On Positive Matching Decomposition Conjectures of Hypergraphs

It follows from Theorem 1.3.

We show the pm-decomposition of H by arranging the matching E_{l_1,l_2} in the order defined in Definition 2.1. That is, we show a matching E_{l_1,l_2} is a positive matching on (V,E\setminus \cup_{(l_1',l_2')<(l_1,l_2)} E_{l_1',l_2'}).

If \lvert E_{l_1,l_2}\rvert = 1 then it follows from Remark 2.1(b) that E_{l_1,l_2} is positive matching on (V,E\setminus \cup_{(l_1',l_2')<(l_1,l_2)}E_{l_1',l_2'}). Let a \in \mathbb{N} be an integer and we represent matching E_{l_1,l_2} with \lvert E_{l_1,l_2}\rvert >1 in the following form:

where 6\leq m \leq n, l_2-m+a < m-a, l_1-l_2+m-a \geq 1. In Equation (?) each row is an edge of E_{l_1,l_2} (see Remark 2.2). We define a map \rho: V(E_{l_1,l_2}) \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} as

where 3\leq i \leq a+1, t \in \mathbb{N} such that \rho(x_{a+1,1}) > 0 and \rho(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0.

To show the existence of such a t, first we claim that one can recursively obtain the following forms: \rho(x_{i1})=t-\alpha_i, \rho(x_{i2})=-t/2+\beta_i and \rho(x_{i3})=-t/2-2(i-1), where \alpha_i and \beta_i are some positive integers, for all i>1. The proof of the claim is by strong induction on i. For i=2, from Equation (?) it follows that \rho(x_{21})=t-3, \rho(x_{22})=-t/2+6 and \rho(x_{3})=-t/2-2. Similarly, for i=3, it follows from Equation (?) that \rho(x_{31})=t-8, \rho(x_{32})=-t/2+13 and \rho(x_{33})=-t/2-4. Now, assume the assertion holds for all i<j, for some j\geq 4. For statement j, it follows from the induction hypothesis and Equation (?) that \rho(x_{j1})=t-(\beta_{j-1}+\beta_{j-2}+1). From Equation (?) and induction hypothesis it follows that \rho(x_{j3})=-t/2-2(j-1). From Equation (?) it follows that \rho(x_{j2})=-t/2+(\beta_{i-1}+\beta_{i-2}+2j). Hence, the claim is proved for i=j.

Thus, the conditions \rho(x_{a+1,1}) > 0 and \rho(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0 hold if t\geq 26 when a=1,2, and t \geq 2(\beta_{i-1}+\beta_{i-2}+2a) when a>2.

Let E_{l_1,l_2}^c be the of set all edges in (V_{E_{l_1,l_2}},E\setminus \{\cup_{(l_1',l_2')<(l_1,l_2)}E_{l_1',l_2'} \cup E_{l_1,l_2}\}). Observe that x_{11}<x_{21}< \cdots < x_{a+1,1}<x_{a+1,2}<x_{a2}< \cdots <x_{12}<x_{13} < \cdots <x_{a+1,3}. From the observation, it follows that

Clearly, these are all the edges in E\setminus \{\cup_{(l_1',l_2')<(l_1,l_2)}E_{l_1',l_2'} \cup E_{l_1,l_2}\} induced by V_{E_{l_1,l_2}}.

From Remark 2.1(a), it follows that to complete the proof, it is enough to prove the following two claims:

1. If e\in E_{l_1,l_2} then \sum_{i\in e}\rho(i)>0;

2. If e'\in E_{l_1,l_2}^c then \sum_{i\in e'}\rho(i)<0.

Claim (?): From the map \rho (\ref{mapping}) it is clear that \rho(x_{11})+\rho(x_{12})+\rho(x_{13})=2 and \rho(x_{i1})+\rho(x_{i2})+\rho(x_{i3})=1, for all i=2,\ldots,a+1.

