Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Elementary properties of the homogenized ideal

Statement

Let (I,μ) be a marked ideal of maximal order with μ≥1 and let H(I) be its homogenization (The homogenized ideal of a marked ideal of maximal order). Then: (1) if μ=1 then H(I)=I; (2) H(I)=I+D(I)T(I)+⋯+Dμ−1(I)T(I)μ−1+… agrees with its truncation at order μ−1 as an element of the equivalence class of (I,μ); (3) Assume AC. Then H(I,μ)=(I,μ)+D(I,μ)(T(I),1)+⋯+Dμ−1(I,μ)(T(I),1)μ−1 up to marked equivalence for the operation of Addition and multiplication of marked ideals; (4) if μ>1 and K has characteristic zero or perfect characteristic p>μ, then D(H(I,μ))⊆H(D(I),μ−1); (5) T(H(I))=T(I).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A marked ideal (I,μ) of maximal order with μ≥1, with T(I)=Dμ−1(I) and homogenization H(I)=∑i=0μ−1Di(I)T(I)i.

[F1]

The homogenized ideal of a marked ideal of maximal order: H(I)=I+D(I)T(I)+⋯+Dμ−1(I)T(I)μ−1 and T(I)=Dμ−1I.

[F2]

Derivative ideals of an ideal sheaf and of a marked ideal: Di(I)⊇Di−1(I), Di+j(I)=Dj(Di(I)), and Di(A)⊆Di(B) for A⊆B.

[F3]

Marked ideals of maximal order, tangent directions and transversality to the exceptional divisors: in characteristic zero or perfect characteristic p>μ, maximal order implies Dμ(I)=OX. In every characteristic D(T(I))=Dμ(I) is an ideal subsheaf of OX.

[F4]

Addition and multiplication of marked ideals: sums and products of marked ideals and their controlled transforms are computed componentwise as in that item.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC is used in clause (3) through the iterated marked-sum theorem in [F4].

Proof

1.1F1F2

Clauses (1) and (2). If μ=1 then T(I)=D0I=I and the defining sum has the single term I, so H(I)=I, which is (1). For (2), extend the defining sum to all i≥0. For each i≥μ, the i-th term Di(I)T(I)i is contained in T(I)i because Di(I)⊆OX, and hence is contained in T(I)μ. Since T(I)=Dμ−1(I), the i=μ−1 term is exactly T(I)μ. Thus every later term is contained in the last retained term, and the full sum equals its truncation.

1.2F1F2

Clause (5). For a local product generator of a summand Di(I)T(I)i, applying a coordinate derivative of total order at most μ−1 gives sums of products with a0 derivatives on the first factor and a1,…,ai derivatives on the i tangent factors, where a0+∑ℓaℓ≤μ−1. The first factor lies in Di+a0(I). If i+a0≤μ−1, this is contained in T(I)=Dμ−1(I) because derivative ideals increase with their index. If i+a0>μ−1, then ∑ℓaℓ≤μ−1−a0<i, so at least one tangent factor is undifferentiated and the product contains a factor of T(I). In both cases the resulting product lies in T(I), proving Dμ−1(H(I))⊆T(I). The reverse inclusion follows from I⊆H(I) and monotonicity of derivative ideals. Thus T(H(I))=T(I), proving (5).

1.3A1F1F4

Clause (3). Each product Di(I,μ)(T(I),1)i has underlying ideal Ji=Di(I)T(I)i and mark μ. Their literal ideal sum is H(I) with mark μ. Its support is the intersection of the supports of (Ji,μ), since the order of an ideal sum is the minimum of the summand orders. At a common admissible center the controlled transform of the literal sum distributes termwise, because all marks are μ. Induction therefore identifies its test sequences and induced supports with the simultaneous ones for the summands. Under AC, [F4] gives exactly those supports and test sequences for the iterated marked sum. Thus the displayed operation represents H(I,μ) up to marked equivalence, proving (3); no literal equality between a sum of ideal powers and a power of an ideal sum is used.

1.4F1F2F3step 1.2∎

Clause (4). Assume μ>1 and K has characteristic zero or perfect characteristic p>μ. The maximal-order criterion in [F3] gives Dμ(I)=OX, so (D(I),μ−1) is maximal order and T(D(I))=Dμ−2(D(I))=T(I). Leibniz gives D(H(I))⊆∑i=0μ−1Di+1(I)T(I)i+∑i=1μ−1Di(I)T(I)i−1D(T(I)). Since D(T(I))=Dμ(I)=OX, the second sum is the sum of the terms Di(I)T(I)i−1 for 1≤i≤μ−1. In the first sum, the terms with 1≤i+1≤μ−1 are precisely the terms Dj(D(I))T(I)j of H(D(I),μ−1) after setting j=i; its remaining top term is Dμ(I)T(I)μ−1=T(I)μ−1, already the i=μ−1 term of the second sum. The second sum itself consists of the terms Di−1(D(I))T(I)i−1 of H(D(I),μ−1). Hence the derivative ideal is contained in that homogenized ideal, proving (4).

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

27 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources