format: text

text:
# On the Equations Defining Toric L.C.I.-Singularities

## 1.  Introduction

An affine toric variety $`U_\sigma =`$ Spec$`\left(\left[M\sigma ^{}\right]\right)`$ associated to a rational strongly convex polyhedral cone $`\sigma `$ (where rank$`(M)=`$ dim$`(\sigma )=d`$) is Gorenstein if and only if $`\sigma `$ supports a $`(d1)`$-dimensional lattice polytope $`P`$ (w.r.t. $`N=`$ Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(M,)`$) lying on a “primitive” affine hyperplane of the form $`\left\{𝐱N_{}\right|m_\sigma ,𝐱=1\}`$ (up to lattice automorphism). Nakajima \[N\] classified in 1986 all affine toric locally complete intersection (“l.c.i.”) varieties $`U_\sigma `$ by providing a suitable parametrization for all the corresponding polytopes $`P.`$ More recently, the class of toric l.c.i.-singularities turned out to have some properties of particular importance in both algebraic and geometric aspects. For instance,

(i) the algebras $`\left[N\sigma \right]`$ have the Koszul property (cf. \[BrGT\], \[DHaZ\]),

(ii) all set-theoretic complete intersections of binomial hypersurfaces in an affine complex space are affine toric ideal-theoretic complete intersections (also in a more general sense, including the non-normal ones, cf. \[BaMT, Thm. 4\]),

(iii) all toric l.c.i.-singularities admit projective crepant resolutions (see \[DHeZ\], \[DHaZ\]), and

(iv) the $`i`$-th jet schemes of the underlying spaces $`U_\sigma `$ of toric l.c.i.-singularities are irreducible for all $`i1`$ (see \[M, Thm. 4.13\]).

The Main Theorem of the present paper (see below Thm. 3.1) gives a precise description of the binomial-type equations defining singular l.c.i. $`U_\sigma `$’s in terms of the corresponding admissible free-parameter sequence (or “matrix”) $`𝐦`$ of the Nakajima polytope $`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, and generalizes a result of Ishida \[Ish, §8\] which concerns dimensions $`2`$ and $`3.`$

In this section, we introduce the brief “toric glossary” (a)-(e) and the notation which will be used in the sequel. For further details on the theory of toric geometry the reader is referred to the textbooks of Oda \[O\], Fulton \[Fu\] and Ewald \[Ew\], and to the lecture notes \[KKMS\].

(a) The linear hull, the affine hull, the positive hull and the convex hull of a set $`B`$ of vectors of $`^r`$, $`r1,`$ will be denoted by lin$`\left(B\right)`$, aff$`\left(B\right)`$, pos$`\left(B\right)`$ (or $`_0B`$) and conv$`\left(B\right)`$, respectively. The dimension dim$`\left(B\right)`$ of a $`B^r`$ is defined to be the dimension of its affine hull.
(b) Let $`N`$ be a free $``$-module of rank $`r1`$. $`N`$ can be regarded as a lattice within $`N_{}:=N_{}^r`$. The lattice determinant det$`\left(N\right)`$ of $`N`$ is the $`r`$-volume of the parallelepiped spanned by any $``$-basis of it. An $`nN`$ is called primitive if conv$`\left(\{\mathrm{𝟎},n\}\right)N`$ contains no other points except $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`n`$.

Let $`N`$ be as above, $`M:=`$ Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(N,)`$ its dual lattice, $`N_{},M_{}`$ their real scalar extensions, and $`.,.:M_{}\times N_{}`$ the natural $``$-bilinear pairing. A subset $`\sigma `$ of $`N_{}`$ is called convex polyhedral cone (c.p.c., for short) if there exist $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_kN_{}`$, such that $`\sigma =`$ pos$`\left(\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k\}\right)`$. Its relative interior int$`\left(\sigma \right)`$ is the usual topological interior of it, considered as subset of lin$`\left(\sigma \right)=\sigma +\left(\sigma \right)`$. The dual cone $`\sigma ^{}`$ of a c.p.c. $`\sigma `$ is a c.p. cone defined by

$$\sigma ^{}:=\left\{𝐲M_{}\right|𝐲,𝐱0,𝐱,𝐱\sigma \}.$$

Note that $`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^{}=\sigma `$ and

$$\text{dim}\left(\sigma \left(\sigma \right)\right)+\text{dim}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)=\text{dim}\left(\sigma ^{}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right)+\text{dim}\left(\sigma \right)=r.$$

A subset $`\tau `$ of a c.p.c. $`\sigma `$ is called a face of $`\sigma `$ (notation: $`\tau \sigma `$), if for some $`m_0\sigma ^{}`$ we have $`\tau =\left\{𝐱\sigma \right|m_0,𝐱=0\}`$. In particular, 1-dimensional faces are called rays.

A c.p.c. $`\sigma =`$ pos$`\left(\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_k\}\right)`$ is called simplicial (resp. rational) if $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k`$ are $``$-linearly independent (resp. if $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_kN_{}`$, where $`N_{}:=N_{}`$). If $`\varrho `$ is a ray of a rational c.p.c. $`\sigma `$, then we denote by $`n\left(\varrho \right)N\varrho `$ the unique primitive vector with $`\varrho =_0n\left(\varrho \right),`$ and we set

$$\text{Gen}\left(\sigma \right):=\left\{n\left(\varrho \right)\right|\varrho \text{ rays of }\sigma \}.$$

A strongly convex polyhedral cone (s.c.p.c., for short) is a c.p.c. $`\sigma `$ for which $`\sigma \left(\sigma \right)=\left\{\mathrm{𝟎}\right\}`$, i.e., for which dim$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)=r`$. The s.c.p. cones are alternatively called pointed cones (having $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ as their apex).
(c) If $`\sigma N_{}`$ is a rational s.c.p.c., then the subsemigroup $`\sigma N`$ of $`N`$ is a monoid. The following proposition follows from results due to Gordan, Hilbert and van der Corput (cf. \[Schr, Thm. 16.4, p. 233\]).

###### Proposition 1.1 (Minimal generating system).

$`\sigma N`$ is finitely generated as additive semigroup for every rational c.p.c. $`\sigma N_{}`$. Moreover, if $`\sigma `$ is strongly convex, then among all the systems of generators of $`\sigma N`$, there is a system $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐥𝐛}_N\left(\sigma \right)`$ of *minimal cardinality*, which is uniquely determined *(*up to the ordering of its elements*)* by the following characterization*:*

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_N\left(\sigma \right)=\{n\sigma (N\left\{\mathrm{𝟎}\right\})|\begin{array}{c}n\text{cannot be expressed }\hfill \\ \text{as the sum of two other }\hfill \\ \text{vectors belonging }\hfill \\ \text{to }\text{ }\sigma \left(N\left\{\mathrm{𝟎}\right\}\right)\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

$`\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_N\left(\sigma \right)`$ *is called* the Hilbert basis of $`\sigma `$ w.r.t. $`N.`$

(d) For a lattice $`N`$ of rank $`r`$ having $`M`$ as its dual, we define an $`r`$-dimensional algebraic torus $`T_N\left(^{}\right)^r`$ by setting $`T_N:=`$Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(M,^{})=N_{}^{}.`$ Every $`mM`$ assigns a character $`𝐞\left(m\right):T_N^{}`$. Moreover, each $`nN`$ determines an $`1`$-parameter subgroup

$$\vartheta _n:^{}T_N\text{with }\vartheta _n\left(\lambda \right)\left(m\right):=\lambda ^{m,n}\text{,   for }\lambda ^{},mM.$$

We can therefore identify $`M`$ with the character group of $`T_N`$ and $`N`$ with the group of $`1`$-parameter subgroups of $`T_N`$. On the other hand, for a rational s.c.p. cone $`\sigma `$ with

$$M\sigma ^{}=_0m_1+\mathrm{}+_0m_\nu ,$$

we associate to the finitely generated monoidal subalgebra

$$\left[M\sigma ^{}\right]=\underset{mM\sigma ^{}}{}𝐞\left(m\right)$$

of the $``$-algebra $`\left[M\right]=\underset{mM}{}𝐞\left(m\right)`$ a toric affine variety

$$U_\sigma :=U_{\sigma ,N}:=\text{Spec}\left(\left[M\sigma ^{}\right]\right),$$

which can be identified with the set of semigroup homomorphisms :

$$U_\sigma =\{u:M\sigma ^{}|\begin{array}{c}u\left(\mathrm{𝟎}\right)=1,u\left(m+m^{}\right)=u\left(m\right)u\left(m^{}\right),\\ \text{for all }m,m^{}M\sigma ^{}\end{array}\},$$

where $`𝐞\left(m\right)\left(u\right):=u\left(m\right),m,mM\sigma ^{}`$ and $`u,uU_\sigma `$.

$`U_\sigma `$ admits a canonical $`T_N`$-action which extends the group multiplication of the algebraic torus $`T_N=U_{\left\{\mathrm{𝟎}\right\}}`$:

(1.2)
$$T_N\times U_\sigma (t,u)tuU_\sigma $$

where, for $`uU_\sigma `$, $`\left(tu\right)\left(m\right):=t\left(m\right)u\left(m\right),m,mM\sigma ^{}`$ . The orbits w.r.t. the action (1.2) are parametrized by the set of all the faces of $`\sigma `$. For a $`\tau \sigma `$, we denote by orb$`\left(\tau \right)`$ the orbit which is associated to $`\tau `$.

###### Proposition 1.2 (Embedding by binomials).

In the analytic category, $`U_\sigma `$, identified with its image under the injective map

$$(𝐞\left(m_1\right),\mathrm{},𝐞\left(m_\nu \right)):U_\sigma ^\nu ,$$

can be regarded as an analytic set determined by a finite number of equations of the form*:* *(monomial) = (monomial).* This analytic structure induced on $`U_\sigma `$ is independent of the semigroup generators $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_\nu \}`$ and each map $`𝐞\left(m\right)`$ on $`U_\sigma `$ is holomorphic w.r.t. it. In particular, for $`\tau \sigma `$, $`U_\tau `$ is an open subset of $`U_\sigma `$. Moreover, if *dim*$`\left(\sigma \right)=r`$ and

$$\mathrm{\#}\left(\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_M\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right)=k\left(\nu \right),$$

then *(*by Prop. *1.1)* $`k`$ is nothing but the *(minimal)* *embedding dimension* of $`U_\sigma `$, i.e. the *minimal* number of generators of the maximal ideal of the local $``$-algebra $`𝒪_{U_\sigma ,\mathrm{𝟎}}`$.

See \[O, Prop. 1.2 and 1.3., pp. 4-7\] for a proof, and \[BiLSR\], \[BiR\], \[ES\], \[HSh\], \[St1\], \[St2\] for the general theory of the defining equations of toric varieties.

