text:
# Criteria for (in)finite extent of static perfect fluids

## 1 Introduction

In this work we consider static, self-gravitating perfect fluids with a barotropic equation of state (EOS) $`\rho (p)`$ relating density and pressure, in Newton’s theory (NT) and in General relativity (GR). We are thus dealing with time-independent, globally regular solutions to the Euler-Poisson and the Euler-Einstein equations. Some problems which have been studied in this context are the following:

Do there exist (spherically symmetric, topologically $`R^3\times R`$, asymptotically flat) solutions with a given equation of state ?

Are all solutions (in particular all asymptotically flat ones) necessarily topologically $`R^3\times R`$ and spherically symmetric ?

Do fluid solutions (with parameters in some given range) have finite (or infinite) extent and a finite (or infinite) mass ?

Can solutions (if they exist) be (uniquely) determined by parameters like surface potential, or mass (or central pressure or -density in the spherically symmetric case)?

Are fluid solutions (with parameters in some given range) stable or unstable (against a certain classes of perturbations)?

Some of the questions listed above are clearly physically relevant when one develops models for stars or a model for the distribution of stars in a galaxy, while others are at least of mathematical interest. A recent review dealing with some of these issues can be found in . We will (after making a few general remarks), focus here on the question of finiteness (point C.), summarizing previous work as well as presenting new results.

For smooth equations of state, existence of spherically symmetric solutions (point A) has been proven satisfactorily in NT and in GR , while for discontinuous equations of state an existence theory has been developed in NT only . Regarding topology, partial results (in relativity) are given in . As to spherical symmetry, a complete proof is available in NT , but the problem is not really settled in GR (see , and below). Conjectures on points A and B under rather general conditions will be formulated in the next section. In any case, it is useful to pose questions C, D and E in a general context, in particular without assuming spherical symmetry, since the latter is not required in some theorems. We also note that the available results on spherical symmetry in GR not only have to be formulated somewhat differently for infinite and finite configurations, but the proof of the finite case actually goes the detour via a uniqueness theorem for given surface potential (point D). Thus, in GR points A and B have so far been studied jointly with (parts of) C and D.

Turning now to the details of the finiteness problem, an interesting aspect is the relevance of the behaviour of $`\rho (p)`$ for small $`p`$. In fact, by modifying the EOS suitably in just an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of $`p=0`$, all corresponding static solutions become necessarily finite or infinite. To see this, recall that fluid balls with $`\rho (0)0`$ are always finite , so we can simply set $`\rho =\rho (ϵ)=const.`$ for $`p[0,ϵ]`$ to ensure finiteness. On the other hand, (as we shall see below) we can always produce infinite solutions e.g. by gluing a piece with a linear EOS $`p=C.\rho `$ for $`p[0,ϵ]`$. We also recall that there are nontrivial criteria sufficient for finiteness of static fluid configurations, for example (assuming spherical symmetry) the existence of the integral $`_0^p𝑑p^{}/\rho (p^{})^2`$ for some $`p>0`$ (due to Rendall and Schmidt ) or $`(\rho /p)(dp/d\rho )=\gamma +O(\rho ^{\gamma 1})`$ for a constant $`\gamma `$ with $`4/3<\gamma <2`$ (due to Makino ), which only involve the behaviour of the EOS at small pressures.

These facts nonwithstanding, it is important to realize that for the finiteness question the behaviour of $`\rho (p)`$ for all $`p`$ is relevant in general. The striking examples in this context are the polytrope of index 5 in NT and the ”Buchdahl” EOS in GR , viz.

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{5}}\rho ^{\frac{6}{5}}`$
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{5}}\rho ^{\frac{1}{5}})^1\rho ^{\frac{6}{5}}`$ (1)
where $`\rho _{}`$ is a positive constant, and $`\rho <\rho _{}`$ in GR. All static solutions with these EOS have infinite extent but finite mass . Criteria for (in)finiteness  (discussed and generalized below) imply, in particular, that these solutions are ”on the verge” of having (in)finite extent and (in)finite mass in the following sense: Suitable, but arbitrarily small modifications of the EOS performed in an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of an arbitrary value $`p_0`$ of $`p`$, necessarily force all solutions with $`p_0supp\rho `$ to be finite, while other small modifications near any $`p_0`$ force all solutions with $`p_0supp\rho `$ to have infinite mass.

In this paper we discuss a theorem consisting of several parts. Under suitable conditions on the equation of state in each case, the theorem shows (roughly speaking) spherical symmetry from asymptotic flatness, finite and infinite extent of asymptotically flat fluid solutions, and finite extent in the spherically symmetric case. While the first part of the theorem is, in essence, just reproduced from  and the second part is a technically improved version of , the final part is the main new input of the present paper. The purpose of combining these three parts here is to exhibit the close relationship between the respective conditions on the equation of state (and in particular the role of (1) as a limiting case). As a complement to the present work, Heinzle has recently obtained results on finiteness and infiniteness of static fluids , assuming both asymptotic flatness and spherical symmetry, but less restrictive conditions on the equation of state than we do.

This report is organized as follows. In the next section we will give some preliminary material and quote the theorem discussed above. Crucial tools for the proof of the results on (in)finiteness are Pohozaev(-type) identities leading to virial(-type) theorems, which we discuss in Sect.3. While in NT the virial theorem is an equality (without further assumptions), in GR one obtains in the same manner only a ”virial inequality”, (but equalities can still be derived when spherical symmetry is assumed ). Correspondingly, the ”general” Newtonian virial theorem yields criteria both for finiteness and infiniteness of the fluid configuration, whereas in GR one only obtains a finiteness criterium in the same fashion, (but again an infiniteness criterium in the spherically symmetric case ). However, even without this latter assumption a criterium for infiniteness also exists in GR and is proven using the positive mass theorem with respect to a suitably conformally rescaled metric (a procedure which is, on the other hand, meaningless in NT). The proofs of the new parts of the main theorem are given in Sect.4. In the final section we expose our results in the light of the ”quasipolytropic” family of EOS.

## 2 The main theorem

We will treat NT and GR in a ”parallel” fashion as far as possible. This means that, if equations in NT and GR are direct analogues, we give them in left and right columns, respectively, and use the same symbols and the same numbers for corresponding quantities to facilitate comparison. In either situation, we consider a Riemannian manifold $`(,g)`$ with a scalar function $`V`$. In the Conjecture and the Theorem below, we will take $`V`$ and $`g`$ to be in some Sobolev space $`L_{k+2}^q`$ (using this symbol we follow Lee and Parker ), with exponent $`q4`$ and with $`k`$, the degree of (weak) differentiability, equal to either $`0,1`$ or $`2`$. Furthermore, we consider on $`(,g)`$ the non-negative functions $`pL_{k+1}^q`$, and $`\rho L_k^q`$, related by an EOS $`\rho (p)`$ which is $`C^{k1}`$ (if $`k1`$) and piecewise $`C^k`$. This means that for $`k=0`$ we allow the density to ”jump”, while $`k1`$ forbids such jumps. We also require that $`(g,V)`$ satisfy on $``$ (at least in a weak sense) the Euler-Poisson resp. the Euler-Einstein systems which we write as follows

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V^1`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \rho `$
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`D_ip`$ $`=`$ $`\rho D_iV^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (\rho +3p)V`$ (2)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`V^1D_iD_jV+4\pi (\rho p)g_{ij}`$ (3)
$`D_ip`$ $`=`$ $`V^1(\rho +p)D_iV.`$ (4)
The reason why we use here $`V^1`$ on the l.h. side will become clear shortly. In the GR case, $``$ can be understood as a hypersurface orthogonal to a timelike Killing vector $`\xi `$, and $`V`$ denotes the norm of $`\xi `$. The covariant derivative $`D_i`$, the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }=D_iD^i`$ and the Ricci tensor $`R_{ij}`$ refer to $`g`$. As to the Euler equation, there is a difference between NT and GR: While in the former case we require that $`pL_1^q`$ and postulate (4), the corresponding (weak) version in GR can be derived as follows.
Lemma 1. (C.f. Remark 1.8. of .) Let $`(,g,V)`$ be a $`L_2^q`$ solution which satisfies the GR-side of the field equations (2) and (3) weakly. Then $`pL_1^q`$, and Euler’s equation (4) also holds weakly.
Proof. Since $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions lie dense in $`L_k^q`$ we can approximate $`g`$ by a sequence of such functions. For any test function $`\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ we have then the following weak form of the Bianchi identity

$$_{}D^i\varphi ^j(R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ij})𝑑𝒱=0$$
(5)
where $`d𝒱`$ is the volume element w.r. to $`g`$. Approximating now also $`V,p`$ and $`\rho `$ by $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions we easily obtain the required result. $`\mathrm{}`$

While we allow $`\rho `$ to have zeros in general (in particular at $`p=0`$) we always assume that the integrals

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^p}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^{}}{\rho (p^{})}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^p}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^{}}{\rho (p^{})+p^{}}}`$ (6)
exist for some interval $`p[0,p_{max}]`$. (The integral does not exist e.g. for linear equations of state $`\rho =C.p`$). Obviously $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a continuous function of $`p`$ and also on $``$. In NT, from Euler’s equation, we have $`D_i(V^1\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$ and so the expression in parenthesis is a constant $`V_s^1`$ equal to $`V^1`$ at $`p=0`$, whence $`V_s`$ is called the surface potential. In GR, the same conclusions can be drawn from $`D_i(Ve^\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$. Integrating (4) we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=V^1V_s^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\text{ln}V_s\text{ln}V.`$ (7)
$`V`$ is related to the standard Newtonian potential $`U`$ by $`U=1V^1`$. To formulate our theorems we now introduce some quantities defined from the EOS, and proceed with a lemma on their mutual relationship. If $`\rho (p)`$ is $`C^0`$ and piecewise $`C^1`$ we define

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}}`$
$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{\rho +3p}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}}`$ (8)
and if $`\rho (p)`$ is $`C^{k1}`$ (for $`k=1,2`$) and piecewise $`C^k`$ (for $`k=0,1,2`$),

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }6p`$
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`6p\kappa 5\rho `$
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa }{dp}}+\kappa ^2`$
$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (e^\mathrm{\Gamma }1)6p`$ (9)
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +3p}{\rho }}p\kappa 5\rho `$ (10)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`5(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa }{dp}}+\kappa ^2+10\kappa .`$ (11)
The static spherically symmetric solutions corresponding to $`I_00`$ and $`I_10`$ are known explicitly and read (c.f.  for NT and  for GR),

$`1V^1={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _{}M^4+r^2}}}`$
$`1V={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _{}M^4+r^2}+\frac{M}{2}}},`$ (12)
where $`M`$ is the mass which can take any positive value in NT. In GR, $`M`$ is bounded from below by $`3M^2<16\pi \rho _{}`$, and the metric on $``$ is $`g=[(2/(1+V)]^4\delta `$ where $`\delta `$ is the Kronecker symbol.

We continue with a result on the relation between the quantities $`I_k`$.
Proposition 1. Assume that $`\rho >0`$ for $`p>0`$, and that $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ exists. Let $`\{I_k0\}`$, $`\{I_k0\}`$ and $`\{I_k0\}`$ denote the sets of equations of state which are $`C^{k1}`$ (for $`k=1,2`$), piecewise $`C^k`$ for $`k=0,1,2`$ and which satisfy, for all $`p[0,p_{max}]`$, $`I_k0`$, $`I_k0`$, or $`I_k0`$, respectively. Then

$`\{I_10\}\{I_00\}`$ (13)
$`\{I_20\}`$ $``$ $`\{I_10\}\{I_00\}`$ (14)
$`\{I_20\}`$ $``$ $`\{I_10\}\{I_00\}.`$ (15)
Proof. These results are due to the fact that the $`I_j`$ are in a certain sense the integrals of $`I_{j+1}`$. In particular, from (4), (7), (9) and (10) we obtain

$`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}[\rho ^1I_0]=\rho ^1I_1`$
$`(\rho +p)e^\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}[\rho ^1e^\mathrm{\Gamma }I_0]=\rho ^1I_1.`$ (16)
To show (13) and the second inclusion in (15) we note that $`\rho ^1I_0`$ vanishes at $`p=0`$, which is obvious when $`\rho _s0`$. As to the case $`\rho _s=0`$, we first note that the existence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and of $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ implies $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=0`$ (c.f. , Appendix A) and so the assertion follows from (9). Therefore, when $`I_10`$, $`I_1=0`$ or $`I_10`$, the same holds for $`I_0`$.