Before proving Claim (?) we show that

It is clear that \rho(x_{12}) and \rho(x_{13}) are equal from the map \rho. For all i=a+1,a,\ldots,3, one has

We have,

From Equation (?) it follows that

For all i=4,5, \ldots, a+1, one has

From Equation (?) it follows that -4 +\rho(x_{2,3})-\rho(x_{2,2}) < 0. Therefore from Equation ? we have, \rho(x_{41})<\rho(x_{31}).

Consider the Fibonacci sequence f_1=1, f_2=2 and f_n=f_{n-2}+f_{n-1} for all n>2. From Equation (?) it follows that \rho(x_{i-2,3})-\rho(x_{i-2,2}) < -f_{i-2}\rho(x_{11})-f_{i-1}\rho(x_{12})-f_{i-1}\rho(x_{13})<0, for all i=5,6,\ldots,a+1. Thus from Equation (?) we have, \rho(x_{i1})<\rho(x_{i-1,1}) for all i=5,6,\ldots,a+1.

Since \rho(x_{a+1,1}) > 0 and \rho(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0, one has \rho(x_{a+1,1})>\rho(x_{a+1,2}). For all i= a+1,\ldots,3, from Equation (?) we have,

Since \rho(x_{i-1,2})+\rho(x_{i-2,2}) = - \rho(x_{i1}) -1 and \rho(x_{i1}) < \rho(x_{i-1,1}), it follows that O(i)=\rho(x_{i-1,2})+\rho(x_{i-2,2})+\rho(x_{i-1,1}) \geq 0. Therefore, we get \rho(x_{i2})>\rho(x_{i-1,2}). Also, we have

Hence, Equation (?) holds.

Claim (?): First we show that for edges \{x_{11},x_{12}, \gamma\} \in E_{l_1,l_2}^c, \rho(x_{11})+\rho(x_{12})+ \rho(\gamma)<0, where \gamma\in \{x_{23}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. From the map \rho it follows that \rho(x_{11})+\rho(x_{12})+ \rho(x_{23})=-1. From Equation (?) it follows that \rho(x_{23})>\rho(j), for all j\in \{x_{33}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. Thus \rho(x_{11})+\rho(x_{12})+\rho(j)<0, as desired. Similarly, for every edge \{x_{i1},x_{i2}, \gamma\} \in E_{l_1,l_2}^c, one has \rho(x_{i1})+\rho(x_{i2})+ \rho(\gamma)<0, where 2 \leq i \leq a, \text{ and } \gamma\in \{x_{i+1,3}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. From Equations (?) and (?) one has \rho(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0, and \rho(x_{a+1,2}) > \rho(j), for all j\in \{x_{a,2},\ldots,x_{12},x_{13}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. Therefore it is clear that for every edge \{\alpha, \beta,\gamma\} \in E_{l_1,l_2}^c, one has \rho(\alpha)+ \rho(\beta)+\rho(\gamma)<0, where \alpha<\beta<\gamma, \text{ and } \alpha,\beta,\gamma \in \{x_{a+1,2},\ldots,x_{12},x_{13}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}.

Next, we show that for edges \{x_{11}, \beta, \gamma\} \in E_{l_1,l_2}^c, \rho(x_{11})+ \rho(\beta)+ \rho(\gamma) <0, for all \beta<\gamma, \text{ and } \beta,\gamma \in \{x_{13}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. From Equation (?) it follows that \rho(x_{11})+\rho(x_{13})+\rho(x_{23})=-1. Then from Equation (?) one has \rho(x_{13})+\rho(x_{23})\geq \rho(i)+\rho(j), for all i<j and i,j\in \{x_{13}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. Hence we have \rho(x_{11})+ \rho(\beta)+ \rho(\gamma) <0 as desired. Similarly, for every edge \{x_{i1}, \beta,\gamma\} \in E_{l_1,l_2}^c, one has \rho(x_{i1})+ \rho(\beta)+ \rho(\gamma) <0, for all 2 \leq i \leq a+1, \beta<\gamma, \text{ and } \beta,\gamma \in \{x_{i-1,2},\ldots,x_{12},x_{13}, \ldots, x_{a+1,3}\}. Thus E_{l_1,l_2} is a positive matching on (V,E\setminus \cup_{(l_1',l_2')<(l_1,l_2)} E_{l_1',l_2'}) as desired.