###### Remark 1.3.

In fact, Prop. 1.2 informs us that

$$\left[M\sigma ^{}\right][z_1,\mathrm{},z_\nu ]/,$$

where the prime ideal $``$ is generated by binomials belonging to

$$\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}z_i^{\kappa _i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}z_i^{\xi _i}|\begin{array}{c}(\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _\nu ),(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _\nu )\left(_0\right)^\nu \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{and }(\kappa _1\xi _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _\nu \xi _\nu )L\hfill \end{array}\},$$

and

$$L=\left\{(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_\nu )^\nu \right|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}\mathrm{}_im_i=0\}$$

(under an appropriate identification $`M^r`$). Let us fix a $``$-basis $`\{\upsilon _1,\mathrm{},\upsilon _k\}`$ of the integer lattice $`L`$ and denote by $``$ the $`\left(\nu \times k\right)`$-matrix having $`\upsilon _1,\mathrm{},\upsilon _k`$ as its column-vectors. Then the ideal

$$𝒥_{}:=(f_{\upsilon _1},f_{\upsilon _2},\mathrm{},f_{\upsilon _k})[z_1,\mathrm{},z_\nu ],$$

generated by the binomials

$$f_{\upsilon _i}:=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}z_i^{\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j^+}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}z_i^{\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j^{}},1ik,$$

with $`\upsilon _i=(\left(\upsilon _i\right)_1,\mathrm{},\left(\upsilon _i\right)_\nu )^{},`$ and

$$\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j^+:=\mathrm{max}\{0,\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j\},\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j^{}:=\mathrm{max}\{0,\left(\upsilon _i\right)_j\},1ik,1j\nu ,$$

is called the lattice ideal associated to $``$. In general, we have $`𝒥_{}`$, with the inclusion possibly strict.

###### Definition 1.4 (Dominating matrices).

A $`\left(\nu \times k\right)`$-matrix (with integer entries) is called a mixed matrix if every column of it has both a positive and a negative entry. A mixed $`\left(\nu \times k\right)`$-matrix is said to be dominating if it does not contain any mixed $`\left(\rho \times \rho \right)`$-submatrices for $`1\rho \mathrm{min}\{\nu ,k\}.`$

###### Theorem 1.5.

*(i)* $`𝒥_{}[z_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},z_\nu ^{\pm 1}]=[z_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},z_\nu ^{\pm 1}],`$ i.e.,

$$𝒥_{}:(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\nu }{}}z_i)^{\mathrm{}}=.$$

*(ii)* $`𝒥_{}=`$ if and only if $``$ is a dominating matrix.

Proof. For (i) we refer to \[ES, Cor. 2.5\] and \[BiR, Thm. 2.10\], and for (ii) to \[FSh, Lemma 2.2\] or \[HSh, Thm. 1.1\]. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

(e) The well-known hierarchy of Noetherian rings:

$$\text{(regular)}\text{(l.c.i.)}\text{(Gorenstein)}\text{(Cohen-Macaulay)}$$

(cf. \[Ku\]) is used to describe the punctual algebraic behaviour of affine toric varieties.

###### Theorem 1.6 (Normality and CM-property).

The toric varieties $`U_\sigma `$ are always normal and Cohen-Macaulay.

Proof. For a proof of the normality property see \[O, Thm. 1.4, p. 7\]. The CM-property for toric varieties was first shown by Hochster in \[Ho\]. See also \[KKMS, Thm. 14, p. 52\], and \[O, 3.9, p. 125\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 1.7 (Multiplicities and basic cones).

Let $`N`$be a free$``$-module of rank$`r`$and $`\sigma N_{}`$ asimplicial, rational s.c.p.c. of dimension $`dr`$. The cone $`\sigma `$ can be obviously written as $`\sigma =\varrho _1+\mathrm{}+\varrho _d`$*,* for distinctrays $`\varrho _1,\mathrm{},\varrho _d`$. The multiplicity mult$`(\sigma ;N)`$ of $`\sigma `$ with respect to $`N`$ is defined as

$$\text{mult}(\sigma ;N):=\frac{\text{det}\left(n\left(\varrho _1\right)\mathrm{}n\left(\varrho _d\right)\right)}{\text{det}\left(N_\sigma \right)},$$

where $`N_\sigma `$ is the sublattice of $`N`$ generated (as subgroup) by the set $`N`$ lin$`\left(\sigma \right).`$ If mult$`(\sigma ;N)=1`$,then$`\sigma `$is called a basic cone w.r.t. $`N`$.

###### Theorem 1.8 (Smoothness criterion).

The affine toric variety $`U_\sigma =U_{\sigma ,N}`$ is smooth *(*i.e., the corresponding local rings $`𝒪_{U_\sigma ,\text{ }u}`$ are regular at all points $`u`$ of $`U_\sigma `$*)* iff $`\sigma `$ is basic w.r.t. $`N`$.

Proof. See \[KKMS, Ch. I, Thm. 4, p. 14\], and \[O, Thm. 1.10, p. 15\]. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$
Next Theorem describes necessary and sufficient conditions under which $`U_\sigma `$ is Gorenstein (cf. \[Ish, §7\]).

###### Theorem 1.9 (Gorenstein property).

Let $`N`$be a free$``$-module of rank$`r`$and $`\sigma `$ arational s.c.p. cone in $`N_{}`$ of dimension $`dr`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent*:*
*(i)* $`U_\sigma `$ is Gorenstein.
*(ii)* There exists an element $`m_\sigma `$ of $`M`$, such that $`M\left(\text{int}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right)=m_\sigma +(M\sigma ^{}).`$
Moreover, if $`d=r`$, then $`m_\sigma `$ in *(ii)* is the unique primitive element of $`M\left(\text{int}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)\right)`$ with this property and the above conditions are equivalent to the following one*:*
*(iii) Gen*$`\left(\sigma \right)𝐇`$, where $`𝐇=\left\{𝐱N_{}\right|m_\sigma ,𝐱=1\}.`$

## 2. Nakajima’s Polytopes and Classification Theorem

We shall henceforth focus our attention to Gorenstein toric singularities and, in particular, to those which are locally complete intersections (l.c.i.’s).

(a) Let $`N`$ a free $``$-module of rank $`r2`$ and $`\sigma N_{}`$ a rational s.c.p.c. of dimension $`dr`$. Since $`N/N_\sigma `$ is torsion free, there exists a lattice decomposition $`N=N_\sigma \stackrel{˘}{N}`$, inducing a decomposition of its dual $`M=M_\sigma \stackrel{˘}{M}`$, where $`M_\sigma =`$ Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(N_\sigma ,)`$ and $`\stackrel{˘}{M}=`$ Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{˘}{N},)`$. Writing $`\sigma `$ as $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}\left\{\mathrm{𝟎}\right\}`$ with $`\sigma ^{}`$ a $`d`$-dimensional cone in $`\left(N_\sigma \right)_{}`$, we obtain decompositions

$$T_NT_{N_\sigma }\times T_{\stackrel{˘}{N}}\text{and }M\sigma ^{}=\left(M_\sigma \left(\sigma ^{}\right)^{}\right)\stackrel{˘}{M},$$

which give rise to the analytic isomorphisms:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_\sigma & U_\sigma ^{}\times T_{\stackrel{˘}{N}}U_\sigma ^{}\times T_{N/N_\sigma }& U_\sigma ^{}\times \left(^{}\right)^{rd}.\end{array}$$

$`U_\sigma =U_{\sigma ,N}`$ can be therefore viewed as a product of $`U_\sigma ^{}=U_{\sigma ^{},N}`$ and an $`\left(rd\right)`$-dimensional algebraic torus. Obviously, the study of the algebraic properties for $`U_\sigma `$ can be reduced to that of the corresponding properties of $`U_\sigma ^{}`$. For instance, the singular locus Sing$`\left(U_\sigma \right)`$ of $`U_\sigma `$ equals

$$\text{Sing}\left(U_\sigma \right)=\text{Sing}\left(U_\sigma ^{}\right)\times \left(^{}\right)^{rd}.$$

In fact, the main reason for preferring to work with the affine variety $`U_\sigma ^{}`$ (or with the germ $`(U_\sigma ^{},\text{orb}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)))`$ instead of $`U_\sigma `$, is that since lin$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)=\left(N_\sigma \right)_{}`$, the orbit orb$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)U_\sigma ^{}`$ is the unique fixed closed point under the action of $`T_{N_\sigma }`$ on $`U_\sigma ^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

If $`\sigma `$ is non-basic w.r.t. $`N`$, then $`U_\sigma ^{}`$ will be calledthe singular representativeof $`U_\sigma `$ and orb$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)U_\sigma ^{}`$ the associateddistinguishedsingular point within thesingular locus Sing$`\left(U_\sigma ^{}\right)`$ of $`U_\sigma ^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

If $`\sigma `$ is non-basic w.r.t. $`N`$, then it is also useful to introduce the notion of thesplitting codimension” of orb$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)U_\sigma ^{}`$ as the number

$$\text{max}\text{ }\{\varkappa \{2,\mathrm{},d\}|\begin{array}{c}U_\sigma ^{}U_{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}\times ^{d\varkappa },\hfill \\ \text{for some}\text{ }\text{ }\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\sigma ^{}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{with  dim}\left(\sigma ^{\prime \prime }\right)=\varkappa \text{ }\hfill \\ \text{and  Sing}\left(U_{\sigma ^{\prime \prime }}\right)\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

If this number equals $`d`$, then $`(U_\sigma ^{},\text{orb}\left(\sigma ^{}\right))`$will be called an msc-singularity, i.e., a singularity having themaximum splitting codimension.

(b) Gorenstein toric affine varieties are completely determined by suitable lattice polytopes.

###### Definition 2.3 (Lattice equivalence).

If $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are two free $``$-modules (not necessarily ofthe same rank) and $`P_1\left(N_1\right)_{}`$,$`P_2\left(N_2\right)_{}`$two lattice polytopes with respect to them, we shall say that $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$are lattice equivalent to each other, and denote this by$`P_1P_2`$, if $`P_1`$ is affinely equivalent to $`P_2`$ via anaffine map

$$\varpi :\left(N_1\right)_{}\left(N_2\right)_{}\text{,}$$

such that the restriction

$$\varpi |{}_{\text{aff}\left(P\right)}{}^{}:\text{aff}\left(P\right)\text{aff}\left(P^{}\right)$$

is a bijection mapping the polytope $`P_1`$onto the (necessarily equidimensional) polytope $`P_2`$, every $`i`$-dimensional face of$`P_1`$onto an$`i`$-dimensionalface of$`P_2`$, for all$`i`$, $`0i`$ dim$`\left(P_1\right)=`$ dim$`\left(P_2\right)`$, and, in addition, $`N_{P_1}`$onto the lattice$`N_{P_2}`$, where by$`N_{P_j}`$ismeant the sublattice of$`N_j`$ generated (as subgroup) by aff$`\left(P_j\right)N_j`$*,* $`j=1,2.`$If

$$N_1=N_2=:N\text{ }\text{ and  rk}\left(N\right)=\text{ }\text{dim}\left(P_1\right)=\text{dim}\left(P_2\right),$$

then these $`\varpi `$’s are exactly the affine integral transformations which are composed of unimodular transformations and $`N`$-translations.

