format: text

text:
# A Combinatorial Approach to Involution and 𝛿-Regularity I: Involutive Bases in Polynomial Algebras of Solvable Type

## 1 Introduction

In the late $`19`$th and early $`20`$th century a number of French mathematicians developed what is nowadays called the Janet-Riquier theory of differential equations ja:edp ; ja:mfa ; ja:lec ; mr:conv ; riq:edp ; th:ds ; at:inv . It is a theory for general systems of differential equations, i. e. also for under- and overdetermined systems, and provides in particular a concrete algorithm for the completion to a so-called passive111Sometimes the equivalent term “involutive” is used which seems to go back to Lie. system. In recent times, interest in the theory has been rekindled mainly in the context of Lie symmetry analysis, so that a number of references to modern works and implementations are contained in the review her:sym .

The defining property of passive systems is that they do not generate any non-trivial integrability conditions. As the precise definition of passivity requires the introduction of a ranking on the set of all derivatives and as every linear system of partial differential equations with constant coefficients bijectively corresponds to a polynomial module, it appears natural to relate this theory to the algebraic theory of Gröbner bases al:gb ; bw:groe .

Essentially, the Janet-Riquier theory in its original form lacks only the concept of reduction to a normal form; otherwise it contains all the ingredients of Gröbner bases. Somewhat surprisingly, a rigorous links has been established only fairly recently first by Wu wu:invbas  and then by Gerdt and collaborators who introduced a special form of non-reduced Gröbner bases for polynomial ideals gb:invbas ; gb:minbas ; zb:inv , the *involutive bases* (Wu’s “well-behaved bases” correspond to Thomas bases in the language of gb:invbas ). A slightly different approach to involutive bases has been proposed by Apel apel:hilbert ; it will not be used here.

The fundamental idea behind involutive bases (originating in the pioneering work of Janet ja:edp ; ja:mfa ) is to assign to each generator in a basis a subset of all variables: its multiplicative variables. This assignment is called an involutive division, as it corresponds to a restriction of the usual divisibility relation of terms. We only permit to multiply each generator by polynomials in its multiplicative variables. As we will see later in Part II, for appropriately prepared bases, this approach automatically leads to combinatorial decompositions of polynomial modules.

Like Gröbner bases, involutive bases can be defined in many non-commutative algebras. We will work with a generalisation of the polynomial algebras of solvable type introduced by Kandry-Rodi and Weispfenning krw:ncgb . It is essentially equivalent to the generalisation discussed by Kredel hk:solvpoly  or to the $`G`$-algebras considered by Apel apel:diss  and Levandovskyy vl:ade ; vl:diss . In contrast to some of these works, we explicitly permit that the variables act on the coefficients, so that, say, linear differential operators with *variable* coefficients form a polynomial algebra of solvable type in our sense. Thus our framework automatically includes the work of Gerdt vpg:ldo  on involutive bases for linear differential equations.

This article is the first of two parts. It reviews the basic theory of involutive bases; this is immediately done in the framework of polynomial algebras of solvable type, as it appears to be the most natural setting. Indeed, we would like to stress that in our opinion the core of the involutive bases theory is the monomial theory (in fact, we will formulate it in the language of multi indices or exponent vectors, i. e. in the Abelian monoid $`(_0^n,+)`$, in order to avoid problems with non-commuting variables) and the subsequent extension to polynomials requires only straightforward normal form considerations.

While much of the presented material may already be found scattered in the literature (though not always in the generality presented here and sometimes with incorrect proofs), the article also contains some original material. Compared to Gerdt and Blinkov gb:invbas , we give an alternative definition of involutive bases which naturally leads to the new notion of a *weak* involutive basis. While these weak bases are insufficient for the applications studied in Part II, they extend the applicability of the involutive completion algorithm to situations not covered before.

The main emphasis in the literature is on optimising the simple completion algorithm of Section 7 and on providing fast implementations; as the experiments reported in gby:janbas2  demonstrate, the results have been striking. We will, however, ignore this rather technical topic and instead study in Part II a number of applications of involutive bases (mainly for the special case of Pommaret bases) in the structure analysis of polynomial modules. This will include in particular the relation between involutive bases and the above mentioned combinatorial decompositions. Note, however, that in these applications we will restrict to the ordinary commutative polynomial ring.

This first part is organised as follows. The next section defines involutive divisions and bases within the Abelian monoid $`(_0^n,+)`$ of multi indices. It also introduces the two most important divisions named after Janet and Pommaret, respectively. Section 3 introduces the here used concept of polynomial algebras of solvable type. As the question whether Hilbert’s Basis Theorem remains valid is non-trivial if the coefficients form only a ring and not a field, Section 4 is devoted to this problem. The following three sections define (weak) involutive bases and give concrete algorithms for their construction.

The next four sections study some extensions of the basic theory. Section 8 analyses the relation between left and right ideals in polynomial algebras of solvable type and the computation of bases for two-sided ideals; this requires only a straightforward adaption of classical Gröbner basis theory. The following three sections contain original results. The first two ones generalise to semigroup orders and study the use of the Mora normal form. Finally, Section 11 considers involutive bases over rings. It turns out that in these more general situations usually only weak bases exist.

In a short appendix we fix our conventions for term orders which are inverse to the ones found in most textbooks on Gröbner bases. We also prove an elementary property of the degree reverse lexicographic term order that makes it particularly natural for Pommaret bases.

## 2 Involutive Divisions

We study the Abelian monoid $`(_0^n,+)`$ with the addition defined componentwise and call its elements *multi indices*. They may be identified in a natural way with the vertices of an $`n`$-dimensional integer lattice, so that we can easily visualise subsets of $`_0^n`$. For a multi index $`\nu _0^n`$ we introduce its *cone* $`𝒞(\nu )=\nu +_0^n`$, i. e. the set of all multi indices that can be reached from $`\nu `$ by adding another multi index. We say that $`\nu `$ *divides* $`\mu `$, written $`\nu \mu `$, if $`\mu 𝒞(\nu )`$. Given a finite subset $`𝒩_0^n`$, we define its *span* as the monoid ideal generated by $`𝒩`$:

$$𝒩=\underset{\nu 𝒩}{}𝒞(\nu ).$$
(1)
The basic idea of an involutive division is to introduce a restriction of the cone of a multi index, the involutive cone: it is only allowed to add multi indices certain entries of which vanish. This is equivalent to a restriction of the above defined divisibility relation. The final goal will be having a *disjoint* union in (1) by using only these involutive cones on the right hand side. This will naturally lead to the combinatorial decompositions discussed in Part II.

In order to finally give the definition of an involutive division, we need one more notation: let $`N\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be an arbitrary subset of the set of the first $`n`$ integers; then we write $`_N^n=\{\nu _0^njN:\nu _j=0\}`$ for the set of all multi indices where the only entries who may be non-zero are those whose indices are contained in $`N`$.

###### Definition 1

An *involutive division* $`L`$ is defined on the Abelian monoid $`(_0^n,+)`$, if for any finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$ a subset $`N_{L,𝒩}(\nu )\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of *multiplicative indices* is associated to every multi index $`\nu 𝒩`$ such that the following two conditions on the *involutive cones* $`𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )=\nu +_{N_{L,𝒩}(\nu )}^n`$ are satisfied.

1. If there exist two elements $`\mu ,\nu 𝒩`$ with $`𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\mu )𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )\mathrm{}`$, either $`𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\mu )𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ or $`𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\mu )`$ holds.
2. If $`𝒩^{}𝒩`$, then $`N_{L,𝒩}(\nu )N_{L,𝒩^{}}(\nu )`$ for all $`\nu 𝒩^{}`$.

An arbitrary multi index $`\mu _0^n`$ is *involutively divisible* by $`\nu 𝒩`$, written $`\nu |_{L,𝒩}\mu `$, if $`\mu 𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$.

Before we discuss the precise meaning of this definition and in particular of the two conditions contained in it, we should stress the following important point: as indicated by the notation, involutive divisibility is always defined with respect to both an involutive division $`L`$ and a fixed finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$: only an element of $`𝒩`$ can be an involutive divisor. Obviously, involutive divisibility $`\nu |_{L,𝒩}\mu `$ implies ordinary divisibility $`\nu \mu `$.

The involutive cone $`𝒞_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ of any multi index $`\nu 𝒩`$ is a subset of the full cone $`𝒞(\nu )`$. We are not allowed to add arbitrary multi indices to $`\nu `$ but may increase only certain entries of $`\nu `$ determined by the multiplicative indices. The first condition in the above definition says that involutive cones can intersect only trivially: if two intersect, one must be a subset of the other.

The *non-multiplicative indices* form the complement of $`N_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and are denoted by $`\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$. If we remove some elements from the set $`𝒩`$ and determine the multiplicative indices of the remaining elements with respect to the subset $`𝒩^{}`$, we obtain in general a different result than before. The second condition for an involutive division says that while it may happen that a non-multiplicative index becomes multiplicative for some $`\nu 𝒩^{}`$, the converse cannot happen.

###### Example 1

A classical involutive division is the *Janet division* $`J`$. In order to define it, we must introduce certain subsets of the given set $`𝒩_0^n`$:

$$(d_k,\mathrm{},d_n)=\{\nu 𝒩\nu _i=d_i,kin\}.$$
(2)
The index $`n`$ is multiplicative for $`\nu 𝒩`$, if $`\nu _n=\mathrm{max}_{\mu 𝒩}\{\mu _n\}`$, and $`k<n`$ is multiplicative for $`\nu (d_{k+1},\mathrm{},d_n)`$, if $`\nu _k=\mathrm{max}_{\mu (d_{k+1},\mathrm{},d_n)}\{\mu _k\}`$.

Obviously, this definition depends on the ordering of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and we obtain variants by applying an arbitrary but fixed permutation $`\pi S_n`$ to the variables. In fact, Gerdt and Blinkov gb:invbas  use an “inverse” definition, i. e. they first apply the permutation $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& \mathrm{}& n\\ n& n1& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right)`$. Our convention is the original one of Janet (ja:lec, , pp. 16–17).

Gerdt et al. gby:janbas1  designed a special data structure, the Janet tree, for the fast determination of Janet multiplicative indices and for a number of other operations useful in the construction of Janet bases (Blinkov yab:tree  discusses similar tree structures also for other divisions). As shown in wms:geocompl , this data structure is based on a special relation between the Janet division and the lexicographic term order (see the appendix for our non-standard conventions). This relation allows us to compute very quickly the multiplicative variables of any set $`𝒩`$ with Algorithm 1. The algorithm simply runs two pointers over the lexicographically ordered set $`𝒩`$ and changes accordingly the set $``$ of potential multiplicative indices. $``$

###### Definition 2

The division $`L`$ is *globally defined*, if the assignment of the multiplicative indices is independent of the set $`𝒩`$; in this case we write simply $`N_L(\nu )`$.

###### Example 2

Another very important division is the *Pommaret222Historically seen, the terminology “Pommaret division” is a misnomer, as this division was already introduced by Janet (ja:edp, , p. 30), too. However, the name has been generally accepted by now, so we stick to it. division* $`P`$. It assigns the multiplicative indices according to a simple rule: if $`1kn`$ is the smallest index such that $`\nu _k>0`$ for some multi index $`\nu _0^n\{[0,\mathrm{},0]\}`$, then we call $`k`$ the *class* of $`\nu `$, written $`\mathrm{cls}\nu `$, and set $`N_P(\nu )=\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$. Finally, we define $`N_P([0,\mathrm{},0])=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Hence $`P`$ is globally defined. Like the Janet division it depends on the ordering of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and thus one may again introduce simple variants by applying a permutation.

Above we have seen that the Janet division is in a certain sense related to the inverse lexicographic order. The Pommaret division has a special relation to class respecting orders (recall that according to Lemma 8 any class respecting term order coincides on terms of the same degree with the reverse lexicographic order). Obviously, for homogeneous polynomials such orders always lead to maximal sets of multiplicative indices and thus to smaller bases. But we will also see in Part II that from a theoretical point of view Pommaret bases with respect to such an order are particularly useful. $``$

Above we introduced the span of a set $`𝒩_0^n`$ as the union of the cones of its elements. Given an involutive division it appears natural to consider also the union of the involutive cones. Obviously, this yields in general only a subset (without any algebraic structure) of the monoid ideal $`𝒩`$.

###### Definition 3

The *involutive span* of a finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$ is

$$𝒩_L=\underset{\nu 𝒩}{}𝒞_{𝒩,L}(\nu ).$$
(3)
The set $`𝒩`$ is *weakly involutive* for the division $`L`$ or a *weak involutive basis* of the monoid ideal $`𝒩`$, if $`𝒩_L=𝒩`$. A weak involutive basis is a *strong involutive basis* or for short an *involutive basis*, if the union on the right hand side of (3) is disjoint, i. e. the intersections of the involutive cones are empty. We call any finite set $`𝒩\overline{𝒩}_0^n`$ such that $`\overline{𝒩}_L=𝒩`$ a *(weak) involutive completion* of $`𝒩`$. An *obstruction to involution* for the set $`𝒩`$ is a multi index $`\nu 𝒩𝒩_L`$.

###### Remark 1

An obvious necessary condition for a strong involutive basis is that no distinct multi indices $`\mu ,\nu 𝒩`$ exist such that $`\mu |_{L,𝒩}\nu `$. Sets with this property are called *involutively autoreduced*. One easily checks that the definition of the Janet division implies that $`𝒞_{𝒩,J}(\mu )𝒞_{𝒩,L}(\nu )=\mathrm{}`$ whenever $`\mu \nu `$. Hence for this particular division any set is involutively autoreduced. $``$

###### Example 3

Figure 1 demonstrates the geometric interpretation of involutive divisions for $`n=2`$. In both diagrams one can see the monoid ideal generated by the set $`𝒩=\{[0,2],[2,0]\}`$; the vertices belonging to it are marked by dark points. The arrows represent the multiplicative indices, i. e. the “allowed directions”, for both the Janet and the Pommaret division, as they coincide for this example. The left diagram shows that the full cones of the two elements of $`𝒩`$ intersect in the darkly shaded area and that $`𝒩`$ is not (weakly) involutive, as the multi indices $`[k,1]`$ with $`k2`$ are obstructions to involution. The right diagram shows a strong involutive basis of $`𝒩`$ for both the Janet and the Pommaret division. We must add to $`𝒩`$ the multi index $`[2,1]`$ and both for it and for $`[2,0]`$ only the index $`1`$ is multiplicative. One clearly sees how the span $`𝒩`$ is decomposed into three disjoint involutive cones: one of dimension $`2`$, two of dimension $`1`$. $``$

We are particularly interested in *strong* involutive bases. The following result shows that in the “monomial” case any weak involutive basis can be reduced to a strong one by simply eliminating some elements.

###### Proposition 1

If $`𝒩`$ is a weakly involutive set, then a subset $`𝒩^{}𝒩`$ exists such that $`𝒩^{}`$ is a strong involutive basis of $`𝒩`$.

###### Proof

This proposition represents a nice motivation for the two conditions in Definition 1 of an involutive division. If $`𝒩`$ is not yet a strong involutive basis, the union in (3) is not disjoint and intersecting involutive cones exist. By the first condition, this implies that some cones are contained in other ones; no other form of intersection is possible. If we eliminate the tips of these cones from $`𝒩`$, we get a subset $`𝒩^{}𝒩`$ which, by the second condition, has the same involutive span, as the remaining elements may only gain additional multiplicative indices. Thus after a finite number of such eliminations we arrive at a strong involutive basis.∎

###### Remark 2

Let $`_1`$, $`_2`$ be two monoid ideals in $`_0^n`$ and $`𝒩_1`$, $`𝒩_2`$ (weak) involutive bases of them for some division $`L`$. In general, we cannot expect that $`𝒩_1𝒩_2`$ is again a weak involutive basis of the ideal $`_1+_2`$, as the involutive cones of the generators may shrink when taken with respect to the larger set $`𝒩_1𝒩_2`$. Only for a global division we always obtain at least a weak involutive basis (which may then be reduced to a strong basis according to Proposition 1). $``$

Recall that for arbitrary monoid ideals a basis $`𝒩`$ is called *minimal*, if it is not possible to remove an element of $`𝒩`$ without losing the property that we have a basis. A similar notion can be naturally introduced for involutive bases.

###### Definition 4

Let $`_0^n`$ be a monoid ideal and $`L`$ an involutive division. An involutive basis $`𝒩`$ of $``$ with respect to $`L`$ is called *minimal*, if any other involutive basis $`𝒩^{}`$ of $``$ with respect to $`L`$ satisfies $`𝒩𝒩^{}`$.

Obviously, the minimal involutive basis of a monoid ideal is unique, if it exists. For globally defined divisions, any involutive basis is unique.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`L`$ be a globally defined division and $`_0^n`$ a monoid ideal. If $``$ has an involutive basis for $`L`$, then it is unique and thus minimal.

###### Proof

Let $`𝒩`$ be the minimal basis of $``$ and $`𝒩_1`$, $`𝒩_2`$ two distinct involutive bases of $``$. Both $`𝒩_1𝒩_2`$ and $`𝒩_2𝒩_1`$ must be non-empty, as otherwise one basis was contained in the other one and thus the larger basis could not be involutively autoreduced with respect to the global division $`L`$. Take an arbitrary multi index $`\nu 𝒩_1𝒩_2`$. The basis $`𝒩_2`$ contains a unique multi index $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu |_L\nu `$. It cannot be an element of $`𝒩_1`$, as $`𝒩_1`$ is involutively autoreduced. Thus $`𝒩_1`$ must contain a unique multi index $`\lambda \mu `$ such that $`\lambda |_L\mu `$. As $`L`$ is globally defined, this implies that $`\lambda |_L\nu `$ and $`\lambda \nu `$, a contradiction. ∎

The algorithmic construction of (weak) involutive completions for a given set $`𝒩_0^n`$ will be discussed in detail in Section 6. For the moment we only note that we cannot expect that for an arbitrary set $`𝒩`$ and an arbitrary involutive division $`L`$ an involutive basis $`𝒩^{}`$ of $`𝒩`$ exists.

###### Example 4

We consider the set $`𝒩=\left\{[1,1]\right\}`$ for the Pommaret division. As $`\mathrm{cls}[1,1]=1`$, we get $`N_P([1,1])=\{1\}`$. So $`𝒞_P([1,1])𝒞([1,1])`$. But any multi index contained in $`𝒩`$ also has class $`1`$. Hence no *finite* involutive basis of $`𝒩`$ exists for the Pommaret division. We can generate it involutively only with the infinite set $`\{[1,k]k\}`$.

More generally, we may consider an *irreducible* monoid ideal $``$ in $`_0^n`$. It is well-known that any such $``$ has a minimal basis of the form $`\{(\mathrm{}_1)_{i_1},\mathrm{},(\mathrm{}_k)_{i_k}\}`$ with $`1kn`$, $`\mathrm{}_j>0`$ and $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn`$. Here $`(\mathrm{}_j)_{i_j}`$ is the multi index where all entries are zero except of the $`i_j`$th one which has the value $`\mathrm{}_j`$. Such an ideal possesses a Pommaret basis, if and only if there are no “gaps” in the sequence $`i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn`$, i. e. $`i_k=n`$ and $`i_1=nk+1`$. Indeed, if a gap exists, say between $`i_j`$ and $`i_{j+1}`$, then any Pommaret basis must contain the infinitely many multi indices of the form $`(\mathrm{}_j)_{i_j}+(\mathrm{})_{i_j+1}`$ with $`\mathrm{}>0`$ and thus cannot be finite (obviously, in this case a simple renumbering of the variables suffices to remedy this problem). Conversely, if no gaps appear, then it is easy to see that the set of all multi indices $`[0,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{}_{i_j},\mu _{i_j+1},\mathrm{},\mu _n]`$ with $`1jk`$ and $`0\mu _i<\mathrm{}_{nk+i}`$ is a strong Pommaret basis of $``$. $``$

###### Definition 5

An involutive division $`L`$ is called *Noetherian*, if any finite subset $`𝒩_0^n`$ possesses a finite involutive completion with respect to $`L`$.

###### Lemma 1

The Janet division is Noetherian.

###### Proof

Let $`𝒩_0^n`$ be an arbitrary finite set. We explicitly construct a Janet basis for $`𝒩`$. Define the multi index $`\mu =\mathrm{lcm}𝒩`$ by $`\mu _i=\mathrm{max}_{\nu 𝒩}\nu _i`$. Then we claim that the (obviously finite) set

$$\overline{𝒩}=\{\overline{\nu }𝒩\mu 𝒞(\overline{\nu })\}$$
(4)
is an involutive completion of $`𝒩`$ with respect to the Janet division. Indeed, $`𝒩\overline{𝒩}`$ and $`\overline{𝒩}𝒩`$. Let $`\rho 𝒩`$ be an arbitrary element. If $`\rho \overline{𝒩}`$, then trivially $`\rho \overline{𝒩}_J`$. Otherwise set $`I=\{i\rho _i>\mu _i\}`$ and define the multi index $`\overline{\rho }`$ by $`\overline{\rho }_i=\rho _i`$ for $`iI`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_i=\mu _i`$ for $`iI`$, i. e. $`\overline{\rho }_i=\mathrm{min}\{\rho _i,\mu _i\}`$. By construction of the set $`\overline{𝒩}`$ and the definition of $`\mu `$, we have that $`\overline{\rho }\overline{𝒩}`$ and $`IN_{J,\overline{𝒩}}(\overline{\rho })`$. But this implies that $`\rho 𝒞_{J,\overline{𝒩}}(\overline{\rho })`$ and thus $`\overline{𝒩}`$ is a finite Janet basis for $`𝒩`$.∎

## 3 Polynomial Algebras of Solvable Type

We could identify multi indices and monomials and proceed to define involutive bases for polynomial ideals. But as the basic ideas remain unchanged in many different situations, e. g. rings of linear differential or difference operators, we generalise a concept originally introduced by Kandry-Rody and Weispfenning krw:ncgb  and use *polynomial algebras of solvable type* (the same kind of generalisation has already been intensively studied by Kredel hk:solvpoly ).

Let $`𝒫=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring over a unitary ring333For us a ring is always associative. $``$. If $``$ is commutative, then $`𝒫`$ is a unitary commutative ring with respect to the usual multiplication. We equip the $``$-module $`𝒫`$ with alternative multiplications, in particular with non-commutative ones. We allow that both the variables $`x_i`$ do not commute any more and that they operate on the coefficients. The usual multiplication is denoted either by a dot $``$ or by no symbol at all. Alternative multiplications $`𝒫\times 𝒫𝒫`$ are always written as $`fg`$.

