Rigidity of Graded Integral Domains and of their Veronese Subrings

Write A = \bigoplus_{i \in G} A_i. We first prove the case H = 0 of (a). Note that A^{(H)} = A_0. Let I be an ideal of A_0 and let x \in A_0 \cap IA. Then x = u_1 a_1 + \cdots + u_n a_n for some u_1,\dots,u_n \in I and a_1,\dots,a_n \in A. Moreover, we can arrange that a_i is homogeneous and u_i a_i \in A_0 \setminus \{0\} for all i \in \{1,\dots,n\}. We have a_i \in A_{d_i} for some d_i \in G, and A_0 \setminus \{0\} \ni u_i a_i \in A_{0+d_i}, so d_i = 0 and hence a_i \in A_0 for all i \in \{1,\dots,n\}. Thus, x \in I, showing that (a) is true when H=0. For the general case of (a), let \pi : G \to \bar G = G/H be the canonical epimorphism and let B = \bigoplus_{j \in \bar G}B_j be the ring A equipped with the \bar G-grading defined by B_j = \bigoplus_{\pi(i)=j} A_i for each j \in \bar G. Since B_0 = A^{(H)} and B=A, the claim follows by applying the case “H=0” to B. This proves (a).

(b) If I_0 \subseteq I_1 \subseteq I_2 \subseteq \cdots is an infinite increasing sequence of ideals in A^{(H)} then the sequence I_0 A \subseteq I_1 A \subseteq I_2 A \subseteq \cdots stabilizes since A is noetherian. By (a), we have I_n = A^{(H)} \cap I_n A for all n, so (I_n)_{n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} stabilizes, showing that A^{(H)} is noetherian.

(c) Given x = \sum_{i \in G} x_i \in A (where x_i \in A_i for all i \in G), define S(x) =\big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, x_i \neq 0 \, \big\}. We claim that

Indeed, write x = u/v where u,v \in A^{(H)} \setminus \{0\}. Then u\neq0 implies S(u) \neq \varnothing and xv = u implies S(u) \subseteq \big\{\, i+j \, \mid \, i \in S(x),\ j \in S(v) \, \big\}, so there exist i \in S(x) and j \in S(v) such that i+j \in S(u) \subseteq H; since j \in H, it follows that i \in H, so S(x) \cap H \neq \varnothing. This proves (?).

Now consider x \in A \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}( A^{(H)} ). We can write x = x_H + x' with x_H,x' \in A, S(x_H) \subseteq H and S(x') \cap H = \varnothing. Since x and x_H belong to A \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}( A^{(H)} ), we have x' = x - x_H \in A \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}( A^{(H)} ). Since S(x') \cap H = \varnothing, (?) implies that x'=0, so x = x_H \in A^{(H)}. Thus, A \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}( A^{(H)} ) = A^{(H)}.

(d) If A is normal then A^{(H)} = A \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}( A^{(H)} ) is an intersection of two normal domains and hence is normal.

Note that S^{-1} B is a G-graded domain. Consider \frac{b}{s} \in S^{-1} B where b is a homogeneous element of B \setminus \{0\} and s \in S. Since \deg\big(\frac{b}{s}\big) = \deg(b) - \deg(s) and \deg(s) \in H, we have \deg(b) \in H \Leftrightarrow \deg\big(\frac{b}{s}\big) \in H, i.e., \frac{b}{s} \in S^{-1}\big( B^{(H)} \big) \Leftrightarrow \frac{b}{s} \in \big( S^{-1} B \big)^{(H)}.

(a) Since G is torsion-free, there exists an order relation \le on G such that (G,\le) is a totally ordered abelian group (cf. [AndersonFeil, Prop. 1.1.7]); we choose such an order relation. Proceeding by contradiction, suppose that x,y \in B \setminus I are such that xy \in I. Write x = \sum_{i \in G} x_i and y = \sum_{i \in G} y_i with x_i,y_i \in B_i for all i. The sets S_x =\big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, x_i \notin I\, \big\} and S_y =\big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, y_i \notin I\, \big\} are nonempty and finite, so we may define m_x = \max S_x and m_y = \max S_y. Let x' = \sum_{i \le m_x} x_i and y' = \sum_{i \le m_y} y_i; then x \equiv x' and y \equiv y' \pmod{I}, so x'y' \in I. Moreover, if we write x'y' = \sum_{i \in G} z_i with z_i \in B_i for all i, then x_{m_x} y_{m_y} = z_{ m_x + m_y } \in I, so x_{m_x} y_{m_y} \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, so x_{m_x} \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} or y_{m_y} \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, so x_{m_x} \in I or y_{m_y} \in I, a contradiction. This proves (a).

To prove (b), consider I as in part (a) and observe that, since \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}=1, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = I.

We may assume that r \neq 0. Observe that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{R}) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^r. Since every nonzero homogeneous element of \EuScript{R} is a unit, we have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{R}) = \big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, \EuScript{R}_i \neq 0 \, \big\}, so we can choose nonzero homogeneous elements t_1,\dots,t_r of \EuScript{R} such that ( \deg(t_j) )_{j=1}^r is a basis of the free \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}-module \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{R}). The reader can check that \EuScript{R}_0 and t_1,\dots,t_r have the desired properties.

Since the grading is over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}, this follows from Lemma 2.12.

By Lemma 2.4, B^{(H)} is a noetherian normal domain; moreover, B is integral over B^{(H)} by Rem. 2.15(4). By [Matsumura, (5.E)], the Going-Down Theorem holds for B^{(H)} \subseteq B; so assertion (a) follows from [Matsumura, (13.C)], and (b) follows from (a). Now assume that G is torsion-free. If {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1 B and {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1 B^{(H)} are such that f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}) = {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, then Lemma 2.6(b) implies that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} is homogeneous if and only if {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} is homogeneous. So f^{-1}(Z') = Z by part (b), which also implies that f|_Z : Z \to Z' is surjective. Consider {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z' and {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_1, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2 \in Z such that f( {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_1 ) = {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = f( {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2 ). If x is a nonzero homogeneous element of {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_1 then we may choose d\ge1 such that x^d \in B^{(H)}; then x^d \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2 and hence x \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2, showing that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_1 \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2. By symmetry, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_1 = {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}_2. So f|_Z is bijective and (c) is proved.

It is clear that \langle H \cap M \rangle \subseteq H \cap \langle M \rangle. For the reverse inclusion, consider i \in H \cap \langle M \rangle. Since i \in \langle M \rangle and M is a monoid, there exist j_1,j_2 \in M such that i = j_1 - j_2. Since j_1 \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), there exists n>0 such that (n+1) j_1 \in H. Define i_1 = (n+1)j_1 and i_2 = j_2 + nj_1. Then i_1 \in H \cap M, i_2 \in M, and

so i_2 \in H, i.e., i_2 \in H \cap M. So i = i_1 - i_2 \in \langle H \cap M \rangle.

Consider the submonoid M = \big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, B_i \neq 0 \, \big\} of \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B). Then \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \langle M \rangle and \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) = \langle H \cap M \rangle = H \cap \langle M \rangle = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) by Lemma 2.18.

It is clear that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) \subseteq H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), so there is a surjective group homomorphism \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) / \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) \to \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/(H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)) and consequently (\Leftarrow) is true. Conversely, if H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B) then \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) / \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/(H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)) by Lemma 2.19, and since \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/(H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)) is torsion it follows that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/\operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) is torsion, so (\Rightarrow) is true.

Let H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}) and note that I=\big\{\, m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \, \mid \, m \deg(t) \in H+\operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) \, \big\} is a nonzero ideal of \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. Let n>0 be such that I = n\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. We claim that

Indeed, we have n \deg(t) \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) + H, so we may choose g \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) and h \in H such that n\deg(t) = g+h. Since M=\big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, R_i \neq 0 \, \big\} is closed under addition and the subgroup of G generated by M is \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R), we have g = i_1 - i_2 for some i_1, i_2 \in M. Since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}), there exists m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} such that m i_1 \in H. Define i = (m-1)i_1 + i_2, then i \in M (so R_i\neq0) and i+n\deg(t) = (m-1)i_1 + i_2 + g + h = mi_1+h \in H, which proves (Proof).

Choose i as in (Proof), choose \rho \in R_i \setminus \{0\}, and choose d \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} such that d i \in H (d exists because H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B})). Define \xi = \rho^d and \tau = \rho t^n; these are nonzero homogeneous elements of R^{(H)} and \EuScript{B}^{(H)} respectively, and \tau is transcendental over R^{(H)}. We claim that

The first part of (?) is clear. To prove the second part, note that each element of \EuScript{B}^{(H)} is a finite sum of elements of the form rt^m where r is a homogeneous element of R\setminus\{0\}, m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, and \deg(rt^m) \in H. For such an element rt^m, we have \deg(r) + m\deg(t) \in H and \deg(r) \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R), so m \in I = n\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} and hence m = nk for some k \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}. Then rt^m = r (t^n)^k = r \rho^{-k} \tau^k. Choose \ell \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that \ell d -k \ge0; then

Since \deg(rt^m), \deg(\xi), \deg(\tau) \in H, (?) gives \deg( r \rho^{ \ell d-k } ) \in H, so r \rho^{ \ell d-k } \in R^{(H)} and hence rt^m \in \big(R^{(H)}\big)_\xi [\tau] by (?) again. This proves \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \subseteq \big(R^{(H)}\big)_\xi [\tau] and completes the proof of (?).

Now (?) implies that \big(\EuScript{B}^{(H)}\big)_\xi = S[\tau] = S^{[1]} where S= \big(R^{(H)}\big)_\xi, so we may consider the derivative \frac{d}{d\tau} : S[\tau] \to S[\tau]. Let \Delta = \xi \frac{d}{d\tau} : (\EuScript{B}^{(H)} )_\xi \to (\EuScript{B}^{(H)} )_\xi; then \Delta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}} \big( (\EuScript{B}^{(H)} )_\xi \big) and \ker \Delta = S. We claim that \Delta(\EuScript{B}^{(H)}) \subseteq \EuScript{B}^{(H)}. To see this, consider the same element rt^m as before and let us check that \Delta(rt^m) \in \EuScript{B}^{(H)}. If m=0 then \deg(r) = \deg(rt^m) \in H, so rt^m = r \in R^{(H)} and hence \Delta(rt^m) = 0 \in \EuScript{B}^{(H)}. If m>0 then k>0, so (?) gives

Since \EuScript{B} \cap (\EuScript{B}^{(H)} )_\xi = \EuScript{B}^{(H)} by Lemma 2.4, we get \Delta(rt^m) \in \EuScript{B}^{(H)}. Since every element of \EuScript{B}^{(H)} is a finite sum of elements rt^m of this type, we obtain \Delta(\EuScript{B}^{(H)}) \subseteq \EuScript{B}^{(H)}. Let D : \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \to \EuScript{B}^{(H)} be the restriction of \Delta. Then D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}\big( \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \big) and \ker D = \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \cap \ker\Delta = \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \cap \big(R^{(H)}\big)_\xi. Since R is factorially closed in \EuScript{B} = R^{[1]}, it follows that R^{(H)} is factorially closed in \EuScript{B}^{(H)}, so \EuScript{B}^{(H)} \cap \big(R^{(H)}\big)_\xi = R^{(H)} and hence \ker D = R^{(H)}. We have D(\tau) = \xi \frac{d}{d\tau}(\tau) = \xi \neq 0, so D \neq 0 and hence R^{(H)} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm KHLND}}\big(\EuScript{B}^{(H)}\big).