###### Definition 2.4 (Basic simplices).

A lattice simplex is said to be basic (or unimodular) if its vertices constitute a part of a$``$-basis of the reference lattice (or equivalently, if its relative, normalized volume equals $`1`$).

Let now $`U_\sigma =U_{\sigma ,N}`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional affine toric variety and $`U_\sigma ^{}=U_{\sigma ^{},N_\sigma }`$, as in (a). Assuming that $`U_\sigma `$ is Gorenstein, we may pass to another analytically isomorphic “standard” representative as follows: Denote by $`^d`$ the rectangular (standard) lattice in $`^d`$ and by $`(^d)^{}`$ its dual lattice within $`(^d)^{}=`$ Hom$`{}_{}{}^{}(^d,)`$. Since dim$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)=`$ rank$`\left(N_\sigma \right)=d`$, or equivalently, since $`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)^{}`$ is strongly convex in $`\left(M_\sigma \right)_{}`$, Theorem 1.9 (iii) implies

$$\text{Gen}\left(\sigma ^{}\right)𝐇^{\left(d\right)}\text{ with }𝐇^{\left(d\right)}:=\left\{𝐱\left(N_\sigma \right)_{}\right|m_\sigma ^{},𝐱=1\},$$

for a uniquely determined $`m_\sigma ^{}M_\sigma .`$ Clearly, $`\sigma ^{}𝐇^{\left(d\right)}`$ is a $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional lattice polytope (w.r.t. $`N_\sigma `$). We choose a specific $``$-module isomorphism

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}:N_\sigma \stackrel{}{}^d$$

inducing an $``$-vector space isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}\text{id}_{}:\left(N_\sigma \right)_{}\stackrel{}{}^d,$$

such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐇^{\left(d\right)})=\{𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)^d|x_1=1\}=:\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}\text{.}$$

Obviously, $`P:=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\sigma ^{}𝐇^{\left(d\right)}\right)\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}`$ is a lattice $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional polytope (w.r.t. aff$`\left(P\right)^d`$). Defining

$$\tau _P:=\text{pos}(P)=\left\{\kappa 𝐱^d\right|\kappa _0,𝐱P\}$$

(cf. fig. 1) we obtain easily the following:

###### Lemma 2.5.

*(i)* There exists a torus-equivariant analytic isomorphism

$$U_\sigma ^{}U_{\tau _P}(=\text{Spec}(\left[(^d)^{}\tau _P^{}\right]))$$

mapping *orb*$`\left(\sigma ^{}\right)`$ onto *orb*$`\left(\tau _P\right).`$ Moreover, $`U_{\tau _P}`$ is singular *(*and its singular locus contains at least *orb*$`\left(\tau _P\right)`$*)* iff $`P`$ is not a basic simplex w.r.t. *aff*$`\left(P\right)^d.`$
*(ii)* If $`Q\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}`$ is another lattice $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional polytope *(*w.r.t. $`\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}^d`$*)*, then $`PQ`$ iff there exists a torus-equivariant analytic isomorphism $`U_{\tau _P}U_{\tau _Q}`$ mapping $`\text{orb}\left(\tau _P\right)`$ onto $`\text{orb}\left(\tau _Q\right)`$.

(c) Let $`^d`$ be again the usual $`d`$-dimensional euclidean space, $`^d`$ the usual rectangular lattice in $`^d`$ and $`(^d)^{}`$ its dual lattice. From now on, we shall denote by $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_d\}`$ the standard $``$-basis of $`^d`$, by $`\{e_1^{},e_2^{},\mathrm{},e_d^{}\}`$ its dual basis, and we shall represent the points of $`^d`$ by column vectors and the points of its dual $`(^d)^{}`$ by row vectors.

###### Definition 2.6.

A sequenceof free parameters of length $`\mathrm{}`$ (w.r.t.$`^d`$) is defined to be a finite sequence

$$𝐦:=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_{\mathrm{}}),1\mathrm{}d1,$$

consisting of vectors

$$m_i:=(m_{i,1},m_{i,2},\mathrm{},m_{i,d}),1i\mathrm{},\text{ of }(^d)^{}𝕣\left\{(0,\mathrm{},0)\right\}$$

for which$`m_{i,j}=0`$ for all$`i`$*,* $`1i\mathrm{}`$, and all$`j`$,$`1jd`$, with$`i<j`$. As$`\left(\mathrm{}\times d\right)`$-matrix such an $`𝐦`$ has the form:

(2.1)
$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cccccc}m_{1,1}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ m_{2,1}& m_{2,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ m_{3,1}& m_{3,2}& m_{3,3}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ m_{\mathrm{}1,1}& m_{\mathrm{}1,2}& m_{\mathrm{}1,3}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ m_{\mathrm{},1}& m_{\mathrm{},2}& m_{\mathrm{},3}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& m_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\end{array}& \underset{d\mathrm{}\text{ }\text{zero-columns}}{\underset{}{\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}}}\end{array}\right)$$

###### Definition 2.7 (Nakajima polytopes).

Fixing the dimension $`d`$ of our reference space, we define the polytopes

$$\left\{P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}\right|i\text{,}1id\}$$

lying on

$$\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}=\{𝐱=(x_1,..,x_d)^{}^d|x_1=1\}$$

and being associated to an “admissible” free-parameter-sequence (or matrix) $`𝐦`$ as in (2.1) w.r.t$`\text{}^d`$(with length$`\mathrm{}=i1`$, for$`2id`$) by using induction on $`i`$; namely we define

$$P_𝐦^{\left(1\right)}:=\{e_1\}=\{(1,\underset{\left(d1\right)\text{-times}}{\underset{}{0,0,\mathrm{},0,0}})^{}\},$$

andfor$`2id`$,

(2.2)
$$P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}:=\text{conv}(\{P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}\left\{(𝐱^{},m_{i1},𝐱,\underset{\left(di\right)\text{-times}}{\underset{}{0,..,0}})^{}\right|𝐱=(𝐱^{},\underset{\left(di+1\right)\text{-times}}{\underset{}{0,..,0})^{}}P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}\})$$

where $`𝐱^{}=(x_1,x_2,..,x_{i1}).`$ $`P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}`$ is obviously $`\left(i1\right)`$-dimensional. For $`𝐦`$ to be “admissible” means that

(2.3)
$$m_{i1},𝐱0,𝐱,𝐱=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{i1},\underset{\left(di+1\right)\text{-times}}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0})^{}}P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}.$$

Any lattice $`\left(i1\right)`$-polytope $`P`$ which is lattice equivalent to a $`P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}`$ (as defined above) will be called a Nakajima polytope (w.r.t.$`\text{ }^d`$)*.* As it is explained in \[DHaZ\], $`P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}`$ can be written (for$`2id`$) as:

(2.4)
$$\{𝐱=(𝐱^{},\underset{\left(di\right)\text{-times}}{x_i,\underset{}{0,..,0})^{}}(P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}\times \times \{\mathrm{𝟎}\})\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}|0x_im_{i1},𝐱^{}\}$$

i.e., as a polytope determined by means of a suitably cutted “half-line prism” over $`P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}.`$

###### Examples 2.8.

(i) For$`i=d=1,`$ we have trivially$`P_𝐦^{\left(1\right)}=\left\{1\right\}.`$ *<br>*(ii) For$`i=d=2,𝐦=(m_{1,1},0)`$we have$`P_𝐦^{\left(1\right)}=\left\{(1,0)^{}\right\}`$and

$`P_𝐦^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=\text{ }\text{conv}\left(\left\{(1,0)^{}\right\}\left\{(1,m_1,(1,0))^{}\right\}\right)`$
$`=\text{conv}\left(\left\{(1,0)^{}\right\}\left\{(1,m_{1,1})^{}\right\}\right)\text{,  }m_{1,1}>0.`$
(iii) For $`i=d=3,`$ and

$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,1}& 0& 0\\ m_{2,1}& m_{2,2}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

we obtain

$$P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}=\text{ }\text{conv}\left(\{(1,0,0)^{},(1,m_{1,1},0)^{},(1,0,m_{2,1})^{},(1,m_{1,1},m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2})^{}\}\right)$$

with

(2.5)
$$m_{1,1}>0,m_{2,1}0,m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2}0,(m_{2,1},m_{2,2})(0,0).$$

(iv) Finally, for$`i=d=4,`$ and

$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_{1,1}& 0& 0& 0\\ m_{2,1}& m_{2,2}& 0& 0\\ m_{3,1}& m_{3,2}& m_{3,3}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

we get

$$P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}=\text{conv}\left(\left\{\begin{array}{c}(1,0,0,0)^{},(1,m_{1,1},0,0)^{},(1,0,m_{2,1},0)^{},\hfill \\ (1,m_{1,1},m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2},0)^{},(1,0,0,m_{3,1})^{},\hfill \\ (1,m_{1,1},0,m_{3,1}+m_{1,1}m_{3,2})^{},\hfill \\ (1,0,m_{2,1},m_{3,1}+m_{3,3}m_{2,1})^{},\hfill \\ (1,m_{1,1},m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2},\hfill \\ m_{3,1}+m_{3,2}m_{1,1}+m_{2,1}m_{3,3}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2}m_{3,3})^{}\hfill \end{array}\right\}\right)$$

with

(2.6)
$$\{\begin{array}{c}m_{1,1}>0,m_{2,1}0,m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2}0,\hfill \\ m_{3,1}0,m_{3,1}+m_{1,1}m_{3,2}0,\hfill \\ m_{3,1}+m_{3,3}m_{2,1}0,m_{3,1}+m_{2,1}m_{3,3}+m_{1,1}(m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3})0,\hfill \\ (m_{2,1},m_{2,2})(0,0),(m_{3,1},m_{3,2},m_{3,3})(0,0,0).\hfill \end{array}$$

In the figures 2 and 3 we illustrate the lattice polytopes$`P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}`$, $`P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}`$, respectively, for

$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 2& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 2& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)\text{ and }𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 2& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

###### Remark 2.9 (On the set of vertices).

A convenient reformulation of (2.2) reads as

$$P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}=\text{conv}\left(P_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}W_iP_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}\right),$$

where

$$W_i:=(e_1^{},e_2^{},\mathrm{},e_{i1}^{},m_{i1},0,\mathrm{},0)^{},i=2,\mathrm{},d.$$

is the $`(d\times d)`$-matrix whose non-zero rows are $`e_1^{},e_2^{},\mathrm{},e_{i1}^{},m_{i1}`$. Setting

$$S_𝐦^{\left(1\right)}:=\{e_1\}$$

and

$$S_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}:=\left\{v+(0,\mathrm{},0,\epsilon _{i1}m_{i1},v,\underset{\left(di\right)\text{-times}}{\underset{}{0,..,0}})^{}\right|\epsilon _i\{0,1\},vS_𝐦^{\left(i1\right)}\},$$

for $`i=2,\mathrm{},d,`$ we have

$$P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}=\text{ conv}\left(S_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}\right),$$

and thus, vert$`(P_𝐦^{\left(i\right)})S_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}`$, where by $`\mathrm{vert}(P)`$ we denote the set of vertices of a polytope $`P`$. Observe, that from the definition of the Nakajima polytopes we know that

(2.7)
$$v0,\text{ for all }vS_𝐦^{\left(i\right)},i\{1,\mathrm{},d\},$$

i.e., in particular, all the coordinates of the vertices are non-negative.