It follows from Theorem 1.2 and Remark 2.3.

(1). It follows from Theorem 3.4 that L_H^{\mathbb{K}}(d) is a Cartwright–Sturmfels ideal. In particular, L_H^{\mathbb{K}}(d) and all its initial ideals are radical for all d. Assertions (2) and (3) follows from Corollary 3.1, Remark 3.8 and Equation (?).

The upper bound follows from the Theorem 1.3. We prove the lower bound by induction on n. For n=5, the statement follows from the minimal matching decomposition, which is equal to the number of edges in H_5, that is 10, since each matching has exactly one element.

Suppose \operatorname{pmd}(H_{n-1}) \geq 9(n-1) -35. Consider M_1, \ldots, M_p to be a positive matching decomposition of H_n with 1 = \lvert M_1 \rvert \leq \cdots \leq \lvert M_p \rvert. Let r be the first integer such that \lvert M_r \rvert > 1. Therefore, M_r contains at least two edges. First, we fix any two edges in M_r, say e'_1 and e'_2. Then, for a fixed vertex u in e'_1, there are 9 edges that have u as a vertex in the induced subgraph H[V_{\{e'_1,e'_2\}}]. Let e_1, \ldots, e_9 be edges with a common vertex u in the induced subgraph on V(e'_1,e'_2). From Theorem 3.3 it follows that if e_1, \ldots, e_9 \notin \cup_{j=1}^{r-1}M_j then M_r is not positive. Then it follows that

as desired.

Let e = \{x_1 < x_2 < \cdots < x_r\}, e' = \{y_1 < \cdots < y_r\} \in E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}} for some 3 \leq l_1 \leq 2n-2r+3, 5 \leq l_2 \leq 2n-2r+5, \ldots, 2r-1 \leq l_{r-1} \leq 2n-1. Assume e \neq e' and e \cap e' \neq \emptyset.

Case I. If x_1=y_1 then since x_1+x_2=l_1=y_1+y_2 we have x_2=y_2. By repeating a similar argument, we get x_i=y_i for all i=3,\ldots,r. Thus we have e=e' a contradiction. The remaining cases x_i=y_i can be deduced in a similar manner.

Case II. If x_i=y_{i+1} or x_{i+1}=y_i, where i=1,\ldots,r-1, then from condition x_i+x_{i+1}=l_i=y_i+y_{i+1} yield a contradiction to the order of the elements in e and e'.

Case III. If x_i=y_j such that i<j and j-i\geq 2, where i=1,\ldots,r-2, then y_1<\cdots<y_j=x_i<x_{i+1} contradicts x_i+x_{i +1}=y_i+y_{i+1}=l_i.

Hence, we have e\cap e'=\emptyset as desired.

It is obvious that 3 \leq l_1<\cdots<l_{r-1} \leq 2n-1. Thus the number of ways of choosing r-1 elements in increasing order from [2n-3], that is, \binom{2n-3}{r-1} is strictly greater than \lvert E_n \rvert. Hence, it can be deduced that \lvert E_n \rvert \leq n^{r-1}+O(r-2).

First, we fix an order on matching E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}\subset E. We say E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}<E_{l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}'} if (l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1})<_{lex}(l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}'). Now, we will show the matching E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}} is a positive matching on \Lambda=(V,E\setminus \cup_{(l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}')<_{lex}(l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1})} E_{l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}'}) by cardinality of the matching.