(a) Let A \in \operatorname{\text{\rm KHLND}}(B). Choose D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \setminus \{0\} such that \ker D = A, and choose a homogeneous element t \in B such that D(t)\neq 0 and D^2(t)=0. Consider the homogeneous element a = D(t) of A\setminus\{0\} and let \EuScript{B} = B_a and R=A_a; then \EuScript{B} = R[t] = R^{[1]} by Lemma 2.22(b). Since \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{B}) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), we have \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B) and hence H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}); so R^{(H)} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm KHLND}}\big(\EuScript{B}^{(H)}\big) by Lemma 3.1. Choose \Delta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \EuScript{B}^{(H)} ) such that \ker(\Delta) = R^{(H)}.

Since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), there exists n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} such that \deg(a^n) \in H; let \alpha = a^n and observe that \EuScript{B} = B_\alpha. By Lemma 2.5, we have \EuScript{B}^{(H)} = \big( B_\alpha \big)^{(H)} = \big( B^{(H)} \big)_\alpha, so \Delta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}\big( ( B^{(H)} )_\alpha \big). Since (by Cor. 2.13) B^{(H)} is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine, Lemma 2.21 implies that there exists \ell \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that \alpha^\ell\Delta : ( B^{(H)} )_\alpha \to ( B^{(H)} )_\alpha maps B^{(H)} into itself. Let \delta : B^{(H)} \to B^{(H)} be the restriction of \alpha^\ell\Delta; then \delta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( B^{(H)} ) and \ker(\delta) = B^{(H)} \cap \ker(\Delta) = B^{(H)} \cap R^{(H)}. To finish the proof of (a), it suffices to verify that

The fact that A is factorially closed in B implies that B \cap R = B \cap A_a = A, so

which proves the first part of (?). To prove the second part, recall that D(t) \neq 0. Since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), we can pick m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} such that t^m \in B^{(H)}. Since D(t^m) = mt^{m-1}D(t)\neq0, we have t^m \notin A, so t^m \notin A^{(H)} and hence A^{(H)} \neq B^{(H)}. So (?) is true and assertion (a) is proved.

(b) Suppose that A_1,A_2 \in \operatorname{\text{\rm KHLND}}(B) are such that A_1^{(H)} =A_2^{(H)}. Consider a nonzero homogeneous element a \in A_1. Since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), we can pick m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} such that a^m \in A_1^{(H)}. Then a^m \in A_2^{(H)} \subseteq A_2, so a \in A_2 since A_2 is factorially closed in B. This shows that A_1 \subseteq A_2, and A_1=A_2 follows by symmetry. This proves (b).

Part (c) is an obvious consequence of part (a).

(d) Since G is torsion-free and B is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine and non-rigid, Lemma 2.25 implies that \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \neq \{0\}, so \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B^{(H)}) \neq \{0\} by (c), so B^{(H)} is non-rigid.

Let H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B). Since B^{(H)} is an H-graded ring, \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}( B^{(H)} ) is a collection of subgroups of H; clearly, \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B) too is a collection of subgroups of H. So it suffices to show that, for each subgroup H' of H, we have H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}( B^{(H)} ) \Leftrightarrow H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B). Let H' be a subgroup of H. Let U = H' \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B), V = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and W = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), and note that U \subseteq V \subseteq W and (since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B)) W/V is torsion; so V/U is torsion if and only if W/U is torsion. Since \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}) = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) by Lemma 2.19, we have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) / ( H' \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B^{(H)} ) ) = (H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)) / ( H' \cap H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B) ) = V/U, so H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}( B^{(H)} ) \Leftrightarrow V/U is torsion. Hence, H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}( B^{(H)} ) \Leftrightarrow \text{V / Uis torsion} \Leftrightarrow \text{W / Uis torsion} \Leftrightarrow H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), as desired.

(a) Let H \in \mathscr{X}(B). By Cor. 2.13, \EuScript{B} = B^{(H)} is an affine {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-domain; clearly, \EuScript{B} is graded by H and this grading is over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}. Since \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(\EuScript{B}) \neq \{0\} (because H \in \mathscr{X}(B)), Thm 3.2 implies that \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \EuScript{B}^{(H')} ) \neq \{0\} for all H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}); we have \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\EuScript{B}) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B) by Lemma 3.8, and for each H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B) we have H' \subseteq H and hence \EuScript{B}^{(H')} = B^{(H')}, so \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( B^{(H')} ) \neq \{0\} (and hence H' \in \mathscr{X}(B)) for all H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B).

(b) As in part (a), the ring \EuScript{B} = B^{(H)} is an affine {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-domain and is graded over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} by H. We have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B} ) = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) by Lemma 2.19, so the torsion subgroup of \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B} ) is T and the group \Omega = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B} ) / T is torsion-free. Let \pi : \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{B}) \to \Omega be the canonical homomorphism of the quotient and let \bar\EuScript{B} denote the ring \EuScript{B} equipped with the \Omega-grading \bar\EuScript{B} = \bigoplus_{\omega \in \Omega} \bar\EuScript{B}_\omega where (for each \omega \in \Omega) \bar\EuScript{B}_\omega = \bigoplus_{ \pi(i)=\omega } \EuScript{B}_i. Since \bar\EuScript{B} is a non-rigid affine {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-domain and \Omega is torsion-free, Lemma 2.25 gives \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \bar\EuScript{B} ) \neq \{0\} and hence \Omega \in \mathscr{X}(\bar\EuScript{B}). Since the grading of \bar\EuScript{B} is over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}, (a) implies that \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_\Omega(\bar\EuScript{B}) \subseteq \mathscr{X}(\bar\EuScript{B}), i.e., \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\bar\EuScript{B}) \subseteq \mathscr{X}(\bar\EuScript{B}). In particular, \bar\EuScript{B}^{(W)} is non-rigid for each W \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\bar\EuScript{B}); we have the equalities of non-graded rings \bar\EuScript{B}^{(W)} = \EuScript{B}^{(\pi^{-1}(W))} = (B^{(H)})^{(\pi^{-1}(W))} = B^{(\pi^{-1}(W))}, so

Consider H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B) such that T \subseteq H' \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \subseteq H; we show that B^{(H')} is non-rigid. We have B^{(H')} = B^{(H'')} where we set H'' = H' \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B). Since \ker\pi \subseteq H'' \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm dom}}\pi, if we define W = \pi(H'') then H'' = \pi^{-1}(W). We claim that \Omega / W is torsion. To see this, consider \omega \in \Omega. Choose i \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B} ) = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) such that \pi(i)=\omega. Since H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), there exists n\ge1 such that ni \in H' \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = H''; then n\omega = \pi(ni) \in \pi(H'') = W, which shows that \Omega / W is torsion and hence W \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(\bar\EuScript{B}). By (?), B^{(H')} = B^{(H'')} = B^{(\pi^{-1}(W))} is non-rigid.

Clearly, \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) is the subgroup of G generated by \big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, (B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})_i \neq 0 \, \big\} = \big\{\, i \in G \, \mid \, B_i \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \, \big\} = \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}), so \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}).

(a) Let D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \setminus \{0\} and let A = \ker D. Choose a homogeneous t \in B such that Dt \in A\setminus\{0\}. Let S be the set of homogeneous elements of A \setminus \{0\}. Note that S^{-1}B and S^{-1}A are G-graded \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}-domains, S^{-1}D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( S^{-1}B ) \setminus \{0\} and \ker(S^{-1}D) = S^{-1}A. Since (S^{-1}D)(t) is a unit of S^{-1}A, we have S^{-1}B = (S^{-1}A)[t] = (S^{-1}A)^{[1]} by Lemma 2.22. The condition S^{-1}B = (S^{-1}A)[t] = (S^{-1}A)^{[1]} implies that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} = t S^{-1}B is a height 1 prime ideal of S^{-1}B. By basic properties of localization, it follows that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = B \cap {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} is a height 1 prime ideal of B. It is clear that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} is homogeneous, so {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} is homogeneous. We have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( S^{-1}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( S^{-1}B/tS^{-1}B ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(S^{-1}A) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A) and t \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, so (a) is proved.

(b) Let D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B). It is clear that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \ker D ) \subseteq \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), so it’s enough to prove that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \subseteq \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \ker D ). If D = 0 then the claim is obvious. If D\neq0 then part (a) implies that there exists a height 1 homogeneous prime ideal {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} of B such that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \ker D ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}). We have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) by Lemma 4.2, so \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \ker D ) = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ). Since {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) we have \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing, so \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) =\bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) } \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}} ) \subseteq\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \ker D ), which proves (b).

(c) The assumption means that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), so this follows from (b).

Since every submonoid of a torsion group is a group, we have \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) for each {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B). The conclusion follows.

Let the notation be B = \bigoplus_{i \in G} B_i. Observe that the claim is true if \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) = \varnothing, and assume that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing. Then \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)} \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}), so it suffices to show that

If {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z then \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) by Lemma 4.2. If {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \setminus Z then Lemma 2.6(b) (together with Rem. 2.7 and the fact that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) is torsion-free) implies that B_i \cap {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = \{0\} for all i \in G, so B_i \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} for all i \in G such that B_i\neq0, so \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B).