To provide a more explicit description of the elements of the sets $`S_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ and thus of the possible vertices of $`P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ too, we define for any choice of

$$\epsilon =(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1})\{0,1\}^{d1}$$

and any $`k\{2,\mathrm{},d\}`$ the vector

(2.8)
$$v_k(\epsilon ):=\epsilon _{k1}\left(m_{k1,1}+\underset{l=2}{\overset{k1}{}}m_{k1,l}v_l\left(\epsilon \right)\right)$$

and we set

$$v\left(\epsilon \right):=(1,v_2\left(\epsilon \right),\mathrm{},v_d\left(\epsilon \right))^{}.$$

On account of the definition of the sets $`S_𝐦^{\left(i\right)}`$ we have

(2.9)
$$S_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}=\left\{v\left(\epsilon \right)\right|\epsilon \{0,1\}^{d1}\}.$$

The entries $`v_2\left(\epsilon \right),\mathrm{},v_d\left(\epsilon \right)`$ of $`v\left(\epsilon \right)`$ can be determined by exploiting the intrinsic reccurence relation which occurs in (2.8). For $`\epsilon \{0,1\}^{d1}`$, $`n\{2,\mathrm{},d\}`$, and $`k\{0,1,\mathrm{},n2\}`$ we define the following sum of products:

$$q_{k,n}\left(\epsilon \right):=\underset{0=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=n1}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}\epsilon _{i_j}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}.$$

Observe that $`q_{0,n}\left(\epsilon \right)=\epsilon _{n1}m_{n1,1}`$.

###### Proposition 2.10.

For all $`n\{2,\mathrm{},d\}`$ we have

$$v_n(\epsilon )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n2}{}}q_{k,n}(\epsilon ).$$

Proof. First we notice that

$$q_{k+1,n+1}(\epsilon )=\epsilon _n\underset{i=k+2}{\overset{n}{}}m_{n,i}q_{k,i}(\epsilon ),$$

which follows immediately from the definition, because

(2.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _n\underset{i=k+2}{\overset{n}{}}m_{n,i}q_{k,i}(\epsilon )\hfill \\ \\ =\underset{i=k+2}{\overset{n}{}}\epsilon _nm_{n,i}\underset{0=j_0<j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_k<j_{k+1}=i1}{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}\epsilon _{j_l}m_{j_l,j_{l1}+1}\hfill \\ \\ =\underset{0=j_0<j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_k<j_{k+1}<j_{k+2}=n}{}\underset{l=1}{\overset{k+2}{}}\epsilon _{j_l}m_{j_l,j_{l1}+1}=q_{k+1,n+1}(\epsilon ).\hfill \end{array}$$

We prove the Proposition by using induction w.r.t. $`n`$. For $`n=2`$ we obtain the identity

$$v_2(\epsilon )=\epsilon _1m_{1,1}=q_{0,2}(\epsilon ).$$

Now let $`n`$ be $`>2`$. From the definition (2.8) and our induction hypothesis

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{n+1}(\epsilon )& =\epsilon _nm_{n,1}+\epsilon _n\underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}m_{n,k}v_k(\epsilon )\hfill \\ & =q_{0,n+1}(\epsilon )+\epsilon _n\underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}m_{n,k}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{k2}{}}q_{l,k}(\epsilon )\right)\hfill \\ & =q_{0,n+1}(\epsilon )+\underset{l=0}{\overset{n2}{}}\epsilon _n\underset{k=l+2}{\overset{n}{}}m_{n,k}q_{l,k}(\epsilon )\hfill \\ & =q_{0,n+1}(\epsilon )+\underset{l=0}{\overset{n2}{}}q_{l+1,n+1}(\epsilon ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the last identity follows from (2.10). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.11.

For any choice of $`\epsilon _\rho \{0,1\}`$, $`\rho \{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$, we have

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{d2}{}}\underset{0=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}m_{d1,i_k+1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\epsilon _{i_j}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}0.$$

Proof. The left hand side is nothing but another representation of the integer $`v_d(\epsilon )`$, where $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d2},1)`$, i.e., in the case in which $`\epsilon _{d1}=1`$ (cf. Proposition 2.10). In view of (2.9) and (2.7) we have $`v_d(\epsilon )0`$ and the corollary is proven. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

Now Nakajima’s Classification Theorem \[N, Thm. 1.5, p. 86\] can be formulated as follows:

###### Theorem 2.12 (Nakajima’s Classification of Toric L.C.I.’s).

Let $`N`$ be a free $``$-module of rank $`r2`$, and $`\sigma N_{}`$ a s.c.p. cone of dimension $`d`$, $`2dr`$. Moreover, let $`U_\sigma `$ denote the affine toric variety associated to $`\sigma `$, and $`U_\sigma ^{}`$ as in *(b)*. Then $`U_\sigma `$ is a local complete intersectionif and only if  there exists an admissible sequence $`𝐦`$ of free parameters of length $`d1`$ (w.r.t.$`\text{ }^d\text{)}`$, such that for any standard representative $`U_{\tau _P}U_\sigma ^{}`$ of $`U_\sigma `$ we have $`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, i.e., $`P`$ is a Nakajima $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional polytope *(*w.r.t. $`^d`$*).*

###### Remark 2.13.

(i) Theorem 2.12 was first proved in dimensions $`2`$ and $`3`$ by Ishida \[Ish, Thm. 8.1\]. Previous classification results, due to Watanabe \[W\], cover essentially only the class of the $``$-factorial toric l.c.i.’s in all dimensions. In fact, the term “Watanabe simplex” introduced in \[DHeZ, 5.13\] can be used, up to lattice equivalence, as a synonym for a Nakajima polytope (in the sense of 2.7) which happens to be a simplex.
(ii) Obviously, $`U_\sigma `$ is a l.c.i. $``$ $`U_\sigma ^{}U_{\tau _P}`$ is a “g.c.i”, i.e., a global complete intersection in the sense of \[Ish\].(It is worth mentioning that in the setting of \[DHeZ\], it was always assumed that $`d=r`$; therefore, the abelian quotient “g.c.i.”-spaces were abbreviated therein simply as “c.i.’s”).
(iii) For a non-basic Nakajima polytope $`P`$, $`(U_{\tau _P}`$, orb$`\left(\tau _P\right))`$ is a toric g.c.i.-singularity.
(iv) If $`P`$ is a Nakajima $`\left(d1\right)`$-polytope and $`\tau _P`$ non-basic w.r.t.$`^d`$, then the orbit orb$`\left(\tau _P\right)U_{\tau _P}`$ has splitting codimension $`\varkappa `$, with $`2\varkappa d1`$iff$`P`$ is lattice-equivalent to the join$`\stackrel{ˇ}{P}𝐬`$ of a$`\left(\varkappa 1\right)`$-dimensional (non-basic)Nakajima polytope$`\stackrel{ˇ}{P}`$ with a basic $`\left(d\varkappa 1\right)`$-simplex$`𝐬`$. *<br>*(v) It is easy for every$`P\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}`$, with$`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, to verify that

(2.11)
$$d\mathrm{\#}(\text{vert}(P))2^{d1}\text{ and }d\mathrm{\#}(\{\text{facets of}\text{ }P\})2\left(d1\right).$$

(vi) The question:

$$\text{“what kind of equations define toric l.c.i.-singularities }(U_{\tau _P},\text{orb}\left(\tau _P\right))\mathrm{?}\mathrm{}$$

will be answered only in dimensions $`3`$, because, as it is well-known, in dimension $`2`$ only the classical “Kleinian” hypersurface singularities

$$\left\{(z,w,t)^3\right|z^\kappa wt=0\},\kappa _2,$$

of “type $`𝐀_{\kappa 1}\mathrm{"}`$ are present.

## 3. Equations Defining Toric L.C.I.-Singularities

Our main result is the following: Let $`N`$ be a free $``$-module of rank $`r3`$, and $`\sigma N_{}`$ a rational s.c.p.c. of dimension $`d`$, $`3dr`$, such that $`U_\sigma =U_{\sigma ,N}`$ is a local complete intersection.By Theorem 2.12 there exists an admissible sequence

(3.1)
$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}m_{1,1}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ m_{2,1}& m_{2,2}& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ m_{3,1}& m_{3,2}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ m_{d1,1}& m_{d1,2}& m_{d1,3}& \mathrm{}& m_{d1,d2}& m_{d1,d1}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

of free parameters of length $`d1`$ (w.r.t. the lattice$`\text{ }^d`$), such that for any standard representative $`U_{\tau _P}U_\sigma ^{}`$ of $`U_\sigma `$ we have $`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$*.* We may, without loss of generality, assume that $`(U_{\tau _P}`$, orb$`\left(\tau _P\right))`$ is an msc-singularity.

###### Theorem 3.1.

If $`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)},`$ as above, then

$$U_{\tau _P}U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_d,z_{d+1},\mathrm{},z_{2d1}]/\right)$$

with defining ideal

$$\overline{)\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & =\left(\left\{\underset{1ij}{}z_i{}_{}{}^{\mu _{i1,j}}z_{d+i1}^{\lambda _{i1,j}}z_{j+1}z_{d+j}\right|1jd1\}\right)& \end{array}}$$

where $`\lambda _{i,j}`$’s, $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, are non-positive integers determined recursively by the formula

(3.2)
$$\lambda _{i,j}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{min}\{0,m_{j,i+1}\},\hfill & \text{if }i=j1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}\{0,m_{j,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{j1}{}}m_{k,i+1}\lambda _{k,j}\},\hfill & \text{if }i\{j2,\mathrm{},1\},\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }i=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\mu _{i,j}`$’s, $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, are non-negative integers defined by the formula

(3.3)
$$\mu _{i,j}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{max}\{0,m_{j,i+1}\},\hfill & \text{if }i=j1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{max}\{0,m_{j,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{j1}{}}m_{k,i+1}\lambda _{k,j}\},\hfill & \text{if }i\{j2,\mathrm{},1\},\hfill \\ m_{j,1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}m_{k,1}\lambda _{k,j},\hfill & \text{if }i=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 3.2.