Like Gröbner bases, involutive bases are always defined with respect to a *term order* $``$. It selects in each polynomial $`f𝒫`$ a *leading term* $`\mathrm{lt}_{}f=x^\mu `$ with *leading exponent* $`\mathrm{le}_{}f=\mu `$. The coefficient $`r`$ of $`x^\mu `$ in $`f`$ is the *leading coefficient* $`\mathrm{lc}_{}f`$ and the product $`rx^\mu `$ is the *leading monomial* $`\mathrm{lm}_{}f`$. Based on the leading exponents we associate to each finite set $`𝒫`$ a set $`\mathrm{le}_{}_0^n`$ to which we may apply the theory developed in the previous section. But this requires a kind of compatibility between the multiplication $``$ and the chosen term order.

###### Definition 6

$`(𝒫,,)`$ is a *polynomial algebra of solvable type* over the unitary coefficient ring $``$ for the term order $``$, if the multiplication $`:𝒫\times 𝒫𝒫`$ satisfies three axioms.

$`(𝒫,)`$ is a ring with unit $`1`$.

$`r,f𝒫:rf=rf`$.

$`\mu ,\nu _0^n,r\{0\}:\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu x^\nu )=\mu +\nu \mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu r)=\mu `$.

Condition (i) ensures that arithmetics in $`(𝒫,,)`$ obeys the usual associative and distributive laws. Because of Condition (ii), $`(𝒫,,)`$ is a left $``$-module. We do not require that it is a right $``$-module, as this would exclude the possibility that the variables $`x_i`$ operate non-linearly on $``$. Condition (iii) ensures the compatibility of the new multiplication $``$ and the term order $``$; we say that the multiplication $``$ *respects the term order* $``$. It implies the existence of injective maps $`\rho _\mu :`$, maps $`h_\mu :𝒫`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}\left(h_\mu (r)\right)\mu `$ for all $`r`$, coefficients $`r_{\mu \nu }\{0\}`$ and polynomials $`h_{\mu \nu }𝒫`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}h_{\mu \nu }\mu +\nu `$ such that

$$x^\mu r=\rho _\mu (r)x^\mu +h_\mu (r),$$
(5a)
$$x^\mu x^\nu =r_{\mu \nu }x^{\mu +\nu }+h_{\mu \nu }.$$
(5b)
###### Lemma 2

The maps $`\rho _\mu `$ and the coefficients $`r_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfy for arbitrary multi indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\lambda _0^n`$ and for arbitrary ring elements $`r`$

$$\rho _\mu \left(\rho _\nu (r)\right)r_{\mu \nu }=r_{\mu \nu }\rho _{\mu +\nu }(r),$$
(6a)
$$\rho _\mu (r_{\nu \lambda })r_{\mu ,\nu +\lambda }=r_{\mu \nu }r_{\mu +\nu ,\lambda }.$$
(6b)
Furthermore, all maps $`\rho _\mu `$ are ring endomorphisms.

###### Proof

The first assertion is a trivial consequence of the associativity of the multiplication $``$. The equations correspond to the leading coefficients of the equalities $`x^\mu (x^\nu r)=(x^\mu x^\nu )r`$ and $`x^\mu (x^\nu x^\lambda )=(x^\mu x^\nu )x^\lambda `$, respectively. The second assertion follows mainly from Condition (i).∎

If $``$ is a (skew) field, then for arbitrary polynomials $`f,g𝒫`$ an element $`r\{0\}`$ and a polynomial $`h𝒫`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{le}_{}h\mathrm{le}_{}(fg)`$ exist such that

$$fg=r(fg)+h.$$
(7)
Indeed, if $`\mathrm{lm}_{}f=ax^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{lm}_{}g=bx^\nu `$, then a simple computation yields that $`r`$ is the (unique) solution of the equation $`a\rho _\mu (b)r_{\mu \nu }=rab`$ and $`h`$ is the difference $`fgr(fg)`$. Under this assumption we may reformulate (iii) as

$`f,g𝒫:\mathrm{le}_{}(fg)=\mathrm{le}_{}f+\mathrm{le}_{}g`$.

For this special case the same class of non-commutative algebras was introduced in bglc:quantum ; bgv:algnoncomm  under the name *PBW algebras* (see Example 6 below for an explanation of this name).

###### Proposition 3

The product $``$ is fixed, as soon as the following data are given: constants $`r_{ij}\{0\}`$, polynomials $`h_{ij}𝒫`$ and maps $`\rho _i:`$, $`h_i:𝒫`$ such that for $`1in`$

$$x_ir=\rho _i(r)x_i+h_i(r),r,$$
(8a)
$$x_ix_j=r_{ij}x_jx_i+h_{ij},1j<i.$$
(8b)
###### Proof

The set of all “monomials” $`x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_q}`$ with $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_q`$ forms an $``$-linear basis of $`𝒫`$, as because of (iii) the $``$-linear map defined by $`x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_q}x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_q}`$ is an $``$-module automorphism mapping the new basis into the standard basis. Obviously, it is possible to evaluate any product $`fg`$ by repeated applications of the rewrite rules (8) provided $`f`$ and $`g`$ are expressed in the new basis.∎

Note that this proof is non-constructive in the sense that we are not able to determine the multiplication in terms of the standard basis, as we do not know explicitly the transformation between the new and the standard basis. The advantage of this proof is that it is valid for arbitrary coefficient rings $``$. Making some assumptions on $``$ (the simplest possibility is to require that it is a field), one could use Lemma 2 to express the coefficients $`r_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho _\mu `$ in (5) by the data in (8). This would yield a constructive proof.

These considerations also show the main difference between our definition of solvable algebras and related definitions that one can find at various places in the literature. Our Condition (iii) represents in most approaches a lemma. Instead one usually imposes conditions like $`x_ix_j=x_ix_j`$ for $`i<j`$. Then the rewrite rule (8b) suffices to obtain an explicit transformation between the two bases used in the proof above. This is for instance the approach taken by Kandry-Rody and Weispfenning krw:ncgb  and subsequently by Kredel hk:solvpoly .

Of course, the data in Proposition 3 cannot be chosen arbitrarily. Besides the obvious conditions on the leading exponents of the polynomials $`h_{ij}`$ and $`h_i(r)`$ imposed by Condition (iii), each map $`\rho _i`$ must be an injective $``$-endomorphism and each map $`h_i`$ must satisfy $`h_i(r+s)=h_i(r)+h_i(s)`$ and a kind of pseudo-Leibniz rule $`h_i(rs)=\rho _i(r)h_i(s)+h_i(r)s`$. The associativity of $``$ imposes further rather complicated conditions on the data. For the case of a $`G`$-algebra with the multiplication defined by rewrite rules they have been explicitly determined by Levandovskyy vl:ade ; vl:diss  who called them *non-degeneracy conditions* (see also the extensive discussion in (hk:solvpoly, , Sect. 3.3)).

###### Example 5

An important class of non-commutative polynomials was originally introduced by Noether and Schmeidler ns:ore  and later systematically studied by Ore oo:poly ; our exposition follows bp:pseudo . It includes in particular linear differential and difference operators (with variable coefficients).

Let $`𝔽`$ be an arbitrary commutative ring and $`\sigma :𝔽𝔽`$ an injective endomorphism. A *pseudo-derivation* with respect to $`\sigma `$ is a map $`\delta :𝔽𝔽`$ such that (i) $`\delta (f+g)=\delta (f)+\delta (g)`$ and (ii) $`\delta (fg)=\sigma (f)\delta (g)+\delta (f)g`$ for all $`f,g𝔽`$. If $`\sigma =\mathrm{id}_𝔽`$, the identity map, (ii) is the standard Leibniz rule for derivations. If $`\sigma \mathrm{id}_𝔽`$, one can show that there exists an $`h𝔽`$ such that $`\delta =h(\sigma \mathrm{id}_𝔽)`$. And conversely, if $`\delta 0`$, there exists an $`h𝔽`$ such that $`\sigma =h\delta +\mathrm{id}_𝔽`$. Ore called $`\sigma (f)`$ the *conjugate* and $`\delta (f)`$ the *derivative* of $`f`$.

Given $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta `$, the ring $`𝔽[;\sigma ,\delta ]`$ of univariate *Ore polynomials* consists of all formal polynomials in $``$ with coefficients in $`𝔽`$, i. e. of expressions of the form $`\theta =_{i=0}^qf_i^i`$ with $`f_i𝔽`$ and $`q_0`$. The addition is defined as usual. The variable $``$ operates on an element $`f𝔽`$ according to the rule

$$f=\sigma (f)+\delta (f)$$
(9)
which is extended associatively and distributively to define the multiplication in $`𝔽[;\sigma ,\delta ]`$: given two elements $`\theta _1,\theta _2𝔽[;\sigma ,\delta ]`$, we can transform the product $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ to the above normal form by repeatedly applying (9). The injectivity of the endomorphism $`\sigma `$ ensures that $`\mathrm{deg}(\theta _1\theta _2)=\mathrm{deg}\theta _1+\mathrm{deg}\theta _2`$. We call $`𝔽[;\sigma ,\delta ]`$ the *Ore extension* of $`𝔽`$ generated by $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta `$.

A simple concrete example is given by choosing for $`𝔽`$ some ring of differentiable functions in the real variable $`x`$, say $`𝔽=[x]`$, $`\delta =\frac{d}{dx}`$ and $`\sigma =\mathrm{id}_𝔽`$ yielding *linear ordinary differential operators* with polynomial functions as coefficients (i. e. the Weyl algebra over $``$). Similarly, we obtain *linear recurrence* and *difference operators*. We set $`𝔽=(n)`$, the space of sequences with complex elements, and take for $`\sigma `$ the shift operator, i. e. the automorphism mapping $`s_n`$ to $`s_{n+1}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sigma \mathrm{id}_𝔽`$ is a pseudo-derivation. $`𝔽[E;\sigma ,0]`$ consists of linear ordinary recurrence operators, $`𝔽[E;\sigma ,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ of linear ordinary difference operators.

For multivariate Ore polynomials we take a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n\}`$ of $`𝔽`$-endomorphisms and a set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\delta _1,\mathrm{},\delta _n\}`$ where each $`\delta _i`$ is a pseudo-derivation with respect to $`\sigma _i`$. For each pair $`(\sigma _i,\delta _i)`$ we introduce a variable $`_i`$ satisfying a commutation rule (9). If we require that all the maps $`\sigma _i,\delta _j`$ commute with each other, i. e. $`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i`$, $`\delta _i\delta _j=\delta _j\delta _i`$ and $`\sigma _i\delta _j=\delta _j\sigma _i`$ for all $`ij`$, one easily checks that $`_i_j=_j_i`$, i. e. the variables $`_i`$ commute. Setting $`𝒟=\{_1,\mathrm{},_n\}`$, we denote by $`𝔽[𝒟;\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ the ring of multivariate Ore polynomials. Because of the commutativity of the $`_i`$ we may write the terms as $`^\mu `$ with multi indices $`\mu _0^n`$, so that it indeed makes sense to speak of a polynomial ring. Comparing with Proposition 3, we see that we are in the special case where the maps $`h_i`$ always yield constant polynomials and the variables $`x_i`$ commute.

Finally, we show that $`(𝔽[𝒟;\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Delta }],,)`$ is an algebra of solvable type for any term order $``$. The product of two monomial operators $`a^\mu `$ and $`b^\nu `$ is given by

$$a^\mu b^\nu =\underset{\lambda +\kappa =\mu }{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\lambda }\right)a\sigma ^\lambda \left(\delta ^\kappa (b)\right)^{\lambda +\nu }$$
(10)
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\lambda }\right)`$ is a shorthand for $`_{i=1}^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu _i}{\lambda _i}\right)`$, $`\sigma ^\lambda =\sigma _1^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\sigma _n^{\lambda _n}`$ and similarly for $`\delta `$. By the properties of a term order this implies

$$\mathrm{le}_{}\left(a^\mu b^\nu \right)=\mu +\nu =\mathrm{le}_{}\left(a^\mu \right)+\mathrm{le}_{}\left(b^\nu \right),$$
(11)
as any term $`^{\lambda +\nu }`$ appearing on the right hand side of (10) divides $`^{\mu +\nu }`$ and thus $`^{\lambda +\nu }^{\mu +\nu }`$ for any term order $``$. $``$

###### Example 6

Bell and Goodearl bg:pbw  introduced the *Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt extension* (for short *PBW extension*) of a ring $``$ as a ring $`𝒫`$ containing a finite number of elements $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n𝒫`$ such that (i) $`𝒫`$ is freely generated as a left $``$-module by the monomials $`x^\mu `$ with $`\mu _0^n`$, (ii) $`x_irrx_i`$ for all $`r`$ and (iii) $`x_ix_jx_jx_i+x_1+\mathrm{}x_n`$. Obviously, any such extension is a polynomial algebra of solvable type in the sense of Definition 6 for any degree compatible term order. Other term orders generally do not respect the multiplication in $`𝒫`$.

The classical example of such a PBW extension is the *universal enveloping algebra* $`𝔘(𝔤)`$ of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ which also explains the name: the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem asserts that the monomials form a basis of these algebras var:lie . They still fit into the framework developed by Kandry-Rody and Weispfenning krw:ncgb , as the $`x_i`$ do not act on the coefficients. This is no longer the case for the more general *skew enveloping algebras* $`\mathrm{\#}𝔘(𝔤)`$ where $``$ is a $`𝕜`$-algebra on which the elements of $`𝔤`$ act as derivations (mr:ncrings, , Sect. 1.7.10). $``$

###### Example 7

In all these examples, the coefficients $`r_{\mu \nu }`$ appearing in (5) are one; thus (8b) are classical commutation relations. This is no longer true in the *quantised enveloping algebras* $`𝔘_h(𝔤)`$ introduced by Drinfeld vgd:qybe  and Jimbo mj:qybe . For these algebra it is non-trivial that a Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem holds; it was shown for general Lie algebras $`𝔤`$ by Lusztig gl:quantum . Berger rb:qpbw  generalised this result later to a larger class of associative algebras, the so-called *$`q`$-algebras*. They are characterised by the fact that the polynomials $`h_{ij}`$ in (8b) are at most quadratic with the additional restriction that $`h_{ij}`$ may contain only those quadratic terms $`x_kx_{\mathrm{}}`$ that satisfy $`i<k\mathrm{}<j`$ and $`ki=j\mathrm{}`$. Thus any such algebra is a polynomial algebra of solvable type for any degree compatible term order.

A simple concrete example is the *$`q`$-Heisenberg algebra* for a real $`q>0`$ (and $`q1`$). Let $`f`$ be a function of a real variable $`x`$ lying in some appropriate function space. Then we introduce the operators

$$\delta _qf(x)=\frac{f(x)f(qx)}{(1q)x},\tau _qf(x)=f(qx),\widehat{x}f(x)=xf(x).$$
(12)
It is straightforward to verify that these three operators satisfy the following $`q`$-deformed form of the classical Heisenberg commutation rules

$$\delta _q\widehat{x}=\widehat{x}\delta _q+\tau _q,\delta _q\tau _q=q\tau _q\delta _q,\tau _q\widehat{x}=q\widehat{x}\tau _q.$$
(13)
Hence the algebra $`𝕜[\delta _q,\tau _q,\widehat{x}]`$ is a polynomial algebra of solvable type for any degree compatible term order (but also for any lexicographic order with $`\tau _q\delta _q`$ and $`\tau _q\widehat{x}`$). $``$

###### Example 8

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type with a degree compatible term order $``$. Then $`𝒫`$ is a filtered ring with respect to the standard filtration $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_q=_{i=0}^q𝒫_i`$ and we may introduce the *associated graded algebra* by setting $`(\mathrm{gr}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫)_q=\mathrm{\Sigma }_q/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{gr}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫`$ is again a polynomial algebra of solvable type for $``$. If in (8) $`\mathrm{deg}h_i(r)=0`$, $`\mathrm{deg}h_{ij}1`$, $`\rho _i=\mathrm{id}_{}`$ and $`r_{ij}=1`$ (which is for example the case for all Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt extensions), then in fact $`\mathrm{gr}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫=(𝒫,)`$, the commutative polynomial ring. Such algebras are sometimes called *almost commutative* (mr:ncrings, , Sect. 8.4.2). $``$

###### Proposition 4

If the ring $``$ is an integral domain, then any polynomial algebra $`(𝒫,,)`$ of solvable type over it is an integral domain, too, and a left Ore domain.

###### Proof

The first assertion is a trivial consequence of (7): if $``$ has no zero divisors, then $`fg0`$ implies $`fg0`$. Hence $`𝒫`$ does not contain any zero divisors.

For the second one we must verify the *left Ore conditions* pmc:alg2 ; oo:linear : we must show that one can find for any two polynomials $`f,g𝒫`$ with $`fg0`$ two further polynomials $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒫\{0\}`$ such that $`\varphi f=\psi g`$. We describe now a concrete algorithm for this task.

We set $`_0=\{f,g\}`$ and choose coefficients $`r_0,s_0`$ such that in the difference $`r_0gfs_0fg=\overline{h}_1`$ the leading terms cancel. Then we perform a pseudoreduction of $`\overline{h}_1`$ with respect to $`_0`$. It leads with an appropriately chosen coefficient $`t_0`$ to an equation of the form

$$t_0\overline{h}_1=\varphi _0f+\psi _0g+h_1$$
(14)
where the remainder $`h_1`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{le}_{}h_1\mathrm{le}_{}_0`$. If $`h_1=0`$, we are done and the polynomials $`\varphi =t_0r_0g\varphi _0`$ and $`\psi =t_0s_0f+\psi _0`$ form a solution of our problem. By Part (iii) of Definition 6 we have $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_1\mathrm{le}_{}f+\mathrm{le}_{}g`$. This implies by the monotonicity of term orders that $`\mathrm{le}_{}\varphi _0\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}\psi _0\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Thus we have found a non-trivial solution.

Otherwise we set $`_1=_0\{h_1\}`$ and choose coefficients $`r_1,s_1`$ such that in the difference $`r_1fh_1s_1h_1f=\overline{h}_2`$ the leading terms cancel. Now we perform a pseudoreduction of $`\overline{h}_2`$ with respect to $`_1`$. This computation yields a coefficient $`t_1`$ and polynomials $`\varphi _1,\psi _1,\rho _1𝒫`$ such that

$$t_1\overline{h}_2=\varphi _1f+\psi _1g+\rho _1h_1+h_2$$
(15)
where the remainder $`h_2`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{le}_{}h_2\mathrm{le}_{}_1`$. If $`h_2=0`$, then we are done, as we can substitute $`h_1`$ from (14) and obtain thus for our problem the solution $`\varphi =(t_1r_1f\rho _1)(t_0r_0g\varphi _0)t_1s_1h_1+\varphi _1`$ and $`\psi =(t_1r_1f\rho _1)(t_0s_0f\psi _0)+\psi _1`$. By the same reasoning on the leading exponents as above, it is a non-trivial one.

Otherwise we iterate: we set $`_2=_1\{h_2\}`$, choose coefficients $`r_2,s_2`$ such that in the difference $`r_2fh_2s_2h_2f=\overline{h}_3`$ the leading terms cancel, compute the remainder $`h_3`$ of a pseudo reduction of $`\overline{h}_3`$ with respect to $`_2`$ and so on. If the iteration stops, i. e. if the remainder $`h_N`$ vanishes for some value $`N`$, then we can construct non-zero polynomials $`\varphi `$, $`\psi `$ with $`\varphi f=\psi g`$ by substituting all remainders $`h_i`$ by their defining equations. The iteration terminates by a simple Noetherian argument: $`\mathrm{le}_{}_0\mathrm{le}_{}_1\mathrm{le}_{}_2\mathrm{}`$ is a strictly ascending chain of monoid ideals in $`_0^n`$ and thus cannot be infinite.∎

Obviously, we can show by the same argument that $`𝒫`$ is a right Ore domain. The Ore multipliers $`\varphi `$, $`\psi `$ constructed in the proof above are not unique. Instead of always analysing differences of the form $`r_ifh_is_ih_if`$, we could have used differences of the form $`r_igh_is_ih_ig`$ or we could have alternated between using $`f`$ and $`g`$ and so on. In general, each ansatz will lead to different multipliers.

We have given here a direct and in particular constructive proof that $`𝒫`$ satisfies the left and right Ore conditions. Instead we could have tried to invoke Theorem 2.1.15 of mr:ncrings  stating that any right Noetherian integral domain is also a right Ore domain. However, as we will see in the next section, if the coefficient ring $``$ of $`𝒫`$ is not a field, then the question whether or not $`𝒫`$ is (left or right) Noetherian becomes nontrivial in general.

###### Example 9

In the commutative polynomial ring one has always the trivial solution $`\varphi =g`$ and $`\psi =f`$. One might expect that in the non-commutative case one only has to add some lower terms to it. However, this is not the case. Consider the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔬(3)`$. We may write it as $`𝔘\left(𝔰𝔬(3)\right)=𝕜[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ with the multiplication $``$ defined by the relations:

$`x_1x_2`$ $`=x_1x_2,`$ $`x_2x_1`$ $`=x_1x_2x_3,`$ (16)
$`x_1x_3`$ $`=x_1x_3,`$ $`x_3x_1`$ $`=x_1x_3+x_2,`$
$`x_2x_3`$ $`=x_2x_3,`$ $`x_3x_2`$ $`=x_2x_3x_1.`$
This multiplication obviously respects any degree compatible term order but not the lexicographic order. Choosing $`f=x_1`$ and $`g=x_2`$, possible solutions for $`\varphi f=\psi g`$ are $`\varphi =x_2^21`$ and $`\psi =x_1x_22x_3`$ or $`\varphi =x_1x_2+x_3`$ and $`\psi =x_1^21`$. They are easily constructed using the algorithm of the proof of Proposition 4 once with $`f`$ and once with $`g`$. Here we must use polynomials of degree $`2`$; it is not possible to find a solution of degree $`1`$. $``$

## 4 Hilbert’s Basis Theorem for Solvable Algebras

A classical property of the ordinary polynomial ring $`𝒫=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, which is crucial in the theory of Gröbner bases, is Hilbert’s Basis Theorem. For our more general class of polynomial algebras, it remains true only under additional assumptions. As $`𝒫`$ is generally non-commutative, we must distinguish left, right and two-sided ideals and thus also study separately whether $`𝒫`$ is left or right Noetherian.

With the exception of Section 8, we will exclusively work with left ideals and thus do not introduce special notations. This restriction to left ideals is not only for convenience but stems from the fundamental left-right asymmetry of Definition 6 of a polynomial algebra of solvable type where products $`rx^\mu `$ and $`x^\mu r`$ are treated completely different. For this reason we discuss only the question when $`𝒫`$ is left Noetherian (see also Remark 3 below).