It is straightforward to see that if {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B) then {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) is the submonoid of G generated by D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} (we leave this to the reader). This implies that \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) is the subgroup of G generated by D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, so (a) follows. Since D = \big\{\, \deg(x) \, \mid \, x \in S \, \big\} is a finite set, and since \big\{\, D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B) \, \big\} is a collection of subsets of D, we see that \big\{\, D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B) \, \big\} is a finite set; so (b) follows from (a). In view of Lemma 4.2, (c) follows from (b). To prove (d), we first note that the claim is true if \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)=\varnothing; so we may assume that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing, which implies that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)} \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \bigcap_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)} \langle D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle by (a). Moreover, we have \langle D_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) for each {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \setminus P, so the desired conclusion follows.

Consider the map f : \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B) \to \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B^{(H)}), {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} \mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} \cap B^{(H)}, and the sets Z = \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) and Z' = \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B^{(H)}). By Lemma 2.17(b), f is surjective and f^{-1}(Z') = Z. Thus,

In particular, Z = \varnothing \Leftrightarrow Z' = \varnothing. If Z = \varnothing = Z' then \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}), so Lemma 2.19 gives \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}) = H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = H \cap \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), as desired. If Z = \varnothing = Z' is false then Z \neq \varnothing and Z' \neq \varnothing, so \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} \in Z } \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} ) and \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B^{(H)}) = \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z' } \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B^{(H)}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ). We claim:

Indeed, if {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} \in Z then

so \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B^{(H)}, f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}) ) = \langle H \cap \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}) \rangle = H \cap \langle \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}) \rangle = H \cap \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}} ) by Lemma 2.18, which proves (Proof). Statements (Proof) and (Proof) give the second and third equalities in:

(a) If \delta is locally nilpotent then, since B^{(H_2)} is integral over B^{(H_1)}, D is locally nilpotent by Lemma 2.23. Suppose that \delta is homogeneous; let d \in H_1 be such that \delta(B_j) \subseteq B_{j+d} for all j \in H_1. Consider b \in B_i \setminus\{0\} where i \in H_2. Choose n\ge1 such that ni \in H_1. We have b^n \in B_{ni} \subseteq B^{(H_1)}, so nb^{n-1}D(b)= D(b^n) =\delta(b^n) \in B_{ni+d}. Since nb^{n-1} \in B_{(n-1)i} \setminus \{0\} and nb^{n-1}D(b) \in B_{ni+d}, it follows that D(b) \in B_{i+d}. This shows that D(B_i) \subseteq B_{i+d} for all i \in H_2, i.e., D is homogeneous. This proves (a), and assertions (b) and (c) easily follow from (a).

We may assume that \deg(x_i) \neq 0 for all i. For each i=1,\dots,n, let e_i\ge2 be the order of \deg(x_i) in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B). Let L = \big\{\, ( {\ell_1}, \dots, {\ell_n} ) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}^n \, \mid \, \text{0 _i < e_ifor alli = 1,…,n} \, \big\} and observe that the map ( {\ell_1}, \dots, {\ell_n} ) \mapsto \deg( x_1^{\ell_1} \cdots x_n^{\ell_n} ) from L to \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) is bijective. This implies that if b is a nonzero homogeneous element of B then there is a unique ( {\ell_1}, \dots, {\ell_n} ) \in L such that \deg(b) = \deg( x_1^{\ell_1} \cdots x_n^{\ell_n} ); since x_1,\dots,x_n are homogeneous units of B, it follows that b /( x_1^{\ell_1} \cdots x_n^{\ell_n} ) \in B_0, so b = a x_1^{\ell_1} \cdots x_n^{\ell_n} for some a \in B_0. This shows that B is a free B_0-module with basis \EuScript{B} = \big\{\, x_1^{\ell_1} \cdots x_n^{\ell_n} \, \mid \, ( {\ell_1}, \dots, {\ell_n} ) \in L \, \big\}.

Consider the ideal I =(X_1^{e_1}-x_1^{e_1}, \dots, X_n^{e_n}-x_n^{e_n}) of the polynomial ring B_0[X_1,\dots,X_n] and the surjective homomorphism of B_0-algebras \varphi : B_0[X_1,\dots,X_n] \to B given by \varphi(X_i) = x_i (1 \le i \le n). Clearly, I \subseteq \ker\varphi. If F \in \ker\varphi then the division algorithm shows that there exists f \in B_0[X_1,\dots,X_n] such that F \equiv f \pmod{I} and \deg_{X_i}(f)<e_i for all i=1,\dots,n; then f \in \ker\varphi, so f(x_1,\dots,x_n)=0, so the fact that \EuScript{B} is linearly independent over B_0 implies that f=0. This shows that \ker\varphi=I, so

Let P \in B_0[X_1,\dots,X_n] be the determinant of the Jacobian matrix \frac{\partial(X_1^{e_1}-x_1^{e_1}, \dots, X_n^{e_n}-x_n^{e_n})}{\partial(X_1,\dots,X_n)}. Since \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} \subseteq B, P(x_1,\dots,x_n) = \prod_{i=1}^n ( e_i x_i^{e_i-1} ) is a unit of B; so (B_0,B) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}} by Lemma 5.5.

There exist nonzero homogeneous elements x_1,\dots,x_n of B such that x = x_1x_2\cdots x_n and \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \langle \deg(x_1) \rangle \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle \deg(x_n) \rangle. Consider the G-graded domain \EuScript{B} = B_{x^m} and note that x_1, \dots, x_n are homogeneous units of \EuScript{B} such that \langle \deg x_1 \rangle \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle \deg x_n \rangle = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(\EuScript{B}). By Lemma 5.6, we have (\EuScript{B}_0,\EuScript{B}) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}}. Since (by Lemma 2.5 with H=0) \EuScript{B}_0 = (B_0)_{x^m}, we are done.

If \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)=\varnothing then both (i) and (ii) are true, so (i)\Leftrightarrow(ii). From now on, assume that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)\neq\varnothing. Note that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) } {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) by Lemma 4.4.

Suppose that (i) holds. Then \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) } {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}). Consider {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B). Then \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}). Choose d_1,\dots,d_n \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) such that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \langle d_1 \rangle \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle d_n \rangle. Then d_1,\dots,d_n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}), so for each j \in \{1,\dots,n\} we have B_{d_j} \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} and hence we can choose x_j \in B_{d_j} \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Then x = x_1 \cdots x_n is an admissible element of B such that x \notin {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. So (ii) holds.

Conversely, suppose that (ii) holds. To prove (i), it suffices to show that if i \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B), then B_i \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. So consider i \in \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B). By (ii), some admissible element x of B satisfies x \notin {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. There exist nonzero homogeneous elements x_1,\dots,x_n of B such that x = x_1\cdots x_n and \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \langle \deg(x_1) \rangle \oplus \cdots \oplus \langle \deg(x_n) \rangle. For some j_1,\dots,j_n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, we have i = j_1\deg(x_1) + \cdots + j_n \deg(x_n), so x_1^{j_1} \cdots x_n^{j_n} \in B_i. Since x \notin {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, we have x_1^{j_1} \cdots x_n^{j_n} \notin {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} and hence B_i \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. So (i) holds.

Let d be a positive integer such that di=0 for all i \in G, and consider the subset Y = \big\{\, x^d \, \mid \,\text{xis an admissible element ofB}\, \big\} of B_0. Since \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B) / \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B_0) is an algebraic extension of fields of characteristic 0, we have ( \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B_0), \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B)) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}} by Ex. 5.2. By Lemma 5.8, ( (B_0)_y, B_y ) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}} for every y \in Y. By Lemma 5.9, no height 1 prime ideal of B contains Y. So Lemma 5.4 implies that (B_0,B) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}}.

(a) Let B = \bigoplus_{i \in G} B_i be the notation. Consider the groups X = H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and Y = X/H, and the canonical homomorphism of the quotient group \pi : X \to Y. Since H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), the group Y = (H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B))/H \subseteq (H + \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B))/H \cong \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) / (H \cap \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)) is torsion and hence finite. Let A = B^{( X )}. Since A has an X-grading, it also has a Y-grading, namely A = \bigoplus_{ y \in Y } A_y where for each y \in Y we define A_y = \bigoplus_{ i \in X_y } B_i (with X_y = \big\{\,i \in X\, \mid \, \pi(i) = y \, \big\}). We always regard A as being graded by the finite group Y. Since A_0 = B^{(H)}, it suffices to show that (A_0,A) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}}. By Lemma 2.4, A is a noetherian normal \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}-domain; so, by Prop. 5.10, it suffices to show that A is saturated in codimension 1.(The X-graded ring B^{( X )} is not necessarily saturated in codimension 1, but we will show that the Y-graded ring A is.)

Consider the inclusion A \subseteq B; by Lemma 2.17(b), {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap A is a surjective map from \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) to \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A). In particular, \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing \Leftrightarrow \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A) \neq \varnothing. If \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A) = \varnothing then (by Def. 4.1) A is saturated in codimension 1 and we are done. So we may assume that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A) \neq \varnothing. It follows that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing, \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = {\textstyle \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B)} \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})} and \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A) = {\textstyle \bigcap_{ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A)} \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(A,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}) }.

Consider {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B). We claim that

Indeed, if W is a submonoid of X then \pi(W) is a submonoid of the finite group Y, so \pi(W) is a group and hence \pi(W) = \langle \pi(W) \rangle = \pi( \langle W \rangle ); so \pi \big( {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X \big) = \pi \big( \langle {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X \rangle \big). We have \langle \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X \rangle = \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X by Lemma 2.18 (note that X \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), because X \supseteq H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B)); so (?) follows.

For each i \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X, we have B_i \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, so A_{ \pi(i) } \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} because B_i \subseteq A_{ \pi(i) }, so A_{ \pi(i) } \nsubseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap A and hence \pi(i) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}(A,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap A). This shows that \pi \big( {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(B,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cap X \big) \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}(A,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap A). In view of (?), and since {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}(B) is arbitrary, this gives

Keeping in mind that \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing, we obtain

where the last inclusion follows from (?). Since {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap A is a surjective map from \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) to \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(A), we have

so Y \subseteq \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A) by (?). We have \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A) \subseteq \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A) \subseteq Y by definition, so we obtain \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A)=\operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(A), i.e., A is saturated in codimension 1. This proves (a).

(b) Suppose that H \in \mathscr{X}(B). We have H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \supseteq H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), so H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B). Since \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B^{(H)}) \neq \{0\} (because H \in \mathscr{X}(B)) and \big( B^{(H)} , B^{( H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) )} \big) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}} (by (a)), Lemma 5.3 implies that \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( B^{( H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) )} ) \neq \{0\}, so H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \in \mathscr{X}(B).