(i) In the formula (3.2) the $`\lambda _{j1,j}`$’s are known from the beginning. For all $`\rho \{2,\mathrm{},j1\}`$, the $`\lambda _{j\rho ,j}`$’s are to be found successively by means of integer linear combinations of $`\lambda _{j1,j}`$, $`\lambda _{j2,j}`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, $`\lambda _{j\rho 1,j}`$ (with known coefficients).
(ii) For all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ and $`i\{1,\mathrm{},j\}`$, either $`\mu _{i1,j}=0`$ or $`\lambda _{i1,j}=0`$ (by definition). Hence, the first monomial of each of the $`d1`$ binomials which generate $``$ contains only one of the two variables $`z_i`$, $`z_{d+i1}`$, $`1ij`$.
(iii) If all entries in (3.1) are non-negative, then

(3.4)
$$=\left(\left\{\underset{1ij}{}z_i^{m_{j,i}}z_{j+1}z_{d+j}\right|1jd1\}\right),$$

because in this case all exponents $`\lambda _{i1,j}`$ are $`=0`$ and $`\mu _{i1,j}=m_{j,i}.`$

Next, we define

(3.5)
$$𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}:=\{k\{1,..,d1\}|\begin{array}{c}e_k^{}=m_{\gamma _k},\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{for some index }\hfill \\ \gamma _k\{k,..,d1\}\hfill \end{array}\}$$

and

(3.6)
$$_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}:=\{l\{1,..,d2\}|\begin{array}{c}m_le_{l+1}^{}=m_{\delta _l},\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{for some index }\hfill \\ \delta _l\{l+1,..,d1\}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

###### Corollary 3.3.

If $`PP_𝐦^{\left(d\right)},`$ as in *Thm. 3.1*, then $`U_{\tau _P}U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}`$ admits the *“minimal”* embedding

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}^{\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}))}$$

after eliminating the redundant variables of $`[z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_d,z_{d+1},\mathrm{},z_{2d1}]`$. More precisely,

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}\text{Spec}([\left\{z_k\right|k\{1,..,d\}𝕣𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\}\left\{z_{d+l}\right|l\{1,..,d1\}𝕣_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\}]/),$$

where the ideal $``$ is generated by $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}))d`$ binomials*.* These binomials are exactly those remaining from

$$\left\{\underset{1ij}{}z_i{}_{}{}^{\mu _{i1,j}}z_{d+i1}^{\lambda _{i1,j}}z_{j+1}z_{d+j}\right|1jd1\}$$

after the elimination of the variables

$$\left\{z_k\right|k𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\}\left\{z_{d+l}\right|l_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\}$$

by means of the substitutions

$$z_k=z_{\gamma _k+1}z_{d+\gamma _k}\text{ and }z_{d+l}=z_{\delta _l+1}z_{d+\delta _l}.$$

Proofs of 3.1 and 3.3 are given in the next section. Let us first apply them to a couple of examples of Nakajima polytopes.

###### Examples 3.4.

(i) For the Nakajima quadrilateral $`P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}`$ of figure 2,  (3.4) gives:

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5]/(z_1^2z_2z_4,z_1^2z_2z_3z_5)\right).$$

(ii) Let $`P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}`$ be the Nakajima triangle with

$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}k& 0& 0\\ k& 1& 0\end{array}\right),k_2.$$

Eliminating the variable $`z_4\left(=z_3z_5\right)`$ as in Cor. 3.3, and setting $`w=z_1`$, $`t_1=z_2`$, $`t_2=z_3`$, $`t_3=z_5`$, we obtain the hypersurface

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([w,t_1,t_2,t_3]/\left(w^kt_1t_2t_3\right)\right).$$

(iii) For the Nakajima solid $`P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}`$ of figure 3, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mu _{0,1}=1,\hfill & \mu _{0,2}=1,\hfill & \mu _{0,3}=0,\hfill \\ \mu _{1,2}=0,\hfill & \mu _{1,3}=0,\hfill & \mu _{2,3}=0,\hfill \\ \lambda _{0,1}=0,\hfill & \lambda _{0,2}=0,\hfill & \lambda _{0,3}=0,\hfill \\ \lambda _{1,2}=0,\hfill & \lambda _{1,3}=1,\hfill & \lambda _{2,3}=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, Theorem 3.1 gives

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5,z_6,z_7]/(z_1z_2z_5,z_1z_3z_6,z_5z_6z_4z_7)\right)$$

Therefore it is possible (by Cor. 3.3) to erase the redundant variable $`z_1`$ (cf. (3.5)) and describe $`U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}}}`$ as complete intersection of two binomials in $`_{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_6)}^6`$, where $`t_i=z_{i+1}`$, $`1i6`$, as follows:

$$U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6]/(t_1t_4t_2t_5,t_4t_5t_3t_6)\right).$$

(iv) Let us now give an example of a Nakajima polytope with the smallest number of vertices (cf. (2.11)), generalizing slightly (ii). For$`k_2`$, $`d_4`$, let

$$𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}^d$$

denote the $`\left(d1\right)`$-simplex

$$𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}:=\text{conv}\left(\{e_1,e_1+ke_2,e_1+k(e_2+e_3),\mathrm{},e_1+k(e_2+e_3+\mathrm{}+e_d)\}\right)$$

being constructed by the $`k`$-th dilation of a basic $`\left(d1\right)`$-simplex. Obviously,

$$𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}=P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}$$

with $`𝐦`$ denoting the $`\left(\left(d1\right)\times d\right)`$-matrix having entries $`m_{1,1}=k`$, $`m_{i,i}=1`$ in its diagonal, $`i`$, $`2id1`$, and zero entries otherwise. By Thm. 3.1 we can embed $`U_{\tau _{𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}}}`$ into $`^{2d1}`$ via the $`d1`$ equations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}z_1^kz_2z_{d+1}=0,\hfill \\ z_2z_3z_{d+2}=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ z_{d1}z_dz_{2d1}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In fact, replacing succesively $`z_2`$ by $`z_3z_{d+2},`$ $`z_3`$ by $`z_4z_{d+3}`$ etc. in the first equation (according to the pattern of Cor. 3.3) and setting $`w=z_1,t_i=z_{d+i1}`$, for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$, we may represent $`U_{\tau _{𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}}}`$ as a hypersurface embedded into $`_{(w,t_1,t_2,t_3,\mathrm{},t_d)}^{d+1}`$:

$$U_{\tau _{𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}}}\text{Spec}\left([w,t_1,t_2,t_3,\mathrm{},t_d]/(w^k\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}t_j)\right).$$

(Notice that $`U_{\tau _{𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}}}^d/G(d;k)`$ is an abelian quotient space w.r.t. a group $`G(d;k)\left(/k\right)^{d1}`$, cf. \[W, Ex. 1.5, p. 90\] and \[DHeZ, Prop. 5.10, p. 217\].)
(v) Finally, let $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{d1}`$ be a $`\left(d1\right)`$-tuple of positive integers ($`d4`$), with $`k_12`$, and let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}(k_1,k_2,..,k_{d1})\hfill & =\{(x_1,..,x_d)^{}^d|\begin{array}{c}x_1=1,0x_{j+1}k_j,\\ j,1jd1\end{array}\}\hfill \\ & \\ & =\left\{1\right\}\times [0,k_1]\times [0,k_2]\times \mathrm{}\times [0,k_{d1}]\hfill \end{array}$$

denote the $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional rectangular parallelepiped in $`\overline{𝐇}^{\left(d\right)}^d`$ having them as lengths of its edges (cf. \[DHaZ\]).

$`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{d1})`$ has $`2^{d1}`$ vertices (i.e., the greatest possible number of vertices, cf. (2.11)), namely

$$\{e_1+\epsilon _1k_1e_2+\epsilon _2k_2e_3+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _{d1}k_{d1}e_d|\epsilon _1,..,\epsilon _{d1}\{0,1\}\}$$

and equals $`P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ with $`𝐦`$ denoting the $`((d1)\times d)`$-matrix with entries $`m_{i,1}=k_i`$, for all $`i`$, $`1id1`$, in its first column, and all the other entries $`=0`$. By (3.4) we obtain

$$U_{\tau _{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}(k_1,..,k_{d1})}}\text{Spec}([z_1,..,z_{2d1}]/(\{z_j^{k_j}z_{j+1}z_{d+j}|1jd1\})).$$

## 4. Proof of the Main Theorem

To prove Theorem 3.1 we need several auxiliary Lemmas. At first, starting with an admissible sequence $`𝐦`$ as in (3.1), where $`d3`$, we define the set

$$_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}:=\left\{e_1^{}\right\}\left\{e_k^{},m_{k1}e_k^{}\right|2kd\}.$$

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}=`$ *pos*$`\left(_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\right).`$

Proof. See Nakajima \[N, p. 92\]. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

For $`\epsilon _i\{0,1\},`$ $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d1\},`$ we define the s.c.p. cones $`C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}(^d)^{}`$ as follows:

$$C_{\epsilon _1,..,\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}:=\text{pos}\left(\{e_1^{}\}\{\epsilon _ie_{i+1}^{}+\left(1\epsilon _i\right)\left(m_ie_{i+1}^{}\right)|1id1\}\right).$$

###### Lemma 4.2.

The $`2^{d1}`$ s.c.p. cones $`\left\{C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}\right|\epsilon _i\{0,1\},1id1\}`$ form a subdivision of $`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}`$ into basic cones w.r.t. $`(^d)^{}.`$

Proof. Obviously, we have:

$$\left|\text{det}(e_1^{},\epsilon _1e_2^{}+\left(1\epsilon _1\right)\left(m_1e_2^{}\right),\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}e_d^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{d1}\right)\left(m_{d1}e_d^{}\right))\right|=1,$$

which means that all the cones $`C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}`$ are basic w.r.t. $`(^d)^{}.`$ Next, we show that the intersection of two of these simplicial cones, say of $`C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}`$ and $`C_{\epsilon _1^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}^{}}^{\left(d\right)}`$, is either a face of both or empty. More precisely, we shall prove that

(4.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}C_{\epsilon _1^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}^{}}^{\left(d\right)}\hfill \\ \\ =\text{pos}(\left\{e_1^{}\right\}\{\epsilon _{i1}e_i^{}+(1\epsilon _{i1})(m_{i1}e_i^{})|\begin{array}{c}\text{for all }\hfill \\ i\{2,..,d\}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{for which }\hfill \\ \epsilon _{i1}=\epsilon _{i1}^{}\hfill \end{array}\}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The inclusion “$``$” is obvious. For every element $`cC_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}C_{\epsilon _1^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}^{}}^{\left(d\right)}`$ there exist

$$(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _d),(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _d)\left(_0\right)^d,$$

such that

(4.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill c=\nu _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}\nu _i\left(\epsilon _{i1}e_i^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{i1}\right)\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right)\right)\\ \\ \hfill =\xi _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}\xi _i\left(\epsilon _{i1}^{}e_i^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{i1}^{}\right)\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right)\right).\end{array}$$

