This is Exercise 7 of Section 6-3 of Cox, Little and O'Shea's Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms.

Let $I=\langle f_1,...,f_s\rangle\subset K(t_1,...,t_m)[x_1,...,x_n]$ where $K(t_1,...,t_m)$ is the field of rational functions and the leading coefficient of $f_i$ is assumed to be $1\;\forall\,i$. Let $G=\{g_1,...,g_t\}$ be a reduced Gröbner basis for $I$. For each $j$, We can write $g_j$ as $g_j=\sum_{i=1}^sB_{ji}f_i$. Let $(a_1,...,a_m)\in K^m$ such that none of the denominators of the $f_i$, the $g_j$, and the $B_{ji}$ vanish under $(t_1,...,t_m)\mapsto(a_1,...,a_m)$. Then we can show that $\overline G=\{\overline g_1,...,\overline g_t\}$ is a basis for $\overline I=\langle\overline f_1,...,\overline f_s\rangle\subset K[x_1,...,x_n]$ where $\overline g_j$ and $\overline f_i$ are obtained from $g_j$ and $f_i$ under $(t_1,...,t_m)\mapsto(a_1,...,a_m)$, respectively.

But I have problems with proving that $\{\overline g_1,...,\overline g_t\}$ is a Gröbner basis for $\overline I$. I have tried to construct a proof by contradiction (see below). Another approach is welcome. I would appreciate your help with this situation.

Suppose that there were $1\le a,b\le t$ such that $\overline{S(\overline g_a,\overline g_b)}^\overline G=r\neq 0$. I want to get a contradiction with the assumption that $\overline{S(g_a,g_b)}^G=0$ but I have no idea how to proceed. I know that $LT(g_j)=LT(\overline g_j)\;\forall\,j$. Hence if $S(g_j,g_k)=\frac{x^{\gamma}}{LT(g_j)}g_j-\frac{x^{\gamma}}{LT(g_k)}g_k$, then $S(\overline g_j,\overline g_k)=\frac{x^{\gamma}}{LT(g_j)}\overline g_j-\frac{x^{\gamma}}{LT(g_k)}\overline g_k$. Therefore, every monomial of $S(\overline g_j,\overline g_k)$ must be a monomial of $S(g_j,g_k)$. But the converse is false. Some monomials of $g_j,g_k$ may disappear under $(t_1,...,t_m)\mapsto(a_1,...,a_m)$, and so may $S(g_j,g_k)$. Difficulties arise when I try to compare the division processes of $\overline{S(\overline g_a,\overline g_b)}^\overline G$ and $\overline{S(g_a,g_b)}^G$.


Let $F=\{f_1, ..., f_s\}$ and $G=\{g_1, ..., g_t\}$. By the Exercise 7.(b), we have $I=\langle F\rangle=\langle G\rangle \stackrel{\mathbf{x}\mapsto \mathbf{a}}{\mapsto} \overline{I}=\langle \overline{F}\rangle=\langle \overline{G}\rangle$. We want to show that $\langle LT(\overline{I})\rangle\subseteq \langle LT(\overline{G})\rangle$.

Let $\overline{h}\in \langle LT(\overline{I})\rangle$, write $$\overline{h}=p_1(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{h_1}) +p_2(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{h_2}) +\cdots +p_r(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{h_r}),$$ where $\overline{h_i}\in \overline{I}$.

Incorrect Assertion: Note that $\overline{h_i}\in \overline{I}\subseteq I$ implies that $LT(\overline{h_i})\in \langle LT(I)\rangle=\langle LT(G)\rangle$.

Second Attempt: $\overline{h_i}\in \overline{I}$ for some $h_i\in I$. Note that $LT(\overline{h_i})=LT\left(\frac{1}{LC(h_i)}h_i\right)$. Since $\frac{1}{LC(h_i)}h_i\in I$, we have $LT\left(\frac{1}{LC(h_i)}h_i\right)\in \langle LT(I)\rangle=\langle LT(G)\rangle$