Each of the conditions $`I_10`$ and $`I_00`$ (together with the differentiability assumptions) characterizes the 1-parameter families of EOS (1) and so the sets $`\{I_10\}\{I_00\}`$ of corresponding solutions are given by (12). The condition $`I_2=0`$ admits the case $`\rho =const.`$ and a two-parameter family of EOS which reads $`p=1/6(\rho _{}^{1/5}\rho ^{6/5}\rho _+)`$ in NT (where $`\rho _{}`$ and $`\rho _+`$ are constants with $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$), while in GR it is given in  (together with the corresponding static solutions).

Finally, the first inclusion in (15) is proven in  (in a similar way as above). $`\mathrm{}`$

We now impose falloff conditions on $`g`$ and $`V`$ in terms of weighted Sobolev spaces $`L_{k,\beta }^q`$ (defined as in Def. (2.1) of Bartnik , and Sect. 9 of Lee and Parker,  following again the notation of the latter paper).
Definition 1. A $`L_2^q`$ solution $`(,g,V)`$ of (2), (3) is called asymptotically flat (AF) if

1. The ”end” $`^{\mathrm{}}=\{\text{a compact set}\}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$ where $``$ is a closed ball.
2. On $`^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`1V=o(1)`$, and the metric $`g`$ satisfies, for some $`q4`$ and $`\alpha >0`$,

$$g\delta L_{2,\alpha }^q.$$
(17)

Thus, in this definition of AF we have supplemented Bartnik’s falloff condition  for $`g`$ by the requirement that $`Vconst.`$ at infinity (with the convention that $`const.=1`$).
Definition 2. An AF solution $`(,g,V)`$ of (2), (3) is called asymptotically flat with mass decay conditions (AFMD) if on $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ the fluid variables satisfy, for some $`q4`$ and $`\alpha >0`$,

$`\rho `$ $``$ $`L_{0,3\alpha }^q,`$ (18)
$`p`$ $``$ $`L_{0,3\alpha }^q.`$ (19)
Here the name ”mass decay conditions” for these falloff conditions is inspired by similar requirements on the Ricci scalar in eqns.(4.4) of .

We remark that, to obtain our results in NT, it would be sufficient to impose (18) and (19) with $`\mathrm{"}3\mathrm{"}`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{"}5/2\mathrm{"}`$, which would not a priori restrict us to finite mass. In order not to spoil the ”parallel” presentation of NT and GR, we just restrict ourselves to remarks on this option (after the formulation of the theorem).

Together with the field equations (2), (3), the AFMD conditions lead to the following stronger falloff properties. (We only give the formulation in GR explicitly; the Newtonian case arises via obvious simplifications.)
Lemma 2. Let $`(,g,V)`$ be an AFMD GR solution. Then there exist a harmonic coordinate chart $`(^{\mathrm{}},g)`$ and a constant $`M`$ (”the mass”) such that

$`1V{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}`$ $``$ $`L_{2,1\alpha }^q`$ (20)
$`g(1+2M/r)\delta `$ $``$ $`L_{2,1\alpha }^q`$ (21)
$`p`$ $``$ $`L_{1,4\alpha }^q`$ (22)
Proof. Inserting $`1V=o(1)`$, (18) and (19) in (2) we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }VL_{0,3\alpha }^q`$. Inverting the Laplacian with Proposition 2.2 of  we obtain (20). The next step is to insert (18), (19) and (20) in (3) which yields $`R_{ij}L_{0,3\alpha }^q`$. By Proposition 3.3 of  we can now pass to harmonic chart on $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ and get (21). Finally, (22) is obvious after inserting (20) and (21) in (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

If we replace ”3” by ”5/2” in the definition of AFMD, we get Lemma 2 without the mass term, and with falloff $`L_{2,1/2\alpha }^q`$ for $`V,g`$ and $`L_{1,3\alpha }^q`$ for $`p`$.

We now formulate a conjecture on points A,B and C raised in the introduction, and compare it with our theorem.
Conjecture. Let $`\rho (p)`$ be a piecewise $`C^0`$ equation of state with $`\rho 0`$, $`p0`$. Then

There exists a 1-parameter family of spherically symmetric, AF $`L_2^q`$ solutions $`(,g,V)`$ of (2,3,4).

Every $`L_2^q`$-solution $`(,g,V)`$ is necessarily spherically symmetric.

I. If $`I_00`$ holds for $`p[0,p_{max}]`$, then the solution either has finite extent or $`\rho (p)`$ satisfies $`I_00`$.

If $`I_00`$ holds for $`p[0,p_{max}]`$, then either $`\rho (p)`$ satisfies $`I_00`$ or the solution is not AF.

As remarked in Sect. 1, part A was shown under slightly stronger assumptions in NT  and for smooth EOS in GR . We refer to these papers for details. As to spherical symmetry (B), the following theorem requires AFMD as well as a condition on the EOS, while the results on finiteness require either AFMD or spherical symmetry, together with stronger assumptions on the EOS than conjectured above.
Theorem. Let $`\rho (p)`$ be given with $`p0`$ and $`\rho 0`$ and assume that there is a solution $`(,g,V)`$ of (2,3,4) specified below.

Assume that $`\rho (p)`$ is $`C^1`$ with $`d\rho /dp>0`$ and piecewise $`C^2`$ with $`I_20`$ for all $`p[0,p_{max}]`$, and assume that the solution is $`L_4^q`$ ($`q4`$) and AFMD.

Then the solution is spherically symmetric.

I. If one of the following conditions 1. or 2. holds

$`\rho (p)`$ is piecewise $`C^0`$, and $`I_00`$ holds for $`p[0,p_{max}]`$. The solution is AFMD.

$`\rho (p)`$ is $`C^0`$, piecewise $`C^1`$ with $`d\rho /dp>0`$, and $`I_10`$ holds for $`p[0,p_{max}]`$. The solution is $`L_3^q`$ ($`q4`$) and spherically symmetric.

Then the solution either has finite extent, or $`\rho (p)`$ satisfies $`I_00`$.

Assume that $`\rho (p)`$ is piecewise $`C^0`$, and $`I_00`$ holds for all $`p[0,p_{max}]`$.

Then either $`I_00`$, or the solution is not AFMD.

Some comments on this theorem are in order.

Whenever $`I_00`$, then the EOS reads (1), and the solutions are given by (12).

Part B. of this theorem has been proven in  in the smooth case, but extends straightforwardly to the present setting.

Part C.I.1. has in essence been shown in , while C.II is proven in  and (assuming $`I_10`$) in . Compared to these papers, we set out here from weaker assumptions on differentiability and on the falloff (as to NT, c.f. the remarks after Definition 2 and after Lemma 2).

The main new result of the present paper is part C.I.2. Its proof goes, in essence, the detour via C.I.1, i.e. we first show that assumptions C.I.2 (together with the field equations) imply falloff conditions similar to (20), (21) and (22) which can be used alternatively to the AFMD ones in C.I.1. in the spherically symmetric case. Since we also know from Proposition 1 that $`I_10`$ implies $`I_00`$, finite extent of the solution follows.

We note that C.I.1 and C.I.2 are also related in the sense that they require similar auxiliary results, (in particular Lemma 4) and so we found it useful to repeat (from ) the whole proof of C.I.1 here.

A natural extension of part C of the above theorem has been obtained by Heinzle . From the equation of state he defines quantities $`J_1`$ in NT and $`J_0`$ in GR whose signs again determine the (in)finiteness properties of solutions which are now assumed to be both spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat. Moreover, as an extension of Proposition 1, it is shown in  that if $`I_0`$ has a sign (and if $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ exists), then $`J_1`$ and $`J_0`$ have the same sign as $`I_0`$. Hence these quantities extend our ”$`I_k`$ series” in a natural manner, and Heinzle’s (in)finiteness results require rather weak conditions on the equations of state.

## 3 The virial theorem

This section contains two easy technical lemmas followed by the ”virial theorem” (as a proposition). The latter is a tool for the proof of the Theorem in Sect.4.
Lemma 3. (The modified Pohozaev identity ; compare ).
On $`(,g)`$ with $`R^3`$ and $`g`$ flat, let $`\xi _i`$ be a dilation, i.e. $`D_{(i}\xi _{j)}=\delta _{ij}`$ (in Cartesian coordinates $`x^i`$, $`\xi _i=x^i`$). Assume that $`\sigma =\sigma (X)`$ with $`XL_2^q`$, $`\sigma L_0^q`$ $`(q4)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=4\pi \sigma `$, and define functions $`\tau (X)=^X\sigma (X^{})𝑑X^{}`$ and $`Z=D_jXD^jX`$. (Here $`\tau `$ is defined only up to an additive constant). Then we have

$$D_i[(\xi ^jD_jX+\frac{1}{2}X)D^iX\frac{1}{2}Z\xi ^i+4\pi \tau \xi ^i]=2\pi (\sigma X+6\tau ).$$
(23)
This Lemma, which is proven by straightforward computation, will be applied below in NT, with $`X=1V^1`$, $`\sigma =\rho `$ and $`\tau =p`$.

In spaces in which there exists a (general) conformal Killing vector $`\xi `$, (i.e. $`𝒞[D_i\xi _j]=0`$ where $`𝒞`$ denotes the symmetric, trace-free part) there is an obvious generalization of (23). A more subtle generalization is the following.
Lemma 4. Let $`(,g^{})`$ be a Riemannian 3-manifold with $`g^{}L_2^q`$ and Ricci-tensor and -scalar $`R_{ij}^{}`$, $`R^{}=g^{ij}R_{ij}^{}`$ and $`B_{ij}^{}=𝒞^{}[R_{ij}^{}]`$ (where $`𝒞^{}`$ denotes the symmetric,trace-free part w.r. to $`g^{}`$). Assume further that there exist a vector field $`\eta ^iL_1^q`$ and a function $`\alpha ^{}L_0^q`$ such that

$$𝒞^{}[D_i^{}\eta _j^{}]=\alpha ^{}B_{ij}^{}.$$
(24)
Then

$$D^i[(R_{ij}^{}\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}^{}R^{})\eta ^j]=\alpha ^{}B_{ij}^{}B^{ij}\frac{1}{6}R^{}D_i^{}\eta ^i$$
(25)
and if $`g^{}L_3^q`$,

$$D^i[B_{ij}^{}\eta ^j]=\alpha ^{}B_{ij}^{}B^{ij}+\frac{1}{6}\eta ^iD_i^{}R^{}.$$
(26)
The derivatives on the l.h. sides on (25) and (26) are to be understood in the weak sense.
Proof. (25) and (26) follow from (24) by approximating $`\eta ^{}`$ with a sequence of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions, and from the weak Bianchi identity (5) with respect to $`g^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

If there exists a conformal Killing vector $`\xi `$ then we could in principle take $`\eta =\xi `$ in Lemma 4. Instead, we will make later use of this lemma with the more sophisticated choice

$`g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1V^1)^4g`$
$`\eta _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D_i(1V^1)^2`$
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1V^1)^2`$
$`g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(1+V)^4g`$ (27)
$`\eta _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+V}{(1V)^3}}D_iV`$ (28)
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V(1+V)^2}{(1V)^4}}.`$ (29)
As to the GR case of (25) we note that, using (27)-(29), the l.h. side can be rewritten (after multiplying with $`(detg^{}/detg)^{1/2}`$) as

$$D_i\left[\frac{1}{1V^2)^2}\left(V^1D^iW+8\frac{WD^iV}{1V^2}8\pi \left(\rho +\frac{15V}{1V}p\right)D^iV\right)\right],$$
(30)
where $`W=D_iVD^iV`$. The quantities on the r.h. side of (25) read explicitly

$`R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`256\pi (1+V)^5[\rho (1V)6pV]`$ (31)
$`D_i^{}\eta ^i`$ $`=`$ $`32(1V^2)^4[2\pi V(1V^2)(\rho +3p)+3W],`$ (32)
and so $`D_i^{}\eta ^i0`$.