Most classical proofs of Hilbert’s Basis Theorem consider only the univariate case and then extend inductively to an arbitrary (but finite) number of variables. However, this inductive approach is not possible in arbitrary polynomial algebras of solvable type, as the multiplication $``$ does not necessarily restrict to a subalgebra with fewer variables. A simple counterexample is provided by the universal enveloping algebra $`𝔘\left(𝔰𝔬(3)\right)`$ introduced in Example 9 where $``$ cannot be restricted to the subspace $`𝕜[x_1,x_2]`$ since $`x_2x_1=x_1x_2x_3`$. This observation motivates the following definition.

###### Definition 7

$`(𝒫,,)`$ is an *iterated polynomial algebra of solvable type*, if (i) $`𝒫=[x_1][x_2]\mathrm{}[x_n]`$ where each intermediate ring $`𝒫_k=[x_1][x_2]\mathrm{}[x_k]`$ is again solvable for the corresponding restrictions of the multiplication $``$ and the term order $``$ and (ii) we have the equality $`x_k𝒫_{k1}+𝒫_{k1}=𝒫_{k1}x_k+𝒫_{k1}`$.

For iterated polynomial algebras of solvable type we may apply the usual inductive technique for proving a basis theorem, but we must still impose further conditions on the multiplication $``$. The following result is proven in (mr:ncrings, , Theorem 1.2.9) for Ore algebras, but it is a trivial exercise to verify that the proof remains valid for more general algebras.

###### Theorem 4.1

If $`(𝒫,,)`$ is an iterated polynomial algebra of solvable type over a left Noetherian ring $``$, then $`𝒫`$ is a left Noetherian ring, too.

The second condition in Definition 7 cannot be omitted, if a basis theorem is to hold. McConnell and Robson (mr:ncrings, , Example 1.2.11) provide a concrete counterexample of a univariate polynomial ring of solvable type which violates this condition and which is neither left nor right Noetherian.

With some complications, the central (univariate) arguments in the proof of Theorem 4.1 can be directly generalised to multivariate polynomial rings. However, this requires again certain assumptions on the commutation relations (5) in order to ensure that all needed computations are possible.

###### Definition 8

The polynomial algebra of solvable type $`(𝒫,,)`$ has *centred commutation relations*, if (i) there exists a field $`𝕜`$ lying in the centre of $``$, (ii) the functions $`\rho _\mu `$ in (5a) are of the form $`\rho _\mu (r)=\overline{\rho }_\mu (r)r`$ with functions $`\overline{\rho }_\mu :𝕜`$ and (iii) we have $`r_{\mu \nu }𝕜`$ in (5b).

Using König’s Lemma, Kredel proved in his thesis hk:solvpoly  the following version of Hilbert’s Basis Theorem.

###### Theorem 4.2

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type with centred commutation relations over a left Noetherian coefficient ring $``$. Then $`𝒫`$ is left Noetherian, too.

A third proof assumes that the ring $`𝒫`$ possesses a *filtration* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Using an approach detailed in jeb:rdo  for the special case of the Weyl algebra (but which does not use any special properties of the Weyl algebra), one obtains the following general result where it is not even necessary to assume that $`𝒫`$ is a polynomial ring. As discussed in Example 8, this result covers many of the polynomial algebras of solvable type that have appeared in the literature so far.

###### Theorem 4.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a filtration on the ring $`𝒫`$. If the associated graded ring $`\mathrm{gr}_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒫`$ is left Noetherian, then $`𝒫`$ is left Noetherian, too.

Because of Condition (iii) in Definition 6 we can define Gröbner bases for ideals in algebras of solvable type. In the case that $``$ is a (commutative) field $`𝕜`$, this is straightforward and from now on we will restrict to this case; the general case will be discussed only in Section 11.

###### Definition 9

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type over a field $`𝕜`$ and $`𝒫`$ a left ideal. A finite set $`𝒢𝒫`$ is a *Gröbner basis* of $``$ (for the term order $``$), if $`\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢=\mathrm{le}_{}`$.

For the ordinary multiplication this definition reduces to the classical one. The decisive point, explaining the conditions imposed in Definition 6, is that normal forms with respect to a finite set $`𝒫`$ may be computed in algebras of solvable type in precisely the same way as in the ordinary polynomial ring. Assume we are given a polynomial $`f𝒫`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}f`$ for some $`g𝒢`$ and set $`\mu =\mathrm{le}_{}f\mathrm{le}_{}g`$. If we consider $`g_\mu =x^\mu g`$, then by (iii) $`\mathrm{le}_{}g_\mu =\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Setting $`d=\mathrm{lc}_{}f/\mathrm{lc}_{}g_\mu `$, we find by (ii) that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(fdg_\mu )\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Hence we may use the usual algorithms for computing normal form; in particular, they always terminate by the same argument as in the ordinary case. Note that in general $`d\mathrm{lc}_{}f/\mathrm{lc}_{}g`$, if $`r1`$ in (7), and that normal form computations are typically more expensive due to the appearance of the additional polynomial $`h`$ in (7).

The classical Gröbner basis theory can be extended straightforwardly to polynomial algebras of solvable type apel:diss ; bglc:quantum ; bgv:algnoncomm ; krw:ncgb ; hk:solvpoly ; vl:ade ; vl:diss , as most proofs are based on the computation of normal forms. The remaining arguments mostly take place in the monoid $`_0^n`$ and thus can be applied without changes. In particular, a trivial adaption of the standard approach leads to the following result crucial for the termination of Buchberger’s algorithm.

###### Theorem 4.4

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type over a field. Then $`𝒫`$ is a left Noetherian ring and every left ideal $`𝒫`$ possesses a Gröbner basis with respect to $``$.

###### Remark 3

Even in the case of a coefficient field we cannot generally expect $`𝒫`$ to be a *right* Noetherian ring, too; a concrete counterexample is provided again by McConnell and Robson (mr:ncrings, , Example 1.2.11). In the proof of Theorem 4.4 one essentially uses that in normal form computations one always multiplies with elements of $`𝒫`$ from the left. Because of the already above mentioned left-right asymmetry of Definition 6, right ideals show in general a completely different behaviour. In order to obtain right Noetherian rings we must either adapt correspondingly our definition of a solvable algebra or impose additional conditions on the commutation relations (5).

The simplest possibility is to require that all the maps $`\rho _\mu `$ in (5) are automorphisms (by Proposition 3 it suffices, if the maps $`\rho _i`$ in (8a) satisfy this condition). In this case we have $`𝕜x_i+𝕜=x_i𝕜+𝕜`$ for all variables $`x_i`$ implying that we can rewrite any polynomial $`f=_\mu c_\mu x^\mu `$ in the “reverse” form $`f=_\mu x^\mu \stackrel{~}{c}_\mu `$. Now a straightforward adaption of the classical proof of Theorem 4.4 shows that the ring $`𝒫`$ is also right Noetherian. $``$

We do not give more details on Gröbner bases, as they can be found in the above cited references. Instead we will present in the next section a completely different approach leading to involutive bases.

## 5 Involutive Bases

We proceed to define involutive bases for left ideals in polynomial algebras of solvable type. In principle, we could at once consider submodules of free modules over such an algebra. As this only complicates the notation, we restrict to the ideal case and the extension to submodules goes as for Gröbner bases.

###### Definition 10

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type over a field $`𝕜`$ and $`𝒫`$ a non-zero left ideal. A finite subset $``$ is a *weak involutive basis* of $``$ for an involutive division $`L`$ on $`_0^n`$, if its leading exponents $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ form a weak involutive basis of the monoid ideal $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$. The subset $``$ is a *(strong) involutive basis* of $``$, if $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ is a strong involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ and no two distinct elements of $``$ have the same leading exponents.

###### Remark 4

This definition of an involutive basis is different from the original one given by Gerdt and Blinkov gb:invbas . Firstly, the notion of a weak basis is new. Secondly, we do not require that an involutive basis is completely autoreduced. Finally, our approach is a natural extension of Definition 9 of a Gröbner basis in the ring $`𝒫`$ whereas the approach of Gerdt and Blinkov gb:invbas  is closer to the constructive characterisation of Gröbner bases via $`S`$-polynomials. However, we will see below that essentially both approaches are equivalent. $``$

Definition 10 implies immediately that any weak involutive basis is a Gröbner basis. As in Section 2, we call any finite set $`𝒫`$ *(weakly) involutive*, if it is a (weak) involutive basis of the ideal $``$ generated by it.

###### Definition 11

Let $`𝒫\{0\}`$ be a finite set and $`L`$ an involutive division on $`_0^n`$. We assign to each element $`f`$ a set of *multiplicative variables*

$$X_{L,,}(f)=\{x_iiN_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f)\}.$$
(17)
The *involutive span* of $``$ is then the set

$$_{L,}=\underset{f}{}𝕜\left[X_{L,,}(f)\right]f.$$
(18)
An important aspect of Gröbner bases is the existence of standard representations for ideal elements. For (weak) involutive bases a similar characterisation exists and in the case of strong bases we even obtain unique representations.

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`𝒫`$ be a non-zero ideal, $`\{0\}`$ a finite set and $`L`$ an involutive division on $`_0^n`$. Then the following two statements are equivalent.

The set $``$ is a weak involutive basis of $``$ with respect to $`L`$ and $``$.

Every polynomial $`f`$ can be written in the form

$$f=\underset{h}{}P_hh$$
(19)
where the coefficients $`P_h𝕜[X_{L,,}(h)]`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_hh)\mathrm{le}_{}f`$ for all polynomials $`h`$.

$``$ is a strong involutive basis, if and only if the representation (19) is unique.

###### Proof

Let us first assume that the set $``$ is a weak involutive basis. Take an arbitrary polynomial $`f`$. According to Definition 10, its leading exponent $`\mathrm{le}_{}f`$ lies in the involutive cone $`𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(h)`$ of at least one element $`h`$. Let $`\mu =\mathrm{le}_{}f\mathrm{le}_{}h`$ and set $`f_1=fcx^\mu h`$ where the coefficient $`c𝕜`$ is chosen such that the leading terms cancel. Obviously, $`f_1`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_1\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Iteration yields a sequence of polynomials $`f_i`$. After a finite number of steps we must reach $`f_N=0`$, as the leading exponents are always decreasing and by assumption the leading exponent of *any* polynomial in $``$ possesses an involutive divisor in $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$. But this implies the existence of a representation of the form (19).

Now assume that $``$ is even a strong involutive basis and take an involutive standard representation (19). By definition of a strong basis, there exists one and only one generator $`h`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_hh)=\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. This fact determines uniquely $`\mathrm{le}_{}P_h`$. Applying the same argument to $`f(\mathrm{lt}_{}P_h)h`$ shows by recursion that the representation (19) is indeed unique.

For the converse note that (ii) trivially implies that $`\mathrm{le}_{}f\mathrm{le}_{}_{L,}`$ for any polynomial $`f`$. Thus $`\mathrm{le}_{}\mathrm{le}_{}_{L,}`$. As the converse inclusion is obvious, we have in fact an equality and $``$ is a weak involutive basis.

Now let us assume that the set $``$ is only a weak but not a strong involutive basis of $``$. This implies the existence of two generators $`h_1,h_2`$ such that $`𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}h_2)𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}h_1)`$. Hence we have $`\mathrm{lm}_{}h_2=\mathrm{lm}_{}(cx^\mu h_1)`$ for suitably chosen $`c𝕜`$ and $`\mu _0^n`$. Consider the polynomial $`h_2cx^\mu h_1`$. If it vanishes, we have found a non-trivial involutive standard representation of $`0`$. Otherwise an involutive standard representation $`h_2cx^\mu h_1=_hP_hh`$ with $`P_h𝕜[X_{L,,}(h)]`$ exists. Setting $`P_h^{}=P_h`$ for all generators $`hh_1,h_2`$ and $`P_{h_1}^{}=P_{h_1}+cx^\mu `$, $`P_{h_2}^{}=P_{h_2}1`$ yields again a non-trivial involutive standard representation $`0=_hP_h^{}h`$. The existence of such a non-trivial representation of $`0`$ immediately implies that (19) cannot be unique. Thus only for a strong involutive basis the involutive standard representation is always unique.∎

###### Corollary 1

Let the set $``$ be a weak involutive basis of the left ideal $`𝒫`$. Then $`_{L,}=`$.

###### Example 10

It is *not* true that any set $``$ with $`_{L,}=`$ is a weak involutive basis of the ideal $``$. Consider in the ordinary polynomial ring $`𝕜[x,y]`$ the ideal $``$ generated by the two polynomials $`f_1=y^2`$ and $`f_2=y^2+x^2`$. If we order the variables as $`x_1=x`$ and $`x_2=y`$, then the set $`=\{f_1,f_2\}`$ trivially satisfies $`_{J,}=`$, as with respect to the Janet division all variables are multiplicative for each generator. However, $`\mathrm{le}_{}=\{[0,2]\}`$ does *not* generate $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$, as obviously $`[2,0]\mathrm{le}_{}\{[0,2]\}`$. Thus $``$ is not a weak Janet basis (neither is the autoreduced set $`^{}=\{y^2,x^2\}`$, as $`x^2y^{}_{J,}`$). $``$

###### Proposition 5

Let $`𝒫`$ be an ideal and $`𝒫`$ a weak involutive basis of it for the involutive division $`L`$. Then there exists a subset $`^{}`$ which is a strong involutive basis of $``$.

###### Proof

If the set $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ is already a strong involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$, we are done. Otherwise $``$ contains polynomials $`h_1`$, $`h_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}h_1|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}h_2`$. Consider the subset $`^{}=\{h_2\}`$. As in the proof of Proposition 1 one easily shows that $`\mathrm{le}_{}^{}=\mathrm{le}_{}\{\mathrm{le}_{}h_2\}`$ is still a weak involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ and thus $`^{}`$ is still a weak involutive basis of $``$. After a finite number of such eliminations we must reach a strong involutive basis.∎

Given this result, one may wonder why we have introduced the notion of a weak basis. The reason is that in more general situations like computations in local rings or polynomial algebras over coefficient rings (treated in later sections) strong bases rarely exist.

###### Definition 12

Let $`𝒫`$ be a finite set and $`L`$ an involutive division. A polynomial $`g𝒫`$ is *involutively reducible* with respect to $``$, if it contains a term $`x^\mu `$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}f|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mu `$ for some $`f`$. It is in *involutive normal form* with respect to $``$, if it is not involutively reducible. The set $``$ is *involutively autoreduced*, if no polynomial $`f`$ contains a term $`x^\mu `$ such that another polynomial $`f^{}\{f\}`$ exists with $`\mathrm{le}_{}f^{}|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mu `$.

###### Remark 5

The definition of an involutively autoreduced set *cannot* be formulated more concisely by saying that each $`f`$ is in involutive normal form with respect to $`\{f\}`$. If we are not dealing with a global division, the removal of $`f`$ from $``$ will generally change the assignment of the multiplicative indices and thus affect the involutive divisibility. $``$

An *obstruction to involution* is a polynomial $`g_{L,}`$ possessing a (necessarily non-involutive) standard representation with respect to $``$. We will later see that these elements make the difference between an involutive and an arbitrary Gröbner basis.

###### Example 11

Consider the set $`=\{f_1,f_2,f_3\}𝕜[x,y,z]`$ with the polynomials $`f_1=z^2xy`$, $`f_2=yzx`$ and $`f_3=y^2z`$. For any degree compatible term order, the leading terms of $`f_2`$ and $`f_3`$ are unique. For $`f_1`$ we have two possibilities: if we use the degree lexicographic order (i. e. for $`xyz`$), it is $`z^2`$, for the degree inverse lexicographic order (i. e. for $`xyz`$) the leading term is $`xy`$.

In the first case, $`_{J,_{\text{deglex}}}=`$, so that for this term order $``$ is a Janet basis, i. e. an involutive basis with respect to the Janet division, although we have not yet the necessary tools to prove this fact. In the second case, $`f_4=z^3x^2=zf_1+xf_2`$ does not possess a standard representation and $``$ is not even a Gröbner basis. Adding $`f_4`$ to $``$ yields a Gröbner basis $`𝒢`$ of $``$, as one may easily check. But this makes $`z`$ non-multiplicative for $`f_2`$ and $`f_5=zf_2`$ is now an obstruction to involution of $`𝒢`$, as it is not involutively reducible with respect to the Janet division. In fact, the set $`^{}=\{f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4,f_5\}`$ is the smallest Janet basis of $``$ for this term order, as it is not possible to remove an element. Note that this second basis is not only larger but also contains polynomials of higher degree. $``$

###### Remark 6

If $`𝒢`$ is a Gröbner basis of the ideal $``$, then any element of $``$ has a standard representation. But this does not imply that for a given division $`L`$ the ideal $``$ is free of obstructions to involution. In order to obtain at least a weak involutive basis, we must add further elements of $``$ to $`𝒢`$ until $`\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢_L=\mathrm{le}_{}`$. Obviously, this observation allows us to reduce the construction of a polynomial involutive basis to a Gröbner basis computation plus a monomial completion. But we will see later that better possibilities exist.

It follows that in general involutive bases are not reduced Gröbner bases, as we already observed in Example 11. For $`_{\text{deglex}}`$ the set $``$ was simultaneously a Janet basis and a reduced Gröbner basis. But for $`_{\text{deginvlex}}`$ the reduced Gröbner basis is $`\{f_4\}`$, whereas a Janet basis requires in addition the polynomial $`f_5`$. We will see in Part II that this “redundancy” in involutive bases is the key for their use in the structure analysis of polynomial ideals and modules. $``$

It often suffices, if one does not consider all terms in $`g`$ but only the leading term $`\mathrm{lt}_{}g`$: the polynomial $`g`$ is *involutively head reducible*, if $`\mathrm{le}_{}f|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ for some $`f`$. Similarly, the set $``$ is *involutively head autoreduced*, if no leading exponent of an element $`f`$ is involutively divisible by the leading exponent of another element $`f^{}\{f\}`$. Note that the definition of a strong involutive basis immediately implies that it is involutively head autoreduced.

As involutive reducibility is a restriction of ordinary reducibility, involutive normal forms can be determined with trivial adaptions of the familiar algorithms. The termination follows by the same argument as usual, namely that any term order is a well-order. If $`g^{}`$ is an involutive normal form of $`g𝒫`$ with respect to the set $``$ for the division $`L`$, then we write $`g^{}=\mathrm{NF}_{,L,}(g)`$, although involutive normal forms are in general not unique (like ordinary normal forms). Depending on the order in which reductions are applied different results are obtained.

The ordinary normal form is unique, if and only if it is computed with respect to a Gröbner basis; this property is often used as an alternative definition of Gröbner bases. The situation is somewhat different for the involutive normal form.

###### Lemma 3

The sum in (18) is direct, if and only if the finite set $`𝒫\{0\}`$ is involutively head autoreduced with respect to the involutive division $`L`$.

###### Proof

One direction is obvious. For the converse, let $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ be two distinct elements of $``$ and $`X_i=X_{L,,}(f_i)`$ their respective sets of multiplicative variables for the division $`L`$. Assume that two polynomials $`P_i𝕜[X_i]`$ exist with $`P_1f_1=P_2f_2`$ and hence $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_1f_1)=\mathrm{le}_{}(P_2f_2)`$. As the multiplication $``$ respects the term order $``$, this implies that $`𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f_1)𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f_2)\mathrm{}`$. Thus one of the involutive cones is completely contained in the other one and either $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_1|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}f_2`$ or $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_2|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}f_1`$ contradicting that $``$ is involutively head autoreduced.∎

###### Proposition 6

If the finite set $`𝒫\{0\}`$ is involutively head autoreduced, every polynomial $`g𝒫`$ has a unique involutive normal form $`\mathrm{NF}_{,L,}(g)`$.

###### Proof

If $`0`$ is an involutive normal form of $`g`$, then obviously $`g_{L,}`$. Conversely, assume that $`g_{L,}`$, i. e. the polynomial $`g`$ can be written in the form $`g=_fP_ff`$ with $`P_f𝕜[X_{L,,}(f)]`$. As $``$ is involutively head autoreduced, the leading terms of the summands never cancel (see the proof of Lemma 3). Thus $`\mathrm{le}_{}g=\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)`$ for some $`f`$ and any polynomial $`g_{L,}`$ is involutively head reducible with respect to $``$. Each reduction step in an involutive normal form algorithm leads to a new polynomial $`g^{}_{L,}`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}g^{}\mathrm{le}_{}g`$. If the leading term is reduced, we even get $`\mathrm{le}_{}g^{}\mathrm{le}_{}g`$. As each terminating normal form algorithm must sooner or later reduce the leading term, we eventually obtain $`0`$ as unique involutive normal form of any $`g_{L,}`$.

Let $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ be two involutive normal forms of the polynomial $`g`$. Obviously, $`g_1g_2_{L,}`$. By definition of a normal form, neither $`g_1`$ nor $`g_2`$ contain any term involutively reducible with respect to $``$ and the same holds for $`g_1g_2`$. Hence the difference $`g_1g_2`$ is also in involutive normal form and by our considerations above we must have $`g_1g_2=0`$.∎

###### Proposition 7

The ordinary and the involutive normal form of any polynomial $`g𝒫`$ with respect to a finite weakly involutive set $`𝒫\{0\}`$ are identical.

###### Proof

Recalling the proof of the previous proposition, we see that we used the assumption that $``$ was involutively head autoreduced only for proving the existence of a generator $`f`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}f|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ for every polynomial $`g_{L,}`$. But obviously this property is also implied by the definition of a weak involutive basis. Thus by the same argument as above, we conclude that the involutive normal form with respect to a weakly involutive set is unique. For Gröbner bases the uniqueness of the ordinary normal form is a classical property and any weak involutive basis is also a Gröbner basis. As a polynomial in ordinary normal form with respect to $``$ is trivially in involutive normal form with respect to $``$, too, the two normal forms must coincide.∎

Finally, we extend the notion of a minimal involutive basis from $`_0^n`$ to $`𝒫`$. This is done in the same manner as in the theory of Gröbner bases.

###### Definition 13

Let $`𝒫`$ be a non-zero ideal and $`L`$ an involutive division. An involutive basis $``$ of $``$ with respect to $`L`$ is *minimal*, if $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ is the minimal involutive basis of the monoid ideal $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ for the division $`L`$.

By Proposition 2, we find that for a globally defined division like the Pommaret division any involutive basis is minimal. Uniqueness requires two additional assumptions. First of all, our definition of an involutive basis requires only that it is involutively head autoreduced; for uniqueness we obviously need a full involutive autoreduction. Secondly, we must normalise the leading coefficients to one, i. e. we must take a *monic* basis.

###### Proposition 8

Let $`𝒫`$ be a non-zero ideal and $`L`$ an involutive division. Then $``$ possesses at most one monic, involutively autoreduced, minimal involutive basis for the division $`L`$.