For the last coordinate of $`c`$ we obtain

$$\nu _d\left(\epsilon _{d1}e_d^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{d1}\right)\left(e_d^{}\right)\right)=\xi _d\left(\epsilon _{d1}^{}e_d^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{d1}^{}\right)\left(e_d^{}\right)\right),$$

and thus either $`\nu _d=\xi _d=0`$ or $`\nu _d=\xi _d>0`$ and $`\epsilon _{d1}=\epsilon _{d1}^{}.`$ Hence, (4.2) is reduced to

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \nu _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d1}{}}\nu _i\left(\epsilon _{i1}e_i^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{i1}\right)\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right)\right)\\ \\ \hfill =\xi _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d1}{}}\xi _i\left(\epsilon _{i1}^{}e_i^{}+\left(1\epsilon _{i1}^{}\right)\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right)\right).\end{array}$$

Applying the same argumentation to the $`(d1)`$-th coordinate of this vector and repeating (actually by induction w.r.t. $`d`$, cf. (2.4)) the whole procedure, we get

$$(\nu _i=\xi _i=0)\text{ or }(\nu _i=\xi _i>0\text{and }\epsilon _{i1}=\epsilon _{i1}^{}),\text{for }i\{2,\mathrm{},d\},$$

which implies the “$``$”-part of (4.1). Finally, we use induction w.r.t. $`d`$ to prove the equality

(4.3)
$$\underset{\epsilon _i\{0,1\},1id1}{}C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}=\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}.$$

For $`d=3`$ this was proved in \[Ish, Lemma 8.12, p. 142\]. Suppose that $`d`$ is $`>3.`$ Clearly, the inclusion “$``$” in (4.3) is always valid (by Lemma 4.1). Now let $`v`$ be an arbitrary element of $`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}`$ and $`\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _d`$, $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _d_0,`$ such that

$$v=\left(\nu _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d1}{}}\nu _ie_i^{}+\xi _i\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right)\right)+\nu _de_d^{}+\xi _d\left(m_{d1}e_d^{}\right).$$

Define

$$\stackrel{~}{v}:=\nu _1e_1^{}+\underset{i=2}{\overset{d1}{}}\nu _ie_i^{}+\xi _i\left(m_{i1}e_i^{}\right).$$

Then $`\stackrel{~}{v}\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{},`$ with

$$𝐦=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝐦}0& 0\\ m_{d1}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and we may write

$$v=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{v}+\xi _dm_{d1}+\left(\nu _d\xi _d\right)e_d^{},\hfill & \text{if }\nu _d\xi _d,\hfill \\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{v}+\nu _dm_{d1}+\left(\xi _d\nu _d\right)\left(m_{d1}e_d^{}\right),\hfill & \text{if }\nu _d\xi _d.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since we know that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐦}`$ is admissible, we have $`\stackrel{~}{v}+rm_{d1}`$ $`\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}`$ for any $`r_0`$. Thus, in the case in which $`\nu _d\xi _d`$, there exists, by induction hypothesis, a $`\left(d1\right)`$-dimensional cone $`C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d2}}^{\left(d1\right)}\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}`$ containing $`\stackrel{~}{v}+\xi _dm_{d1}`$ . But this shows that $`vC_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d2},1}^{\left(d\right)}.`$ In the other case, i.e., whenever $`\nu _d\xi _d`$, we find in the same way a cone of type $`C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d2},0}^{\left(d\right)}`$ containing $`v`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.3.

The set $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is a system of generators of the additive semigroup $`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}(^d)^{}.`$

Proof. For the subdivision of $`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}`$ into basic cones (constructed in Lemma 4.2), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\epsilon _i\{0,1\},1id1}{}\text{Gen}\left(C_{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{d1}}^{\left(d\right)}\right)=_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}.\end{array}$$

Hence, every element of $`\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}(^d)^{}`$ can be written as non-negative integral linear combination of the elements of $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}.`$ $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

Now let $`𝒜_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}=\left(\text{I}_d𝐌^{}\right)`$ be the $`d\times \left(2d1\right)`$ integral matrix with

$$𝐌:=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}m_{1,1}& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ m_{2,1}& m_{2,2}& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ m_{3,1}& m_{3,2}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ m_{d1,1}& m_{d1,2}& m_{d1,3}& \mathrm{}& m_{d1,d2}& m_{d1,d1}& 1\end{array}\right),$$

and I<sub>d</sub> the $`(d\times d)`$-identity matrix. (Notice that the transposes of the column vectors of $`𝒜_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ are precisely the elements of the set $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$). Consider the integer lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ w.r.t. $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ $`=\left\{\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{2d1})^{2d1}\right|{\displaystyle \underset{\kappa =1}{\overset{d}{}}}\mathrm{}_\kappa e_\kappa ^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d1}{}}}\mathrm{}_{d+i}\left(m_ie_{i+1}^{}\right)=0\}`$
$`=\left\{\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{2d1})^{2d1}\right|𝒜_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\mathrm{}^{}=0\}=\text{Ker}\left(\psi \right),`$
where $`\psi `$ is the homomorphism: $`^{2d1}\mathrm{}\psi \left(\mathrm{}\right)=𝒜_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\mathrm{}^{}^d.`$ By Lemma 4.3, the characters $`𝐞\left(e_1^{}\right),\mathrm{},𝐞\left(e_d^{}\right),𝐞\left(m_1e_2^{}\right),𝐞\left(m_2e_3^{}\right),\mathrm{},𝐞\left(m_{d1}e_d^{}\right)`$ generate $`[\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}(^d)^{}]`$. Hence, the affine toric variety $`U_{\tau _P}U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}`$ admits an embedding into $`^{2d1}`$ w.r.t. $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)},`$ and is, in particular, a g.c.i. of $`d1`$ binomials (by Thm. 2.12, Rem. 2.13(ii), and Thm. 1.2). The map

$$\theta :[z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_d,z_{d+1},\mathrm{},z_{2d1}][\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}(^d)^{}]$$

defined by

$$\theta \left(z_\kappa \right):=𝐞\left(e_\kappa ^{}\right),\kappa ,\kappa \{1,\mathrm{},d\},\text{ }$$

and

$$\theta \left(z_{d+i}\right):=𝐞\left(m_ie_{i+1}^{}\right),i,i\{1,\mathrm{},d1\},$$

is a $``$-algebra epimorphism. Let $`:=_{𝒜_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}:=`$ Ker$`\left(\theta \right)`$ denote its kernel. The column-vectors, say $`b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_{d1}`$, of the $`\left(2d1\right)\times \left(d1\right)`$-matrix

$$_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}:=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐌^{}\\ \text{ I}_{d1}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,1}& m_{d1,1}\\ 1& m_{2,2}& m_{3,2}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,2}& m_{d1,2}\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,3}& m_{d1,3}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,4}& m_{d1,4}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& m_{d1,d1}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

build up a $``$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$. Let $`𝒥_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ be the lattice ideal of $`[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d,\mathrm{},z_{2d1}]`$ which is associated to $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ (cf. 1.3). In order to determine a generating system of $``$ consisting of binomials whose exponents are expressed in terms of the entries of our initial admissible sequence of free parameters (3.1), it seems to be reasonable to specify the saturation of $`𝒥_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ w.r.t. the product $`_{j=1}^{2d1}z_j`$ of all available variables (see Thm. 1.5(i)). Nevertheless, this method would be rather laborious from the computational point of view, because it would involve elimination techniques or even primary decompositions of $`𝒥_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$, and would necessarily demand to perform a relatively high number of Gröbner basis algorithms (see \[BiLSR\], \[HSh\], \[St1\]). Instead, we shall pass to another $``$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ whose matrix $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is dominating and we shall apply Thm. 1.5(ii). (For affine semigroup rings which are complete intersections the existence of an integral basis of their relation space having a dominating coefficient matrix is guaranteed by a result of Fischer and Shapiro, cf. \[FSh, Cor. 2.10, p. 47\]. In the case at hand, $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ will be constructed explicitly.)

###### Lemma 4.4.

All integral $`\left(2d1\right)\times \left(d1\right)`$-matrices of the form

(4.4)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\alpha _{1,1}& \alpha _{2,1}& \alpha _{3,1}& \mathrm{}& \alpha _{d2,1}& \alpha _{d1,1}\\ 1& \alpha _{2,2}& \alpha _{3,2}& \mathrm{}& \alpha _{d2,2}& \alpha _{d1,2}\\ 0& 1& \alpha _{3,3}& \mathrm{}& \alpha _{d2,3}& \alpha _{d1,3}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \alpha _{d2,4}& \alpha _{d1,4}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \alpha _{d1,d1}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& \beta _{2,2}& \beta _{3,2}& \mathrm{}& \beta _{d2,2}& \beta _{d1,2}\\ 0& 1& \beta _{3,3}& \mathrm{}& \beta _{d2,3}& \beta _{d1,3}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \beta _{d2,4}& \beta _{d1,4}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \beta _{d1,d1}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

where

$$\alpha _{i,j},1id1,1jid1,$$

and

$$\beta _{i,j},2jid1,$$

are non-negative, and each of their columns contains at least one positive element, are dominating matrices.

Proof. Suppose that such an (obviously mixed) matrix contains a mixed $`\left(\rho \times \rho \right)`$-submatrix, for $`\rho \{2,\mathrm{},d1\}`$, with “column indices” $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_\rho `$, where

$$l_1<l_2<\mathrm{}<l_\rho .$$

Then the negative entries of the column having index $`l_i`$ are to be found in the rows whose indices belong to the set

$$𝔑_i:=\{l_i+1,l_i+d\},$$

for every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},\rho \}.`$ Since the $`\left(\rho \times \rho \right)`$-submatrix under consideration is assumed to be mixed, it has to contain in its first column a positive entry which is located in the rows whose indices are within

$$𝔑_{\rho +1}:=\{1,\mathrm{},l_1,d+1,\mathrm{},l_1+d1\}.$$

Since $`l_\rho d1`$, the $`\rho +1`$ sets $`\left\{𝔑_i\right|1i\rho +1\}`$ are pairwise disjoint, but our $`\left(\rho \times \rho \right)`$-submatrix must contain a “row index” from each of these sets, which is impossible. Consequently, all integral matrices of the form (4.4) are dominating matrices. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.5.