We can now show the following
Proposition 2. (The ”Virial theorem”)
Let $`(,g,V)`$ be AFMD. Then there is a $`B0`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle _{}}[\rho (1V^1)+6p]𝑑𝒱=0`$
$`{\displaystyle _{}}B[\rho (1V^1)+6p]𝑑𝒱0.`$ (33)
Proof. In NT we integrate the Pohozaev identity (23), apply the divergence theorem and note that the resulting surface terms vanish by virtue of the asymptotic properties derived in Lemma 2 (see also the remark after this lemma). In GR we apply the same reasoning to (25), using (31), $`B=(128V\pi /3)(1+V)^5D_i^{}\eta ^i`$ and again Lemma 2 for the surface terms. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Proof of the main theorem

We first sketch the ideas of the proof. For part C.I.1 in general, and also for part C.II in NT we can use the virial theorem described above (which requires asymptotic flatness). We find that the sign of $`I_0`$, together with $`V_s<1`$ or $`V_s=1`$, determine the signs of the r.h. sides of (33), which directly leads to the required conclusions. To show C.I.2 we introduce the quantities

$`\widehat{W}`$ $`=`$ $`(1V^1)^4W`$
$`\widehat{g}`$ $`=`$ $`(1V^1)^4g`$
$`\widehat{W}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle _{V_c}^V}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho V^4}{(1V)^4}}𝑑V`$
$`\widehat{W}`$ $`=`$ $`(1V^2)^4W`$ (34)
$`\widehat{g}`$ $`=`$ $`V^2(1V^2)^4g`$ (35)
$`\widehat{W}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle _{V_c}^V}{\displaystyle \frac{V(\rho +3p)}{(1V^2)^4}}𝑑V,`$ (36)
where $`V_c`$ is a constant specified below. We then employ (26), again with the choices (27),(28) and (29). As the r.h. side now contains $`D_i^{}R^{}`$ (instead of $`R^{}`$ in (25)), controlling the sign now requires, (instead of $`I_00`$), the more restrictive condition $`I_10`$. In fact, assuming now also that the fluid region extends to infinity (i.e. $`V_s=1`$) we can write (26) in the form

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\widehat{W}\widehat{W}_0)0$$
(37)
with $`\widehat{W}_0C^2=const.>0`$. If we were to assume that $`(,g,V)`$ is AFMD, we could now form a compactification $`\widehat{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of this manifold by adding the point at infinity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\widehat{W}`$ , $`\widehat{W}_0`$ and the metric $`\widehat{g}`$ would have $`C^1`$-extensions to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then the maximum principle would immediately lead again to the conclusions of C.I.1. Without asymptotic conditions we can still apply the maximum principle to (37) on a finite domain $`𝒟`$. Assuming also spherical symmetry and taking $`V_c`$ in (36) to be the value of $`V`$ at the centre, we conclude that $`\widehat{W}\widehat{W}_0>C^2`$, which gives $`1V1/C.r`$ on a ball $`_r`$ of radius $`r`$. Thus, extending $`_r`$ we control the asymptotic behaviour of $`V`$. With some further technical manipulations based on the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is positive, we can then prove that $`(,g,V)`$ satisfies asymptotic conditions similar to the AFMD ones. These in fact guarantee the existence of a $`C^1`$ compactification as well as the vanishing of the surface terms in the integrals of (23) and (30). We then obtain the required conclusion $`I_10`$ either from the maximum principle or by applying the reasoning of C.I.1.

We remark that, from (30), we could also write (26) in the form $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\widehat{W}\widehat{W}_1)0`$ for some $`\widehat{W}_1(V)`$ (assuming infinite extent and $`I_10`$). This relation can, however, not replace (37) in the proof sketched above as we do not have control over the sign of $`\widehat{W}_1`$ (whereas $`\widehat{W}_0>0`$).

Finally, to show part C.II in the Einstein case, we use the rigidity case of the positive mass theorem on $`(,g^{})`$.

We now turn to the details.
Proof of part C.I.1 of the Theorem. Using (7),(9) and the virial theorem (33), we find that

$`{\displaystyle _{}}[\rho (1V_s^1)I_0]𝑑𝒱=0`$
$`{\displaystyle _{}}B[(V_s1)(\rho +6p)I_0]𝑑𝒱0,`$ (38)
where $`I_0`$ has here to be considered as a function on $``$. The statement of the theorem now follows immediately from (38).
Proof of part C.II. In NT the second part of the theorem also follows easily from (38). As to the GR case, we find from (20) that the metric $`g^{}`$ is $`L_{2,\alpha }^q`$, has vanishing mass, and $`R^{}0`$ due to (7), (9), (31) and $`I_00`$. The ”vanishing mass-” case of the positive mass theorem  hence implies that $`g^{}`$ is flat, and so $`R^{}`$ vanishes identically. Using (31) together with (4) gives the Buchdahl EOS.
Proof of part C.I.2. We show that the requirements imply asymptotic conditions which in essence reduce the problem to C.I.1. We treat NT and GR simultaneously.

Observing from (31) that the Ricci scalar $`R^{}`$ with respect to $`g^{}`$ is a function of $`V`$, we first show that $`I_10`$ implies a lower bound for $`dR^{}/dV`$. To do so, we note first that the existence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`d\rho /dp>0`$ imply that $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=0`$ (c.f. Appendix A of ). By a straightforward computation, using $`I_10`$, $`\rho ^1I_00`$ (which follows from Proposition 1 and form the previous remark), and (7) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1V)^6}{32\pi V^4\rho \kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dV}}R^{}=`$
$`=5\kappa ^1+1V^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6p}{\rho }}+1V^1`$
$`1V^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$`1V_s^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V(1+V)^6}{256\pi (\rho +3p)\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dV}}R^{}=`$ (39)
$`=V^2(10\kappa ^1+1)1`$
$`12V^2\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\rho }}+1\right]1`$
$`V^2e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}1`$
$`V_s^21.`$
We now assume that the fluid extends to infinity, (i.e. $`V_s=1`$), which will lead to a contradiction. It follows from (39) that $`dR^{}/dV0`$. Restricting ourselves to spherical symmetry we have $`\widehat{W}_0=0`$ at the centre by definition, and $`\widehat{W}=0`$ since $`V`$ takes its minimum there. Applying the maximum principle to (37) on any ball $`_r`$ (bounded by $`r`$ = const.) we obtain $`\widehat{W}\widehat{W}_0`$ on $`_r`$. Next, since the integrand (36) is non-negative, $`W_0(V)`$ increases monotonically with $`V`$ (and with $`r`$); in particular there is a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`\widehat{W}\widehat{W}_0C^2`$.

Below we give the proof of the relativistic case explicitly. (The Newtonian case can easily be obtained by suitable simplifications).

We introduce coordinates such that

$$ds^2=g_{ij}dx^idx^j=(12r^1m(r))^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(40)
where $`m(r)=4\pi _0^rr^2\rho (r^{})𝑑r^{}`$. Writing out the bound $`\widehat{W}C^2`$ explicitly we obtain, since $`g^{rr}<1`$,

$$\frac{d}{dr}\frac{1}{1V}=\frac{1}{(1V)^2}\frac{dV}{dr}\frac{\sqrt{g^{rr}}}{(1V^2)^2}\frac{dV}{dr}=\sqrt{\widehat{W}}C$$
(41)
which implies that

$$1V\frac{1}{C.r}.$$
(42)
The crucial step is now to get an upper bound for $`r^2dV/dr`$. Writing (2) as

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2\sqrt{g^{rr}}\frac{dV}{dr}\right)=4\pi V(\rho +3p)r^2\sqrt{g_{rr}}$$
(43)
and noting that the r.h. side is non-negative for $`p>0`$, we find that $`dV/dr`$ is positive and that $`r^2\sqrt{W}`$ is strictly monotonically increasing. (Note that, from Theorem 2 of , $`g^{rr}`$ does not go to zero for finite $`r`$. This argument also holds under the present differentiability assumptions). We now show by an indirect argument that $`r^2\sqrt{W}`$ is bounded as $`r\mathrm{}`$. Assuming the contrary, namely that

$$D>0\text{and}r_1r_0>r_1\text{such that}r^2\sqrt{W}|_{r_0}>D$$
(44)
we get from monotonicity that

$$D>0r_0\text{such that}r>r_0r^2\sqrt{W}>D$$
(45)
and, since $`g^{rr}<1`$, we also have $`r^2dV/dr>D`$ for sufficiently large $`r`$. Integrating the latter relation between some $`\widehat{r}`$ and infinity we get a contradiction to (42). Therefore, $`r^2\sqrt{W}`$ is bounded.

Using next the divergence theorem and $`V_cV`$ (where $`V_c`$ is the value of $`V`$ at the centre) we obtain

$`m(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^r}\rho r^2𝑑r^{}{\displaystyle _0^r}\rho \sqrt{g_{rr}}r^2𝑑r^{}V_c^1{\displaystyle _0^r}V(\rho +3p)\sqrt{g_{rr}}r^2𝑑r^{}=`$ (46)
$`=V_c^1{\displaystyle _{r=const.}}r^2\sqrt{W}𝑑\omega <\mathrm{}.`$
Therefore, the ADM-mass $`M=lim_r\mathrm{}m(r)`$ exists, $`g^{rr}1`$, and the limit

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r(1V)=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^2\frac{dV}{dr}=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^2\sqrt{W}=N$$
(47)
exists as well (and is called the ”Komar mass”). Moreover, we note that $`\rho L_{0,3}^1`$ and, from (4), that $`pL_{1,4}^1`$. Finally, using (2) or (43) again, we obtain

$$\frac{dW}{dr}=\frac{4}{r}W+8\pi V(\rho +3p)\sqrt{g_{rr}W}L_{0,5}^1.$$
(48)
While these properties are slightly different from the AFMD conditions as defined in Sect.2., they still imply that the surface integral arising by applying the divergence theorem to (30) vanishes. To see this we rewrite the latter expression as follows (using spherical symmetry and multiplying with $`r^2`$),

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left[\frac{r^2}{(1V^2)^2}\left(V^1\sqrt{g^{rr}}\frac{dW}{dr}+\frac{8W^{3/2}}{1V^2}8\pi \sqrt{W}\left(\rho \frac{15V}{1V}p\right)\right)\right],$$
(49)
use the divergence theorem and insert (47), $`r^4WN^2`$, and (48). Recalling that $`I_10`$ implies $`I_00`$, the virial theorem (33) now applies and we get finite extent.

As remarked before, it also follows that $`\widehat{g}`$, $`\widehat{W}`$ and $`\widehat{W}_0`$ have $`C^1`$ extensions to the point at infinity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of a compactification $`\widehat{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence (instead of using the virial theorem in the form (33)) we could also apply the maximum principle to (37) to show finiteness.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Discussion

Here we discuss further the results on finiteness in the light of what we call the ”quasipolytropic” EOS

$$p=K\rho ^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\left[1+f\left(\rho ^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)\rho ^{\frac{1}{n}}\right]$$
(50)
where $`K,nR^+`$ and $`f:[0,\lambda )R`$ is a smooth function. Obviously, for $`f0`$, (but in general also for small $`\rho `$), we are left with the polytropic EOS, while the limit $`n=0`$ reduces to the incompressible case $`\rho =const.`$. This quasipolytropic class seems to comprise all physically interesting EOS, in NT as well as in GR.