###### Proof

Assume that $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are two different monic, involutively autoreduced, minimal involutive bases of $``$ with respect to $`L`$ and $``$. By definition of a minimal involutive bases, this implies that $`\mathrm{le}_{}_1=\mathrm{le}_{}_2`$. As $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are not identical, we must have two polynomials $`h_1_1`$ and $`h_2_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}h_1=\mathrm{le}_{}h_2`$ but $`h_1h_2`$. Now consider the polynomial $`h=h_1h_2`$. Its leading exponent must lie in the involutive span of $`\mathrm{le}_{}_1=\mathrm{le}_{}_2`$. On the other hand, the term $`\mathrm{lt}_{}h`$ must be contained in either $`h_1`$ or $`h_2`$. But this implies that either $`_1`$ or $`_2`$ is not involutively autoreduced.∎

## 6 Monomial Completion

We turn to the question of the actual construction of involutive bases. Unfortunately, for arbitrary involutive division no satisfying solution is known so far. In the monomial case, one may follow a brute force approach, namely performing a breadth first search through the tree of all possible completions. Obviously, it terminates only, if a finite basis exists. But for divisions satisfying some additional properties one can design a fairly efficient completion algorithm.

The first problem in constructing an involutive completion of a finite subset $`𝒩_0^n`$ for a division $`L`$ is to check *effectively* whether $`𝒩`$ is already involutive. The trouble is that we do not know a priori where obstructions to involution might lie. If we denote by $`1_j_0^n`$ the multi index where all entries are zero except the $`j`$th one which is one, then the multi indices $`\nu +1_j`$ with $`\nu 𝒩`$ and $`j\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ are a natural first guess.

###### Definition 14

The finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$ is *locally involutive* for the involutive division $`L`$, if $`\nu +1_j𝒩_L`$ for every non-multiplicative index $`j\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ of every multi index $`\nu 𝒩`$.

Obviously, local involution is easy to check effectively. However, while (weak) involution obviously implies local involution, the converse does not necessarily hold. A concrete counter example was given by Gerdt and Blinkov gb:invbas . But they also discovered that for many divisions the converse is in fact true and thus for such divisions we can effectively decide involution.

###### Definition 15

Let $`L`$ be an involutive division and $`𝒩_0^n`$ a finite set. Let furthermore $`(\nu ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\nu ^{(t)})`$ be a finite sequence of elements of $`𝒩`$ where every multi index $`\nu ^{(k)}`$ with $`k<t`$ has a non-multiplicative index $`j_k\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(k)})`$ such that $`\nu ^{(k+1)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(k)}+1_{j_k}`$. The division $`L`$ is *continuous*, if any such sequence consists only of distinct elements, i. e. if $`\nu ^{(k)}\nu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ for all $`k\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proposition 9

For a continuous division $`L`$, any locally involutive set $`𝒩_0^n`$ is weakly involutive.

###### Proof

Let the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contain those obstructions to involution that are of minimal length.444The length $`|\nu |`$ of a multi index $`\nu _0^n`$ is the sum of its entries, i. e. the degree of the monomial $`x^\nu `$. We claim that for a continuous division $`L`$ all multi indices $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are of the form $`\nu +1_j`$ with $`\nu 𝒩`$ and $`j\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$. This immediately implies our proposition: since for a locally involutive set all such multi indices are contained in $`𝒩_L`$, we must have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{}`$ and thus $`𝒩=𝒩_L`$.

In order to prove our claim, we choose a $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for which no $`\nu 𝒩`$ exists with $`\sigma =\nu +1_j`$. We collect in $`𝒩_\sigma `$ all divisors $`\nu 𝒩`$ of $`\sigma `$ of maximal length. Let $`\nu ^{(1)}`$ be an element of $`𝒩_\sigma `$; by assumption the multi index $`\mu ^{(1)}=\sigma \nu ^{(1)}`$ satisfies $`|\mu ^{(1)}|>1`$ and at least one non-multiplicative index $`j_1\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})`$ exists with $`\mu _{j_1}^{(1)}>0`$. By the definition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}𝒩_L`$. Thus a multi index $`\nu ^{(2)}𝒩`$ exists with $`\nu ^{(2)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}`$. This implies $`\nu ^{(2)}\sigma `$ and we set $`\mu ^{(2)}=\sigma \nu ^{(2)}`$. By the definition of the set $`𝒩_\sigma `$ we have $`|\nu ^{(2)}||\nu ^{(1)}|`$. Hence $`\nu ^{(2)}+1_j𝒩_L`$ for all $`j`$.

Choose a non-multiplicative index $`j_2\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(2)})`$ with $`\mu _{j_2}^{(2)}>0`$. Such an index exists as otherwise $`\sigma 𝒩_L`$. By the same arguments as above, a multi index $`\nu ^{(3)}𝒩`$ exists with $`\nu ^{(3)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(2)}+1_{j_2}`$ and $`|\nu ^{(3)}||\nu ^{(2)}|`$. We can iterate this process and produce an infinite sequence $`(\nu ^{(1)},\nu ^{(2)},\mathrm{})`$ where each multi index satisfies $`\nu ^{(i)}𝒩`$ and $`\nu ^{(i+1)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(i)}+1_{j_i}`$ with $`j_i\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$. As $`𝒩`$ is a finite set, the elements of the sequence cannot be all different. This contradicts our assumption that $`L`$ is a continuous division: by taking a sufficiently large part of this sequence we obtain a finite sequence with all properties mentioned in Definition 15 but containing some identical elements. Hence a multi index $`\nu 𝒩`$ must exist such that $`\sigma =\nu +1_j`$.∎

###### Lemma 4

The Janet and the Pommaret division are continuous.

###### Proof

Let $`𝒩_0^n`$ be a finite set and $`(\nu ^{(i)},\mathrm{},\nu ^{(t)})`$ a finite sequence where $`\nu ^{(i+1)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(i)}+1_j`$ with $`j\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$ for $`1i<t`$.

We claim that for $`L=J`$, the Janet division, $`\nu ^{(i+1)}_{\text{lex}}\nu ^{(i)}`$ implying that the sequence cannot contain any identical entries. Set $`k=\mathrm{max}\{i\mu _i\nu _i\}`$. Then $`jk`$, as otherwise $`jN_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i+1)})`$ entails $`jN_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$ contradicting our assumption that $`j`$ is non-multiplicative for the multi index $`\nu ^{(i)}`$. But $`j<k`$ is also not possible, as then $`\nu _k^{(i+1)}<\nu _k^{(i)}`$ and so $`k`$ cannot be multiplicative for $`\nu ^{(i+1)}`$. There remains as only possibility $`j=k`$. In this case $`\nu _j^{(i+1)}=\nu _j^{(i)}+1`$, as otherwise $`j`$ could not be multiplicative for $`\nu ^{(i+1)}`$. Thus we conclude that $`\nu ^{(i+1)}_{\text{lex}}\nu ^{(i)}`$ and the Janet division is continuous.

The proof for the case $`L=P`$, the Pommaret division, is slightly more subtle.555It is tempting to tackle the Pommaret division in the same manner as the Janet division using $`_{\text{revlex}}`$ instead of $`_{\text{lex}}`$; in fact, such a “proof” can be found in the literature. Unfortunately, it is not correct: if $`\nu ^{(i+1)}=\nu ^{(i)}+1_j`$, then $`\nu ^{(i+1)}_{\text{revlex}}\nu ^{(i)}`$ although the latter multi index is a divisor of the former one ($`_{\text{revlex}}`$ is *not* a term order!). Thus the sequences considered in the application of Definition 15 to the Pommaret division are in general not strictly ascending with respect to $`_{\text{revlex}}`$. The condition $`j\overline{N}_P(\nu ^{(i)})`$ implies that $`\mathrm{cls}(\nu ^{(i)}+1_j)=\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(i)}`$ and if $`\nu ^{(i+1)}|_P\nu ^{(i)}+1_j`$, then $`\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(i+1)}\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(i)}`$, i. e. the class of the elements of the sequence is monotonously increasing. If $`\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(i+1)}=\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(i)}=k`$, then the involutive divisibility requires that $`\nu _k^{(i+1)}\nu _k^{(i)}`$, i. e. among the elements of the sequence of the same class the corresponding entry is monotonously decreasing. And if finally $`\nu _k^{(i+1)}=\nu _k^{(i)}`$, then we must have $`\nu ^{(i+1)}=\nu ^{(i)}+1_j`$, i. e. the length of the elements is strictly increasing. Hence all elements of the sequence are different and the Pommaret division is continuous.∎

###### Remark 7

In Remark 2 we discussed that for a global division a weak involutive basis of the sum $`_1+_2`$ of two monoid ideals is obtained by simply taking the union of (weak) involutive bases of $`_1`$ and $`_2`$. As a more theoretical application of the concept of continuity, we prove now a similar statement for the product $`_1_2`$ and the intersection $`_1_2`$ in the special case of the Pommaret division. Let $`𝒩_1`$ be a (weak) Pommaret basis of $`_1`$ and $`𝒩_2`$ of $`_2`$. We claim that the set $`𝒩=\{\mu +\nu \mu 𝒩_1,\nu 𝒩_2\}`$ is a weak Pommaret basis of $`_1_2`$ and that the set $`\widehat{𝒩}=\{\mathrm{lcm}(\mu ,\nu )\mu 𝒩_1,\nu 𝒩_2\}`$ is a weak Pommaret basis of $`_1_2`$.

By Proposition 9, it suffices to show that the sets $`𝒩`$ and $`\widehat{𝒩}`$, respectively, are locally involutive for the Pommaret division. Thus we take a generator $`\mu +\nu 𝒩`$, where we assume for definiteness that $`\mathrm{cls}\mu \mathrm{cls}\nu `$, and a non-multiplicative index $`j_1>\mathrm{cls}(\mu +\nu )=\mathrm{cls}\mu `$ of it. Then $`j_1`$ is also non-multiplicative for $`\mu 𝒩_1`$ alone and the Pommaret basis $`𝒩_1`$ must contain a multi index $`\mu ^{(1)}`$ which involutively divides $`\mu +1_{j_1}`$. If we are lucky, then the generator $`\mu ^{(1)}+\nu 𝒩`$ is an involutive divisor of $`\mu +\nu +1_{j_1}`$, too, and we are done.

Otherwise, there exists an index $`k_1>\mathrm{cls}\nu `$ such that $`(\mu \mu ^{(1)})_{k_1}>0`$. In this case the Pommaret basis $`𝒩_2`$ must contain a multi index $`\nu ^{(1)}`$ which involutively divides $`\nu +1_{k_1}`$. Again, if we are lucky, then $`\mu ^{(1)}+\nu ^{(1)}𝒩`$ is an involutive divisor of $`\mu +\nu +1_{j_1}`$ and we are done. Otherwise, there are two possibilities. There could be an index $`j_2>\mathrm{cls}\mu ^{(1)}`$ such that $`(\mu +\nu +1_{j_1}\mu ^{(1)}+\nu ^{(1)})_{j_2}>0`$ entailing the existence of a further generator $`\mu ^{(2)}𝒩_1`$ which involutively divides $`\mu ^{(1)}+1_{j_2}`$. Or there could exist an index $`k_2>\mathrm{cls}\nu ^{(1)}`$ such that $`(\mu +\nu +1_{j_1}\mu ^{(1)}+\nu ^{(1)})_{k_2}>0`$ implying that there is a multi index $`\nu ^{(2)}𝒩_2`$ involutively dividing $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{k_2}`$.

Continuing in this manner, one easily sees that we build up two sequences $`(\mu ,\mu ^{(1)},\mu ^{(2)},\mathrm{})𝒩_1`$ and $`(\nu ,\nu ^{(1)},\nu ^{(2)},\mathrm{})𝒩_2`$ as in the definition of a continuous division. Since both Pommaret bases are finite by definition and the Pommaret division is continuous by Lemma 4, no sequence may become infinite and the above described process must stop with an involutive divisor of $`\mu +\nu +1_{j_1}`$. Hence $`𝒩`$ is locally involutive and a weak Pommaret basis of $`_1_2`$. The proof for $`\widehat{𝒩}`$ goes completely analogously replacing at appropriate places the sum of two multi indices by their least common multiple. $``$

###### Definition 16

Let $`L`$ be a continuous involutive division and $`𝒩_0^n`$ a finite set of multi indices. Choose a multi index $`\nu 𝒩`$ and a non-multiplicative index $`j\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu )`$ such that:

$`\nu +1_j𝒩_L`$;

if there exists $`\mu 𝒩`$ and $`k\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\mu )`$ such that $`\mu +1_k\nu +1_j`$ but $`\mu +1_k\nu +1_j`$, then $`\mu +1_k𝒩_L`$.

The division $`L`$ is *constructive*, if for any such set $`𝒩`$ and any such multi index $`\nu +1_j`$ no multi index $`\rho 𝒩_L`$ with $`\nu +1_j𝒞_{L,𝒩\{\rho \}}(\rho )`$ exists.

In words, constructivity may roughly be explained as follows. The conditions imposed on $`\nu `$ and $`j`$ ensure a kind of minimality: no proper divisor of $`\nu +1_j`$ is of the form $`\mu +1_k`$ for a $`\mu 𝒩`$ and not contained in the involutive span $`𝒩_L`$. The conclusion implies that it is useless to add multi indices to $`𝒩`$ that lie in some involutive cone, as none of them can be an involutive divisor of $`\nu +1_j`$. An efficient completion algorithm for a constructive division should consider only non-multiplicative indices.

###### Lemma 5

Any globally defined division (and thus the Pommaret division) is constructive. The Janet division is constructive, too.

###### Proof

For a globally defined division the proof is very simple. For any multi index $`\rho 𝒩_L`$ there exists a multi index $`\mu 𝒩`$ such that $`\rho 𝒞_L(\mu )`$. As for a globally defined division the multiplicative indices are independent of the reference set, we must have by the definition of an involutive division that $`𝒞_L(\rho )𝒞_L(\mu )`$. Hence adding such a multi index to $`𝒩`$ cannot change the involutive span and if $`\nu +1_j𝒩_L`$, then also $`\nu +1_j𝒩\{\rho \}_L`$. This implies constructivity.

The proof of the constructivity of the Janet division is more involved. The basic idea is to show that if it was not constructive, it could not be continuous either. Let $`𝒩`$, $`\nu `$, $`j`$ be as described in Definition 16. Assume for a contradiction that a multi index $`\rho 𝒩_J`$ exists with $`\nu +1_j𝒞_{J,𝒩\{\rho \}}(\rho )`$. We write $`\rho =\nu ^{(1)}+\mu `$ for a multi index $`\nu ^{(1)}𝒩`$ with $`\rho 𝒞_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})`$. As $`\nu +1_j𝒩_J`$, we must have $`|\mu |>0`$. Set $`\lambda =\nu +1_j\rho `$ and let $`m`$, $`l`$ be the maximal indices such that $`\mu _m>0`$ and $`\lambda _l>0`$, respectively.

We claim that $`j>\mathrm{max}\{m,l\}`$. Indeed, if $`jm`$, then $`\nu _m^{(1)}<\nu _m`$ and, by definition of the Janet division, this implies that $`mN_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})`$, a contradiction. Similarly, we cannot have $`j<l`$, as then $`lN_{J,𝒩\{\rho \}}(\rho )`$. Finally, $`j=l`$ is not possible. As we know already that $`j>m`$, we have in this case that $`\rho _i=\nu _i^{(1)}=\nu _i`$ for all $`i>j`$ and $`\rho _j\nu _j`$. Hence $`j\overline{N}_{J,𝒩\{\rho \}}(\nu )`$ and this implies furthermore $`j\overline{N}_{J,𝒩\{\rho \}}(\rho )`$, a contradiction.

We construct a sequence as in Definition 15 of a continuous division. Choose an index $`j_1`$ with $`\lambda _{j_1}>0`$ and $`j_1\overline{N}_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})`$. Such an index exists, as otherwise $`\nu +1_j𝒞_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})𝒩_J`$. We write $`\nu +1_j=(\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1})+\mu +\lambda 1_{j_1}`$. Because of $`|\mu |>0`$, the multi index $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}`$ is a proper divisor of $`\nu +1_j`$ and according to our assumptions $`\nu ^{(2)}𝒩`$ exists with $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}𝒞_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(2)})`$.

By the same arguments as above an index $`j_2\overline{N}_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(2)})`$ must exist with $`(\mu +\lambda 1_{j_1})_{j_2}>0`$ and a multi index $`\nu ^{(3)}𝒩`$ with $`\nu ^{(2)}+1_{j_2}𝒞_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(3)})`$. Thus we can iterate and produce an infinite sequence $`(\nu ^{(1)},\nu ^{(2)},\mathrm{})`$ such that everywhere $`\nu ^{(i+1)}|_{J,𝒩}\nu ^{(i)}+1_{j_i}`$ with $`j_i\overline{N}_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$. By the continuity of the Janet division all members of the sequence must be different. However, every multi index $`\nu ^{(i)}`$ is a divisor of $`\nu +1_j`$, so only finitely many of them can be different. Thus the sequence must terminate which only happens, if $`\nu +1_j𝒞_{J,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$ for some $`i`$ contradicting our assumptions. ∎

We present now an algorithm for determining weak involutive completions of finite sets $`𝒩_0^n`$. As mentioned above, for arbitrary involutive divisions, nobody has so far been able to find a reasonable approach. But if we assume that the division is constructive, then a very simple completion algorithm exists, the basic ideas of which go back to Janet.

The strategy behind Algorithm 2 is fairly natural given the results above. It collects in a set $`𝒮`$ all obstructions to local involution. For a continuous division $`L`$, the set $`𝒩`$ is weakly involutive, if and only if $`𝒮=\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore, for a constructive division $`L`$ it does not make sense to add elements of $`𝒩_L`$ to $`𝒩`$ in order to complete. Thus we add in Line /8/ an element of $`𝒮`$ which is minimal in the sense that the set $`𝒮`$ does not contain a proper divisor of it.

###### Proposition 10

Let the finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$ possess a finite (weak) involutive completion with respect to the constructive division $`L`$. Then Algorithm 2 terminates with a weak involutive completion $`\overline{𝒩}`$ of $`𝒩`$.

###### Proof

If Algorithm 2 terminates, its correctness is obvious under the made assumptions. The criterion for its termination, $`𝒮=\mathrm{}`$, is equivalent to local involution of $`\overline{𝒩}`$. By Proposition 9, local involution implies for a continuous division weak involution. Thus the result $`\overline{𝒩}`$ is a weak involutive completion of $`𝒩`$, as by construction $`𝒩\overline{𝒩}𝒩`$.

If the input set $`𝒩`$ is already involutive, Algorithm 2 leaves it unchanged and thus obviously terminates. Let us assume that $`𝒩`$ is not yet involutive. In the first iteration of the loop a multi index of the form $`\mu =\nu +1_j`$ is added to $`𝒩`$. It is not contained in $`𝒩_L`$ and $`𝒮`$ does not contain a proper divisor of it. If $`𝒩_L`$ is an arbitrary involutive completion of $`𝒩`$, it must contain a multi index $`\lambda 𝒩`$ such that $`\lambda |_{L,𝒩_L}\mu `$. We claim that $`\lambda =\mu `$.

Assume on the contrary that $`\lambda \mu `$. Since $`𝒩_L𝒩`$, the multi index $`\lambda `$ must lie in the cone of a generator $`\nu ^{(1)}𝒩`$. We will show that, because of the continuity of $`L`$, $`\lambda 𝒩_L`$, contradicting the constructivity of $`L`$. If $`\nu ^{(1)}|_{L,𝒩}\lambda `$, we are done. Otherwise we write $`\lambda =\nu ^{(1)}+\rho ^{(1)}`$ for some multi index $`\rho ^{(1)}_0^n`$. By construction, a non-multiplicative index $`j_1\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(1)})`$ with $`\rho _{j_1}^{(1)}>0`$ must exist. Consider the multi index $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}`$. Because of $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}\lambda `$, the multi index $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}`$ is a proper divisor of $`\mu `$. Since the set $`𝒮`$ does not contain any proper divisor of $`\mu `$, we must have $`\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}𝒩_L`$. Thus a multi index $`\nu ^{(2)}𝒩`$ exists such that $`\nu ^{(2)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(1)}+1_{j_1}`$.

By iteration of this argument, we obtain a sequence $`(\nu ^{(1)},\nu ^{(2)},\mathrm{})`$ where each element $`\nu ^{(i)}𝒩`$ is a divisor of $`\lambda `$ and where $`\nu ^{(i+1)}|_{L,𝒩}\nu ^{(i)}+1_{j_i}`$ with a non-multiplicative index $`j_i\overline{N}_{L,𝒩}(\nu ^{(i)})`$. This sequence cannot become infinite for a continuous division, as $`\lambda `$ possesses only finitely many different divisors and all the multi indices $`\nu ^{(i)}`$ in arbitrary finite pieces of the sequence must be different. But the sequence will only stop, if some $`\nu ^{(i)}𝒩`$ exists such that $`\nu ^{(i)}|_{L,𝒩}\lambda `$ and hence we must have that $`\lambda 𝒩_L`$.

Thus *every* weak involutive completion $`𝒩_L`$ of the given set $`𝒩`$ must contain the multi index $`\nu +1_j`$. In the next iteration of the loop, Algorithm 2 treats the enlarged set $`𝒩_1=𝒩\{\nu +1_j\}`$. It follows from our considerations above that any weak involutive completion $`𝒩_L`$ of $`𝒩`$ is also a weak involutive completion of $`𝒩_1`$ and hence we may apply the same argument again. As a completion $`𝒩_L`$ is by definition a finite set, we must reach after a finite number $`k`$ of iterations a weak involutive basis $`𝒩_k`$ of $`𝒩`$.∎

Note the crucial difference between this result and the termination proof of Buchberger’s algorithm for the construction of Gröbner bases. In the latter case, we can show the termination for arbitrary input, i. e. the theorem provides a constructive proof for the existence of such a basis. Here we are only able to prove the termination under the assumption that a finite (weak) involutive basis exists; the existence has to be shown separately. For example, Lemma 1 guarantees us that any monoid ideal possesses a finite weak Janet basis.

Recall that by Proposition 1 any weak involutive basis can be made strongly involutive by simply eliminating some redundant elements. Thus we obtain an algorithm for the construction of a strong involutive basis of $`𝒩`$ by adding an involutive autoreduction as last step to Algorithm 2. Alternatively, we could perform the involutive autoreduction as first step. Indeed, if the input set $`𝒩`$ is involutively autoreduced, then all intermediate sets $`\overline{𝒩}`$ constructed by Algorithm 2 are also involutively autoreduced. This is a simple consequence of the second condition in Definition 1 of an involutive division that involutive cones may only shrink, if we add elements to the set $`𝒩`$.

###### Remark 8

666The following considerations are joint work with Vladimir Gerdt.