If H \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B) then B^{( H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) )} = B^{( H + \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) )} = B, so Thm 5.11(a) implies that (B^{(H)},B) = \big( B^{(H)} , B^{( H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) )} \big) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}}, which proves (a). If H \in \mathscr{X}(B) then H + \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \in \mathscr{X}(B) by Thm 5.11(b), so \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B^{(H + \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B))}) \neq \{0\}; since B^{(H + \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B))} = B = B^{(G)}, we get \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \neq \{0\} and G \in \mathscr{X}(B), proving (b).

Let us abbreviate \mathscr{X}(B) and \mathscr{M}(B) to \mathscr{X} and \mathscr{M} respectively. We may assume that \mathscr{X} \neq \varnothing, otherwise the claim holds trivially.

(a) By Cor. 3.9, we have \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B) \subseteq \mathscr{X} for each H \in \mathscr{X}. Thus, \mathscr{X} = \bigcup_{ H \in \mathscr{X} } \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B). Since G is finitely generated, the poset ( \mathscr{X} , \subseteq ) satisfies the ascending chain condition. This implies that for each H_1 \in \mathscr{X}, there exists H_2 \in \mathscr{M} such that H_1 \subseteq H_2 and hence \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_{H_1}(B) \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_{H_2}(B). Thus, \mathscr{X} = \bigcup_{ H \in \mathscr{X} } \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B) = \bigcup_{ H \in \mathscr{M} } \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}_H(B), which proves (a).

(b) Assume that B is normal and consider H \in \mathscr{M}. Then H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \in \mathscr{X} by Thm 5.11(b). So we have \mathscr{M} \ni H \subseteq H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \in \mathscr{X}, which implies H=H + \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and hence H \supseteq \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B). This proves (b).

Suppose that \mathscr{X}(B) \neq \varnothing. Then \mathscr{M}(B) \neq \varnothing by Thm 6.1(a). Consider H \in \mathscr{M}(B). We have H \supseteq \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) by Thm 6.1(b), and \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) because B is saturated in codimension 1, so H \supseteq \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and consequently B^{(H)} = B. Since H \in \mathscr{X}(B) we have \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( B^{(H)} ) \neq \{0\} and hence \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \neq \{0\}. It then follows from Thm 3.2 that \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( B^{(H')} ) \neq \{0\} for all H' \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), i.e., \mathscr{X}(B) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B).

We already noted that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = e(B)\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. Let Z denote the set of all height 1 homogeneous prime ideals of B. If Z = \varnothing then Prop. 4.5 gives \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)=\operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) and the definition of \bar e(B) gives \bar e(B) = e(B), so \bar e(B) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} = e(B) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), which proves (a) in the case Z = \varnothing. If Z \neq \varnothing then we claim that the following equalities hold:

Indeed, the first equality is Prop. 4.5, the second one follows from the fact that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) = e( B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} for each {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z, the third one is the definition of “lcm” and the last one is the definition of \bar e(B). This proves (a). Assertion (b) follows from (a) and Def. 4.1.

Follows from Lemmas 2.19, 4.9 and 7.7.

Follows from Thm 4.3 and Lemma 7.7.

Assertions (a) and (b) are easy. We prove (c). We have (m \odiv e(B)) \mid m by (b), so B^{(m \odiv e(B))} \supseteq B^{(m)}. To prove the reverse inclusion, consider x \in B^{(m \odiv e(B))} \setminus \{0\} homogeneous of degree d. Then 0 \neq B_d \subseteq B^{(m \odiv e(B))}, so d is a multiple of both m \odiv e(B) and e(B), i.e., \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}( m \odiv e(B) , e(B) ) \mid d. Since m \mid \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}( m \odiv e(B) , e(B) ) by (b), we get m \mid d, so x \in B^{(m)}.

We have \big( B^{(d)} , B^{(d')} \big) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}} by Thm 5.11 and Lemma 7.7. It follows that \big( B^{(d)} , B^{(d'')} \big) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm EXT}}, because B^{(d'')} = B^{(d')} by Lemma 7.12(c).

Assertion (b) is clear. We prove (a). Since the grading of B is not trivial, we have \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B) = \big\{\, d\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \, \mid \, d \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} \, \big\}, and Rem. 3.6(b) gives the first equality in:

It follows that \mathscr{M}(B) = \big\{\, d\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \, \mid \, d \in M(B) \, \big\}, as desired.

If the grading of B is trivial then the result easily follows from Lemma 7.15(b). Assume that the grading is nontrivial. We have \mathscr{X}(B) = \big\{\, d\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \, \mid \, d \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) \, \big\} and \mathscr{M}(B) = \big\{\, d\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \, \mid \, d \in M(B) \, \big\} by Lemma 7.15(a), so Thm 6.1 and Lemma 7.7 imply that (a) and (b') are true, where

It remains to check that each d \in M(B) satisfies d \odiv e(B) = d (we don’t need to assume that B is normal for this part). Let d \in M(B) and define d' = d \odiv e(B). We have B^{(d)} = B^{(d')} by Lemma 7.12(c), so clearly d' \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B). Lemma 7.12(b) gives d' \mid d, so d \preceq d'. Thus M(B) \ni d \preceq d' \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), so d'=d, i.e., d \odiv e(B) = d.

Cor. 6.2 implies that \mathscr{X}(B) =\varnothing or \mathscr{X}(B)=\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B), so the claim follows from Lemma 7.15.

To prove (a), consider d \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\}.

If d \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) then Cor. 7.16 implies that d \in \mathscr{I}_{m} \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) for some m \in M(B). Then \mathscr{I}_d \subseteq \mathscr{I}_{m} \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), so (i) implies (ii). The converse is obvious, so (i) \Leftrightarrow (ii).

If d \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) then Cor. 7.16 implies that d \in \mathscr{I}_{m} \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) for some m \in M(B), and moreover m \mid \bar e(B). So m \mid \gcd(d, \bar e(B)), so \gcd(d, \bar e(B)) \in \mathscr{I}_{m} \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) and hence \gcd(d,\bar e(B)) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B). Conversely, if \gcd(d,\bar e(B)) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) then define d' = \gcd(d,\bar e(B)) and note that d \in \mathscr{I}_{d'} \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) (using that (i) implies (ii)), so d \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B). So (i) \Leftrightarrow (iii).

Since B^{(d)} = B^{( d \odiv e(B) )} by Lemma 7.12(c), it is clear that (i) \Leftrightarrow (iv). This proves (a).

To prove (b), suppose that \bar e(B) \neq 0 and \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) \neq \varnothing. Pick d \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B); then \bar e(B) d \in \mathscr{I}_d \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) by (a), so \gcd( \bar e(B) d, \bar e(B) ) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) again by (a), so \bar e(B) \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B).

Before proving (a) or (b), we first note that

Indeed, Rem. 2.10 gives the first part of (Proof) and Cor. 2.13 with H=0 gives the second.

Proof of (a). Let Z denote the set of all height 1 homogeneous prime ideals of B.

If B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded and \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(B_+) = 1 then B_+ \in Z and e( B/B_+ ) = 0, so \bar e(B) = 0 by part (2) of Rem. 7.6.

Conversely, assume that \bar e(B) = 0. Since \bar e(B) \neq e(B), we have Z \neq \varnothing; since B is noetherian, \big\{\, e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z \, \big\} is a finite set by part (3) of Rem. 7.6; since \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}\big\{\, e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z \, \big\} = \bar e(B) = 0, there exists {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z such that e( B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) = 0. Thus,

Define {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0 = {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \cap B_0. To prove that B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded, assume the contrary. Since B_j \neq 0 for some j>0, this means that there exist i,j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} such that i < 0 < j, B_i \neq 0 and B_j \neq 0. Choose x_i \in B_i \setminus \{0\} and x_j \in B_j \setminus \{0\}; since x_i,x_j \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, we have x_i^j x_j^{|i|} \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0, so {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0 \neq 0. Since x_j is transcendental over B_0, we have \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{B_0}(B) > 0; since {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0 \neq 0 and B_0 is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine, we have \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B_0/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0) < \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B_0) \le \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B) - 1. On the other hand, we have B_0/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0 \cong B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} by (?), so (using \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}=1 and B is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine) \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B_0/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_0) = \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(B)-1, a contradiction.

So B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded and consequently B_+ = \bigoplus_{ i > 0 } B_i is a prime ideal of B. Since B_j\neq0 for some j>0, we have B_+ \neq 0, so \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}( B_+ ) \ge 1. We have B_+ \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} by (?), so \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}( B_+ ) = 1, which proves (a).

Proof of (b). By (a), B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded and \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(B_+) = 1. By (Proof), {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} \subseteq B_0 and both B and B_0 are {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine. Since B/B_+ \cong B_0 and \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(B_+)=1, we have \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{B_0}(B) = 1.

We first prove the case where B_0 is a field. Let S = \bigcup_{ i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} }( B_i \setminus \{0\} ) and \EuScript{B} = S^{-1}B. Then \EuScript{B} = \bigoplus_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}} \EuScript{B}_i where \EuScript{B}_0 is a field that contains B_0. By Lemma 2.8, there exists a nonzero homogeneous element t \in \EuScript{B} of degree e(B) such that \EuScript{B} = \EuScript{B}_0[t^{\pm1}] is the ring of Laurent polynomials over \EuScript{B}_0. In particular, \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{\EuScript{B}_0}(\EuScript{B}) = 1. We also have \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{B_0}(\EuScript{B}) = \operatorname{\text{\rm trdeg}}_{B_0}(B) = 1, so \EuScript{B}_0 / B_0 is an algebraic extension of fields. Since B is normal, it follows that \EuScript{B}_0 \subseteq B and hence that \EuScript{B}_0 = B_0. So B \subseteq \EuScript{B} = B_0[t^{\pm1}]. Since B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded, it follows that B \subseteq B_0[t]. Since B_0 is a field, it is clear that some monic polynomial f(t) \in B_0[t] belongs to B; so t is integral over B; since B is normal and t \in S^{-1}B, we get t \in B and hence B = B_0[t] = B_0^{[1]}, as desired.

