H$ (relative to the topology of $H$). By the induction hypothesis, it follows that $H = H\cap V$, and since this is true for each $H$ and the collection of hyperplanes covers $\mathbf C^n$, it follows that $V=\mathbf C^n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
OK. This one looks good and simple, thank you. Only there is one thing I don't understand. Why you chose $0$? I'm new to this subject, so please forgive me if I'm asking trivial questions. – some1.new4u Oct 2 '13 at 1:35
@some1.new4u You're welcome! It's enough to prove it for $0$, because if you want to prove it for another point, you can translate your variety by a linear change of coordinates. I just chose $0$ for notational simplicity. – Bruno Joyal Oct 2 '13 at 1:37
@some1.new4u Absolutely. Linear maps are given by (degree 1) polynomials, so they are perfectly acceptable morphisms of algebraic varieties. – Bruno Joyal Oct 2 '13 at 1:45
@some1.new4u You're welcome. I'm sure the others would love to explain their solutions to you. One is never understood better than by herself! Regards, – Bruno Joyal Oct 2 '13 at 1:49
It seems to me that this (wonderfully simple) argument works with $\mathbb{C}$ replaced by any field which is complete with respect to any nontrivial norm. – Pete L. Clark Dec 21 '13 at 22:10

We will prove the statement by induction.

The base case $n=1$ follows from the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, hence we have finitely many solutions and thus no interior points.

For the induction step, supposed that the statement holds for some $k$. We will prove it by contradiction. Suppose $f \in \mathbb{C} [x_1, \ldots x_{k+1}]$ is a polynomial, whose zero set has an interior point $P$. Let $f$ evaluate to $0$ in the ball $B_\epsilon(P)$.

Treating $f$ as a polynomial in $x_{k+1}$, let $f(x_1\ldots , x_{k+1}) = F(x_{k+1})$ be a degree $m$ polynomial. Specifically, let

$$P(x_{k+1}) = \alpha_m x_{k+1}^m + \alpha_{m-1} x_{k+1} ^{m-1} + \ldots + \alpha_0, $$

where each of the $\alpha_i$ are polynomials in $k$ variables, i.e. $\alpha_i \in \mathbb{C} [x_1, \ldots , x_{k}]$. We will now show that $\alpha_i$ must be a polynomial in $k$ variables whose zero set has an interior point, which would contradict the induction hypothesis.

Let $\bar{p}$ denote the projection of the point $p \in \mathbb{C}^{k+1}$ to the first $k$ coordinates. Now, for any $p \in B_\epsilon (P)$, $p = (p_1, p_2, \ldots p_k, p_{k+1})$, since it is also interior point, we can find $m+1$ points in $B_\epsilon (P)$, who agree in the first $k$ coordinates with $p$, where $f$ evaluates to $0$. Let $\alpha_i$ evaluated at $(p_1, \ldots p_{n-1})$ be equal to $ A_i$. Then, we have $k+1$ solutions to the degree $k$ polynomial

$$A_k x^k + A_{k-1} x^{k-1} + \ldots A_0 =0. $$

By the Fundamental Theorem of algebra, these must be a zero polynomial, meaning that $A_i = 0 $. Hence, for all points $p$ in the ball, we have $\alpha_i =0$. Thus, we found a degree $k$ polynomial which evaluates to $0$ in the ball $\overline{B_\epsilon (P) }$, and hence has an interior point. This is our desired contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Maybe I'm missing something but I think I'm having a problem following your argument. Where did you use the fact that there exists an interior point? Would you write what you're saying rigorously step by step? – some1.new4u Oct 2 '13 at 0:48
@some1.new4u: You should try to follow his hint and expand it into a proof instead. He used the fact $P$ is an interior point to find the $k+1$ points. – Bombyx mori Oct 2 '13 at 0:56
@user32240: I have already found infinitely many (actually uncountably many) points. But I'm looking for an explicit reason why that is a contradiction. Please read my proof first if you haven't done so. – some1.new4u Oct 2 '13 at 1:00
@some1.new4u: I have read your "proof", but I think you should spend sometime reading other's real proofs. His is a valid proof and I see no reason you got stuck. – Bombyx mori Oct 2 '13 at 1:01
@user32240: I'm really trying to understand his proof, and your proof and I didn't say his proof was wrong. But the problem with his proof is that I don't see where he uses 'interior' point hypothesis. – some1.new4u Oct 2 '13 at 1:05

One word: differentiate (the defining equations).

It's enough to prove the statement for varieties defined by one equation, because having no interior is a property inherited by subsets.

If the zero set contains an interior point, all derivatives of the equation defining the variety are $0$ at that point (and thus in the a neighborhood of that point). But then the variety defined by any derivative of the equation has the same interior point. By a sequence of differentiations, the highest degree of any term in the defining equation can be reduced to $1$, and the question is reduced to whether a hyperplane has interior points.

If you prefer, differentiate again to reduce to a variety of degree $0$ with no points, therefore no interior points.

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.