While we just stated that it suffices to perform an involutive autoreduction as either first or last step in Algorithm 2, we now analyse for later use what happens, if we involutively autoreduce $`\overline{𝒩}`$ every time a new element has been added to it. The termination argument given in the proof of Proposition 10 does not remain valid after this modification and we must provide an alternative proof.

Let again $`𝒩_L=\{\mu ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mu ^{(r)}\}`$ be a weak involutive completion of the input set $`𝒩`$. If we denote by $`\overline{𝒩}_i`$ the value of $`\overline{𝒩}`$ after the $`i`$th iteration of the loop, then it was shown in the proof of Proposition 10 that $`𝒩_L`$ is also a weak involutive completion of any set $`\overline{𝒩}_i`$. As by definition $`𝒩_L`$ is finite and each $`\overline{𝒩}_i`$ is a subset of it, the only possibility for non-termination is the appearance of a cycle, i. e. the existence of values $`k_0`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\overline{𝒩}_{k+\mathrm{}}=\overline{𝒩}_k`$ for all $`kk_0`$.

Assume that in some iteration of the loop the multi index $`\mu ^{(k)}`$ is added to $`\overline{𝒩}`$ and that in the subsequent involutive autoreduction some elements of $`\overline{𝒩}`$ are eliminated (in order to have a cycle this must indeed happen). The first step in the autoreduction must be that some multi index $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is eliminated, because $`\mu ^{(k)}`$ is an involutive divisor of it. Indeed, by Condition (ii) in Definition 1, any other reduction would have been possible already before the insertion of $`\mu ^{(k)}`$ and thus the previous involutive autoreduction would not have been finished.

Since $`\mu ^{(k)}`$ has been added to $`\overline{𝒩}`$, there must exist some multi index $`\mu ^{(a_1)}𝒩`$ such that $`\mu ^{(k)}=\mu ^{(a_1)}+\rho `$. Furthermore, we know that $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}=\mu ^{(k)}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ for some multi index $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ with $`|\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|>0`$ and thus $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}=\mu ^{(a_1)}+\sigma `$ with $`\sigma =\stackrel{~}{\sigma }+\rho `$ and $`|\sigma |>1`$. As we are in a cycle, the multi index $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ must have been added to $`\overline{𝒩}`$ in a previous iteration of the loop, say when analysing $`\overline{𝒩}_i`$. Thus $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$ cannot be involutively divisible by $`\mu ^{(a_1)}`$ and we must have $`\sigma _{j_1}>0`$ for a non-multiplicative index $`j_1\overline{N}_{L,\overline{𝒩}_i}(\mu ^{(a_1)})`$. It cannot be that $`\mu ^{(a_1)}+1_{j_1}=\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$, as $`|\sigma |>1`$, and therefore $`\mu ^{(a_1)}+1_{j_1}`$ is a proper divisor of $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Hence $`\overline{𝒩}_i`$ must contain an involutive divisor $`\mu ^{(a_2)}`$ of $`\mu ^{(a_1)}+1_{j_1}`$, as otherwise this multi index would have been added to $`\overline{𝒩}`$ instead of $`\mu ^{(\mathrm{})}`$.

Obviously, $`\mu ^{(a_2)}\mu ^{(k)}`$ and, decomposing $`\mu ^{(k)}=\mu ^{(a_2)}+\pi `$, we conclude by the same reasoning as above that $`\pi _{j_2}>0`$ for some non-multiplicative index $`j_2\overline{N}_{L,\overline{𝒩}_i}(\mu ^{(a_2)})`$. Iteration of this argument yields an infinite sequence $`(\mu ^{(a_1)},\mu ^{(a_2)},\mathrm{})`$ as in Definition 15 of a continuous division. However, since $`L`$ is a continuous division and $`𝒩_L`$ a finite set, we arrive at a contradiction. Thus even with involutive autoreductions after each step Algorithm 2 terminates. $``$

In some sense our description of Algorithm 2 is not complete, as we have not specified how one should choose the multi index $`\mu `$ in Line /7/, if several choices are possible. One would expect that different involutive completions are obtained for different choices. However, an interesting aspect of our proof of Proposition 10 is that it shows that this is not the case. The choice affects only the order in which multi indices are added but not which or how many multi indices are added during the completion. A simple method for choosing $`\mu `$ consists of taking an arbitrary term order $``$ (which also could be changed in each iteration of the loop) and setting $`\mu =\mathrm{min}_{}𝒮`$.

###### Corollary 2

If Algorithm 2 terminates, its output $`\overline{𝒩}`$ is independent of the manner in which $`\mu `$ is chosen. Furthermore, if $`𝒩_L`$ is any weak involutive completion of $`𝒩`$ with respect to the division $`L`$, then $`\overline{𝒩}𝒩_L`$.

###### Proof

Consider the set $`(𝒩)`$ of all weak involutive completions of $`𝒩`$ with respect to the division $`L`$ and define

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒩}=\underset{𝒩_L(𝒩)}{}𝒩_L.$$
(20)
We claim that Algorithm 2 determines this set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ independent of the used term order. Obviously, this implies our corollary.

In the proof of Proposition 10 we showed that the multi indices added in Algorithm 2 are contained in *every* weak involutive completion of $`𝒩`$. Thus all these multi indices are elements of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. As our algorithm terminates with a weak involutive completion, its output is also an element of $`(𝒩)`$ and hence must be $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$.∎

Any monoid ideal in $`_0^n`$ has a *unique* minimal basis: take an arbitrary basis and eliminate all multi indices having a divisor in the basis. Obviously, these eliminations do not change the span and the result is a minimal basis. Similarly we have seen in Section 2 that if a monoid ideal $`_0^n`$ has a finite involutive basis for a given division $`L`$, then a unique minimal involutive basis exists. By the same argument as in the proof of Corollary 2, it can easily be constructed by taking the unique minimal basis of $``$ as input for Algorithm 2.

## 7 Polynomial Completion

An obvious way to compute an involutive basis for an ideal $``$ in a polynomial algebra $`(𝒫,,)`$ of solvable type goes as follows: we determine first a Gröbner basis $`𝒢`$ of $``$ and then with Algorithm 2 an involutive completion of $`\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢`$. In fact, a similar method is proposed by Sturmfels and White sw:comb  for the construction of Stanley decompositions (cf. Part II). However, we prefer to extend the ideas behind Algorithm 2 to a direct completion algorithm for polynomial ideals, as we believe that this approach is more efficient.

First, we need two subalgorithms: *involutive normal forms* and *involutive head autoreductions*. The design of an algorithm $`\mathrm{𝙽𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚕𝙵𝚘𝚛𝚖}_{L,}(g,)`$ determining an involutive normal form of the polynomial $`g`$ with respect to the finite set $`𝒫`$ is trivial. We may use the standard algorithm for normal forms in the Gröbner theory, if we replace the ordinary divisibility by its involutive version. Obviously, this does not affect the termination. Actually, for our purposes it is not even necessary to compute a full normal form; we may stop as soon as we have obtained a polynomial that is not involutively head reducible.

The design of an algorithm $`\mathrm{𝙸𝚗𝚟𝙷𝚎𝚊𝚍𝙰𝚞𝚝𝚘𝚁𝚎𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚎}_{L,}()`$ for an involutive head autoreduction of a finite set $``$ is also obvious. Again one may use the standard algorithm with the ordinary divisibility replaced by involutive divisibility.

Based on these two subalgorithms, we propose Algorithm 3 for the computation of involutive bases in $`𝒫`$. It follows the same strategy as the monomial algorithm. We multiply each generator by its non-multiplicative variables. Then we decide whether or not the result is already contained in the involutive span of the basis; if not, it is added. This decision is effectively made via an involutive normal form computation: the involutive normal form of a polynomial is zero, if and only if the polynomial lies in the involutive span. As our goal is a strong involutive basis, we take care that our set is always involutively head autoreduced.

The manner in which we choose in Line /7/ the next polynomial $`\overline{g}`$ to be treated (we briefly write $`\mathrm{min}_{}𝒮`$ for the minimal leading exponent of an element of $`𝒮`$) corresponds to the normal selection strategy in the theory of Gröbner bases. There, this strategy is known to work very well for degree compatible term orders but not so well for other orders like the purely lexicographic one. Whereas for Gröbner bases the selection strategy concerns only the efficiency of the computation, we will see below that here the use of this particular strategy is important for our termination proof. With more refined and optimised versions of the basic completion Algorithm 3 one can circumvent this restriction ah:unred ; cg:invdir ; vpg:opt , but we will not discuss this highly technical question here.

###### Definition 17

A finite set $`𝒫`$ is *locally involutive* for the division $`L`$, if for every polynomial $`f`$ and for every non-multiplicative variable $`x_j\overline{X}_{L,,}(f)`$ the product $`x_jf`$ has an involutive standard representation with respect to $``$.

Note that for an involutively head autoreduced set $``$, we may equivalently demand that $`x_jf_{L,}`$; because of Lemma 3 this automatically implies the existence of an involutive standard representation. In fact, the criterion appears in this form in Line /3/ of Algorithm 3. In any case, local involution may be effectively verified by computing an involutive normal form of $`x_jf`$ in the usual manner, i. e. always performing head reductions.

###### Proposition 11

If the finite set $`𝒫`$ is locally involutive for the continuous division $`L`$, then $`_{L,}=`$.

###### Proof

We claim that if the set $``$ is locally involutive (with respect to the continuous division $`L`$), then every product $`x^\mu f_1`$ of an arbitrary term $`x^\mu `$ with a polynomial $`f_1`$ possesses an involutive standard representation. This claim trivially entails our proposition, as any polynomial in $``$ consists of a finite linear combination of such products: adding the corresponding involutive standard representations shows that the polynomial is contained in $`_{L,}`$.

In order to prove our claim, it suffices to show the existence of a representation

$$x^\mu f_1=\underset{f}{}\left(P_ff+\underset{\nu _0^n}{}c_{\nu ,f}x^\nu f\right)$$
(21)
where $`P_f𝕜[X_{L,,}(f)]`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)=\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu f_1)`$ (or $`P_f=0`$) and where the coefficients $`c_{\nu ,f}𝕜`$ vanish for all multi indices $`\nu _0^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\nu f)\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu f_1)`$. Our claim follows then by an obvious induction.

If $`x^\mu 𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_1)]`$, i. e. it contains only variables that are multiplicative for $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_1`$, nothing has to be shown. Otherwise we choose a non-multiplicative index $`j_1\overline{N}_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f_1)`$ such that $`\mu _{j_1}>0`$. As $``$ is locally involutive, an involutive standard representation $`x_{j_1}f_1=_fP_f^{(1)}f`$ exists. Let $`_2`$ contain all polynomials $`f_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_{f_2}^{(1)}f_2)=\mathrm{le}_{}(x_{j_1}f_1)`$. If we have $`x^{\mu 1_{j_1}}𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_2)]`$ for all polynomials $`f_2_2`$, then we are done, as at least $`\mathrm{lm}_{}(x^{\mu 1_{j_1}}P_{f_2}^{(1)})𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_2)]`$.

Otherwise we consider the subset $`_2^{}_2`$ of polynomials $`f_2`$ for which $`x^{\mu 1_{j_1}}𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_2)]`$ and iterate over it. For each polynomial $`f_2_2^{}`$ we choose a non-multiplicative index $`j_2\overline{N}_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f_2)`$ such that $`(\mu 1_{j_1})_{j_2}>0`$. Again the local involution of the set $``$ implies the existence of an involutive standard representation $`x_{j_2}f_2=_fP_f^{(2)}f`$. We collect in $`_3`$ all polynomials $`f_3`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_{f_3}^{(2)}f_3)=\mathrm{le}_{}(x_{j_2}f_2)`$. If we introduce the multi index $`\nu =\mathrm{le}_{}(x_{j_1}f_1)\mathrm{le}_{}f_2`$, then $`\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu f_1)=\mathrm{le}_{}(x^{\mu +\nu 1_{j_1}1_{j_2}}f_3)`$ for all $`f_3_3`$. If $`x^{\mu +\nu 1_{j_1}1_{j_2}}𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_3)]`$ for all $`f_3_3`$, we are done.

Otherwise we continue in the same manner: we collect in a subset $`_3^{}_3`$ all polynomials $`f_3`$ which are multiplied by non-multiplicative variables, for each of them we choose a non-multiplicative index $`j_3𝕜[X_{L,,}(f_3)]`$ such that $`(\mu 1_{j_1}1_{j_2})_{j_3}>0`$, determine an involutive standard representation of $`x_{j_3}f_3`$ and analyse the leading terms. If they are still multiplied with non-multiplicative variables, this leads to sets $`_4^{}_4`$ and so on. This process yields a whole tree of cases and each branch leads to a sequence $`\left(\nu ^{(1)}=\mathrm{le}_{}f_1,\nu ^{(2)}=\mathrm{le}_{}f_2,\mathrm{}\right)`$ where all contained multi indices $`\nu ^{(k)}`$ are elements of the finite set $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ and where to each $`\nu ^{(k)}`$ a non-multiplicative index $`j_k\overline{N}_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\nu ^{(k)})`$ exists such that $`\nu ^{(k+1)}|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\nu ^{(k)}+1_{j_k}`$. By the definition of a continuous division, this sequence cannot become infinite and thus each branch must terminate. But this implies that we may construct for each polynomial $`f_1`$ and each non-multiplicative variables $`x_j\overline{X}_{L,,}(f_1)`$ a representation of the claimed form (21). ∎

Note that the proposition only asserts that the involutive span equals the normal span. It does *not* say that $``$ is weakly involutive (indeed, the set $``$ studied in Example 10 would be a simple counterexample). If $`g=_{\mu _0^n}_fc_{\mu ,f}x^\mu f`$ is an arbitrary polynomial in $``$, then adding the involutive standard representations of all the products $`x^\mu f`$ for which $`c_{\mu ,f}0`$ yields a representation $`g=_fP_ff`$ where $`P_f𝕜[X_{L,,}(f)]`$. But in general it will not satisfy the condition $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ for all $`f`$, as we cannot assume that we started with an ordinary standard representation of $`g`$. The satisfaction of this condition is guaranteed only for involutively head autoreduced sets, as there it is impossible that the leading terms cancel (Lemma 3). For such sets the above proof simplifies, as all the sets $`_i`$ consist of precisely one element and thus no branching is necessary.

###### Corollary 3

For a continuous division $`L`$ an involutively head autoreduced set $`𝒫`$ is involutive, if and only if it is locally involutive.

As in the proof of Proposition 10, local involution of $``$ is obviously equivalent to the termination condition $`𝒮=\mathrm{}`$ of the loop in Algorithm 3. Thus we are now in the position to prove the following result.

###### Theorem 7.1

Let $`L`$ be a constructive Noetherian involutive division and $`(𝒫,,)`$ a polynomial algebra of solvable type. Then Algorithm 3 terminates for any finite input set $``$ with an involutive basis of the ideal $`=`$.

###### Proof

We begin by proving the *correctness* of the algorithm under the assumption that it terminates. The relation $`=`$ remains valid throughout, although $``$ changes. But the only changes are the addition of further elements of $``$ and involutive head autoreductions; both operations do not affect the ideal generated by $``$. When the algorithm terminates, we have $`𝒮=\mathrm{}`$ and thus the output $``$ is locally involutive and by Corollary 3 involutive.

There remains the problem of *termination*. Algorithm 3 produces a sequence $`(_1,_2,\mathrm{})`$ with $`_i=`$. The set $`_{i+1}`$ is determined from $`_i`$ in Line /9/. We distinguish two cases, namely whether or not during the computation of the involutive normal form in Line /8/ the leading exponent changes. If $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}=\mathrm{le}_{}g`$, then $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i=\mathrm{le}_{}_{i+1}`$, as $`\mathrm{le}_{}g=\mathrm{le}_{}h+1_j`$ for some $`h_i`$. Otherwise we claim that $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i\mathrm{le}_{}_{i+1}`$.

By construction, $`g`$ is in involutive normal form with respect to the set $`_i`$ implying that $`\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}_i\mathrm{le}_{}_i_L`$. If we had $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i=\mathrm{le}_{}_{i+1}`$, a polynomial $`h_i`$ would exist such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}g=\mathrm{le}_{}h+\mu `$ where the multi index $`\mu `$ has a non-vanishing entry $`\mu _j`$ for at least one non-multiplicative index $`j\overline{N}_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}_i}(h)`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{le}_{}h+1_j\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}`$. But we choose the polynomial $`\overline{g}`$ in Line /7/ such that its leading exponent is minimal among all non-multiplicative products $`x_kh`$ with $`h_i`$; hence $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}\mathrm{le}_{}h+1_j`$. As this is a contradiction, we must have $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i\mathrm{le}_{}_{i+1}`$.

So the loop of Algorithm 3 generates an ascending chain of monoid ideals $`\mathrm{le}_{}_1\mathrm{le}_{}_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{le}_{}`$. As $`_0^n`$ is Noetherian, the chain must become stationary at some index $`N`$. It follows from the considerations above that in all iterations of the loop after the $`N`$th one $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}=\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ in Line /8/. At this stage Algorithm 3 reduces to an involutive completion of the monomial set $`\mathrm{le}_{}_N`$ using Algorithm 2—but with additional involutive autoreductions after each appearance of a new element. Indeed, in Line /7/ we choose the polynomial $`\overline{g}`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}`$ is a possible choice for the multi index $`\mu `$ Algorithm 2 adds in Line /8/. Since we assume that our division is Noetherian, it follows now from Proposition 10 together with Remark 8 that Algorithm 3 terminates (and our correctness proof above implies that in fact $`\mathrm{le}_{}_N=\mathrm{le}_{}`$).∎

###### Remark 9

If the division $`L`$ is not Noetherian, then it may happen that, even when the ideal $`=`$ does possess a finite involutive basis with respect to $`L`$, Algorithm 3 does not terminate for the input $``$. We will see concrete examples for this phenomenon in Part II for the Pommaret division.

The problem is that the existence of an involutive basis for $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ does not imply that all subideals of it have also an involutive basis (as a trivial counter example consider $`xyxy,y^2`$ with the Pommaret division). In such a case it may happen that at some stage of Algorithm 3 we encounter a basis $`_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i`$ does not possess an involutive basis and then it is possible that the algorithm iterates endlessly in an attempt to complete $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i`$.

This observation entails that variations of Theorem 7.1 hold also for divisions which are not Noetherian. For example, we could assume instead that all subideals of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ possess an involutive basis. Alternatively, we could restrict to term orders of type $`\omega `$. Then it suffices to assume that $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ has an involutive basis. Indeed, now it is not possible that Algorithm 3 iterates endlessly within $`\mathrm{le}_{}_i`$, as sooner or later an element $`\overline{g}`$ must be selected in Line /7/ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{g}\mathrm{le}_{}_i`$. $``$

###### Corollary 4

For a constructive Noetherian division $`L`$ every ideal $`𝒫`$ possesses a finite involutive basis.

###### Example 12

Now we are finally in the position to prove the claims made in Example 11. With respect to the degree reverse lexicographic term order the Janet (and the Pommaret) division assigns the polynomial $`f_1=z^2xy`$ the multiplicative variables $`\{x,y,z\}`$ and the polynomials $`f_2=yzx`$ and $`f_3=y^2z`$ the multiplicative variables $`\{x,y\}`$. Thus we must check the two non-multiplicative products: $`zf_2=yf_1+xf_3`$ and $`zf_3=yf_2f_1`$. As both possess an involutive standard representation, the set $`𝒮`$ in Line /3/ of Algorithm 3 is empty in the first iteration and thus $``$ is a Janet (and a Pommaret) basis of the ideal it generates.

The situation changes, if we use the degree inverse lexicographic term order, as then $`\mathrm{lt}_{}f_1=xy`$. Now $`X_{J,,}(f_1)=\{x\}`$, $`X_{J,,}(f_2)=\{x,y,z\}`$ and $`X_{J,,}(f_3)=\{x,y\}`$. In the first iteration we find $`𝒮=\{zf_1\}`$. Its involutive normal form is $`f_4=z^3x^2`$ and we add this polynomial to $``$ to obtain $`_1=\{f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4\}`$ (the involutive head autoreduction does not change the set). For $`f_4`$ all variables are multiplicative; for the other generators there is one change: $`z`$ is no longer multiplicative for $`f_2`$. Thus in the second iteration $`𝒮=\{zf_2\}`$. It is easy to check that this polynomial is already in involutive normal form with respect to $`_1`$ and we obtain $`_2`$ by adding $`f_5=yz^2xz`$ to $`_1`$. In the next iteration $`𝒮`$ is empty, so that $`_2`$ is indeed the Janet basis of $``$ for the degree inverse lexicographic term order. $``$

Our proof of Theorem 7.1 has an interesting consequence which was first discovered by Apel apel:alter  for the special case of the Pommaret division. Assume that the term order $``$ is of type $`\omega `$, i. e. for any two multi indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ with $`\mu \nu `$ only finitely many multi indices $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ exist with $`\mu \rho ^{(1)}\rho ^{(2)}\mathrm{}\nu `$. Then even if our algorithm does *not* terminate, it determines in a finite number of steps a Gröbner basis of the ideal $``$.

###### Proposition 12

Let the term order $``$ be of type $`\omega `$. Then Algorithm 3 determines for any finite input set $`𝒫`$ in a finite number of steps a Gröbner basis of the ideal $`=`$.

###### Proof

Above we introduced the set $`_N`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}_{N+\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{le}_{}_N`$ for all $`\mathrm{}>0`$. We claim that $`_N`$ is a Gröbner basis of $``$.

Let $`f`$ be an arbitrary element of the ideal. As $`_N`$ is a basis of $``$, we find for each $`h_N`$ a polynomial $`g_h𝒫`$ such that

$$f=\underset{h_N}{}g_hh.$$
(22)
$`_N`$ is a Gröbner basis, if and only if we can choose the coefficients $`g_h`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(g_hh)\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Assume that for $`f`$ no such standard representation exists and let $`\mu =\mathrm{max}_{h_N}\left\{\mathrm{le}_{}g_h+\mathrm{le}_{}h\right\}\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. If we denote by $`\overline{}_N`$ the set of all polynomials $`\overline{h}_N`$ for which $`\mathrm{le}_{}g_{\overline{h}}+\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}=\mu `$, then the identity $`_{\overline{h}\overline{}_N}\mathrm{lc}_{}(g_{\overline{h}}\overline{h})=0`$ must hold and hence $`\overline{}_N`$ contains at least two elements. For each element $`\overline{h}\overline{}_N`$ we have $`\mu 𝒞(\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h})`$. As by construction the set $`_N`$ is involutively head autoreduced, the involutive cones of the leading exponents do not intersect and there must be at least one generator $`\overline{h}\overline{}_N`$ such that some non-multiplicative variable $`x_j\overline{X}_{L,_N}(\overline{h})`$ divides $`\mathrm{lt}_{}g_{\overline{h}}`$.