Let us first compare the polytropes in NT with the ”Generalized Buchdahl EOS” in GR obtained from (50) with the choice $`1/K=(n+1)\rho _{}^{1/n}`$ and $`f(\rho ^{1/n})=(\rho _{}^{1/n}\rho ^{1/n})^1`$ for some constant $`\rho _{}`$, and for $`\rho <\rho _{}`$, viz.

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{n}}\rho ^{\frac{n+1}{n}}`$
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\rho ^{\frac{n+1}{n}}(\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{n}}\rho ^{\frac{1}{n}})^1.`$ (51)
For the Newtonian polytropes we now find that $`I_0=(n5)p`$ and $`I_1=\rho (n5)/(n+1)`$. In GR, the integral (6) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is still elementary but the expressions for $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$ are rather involved. Nevertheless, they still have the appealing property that the quantities $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$ are negative iff $`n<5`$, zero for $`n=5`$, (this is the ”Buchdahl”- case considered above, c.f. (1),(12)) and positive iff $`n>5`$. Hence the (in)finiteness properties of all static solutions (satisfying also the other requirements of C.I and C.II) depend only on the EOS and are obvious from the theorem.

While in NT the polytropes are also (for special values of $`n`$) adiabates and therefore physically significant, the adiabates in GR are neither polytropes nor do they coincide with (51). Instead, comparing again with the Newtonian polytropes, they read

$`\rho =\left(n+1\right)^{\frac{n}{n+1}}\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{n+1}}p^{\frac{n}{n+1}}`$
$`\rho =\left(n+1\right)^{\frac{n}{n+1}}\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{n+1}}p^{\frac{n}{n+1}}+np.`$ (52)
The integral (6) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is again elementary in the GR case of (52). We get $`I_00`$ (and hence finiteness for AFMD solutions) if

$`n5`$
$`p{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}}{n+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{n}}1\right)^{n+1}.`$ (53)
Thus adiabatic, asymptotically flat solutions whose pressure nowhere exceeds (53) are finite. The condition $`I_10`$, which guarantees finiteness for spherically symmetric solutions, leads to a (smaller) upper bound on $`p`$ which can also be computed explicitly.

We now consider a fixed EOS in the general class (50) and the corresponding one-parameter family of static, spherically symmetric solutions. Rendall and Schmidt have shown  that, for $`1<n<5`$ the fluid region is finite provided that the central density $`\rho _c`$ is below a critical value $`\rho _{crit}`$ , while for $`n>5`$ the fluid is always infinite (with infinite mass). More recently, Makino has proven that the fluid is always finite for $`1<n<3`$. On the other hand, our theorem implies that finiteness for small $`\rho _c`$ is guaranteed in the range $`0<n<5`$, and allows us to estimate $`\rho _{crit}`$. Now the interesting remaining question is what happens for $`0<n<5`$ if the central density is increased. For polytropes in GR, this question has been investigated by Nilsson and Uggla  using a combination of dynamical systems techniques with numerical ones. They find that all solutions are finite for $`n<3.339`$. For larger values they observe, somewhat surprisingly, a discrete set of central densities with infinite configurations, some of which have finite but others infinite mass. The mathematical side of these phenomena still deserves to be understood.

We finally remark that interesting results on finiteness have also been obtained for Vlasov-Poisson and Vlasov-Einstein systems by Rein and Rendall .
Acknowledgements. I am indebted to J. M. Heinzle for carefully reading the draft, pointing out errors and suggesting improvements. I am also grateful to R. Beig, P. Bizoň, A. Rendall, R. Steinbauer and C. Uggla for helpful discussions and correspondence. This work was supported by Jubiläumsfonds der Österreichischen Nationalbank (Projekt 7942), and by Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik.


format: text

text:
# On parameter spaces for Artin level algebras

## 1. Notation and Preliminaries

The base field $`k`$ will be algebraically closed of characteristic zero (but see Remark 4.11). Let $`V`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional $`k`$-vector space, and let

$$R=\underset{i0}{}\text{Sym}^iV^{},S=\underset{i0}{}\text{Sym}^iV.$$

Let $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\},\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$ be dual bases of $`V^{}`$ and $`V`$ respectively, leading to identifications $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n],S=k[y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$. There are internal products (see \[11, p. 476\])

$$\text{Sym}^jV^{}\text{Sym}^iV\text{Sym}^{ij}V,uFu.F$$

making $`S`$ into a graded $`R`$-module. This action may be seen as partial differentiation; if $`u(\underset{¯}{x})R`$ and $`F(\underset{¯}{y})S`$, then

$$u.F=u(/y_1,\mathrm{},/y_n)F.$$

If $`IR`$ is a homogeneous ideal, then $`I^1`$ is the $`R`$-submodule of $`S`$ defined as $`\{FS:u.F=0\text{for all }uI\}`$. This module (called Macaulay’s inverse system for $`I`$) inherits a grading from $`S`$, thus $`I^1=\underset{i}{}(I^1)_i`$. Reciprocally, if $`MS`$ is a graded submodule, then $`\text{ann}(M)=\{u:u.F=0\text{for all }FM\}`$ is a homogeneous ideal in $`R`$. In classical terminology, if $`u.F=0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}u\mathrm{deg}F`$, then $`u,F`$ are said to be *apolar* to each other.

For any $`i`$, we have the Hilbert function $`H(R/I,i)=dim_k(R/I)_i=dim_k(I^1)_i`$. The following theorem is fundamental.

###### Theorem 1.1 (Macaulay–Matlis duality).

We have a bijective correspondence

$`\{\text{homogeneous ideals }I<R\}`$ $`\{\text{graded }R\text{-submodules of }S\}`$
$`I`$ $`I^1`$
$`\text{ann}(M)`$ $`M`$
Moreover, $`I^1`$ is a finitely generated $`R`$-module iff $`R/I`$ is artin.

Let $`R/I=A`$ be artin with graded decomposition

$$A=kA_1\mathrm{}A_d,A_d0,A_i=0\text{for }i>d.$$

Recall that

$$\text{socle}(A)=\{uA:ux_i=0\text{for every }i\}.$$

Then $`A_d\text{socle}(A)`$, and $`A`$ is said to be *level* if equality holds. This is true iff $`I^1`$ is generated as an $`R`$-module by exactly $`t:=dimA_d`$ elements in $`S_d`$. When $`A`$ is level, the number $`t`$ is called the *type* of $`A`$, and it coincides with its Cohen-Macaulay type. Thus $`A`$ is Gorenstein iff $`t=1`$. The number $`d`$ is the *socle degree* of $`A`$. Altogether we have a bijection

$`\{A:`$ $`A=R/I\text{artin level of type }t\text{ and socle degree }d\}G(t,S_d);`$
$`A`$ $`(I^1)_d,R/\text{ann}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$
Here $`G(t,S_d)`$ denotes the Grassmannian of $`t`$-dimensional vector subspaces of $`S_d`$. Notice the canonical isomorphism

$$G(t,S_d)G(dimR_dt,R_d)$$
(1)
taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`I_d`$. We sometimes write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ for $`(I^1)_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d=(I^1)_d`$.

###### Remark 1.2.

The algebra $`A`$ is level iff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ generates $`I^1`$ as an $`R`$-module, that is to say iff the internal product map

$$\alpha _i:R_{di}\mathrm{\Lambda }_d\mathrm{\Lambda }_i$$

is surjective for all $`id`$. This is so iff the dual map

$$\beta _i:(R/I)_iS_{di}(R/I)_d$$

is injective for all $`i`$. This map can be written as

$$\beta _i:u\underset{M}{}\underset{¯}{y}^Mu\underset{¯}{x}^M,$$
(2)
the sum quantified over all monomials $`\underset{¯}{x}^M`$ of degree $`di`$.

As a consequence, if $`R/I`$ is level then the graded piece $`I_d`$ determines $`I`$, by the following recipe: $`I_i=\{uR_i:u.R_{di}I_d\}`$ for $`id`$, and $`I_i=R_i`$ for $`i>d`$. In the terminology of  (a related terminology was originally introduced by A. Iarrobino), $`I`$ is the *ancestor ideal* of the vector space $`I_d`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

We can detect whether $`R/I`$ is level from the last syzygy module in its minimal resolution. Indeed, let

$$0P_n\mathrm{}P_0(=R)R/I0()$$

be the graded minimal free resolution of $`R/I`$, and

$$0R(n)R(n+1)^n\mathrm{}^i(R(1)^n)\mathrm{}Rk0()$$

the Koszul resolution of $`k`$. We will calculate the graded $`R`$-module $`N=\text{Tor}_n^R(R/I,k)`$ in two ways. If we tensor $`()`$ with $`k`$, then all differentials are zero, hence $`N=P_nk`$. When we tensor $`()`$ with $`R/I`$, the kernel in the leftmost place is $`N=\text{socle}(A)(n)`$. Hence $`A`$ is level of socle degree $`d`$ and type $`t`$ iff $`\text{socle}(A)k(d)^t`$, iff $`P_nR(dn)^t`$.

Henceforth $`A=R/I`$ always denotes a level algebra of type $`t`$ and socle degree $`d`$, loosely said to be of type $`(t,d)`$. Let $`S_d𝒪_G`$ denote the tautological bundle on $`G(t,S_d)`$, thus its fibre over a point $`\mathrm{\Lambda }G`$ is the subspace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The internal products give vector bundle maps

$$\phi _i:R_{di}S_i𝒪_G,1id.$$
(3)
Dually, there are maps

$$\phi _i^{}:R_i𝒪_GS_{di}^{}.$$

Now $`^{}`$ is the universal quotient bundle of $`G(dimR_dt,dimR_d)`$ via (1), thus its fibre over the point $`I_d`$ is the subspace $`R_d/I_d`$.

### 1.1. Definition of Level Subschemes

We fix $`(t,d)`$ and let $`G=G(t,S_d)`$. The Hilbert function of $`A`$ is given by

$$H(A,i)=dimR_i/I_i=dim\mathrm{\Lambda }_i.$$

This motivates the following definition.

For integers $`i,r`$, let $`(i,r)`$ be the closed subscheme of $`G`$ defined by the condition $`\{\text{rank}(\phi _i)r\}`$. (Locally it is defined by the vanishing of $`(r+1)`$-minors of the matrix representing $`\phi _i`$.) Let $`^{}(i,r)`$ be the locally closed subscheme $`(i,r)(i,r1)`$. Thus $`A`$ represents a closed point of $`(i,r)`$ (resp. $`^{}(i,r)`$) whenever $`H(A,i)r`$ (resp. $`H(A,i)=r`$).

Let $`\underset{¯}{h}=(h_0,h_1,h_2,\mathrm{})`$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers such that $`h_0=1,h_d=t`$ and $`h_i=0`$ for $`i>d`$. (It is a useful convention that $`h_i=0`$ for $`i<0`$.) Define scheme-theoretic intersections

$$(\underset{¯}{h})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d1}{}}(i,h_i),^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d1}{}}^{}(i,h_i).$$

These are respectively closed and locally closed subschemes of $`G(t,S_d)`$. Via the identification in (1), we will occasionally think of them as subschemes of $`G(dimR_dt,R_d)`$. The point $`A=R/I`$ lies in $`(\underset{¯}{h})`$ (resp. $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$) iff $`dim_kA_ih_i`$ (resp. $`dim_kA_i=h_i`$) for all $`i`$.

Of course either of the schemes may be empty, and it is in general an open problem to characterise those $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ for which they are not. For $`n=2`$, such a characterisation is given in Theorem 3.1. If $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is nonempty, then we will say that $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ is a *level Hilbert function*.

### 1.2. The structure of $`(\underset{¯}{h})`$ for $`t=1,n=2`$.

The structure of the parameter spaces for Gorenstein quotients of $`R=k[x_1,x_2]`$ is rather well-understood and provides a useful paradigm for our study of artin level quotients of $`R`$ having type $`>1`$. An outine of this story is given below, see  for details.