Thus, $LT(\overline{h_i})=LT\left(\frac{1}{LC(h_i)}h_i\right)$ is divided by some $LT(g_{k_i})=LT(\overline{g_{k_i}})$. Therefore, $$\overline{h} =p_1(\mathbf{x})q_1(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{g_{k_1}}) +p_2(\mathbf{x})q_2(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{g_{k_r}}) +\cdots +p_r(\mathbf{x})q_r(\mathbf{x})LT(\overline{g_{k_r}}). $$ Which is in $\langle LT(\overline{G})\rangle$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear @bfhaha: In line 6, you claim that $\overline I\subseteq I$. Let $I_a\subseteq K[x_1,...,x_n]$ be the set of all $\overline f$ obtained from $f\in I$ under $(t_1,...,t_m)\mapsto(a_1,...,a_m)$, then I can show that $\overline I\subseteq I_a$. But how to prove that $\overline I\subseteq I$? By ring homomorphism between $K(t_1,...,t_m)[x_1,...,x_n]$ and $K[x_1,...,x_n]$? Sorry, I am not familiar with it. $\endgroup$ – lightweight Dec 7 '16 at 0:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Karl You are right. It is a incorrect assertion. Let $I=\langle tx+1\rangle$. Then $x+1\in \overline{I}$ but $x+1\notin I$. $\endgroup$ – bfhaha Dec 7 '16 at 1:59
  • $\begingroup$ (2) If your $h_i$ in line 1 of "Second Attempt" is defined as $h_i=\sum q_jg_j$ whenever $\overline h_i=\sum q_j\overline g_j$, then I have a question about your claim that $LT(\overline h_i)=LT(\frac{1}{LC(h_i)}h_i)$. Every monomial of $\overline h_i$ must be a monomial of $h_i$, but I think the converse is false in general. Since some coefficients in $h_i$ may become $0$ under $(t_1,...,t_m)\mapsto(a_1,...,a_m)$, I think it is possible that $LM(\overline h_i)\neq LM(h_i)$. $\endgroup$ – lightweight Dec 7 '16 at 10:54

Here is my sketch of proof:

Note that the elements of $K(t_1,\dots,t_m)$ whose denominators do not vanish under the specialization $(t_1,\dots, t_m)\mapsto (a_1,\dots, a_m)$ form a subring and the specialization is a ring homomorphism between a subring of $K(t_1,\dots,t_m)[x_1,\dots,x_n]$.

Before we start observe the following two facts: Given $f,g \in F[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ where F is a field, under a certain monomial order we have the following:

1). $LT(fg)=LT(f)LT(g)$

2). $LT(f+g)\in \langle LT(f), LT(g) \rangle$

Now, since $\overline{f_i}=\Sigma_{j=1}^t \overline{A_{ij}} \overline{g_j}$, we have

$LT(\overline{f_i})=LT(\Sigma_{j=1}^t \overline{A_{ij}} \overline{g_j})$

$\hspace{10mm}$ $\in \langle LT(\overline{A_{i1}}\overline{g_1}),\dots,LT(\overline{A_{it}}\overline{g_t})\rangle$ by (2)

$\hspace{10mm}$ $=\langle LT(\overline{A_i})LT(\overline{g_1}),\dots,LT(\overline{A_{i1}})LT(\overline{g_t})\rangle$ by (1)

$\hspace{10mm}$ $\subseteq \langle LT(\overline{g_1}),\dots,LT(\overline{g_t})\rangle$ for all $0\leq i \leq s$

For the reverse inclusion, note that $\overline{g_j}=\Sigma_{i=1}^{s}\overline{B_{ji}} \overline{f_1}$ for each $0\leq j \leq t$. That means the leading term of $\overline{g_j}$ falls in $\Sigma_{i=1}^{s}\overline{B_{ji}} \overline{f_1}$, thus the leading term for each $\overline{g_j}$ falls in the ideal generated by $(\overline{f_1},\dots,\overline{f_s})$. Therefore, $LT(\overline{g_j})\in \langle LT(\overline{g_1}),\dots,LT(\overline{g_t}) \rangle \subseteq \langle LT<\overline{f_1},\dots,\overline{f_s}>\rangle=\langle LT(\overline{I})\rangle$.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Alan Lao: It is possible that $LM(\overline I)\not\subset LM(I)$ as far as $x_1,...,x_n$ are concerned. I have no idea how you get your 1st inclusion. $\endgroup$ – lightweight Dec 14 '16 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ $LT(\overline{I}) $ $\endgroup$ – Alan Lao Dec 14 '16 at 10:47
  • $\begingroup$ Under the specialization $(t_1,\dots,t_1) \mapsto (a_1,\dots,a_m)$. Some of the monomials of $f_i$ may vanish, and those monomials remained "unvanished" would still be in the ideal generated by $(f_1,\dots, f_s)$ $\endgroup$ – Alan Lao Dec 14 '16 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, the hint on the book is pretty clear. What matter the most are $x_1,\dots,x_n$. Under the specialization some of the $x_i$ term in $I$ may "disappear" but those remained there would fall inside the $I$. $\endgroup$ – Alan Lao Dec 14 '16 at 11:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Alan Lao: In your 2nd comment, you said that [those monomials remained "unvanished" would still be in the ideal generated by $(f_1,...,f_s)$]. Consider $I=\langle x+1\rangle$. $1$ is a monomial of $x+1$, but $1\notin I$. $\endgroup$ – lightweight Dec 14 '16 at 12:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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