As $``$ is of type $`\omega `$, after a finite number of steps the non-multiplicative product $`x_j\overline{h}`$ is analysed in Algorithm 3. Thus for some $`n_10`$ the set $`_{N+n_1}`$ contains an element $`\overline{h}^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}^{}=\mathrm{le}_{}(x_j\overline{h})`$. Let $`\mu =\mathrm{le}_{}g_{\overline{h}}`$, $`x^{\mu 1_j}x_j=cx^\mu +r_1`$ and $`\overline{h}^{}=dx_j\overline{h}+r_2`$. Then we may rewrite

$$g_{\overline{h}}\overline{h}=\frac{\mathrm{lc}_{}g_{\overline{h}}}{cd}\left[x^{\mu 1_j}(\overline{h}^{}r_2)dr_1\overline{h}\right]+\left(g_{\overline{h}}\mathrm{lm}_{}g_{\overline{h}}\right)\overline{h}.$$
(23)
As $`\overline{h}^{}`$ was determined via an involutive normal form computation applied to the product $`x_j\overline{h}`$ and as we know that at this stage of the algorithm the leading exponent does not change during the computation, the leading exponent on the right hand side of (23) is $`\mathrm{le}_{}(x^{\mu 1_j}\overline{h}^{})`$. If the term $`x^{\mu 1_j}`$ contains a non-multiplicative variable $`x_k\overline{X}_{L,_{N+n_1}}(\overline{h}^{})`$, we repeat the argument obtaining a polynomial $`\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }_{N+n_1+n_2}`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{le}_{}(x_k\overline{h}^{})`$.

Obviously, this process terminates after a finite number of steps, even if we do it for each $`\overline{h}\overline{}_N`$. Thus after $`\mathrm{}`$ further iterations we obtain a set $`_{N+\mathrm{}}`$ such that, after applying all the found relations (23), $`f`$ can be expressed in the form $`f=_{h_{N+\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{g}_hh`$ where still $`\mu =\mathrm{max}_{h_{N+\mathrm{}}}\left\{\mathrm{le}_{}\stackrel{~}{g}_h+\mathrm{le}_{}h\right\}`$. Denote again by $`\overline{}_{N+\mathrm{}}_{N+\mathrm{}}`$ the set of all polynomials $`\overline{h}`$ achieving this maximum.

By construction, no term $`\mathrm{lt}_{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\overline{h}}`$ with $`\overline{h}\overline{}_{N+\mathrm{}}`$ contains a variable that is non-multiplicative for $`\overline{h}`$. Thus we must now have $`\mu 𝒞_{\mathrm{le}_{}(_{N+\mathrm{}}),L}(\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h})`$ for each $`\overline{h}\overline{}_{N+\mathrm{}}`$ implying that $`\overline{}_{N+\mathrm{}}`$ contains at most one element. But then it is not possible that $`\mu \mathrm{le}_{}f`$. Hence each polynomial $`f𝒫`$ possesses a standard representation already with respect to $`_N`$ and this set is a Gröbner basis.∎

Note that in the given form this result is only of theoretical interest, as in general no efficient method exists for checking whether the current basis is already a Gröbner basis. Using standard criteria would destroy all potential advantages of the involutive algorithm. For the special case of Pommaret bases, Apel apel:alter  found a simple criterion that allows us to use a variant of Algorithm 3 for the construction of Gröbner bases independent of the existence of a finite involutive basis.

In contrast to the monomial case, one does not automatically obtain a minimal involutive basis by making some minor modifications of Algorithm 3. In particular, it does not suffice to apply it to a minimal basis in the ordinary sense. Gerdt and Blinkov gb:minbas  presented an algorithm that always returns a minimal involutive basis provided a finite involutive basis exists. While it still follows the same basic strategy of study all products with non-multiplicative variables, it requires a more complicated organisation of the algorithm. We omit here the details.

## 8 Right and Two-Sided Bases

We now briefly discuss the relation between left and right involutive bases and the computation of bases for two-sided ideals. We use in this section the following notations: the left ideal generated by $`𝒫`$ is denoted by $`^{(l)}`$, the right ideal by $`^{(r)}`$ and the two-sided ideal by $``$ and corresponding notations for the left, right and two-sided involutive span.

Recall from Remark 3 that even with a coefficient field $`𝕜`$ it is not guaranteed that $`𝒫`$ is also right Noetherian and hence generally the existence of right Gröbner bases for right ideals is not clear. However, we also noted that the ring $`𝒫`$ is always right Noetherian, if we assume that the maps $`\rho _i:𝕜𝕜`$ in (8a) are automorphisms. In the sequel of this section we will always make this assumption.

From a computational point of view, the theory of right ideals is almost identical to the corresponding theory for left ideals. The left-right asymmetry in our definition of polynomial algebras of solvable type leads only to one complication. Suppose that we want to perform a right reduction of a term $`ax^\nu `$ with respect to another term $`cx^\mu `$ with $`\mu \nu `$. This requires to find a coefficient $`b𝕜`$ such that $`\mathrm{lc}_{}(cx^\mu bx^{\nu \mu })=c\rho _\mu (b)r_{\mu ,\nu \mu }=a`$. Since, according to the above made assumption, all the maps $`\rho _\mu `$ are automorphisms, such a $`b`$ always exists.

It turns out (hk:solvpoly, , Sect. 4.11) that under the made assumption the results of Kandry-Rodi and Weispfenning (krw:ncgb, , Sects. 4/5) remain valid for our larger class of non-commutative algebras and can be straightforwardly extended to involutive bases. For this reason, we will only discuss the case of involutive bases and do not treat separately Gröbner bases.

###### Lemma 6

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be an arbitrary polynomial algebra of solvable type where all the maps $`\rho _\mu `$ appearing in the commutation relations (5a) are automorphisms. A polynomial $`f𝒫`$ is (involutively) left reducible modulo a finite set $`𝒫`$ (with respect to an involutive division $`L`$), if and only if it is (involutively) right reducible (with respect to $`L`$).

###### Proof

Because of the made assumptions on the maps $`\rho _\mu `$, reducibility depends solely on the leading exponents.∎

###### Proposition 13

Let $`_l`$ be a monic, involutively left autoreduced, minimal left involutive set and $`_r`$ a monic, involutively right autoreduced, minimal right involutive set for an involutive division $`L`$. If $`_l^{(l)}=_r^{(r)}=`$, then $`_l=_r`$.

###### Proof

By definition of a minimal basis, the sets $`\mathrm{le}_{}_l`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}_r`$ are both minimal involutive bases of the monoid ideal $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ and thus are identical. Assume that $`(_l_r)(_r_l)\mathrm{}`$ and let $`f`$ be an element of this set with minimal leading exponent with respect to $``$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $`f_l_r`$. Because of the condition $`_l^{(l)}=_r^{(r)}`$, we have $`f_r_{L,}^{(r)}`$. Thus the (by Proposition 6 unique) right involutive normal form of $`f`$ with respect to $`_r`$ is $`0`$. This implies in particular that $`f`$ is right involutively reducible with respect to some $`h_r`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}h\mathrm{le}_{}f`$.

If $`\mathrm{le}_{}h\mathrm{le}_{}f`$, then $`h_l`$, too, as $`f`$ was chosen as a minimal element of the symmetric difference of $`_l`$ and $`_r`$. Hence, by Lemma 6, $`f`$ is also left involutively reducible with respect to $`h`$ (because of $`\mathrm{le}_{}_l=\mathrm{le}_{}_r`$ the multiplicative variables of $`h`$ are the same in both cases). But this contradicts the assumption that $`_l`$ is involutively left autoreduced.

If $`\mathrm{le}_{}h=\mathrm{le}_{}f=\mu `$, then we consider the difference $`g=fh`$: both the left involutive normal form of $`g`$ with respect to $`_l`$ and the right involutive normal form with respect to $`_r`$ must vanish. By construction, $`\mathrm{le}_{}g\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{supp}g(\mathrm{supp}f\mathrm{supp}h)\{\mu \}`$. Since both $`_l`$ and $`_r`$ are assumed to be involutively autoreduced, no term in this set is involutively reducible by $`\mathrm{le}_{}_l=\mathrm{le}_{}_r`$ and hence we must have $`\mathrm{supp}g=\mathrm{}`$, i. e. $`g=0`$, a contradiction.∎

A direct derivation of a theory of two-sided involutive bases along the lines of Section 5 fails, as two-sided linear combinations are rather unwieldy objects. A general polynomial $`f`$ for some finite set $`𝒫`$ is of the form

$$f=\underset{h}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_h}{}}\mathrm{}_ihr_i$$
(24)
with polynomials $`\mathrm{}_i,r_i𝒫`$, i. e. we must allow several summands with the same generator $`h`$. The definition of a unique involutive standard representation would require control over the numbers $`n_h`$ which seems rather difficult. Therefore we will take another approach and construct left involutive bases even for two-sided ideals. The following proposition is an involutive version of Theorem 5.4 in krw:ncgb .

###### Proposition 14

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a finite set and $`L`$ an involutive division. Then the following five statements are equivalent.

$``$ is a left involutive basis and $`^{(l)}=`$.

$``$ is a right involutive basis and $`^{(r)}=`$.

$``$ is a left involutive basis of $`^{(l)}`$ and both $`hx_i^{(l)}`$ and $`hc^{(l)}`$ for all generators $`h`$, all variables $`x_i`$ and all coefficients $`c𝕜`$.

$``$ is a right involutive basis of $`^{(r)}`$ and both $`x_ih^{(r)}`$ and $`ch^{(r)}`$ for all generators $`h`$, all variables $`x_i`$ and all coefficients $`c𝕜`$.

A unique generator $`h`$ exists for every polynomial $`f`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}h|_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}\mathrm{le}_{}f`$.

###### Proof

We begin with the equivalence of the first two statements. (i) implies that $`_{L,}^{(l)}=^{(l)}=`$ and hence trivially $`^{(r)}^{(l)}`$. The same argument as in the proof of Proposition 13 shows that we have in fact an equality and thus $`_{L,}^{(r)}=^{(r)}=`$, i. e. (ii). The converse goes analogously.

Next we consider the equivalence of (i) and (iii); the equivalence of (ii) and (iv) follows by the same argument. (iii) is a trivial consequence of (i). For the converse, we note that (iii) implies that $`f(ct)^{(l)}`$ for all $`f^{(l)}`$, all terms $`t𝕋`$ and all constants $`c𝕜`$. Indeed, as in the proof of Proposition 3 we may rewrite the monomial $`ct`$ as a polynomial in the “terms” $`x^{i_1}x^{i_2}\mathrm{}x^{i_q}`$ with $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_q`$ and then apply repeatedly our assumptions. Obviously, this entails (i).

The equivalence of (i) or (ii), respectively, with (v) is a trivial consequence of the definition of an involutive basis.∎

We would like to exploit Statement (iii) for the construction of a left involutive basis for the two-sided ideal $``$. However, if the field $`𝕜`$ is infinite, then it contains an infinite number of conditions. In the sequel we will follow (hk:solvpoly, , Sect. 4.11) and make one further assumption about the polynomial algebra $`𝒫`$. Let $`𝕜_0=\{c𝕜f𝒫:cf=fc\}`$ be the constant part of the centre of $`𝒫`$.

###### Lemma 7

$`𝕜_0`$ is a subfield of $`𝕜`$.

###### Proof

It is obvious that $`𝕜_0`$ is a subring. Thus there only remains to show that with $`c𝕜_0^\times `$ we have $`c^1𝕜_0`$, too. If $`c𝕜_0`$, then $`x_ic=cx_i`$, i. e. $`\rho _i(c)=c`$ and $`h_i(c)=0`$, for all $`1in`$. Now on one hand $`x_i(c^1c)=x_i`$ and on the other hand

$$(x_ic^1)c=\rho _i(c^1)\rho _i(c)x_i+ch_i(c^1)$$
(25)
($`h_i(c^1)c=ch_i(c^1)`$ since $`c𝕜_0`$). The associativity of $``$ implies now that $`\rho _i(c^1)=c^1`$ and $`h_i(c^1)=0`$. Hence $`c^1`$ commutes with all variables $`x_i`$ and it is easy to see that this entails $`c^1𝕜_0`$.∎

We make now the assumption that either $`𝕜^\times =\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is finite or that the extension $`𝕜/𝕜_0`$ is finite, i. e. that $`𝕜`$ is a finite-dimensional vector space over $`𝕜_0`$ with basis $`\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_{\mathrm{}}\}`$. In the latter case, it is easy to see that it suffices in (iii) to require that only all products $`hc_j`$ lie in $`^{(l)}`$, as for $`c=_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _jc_j`$ with $`\lambda _j𝕜_0`$ we have $`hc=_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _j(hc_j)`$.

These considerations lead to the simple Algorithm 4 below. It first constructs in Line /1/ a left involutive basis $``$ of the left ideal $`^{(l)}`$ (using Algorithm 3). The while loop in Lines /2–19/ extends the set $``$ to a left generating set of the two-sided ideal $``$ according to our simplified version of statement (iii) in Proposition 14. Finally, we complete in Line /20/ this set to an involutive basis. Note that in Line /1/ it is not really necessary to compute a left involutive basis; any left Gröbner basis would suffice as well. Similarly, an ordinary left normal form could be used in Lines /6/ and /12/, respectively; the use of $`\mathrm{𝙸𝚗𝚟𝙻𝚎𝚏𝚝𝙽𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚕𝙵𝚘𝚛𝚖}_{L,}`$ anticipates the final involutive basis computation in Line /20/.

The termination of the while loop follows from the fact that under the made assumptions $`𝒫`$ is Noetherian and hence a finite generating set of $``$ exists. In principle, we perform here a simple breadth-first search for it. The termination of the involutive bases computations in Lines /1/ and /20/, respectively, depends on the conditions discussed in the last section. Thus the termination is guaranteed, if the division $`L`$ is constructive and Noetherian.

## 9 Involutive Bases for Semigroup Orders

For a number of applications it is of interest to compute involutive or Gröbner bases with respect to more general orders, namely *semigroup orders* (see Appendix A). This generalisation does not affect the basic properties of polynomial algebras of solvable type as discussed in Sect. 3, but if $`1`$ is no longer the smallest term, then normal form computations do no longer terminate for all inputs. So we can no longer apply Algorithm 3 directly for the determination of involutive bases.

###### Example 13

The *Weyl algebra* $`𝕎_n`$ is the polynomial algebra in the $`2n`$ variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ with the following non-commutative product $``$: for all $`1in`$ we have $`_ix_i=x_i_i+1`$ and $``$ is the normal commutative product in all other cases. It is easy to see that $`𝕎_n`$ is a polynomial algebra of solvable type for any monoid order. For semigroup orders compatibility requires that $`1x_i_i`$ for all $`i`$. In sst:grob  such orders are called *multiplicative monomial orders*.

An important class of semigroup orders is defined via real weight vectors. Let $`(\xi ,\zeta )^n\times ^n`$ be such that $`\xi +\zeta ^n`$ is non-negative and let $``$ be an arbitrary monoid order. Then we define $`x^\mu ^\nu _{(\xi ,\zeta )}x^\sigma ^\tau `$, if either $`\mu \xi +\nu \zeta <\sigma \xi +\tau \zeta `$ or $`\mu \xi +\nu \zeta =\sigma \xi +\tau \zeta `$ and $`x^\mu ^\nu x^\sigma ^\tau `$. This yields a monoid order, if and only if both $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are non-negative. A special case are the orders with weight vectors $`(\xi ,\xi )`$ arising from the action of the algebraic torus $`(𝕜^{})^n`$ on the Weyl algebra. They have numerous applications in the theory of $`𝒟`$-modules sst:grob . $``$

As normal form computations do not necessarily terminate for semigroup orders, we must slightly modify our definitions of (weak) involutive or Gröbner bases. The proof of Theorem 5.1 (and consequently also the one of Corollary 1 showing that a weak involutive basis of an ideal $``$ is indeed a basis of $``$) requires normal form computations and thus this theorem is no longer valid. The same problem occurs for Gröbner bases. Therefore we must explicitly include this condition in our definition.

###### Definition 18

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type where $``$ is an arbitrary semigroup order. Let furthermore $`𝒫`$ be a left ideal. A *Gröbner basis* of $``$ is a finite set $`𝒢`$ such that $`𝒢=`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢=\mathrm{le}_{}`$. The set $`𝒢`$ is a *weak involutive basis* of $``$ for the involutive division $`L`$, if in addition the set $`\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢`$ is weakly involutive for $`L`$. It is a *(strong) involutive basis*, if it is furthermore involutively head autoreduced.

In the case of Gröbner bases, a classical trick due to Lazard dl:gb  consists of homogenising the input and lifting the semigroup order to a monoid order on the homogenised terms. One can show that computing first a Gröbner basis for the ideal spanned by the homogenised input and then dehomogenising yields a Gröbner basis with respect to the semigroup order. Note, however, that in general we cannot expect that *reduced* Gröbner bases exist.

We extend now this approach to involutive bases. Here we encounter the additional difficulty that we must lift not only the order but also the used involutive division. In particular, we must show that properties like Noetherity or continuity are preserved by the lift which is non-trivial. For the special case of involutive bases in the Weyl algebra, this problem was first solved in wms:weyl .

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type where $``$ is any semigroup order that respects the multiplication $``$. We set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}=𝕜[x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and extend the multiplication $``$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ by defining that $`x_0`$ commutes with all other variables and the elements of the field $`𝕜`$. For a polynomial $`f=c_\mu x^\mu 𝒫`$ of degree $`q`$, we introduce as usual its *homogenisation* $`f^{(h)}=c_\mu x_0^{q|\mu |}x^\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$. Conversely, for a polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ we denote its projection to $`𝒫`$ as $`f=\stackrel{~}{f}|_{x_0=1}`$.

We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝕋}`$ the set of terms in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$; obviously, it is as monoid isomorphic to $`_0^{n+1}`$. We use in the sequel the following convention. Multi indices in $`_0^{n+1}`$ always carry a tilde: $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=[\mu _0,\mathrm{},\mu _n]`$. The projection to $`_0^n`$ defined by dropping the first entry (i. e. the exponent of the homogenisation variable $`x_0`$) is signalled by omitting the tilde; thus $`\mu =[\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n]`$. For subsets $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0^{n+1}`$ we also simply write $`𝒩=\{\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\}_0^n`$.

We lift the semigroup order $``$ on $`𝕋`$ to a monoid order $`_h`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝕋}`$ by defining $`x^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}_hx^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$, if either $`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|<|\stackrel{~}{\nu }|`$ or both $`|\stackrel{~}{\mu }|=|\stackrel{~}{\nu }|`$ and $`x^\mu x^\nu `$. It is trivial to check that this yields indeed a monoid order and that $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒫},,_h)`$ is again a polynomial algebra of solvable type. For lifting the involutive division, we proceed somewhat similarly to the definition of the Janet division: the homogenisation variable $`x_0`$ is multiplicative only for terms which have maximal degree in $`x_0`$.

###### Proposition 15

Let $`L`$ be an arbitrary involutive division on $`_0^n`$. For any finite set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0^{n+1}`$ and every multi index $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, we define $`N_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ by:

* $`0N_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$, if and only if $`\mu _0=\mathrm{max}_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}\{\nu _0\}`$,
* $`0<iN_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$, if and only if $`iN_{L,𝒩}(\mu )`$.

This determines an involutive division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on $`_0^{n+1}`$.

###### Proof

Both conditions for an involutive division are easily verified. For the first one, let $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu },\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. If $`\rho _0=\mu _0=\nu _0`$, the first entry can be ignored, and the properties of the involutive division $`L`$ implies the desired result. If $`\rho _0=\mu _0>\nu _0`$, the index $`0`$ must be multiplicative for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ contradicting $`\mu _0>\nu _0`$. If $`\rho _0`$ is greater than both $`\mu _0`$ and $`\nu _0`$, the index $`0`$ must be multiplicative for both implying $`\mu _0=\nu _0`$. In this case we may again ignore the first entry and invoke the properties of $`L`$.

For the second condition we note that whether a multiplicative index $`i>0`$ becomes non-multiplicative for some element $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ after adding a new multi index to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is independent of the first entry and thus only determined by the involutive division $`L`$. If the new multi index has a higher first entry than all elements of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, then $`0`$ becomes non-multiplicative for all elements in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ but this is permitted.∎

Now we check to what extent the properties of $`L`$ are inherited by the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. Given the similarity of the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and the Janet division, it is not surprising that we may reuse many ideas from proofs for the latter.

###### Proposition 16

If $`L`$ is a Noetherian division, then so is $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$.

###### Proof

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0^{n+1}`$ be an arbitrary finite subset. In order to prove the existence of an $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$-completion of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, we first take a finite $`L`$-completion $`\widehat{𝒩}_0^n`$ of $`𝒩`$ which always exists, as by assumption $`L`$ is Noetherian. Next, we define a finite subset $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ by setting

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}=\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{n+1}\mu \widehat{𝒩}\mu _0\underset{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}{\mathrm{max}}\nu _0\}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}.$$

We claim that this set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$ is an $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$-completion of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. By construction, we have both $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$, so that we must only show that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$ is involutive.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$ be arbitrary. By construction of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$, we can find $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$ with $`\nu |_{L,\widehat{𝒩}}\mu `$. Moreover, the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}`$ guarantees that we can choose $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ in such a way that either $`\nu _0=\mu _0`$ or $`\nu _0=\mathrm{max}_{\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}}\rho _0<\mu _0`$ holds. In the former case, we trivially have $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }|_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$; in the latter case we have $`0N_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\nu })`$ (see the proof of Proposition 15). Thus in either case $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^{}_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$.∎

###### Proposition 17

If $`L`$ is a continuous division, then so is $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$.

###### Proof

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(1)},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(r)})`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(i)}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be a finite sequence as described in the definition of continuity. We first note that the integer sequence $`(\nu _0^{(1)},\mathrm{},\nu _0^{(r)})`$ is monotonically increasing. If $`\nu _0^{(i)}`$ is not maximal among the entries $`\mu _0`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, no multiplicative divisor of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(i)}+1_j`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ can have a smaller first entry: if $`\nu _0^{(i)}`$ is maximal, the index $`0`$ is multiplicative for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(i)}`$ and any involutive divisor in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ must also be maximal in the zero entry. Thus it suffices to look at those parts of the sequence where equality in the zero entries holds. But there the inequality of the multi indices $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{(i)}`$ follows from the continuity of the underlying division $`L`$.∎

Unfortunately, it is much harder to show that constructivity is preserved. We will do this only for globally defined divisions and the Janet division.

###### Proposition 18

If the continuous division $`L`$ is either globally defined or the Janet division, then the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is constructive.