It is easy to show that $`A=R/I`$ is a graded Gorenstein artin algebra iff $`I`$ is a complete intersection. Thus $`I=(u_1,u_2)`$, where $`u_1,u_2`$ are homogeneous and $`\mathrm{deg}u_1=ab=\mathrm{deg}u_2`$. In this case $`d=a+b2`$, and the Hilbert function of $`A`$ is

$$H(i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}i+1\hfill & \text{for }0ia1\text{,}\hfill \\ a\hfill & \text{for }aib1\text{,}\hfill \\ a+b(i+1)\hfill & \text{for }bid\text{;}\hfill \end{array}$$

in particular it is centrally symmetric. We will denote this function by $`\underset{¯}{h}_a`$. It follows that for socle degree $`d`$, there are precisely

$$\mathrm{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(d+2)/2,\hfill & \text{if }d\text{ is even}\hfill \\ (d+1)/2,\hfill & \text{if }d\text{ is odd}\hfill \end{array}$$

possible Hilbert functions for Gorenstein artin quotients of $`R`$. The collection $`\{\underset{¯}{h}_a\}`$ is totally ordered, i.e., $`h_a(j)h_{a+1}(j)`$ for all $`0jd`$ and $`1a\mathrm{}`$. For brevity, let $`_a`$ denote the scheme $`(\underset{¯}{h}_a)𝐏S_d`$.

In fact, $`_a^{}`$ is the locus of *power sums* of length $`a`$, i.e.,

$$_a^{}=\{F𝐏S_d:F=L_1^d+\mathrm{}+L_a^d\text{for some }L_i\text{ in }S_1\},$$

and $`_a`$ its Zariski closure. Thus $`_1`$ can be identified with the rational normal curve in $`𝐏S_d`$, and $`_a`$ is the union of (possibly degenerate) secant $`(a1)`$-planes to $`_1`$. In particular, $`dim_a=2a1`$.

Let $`z_i=x_1^{di}x_2^i`$, then $`\text{Sym}^{}R_d=k[z_0,\mathrm{},z_d]`$ is the coordinate ring of $`𝐏S_d`$. Consider the Hankel matrix

$$𝒞_a:=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}z_0& z_1& \mathrm{}\mathrm{}& z_{da}& \\ z_1& z_2& \mathrm{}\mathrm{}& z_{da+1}& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ z_a& z_{\mathrm{}+1}& \mathrm{}\mathrm{}& z_d& \end{array}\right]$$

and let $`\mathrm{}_a`$ denote the ideal of its maximal minors. Then it is a theorem of Gruson and Peskine (see ) that $`\mathrm{}_a`$ is perfect, prime and equals the ideal of $`_a`$ in $`k[z_0,\mathrm{},z_d]`$. Now the Eagon-Northcott Theorem implies that $`_a𝐏S_d`$ is an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay variety.

### 1.3. Summary of results.

In the next section, we derive an expression for the tangent space to a point of $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$. This is a direct generalization of \[17, Theorem 3.9\] to the non-Gorenstein case. For sections 3 and 4, we assume $`n=2`$. In section 3, we give a geometric description of a point of $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ in terms of secant planes to the rational normal curve, which generalises the one given above for $`t=1`$. We relate this description to Waring’s problem for systems of algebraic forms and solve the problem for $`n=2`$. In the last section we prove a projective normality theorem for a class of schemes $`(i,r)`$ using spectral sequence techniques. The results in the following three sections are largely independent of each other, and as such may be read separately.

We thank the referee for several helpful suggestions, and specifically for contributing Corollary 3.3. We owe the result of Theorem 3.1 to G. Valla. We also acknowledge the help of John Stembridge’s ‘SF’ Maple package for some calculations in §3.4.

## 2. Tangent spaces to level subschemes

Let $`R=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and let $`A=R/I`$ be an artin level quotient of type $`(t,d)`$. Given a degree zero morphism $`\psi :IR/I`$ of graded $`R`$-modules, we have induced maps of $`k`$-vector spaces $`\psi _i:I_i(R/I)_i`$. We claim that $`\psi _d`$ entirely determines $`\psi `$. Indeed, let $`uI_i`$ and $`\underset{¯}{x}^M`$ a monomial of degree $`di`$. Then $`\psi _d(u\underset{¯}{x}^M)=\psi _i(u)\underset{¯}{x}^M`$. But then $`\beta _i(\psi _i(u))=\underset{M}{}\underset{¯}{y}^M\psi _d(u\underset{¯}{x}^M)`$. Since $`\beta _i`$ is injective, this determines $`\psi _i(u)`$ uniquely. Thus we have an inclusion

$$\text{Hom}_R(I,R/I)_0\text{Hom}_k(I_d,R_d/I_d),\psi \psi _d.$$
(4)
We also have a parallel inclusion

$$\text{Hom}_R(I^1,S/I^1)_0\text{Hom}_k(\mathrm{\Lambda },S_d/\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(5)
Recall that if $`U`$ is a vector space and $`W`$ an $`m`$-dimensional subspace, then the tangent space to $`G(m,U)`$ at $`W`$ (denoted $`T_{G,W}`$) is canonically isomorphic to $`\text{Hom}(W,U/W)`$. Thus

$$T_{G(t,S_d),\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\text{Hom}_k(\mathrm{\Lambda },S_d/\mathrm{\Lambda })T_{G(dimR_dt,R_d),I_d}=\text{Hom}_k(I_d,R_d/I_d).$$

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`A=R/I`$ be as above with Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ and inclusions (4), (5).

1. Regarding $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ as a subscheme of $`G(t,S_d)`$, we have a canonical isomorphism

$$T_{^{}(\underset{¯}{h}),\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\text{Hom}_R(I^1,S/I^1)_0=\text{Hom}_R(I^1,(I^2)^1/I^1)_0.$$
2. Regarding $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ as a subscheme of $`G(dimR_dt,R_d)`$, we have a canonical isomorphism

$$T_{^{}(\underset{¯}{h}),I_d}=\text{Hom}_R(I,R/I)_0=\text{Hom}_R(I/I^2,R/I)_0.$$

proof. We begin by recalling the relevant result about the tangent space to a generic determinantal variety (see \[1, Ch. 2\]).

Let $`M=M(p,q)`$ denote the space of all $`p\times q`$ matrices over $`𝐂`$, or equivalently the space of vector space maps $`𝐂^p𝐂^q`$. Since $`M`$ is an affine space, for any $`XM`$, the tangent space $`T_{M,X}`$ can be canonically identified with $`M`$. Fix an integer $`r\mathrm{min}\{p,q\}`$ and let $`M_r`$ be the subvariety of matrices with rank $`r`$. If $`XM_rM_{r1}`$, then $`X`$ is a smooth point of $`M_r`$ and

$$T_{M_r,X}=\{YM:Y(\text{ker}X)\text{image}X\}.$$

Now if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(i,r)`$, then $`\phi _i`$ is represented in a neighbourhood $`UG(t,S_d)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by a matrix of size $`t(di+1)\times (i+1)`$, whose entries are regular functions on $`U`$. Writing $`M=M(t(di+1),i+1)`$, these functions define a morphism $`f:UM`$. Thus the following is a fibre square

Hence

$$T_{^{}(i,r),\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\{\tau T_{U,\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },S_d/\mathrm{\Lambda }):df(\tau )T_{M_r,f(\mathrm{\Lambda })}\}.$$

(Here $`df`$ denotes the induced map on tangent spaces.)

This translates into the statement that $`T_{^{}(i,r),\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ consists of all $`\tau \text{Hom}_k(\mathrm{\Lambda },S_d/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ such that the broken arrow in the following diagram is zero.

The map $`\mu `$ comes from the internal product in an obvious way. This implies that $`\tau T_{^{}(i,r),\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ iff the composite $`\mu (\text{id}\tau )`$ factors through $`\text{image}\alpha _i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. Let $`\tau _i:\mathrm{\Lambda }_iS_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ denote the induced map. Now

$$T_{^{}(\underset{¯}{h}),\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{i}{}T_{^{}(i,h_i),\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$

hence $`\tau T_{^{}(\underset{¯}{h}),\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ iff it defines a sequence $`(\tau _i)`$ as above which glues to give an $`R`$-module map $`I^1S/I^1`$. This proves (A).

For (B), a parallel argument leads to the following: an element $`\omega \text{Hom}_k(I_d,R_d/I_d)`$ belongs to $`T_{^{}(i,r),I_d}`$ iff in the diagram below the broken arrow can be filled in.

Here both vertical maps are given by formula (2), in particular they are injective. Hence the broken arrow is unique if it exists, which we then denote by $`\omega _i`$. Thus $`\omega T_{^{}(\underset{¯}{h}),I_d}`$ iff it defines a sequence $`(\omega _i)`$ as above, which glues to give an $`R`$-module map $`IR/I`$. This proves the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2.

The scheme $`\text{GradAlg}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ (defined by J. Kleppe ) parametrises graded quotients of $`R`$ (level or not) with Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{h}`$. Its tangent space at the point $`R/I`$ is also canonically isomorphic to $`\text{Hom}(I,R/I)_0`$. See Remarks 3.10 and 4.3 in  for a more detailed comparison of these two spaces (in the Gorenstein case).

## 3. Level algebras in codimension two

In this section (and the next) we consider quotients of $`R=k[x_1,x_2]`$.

### 3.1. Preliminaries

Let $`A=R/I`$ be an artin level algebra with Hilbert function $`H`$, type $`t`$ and socle degree $`d`$. By Remark 1.3, we have a resolution

$$0R^t(d2)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}R^e_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{})RR/I0.$$
(6)
Here $`e_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the number of minimal generators of $`I`$ in degree $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`e_{\mathrm{}}=t+1`$. Hence

$$H(A,i)=(i+1)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}e_{\mathrm{}}(i\mathrm{}+1)\text{for all }id+1.$$
(7)
With a little manipulation, this implies

$$e_{i+1}=2H(A,i)H(A,i1)H(A,i+1)\text{for }0id.$$
(8)
Hence the sequence $`(e_i)`$ can be recovered from the Hilbert function. Applying the functor $`\text{Hom}_R(,R/I)`$ to the resolution of $`I`$, we have an exact sequence

$$0\text{Hom}(I,R/I)\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}(R/I)^e_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{})(R/I)^t(d+2),$$

hence

$$dim_k\text{Hom}_R(I,R/I)_0=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d}{}}e_{\mathrm{}}H(A,\mathrm{}).$$
(9)
The next result characterises the level Hilbert functions of type $`(t,d)`$ in codimension two. It is due to G. Valla, who had kindly communicated its proof to the second author a few years ago. A more general version (which covers codimension two non-level algebras) is stated by A. Iarrobino in \[16, Theorem 4.6A\].

###### Theorem 3.1 (Iarrobino, Valla).

Let $`\underset{¯}{h}=(h_0,h_1,\mathrm{})`$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers satisfying $`h_0=1,h_d=t`$ and $`h_i=0`$ for $`i>d`$. Then $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is nonempty if and only if

$$2h_ih_{i1}+h_{i+1},\text{for all }0id\text{.}$$

(By convention, $`h_i=0`$ for $`i<0`$.)

proof. The ‘only if’ part follows from (8). Assume that $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ satisfies the hypotheses. Then we inductively deduce $`h_ii+1`$. Define $`e_i=2h_{i1}(h_{i2}+h_i)`$ for $`1id+1`$ and $`e_i=0`$ elsewhere. Then $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}e_i=h_d+h_0=t+1`$. Define a sequence of integers

$$\underset{¯}{q}:q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_{t+1},$$

such that for $`1id+1`$, the integer $`i`$ occurs $`e_i`$ times. An easy calculation shows that $`q_i=i.e_i=t(d+2)`$.

Let $`M`$ be the $`t\times (t+1)`$ matrix whose only nonzero entries are $`M_{i,i}=x_1^{d+2q_i}`$ and $`M_{i,i+1}=x_2^{d+2q_{i+1}}`$ for $`1it`$, and let $`I`$ be the ideal of its maximal minors. Since $`I`$ is $`(x_1,x_2)`$-primary, it has depth $`2`$. The $`t+1`$ maximal minors of $`M`$ are nonzero, and they have degrees $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{t+1}`$. By the Hilbert-Burch theorem, $`R/I`$ has a resolution with Betti numbers as in (6). Then by Remark 1.3, the point $`A=R/I`$ lies in $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 3.2.