Our intention is to prove that after having performed (at most) $`d2`$ suitable unimodular transformations to the entries of our initial matrix $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, we construct a $``$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$ whose matrix $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is of type (4.4). This procedure will be realized in three steps. In the first step, which explains where our motivation comes from, we discuss what happens in the “low” dimensions $`d=3`$ and $`d=4`$. In the second step, we present the recursive principle by means of which we modify the last column of $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$. Finally, in the third step we apply unimodular transformations of the same sort to the next coming column vectors. (In the particular case in which all the entries of (3.1) are non-negative, $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is itself dominating and there is no need to proceed, cf. 3.2(iii)).

$``$ Step 1: Low Dimensions. Let us start with $`d=3`$. In this case,

$$_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}\\ 1& m_{2,2}\\ 0& 1\\ 1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`m_{2,2}0`$ nothing is to do. So we may assume that $`m_{2,2}<0`$. Adding $`m_{2,2}`$ times the first column to the second one (which corresponds to a unimodular transformation) results in

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}+m_{1,1}m_{2,2}\\ 1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ 1& m_{2,2}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

In view of the “admissibility conditions” (2.5) the matrix is of type (4.4). (We should mention at this point that, for $`d=3`$, Ishida makes similar choices by using some purely geometric arguments, cf. \[Ish, proof of Thm. 8.1, in particular pp. 140-141\]).

Let us now increase the dimension by one. For $`d=4`$,

$$_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}\\ 1& m_{2,2}& m_{3,2}\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

We start by looking at the last column. Assume, for instance, that $`m_{3,3}<0`$. Adding $`m_{3,3}`$ times the second column to the last one we obtain

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}+m_{2,1}m_{3,3}\\ 1& m_{2,2}& m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

If

$$m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3}0,$$

the “admissibility conditions” (2.6) tell us that the entries of the last column of our matrix are like those of the last column of the matrices of type (4.4). If

$$m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3}<0,$$

then we add $`\left(m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3}\right)`$-times the first row to the last one and we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}+m_{2,1}m_{3,3}+m_{1,1}(m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3})\\ 1& m_{2,2}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& (m_{3,2}+m_{2,2}m_{3,3})\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

Again by (2.6) the last column has the desired property. After that we can start to transform the first two columns as we did before in dimension $`3`$.

Next, let us assume that

$$m_{3,3}0,\text{but}m_{3,2}<0.$$

In this case, we add $`m_{3,2}`$ times the first column to the last one and we get

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}+m_{1,1}m_{3,2}\\ 1& m_{2,2}& 0\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& m_{3,2}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

Again the entries of the last column of our matrix are like those of the last column of the matrices of type (4.4).

$``$ Step 2: The recursive principle. We define appropriate matrix operations, so that the last column looks like in (4.4). Since these operations (as we shall see below) do not affect the other columns, we can apply a recursive argument.

More precisely, for $`i=d2,\mathrm{},1`$ we define recursively some non-positive integers $`\lambda _i`$ and some non-negative integers $`\mu _i`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda _i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{min}\{0,m_{d1,d1}\},\hfill & \text{if }i=d2,\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{min}\{0,m_{d1,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _km_{k,i+1}\},\hfill & \text{if }id3,\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \\ \mu _i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{max}\{0,m_{d1,d1}\},\hfill & \text{if }i=d2,\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{max}\{0,m_{d1,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _km_{k,i+1}\},\hfill & \text{if }id3.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, we set

$$\mu _0:=m_{d1,1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _im_{i,1}.$$

Since

$$\mu _i=\lambda _i+\left(m_{d1,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _km_{k,i+1}\right),i=1,\mathrm{},d2,$$

the vector $`\widehat{b}_{d1}:=b_{d1}+_{i=1}^{d2}\lambda _ib_i`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{b}_{d1}=(\mu _0,\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{d2},1,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{d2},1)^{}.$$

###### Lemma 4.6.

$`\widehat{b}_{d1}`$ contains both negative and positive entries.

Proof. Apparently, $`\widehat{b}_{d1}`$ has two negative coordinates. Suppose that $`\widehat{b}_{d1}`$ has no positive entries. Then we have $`\lambda _i=\mu _i=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d2`$, which implies $`m_{d1,i+1}=0`$, for $`i=d2,\mathrm{},1`$, and $`\mu _0=m_{d1,1}`$. However, by the definition of the free parameters $`𝐦`$ (see Definition 2.6) we know that $`m_{d1}0`$ and from (2.3) we get $`m_{d1,1}=m_{d1},e_10`$, which leads to a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next, we shall show that the first entry of $`\widehat{b}_{d1}`$, i.e., $`\mu _0`$, is also non-negative. To this end we define

$$\epsilon _i:=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,\hfill & \text{ if }\lambda _i=0\hfill & \\ 1,\hfill & \text{ if }\lambda _i<0\hfill & \end{array},\text{ for all }i\{1,\mathrm{},d2\},$$

and write $`\lambda _i`$ as follows:

$$\lambda _i=\epsilon _i\left(m_{d1,i+1}+\underset{k=i+1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _km_{k,i+1}\right).$$

Now for $`n\{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$ and $`k\{0,1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$ we set

$$p_{k,n}:=\underset{n=i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}.$$

Note that for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$, we obtain

$$p_{0,n}=\epsilon _nm_{d1,n+1}.$$

###### Lemma 4.7.

For all $`n\{1,2,\mathrm{},d2\}`$ we have

$$\lambda _n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d2n}{}}p_{k,n}.$$

Proof. First we check the identity

(4.5)
$$p_{l+1,n1}=\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2l}{}}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}p_{l,k}.$$

Again this follows immediately from the definition, since

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{k=n}{\overset{d2l}{}}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}p_{l,k}\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2l}{}}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}\underset{k=i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_l<i_{l+1}=d1}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l+1}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2l}{}}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}\underset{k=i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{l+1}<i_{l+2}=d1}{}\underset{j=2}{\overset{l+2}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{n1=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{l+1}<i_{l+2}=d1}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{l+2}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}=p_{l+1,n1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

To prove the proposition we apply (backwards) induction with respect to $`n`$. If $`n=d2,`$ then we have $`\lambda _{d2}=\epsilon _{d2}m_{d1,d1}`$. So let $`n`$ be $`<d2`$. Then we may write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _{n1}& =\epsilon _{n1}\left(m_{d1,n}+\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _km_{k,n}\right)=p_{0,n1}+\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{d2k}{}}p_{l,k}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}\hfill \\ & =p_{0,n1}+\underset{l=0}{\overset{d2n}{}}\underset{k=n}{\overset{d2l}{}}p_{l,k}\epsilon _{n1}m_{k,n}\hfill \\ & =p_{0,n1}+\underset{l=0}{\overset{d2n}{}}p_{l+1,n1},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the last equation follows from (4.5). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.8.

$$\mu _00.$$

Proof. From the definition of $`\mu _0`$ and Lemma 4.7 we get

(4.6)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu _0& =m_{d1,1}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{d2}{}}\lambda _nm_{n,1}=m_{d1,1}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{d2}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{d2n}{}}p_{k,n}m_{n,1}\hfill \\ & =m_{d1,1}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{d3}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{d2k}{}}p_{k,n}m_{n,1}=m_{d1,1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{d2}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{d1k}{}}p_{k1,n}m_{n,1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, by the definition of $`p_{k,n}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{n=1}{\overset{d1k}{}}p_{k1,n}m_{n,1}& =\underset{n=1}{\overset{d1k}{}}m_{n,1}\underset{n=i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{k1}<i_k=d1}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{n=1}{\overset{d1k}{}}m_{n,1}\underset{n=i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}\underset{j=2}{\overset{k+1}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{0=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}m_{i_1,i_0+1}\underset{j=2}{\overset{k+1}{}}\epsilon _{i_{j1}}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{0=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}m_{d1,i_k+1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\epsilon _{i_j}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This, combined with (4.6), gives

$$\mu _0=\underset{k=0}{\overset{d2}{}}\underset{0=i_0<i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_k<i_{k+1}=d1}{}m_{d1,i_k+1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\epsilon _{i_j}m_{i_j,i_{j1}+1},$$

which is non-negative by Corollary 2.11. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

What we have done so far can be summarized in the following:

###### Corollary 4.9.

Let $`𝒰^{\left(d\right)}`$ *GL*$`(d1,)`$ be the unimodular matrix given by

$$𝒰^{\left(d\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& \lambda _{d2}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ \\ \\ .\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have

$$_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝒰^{\left(d\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}m_{1,1}& m_{2,1}& m_{3,1}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,1}& \mu _0\\ 1& m_{2,2}& m_{3,2}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,2}& \mu _1\\ 0& 1& m_{3,3}& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,3}& \mu _2\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& m_{d2,4}& \mu _3\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \mu _{d2}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \lambda _1\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \lambda _2\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& \lambda _3\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \lambda _{d2}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\mu _i0`$ for all $`i\{0,1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$, $`\lambda _i0`$ for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$, and the last column contains both positive and negative entries.

We observe that the first $`d2`$ columns of the matrix $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝒰^{\left(d\right)}`$ are the same as the columns of the matrix $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, namely

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\left(\begin{array}{c}m_{1,1}\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),& \left(\begin{array}{c}m_{2,1}\\ m_{2,2}\\ 1\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),& \left(\begin{array}{c}m_{3,1}\\ m_{3,2}\\ m_{3,3}\\ 1\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),& \mathrm{},& \left(\begin{array}{c}m_{d2,1}\\ m_{d2,2}\\ m_{d2,3}\\ m_{d2,4}\\ \mathrm{}\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\end{array},$$

and that the $`d`$-th and $`\left(2d1\right)`$-th row contain non-zero entries only in the last column of $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝒰^{\left(d\right)}`$. This allows us to apply our transformations, which have been carried out so far only for the last column, successively to the other columns too.

$``$ Step 3: Generalizing the recursion for all column vectors. It is enough to equip our lambdas and mus with an additional index, just for keeping track of the next coming columns (viewed backwards). That’s why we define recursively non-negative integers $`\lambda _{i,j}`$ and non-positive integers $`\mu _{i,j}`$ by the formulae (3.2) and (3.3), respectively. ($`\lambda _{i,d1},\mu _{i,d1}`$ are exactly the numbers which we called before $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$). Moreover, using the column vectors $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{d1}`$ of $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$, we introduce the integer linear combinations:

$$\widehat{b}_j:=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_1,\hfill & \text{if }j=1\hfill \\ b_j+\underset{i=1}{\overset{j1}{}}\lambda _{i,j}b_i,\hfill & \text{if }j\{2,\mathrm{},d1\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally, we define $`𝒰_j^{\left(d\right)}`$ GL$`(d1,)`$ for $`j=2,\mathrm{},d1`$ as follows:

$$𝒰_j^{\left(d\right)}:=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \lambda _{1,j}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \lambda _{2,j}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \lambda _{j1,j}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & & & & \mathrm{}& & \\ & & & & & & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

Each $`𝒰_j^{\left(d\right)}`$ is obviously an upper triangular matrix, with $`1`$’s as diagonal elements. All the other non-trivial elements are contained in the $`j`$-th column.