###### Proof

We give a proof only for the case of a globally defined division. For the Janet division $`J`$ one must only make a few modifications of the proof that $`J`$ itself is constructive. We omit the details; they can be found in wms:weyl .

We select a finite set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0^{n+1}`$, a multi index $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ and a non-multiplicative index $`i`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ such that the conditions in the definition of constructivity are fulfilled. Assume that there exists a $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }+1_i=\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}(\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\tau }𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\{\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\}}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\stackrel{~}{\sigma })`$. Let $`L`$ be a globally defined division. If $`i=0`$, then $`\mu _0+1=\rho _0+\sigma _0+\tau _0`$ implies that $`\sigma _0=\tau _0=0`$: for $`\sigma _0>0`$, we would have ($`0`$ is multiplicative for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$) $`\rho _0>\mu _0\rho _0+\sigma _0>\rho _0`$. For $`\sigma _0=0`$ and $`\tau _0>0`$ a similar contradiction appears. If $`i>0`$, the argumentation is simple. A global division is always constructive, as adding further elements to $`𝒩`$ does not change the multiplicative indices. But the same holds for the indices $`k>0`$ in the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. Thus under the above conditions $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }+1_i\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ contradicting the made assumptions.∎

Based on these results, Algorithm 3 can be extended to semigroup orders. Given a finite set $`𝒫`$, we first determine its homogenisation $`^{(h)}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ and then compute an involutive basis of $`F^{(h)}`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`_h`$. What remains to be done is first to show that the existence of a finite involutive basis is preserved under the lifting to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ and then to study the properties of the dehomogenisation of this basis.

###### Proposition 19

If the left ideal $`=𝒫`$ possesses an involutive basis with respect to the Noetherian division $`L`$ and the semigroup order $``$, then the left ideal $`\stackrel{~}{}=^{(h)}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ generated by the homogenisations of the elements in the finite set $``$ possesses an involutive basis with respect to the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and the monoid order $`_h`$.

###### Proof

By Theorem 4.4, the ideal $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ possesses a Gröbner basis $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ with respect to the monoid order $`_h`$. By Proposition 16, a finite $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$-completion $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ of the set $`\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ exists. Moreover, as $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ is a Gröbner basis of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, the monoid ideals $`\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ and $`\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{}`$ coincide. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is an involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{}`$ with respect to the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and an involutive basis $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with respect to the division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\{x^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}\mathrm{le}__h(x^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\stackrel{~}{g})\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\}.$$
(26)
This set is obviously finite.∎

Hence our lifting leads to a situation where we can apply Theorem 7.1. Unfortunately, the dehomogenisation of the strong involutive basis computed in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ does not necessarily lead to a *strong* involutive basis in $`𝒫`$, but we obtain always at least a weak involutive basis and thus in particular a Gröbner basis.

###### Theorem 9.1

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be a strong involutive basis of the left ideal $`\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`_h`$. Then the dehomogenisation $``$ is a weak involutive basis of the left ideal $`𝒫`$ with respect to $`L`$ and $``$.

###### Proof

For any $`f`$ an integer $`k0`$ exists such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}=x_0^kf^{(h)}\stackrel{~}{}`$. The polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ possesses a unique involutive standard representation

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\underset{\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{}}{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{h}$$
(27)
with $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\stackrel{~}{h}}𝕜[X_{\stackrel{~}{L},\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{}}(\stackrel{~}{h})]`$ and $`\mathrm{le}__h(\stackrel{~}{P}_{\stackrel{~}{h}}\stackrel{~}{h})_h\mathrm{le}__h\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Setting $`x_0=1`$ in (27) yields a representation of $`f`$ with respect to the dehomogenised basis777Note that the dehomogenised basis $``$ is in general smaller than $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, as some elements of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ may differ only in powers of $`x_0`$. $``$ of the form $`f=_hP_hh`$ where $`P_h𝕜[X_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(h)]`$ by the definition of the lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. This obviously implies that $`=`$. By the definition of the lifted order $`_h`$ and the homogeneity of the lifted polynomials, we have furthermore that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_hh)\mathrm{le}_{}f`$ and hence that $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ is a weak involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$. Since all conditions of Definition 18 are satisfied, the set $``$ is therefore indeed a weak involutive basis of the ideal $``$.∎

###### Remark 10

For the Pommaret division $`P`$ the situation is considerably simpler. There is no need to define a lifted division $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ according to Proposition 15. Instead we renumber $`x_0`$ to $`x_{n+1}`$ and then use the standard Pommaret division on $`_0^{n+1}`$. This approach implies that for all multi indices $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^{n+1}`$ with $`\mu 0`$ the equality $`N_P(\stackrel{~}{\mu })=N_P(\mu )`$ holds, as obviously $`n+1`$ is multiplicative only for multi indices of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mathrm{}_{n+1}`$, i. e. for which $`\mu =0`$. One easily sees that the above proof of Theorem 9.1 is not affected by this change of the division used in $`_0^{n+1}`$ and hence remains true. $``$

It is not a shortcoming of our proof that in general we do not get a strong involutive basis, but actually some ideals do not possess strong involutive bases. In particular, there is no point in invoking Proposition 5 for obtaining a strong basis. While we may surely obtain by elimination a subset $`^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}^{}`$ is a strong involutive basis of $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$, in general $`^{}`$.

###### Example 14

Consider in the Weyl algebra $`𝕎_2=𝕜[x,y,_x,_y]`$ the left ideal generated by the set $`=\{\underset{¯}{1}+x+y,\underset{¯}{_y}_x\}`$. We take the semigroup order induced by the weight vector $`(1,1,1,1)`$ and refined by a term order for which $`_y_xyx`$. Then the underlined terms are the leading ones. One easily checks that $``$ is a Gröbner basis for this order. Furthermore, all variables are multiplicative for each generator with respect to the Pommaret division and thus $``$ is a weak Pommaret basis, too.

Obviously, the set $``$ is neither a reduced Gröbner basis nor a strong Pommaret basis, as $`1`$ is a (multiplicative) divisor of $`_y`$. However, it is easy to see that the left ideal $`=`$ does not possess a reduced Gröbner basis or a strong Pommaret basis. Indeed, we have $`\mathrm{le}_{}=_0^4`$ and thus such a basis had to consist of only a single generator; but $``$ is not a principal ideal. $``$

A special situation arises for the Janet division. Recall from Remark 1 that any finite set $`𝒩_0^n`$ is automatically involutively autoreduced with respect to the Janet division. Thus any weak Janet basis is a strong basis, if all generators have different leading exponents. If we follow the above outlined strategy of applying Algorithm 3 to a homogenised basis and then dehomogenising the result, we cannot generally expect this condition to be satisfied. However, with a minor modification of the algorithm we can achieve this goal.

###### Theorem 9.2

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type where $``$ is an arbitrary semigroup order. Then every left ideal $`𝒫`$ possesses a strong Janet basis for $``$.

###### Proof

Assume that at some intermediate stage of Algorithm 3 the basis $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ contains two polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}__h(\stackrel{~}{g})=\mathrm{le}__h(\stackrel{~}{f})+1_0`$, i. e. the leading exponents differ only in the first entry. If $`\stackrel{~}{g}=x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$, we will find $`f=g`$ after the dehomogenisation and no obstruction to a strong basis appears. Otherwise we note that, by definition of the lifted Janet division $`J_h`$, the homogenisation variable $`x_0`$ is non-multiplicative for $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Thus at some later stage the algorithm must consider the non-multiplicative product $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$ (if it was already treated, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ would not be involutively head autoreduced).

In the usual algorithm, we then determine the involutive normal form of the polynomial $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$; the first step of this computation is to replace $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$ by $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}`$. Alternatively, we may proceed instead as follows. The polynomial $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is removed from the basis $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and replaced by $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Then we continue by analysing the involutive normal form of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ with respect to the new basis. Note that this modification concerns only the situation that a multiplication by $`x_0`$ has been performed and that the basis $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ contains already an element with the same leading exponent as the obtained polynomial.

If the final output $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of the thus modified completion algorithm contains two polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ such that $`\mathrm{le}__h(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ and $`\mathrm{le}__h(\stackrel{~}{f})`$ differ only in the first entry, then either $`\stackrel{~}{g}=x_0^k\stackrel{~}{f}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{f}=x_0^k\stackrel{~}{g}`$ for some $`k`$. Thus the dehomogenisation yields a basis $``$ where all elements possess different leading exponents and $``$ is a strong Janet basis. Looking at the proof of Theorem 7.1, it is easy to see that this modification does not affect the correctness and the termination of the algorithm. As the Janet division is Noetherian, these considerations prove together with Proposition 16 the assertion.∎

Note that our modification only achieves its goal, if we really restrict in Algorithm 3 to head reductions. Otherwise some other terms than the leading term in $`x_0\stackrel{~}{f}`$ might be reducible but not the corresponding terms in $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Then we could still find after the dehomogenisation two generators with the same leading exponent.

###### Example 15

Let us consider in the Weyl algebra $`𝕎_3`$ with the three variables $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ the left ideal generated by the set $`=\{_zy_x,_y\}`$. If we apply the usual involutive completion Algorithm 3 (to the homogenisation $`^{(h)}`$), we obtain for the weight vector $`(1,0,0,1,0,0)`$ refined by the degree reverse lexicographic order and the Janet division the following weak basis with nine generators:

$$_1=\{_x,_y,_z,_x_z,_y_z,y_x,y_x+_z,y_x_z,y_x_z+_z^2\}.$$
(28)
As one easily sees from the last four generators, it is not a strong basis.

Applying the modified algorithm for the Janet division yields the following basis with only seven generators:

$$_2=\{_x+_y_z,_y,_z,_x_z,_y_z,y_x+_z,y_x_z+_z^2\}.$$
(29)
Obviously, we now have a strong basis, as all leading exponents are different.

This example also demonstrates the profound effect of the homogenisation. A strong Janet or Pommaret basis of $``$ is simply given by $`=\{_x,_y,_z\}`$ which is simultaneously a reduced Gröbner basis. In $`^{(h)}`$ many reductions are not possible because the terms contain different powers of $`x_0`$. However, this is a general problem of all approaches to Gröbner bases for semigroup orders using homogenisation and not specific for the involutive approach.

In this particular case, one could have applied the involutive completion algorithm directly to the original set $``$ and it would have terminated with the minimal basis $``$, although we are using a order which is not a monoid order. Unfortunately, it is not clear how to predict when infinite reduction chains appear in normal form computations with respect to such orders, so that one does not know in advance whether one may dispense with the homogenisation. $``$

## 10 Involutive Bases for Semigroup Orders II: Mora’s Normal Form

One computational disadvantage of the approach outlined in the previous section is that the basis $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the homogenised algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ is often much larger than the final basis $``$ in the original algebra $`𝒫`$, as upon dehomogenisation generators may become identical. Furthermore, we have seen that it is difficult to prove the constructivity of the lifted division $`L_h`$ which limits the applicability of this technique. Finally, for most divisions we are not able to determine strong bases.

An alternative approach for Gröbner bases computations in the ordinary polynomial ring was proposed first by Greuel and Pfister gp:standard  and later independently by Gräbe hgg:tangent ; hgg:local ; extensive textbook discussions are contained in (clo:uag, , Chapt. 4) and (gp:singular, , Sect. 1.6). It allows us to dispense completely with computing in the homogenised algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$. Two ideas are the core of this approach: we modify the normal form algorithm using ideas developed by Mora tm:tangent  for the computation of tangent cones and we work over a ring of fractions of $`𝒫`$. We will now show that a generalisation to arbitrary polynomial algebras of solvable type and to involutive normal forms is possible and removes all the mentioned problems.

The central problem in working with semigroup orders is that they are no longer well-orders and hence normal form computations in the classical form do not necessarily terminate. Mora tm:tangent  introduced the notion of the *écart* of a polynomial $`f`$ as the difference between the lowest and the highest degree of a term in $`f`$ and based a new normal form algorithm on it which always terminates. The main differences between it and the usual algorithm lie in the possibility to reduce also with respect to intermediate results (see Line /9/ in Algorithm 5 below) and that it computes only a “weak” normal form (cf. Proposition 20 below).

Mora’s approach is valid only for tangent cone orders where the leading term is always of minimal degree. Greuel and Pfister gp:standard  noticed that a slight modification of the definition of the écart allows us to use it for arbitrary semigroup orders. So we set for any polynomial $`f𝒫\{0\}`$ and any semigroup order $``$

$$\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{cart}f=\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{lt}_{}f.$$
(30)
The extension of the Mora normal form to an involutive normal form faces one problem. As already mentioned, one allows here also reductions with respect to some intermediate results and thus one must decide on the assignment of multiplicative variables to these. However, it immediately follows from the proof of the correctness of the Mora algorithm how this assignment must be done in order to obtain in the end an involutive standard representation with respect to the set $`𝒢`$ (one should stress that this assignment is *not* performed according to some involutive division in the sense of Definition 1).

In Algorithm 5 below we use the following approach. To each member $`g`$ of the set $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ with respect to which we reduce we assign a set $`N[g]`$ of multiplicative indices. We write $`\mathrm{le}_{}g|_N\mathrm{le}_{}h`$, if the multi index $`\mathrm{le}_{}h`$ lies in the restricted cone of $`\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ defined by $`N[g]`$. The set $`𝒮`$ collects all generators $`g𝒢`$ which have already been used for reductions and the set $`𝒩`$ is the intersection of the corresponding sets of multiplicative indices. If a new polynomial $`h`$ is added to $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, it is assigned as multiplicative indices the current value of $`𝒩`$.

###### Proposition 20

Algorithm 5 always terminates. Let $`(𝒫=𝕜[X],,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type (for an arbitrary semigroup order $``$) such that $`𝕜[X^{}]`$ is a subring of $`𝒫`$ for any subset $`X^{}X`$. Then the output $`h`$ is a *weak involutive normal form* of the input $`f`$ with respect to the set $`𝒢`$ in the sense that there exists a polynomial $`u𝒫`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}u=0`$ such that the difference $`ufh`$ possesses an involutive standard representation

$$ufh=\underset{g𝒢}{}P_gg$$
(31)
and none of the leading exponents $`\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ involutively divides $`\mathrm{le}_{}h`$. If $``$ is a monoid order, then $`u=1`$ and $`h`$ is an involutive normal form in the usual sense.

###### Proof

As the proof is almost identical with the one for the non-involutive version of the Mora normal form given by Greuel and Pfister gp:standard ; gp:singular , we only sketch the required modifications; full details are given in wms:invol . For the termination proof no modifications are needed. For the existence of the involutive standard representation one uses the same induction as in the non-involutive case and keeps track of the multiplicative variables. The key point is that if a reduction with respect to a polynomial $`\widehat{g}\widehat{𝒢}𝒢`$ is performed, then this polynomial is multiplied only with terms which are multiplicative for all $`g𝒢`$ appearing in $`\widehat{g}`$. This ensures that in the end indeed each non-zero coefficient $`P_g`$ is contained in $`𝕜[X_{L,𝒢,}(g)]`$.∎

###### Remark 11

The assumption about $`𝒫`$ in Proposition 20 is necessary, because the coefficients $`P_g`$ in (31) are the result of multiplications. While the above considerations ensure that each factor lies in $`𝕜[X_{L,𝒢,}(g)]`$, it is unclear in a general polynomial algebra whether this remains true for their product. Simple examples for polynomial algebras of solvable type satisfying the made assumption are rings of linear difference or differential operators. In the case of the Pommaret division, the assumption can be weaken a bit and every iterated polynomial algebra of solvable type in the sense of Definition 7 is permitted, too. $``$

We move now to a larger ring of fractions where all polynomials with leading exponent $`0`$ are units. In such a ring it really makes sense to call $`h`$ a (weak) normal form of $`f`$, as we multiply $`f`$ only by a unit.

###### Proposition 21

Let $`(𝒫,,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type where $``$ is a semigroup order. Then the subset

$$𝒮_{}=\{f𝒫\mathrm{le}_{}f=0\}.$$
(32)
is multiplicatively closed and the left localisation $`𝒫_{}=𝒮_{}^1𝒫`$ is a well defined ring of left fractions.

###### Proof

Obviously, $`1𝒮_{}`$. If $`1+f`$ and $`1+g`$ are two elements in $`𝒮_{}`$, then the compatibility of the order $``$ with the multiplication $``$ ensures that their product is of the form $`(1+f)(1+g)=1+h`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}h0`$. Hence the set $`𝒮_{}`$ is multiplicatively closed.

As polynomial algebras of solvable type do not possess zero divisors, a sufficient condition for the existence of the ring of left fractions $`𝒮_{}^1𝒫`$ is that for all $`f𝒮_{}`$ and $`g𝒫`$ the intersection $`(𝒫f)(𝒮_{}g)`$ is not empty (pmc:alg2, , Sect. 12.1). But this can be shown using minor modifications of our proof of Proposition 4.

We first choose coefficients $`r_0,s_0`$ such that in $`\overline{h}_1=r_0gfs_0fg`$ the leading terms cancel, i. e. we have $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_1\mathrm{le}_{}f+\mathrm{le}_{}g=\mathrm{le}_{}g`$. Then we compute with (the non-involutive form of) Algorithm 5 a weak normal form $`h_1`$ of $`\overline{h}_1`$ with respect to the set $`_0=\{f,g\}`$. By Proposition 20 this yields a standard representation $`u_1\overline{h}_1h_1=\varphi _0f+\psi _0g`$ where $`\mathrm{le}_{}u_1=0`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{le}_{}\psi _00`$. Then we arrive at the contradiction $`\mathrm{le}_{}(\psi _0g)\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_1=\mathrm{le}_{}(u_1\overline{h}_1)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{le}_{}\psi _00`$. If $`h_1=0`$, then $`(u_1r_0g\varphi _0)f=(u_1s_0f+\psi _0)g`$ and by the considerations above on the leading exponents $`u_1s_0f+\psi _0𝒮_{}`$ so that indeed $`(𝒫f)(𝒮_{}g)\mathrm{}`$.

If $`h_10`$, we proceed as in the proof of Proposition 4. We introduce $`_1=_0\{h_1\}`$ and choose $`r_1,s_1`$ such that in $`\overline{h}_2=r_1h_1fs_1fh_1`$ the leading terms cancel. If we compute a weak Mora normal form $`h_2`$ of $`\overline{h}_2`$, then we obtain a standard representation $`u_2\overline{h}_2h_2=\varphi _1f+\psi _1g+\rho _1h_1`$ where again $`\mathrm{le}_{}u_2=0`$. The properties of a standard representation imply now that $`\mathrm{le}_{}\psi _1+\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}\rho _1+\mathrm{le}_{}h_1\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_2`$. Together with the inequalities $`\mathrm{le}_{}\overline{h}_2\mathrm{le}_{}f+\mathrm{le}_{}h_1=\mathrm{le}_{}h_1\mathrm{le}_{}g`$ this entails that both $`\mathrm{le}_{}\psi _10`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}\rho _10`$. Thus for $`h_2=0`$ we have found $`\varphi 𝒫`$ and $`\psi 𝒮_{}`$ such that $`\varphi f=\psi g`$. If $`h_20`$, similar inequalities in the subsequent iterations ensure that we always have $`\psi 𝒮_{}`$.∎

As any localisation of a Noetherian ring is again Noetherian, $`𝒫_{}`$ is Noetherian, if $`𝒫`$ is so. One sees immediately that the units in $`𝒫_{}`$ are all those fractions where not only the denominator but also the numerator is contained in $`𝒮_{}`$. Given an ideal $`𝒫_{}`$, we may always assume without loss of generality that its generated by a set $`𝒫`$ of polynomials, as multiplication of a generator by a unit does not change the span. Hence in all computations we will exclusively work with polynomials and not with fractions.

As all elements of $`𝒮_{}`$ are units in $`𝒫_{}`$, we may extend the notions of leading term, monomial or exponent: if $`f𝒫_{}`$, then we can choose a unit $`u𝒮_{}`$ with $`\mathrm{lc}_{}u=1`$ such that $`uf𝒫`$ is a polynomial; now we define $`\mathrm{le}_{}f=\mathrm{le}_{}(uf)`$ etc. One easily verifies that this definition is independent of the choice of $`u`$.

Following Greuel and Pfister gp:singular , one can now construct a complete theory of involutive bases over $`𝒫_{}`$. Definition 18 of Gröbner and involutive bases can be extended without changes from the ring $`𝒫`$ to $`𝒫_{}`$. Theorem 4.4 on the existence of Gröbner bases generalises to $`𝒫_{}`$, as its proof is only based on the leading exponents and a simple normal form argument remaining valid due to our considerations above.

Note that even if the set $`𝒢`$ is involutively head autoreduced, we cannot conclude in analogy to Proposition 6 that the involutive Mora normal form is unique, as we only consider the leading term in Algorithm 5 and hence the lower terms in $`h`$ may still be involutively divisible by the leading term of some generator $`g𝒢`$. However, Theorem 5.1 remains valid.

###### Theorem 10.1

Let $`(𝒫=𝕜[X],,)`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type (for an arbitrary semigroup order $``$) such that $`𝕜[X^{}]`$ is a subring of $`𝒫`$ for any subset $`X^{}X`$. Furthermore, let $`L`$ be a constructive Noetherian division. For a finite set $`𝒫`$ of polynomials let $`=`$ be the left ideal generated by it in the localisation $`𝒫_{}`$. If we apply Algorithm 3 with the involutive Mora normal form instead of the usual one to the set $``$, then it terminates with an involutive basis of the ideal $``$.

###### Proof

The termination of Algorithm 3 under the made assumptions was shown in Proposition 11 and Theorem 7.1. One easily verifies that their proofs are not affected by the substitution of the normal form algorithm, as they rely mainly on Theorem 5.1 and on the fact that the leading term of the normal form is not involutively divisible by the leading term of any generator. Both properties remain valid for the Mora normal form.∎

###### Remark 12

Note that Theorem 10.1 guarantees the existence of *strong* involutive bases. Due to the extension to $`𝒫_{}`$, Example 14 is no longer a valid counter example. As the first generator in $``$ is now a unit, we find that $`=𝒫_{}`$ and $`\{1\}`$ is a trivial strong Pommaret basis. $``$

###### Example 16

We continue Example 15. Following the approach given by Theorem 10.1, we immediately compute as Janet basis of $``$ (over $`𝒫_{}`$) the minimal basis $`_3=\{_x,_y,_z\}`$. Obviously, it is considerably smaller than the bases obtained with Lazard’s approach (over $`𝒫`$). This effect becomes even more profound, if we look at the sizes of the bases in the homogenised Weyl algebra: both $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_2`$ consist of $`21`$ generators. $``$

## 11 Involutive Bases over Rings

Finally, we consider the general case that $`𝒫=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is a polynomial algebra of solvable type over a (left) Noetherian ring $``$. In the commutative case, Gröbner bases for such algebras have been studied in gtz:pridec ; tr:groe  (see (al:gb, , Chapt. 4) for a more extensive textbook discussion); for PBW extensions (recall Example 6) a theory of Gröbner bases was recently developed in gry:pbw . We will follow the basic ideas developed in these references and assume in the sequel that linear equations are solvable in the coefficient ring $``$, meaning that the following two operations can be effectively performed:

given elements $`s,r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$, we can decide whether $`sr_1,\mathrm{},r_k_{}`$ (the left ideal in $``$ generated by $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$);

given elements $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$, we can construct a finite basis of the module $`\mathrm{Syz}(r_1,\mathrm{},r_k)`$ of left syzygies $`s_1r_1+\mathrm{}+s_kr_k=0`$.

