We now define elimination ideals, a notion critical to this section.
Definition 11.1 Let I be an ideal of and 1 j n. The j-th elimination ideal is the ideal of defined by
The NCProcess command generates output which is displayed as a list of V-categories (see §) and the V-categories are defined in such a way that if one of the polynomials in a category is in the elimination ideal, then the entire category is a subset of the elimination ideal.
It is helpful to be able to find a generating set (or even a Gröbner Basis) not only for I but also for the j-th elimination ideals. If one has a Gröbner Basis with respect to certain types of monomial orders, then, if one considers the subset of the Gröbner Basis which lies in the j-th elimination ideal, then this set is itself a Gröbner Basis and generates the j-th elimination ideal. This is the content of Theorem 11.3.
To layout the correspondence of the rest of this section to Chapter 3 of [CLS], note that the definition of an elimination ideal (§1 Definition 1) an elimination order (§1 Exercise 5), an Elimination Theorem (§1 Theorem 2) and an Extension Theorem (§1 Theorem 3) are given in [CLS]. We now give the corresponding definitions, a corresponding Elimination theorem and discuss issues involving extensions in the noncommuative case.
Definition 11.2 [CLS] Let j and n be natural numbers such that 1 j n. A monomial order is of j-th elimination type provided that any monic monomial involving or is greater than any monic monomial of .
In this section, we follow the ordering convention used in [CLS]. With the definition of elimination order given above, if . For instance, if 1 < j < n, then . In the discussions in the rest of the paper, we have always taken .
If one considers a multigraded lex order (§ and §) under which
then this multigraded lex order is of jth elimination type. Note that a pure lex order is of j-th elimination type for any j such that .
The following theorem is the main result of this section and shows that a Gröbner Basis for an ideal I with respect to an j-th elimination order yields a Gröbner Basis with respect to the j-th elimination ideal.
Theorem 11.3 Let R = let be a term order on the monic monomials of R, let I be an ideal of R and let G be a Gröbner Basis of I with respect to . If 1 j n and is of j-th elimination type, then G is a Gröbner Basis for I
If a pure lex order is used, if one runs NCProcess until the GBA being used by NCProcess generates a Gröbner Basis and all of the shrinking (see §) parts of the NCProcess commands are turned off, then the categories which this outputs can be used to determine generating sets for the elimination ideals. More precisely, the union of the categories which are subsets of the j-th elimination ideal is a generating set for the j-th elimination ideal.
The comments of the last paragraph hold when a multigraded lex order is used rather than a pure lex order and one only considers j-th elimination ideal only if the order is described by placing a `` '' between and .
We begin by proving the following lemma.
Lemma 11.4 If f is a nonzero polynomial in , if is a monomial order, if is of the j-th elimination type and if the leading monomial of f with respect to is in , then f.
Proof. \ Let lm(f) denote the leading monomial of f with respect to the order .
Suppose and are monic monomials in such that and . Suppose there exists an such that . Definition 11.2 and the assumption that imply that . But since lm(f) is the leading monomial of f. But then which is a contradiction. Therefore, for . Therefore, . This completes the proof of Lemma 11.4.
We now move to the proof of Theorem 11.3.
Proof of Theorem 11.3.
Throughout this proof, for any nonzero polynomial p, lm(p) will denote the leading monomial of p with respect to the order .
Let be nonzero. Since and G is a Gröbner Basis, f has a finite d-representation with respect to G ([FMora]). That is, there exist scalars there exists , and there exist monic monomials such that
We wish to show that for . Since , its leading term lm(f) is in . Therefore, (gbdefn:two) implies that , , . An application of Lemma 11.4 yields . For ,
Now, (11.8) implies that , , . Since is of j-th elimination type, an application of Lemma 11.4 yields for . Thus, f has a d-representation in with respect to . Since every element of has a finite d-representation with respect to , an application of Proposition 2.2 of [FMora] proves that is a Gröbner Basis. The completes the proof of Theorem 11.3.
Note that we have not analyzed what is called extendibility of solutions in commutative theory ([CLS]). The main theorem involving extendibility of solutions can be viewed as giving sufficient conditions, in the commutative case, as to when backsolving is possible. We now give a brief description of these ideas.
Elimination ideals (and, therefore, Gröbner Basis with respect to term orders of elimination type) can be used to simplify the problem of finding common zeros of sets of polynomial equations. In other words, these elimination ideals can facilitate the process of backsolving. One process of finding a common zero of the set of polynomials in an ideal I involves first finding a common zero of the polynomials in a -th elimination ideal for close to n. This common zero will only assign values to the variables . One then tries to extend this common zero to a common zero of the -elimination ideal for . Extending the common zero consists of trying to assign values to the variables . The procedure repeats until one cannot extend a common zero (in which case one has to backtrack and pick a different common zero in the previous steps if there are any other choices) or until one finds a common zero of the entire ideal.
For the case of common zeros of commutative polynomials whose coefficients are complex numbers, Chapter 3 §1 of [CLS] gives a theorem which guarantees the extendibility of common zeros from one elimination ideal to the next under certain conditions. The authors do not know of any theorem of this type in the noncommutative case. The main reason we have not looked into it ourselves is that in the examples we have run (many besides those presented here), it was obvious that backsolving was possible for any choice of solution at each stage. Possibly more complicated theorems in systems or operator theory will require such a theory. This remains to be seen.