Let $`(t,d)=(3,7)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{h}=(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$. Then $`e_5=e_6=1,e_8=2`$, and $`\underset{¯}{q}=(5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8})`$. Hence

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}x_1^4& x_2^3& 0& 0\\ 0& x_1^3& x_2& 0\\ 0& 0& x_1& x_2\end{array}\right]$$

and $`I=(x_2^5,x_1^4x_2^2,x_1^7x_2,x_1^8)`$.

We owe the following observation to the referee.

###### Corollary 3.3.

The level Hilbert functions $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ of type $`(t,d)`$ are in bijection with partitions of $`dt+1`$ with no part exceeding $`t+1`$.

proof. Given $`\underset{¯}{h}`$, define $`\mu _i=h_ih_{i+1}+1`$ for $`0id1`$. Then $`\underset{¯}{\mu }=(\mu _{d1},\mathrm{},\mu _1,\mu _0)`$ is a partition as above. Conversely, given such a partition we append zeros to make its length equal to $`d`$, and then determine $`h_i`$ recursively. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.4.

If $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ is a level Hilbert function, then $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is an irreducible and smooth variety. Indeed, the scheme $`\text{GradAlg}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is irreducible and smooth by a result of Iarrobino (\[15, Theorem 2.9\]), and $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})\text{GradAlg}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is a dense open subset. Hence, from (9),

$$dim^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}e_ih_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}h_i(2h_{i1}h_ih_{i2}).$$
(10)
E.g., we have $`dim^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=9`$ in Example 3.2.

### 3.2. Geometric description of points in $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$

We start with an example to illustrate the description we have in mind. We need the following classical lemma (see \[17, p. 23 ff\], also ).

###### Lemma 3.5 (Jordan).

Let $`uR_m`$ be a form factoring as

$$\underset{i}{}(a_ix_1+b_ix_2)^{\mu _i},\text{so that }\mu _i=m\text{.}$$

If $`nm`$, then $`(u)_n^1`$ (the subspace of forms in $`S_n`$ which are apolar to $`u`$) equals

$$\underset{i}{}S_{\mu _i1}(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^{n\mu _i+1}=\{f_i(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^{n\mu _i+1}:f_iS_{\mu _i1}\}.$$

In particular, this is an $`m`$-dimensional vector space.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 3.6.

Let $`(t,d)=(2,6)`$ and consider the level Hilbert function

$$\underset{¯}{h}=(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ defines a line $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`𝐏^6(=𝐏S_6)`$. We identify the subset $`C_6=\{[L^6]𝐏S_6:LS_1\}`$ as the rational normal sextic in $`𝐏S_6`$.

By formula (8), $`I=\text{ann}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ has one minimal generator each in degrees $`4,5,7`$. Let $`u_4R_4`$ be the first generator, factoring as $`u_4=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(a_ix_1+b_ix_2)`$. For simplicity, assume that $`[a_1,b_1],\mathrm{},[a_4,b_4]`$ are distinct points in $`𝐏^1`$. Then by Jordan’s lemma, the subspace $`(u_4)_6^1S_6`$ is the span of $`(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^6,1i4`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_4`$ denote the projectivisation $`𝐏(u_4)_6^1`$, which is the secant $`3`$-plane to $`C_6`$ spanned by the four points $`[b_i,a_i]`$. Consider generators $`u_5,u_7`$ and define $`\mathrm{\Pi }_5,\mathrm{\Pi }_7`$ analogously. (Of course, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_7=𝐏S_6`$.) Now

$$(I^1)_6=((u_4,u_5,u_7)^1)_6𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Pi }_4\mathrm{\Pi }_5\mathrm{\Pi }_7.$$

Thus (the line corresponding to) every element $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is representable as an intersection of secant planes to the rational normal curve, in a way which depends only on the combinatorics of $`\underset{¯}{h}`$. If (say) $`u_4`$ has multiple roots, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_4`$ is tangent to the curve at one or more points, so must be counted as a degenerate secant plane.

###### Definition 3.7.

Let $`C_d=\{[L^d]:LS_1\}`$ be the rational normal curve in $`𝐏S_d`$. A linear subspace $`\mathrm{\Pi }𝐏S_d`$ of (projective) dimension $`s`$ will be called a *secant $`s`$-plane to $`C_d`$* if the scheme-theoretic intersection $`C_d\mathrm{\Pi }`$ has length $`s+1`$. (Then the length must equal $`s+1`$, essentially by Jordan’s lemma.)

Now for an arbitrary level algebra in codimension two, we have the following description.

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ be a level Hilbert function and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$. Define a sequence $`\underset{¯}{q}`$ as in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Then there exist secant $`(q_i1)`$-planes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_i}`$ such that

$$𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_{t+1}}.$$
(11)
proof. The essential point already occurs in the example above. Let $`q`$ be one of the $`q_i`$ and $`uI_q`$ a generator. Write

$$u=\underset{i}{}(a_ix_1+b_ix_2)^{\mu _i}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ be the osculating $`(\mu _i1)`$-plane to $`C_d`$ at the point $`(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^d`$. (This is the point itself if $`\mu _i=1`$.) Algebraically, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ is the projectivisation $`𝐏(S_{\mu _i1}(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^{d\mu _i+1})`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_q`$ be the linear span of all the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. Then $`dim\mathrm{\Pi }_q=q1`$ and by Jordan’s lemma, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_q`$ is the locus of forms $`FS_d`$ apolar to $`u`$. Construct such a plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_i}`$ for each $`q_i`$. A form $`F`$ lies in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ iff it is apolar to each generator of $`I`$, iff it belongs to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_i}`$. The proposition is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.9.

The argument heavily depends on the fact that any zero-dimensional subscheme of $`C_d`$ is in linearly general position. This property characterises rational normal curves (see \[13, p. 270\]).

The preceding proposition admits a converse. Consider the following example.

###### Example 3.10.

Let $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐏S_{11}(=𝐏^{11})`$ be a line appearing as an intersection

$$𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Pi }_8\mathrm{\Pi }_8^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{10},$$

where each $`\mathrm{\Pi }_q`$ is a secant $`(q1)`$-plane to $`C_{11}`$. Note that the planes intersect properly, i.e., in the expected codimension. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ belongs to $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$, for

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}=1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 7& 6& 4& 2& 0.\end{array}$$

Let $`W_8S_{11}`$ be the subspace such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_8=𝐏W_8`$ etc. Assume $`\mathrm{\Pi }_8`$ intersects $`C_{11}`$ at points $`(b_iy_1a_iy_2)^{11}`$ with respective multiplicities $`\mu _i`$ (so that $`\mu _i=8`$). Let $`u_8R_8`$ be the element $`(a_ix_1+b_ix_2)^{\mu _i}`$, then $`\text{ann}(W_8)`$ is the principal ideal $`(u_8)`$. Define elements $`u_8^{},u_{10}`$ similarly. Now

$$I=\text{ann}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\text{ann}(W_8)+\text{ann}(W_8^{})+\text{ann}(W_{10})=(u_8,u_8^{},u_{10}).$$

Since by construction, $`R/I`$ is a level algebra of type two, $`I`$ has three minimal generators. Hence their degrees must be $`(8,8,10)`$ and then the Hilbert function of $`R/I`$ is determined by formula (8). This completes the argument.

###### Proposition 3.11.

Let $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐏S_d`$ be a $`(t1)`$-dimensional subspace which is expressible as an intersection

$$𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_{t+1}},$$

where

* $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_i}`$ is a secant $`(q_i1)`$-plane to $`C_d`$,
* the intersection is proper, i.e.,

$$\underset{i}{}\text{codim}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{q_i},𝐏^d)=\text{codim}(𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda },𝐏^d)=dt+1.$$

Then $`R/\text{ann}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ where $`h_0=1`$ and $`h_i=2h_{i1}h_{i2}e_i`$ for $`1id`$. The $`e_i`$ are defined by arranging the $`q_i`$ as in Theorem 3.1.

proof. Left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

Propositions 11, 3.11 are natural generalizations of the description of $`(\underset{¯}{h})`$ in the Gorenstein case.

###### Example 3.12.

The minimal Hilbert function of type $`(t,d)`$ is $`\underset{¯}{h}=(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},t1,t,\mathrm{},t,0)`$ and then $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is the variety of secant $`(t1)`$-planes to $`C_d`$. Abstractly, $`(\underset{¯}{h})\text{Sym}^t𝐏^1𝐏^t`$. See  for a description of the minimal level Hilbert function when $`n>2`$.

The maximal function is $`h_i=\mathrm{min}\{i+1,(di+1)t\}`$ for $`1id`$. If we let

$$s_0=\frac{t(d+1)}{t+1},$$

then $`h_{s_0}<s_0+1`$. Hence every $`\mathrm{\Lambda }G(t,S_d)`$ has an apolar form of degree $`s_0`$.

Using this formulation, the so-called Waring’s problem can be solved completely for binary forms.

### 3.3. Waring’s problem for several binary forms

We will start with an informal account. Given binary forms $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_t`$ of degree $`d`$, we would like to find linear forms $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_s`$ such that

$$F_i=c_{i1}L_1^d+\mathrm{}+c_{is}L_s^d,$$
(12)
for some $`c_{ij}k`$. This is always possible for $`s=d+1`$, indeed if we choose $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_{d+1}`$ generally, then the $`L_i^d`$ span $`S_d`$.

The ‘simultaneous’ Waring’s problem, in one of its versions, is to find the smallest $`s`$ which suffices for a *general* choice of $`F_i`$. (See Bronowski  for a discussion of $`n`$-ary forms.) Here we consider a more general version, i.e., we fix $`s`$ and consider the locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of forms $`\{F_1,\mathrm{},F_t\}`$ which admit such a representation. In practice, we allow not only representations as above, but also generalised additive decompositions (GADs) in the sense of \[17, Definition 1.30\].

###### Definition 3.13.

A finite collection $`\underset{¯}{L}=\{L_i\}S_1\{0\}`$ of linear forms will be called *admissible* if any two $`L_i,L_j`$ are nonproportional.

###### Definition 3.14.

Let $`\underset{¯}{L}`$ be an admissible collection as above and $`FS_d`$. A *GAD for $`F`$ with respect to $`\underset{¯}{L}`$* is a collection $`\{p_i\}`$ of forms such that $`F=\underset{i}{}p_iL_i^{d\alpha _i}`$, and $`\alpha _i=\mathrm{deg}p_i<d`$. (We set $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=1`$ by convention.) The integer $`\mathrm{}_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=\underset{i}{}(\alpha _i+1)`$ is called the *length* of the GAD.

If all $`\alpha _i=0`$, then this reduces to the expression (12). Given sequences $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ and $`\underset{¯}{L}`$ such that $`1\alpha _i<d`$, define a subspace

$$W(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L})=S_{\alpha _i}L^{d\alpha _i}S_d.$$

(By convention, $`S_1=0`$.) Write $`L_i=b_iy_1a_iy_2`$, then by hypothesis, $`[a_i,b_i]`$ represent distinct points of $`𝐏^1`$.

###### Lemma 3.15 (, §1.3).

With notation as above,

* A form lies in $`W(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L})`$ iff it is apolar to $`\underset{i}{}(a_ix_1+b_ix_2)^{\alpha _i+1}`$. In particular, $`dimW(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L})=\underset{i}{}(\alpha _i+1)`$.
* Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,\alpha _i}`$ be the osculating $`\alpha _i`$-plane to $`C_d`$ at the point $`L_i^dC_d`$. (By convention empty if $`\alpha _i=1`$.) Then the linear span of all $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,\alpha _i}\}_i`$ is the projectivisation $`𝐏W(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L})`$.

