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

Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, $\operatorname{char}k=0$, $F$ be an irreducible homogeneous polynomial of degree$>1$ in $k[X,Y,Z]$, and $H=\det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}F_{xx}&F_{xy}&F_{xz}\\F_{yx}&F_{yy}&F_{yz}\\F_{zx}&F_{zy}&F_{zz}\end{array}\right)$. Make more clear, in this setting, that $H\neq 0$ is always true.

Why is $H$ not 0? Is there a pure algebraic proof of this ?


share|cite|improve this question
The question is to prove that, for any $F$, this is not identically zero. As I assume wxu knows, the geometric explanation is that (in characteristic zero) it is impossible to have a plane curve of degree $>1$ where every point is a flex. I don't know an algebraic proof, though. – David Speyer Jul 30 '11 at 0:44
It seems that this was a conjecture of Hesse, proven by Gordan and Noether, so I suppose it's not trivial. Here is a recent paper on the topic: – John M Aug 7 '11 at 13:48
@wxu : Notice that \det is a standard operator name in $\TeX$. I changed \mathrm{Det} to \det. – Michael Hardy May 23 '12 at 16:15
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The question makes sense in any number of variables $n$. As pointed out by John M in the comments, Hesse conjectured that $H\equiv 0$ if and only if the integral variety $V(F)$ defined by $F$ is a cone (i.e. after a suitable linear transformation, $F$ depends only on $n-1$ variables). This condition is clearly sufficient (note that for $n\le 3$, $F$ irreducible implies that $V(F)$ can't be a cone unless $\deg F=1$). Gordan and Noether proved the conjecture for $n\le 4$ and showed it is false for $n\ge 5$.

For $n=3$ (your situation), there is a down-to-earth and purely algebraic proof in a paper of Christoph Lossen (the idea of dual variety appears in the proof but is not explicitely named). In the preprint pointed out by John M (now published in Connect. Math. 60 (2009)), there is a more geometric proof (easy consequence of Proposition 1.6 attributed to F. Zak).

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.