Now consider the general case. This time, let S = B_0 \setminus \{0\} and \EuScript{B} = S^{-1}B = \bigoplus_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} \EuScript{B}_i, where \EuScript{B}_0 = \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}} B_0. It is easy to see that \EuScript{B}_+ \cap B = B_+; by basic properties of localization, it follows that \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(\EuScript{B}_+) = \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(B_+)=1. Since \EuScript{B}_0 is a field and \EuScript{B} is an \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded normal affine \EuScript{B}_0-domain such that \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}( \EuScript{B}_+ ) = 1, the preceding paragraph implies that \EuScript{B} = \EuScript{B}_0[t] = \EuScript{B}_0^{[1]} where t \in \EuScript{B} is homogeneous of degree e(\EuScript{B}) = e(B)>0. Multiplying t by an element of S = B_0 \setminus \{0\}, we may arrange that t \in B. Since B is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine, we have B = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[ f_1(t), \dots, f_n(t) ] where f_i(t) \in \EuScript{B}_0[t] for all i. Clearly, there exists s \in S such that all coefficients of f_1(t), \dots, f_n(t) belong to (B_0)_s. Thus, B_s = (B_0)_s[t] = \big( (B_0)_s \big)^{[1]}, which proves (b).

First consider the case where B_j\neq0 for some j>0. By Lemma 7.19(b), there exist s \in B_0 \setminus \{0\} and a homogeneous element t \in B \setminus\{0\} of positive degree such that B_s = (B_0)_s[t] = \big( (B_0)_s \big)^{[1]}. For each m \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, s^m \frac{d}{d t} : (B_0)_s[t] \to (B_0)_s[t] belongs to \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B_s) \setminus \{0\}. Since B is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine, we can choose m such that s^m \frac{d}{d t} maps B into itself; then D = (s^m \frac{d}{d t})|_B : B \to B belongs to \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \setminus \{0\} and \ker(D) = B_0. This proves the result in this case.

If no j>0 is such that B_j\neq0, then let B^- be the ring B with the opposite grading, i.e., B^- = \bigoplus_{ i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} } B_i^- where B_i^- = B_{-i} for each i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. We have e(B^-) \neq 0 = \bar e(B^-), and there exists j>0 such that B_j^- \neq 0. By the preceding paragraph, there exists D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B^-) \setminus \{0\} such that \ker(D) = B_0^-. Clearly, the same D satisfies D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \setminus \{0\} and \ker(D) = B_0.

(b) If e(B)=0 then B^{(d)} = B for all positive integers d, so \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) is either \varnothing or \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\} and consequently (b) is true.

(c) If e(B) \neq 0 and \bar e(B)=0 then Cor. 7.20 implies that B is non-rigid, so 1 \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) and hence M(B) = \{1\}.

(a) It is obvious that M(B) is a primitive set. If \bar e(B) \neq 0 then Cor. 7.16(b) implies that M(B) is included in the set of divisors of \bar e(B), so (a) is true in this case. If \bar e(B)=0 then (b) and (c) imply that M(B) is either \varnothing or \{1\}, so (a) is true in this case as well.

Let B = B_{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}};a_1,\dots,a_n}. For each i \in \{1,\dots,n\}, x_i \neq 0 is homogeneous of degree d_i; so e(B) = \gcd(d_1,\dots,d_n) = \gcd( \frac{L}{a_1}, \dots, \frac{L}{a_n} ) = \frac{L}{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_1,\dots,a_n) } = 1. Define

Then \hat d_1 = \gcd(d_2,\dots,d_n) \linebreak[3]= \gcd( \frac{L}{a_2}, \dots, \frac{L}{a_n} ) = \frac{L}{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_2,\dots,a_n) } = \frac{L}{L_1}, and by the same argument we get

If i \neq j then \gcd( L/L_i , L/L_j ) = \gcd(\hat d_i , \hat d_j ) = \gcd(d_1,\dots,d_n) = 1, which proves (a).

(b) We already proved that e(B) = 1. If Z denotes the set of height 1 homogeneous prime ideals of B then:

• for each i \in \{1,\dots,n\}, some {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z satisfies x_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}};

• for each {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z, at most one i \in \{1,\dots,n\} satisfies x_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, and if x_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} then e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = \gcd\big\{\,d_j\, \mid \,j \in J_i\, \big\} = \hat d_i = L/L_i.

It follows that \big\{\, e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Z \, \big\} = \{ 1, \frac{L}{L_1}, \dots, \frac{L}{L_n} \}, so \bar e(B) = \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}\big( {\textstyle \frac{L}{L_1}, \dots, \frac{L}{L_n} } \big) = \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{L}{L_i}, the last equality by (a). This proves (b), and (c) follows from (b).

(d) Let d be a divisor of \bar e(B) = \prod_{i=1}^n \frac{L}{L_i}. Define \alpha_i = \gcd(d,\hat d_i) for each i \in \{1,\dots,n\}. Let us prove that

Indeed, let i \in \{1,\dots,n\}. Since \alpha_i \mid \hat d_i and \gcd(d_i,\hat d_i) = \gcd(d_1,\dots,d_n) = 1, the first part of (?) is clear. To prove the second part, we first show that

To see this, we note that \frac{ d_i \hat d_i }{(L/L_j)} = \frac{ (L/a_i) (L/L_i) }{(L/L_j)} = \frac{ L_j L }{a_i L_i} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} because if i=j then a_i \mid L and L_i \mid L_j, and if i \neq j then a_i \mid L_j and L_i \mid L. This proves (?). By (a), (b) and (?), it follows that \bar e(B) = \prod_{j=1}^n \frac{L}{L_j} divides d_i \hat d_i. Since d \mid \bar e(B), we obtain d \mid d_i \hat d_i, so d divides \gcd(d_i d, d_i \hat d_i) = d_i \gcd(d,\hat d_i) = d_i \alpha_i, which proves the second part of (?). For the third part, note that a_i' \alpha_i = \gcd( a_i, L_i ) \, {\textstyle \left[ \frac{L/L_i}{ \gcd( d, L/L_i) } \right] } \, \gcd(d, \hat d_i ) and \hat d_i = \frac{L}{L_i}, so a_i' \alpha_i = \gcd( a_i, L_i ) (L/L_i). On the other hand, \frac{ a_i L_i }{ \gcd(a_i,L_i) } = \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_i,L_i) = L, so a_i = \gcd( a_i, L_i ) (L/L_i) = a_i'\alpha_i, proving (?).

Consider a monomial m = x_1^{\nu_1} \cdots x_n^{\nu_n} (\nu_1,\dots,\nu_n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}) such that d divides \deg(m)= d_1 \nu_1 + \cdots + d_n \nu_n. If i \in \{1,\dots,n\} then \alpha_i \mid d_i \nu_i (because \alpha_i \mid d \mid \deg(m) and \alpha_i \mid \hat d_i), so \alpha_i \mid \nu_i by (?). This shows that m \in {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[x_1^{ \alpha_1 }, \dots, x_n^{ \alpha_n } ] and hence that B^{(d)} \subseteq {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[x_1^{ \alpha_1 }, \dots, x_n^{ \alpha_n } ]. By (?), we have d \mid d_i \alpha_i and hence x_i^{\alpha_i} \in B^{(d)} for all i, so B^{(d)} = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[x_1^{ \alpha_1 }, \dots, x_n^{ \alpha_n } ]. Observing that ( x_1^{ \alpha_1 } )^{a_1'} + \cdots + (x_n^{ \alpha_n })^{a_n'} = 0 (again by (?)), one easily obtains that {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[x_1^{ \alpha_1 }, \dots, x_n^{ \alpha_n } ] \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B_{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}; a_1', \dots, a_n'}. This proves (d).

Let B = B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}; a_1, \dots, a_n}. Since (i) or (ii) holds and (i) implies (ii), (ii) holds. Cor. 7.16 implies that M(B) \subseteq D, and Lemma 8.6(d) implies that if d \in D then B^{(d)} \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}; f(d)} and consequently B^{(d)} and B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}; f(d)} have the same rigidity status. By (ii) and (8.3), B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}; f(d)} is rigid if and only if f(d) \in \Gamma_n, so:

Since f(1)=(a_1,\dots,a_n) \in \Gamma_n, (Proof) implies that 1 \notin \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), so 1 \notin M(B).

Also note that L = \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_i,L_i) = a_i L_i / \gcd(a_i,L_i) for each i \in \{1,\dots,n\}, so

Define the sets

Suppose that i \in I_1. Then (?) gives L/L_i = a_i, so a_i \in D and the tuple f(a_i) = (a_1', \dots, a_n') satisfies a_i'=1 by (?); so f(a_i) \notin \Gamma_n and hence a_i \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) by (Proof). Thus,

Suppose that 1,2 \in I_2. For each i \in \{1,2\} we have \frac{a_i}2 = \frac L{L_i} by (?), so \frac{a_1 a_2}{4} = \frac L{L_1} \frac L{L_2} \in D and, by (?), the tuple f(\frac{a_1 a_2}{4}) = (a_1', \dots, a_n') satisfies a_1' = 2 = a_2'. So f(\frac{a_1 a_2}{4}) \notin \Gamma_n and hence \frac{a_1 a_2}{4} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) by (Proof). More generally, the same argument shows that

Let d \in M(B); since M(B) \subseteq D, f(d) = (a_1', \dots, a_n') is defined and (by (Proof)) does not belong to \Gamma_n; so one of the following holds:

Suppose that (a) holds. Then (?) implies that \gcd(a_i,L_i)=1 (so i \in I_1 and a_i \in U_1) and \frac L{L_i} = \gcd( d , \frac L{L_i} ), so \frac L{L_i} \mid d. We have \frac L{L_i} = a_i by (?), so a_i \mid d and hence d \preceq a_i. We have a_i \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) by (?) and d is a maximal element of ( \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B),\preceq), so d=a_i \in U_1. So if (a) holds then d \in U_1.

Suppose that (b) holds; here, we might as well assume that a_1' = 2 = a_2'. Since a_i' \mid a_i for all i, we see that a_1 and a_2 are even. Since a_1 \mid L_2 and a_2 \mid L_1, both L_1,L_2 are even, so \gcd(a_i,L_i) is even for i=1,2. By (?), we obtain that for each i =1,2, \gcd(a_i,L_i) = 2 and \frac L{L_i} = \gcd( d , \frac L{L_i} ), and hence \frac L{L_i} \mid d. It also follows that 1,2 \in I_2, so \frac{a_1 a_2}4 \in U_2 and \frac{a_1 a_2}4 \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) by (?). Since \gcd( \frac L{L_1} , \frac L{L_2} ) = 1 and (by (?)) \frac L{L_i} = \frac{a_i}2 for i=1,2, we have \frac{a_1 a_2}4 \mid d and hence M(B) \ni d \preceq \frac{a_1 a_2}4 \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), which implies that d = \frac{a_1 a_2}4 \in U_2. So if (b) holds then d \in U_2. This proves the first inclusion in:

where the second inclusion follows from (?) and (?). If we set t_i = a_i for i \in I_1 and t_i = \frac{a_i}2 for i \in I_2, then t_i = \frac{L}{L_i} for all i \in I_1 \cup I_2, so

by Lemma 8.6(a). Clearly,

Also note that t_i>1 for all i \in I_1, and that for i \in I_2 we have t_i = 1 \Leftrightarrow i=i_0 (where i_0 is defined in the statement of the Proposition).