This is merely a rephrasing of Jordan’s lemma. Thus the subspaces $`W(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L})`$ exactly correspond to secant $`(\mathrm{}_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}1)`$-planes to $`C_d`$. Now let $`(d,t)`$ be as above and fix an integer $`s`$ such that $`d+1>st`$. Define

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }G(t,S_d):𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{lies on some secant }(s1)\text{-plane of }C_d\}.`$ (13)
Algebraically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ iff there exists an admissible collection $`\{L_i\}`$ such that each $`F\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has a GAD of length $`s`$ with respect to $`\{L_i\}`$. There is no loss of generality in assuming that $`\{L_i\}`$ has cardinality $`s`$.

Now Waring’s problem can be interpreted as one of calculating $`dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$. Evidently, it is bounded by $`dimG(t,S_d)=t(dt+1)`$. Let $`U_s\text{Sym}^s(𝐏S_1)`$ be the open subset of admissible collections $`\underset{¯}{L}=\{L_1,\mathrm{},L_s\}`$, and consider the incidence correspondence

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s=\{(\mathrm{\Lambda },\underset{¯}{L})`$ $`G(t,S_d)\times U_s:\text{each element of }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`\text{admits a GAD of length }s\text{ w.r.t. }\underset{¯}{L}\}.`$
Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ is the image of the projection $`\pi _1:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_sG(t,S_d)`$.

###### Lemma 3.16.

Each fibre of the projection $`\pi _2:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_sU_s`$ is of dimension $`t(st)`$, hence $`dim\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s=s+t(st)`$.

proof. Each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi _2^1(\underset{¯}{L})`$ is a subspace of the (finite) union

$$\underset{\mathrm{}_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}s}{}W(\underset{¯}{\alpha },\underset{¯}{L}),$$

hence it is a subspace of one of the $`W`$. Now use the fact that $`dimG(t,W)`$ equals $`t(dimWt)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus we have a naïve estimate

$$dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_s\mathrm{min}\{\underset{N_1}{\underset{}{s+t(st)}},\underset{N_2}{\underset{}{t(dt+1)}}\}.$$
(14)
###### Theorem 3.17.

In (14), we have an equality.

proof. Assume $`N_1<N_2`$. We will exhibit a level Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ of type $`(t,d)`$ such that $`h_s=s`$ and $`dim^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=N_1`$. Then by construction, for each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\underset{¯}{h})`$ there is a nonzero form in $`R_s`$ which is apolar $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This form defines a secant $`(s1)`$-plane containing $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence $`^{}(\underset{¯}{h})\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$, which forces $`dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_s=N_1`$.

Let $`m`$ be the unique integer such that $`(m+1)t>smt`$. Then $`N_1<N_2`$ forces $`sdm`$. Define a sequence $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ by

$$h_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}i+1\hfill & \text{for }0is1\text{,}\hfill \\ s\hfill & \text{for }sidm\text{,}\hfill \\ (di+1)t\hfill & \text{for }dm+1id\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }i>d\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

It is an immediate verification that $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ is level. Now

$$e_s=1,e_{dm+1}=smt,e_{dm+2}=mt+ts,$$

and $`e_i=0`$ elsewhere, hence $`dim^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=N_1`$.

E.g., for $`(t,d,s)=(3,11,7)`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}=1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 7& 7& 7& 6& 3& 0.\end{array}$$

If $`N_1N_2`$, then $`ss_0`$ (defined as in Example 3.12). But since every $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ lies on an $`(s_01)`$-secant, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s_0}=G(t,S_d)`$ and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

The theorem implies that, given *general* binary forms $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_t`$, a reduction to the expression (12) is always possible, as long as we have sufficient number of constants implicitly available on the right hand side of (12). This is no longer so for $`n3`$, and the corresponding reduction problem is open. See  for an approach, where Theorem 3.17 is proved using a different method.

A length $`s`$-subscheme of $`C_d`$ is called a polar $`s`$-hedron of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ lies on the corresponding $`(s1)`$-secant plane. We have shown that the variety of polar $`s`$-hedra of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the projective space $`𝐏(R_s/\text{ann}(\mathrm{\Lambda })_s)`$. For $`n3`$, the geometry of this variety is rather more mysterious–see .

### 3.4. An analogue of the catalecticant

An interesting special case occurs when $`N_1=N_21`$, i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ is a hypersurface in $`G(t,S_d)`$. This is possible iff

$$(t+1)|(d+2),\text{and}s=d+1\frac{d+2}{t+1}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ is set-theoretically equal to $`(s,s)=\{\text{rank}(R_{ds}S_s)s\}`$. Now $`(s,s)`$ is the zero scheme of a global section of the line bundle

$$^{s+1}(^{}S_{ds})=𝒪_G(ds+1).$$

Hence the fundamental class $`[(s,s)]`$ equals $`(ds+1)c_1(^{})H^2(G,)`$.

The rank condition above can be written as a determinant. For instance, let $`t=2,d=7,s=5`$, and let

$$F_1=\underset{i=0}{\overset{7}{}}a_iy_0^{7i}y_1^i,F_2=\underset{i=0}{\overset{7}{}}b_iy_0^{7i}y_1^i$$

be linearly independent forms. Then the pencil $`𝐏\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝐏(\text{span}(F_1,F_2))`$ lies on a secant $`4`$-plane to $`C_7`$ iff

$$\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}a_0& a_1& a_2& a_3& a_4& a_5\\ a_1& a_2& a_3& a_4& a_5& a_6\\ a_2& a_3& a_4& a_5& a_6& a_7\\ b_0& b_1& b_2& b_3& b_4& b_5\\ b_1& b_2& b_3& b_4& b_5& b_6\\ b_2& b_3& b_4& b_5& b_6& b_7\end{array}\right|=0.$$

This is the analogue of the catalecticant for systems of binary forms.

###### Example 3.18.

Even if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ is not a hypersurface, such determinantal conditions can always be written down. E.g., let $`t=2,d=5,dimG(2,S_5)=8`$. The possible level Hilbert functions are

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}_1:& 1& 2& 2& 2& 2& 2& 0\\ \underset{¯}{h}_2:& 1& 2& 3& 3& 3& 2& 0\\ \underset{¯}{h}_3:& 1& 2& 3& 4& 3& 2& 0\\ \underset{¯}{h}_4:& 1& 2& 3& 4& 4& 2& 0\end{array}$$

with $`dim^{}(\underset{¯}{h})=2,5,6,8`$ respectively. Now $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=(\underset{¯}{h}_1)`$, which is set-theoretically equal to any of the schemes $`(i,2),i=2,3,4`$ (as defined in §1.1). Similarly $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=(\underset{¯}{h}_2)`$ which is set-theoretically $`(3,3)`$. It is clear that we can write the condition for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }G`$ to lie in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$) as the vanishing of certain minors. Indeed, in general this can be done in more than one way.

We can calculate the classes of these schemes in $`G(t,S_d)`$ by the Porteous formula. We explain this briefly, see \[10, §14.4\] for the details.

Let $`E\stackrel{\alpha }{}F`$ be a morphism of vector bundles on a smooth projective variety. Assume that $`E,F`$ have ranks $`e,f`$ respectively, and that the locus $`X_r=\{\text{rank}\alpha r\}`$ is of pure codimension $`(er)(fr)`$ in the ambient variety. Then the fundamental class of $`X_r`$ (which we denote by $`[X_r]`$) equals the $`(er)\times (er)`$ determinant whose $`(i,j)`$-th entry equals the $`(fr+ji)`$-th Chern class of the virtual bundle $`FE`$. By the Whitney product formula, the total Chern class $`c_t(FE)=c_t(F)/c_t(E)`$.

We will follow the conventions of \[10, §14.7\] for Schubert calculus. Thus the $`i`$-th Chern class of the tautological bundle $``$ is $`(1)^i\{1,\mathrm{},1\}`$, where $`1`$ occurs $`i`$ times. For $`G(2,S_5)`$, we have $`c_t()=1\{1\}+\{1,1\}`$. A straightforward calculation (done using the Maple package ‘SF’) shows that

$$[(2,2)]=[(4,2)]=10\{3,3\}+6\{4,2\}.$$

The formula does not apply to $`(3,2)`$, since it fails to satisfy the codimension hypothesis. By a similar calculation, $`(3,3)=8\{2,1\}`$.

For any $`I_5(\underset{¯}{h}_1)`$, a map in $`\text{Hom}_R(I,R/I)`$ is entirely determined by the image of the unique generator in $`I_2`$. Now the proof of Theorem 2.1 shows that the space $`T_{(2,2),I_5}`$ must be $`2`$-dimensional, which implies $`(2,2)=(\underset{¯}{h}_1)`$. By the Littlewood-Richardson rule,

$$[(\underset{¯}{h}_1)].\{1,1\}=10\{4,4\},$$

i.e., a general hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝐏S_5`$ contains ten secant lines of the rational normal quintic $`C_5`$. Of course these are the pairwise joins of the five points $`\mathrm{\Omega }C_5`$. Similarly,

$$[(\underset{¯}{h}_1)].\{2,0\}=6\{4,4\},$$

i.e., there are six secant lines to $`C_5`$ touching a general $`2`$-plane $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This can be seen differently: the projection from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ maps $`C_5`$ onto a rational nodal quintic in $`𝐏^2`$, and the six secants give rise to the six nodes of the image.

## 4. Free resolutions of level subschemes

We continue to assume $`n=2`$. Since the scheme $`(i,r)`$ is a degeneracy locus in the sense of \[1, Ch. 2\], we can describe its minimal resolution following Lascoux , provided it has the ‘correct’ codimension in $`G(t,S_d)`$.

This granted, in the presence of an additional numerical hypothesis (explained below), we can deduce that it is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay in the Plücker embedding. In particular we get another proof of the known fact that $`(i,r)`$ is always ACM in the Gorenstein case. In the sequel, we need the Borel-Weil-Bott theorem for calculating the cohomology of homogeneous vector bundles on Grassmannians. We refer to  for an explanation of the combinatorics involved, but also see \[21, p. 687\].

Recall the definition of $`(i,r)`$ given in §1.1. To avoid trivialities, we assume $`r<i+1`$ throughout the section. From \[1, Ch. 2\], we have the following estimate: if $`c`$ is the codimension of any component of $`(i,r)`$ in $`G(t,S_d)`$, then

$`c`$ $`(\text{rank}(R_{di})r)(\text{rank}S_ir)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`(t(di+1)r)(i+1r).`$
Consider the following conditions:

1. the scheme $`(i,r)`$ is equidimensional and equality holds in (15) for each component;
2. $`r(di)(ir)t`$.

We will impose conditions C1,C2 on the data $`(t,d,i,r)`$. The next result shows the rationale behind C2, as well as its scope of validity.

###### Lemma 4.1.

The condition C2 holds iff there is a level algebra $`A`$ of type $`(t,d)`$ such that $`H(A,i1)=i`$ and $`H(A,i)r`$.

proof. Given the existence of $`A`$, we have

$`rt`$ $`=H(A,i)H(A,d)={\displaystyle \underset{j=i}{\overset{d1}{}}}H(A,j)H(A,j+1)`$
$`(di)(H(A,i1)H(A,i))(di)(ir),`$
where the first inequality follows from Theorem 3.1. Conversely, assume C2 and define

$$h_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}j+1\hfill & \text{for }0ji1\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}\{r(ji)(ir),t(dj+1)\}\hfill & \text{for }ijd\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }j>d\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, hence it is the Hilbert function of a level algebra $`A`$. Evidently, $`h_{i1}=i`$ and $`h_ir`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now assume that $`=(i,r)`$ satisfies C1 (but not necessarily C2) and let $`c=\text{codim}`$. Then by the central result of , we have a locally free resolution:

$`0^c\mathrm{}^p^{p+1}\mathrm{}^0`$ $`(=𝒪_G)𝒪_{}0,`$ (16)
for $`cp0`$;
where

$$^p=\underset{\nu (\lambda ^{})|\lambda |=p}{}𝕊_\lambda (R_{di})H^{\nu (\lambda ^{})}(G^{},𝕊_\lambda ^{}Q_G^{}^{}).$$
(17)
This is to be read as follows: $`G^{}`$ denotes the Grassmannian $`G(r,S_i)`$, and $`Q_G^{}`$ its universal quotient bundle. The $`\lambda `$ denote partitions, and $`𝕊_\lambda `$ the corresponding Schur functors (where we follow the indexing conventions of \[11, Ch. 6\]).