The first operation is obviously necessary for the algorithmic reduction of polynomials with respect to a set $`𝒫`$. The necessity of the second operation will become evident later. Compared with the commutative case, reduction is a more complicated process, in particular due to the possibility that in the commutation relations (5) for the multiplication in $`𝒫`$ the maps $`\rho _\mu `$ may be different from the identity on $``$ and the coefficients $`r_{\mu \nu }`$ unequal one.

Let $`𝒢𝒫`$ be a finite set. We introduce for any polynomial $`f𝒫`$ the sets $`𝒢_f=\{g𝒢\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}f\}`$ and

$$\overline{𝒢}_f=\{x^\mu gg𝒢_f\mu =\mathrm{le}_{}f\mathrm{le}_{}g\mathrm{le}_{}(x^\mu g)=\mathrm{le}_{}f\}$$
(33)
Note that the last condition in the definition of $`\overline{𝒢}_f`$ is redundant only, if the coefficient ring $``$ is an integral domain. Otherwise it may happen that $`|\overline{𝒢}_f|<|𝒢_f|`$, namely if $`\rho _\mu (r)r_{\mu \nu }=0`$ where $`\mathrm{lm}_{}g=rx^\nu `$. The polynomial $`f`$ is *head reducible* with respect to $`𝒢`$, if $`\mathrm{lc}_{}g\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{𝒢}_f_{}`$ (note that we use $`\overline{𝒢}_f`$ here so that the reduction comes only from the leading terms and is not due to some zero divisors as leading coefficients). *Involutive head reducibility* is defined analogously via sets $`𝒢_{f,L}`$ and $`\overline{𝒢}_{f,L}`$ where only involutive divisors with respect to the division $`L`$ on $`_0^n`$ are taken into account, i. e. we set

$$𝒢_{f,L}=\{g𝒢\mathrm{le}_{}f𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}𝒢}(\mathrm{le}_{}g)\}.$$
(34)
Thus the set $`𝒢`$ is *involutively head autoreduced*, if $`\mathrm{lc}_{}g\mathrm{lc}_{}(\overline{𝒢}_{g,L}\{g\})_{}`$ for all polynomials $`g𝒢`$. This is now a much weaker notion than before; in particular, Lemma 3 is no longer valid.

###### Definition 19

Let $`𝒫`$ be a left ideal in the polynomial algebra $`(𝒫,,)`$ of solvable type over a ring $``$ in which linear equations can be solved. A finite set $`𝒢𝒫`$ is a *Gröbner basis* of $``$, if for every polynomial $`f`$ the condition $`\mathrm{lc}_{}f\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{𝒢}_f_{}`$ is satisfied. The set $`𝒢`$ is a *weak involutive basis* for the involutive division $`L`$, if for every polynomial $`f`$ the condition $`\mathrm{lc}_{}f\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{𝒢}_{f,L}_{}`$ is satisfied. A weak involutive basis is a *strong involutive basis*, if every set $`\overline{𝒢}_{f,L}`$ contains precisely one element.

It is easy to see that the characterisation of (weak) involutive bases via the existence of involutive standard representations (Theorem 5.1) remains valid. Indeed, only the first part of the proof requires a minor change: the polynomial $`f_1`$ is now of the form $`f_1=f_{h_{f,L}}r_hh`$ where the coefficients $`r_h`$ are chosen such that $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_1\mathrm{le}_{}f`$.

Clearly, a necessary condition for the existence of Gröbner and thus of (weak) involutive bases for arbitrary left ideals $`𝒫`$ is that the algebra $`𝒫`$ is a (left) Noetherian ring. As we have seen in Section 4, this assumption becomes non-trivial, if the coefficient ring $``$ is not a field. In this section, we will assume throughout that $`𝒫`$ is a polynomial algebra of solvable type over a left Noetherian ring $``$ with centred commutation relations (cf. Definition 8) so that Theorem 4.2 asserts that $`𝒫`$ is left Noetherian, too.888The case of an iterated polynomial algebra of solvable type (cf. Definition 7) will be considered in Part II, after we have developed a syzygy theory for involutive bases. A very useful side effect of this assumption is that the scalars appearing in the commutation relations (5) are units and thus not zero divisors which is important for some arguments.

###### Example 17

As in the previous two sections, we cannot generally expect strong involutive bases to exist. As a simple concrete example, also demonstrating the need of the second assumption on $``$, we consider in $`𝕜[x,y][z]`$ (with the ordinary multiplication) the ideal $``$ generated by the set $`=\{x^2z1,y^2z+1\}`$. Obviously, both generators have the same leading exponent $`[1]`$; nevertheless none is reducible by the other one due to the relative primeness of the coefficients. Furthermore, the syzygy $`\stackrel{}{S}=x^2\stackrel{}{e}_2y^2\stackrel{}{e}_1𝕜[x,y]^2`$ connecting the leading coefficients leads to the polynomial $`x^2+y^2`$. It is easy to see that a Gröbner and weak Janet basis of $``$ is obtained by adding it to $``$. A strong Janet basis does not exist, as none of these generators may be removed from the basis. $``$

This example shows that simply applying our completion Algorithm 3 will generally not suffice. Obviously, with respect to the Janet division $`z`$ is multiplicative for both elements of $``$ so that no non-multiplicative variables exist and thus it is not possible to generate the missing generator by multiplication with a non-multiplicative variable. We must substitute in Algorithm 3 the involutive head autoreduction by a more comprehensive operation.999In the classical case of commutative variables over a coefficient field, it is not difficult to show that for any finite set $``$ the syzygy module $`\mathrm{Syz}(\mathrm{lm}_{})`$ of the leading *monomials* can be spanned by binomial generators corresponding to the $`S`$-polynomials in the Buchberger algorithm. In Part II we will show that in any such syzygy at least one component contains a non-multiplicative variable, so that implicitly the involutive completion algorithm also runs over a generating set of this syzygy module. When we move on to coefficient rings, it is well-known that additional, more complicated syzygies coming from the coefficients must be considered. For these we can no longer assume that one component contains a non-multiplicative variable. Hence *partially* we must follow the same approach as in the generalisation of the Buchberger algorithm and this leads to the notion of $``$-saturation where some syzygies not reachable via non-multiplicative variables are explicitly considered.

###### Definition 20

Let $`𝒫`$ be a finite set and $`L`$ an involutive division. We consider for each $`f`$ the syzygies $`_{\overline{f}\overline{}_{f,L}}s_{\overline{f}}\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{f}=0`$ connecting the leading coefficients of the elements of the set $`\overline{}_{f,L}`$. The set $``$ is *involutively $``$-saturated* for the division $`L`$, if for any such syzygy $`\stackrel{}{S}`$ the polynomial $`_{\overline{f}\overline{}_{f,L}}s_{\overline{f}}\overline{f}`$ possesses an involutive standard representation with respect to $``$.

For checking involutive $``$-saturation, it obviously suffices to consider a finite basis of each of the finitely many syzygy modules $`\mathrm{Syz}(\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{}_{f,L})`$ so that such a check can easily be performed effectively. An element $`f`$ is involutively head reducible by the other elements of $``$, if and only if $`\mathrm{Syz}(\mathrm{lc}_{}\overline{}_{f,L})`$ contains a syzygy with $`s_f=1`$. For this reason it is easy to combine an involutive $``$-saturation with an involutive head autoreduction leading to Algorithm 6.

The for loop in Lines /5-13/ takes care of the involutive head autoreduction (the call $`\mathrm{𝙷𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚁𝚎𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚎}_{L,}(f,)`$ involutively head reduces $`f`$ with respect to the set $`\{f\}`$ but with multiplicative variables determined with respect to the full set $``$—cf. Remark 5). The for loop in Lines /17-22/ checks the involutive $``$-saturation. Each iteration of the outer while loop analyses from the remaining polynomials (collected in $`𝒮`$) those with the highest leading exponent. The set $`𝒮`$ is reset to the full basis, whenever a new element has been put into $``$; this ensures that all new reduction possibilities are taken into account. In Line /15/ it does not matter which element $`f𝒮_\nu `$ we choose, as the set $`_{f,L}^{}`$ depends only on $`\mathrm{le}_{}f`$ and all elements of $`𝒮_\nu `$ possess by construction the same leading exponent $`\nu `$.

###### Proposition 22

Under the made assumptions about the polynomial algebra $`𝒫`$, Algorithm 6 terminates for any finite input set $`𝒫`$ with an involutively $``$-saturated and head autoreduced set $``$ such that $`=`$.

###### Proof

The correctness of the algorithm is trivial. The termination follows from the fact that both $``$ and $`_0^n`$ are Noetherian. Whenever we add a new polynomial $`h`$ to the set $`^{}`$, we have either that $`\mathrm{le}_{}h\mathrm{le}_{}^{}_{_0^n}`$ or $`\mathrm{lc}_{}h\mathrm{lc}_{}_{h,L}^{}_{}`$. As neither in $`_0^n`$ nor in $``$ infinite ascending chains of ideals are possible, the algorithm must terminate after a finite number of steps.∎

An obvious idea is now to substitute in the completion Algorithm 3 the involutive head autoreduction by an involutive $``$-saturation. Recall that Proposition 11 (and Corollary 3) was the crucial step for proving the correctness of Algorithm 3. Our next goal is thus to show that under the made assumptions for involutively $``$-saturated sets local involution implies weak involution.

###### Proposition 23

Under the made assumptions about the polynomial algebra $`𝒫`$, a finite, involutively $``$-saturated set $`𝒫`$ is weakly involutive, if and only if it is locally involutive.

###### Proof

We first note that Proposition 11 remains true under the made assumptions. Its proof only requires a few trivial modifications, as all appearing coefficients (for example, when we rewrite $`x^\mu x^{\mu 1_j}x_j`$) are units in the case of centred commutation relations and thus we may proceed as for a field. Hence if $``$ is locally involutive, then $`==_{L,}`$ implying that any polynomial $`g`$ may be written in the form $`g=_fP_ff`$ with $`P_f[X_{L,,}(f)]`$. Furthermore, it follows from this proof that for centred commutation relations we may assume that the polynomials $`P_f`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)=\mathrm{le}_{}P_f+\mathrm{le}_{}f`$. We are done, if we can show that they can be chosen such that additionally $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)\mathrm{le}_{}g`$, i. e. such that we obtain an involutive standard representation of $`g`$.

If the representation coming out of the proof of Proposition 11 already satisfies this condition on the leading exponents, nothing has to be done. Otherwise we set $`\nu =\mathrm{max}_{}\left\{\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)f\right\}`$ and $`_\nu =\{f\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)=\nu \}`$. As by construction $`\nu _{f_\nu }𝒞_{L,\mathrm{le}_{}}(\mathrm{le}_{}f)`$, the properties of an involutive division imply that we can write $`_\nu =\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\}`$ with $`\mathrm{le}_{}f_1\mathrm{le}_{}f_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{le}_{}f_k`$ and hence $`_\nu _{f_k,L}`$. Since we have assumed that $`\mathrm{le}_{}(P_ff)=\mathrm{le}_{}P_f+\mathrm{le}_{}f`$, we even find $`_\nu \overline{}_{f_k,L}`$.

By construction, the equality $`_{f_\nu }\mathrm{lc}_{}(P_ff)=0`$ holds. If we now set $`\mathrm{lm}_{}f=r_fx^{\nu _f}`$ and $`\mathrm{lm}_{}P_f=s_fx^{\mu _f}`$, then we obtain under the made assumptions: $`\mathrm{lc}_{}(P_ff)=s_f\rho _{\mu _f}(r_f)r_{\mu _f\nu _f}=\left[s_f\overline{\rho }_{\mu _f}(r_f)r_{\mu _f\nu _f}\right]r_f`$ and hence the above equality corresponds to a syzygy of the set $`\mathrm{lc}_{}_{f_k,L}`$. As the set $``$ is involutively $``$-saturated, there exists an involutive standard representation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left[s_{f_i}\overline{\rho }_{\mu _{f_i}}(r_{f_i})r_{\mu _{f_i}\nu _{f_i}}\right]\overline{f}_i=\underset{f}{}Q_ff$$
(35)
with $`Q_f𝕜[X_{L,,}(f)]`$ and $`\mathrm{le}_{}(Q_ff)=\mathrm{le}_{}Q_f+\mathrm{le}_{}f\nu _{f_k}`$.

Introducing now the polynomials $`Q_f^{}=Q_f\left[s_f\overline{\rho }_{\mu _f}(r_f)r_{\mu _f\nu _f}\right]x^{\nu _{f_k}\nu _f}`$ for $`f_\nu `$ and $`Q_f^{}=Q_f`$ otherwise, we get the syzygy $`_fQ_f^{}f=0`$. If we set $`P_f^{}=P_fc_f^1x^{\nu \nu _{f_k}}Q_f^{}`$ with $`c_f=\overline{\rho }_{\nu \nu _{f_k}}\left(s_f\overline{\rho }_{\mu _f}(r_f)r_{\mu _f\nu _f}\right)\overline{\rho }_{\mu _f}(r_f)r_{\mu _f\nu _f}`$, then, by construction, $`g=_fP_f^{}f`$ is another involutive representation of the polynomial $`g`$ with $`\nu ^{}=\mathrm{max}_{}\left\{\mathrm{le}_{}(P_f^{}f)f\right\}\nu `$.

Repeating this procedure for a finite number of times obviously yields an involutive standard representation of the polynomial $`g`$. As $`g`$ was an arbitrary element of the ideal $`=`$, this implies that $``$ is indeed weakly involutive.∎

###### Theorem 11.1

Let $`𝒫`$ be a polynomial algebra of solvable type satisfying the made assumptions. If the subalgorithm $`\mathrm{𝙸𝚗𝚟𝙷𝚎𝚊𝚍𝙰𝚞𝚝𝚘𝚁𝚎𝚍𝚞𝚌𝚎}_{L,}`$ is substituted in Algorithm 3 by Algorithm 6, then the completion will terminate with a weak involutive basis of $`=`$ for any finite input set $`𝒫`$ such that the monoid ideal $`\mathrm{le}_{}`$ possesses a weak involutive basis.

###### Proof

The correctness of the modified algorithm follows immediately from Proposition 23. For the termination we may use the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 7.1, as it depends only on the leading exponents.∎

## 12 Conclusions

We studied involutive bases for a rather general class of non-commutative polynomial algebras. Our approach was very closely modelled on that of Kandry-Rody and Weispfenning krw:ncgb  and subsequently Kredel hk:solvpoly . However, we believe that the third condition in Definition 6 (the compatibility between term order $``$ and non-commutative product $``$) is more natural than the stricter axioms in krw:ncgb . In particular, we could not see where Kandry-Rody and Weispfenning needed their stricter conditions, as all their main results hold in our more general situation, as later shown by Kredel.

Comparing with apel:diss ; bgv:algnoncomm ; hk:solvpoly ; vl:diss , one must say that the there used approach is more constructive than ours. More precisely, all these authors specify the non-commutative product via commutation relations and thus have automatically a concrete algorithm for evaluating any product. As we have seen in the proof of Proposition 3, the same data suffices to fix our axiomatically described product, but it does not provide us with an algorithm. However, we showed that we can always map to their approach via a basis transformation.

We showed that the polynomial algebras of solvable type form a natural framework for involutive bases. This is not surprising, if one takes into account that the main part of the involutive theory happens in the monoid $`_0^n`$ and the decisive third condition in Definition 6 of a polynomial algebra of solvable type ensures that its product $``$ does not interfere with the leading exponents.

We extended the theory of involutive bases to semigroup orders and to polynomials over coefficient rings. It turned out that the novel concept of a *weak* involutive basis is crucial for such generalisations, as in both cases strong bases rarely exist. These weak bases are still Gröbner bases and involutive standard representations still exist (though they are no longer unique). It seems that in such computations the Janet division has a distinguished position, as by Theorem 9.2 strong Janet bases always exist. If one is only interested in using Algorithm 3 as an alternative to Buchberger’s algorithm, weak bases are sufficient. However, most of the more advanced applications of involutive bases studied in Part II will require strong involutive bases.

Concerning involutive bases over rings, we will study in Part II the special case that the coefficient ring is again a polynomial algebra of solvable type. Using the syzygy theory that will be developed there, we will be able to obtain stronger results and a “purely involutive” completion algorithm. The current approach contains hidden in the concept of $``$-saturation parts of the Buchberger algorithm for the construction of Gröbner bases over rings.

Definition 1 represents the currently mainly used definition of an involutive division. While it appears quite natural, one problem is that in some sense too many involutive divisions exist, in particular rather weird ones with unpleasant properties. This effect has lead us to the introduction of such technical concepts like continuity and constructivity. One could imagine that there should exist a stricter definition of involutive divisions that automatically ensures that Algorithm 2 terminates without having to resort to these technicalities.

Most of these weird divisions are globally defined and multiplicative indices are assigned only to finitely many multi indices. Such divisions are obviously of no interest, as more or less no monoid ideal possesses an involutive basis for them. One way to eliminate these divisions would be to require that for every $`q_0`$ the monoid ideal $`(_0^n)_q=\{\nu _0^nq|\nu |\}`$ has an involutive basis. All the involutive divisions used in practice satisfy this condition, but it is still a long way from this simple condition to the termination of Algorithm 2.

We did not discuss the efficiency of the here presented algorithms. Much of the literature on involutive bases is concerned with their use as an alternative approach to the construction of Gröbner bases. In particular, recent experiments by Gerdt et al. gby:janbas2  comparing a specialised C/C++ program for the construction of Janet bases with the Gröbner bases package of Singular gps:singular  indicate that the involutive approach is highly competitive. This is quite remarkable, if one takes into account that Singular is based on the results of many years of intensive research on Gröbner bases by many groups, whereas involutive bases are still very young and only a few researchers have actively worked on them. The results in Part II will offer some heuristic explanations for this observation.

Finally, we mention that most of the algorithms discussed in this article have been implemented (for general polynomial algebras of solvable type) by M. Hausdorf wms:invbas1 ; wms:invbas2  in the computer algebra system MuPAD.101010For more information see www.mupad.de. The implementation does not use the simple completion Algorithm 3 but a more optimised version yielding minimal bases developed by Gerdt and Blinkov gb:minbas . It also includes the modified algorithm for determining strong Janet bases in local rings.

## Appendix A Term Orders

We use in this article non-standard definitions of some basic term orders. More precisely, we revert the order of the variables: our definitions become the standard ones, if one transforms $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)(x_n,\mathrm{},x_1)`$. The reason for this reversal is that this way the definitions fit better to the conventions in the theory of involutive systems of differential equations. Furthermore, they appear more natural in some applications like the determination of the depth in Part II.

A *term order* $``$ is for us a total order on the set $`𝕋`$ of all terms $`x^\mu `$ satisfying the following two conditions: (i) $`1t`$ for all terms $`t𝕋`$ and (ii) $`st`$ implies $`rsrt`$ for all terms $`r,s,t𝕋`$. If a term order fulfils in addition the condition that $`st`$ whenever $`\mathrm{deg}s<\mathrm{deg}t`$, it is called *degree compatible*. As $`𝕋`$ and $`_0^n`$ are isomorphic as monoids, we may also speak of term orders on $`_0^n`$. In fact, most term orders are defined via multi indices.

A more appropriate name for term orders might be *monoid orders*, as the two conditions above say nothing but that these orders respect the monoid structure of $`𝕋`$. A more general class of (total) orders are *semigroup orders* where we skip the first condition, i. e. we only take the semigroup structure of $`𝕋`$ into account. It is a well-known property of such orders that they are no longer well-orders. This implies in particular the existence of infinite descending sequences so that normal form algorithms do not necessarily terminate.

The *lexicographic* order is defined by $`x^\mu _{\text{lex}}x^\nu `$, if the last non-vanishing entry of $`\mu \nu `$ is negative. Thus $`x_2^2x_3_{\text{lex}}x_1x_3^2`$. With respect to the *reverse lexicographic* order $`x^\mu _{\text{revlex}}x^\nu `$, if the first non-vanishing entry of $`\mu \nu `$ is positive. Now we have $`x_1x_3^2_{\text{revlex}}x_2^2x_3`$. However, $`_{\text{revlex}}`$ is only a semigroup order, as it violates the first condition: $`x_1_{\text{revlex}}1`$. Degree compatible versions of these orders exist, too. $`x^\mu _{\text{deglex}}x^\nu `$, if $`|\mu |<|\nu |`$ or if $`|\mu |=|\nu |`$ and $`x^\mu _{\text{lex}}x^\nu `$. Similarly, $`x^\mu _{\text{degrevlex}}x^\nu `$, if $`|\mu |<|\nu |`$ or if $`|\mu |=|\nu |`$ and $`x^\mu _{\text{revlex}}x^\nu `$. Obviously $`_{\text{degrevlex}}`$ is a term order. It possesses the following useful characterisation which is easy to prove.

###### Lemma 8

Let $``$ be a degree compatible term order such that the condition $`\mathrm{lt}_{}fx_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ is equivalent to $`fx_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ for every homogeneous polynomial $`f𝒫`$. Then $``$ is the degree reverse lexicographic order $`_{\text{degrevlex}}`$.

We say that a term order *respects classes*, if for multi indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ of the same length $`\mathrm{cls}\mu <\mathrm{cls}\nu `$ implies $`x^\mu x^\nu `$. It is now easy to see that by Lemma 8 on terms of the same degree any class respecting term order on $`𝕋`$ coincides with the degree reverse lexicographic order. If we consider free polynomial modules, class respecting orders have the same relation to TOP lifts al:gb  of $`_{\text{degrevlex}}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank V.P. Gerdt for a number of interesting discussions on involutive bases. M. Hausdorf and R. Steinwandt participated in an informal seminar at Karlsruhe University where most ideas of this article were presented and gave many valuable comments. The constructive remarks of the anonymous referees were also very helpful. This work received partial financial support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, INTAS grant 99-1222 and NEST-Adventure contract 5006 (*GIFT*).