We will now use the following (easily verified) fact: if M(B) \subseteq P \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B) and P is a primitive set, then M(B)=P.

Assume that i_0 does not exist. Then t_i>1 for all i \in I_1\cup I_2, so (?) and (?) imply that U_1 \cup U_2 is primitive. Since M(B) \subseteq U_1 \cup U_2 \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), we have M(B)=U_1 \cup U_2 in this case, as desired.

Assume that i_0 exists. Then i_0 \in I_2 and t_{i_0}=1. For each i \in I_2 \setminus \{i_0\} we have t_i = t_{i_0}t_i \in U_2; so W \subseteq U_2 \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B), where we define W = \big\{\, t_i \, \mid \, i \in I_2 \setminus \{i_0\} \, \big\}. Moreover, each element of U_2 \setminus W is a product of two elements of W. This implies that M(B) \cap (U_2 \setminus W) = \varnothing, because no element of M(B) has a proper divisor that belongs to \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B). So M(B) \subseteq U_1 \cup W \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}(B). Since the elements of U_1 \cup W = \big\{\, t_i \, \mid \, i \in I_1 \cup I_2 \setminus \{i_0\} \, \big\} are pairwise relatively prime and strictly larger than 1, U_1 \cup W is primitive. So M(B) = U_1 \cup W, as desired.

Write B = B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}; a_1, \dots, a_n} where (a_1, \dots, a_n) = (\ell_1, \dots, \ell_m, 2\ell_{m+1}, \dots, 2\ell_n ). We have L = 2 \prod_{i=1}^n \ell_i and the following hold for all i \in \{1,\dots,n\}:

We claim that (a_1,\dots,a_n) satisfies assumption (ii) of Thm 8.7. Indeed, it is easy to see that if d \in D then f(d) = (\ell_1', \dots, \ell_m', 2\ell_{m+1}', \dots, 2\ell_n') where \ell_i' \mid \ell_i for all i=1,\dots,n. It follows that \ell_1', \dots, \ell_n' are pairwise relatively prime. So, if f(d) \in \Gamma_n then \operatorname{\text{\rm cotype}} f(d) \ge n-1, so B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}};f(d)} is rigid by Lemma 8.4. Thus, assumption (ii) of Thm 8.7 is satisfied.

In the notation of Thm 8.7, we have I_1 = \{1,\dots,m\}, I_2 = \{m+1, \dots, n\} and i_0 does not exist, so M(B) = \{ \ell_1, \dots, \ell_m \} \cup \big\{\, \ell_j \ell_k \, \mid \, m+1 \le j < k \le n \, \big\} by that result.

If Y = \varnothing then let B = B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}};3,3,3}. We have \bar e(B)=1 by Lemma 8.6(b), so Cor. 7.16 implies that M(B) is either \varnothing or \{1\}. By \mathscr{P}(3), B is rigid, so 1 \notin M(B) and hence M(B) = \varnothing = Y.

If Y = \{1\} then let B = B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}};1, 1, 1}. Since B is non-rigid, M(B) = \{1\} = Y.

From now on, assume that Y is neither \varnothing nor \{1\}. Let m = |Y| \ge 1 and let a_1, \dots, a_m be the distinct elements of Y. Then a_1, \dots, a_m are pairwise relatively prime and a_1, \dots, a_m \ge 2. Choose an integer c\ge3 such that a_1, \dots, a_m, c are pairwise relatively prime and let B = B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}};a_1, \dots, a_m, c, c}.

We claim that (a_1,\dots,a_m,c,c) satisfies assumption (ii) of Thm 8.7. Indeed, it is easy to see that if d \in D then f(d) = (a_1',\dots,a_m',c,c) where a_i' \mid a_i for all i = 1,\dots,m. Note that a_1', \dots, a_m', c are pairwise relatively prime. If f(d) \in \Gamma_{m+2} then a_i'>1 for all i, so \operatorname{\text{\rm cotype}}(a_1', \dots, a_m',c,c) = m and B_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}};a_1',\dots,a_m',c,c} is rigid by Lemma 8.4. Thus, assumption (ii) of Thm 8.7 is satisfied.

In the notation of Thm 8.7, we have I_1 = \{1, \dots, m\} and I_2 = \varnothing, so M(B) =\{ a_1, \dots, a_m \} = Y by that result.

(a) As B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} is a discrete valuation ring and hence a principal ideal domain, there exists g \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} such that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = g B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. We have to show that g can be chosen to be homogeneous. Note that v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}(g) = 1. Write g = \sum_{i \in I} g_i where I is a finite subset of \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} and g_i \in B_i \setminus \{0\} for all i \in I. Since g \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, we have g_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} and hence v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}(g_i) \ge 1 for all i \in I. If v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}(g_i) > 1 for all i \in I then v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}(g) > 1, which is not the case. So there exists i \in I such that v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}(g_i) = 1. Then {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = g_i B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, which proves (a).

Before proving (b), we show that

To see this, we first choose u \in B and v \in B \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} such that x/y = u/v. Write u = \sum_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} u_i and v = \sum_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} v_i where u_i,v_i \in B_i for all i, and choose j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that v_j \in B_j \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Then the equality x\sum_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} v_i = y \sum_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} u_i implies that xv_j = y u_i for some i. So x/y = u_i / v_j. If u_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} then u_i/v_j belongs to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, contradicting x/y \in B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^*. So u_i \in B_i \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, which proves (?).

(b) Let g be a homogeneous element of {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} such that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = g B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Let \delta = \gcd( \deg(g), e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})). Pick any i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that B_i \neq 0 and pick h \in B_i \setminus \{0\}. For some \nu \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}, we have h/g^\nu \in B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^*; so (?) implies that h/g^\nu = \alpha/\beta for some homogeneous \alpha,\beta \in B \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Then \delta \mid e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) \mid \deg(\gamma) for each \gamma \in \{\alpha,\beta\}. We have \deg(h) - \nu \deg(g) = \deg(\alpha) - \deg(\beta), so \delta divides \deg(h) = i. This being true for each i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that B_i \neq0, we conclude that \delta \mid e(B). Clearly, e(B) \mid \delta; so (b) is true.

(c) Let g be as in (a) and (b). Let \varepsilon = e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) and d = e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})/e(B) = \varepsilon/e(B). Since e(B) \mid \deg(g), \deg(g^d) belongs to \varepsilon \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}, which is the group generated by \big\{\, i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} \, \mid \, (B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})_i \neq 0 \, \big\}; so there exist i,j \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} such that (B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})_i \neq 0, (B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})_j \neq 0, and \deg(g^d) = i-j; consequently, there exist homogeneous elements u,v \in B \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} such that \deg(g^d) = \deg(v) - \deg(u). Then \xi = g^d u / v belongs to the maximal ideal {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}} of B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})}. Let us prove that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}} = \xi B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})}.

Consider an arbitrary nonzero element \frac xs of {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}}, where x,s \in B \setminus \{0\} are homogeneous of the same degree and s \notin {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Define k = v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\big( \frac xs \big). Then k>0, because \frac xs \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}} \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}; it follows that \frac{x}{sg^k} \in B_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^*, so (?) implies that \frac{x}{sg^k} = \frac{b_m}{c_\ell} for some b_m \in B_m \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} and c_\ell \in B_\ell \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Since c_\ell, b_m \in B \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, we have \ell, m \in \varepsilon\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. Since \frac xs = g^k \frac{b_m}{c_\ell}, we have k \deg(g) + m - \ell = \deg(x) - \deg(s) = 0; it follows that \varepsilon \mid k \deg(g), or equivalently, d \mid k \frac{\deg(g)}{e(B)}. Part (b) shows that d = \frac{\varepsilon}{e(B)} is relatively prime to \frac{\deg(g)}{e(B)}, so d \mid k. Write k = k_0 d (where k_0>0), then

where \frac{v^{k_0}b_m}{u^{k_0}c_\ell} \in B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})}^*. Since k_0>0, we have \frac xs \in \xi B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})}, which shows that {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{m}}} = \xi B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})}. Consequently, e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}( \xi ) = v^X_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}( g^d u / v ) = d, which proves (c).

By Lemma 7.7, B is saturated in codimension 1 if and only if e(B/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}) = e(B) for all {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in Y^{(1)}. So the claim follows from part (c) of Lemma 9.3.

Let X = \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}} B and Y = \operatorname{\text{\rm Proj}} B, and let us use the notations of paragraph 9.2 (this is why we need to assume that \operatorname{\text{\rm ht}}(B_+)\ge2 in Thm 9.7). Let {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = xB \in Y^{(1)} and consider the valuations v_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^X : K(X) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cup \{\infty\} and v_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y : K(Y) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cup \{\infty\} and the ramification index e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Lemma 9.3 gives

Consider C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y \subset Y and C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^X \subset X as in 9.2; note that C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y = \ensuremath{\mathbb{V}}_+(x) \subset Y and let U = \ensuremath{\mathbb{D}}_+(x) = Y \setminus C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y. Let R = B_{(x)} and note that R is a subring of K(Y). We claim:

Indeed, for each {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}} \in Y^{(1)} \setminus \{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\}, we have R = B_{(x)} \subseteq B_{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}})} and hence v_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}^Y(f) \ge0; so \operatorname{{\rm div}}_U(f) \ge 0. Since f \in R \setminus \{0\}, we have f = g/x^n for some n \ge 0 and g \in B_{nd} \setminus \{0\}. If v_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y(f) > 0 then f = xb/s where b \in B \setminus \{0\} and s \in B \setminus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} are homogeneous and \deg(xb) = \deg(s); then g/x^n = xb/s, so x^{n+1} \mid sg; since x is prime and x \nmid s in B, we obtain x^{n+1} \mid g, which contradicts g \in B_{nd} \setminus \{0\}. So (?) is true. Consequently, the map

is a well-defined degree function. Consider the associated graded ring \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) determined by (R,\deg_R); recall that \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) = \bigoplus_{n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} R_{\le n} / R_{<n} where for each n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} we set