Given a partition $`\lambda `$, the Borel-Weil-Bott theorem implies that the bundle $`𝕊_\lambda ^{}Q_G^{}^{}`$ (resident on $`G^{}`$) has nonzero cohomology in at most one dimension. This number (if it exists) is labelled $`\nu (\lambda ^{})`$. The direct sum is quantified over all $`\lambda `$ such that $`\nu (\lambda ^{})`$ is defined. Since $`\lambda `$ has at most $`t(di+1)`$ rows and $`ir+1`$ columns, the sum is finite.

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`(t,d,i,r)=(2,7,5,4)`$ and consider the level Hilbert functions

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}_1:& 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 4& 3& 2& 0\\ \underset{¯}{h}_2:& 1& 2& 3& 4& 4& 4& 4& 2& 0\end{array}$$

Then $`=(5,4)`$ is a union of two components $`(\underset{¯}{h}_1),(\underset{¯}{h}_2)`$, each of codimension $`4`$. Hence C1 is satisfied, and we have a resolution

$$0^4\mathrm{}^1𝒪_{G(2,S_7)}𝒪_{}0,$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}^1=^5(R_2)S_5,\hfill \\ ^2=^6(R_2)𝕊_{(21111)}(S_5)𝕊_{21111}(BR_2),\hfill \\ ^3=(R_2)^6(R_2)^5S_5,\hfill \\ ^4=[^6(R_2)]^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The ranks of $`^0,\mathrm{},^4`$ are $`1,36,70,36,1`$, hence $``$ is a Gorenstein scheme. This resolution is equivariant with respect to the action of $`SL_2`$ on the embedding $`G`$.

The term $`𝕊_\lambda (R_{di})`$ decomposes as a direct sum

$$\underset{\rho ,\mu }{}(𝕊_\rho 𝕊_\mu R_{di})^{C_{\lambda \rho \mu }},$$
(18)
quantified over all partitions $`\rho ,\mu `$ of $`|\lambda |`$. The coefficients $`C_{\lambda \rho \mu }`$ come from the Kronecker product of characters of the symmetric group. We explain this briefly, see \[11, p. 61\] for details. Also see  for a tabulation of $`C_{\lambda \rho \mu }`$ for small values of $`|\lambda |`$.

Let $`\lambda ,\rho ,\mu `$ be partitions of an integer $`a`$, and let $`R_\lambda ,R_\rho ,R_\mu `$ denote the corresponding irreducible representations of the symmetric group on $`a`$ letters (in characteristic zero). Then $`C_{\lambda \rho \mu }`$ is the number of trivial representations in the tensor product $`R_\lambda R_\rho R_\mu `$. In particular, this number is symmetric in the three partitions involved. The main combinatorial result that we need is a direct corollary of \[8, Theorem 1.6\].

###### Theorem 4.3 (Dvir).

With notation as above, assume $`C_{\lambda \rho \mu }0`$. Then

$`\rho _1`$ $`(\text{the largest part in }\rho )`$
$``$ $`(\text{number of parts in }\lambda )(\text{number of parts in }\mu ).`$
Now we come to the main theorem of this section. Recall that a closed subscheme $`X𝐏^N`$ is said to be projectively normal, if the map $`H^0(𝐏^N,𝒪_𝐏(m))H^0(X,𝒪_X(m))`$ is surjective for $`m0`$.

We will regard $`(i,r)`$ as a closed subscheme of $`𝐏(^tS_d)`$ via the Plücker embedding of $`G(t,S_d)`$.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Assume that the data $`(t,d,i,r)`$ satisfy C1.

* If C2 holds, then $`(i,r)`$ is projectively normal.
* Moreover, if either $`t=1`$ or C2 is a strict inequality, then $`(i,r)`$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.

proof. We will use the following criterion (see \[9, p. 467\]): an equidimensional closed subscheme $`X𝐏^N`$ (of $`dim>0`$) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay (ACM) iff it is projectively normal and $`H^j(X,𝒪_X(m))=0`$ for all $`m𝐙`$ and $`0<j<dimX`$.

Since the Grassmannian is projectively normal in the Plücker embedding (see e.g. ), part (a) will follow if the map $`H^0(𝒪_G(m))H^0(𝒪_{}(m))`$ is shown to be surjective for $`m0`$.

For $`m𝐙`$, we have a hypercohomology spectral sequence coming from the resolution (16).

$`E_1^{p,q}=H^q(G(t,S_d),^p(m)),d_r^{p,q}d_r^{p+r,qr+1},`$ (19)
$`E_{\mathrm{}}^{p,q}H^{p+q}(𝒪_{}(m)).`$
The terms live in the second quadrant, specifically in the range

$$cp0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}qt(dt+1).$$

Now the theorem will follow from the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.5.

1. Assume that C2 holds. Then $`E_1^{p,q}=0`$ for $`m0,q0`$.
2. Assume that either $`t=1`$ or C2 is strict. Then $`E_1^{p,q}=0`$ for $`m<0`$ and $`qdimG(t,S_d)`$.

Let us show that the lemma implies the theorem. Firstly assume $`m0`$ and C2 holds. Then the only nonzero term on the diagonal $`p+q=0`$ is at $`p=q=0`$. Hence $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{0,0}=H^0(𝒪_{}(m))`$ is a quotient of $`E_1^{0,0}=H^0(𝒪_G(m))`$, which proves (a).

Now assume $`m`$ arbitrary, and that either C2 is strict or $`t=1`$. Let $`(p,q)`$ be such that $`0<p+q<dim`$. Then $`E_1^{p,q}=0`$, which implies $`H^j(𝒪_{}(m))=0`$ for $`j0,dim`$. This proves (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Lemma 4.5. Let $`p,q`$ be such that $`E_1^{p,q}0`$. By hypothesis, $`^p`$ has a summand

$$𝒜=𝕊_\rho 𝕊_\mu R_{di}H^{\nu (\lambda ^{})}(G^{},𝕊_\lambda ^{}Q_G^{}^{})$$

such that $`H^q(G(t,S_d),𝒜(m))0`$. Now,

* $`𝕊_\mu R_{di}0`$ implies that $`\mu `$ has at most $`di+1`$ rows.
* $`𝕊_\lambda ^{}Q_G^{}^{}0`$ implies that $`\lambda ^{}`$ has at most $`ir+1`$ rows, i.e., $`\lambda `$ has at most $`ir+1`$ columns.

But then by Dvir’s theorem, $`C_{\lambda \rho \mu }0`$ implies $`\rho _1(di+1)(ir+1)`$. The next step is to use the Borel-Weil-Bott theorem on $`𝕊_\rho 𝒪_G(m)`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the sequence $`(\underset{dt+1}{\underset{}{m,\mathrm{},m}};\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _t)`$. Since $`H^q(𝕊_\rho 𝒪_G(m))0`$, we have $`q=l_\gamma `$ (in the notation of ). But now

$$\rho _1(di+1)(ir+1)dt+1,$$

so it is immediate that $`l_\gamma =0`$ if $`m0`$. If $`m<0`$, then $`l_\gamma `$ can only be a multiple of $`dt+1`$. If $`t=1`$, then necessarily $`l_\gamma =d+1=dimG`$. If $`t>1`$, then $`l_\gamma <dimG`$ is possible only if $`\rho _1=dt+1`$, i.e., only if C2 is an equality. The lemma is proved, and the proof of the main theorem is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 4.6.

* The data $`(t,d,i,r)=(3,16,13,11)`$ satisfy C1 and strict C2. Set-theoretically $`(13,11)=(\underset{¯}{h})`$ for

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 11& 12& 13& 11& 9& 6& 3& 0.\end{array}$$

Thus $`(13,11)𝐏(^3S_{16})`$ is ACM.
* Similarly the data $`(t,d,i,r)=(5,32,28,24)`$ satisfy C1 and strict C2. In this case $`(28,24)=(\underset{¯}{h})`$ for

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 27& 28& 24& 20& 15& 10& 5& 0.\end{array}$$

###### Example 4.7.

Choose an integer $`s`$ such that $`ts<\frac{t(d+1)}{(t+1)}`$. Then the data $`(t,d,s,s)`$ satisfy C1,C2, in fact C2 is strict unless $`s=t`$. Set-theoretically $`(s,s)=(\underset{¯}{h})`$, where $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ is defined as in the proof of Theorem 3.17.

If $`t=1`$, then this is the function $`\underset{¯}{h}_s`$ defined in §1.2. By the Gruson-Peskine theorem, we then know that $`(s,s)=(\underset{¯}{h}_s)`$ as schemes. We do not know if this remains true for $`t>1`$.

###### Example 4.8.

Let $`t=2`$ and choose integers $`i,d`$ such that $`i5`$ and $`3i=2d+1`$. Then $`(2,d,i,i1)`$ satisfy C1,C2, the latter being strict iff $`i>5`$. (We recover Example 4.2 for $`i=5`$.) In this case, $`(i,i1)`$ is reducible with two components of dimension $`3i7`$ (i.e., codimension $`4`$) each.

For instance, let $`(i,d)=(9,13)`$, then $`(9,8)=(\underset{¯}{h}_1)(\underset{¯}{h}_2)`$, where

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}_1=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 7& 8& 9& 8& 7& 6& 4& 2& 0.\\ \underset{¯}{h}_2=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 7& 8& 8& 8& 8& 6& 4& 2& 0.\end{array}$$

###### Example 4.9.

The data $`(t,d,i,r)=(3,14,11,9)`$ satisfy C2, but not C1. Indeed, $`(11,9)=(\underset{¯}{h}_1)(\underset{¯}{h}_2)(\underset{¯}{h}_3)`$, where

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}\underset{¯}{h}_1=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 8& 9& \hfill 10& \hfill 11& 9& 7& 5& 3& 0.\\ \underset{¯}{h}_2=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 8& 9& \hfill 9& \hfill 9& 9& 9& 6& 3& 0.\\ \underset{¯}{h}_3=1& 2& \mathrm{}& 8& 9& \hfill 10& \hfill 10& 9& 8& 6& 3& 0.\end{array}$$

The components $`(\underset{¯}{h}_1),(\underset{¯}{h}_2)`$ have the expected dimension $`27`$, but $`(\underset{¯}{h}_3)`$ is $`28`$-dimensional.

###### Remark 4.10.

By Lemma 4.1, it is easy to produce examples where C2 holds. In contrast, C1 is rather restrictive. (Although, for small values of $`(t,d)`$ it is satisfied more often than not.) It would be worthwhile to characterise all sequences $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ such that $`(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is ACM (or projectively normal), but it is unlikely that the technique used here can be pushed any further.

###### Remark 4.11.

Some of the results proved here can be extended to char $`>0`$ with appropriate care. Replacing $`S`$ by the divided power algebra (see \[17, Appendix A\]) all results until the beginning of §3.2 remain valid in arbitrary characteristic. (The reference to partial differentiation should be ignored.)

All results in §3.23.4 are valid for char $`>d`$. In section 4 we need to assume char $`=0`$, since (inter alia) Lascoux’s result and the Borel-Weil-Bott theorem fail to hold in positive characteristic.

Jaydeep V. Chipalkatti
(jaydeep@math.ubc.ca)
Dept of Mathematics
1984, Mathematics Road
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
Canada.

Anthony V. Geramita
(tony@mast.queensu.ca, geramita@dima.unige.it)
Dept of Mathematics and Statistics,
Jeffery Hall, Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6
Canada.
and
Dipartimento di Matematica
Universitá di Genova
Genova, Italia.