###### Proposition 4.10.

Using the above matrices, the product

$$\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}:=(\widehat{b}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{b}_{d1})=_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝒰_{d1}^{\left(d\right)}𝒰_{d2}^{\left(d\right)}\mathrm{}𝒰_2^{\left(d\right)}$$

reads as

(4.7)
$$\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}m_{1,1}& \mu _{0,2}& \mu _{0,3}& \mathrm{}& \mu _{0,d2}& \mu _{0,d1}\\ 1& \mu _{1,2}& \mu _{1,3}& \mathrm{}& \mu _{1,d2}& \mu _{1,d1}\\ 0& 1& \mu _{2,3}& \mathrm{}& \mu _{2,d2}& \mu _{2,d1}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \mu _{3,d2}& \mu _{3,d1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \mu _{d2,d1}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& \lambda _{1,2}& \lambda _{1,3}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{1,d2}& \lambda _{1,d1}\\ 0& 1& \lambda _{3,3}& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{3,d2}& \lambda _{2,d1}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& \lambda _{4,d2}& \lambda _{3,d1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1& \lambda _{d2,d1}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

which is a dominating matrix with only $`1`$’s as negative entries.

Proof. According to the “admissibility conditions” (2.3) we have always $`m_{1,1}>0`$. We observe that the unimodular matrix $`𝒰_j^{\left(d\right)}`$ affects only the $`j`$-th column; and since $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is partitioned into two upper triangular matrices, $`𝒰_j^{\left(d\right)}`$affects only the non-trivial elements of the $`j`$-th column of the matrix $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝒰_{d1}^{\left(d\right)}\mathrm{}𝒰_{j+1}^{\left(d\right)}`$. Hence, it suffices to use induction w.r.t. $`d`$ (by exploiting Corollary 4.9), and to take into account Lemma 4.4 and Lemma 4.8. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

Proof of Theorem 3.1: By Proposition 4.10, $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ is a dominating matrix and its column vectors $`\widehat{b}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{b}_{d1}`$ constitute a $``$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}`$. Applying Theorem 1.5(ii) we obtain

$$=𝒥_{\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}},$$

and the $`j`$-th binomial of the constructed $`d1`$ generators of $``$ is exactly that one containing the non-negative entries of $`\widehat{b}_j`$ as exponents of the variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{2d1}`$ in its first monomial and the opposites of the non-positive entries of $`\widehat{b}_j`$ as exponents of $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{2d1}`$ in its second monomial, $`j,1jd1,`$cf. 1.3 and (4.7). Since $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ has only two $`1`$’s as negative entries in each column, the second monomials contain just two variables, namely $`z_{j+1}`$ and $`z_{d+j}`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.11.

By Lemma 4.3, we have $`\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{})_𝐦^{\left(d\right)},`$ and the inclusion may be strict. Next Lemma gives an explicit characterizarion of the Hilbert basis elements and allows us to realize the “minimal” embedding of $`U_{\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}}`$ by eliminating redundant variables.

###### Lemma 4.12.

Let $`v_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}.`$ Then

$$v\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{})\left[\mathrm{}i\{2,\mathrm{},d1\}\text{,  such that}\text{ }v=m_i\right]$$

Proof. Suppose that $`v=m_i`$ for an index $`i\{2,\mathrm{},d1\}.`$ Then $`v`$ can be written as the sum

$$v=\left(m_ie_{i+1}^{}\right)+e_{i+1}^{}$$

which means that $`v\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{})`$ by (1.1). Conversely, assume that

$$v\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}).$$

It is worth mentioning that $`e_d^{}`$ and $`m_{d1}e_d^{}`$ are elements of $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ belonging always to the Hilbert basis. We shall use again induction w.r.t. $`d`$. For $`d=3`$ the assertion can be verified easily (cf. \[Ish, Prop. 8.7, p. 138\]). Now let $`d`$ be $`>3.`$ Since $`v_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝕣\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}),`$ by Lemma 4.3 we may express $`v`$ as a linear combination of the form

$$v=\left(\underset{\overline{v}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝕣\{v,e_d^{},m_{d1}e_d^{}\}}{}\alpha _{\overline{v}}\overline{v}\right)+\beta e_d^{}+\beta ^{}\left(m_{d1}e_d^{}\right),$$

for some $`\alpha _{\overline{v}},\beta ,\beta ^{}_0.`$ Since $`v\{e_d^{},m_{d1}e_d^{}\},`$ its last coordinate has to be zero. Therefore $`\beta =\beta ^{}`$ with

(4.8)
$$v=\left(\underset{\overline{v}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}𝕣\{v,e_d^{},m_{d1}e_d^{}\}}{}\alpha _{\overline{v}}\overline{v}\right)+\beta m_{d1}.$$

The admissibility of $`𝐦`$ has as direct consequence that $`m_{d1}\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}`$. Hence we have $`v\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐦}`$ is the matrix $`𝐦`$ without the last row.

On the other hand, by induction hypothesis, we may assume that

$$v\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{})$$

and hence, $`v`$ cannot be written as a non-trivial sum of elements of $`\tau _{P_{\stackrel{~}{𝐦}}^{\left(d1\right)}}^{}(^d)^{}`$. So (4.8) is to be simplified as follows:

$$v=\beta m_{d1}.$$

Since some coordinate of $`v`$ necessarily equals either $`1`$ or $`1,`$ and $`m_{d1}(^d)^{},`$ we conclude that $`\beta =1`$, as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Examples 4.13.

Computing (by 4.12) the Hilbert bases of the duals of the cones which support the Nakajima polytopes 3.4 (i) -(v) w.r.t. the rectangular lattice, we obtain:
$``$ For (i):

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^3)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}}^{})=_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}=\{e_1^{},e_2^{},e_3^{},2e_1^{}e_2^{},2e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_3^{}\}.$$

$``$ For (ii):

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^3)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}}^{})=_𝐦^{\left(3\right)}𝕣\left\{ke_1^{}e_2^{}\right\}=\{e_1^{},e_2^{},e_3^{},ke_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}\}.$$

$``$ For (iii):

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^4)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}}^{})=_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}𝕣\{e_1^{}\},$$

where

$$_𝐦^{\left(4\right)}=\{e_1^{},e_2^{},e_3^{},e_4^{},e_1^{}e_2^{},e_1^{}e_3^{},2e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_4^{}\}.$$

$``$ For (iv):

$$_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}=\{e_i^{}|1id\}\{ke_1^{}e_2^{}\}\{e_i^{}e_{i+1}^{}|2id1\},$$

while

$$\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{𝐬_k^{\left(d\right)}}^{})=\{e_1^{},e_d^{}\}\{ke_1^{}e_2^{}\}\{e_i^{}e_{i+1}^{}|2id1\}.$$

$``$ For (v):

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}(k_1,..,k_{d1})}^{})=_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\hfill \\ =\{e_i^{}|1id\}\{k_ie_i^{}e_{i+1}^{}|1id\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof of Corollary 3.3: We define $`𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ and $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ as in (3.5) and (3.6), respectively. Suppose that one of the unit vectors, say $`e_k^{},`$ $`k\{1,\mathrm{},d1\},`$ does not belong to the Hilbert basis. Then by Lemma 4.12 for some index $`\gamma =\gamma _k`$, which is $`k,`$ we have necessarily $`e_k^{}=m_\gamma `$, i.e., $`k`$ $`𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$. Looking at the definition of $`\lambda _{i,\gamma }`$ and $`\mu _{i,\gamma }`$ we find

$$\lambda _{i,\gamma }=0\text{,    for all }i\{0,\mathrm{},\gamma 1\},$$

and

$$\mu _{i,\gamma }=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }i\{0,\mathrm{},\gamma 1\}𝕣\{k1\},\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }i=k1,\hfill \end{array}$$

and the binomial corresponding to the $`\gamma `$-th column of $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ equals $`z_kz_{\gamma +1}z_{d+}_\gamma `$; and conversely, if one of the $`d1`$ initial binomials is of this type, then $`e_k^{}=m_\gamma `$ with $`e_k^{}`$ not belonging to the Hilbert basis. Analogously, if a vector of type $`m_le_{l+1}^{}`$, for some $`l\{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$, does not belong to the Hilbert basis, then there exists an index $`\delta =\delta _l`$, which is $`l+1,`$ so that $`m_le_{l+1}^{}=m_\delta `$, i.e., $`l`$ $`_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$. Again by the definition of $`\lambda _{i,\delta }`$ and $`\mu _{i,\delta }`$ we find

$$\lambda _{i,\delta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }i\{0,\mathrm{},\delta 1\}𝕣\{l\},\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }i=l,\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\mu _{i,\delta }=0\text{,    for all }i\{0,\mathrm{},\delta 1\},$$

and the binomial corresponding to the $`\delta `$-th column of $`\widehat{}_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}`$ equals $`z_{d+l}z_{\delta +1}z_{d+\delta }`$; and conversely, if one of the $`d1`$ initial binomials is of this type, then $`m_le_{l+1}^{}=m_\delta `$ with $`m_le_{l+1}^{}`$ not belonging to the Hilbert basis. Obviously,

$$\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐛}_{(^d)^{}}(\tau _{P_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}}^{}))=\mathrm{\#}(_𝐦^{\left(d\right)})\mathrm{\#}\left(𝔔_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}\right)\mathrm{\#}(_𝐦^{\left(d\right)}),$$

and the assertion is true. $`\mathrm{}\text{}`$

Comment and open problem. The first partial verification of the fact that the affine semigroup rings which are complete intersections admit an “inductive characterization” in all dimensions appeared already in the 1980’s, in the works of Watanabe \[W\] and Nakajima \[N\] (who classified those which are invariant subrings of finite abelian groups, and affine torus embeddings, respectively). This was completely proved in 1997 by Fischer, Morris and Shapiro \[FMSh\] via the theory of dominating matrices.

“Watanabe simplices” (introduced in \[DHeZ\]) and, more general, but in a slightly different context, “Nakajima polytopes” provide a geometric parametrization of the classes of semigroup rings treated in \[W\] and \[N\], respectively. In the present paper, based on Nakajima’s classification, we ascertained that, besides the above mentioned inductive characterization, there is also some kind of recursion principle governing a natural set of generators of the relation space of the involved semigroups. This gives rise to ask if this property can be generalized for a wider class of affine semigroup rings, probably in connection with a suitable combinatorial parametrization resulting from partitions of minimal generating sets (also called “semigroup gluings”), decomposition theorems of dominating matrices or even from graph-theoretic objects (like coloured paths etc), cf. \[RG\], \[R\], \[FMSh\], \[BaMT\], and \[SSS\].