Since v_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y : K(Y) \to \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \cup \{\infty\} is surjective and \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}} R = K(Y), it follows that e( \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}} R ) = 1. We claim (see Notation 9.6):

Let us prove (?). Given f \in R \setminus \{0\}, let S(f) = \big\{\, n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} \, \mid \, f x^n \in B \, \big\} and note that S(f) is a nonempty subset of \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}. Clearly, if n \in S(f) then n+1 \in S(f). We claim that

Indeed, let f \in R \setminus \{0\}. Given any n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, we have n \in S(f) \iff f x^n \in B \iff \operatorname{{\rm div}}_X(f x^n) \ge 0. Consider the \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}-linear map D \mapsto D^* from \operatorname{\text{\rm Div}}_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}(Y) to \operatorname{\text{\rm Div}}_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}(X) defined in 9.2; then (C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^Y )^* = {e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}} C_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^X, and (?) gives ( \operatorname{{\rm div}}_Y(f))^* = \operatorname{{\rm div}}_X(f). Since

and since D^* \ge0 \Leftrightarrow D \ge 0 for any D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Div}}_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}(Y), we have

where the middle equivalence follows from \operatorname{{\rm div}}_U(f) \ge 0 (see (?)). This proves (?). Now (?) implies that if n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} and f \in R \setminus \{0\} then:

So the following holds for each n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}:

So, for each n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, the {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-linear map \theta_n :R_{\le n} \to B_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n}, f \mapsto f x^{e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n}, is well-defined and induces an injective {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-linear map \bar\theta_n : R_{\le n} / R_{<n} \to (B/xB)_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n}. Note that \bar\theta_n is also surjective. Indeed, consider \xi \in (B/xB)_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n}. Then \xi = h + xB for some h \in B_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n}. Obviously, if h=0 then \xi \in \operatorname{\text{\rm im}}( \bar\theta_n ). Assume that h \neq0 and let f = h/x^{e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n} \in R \setminus \{0\}; then e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n \in S(f) by definition of S(f), so e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n \ge e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \deg_R(f) by (?), so \deg_R(f) \le n, i.e., f \in R_{\le n}; we have \theta_n(f) = h, so \bar\theta_n( f + R_{<n} ) = \xi. This shows that, for each n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, the {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-linear map \bar\theta_n : R_{\le n} / R_{<n} \to (B/xB)_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n} is bijective. The family \big(\bar\theta_n \big)_{ n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} } defines an injective {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-linear map \bar\theta : \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) \to B/xB which is easily seen to preserve multiplication. Moreover, the image of \bar\theta is the subring \big( B/xB )^{(d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} )} of B/xB. If we define S_n = (B/xB)_{d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} n} for all n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}, then \big( B/xB )^{ \langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle } = \bigoplus_{n \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} S_n, so \bar\theta : \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) \to \big( B/xB )^{ \langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle } is a degree-preserving isomorphism of graded {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-algebras. This proves (?).

It follows from (?) that \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine (because ( B/x B \big)^{\langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle} is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine by Cor. 2.13), so part (b) of Theorem 1.7 of [Dai:TameWild] implies that \deg_R is tame over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} (in the terminology of [Dai:TameWild], this means that for every {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-derivation D : R \to R, the set \big\{\, \deg_R( Dr ) - \deg_R(r) \, \mid \, r \in R \setminus \{0\} \, \big\} has a greatest element). As is well known, this implies that each element D of \operatorname{\text{\rm LND}}(R) \setminus \{0\} gives rise to a well-defined \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(D) : \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) \to \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}}(R) which belongs to \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}} R ) \setminus \{0\}. So if \operatorname{\text{\rm LND}}(R) \neq \{0\} then \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \operatorname{\text{\rm Gr}} R ) \neq \{0\}, which (by (?)) implies \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}\big( \big( B/x B \big)^{\langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle} \big) \neq \{0\}, which implies that \big( B/x B \big)^{\langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle} is non-rigid. Since the graded rings \big( B/x B \big)^{\langle d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \rangle} and \big( B/x B \big)^{( d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} )} have the same underlying ring, and since (by definition) rigidity only depends on the underlying ring, we have shown that

By Cor. 7.9(a) and (Proof), e\big( (B/xB)^{(d)} \big) = \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(d, e(B/xB) ) = \frac{ d \, e(B/xB) }{ e(B) } = d e_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, which implies that (B/xB)^{(d)} = (B/xB)^{(d e_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}})}. This together with (?) completes the proof.

We may assume that i=n, so it suffices to prove that

Suppose that S({\mathbf{a}}) \subseteq \{n\} and that (B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} })_{(x_n)} is non-rigid. Thm 9.7 implies that ( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } / x_n B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } )^{(d_n)} is non-rigid. Note that B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } / x_n B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } (see Notation 8.5); we claim:

This has to be carefully argued, because in general the condition A \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B does not imply that A^{(d)} \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B^{(d)} for all d.(For instance, let A = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[X_1,X_2] = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^{[{2}]} and B = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[Y_1,Y_2] = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^{[{2}]} where \deg(X_i)=1 and \deg(Y_i)=2. Then A \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B is true but A^{(2)} \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} B^{(2)} is false, as B^{(2)} = B is a polynomial ring but A^{(2)} is not.) If we use the notations \bar B =B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } / x_n B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} }, C = B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } and \varepsilon = \gcd(d_1,\dots,d_{n-1}), then e(\bar B) = \varepsilon and there is an isomorphism of {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-algebras \varphi : \bar B \to C satisfying:

Let \ell = \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(\varepsilon,d_n); then e( \bar B^{(d_n)} ) = \ell by Cor. 7.9(a), so \bar B^{(d_n)} = \bar B^{(\ell)} and hence

showing that ( \bar B )^{(d_n)} \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} C^{(\ell/\varepsilon)}. Since \gcd(\varepsilon,d_n) = \gcd(d_1, \dots, d_n) = 1, we have \ell/\varepsilon = d_n, so ( \bar B )^{(d_n)} \overset{\text{\tiny*}}{\cong} C^{(d_n)}. This proves (Proof). Next, we prove:

We have \bar e(B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) }) = \prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \frac{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_1,\dots,a_{n-1})}{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_1,\dots, \widehat{a_j} , \dots, a_{n-1})} by Lemma 8.6. Suppose that p is a prime number that divides both d_n and \bar e(B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) }). Since p \mid \prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \frac{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_1,\dots,a_{n-1})}{ \operatorname{\text{\rm lcm}}(a_1,\dots, \widehat{a_j} , \dots, a_{n-1})}, there exists j \in \{1,\dots,n-1\} such that v_p(a_j) > \max( v_p(a_1) , \dots, \widehat{ v_p(a_j) } , \dots, v_p(a_{n-1}) ). Since p divides d_n = L/a_n, we have v_p(a_n) < \max( v_p(a_1) , \dots, v_p(a_{n-1}) ) = v_p(a_j), so v_p(a_j) > \max( v_p(a_1) , \dots, \widehat{ v_p(a_j) } , \dots, v_p(a_{n}) ) = v_p( L_j ). It follows that v_p(L) \ge v_p(a_j) > v_p( L_j ), so j \in S({\mathbf{a}}), which contradicts S({\mathbf{a}}) \subseteq \{n\}. So p does not exist, and this proves (Proof).

Since \big( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } / x_n B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}} } \big)^{(d_n)} is non-rigid, (Proof) implies that (B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) })^{(d_n)} is non-rigid. Thus, d_n \in \operatorname{\text{\rm NR}}( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } ) = \bigcup_{ d \in M( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } ) } \mathscr{I}_d, where the equality is Cor. 7.16(a). It follows that there exists d \in M( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } ) such that d \mid d_n. Cor. 7.16(b) gives d \mid \bar e(B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) }), so d=1 by (Proof). This means that 1 \in M( B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } ), so B_{ {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} ; {\mathbf{a}}(n) } is non-rigid, as desired.

Let \bar R = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[X_1,\dots,X_n] = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^{[n]}. Let m=\deg(f)>0 and d_i = \deg(X_i) (1 \le i \le n). For each \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*, consider the \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}-automorphism \mu_\lambda of \bar R defined by \mu_\lambda(X_i) = \lambda^{d_i} X_i (1 \le i \le n). If \lambda, \lambda_0 \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* then \mu_\lambda( f - \lambda^m \lambda_0 ) = \lambda^m(f-\lambda_0), so the \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}-algebras \bar R / (f - \lambda_0) and \bar R / (f - \lambda^m \lambda_0) are isomorphic. Since m>0, it follows that

Arguing by contradiction, suppose that f-\lambda is reducible in \bar R, for some \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*. Then, by (Proof), f-\lambda is reducible in \bar R for all \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*. So Lemma 10.1 implies that f = P(g) for some g \in \bar R and some univariate polynomial P(T) \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[T] such that \deg_T P(T) > 1. Using that f is homogeneous of positive degree, we see that g may be chosen so as to have P(T) = T^r, where r\ge2. Thus, f = g^r. For each \theta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Gal}}(\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}/{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}), define \tilde\theta : \bar R \to \bar R as in Lemma 10.2. Then \tilde\theta(g)^r = f, so ( \tilde\theta(g) / g )^r = 1. This shows that for each \theta \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Gal}}(\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}/{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}) there exists \lambda_\theta \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* such that \tilde\theta(g)=\lambda_\theta g. By Lemma 10.2, it follows that there exists \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* such that \lambda g \in R. So f = (\lambda^{-r}) (\lambda g)^r is not irreducible in R, a contradiction.

If the conclusion is false then there exists a prime element g of \bar R = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n}] that is a common divisor of f, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_1}, …, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_n} in \bar R. Choose i such that \frac{\partial g}{\partial X_i} \neq 0 and note that \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i} \neq 0. Let K = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}(X_1, \dots, \widehat{X_i}, \dots, X_n) and \bar K = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}(X_1, \dots, \widehat{X_i}, \dots, X_n). Note that f (resp. g) is an irreducible element of K[X_i] = K^{[1]} (resp. of \bar K[X_i] = \bar K^{[1]}). It follows that \gcd( f, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i}) = 1 in K[X_i], so uf+v \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i} = 1 for some u,v \in K[X_i], so \gcd( f, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i}) = 1 in \bar K[X_i], contradicting the fact that g is an irreducible element of \bar K[X_i] that divides both f and \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i}.

Since S := R/fR = \bigoplus_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}S_i is an \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded domain, S^* = S_0^*. The fact that \deg(f)>0 implies that S_0 = R_0, and we have R_0 = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^{[{r}]} for some r\ge0, so S^* = S_0^* = R_0^* = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^*, i.e., R/fR has trivial units. So the case c=0 of (a) is true. Obviously, the case c=0 of (b) is also true.

Until the end of the proof, we assume that c \in {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^*. Lemma 10.3 implies that R/(f-c) is a domain. To complete the proof of the Proposition, it remains to show that R/(f-c) has trivial units, and that if R/fR is rigid then so is R/(f-c).

Let m=\deg(f)>0 and d_i = \deg(X_i) \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} (1 \le i \le n). We claim that f - c X_{n+1}^m is irreducible in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}] = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^{[n+1]}, where \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}} is an algebraic closure of {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}. Indeed, suppose that G,H \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}] are such that f - c X_{n+1}^m = GH. For each \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*, define G(\lambda) = G(X_1,\dots,X_n,\lambda) and H(\lambda) = H(X_1,\dots,X_n,\lambda). Then for each \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* we have f - c \lambda^m = G(\lambda)H(\lambda). Since f - c \lambda^m is irreducible over \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}} by Lemma 10.3, it follows that G(\lambda)\in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* or H(\lambda)\in\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*. So there exists W \in \{G,H\} such that W(\lambda)\in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^* is true for infinitely many \lambda \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}. This implies that W \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[ X_{n+1}]. There exists V \in \{G,H\} such that WV = f-cX_{n+1}^m; pick i \in \{1,\dots,n\} such that \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i} \neq 0, then W\frac{\partial V}{\partial X_i} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_i} \in {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[X_1,\dots,X_n] \setminus \{0\} shows that W \in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}^*, which, in turn, shows that f - c X_{n+1}^m is irreducible in \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}]. So both B = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}] / (f - c X_{n+1}^m) and \bar B = \bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}} \otimes_{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}} B are domains.

We claim that B and \bar B are normal. This is clear if m=1, so assume that m\ge2. Then the singular locus of the affine variety X = V(f - c X_{n+1}^m) \subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}_{\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}}^{n+1} is V(X_{n+1}, f, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_1}, \dots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial X_n} ) \subseteq \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}_{\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}}^{n+1}. By Lemma 10.4, we see that the codimension of \operatorname{\text{\rm Sing}}(X) in X is greater than 1; since X is a hypersurface of \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^{n+1}_{\bar{{\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}}}, it follows that X is normal. Since X \cong \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}} \bar B, \bar B is normal. It is well known that \bar B \cap \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B) = B, so B is normal.

Define an \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-grading on {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}] by declaring that X_{n+1} is homogeneous of degree 1 and (for 1 \le i \le n) X_i is homogeneous of degree d_i. Then f - c X_{n+1}^m is homogeneous, so B is \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded. Write B = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[x_1, \dots, x_{n+1}] = \bigoplus_{i \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}} B_i where x_i is the canonical image of X_i in B. Since x_1 and x_{n+1} have positive degrees and are algebraically independent over B_0 (because f - c X_{n+1}^m \notin R_0[X_1,X_{n+1}]), B has transcendence degree at least 2 over B_0; so the prime ideal B_+ = \bigoplus_{i>0} B_i has height at least 2. We showed:

Since B/x_{n+1}B \cong R/fR is a domain, x_{n+1} is a homogeneous prime element of B of degree 1. We claim that

To see this, let \varphi : R \to B_{(x_{n+1})} be the surjective {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-homomorphism defined by \varphi( X_i ) = x_i / x_{n+1}^{d_i} (1 \le i \le n). We have \varphi(f) = f\big( {x_1}/{x_{n+1}^{d_1}} , \dots, {x_n}/{x_{n+1}^{d_n}} \big) = f / x_{n+1}^m = c, so (f-c) \subseteq \ker\varphi. Lemma 10.3 implies that f-c is a prime element of R, so (f-c) is a height 1 prime ideal of R. Since \dim R = n and \dim B_{(x_{n+1})} = \dim \operatorname{\text{\rm Proj}} B = n-1, \ker\varphi is a height 1 prime ideal of R, so \ker\varphi = (f-c), which proves (?).

Since B is an \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}-graded domain and x_{n+1} is a homogeneous prime element of B of positive degree, we have \big( B_{(x_{n+1})} \big)^* = B_0^*. Since \deg(f - cX_{n+1}^m)>0, B_0 = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}[X_1, \dots, X_{n+1}]_0 = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^{[{r}]} for some r\ge0, so \big( B_{(x_{n+1})} \big)^* = B_0^* = {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}^*. It then follows from (?) that R/(f-c) has trivial units.

Suppose that R/fR is rigid and let us apply Thm 9.7 to B and x = x_{n+1} (note that d = \deg(x) = 1). By that result and the fact that (B/xB)^{(d)} = B/xB = B/x_{n+1}B \cong R/fR is rigid, we obtain that B_{(x_{n+1})} is rigid, so R/(f-c) is rigid by (?).

Viewing G as a \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}-module, let S = \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} \setminus \{0\} and consider the \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}-vector space G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} = S^{-1}G and the canonical homomorphism \lambda : G \to G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}, x \mapsto x/1. For each subgroup K of G, let K_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} be the subspace S^{-1}K of G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} and note that \lambda^{-1}( K_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} ) = \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}(K,G).

Since G/H is not torsion, there exists y \in G \setminus \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}(H,G). Consider any such y. Consider the vector \lambda(y) \in G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} and note that \lambda(y) \notin H_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}. Choose a vector subspace V_y of G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} such that H_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} \subseteq V_y \subset G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}, \dim_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}(G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} / V_y) = 1, and \lambda(y) \notin V_y. Let H_y = \lambda^{-1}(V_y). Then y \notin H_y and H \subseteq H_y \subset G; since G/H_y is torsion-free (and hence free, since G is finitely generated), and since S^{-1}( G/H_y ) \cong G_\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}} / V_y \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}, we have G/H_y \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}; so H_y \in \EuScript{H}(H,G). This shows that \EuScript{H}(H,G) \neq \varnothing and y \notin I, where I denotes the intersection of all elements of \EuScript{H}(H,G). This being true for each y \in G \setminus \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}(H,G), we obtain I \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}(H,G), and the reverse inclusion is clear.

Since B is {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}-affine and the grading is over {\ensuremath{\rm \bf k}}, B is finitely generated as a B_0-algebra and \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) is finitely generated. Consequently, r is finite (so r \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} \setminus \{0\}).

(a) If \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) = \varnothing then \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) by definition, contradicting the assumption that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/\operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) is not torsion. So \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \neq \varnothing.

By Prop. 4.6, the nonempty set \big\{\, \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) \, \mid \, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) \, \big\} is finite. So we can choose {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_n \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) such that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{i=1}^n\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ). There must exist i \in \{1,\dots,n\} such that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ) is not torsion. This proves the first claim in assertion (a).

Consider {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) such that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) is not torsion and define \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} and T_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} as in the statement of (a). Lemma 11.1 implies that \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \neq \varnothing (which proves (a-i)) and

Let H \in \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}. Let \pi : \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \to \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/H be the canonical homomorphism. The definition of \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} implies that \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) \subseteq H = \ker(\pi) and \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/H \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. Let \EuScript{B}(H) denote the ring B endowed with the natural \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/H-grading (see paragraph 11.3) and note that \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B}(H) ) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/H \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}. Since \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) = \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1( \EuScript{B}(H) ), we have {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1( \EuScript{B}(H) ); thus,

where the penultimate equality follows from (11.3). Since \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B}(H) ) \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} and \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}( \EuScript{B}(H) ) = 0, Cor. 7.20 implies that there exists D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}( \EuScript{B}(H) ) such that \ker( D ) = \EuScript{B}(H)_0 = B^{(H)}. Since D \in \operatorname{\text{\rm LND}}(B), this proves (a-ii). Since H is a proper subgroup of \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B), we have B^{(H)} \neq B and hence D \neq 0. So B is non-rigid (this is claimed in (d)).

For each H \in \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}, choose D_H \in \operatorname{\text{\rm LND}}(B) such that \ker(D_H) = B^{(H)} (possible by (a-ii)). Define \Delta_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} = \big\{\, D_H \, \mid \, H \in \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} \, \big\}. Then \bigcap_{D \in \Delta_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}} \ker(D) = \bigcap_{H \in \EuScript{H}_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}} B^{(H)} = B^{ ( T_{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}} ) }, the last equality by (?). This proves (a-iii) and completes the proof of (a).

(b) Recall that we chose {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_n \in \operatorname{\text{\rm Spec}}^1(B) such that \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{i=1}^n\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ), and that we noted that I \neq \varnothing, where

Since \operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) = \bigcap_{i=1}^n\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ), Lemma 11.2 gives W = \bigcap_{i=1}^n \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}\big( \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ) , \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \big). We have \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}\big( \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ) , \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \big) = T_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i} for each i \in I and \operatorname{\text{\rm torc}}\big( \overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{M}}}( B, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i ) , \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) \big) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) for each i \in \{1,\dots,n\} \setminus I, so

For each i \in I, consider a subset \Delta_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i} of \operatorname{\text{\rm LND}}(B) such that \bigcap_{D \in \Delta_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i}} \ker(D) = B^{ ( T_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i} ) } (\Delta_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i} exists by (a-iii)). Let \Delta = \bigcup_{i \in I} \Delta_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}_i}. Then

where the last equality follows from (?). This proves (b).

(c) Let R denote B endowed with the natural \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/W-grading (see paragraph 11.3). Since \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) = \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/W is finitely generated and torsion-free, and \operatorname{\text{\rm rank}}( \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/W ) = \operatorname{\text{\rm rank}}( \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B)/\operatorname{\bar\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(B) ) = r \in \ensuremath{\mathbb{N}} \setminus \{0\}, we have \operatorname{\ensuremath{\mathbb{G}}}(R) \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^r. Lemma 2.8 implies that there exists a field K such that R_0 \subseteq K \subseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(R) and \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(R) = K^{(r)}. Since R_0 = B^{(W)} \supseteq \operatorname{\text{\rm ML}}(B) by (b), we have \operatorname{\text{\rm ML}}(B) \subseteq K. Since \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(B)= \operatorname{\text{\rm Frac}}(R), (c) follows.

(d) We already proved that B is non-rigid. If moreover G is torsion-free then Lemma 2.25 implies that \operatorname{\text{\rm HLND}}(B) \neq \{0\}, so Thm 3.2(c) gives \mathscr{X}(B) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}(B).