If \lvert E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}\rvert = 1 then from Remark 2.1(b) it follows that E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}} is positive matching on \Lambda. We depict a matching E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}} with (\lvert E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}\rvert >1) using the following representation:

Case I. For an odd integer r\geq 5 we set

where, 2r\leq m \leq n, a \in \mathbb{N} such that x_{1,i-1} < x_{1,i}, x_{a+1,j-1}<x_{a+1,j}, and x_{11} \geq 1, where i=3,5,\ldots, r, and j=2,4,\ldots,r-1. In the above representation, each row is an edge of E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}. Consider the following ascending sequence:

where i=3,5,\ldots,r-2 and j=4,6,\ldots,r-1. We define a map \phi: V(E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}) \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} as

where \alpha_1 to \alpha_{r-i} constitute a sequence of r-i consecutive elements that commence immediately after x_{1,i+1} from Sequence (?), and i=2,4,\ldots, r-1, such that

where \beta_1 to \beta_{r-k} constitute a sequence of r-k consecutive elements that commence immediately after x_{\ell k+1} from Sequence (?), \phi(x_{\ell,0})=0, and 1\leq k \leq r-1,

where 2\leq \ell \leq a+1, t \gg 0 such that \phi(x_{a+1,1}) > 0 and \phi(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0.

The definition of \phi implies that the following sequence is in descending order:

where i=3,5,\ldots,r-2 and j=4,6,\ldots,r-1.

Case II. For an even integer r\geq 4 we set

where, 2r\leq m \leq n, a \in \mathbb{N} such that x_{1,i-1} < x_{1,i}, x_{a+1,j-1}<x_{a+1,j}, and x_{11} \geq 1, where i=3,5,\ldots,r-1, and j=2,4,\ldots,r. In the above representation, each row is an edge of E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-2}}. Consider the following ascending sequence:

where i=3,5,\ldots,r-3 and j=4,6,\ldots,r-2. We define a map \psi: V(E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}) \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} as

where \alpha_1 to \alpha_{r-i} constitute a sequence of r-i consecutive elements that commence immediately after x_{1,i+1} from Sequence (?), and i=2,4,\ldots, r-2, such that

where \beta_1 to \beta_{r-k} constitute a sequence of r-k consecutive elements that commence immediately after x_{\ell k+1} from Sequence (?), \psi(x_{\ell,0})=0, and 1\leq k \leq r-1,

where 2\leq \ell \leq a+1, t \gg 0 such that \psi(x_{a+1,1}) > 0 and \psi(x_{a+1,2}) \leq 0.

The definition of \phi implies that the subsequent sequence is in descending order.

where i=3,5,\ldots,r-3 and j=4,6,\ldots,r-2.

Let E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}^c be the set all edges in (V_{E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}},E\setminus \{\cup_{(l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}')<_{lex}(l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1})}E_{l_1',\ldots,l_{r-1}'} \cup E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}\}). From maps \phi and \psi it is clear that \phi(x_{i1})+\ldots+\phi(x_{ir})=1 and \psi(x_{i1})+\ldots+\psi(x_{ir})=1 for all i=1,\ldots,a+1. From maps \phi and \psi, and referring to Equations (?) and (?) one has \sum_{i\in e}\phi(i)<0 and \sum_{i\in e}\psi(i)<0 for all e\in E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}}^c, analogous to the proof presented in Claim ? of Theorem 1.2. Hence the matching E_{l_1,\ldots,l_{r-1}} is a positive matching on \Lambda.

It follows from Proposition 2.2 and Theorem 2.2.

(1) \implies (2). Suppose H[V(M)] has a strong alternate closed walk with the following vertices

where \{u_i,a_i,v_i\} \in M and \{v_i,b_i,u_{i+1}\} \in E(H[V(M)])\setminus M, for all i. Since M is positive there exists a map \rho: V(M) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} such that \rho(u_i)+\rho(a_i)+\rho(v_i) > 0 and \rho(v_i)+\rho(b_i)+\rho(u_{i+1}) < 0, for all i. WLOG, we can assume that \rho(u_1)>0 as \rho(u_1)+\rho(a_1)+\rho(v_1)>0. From the positive matching of M, we get the following inequalities:

which is a contradiction as a_i=b_j, for some j and number of times a_i appears is equal to number of times b_j appears for all i.

(2) \implies (3). It follows from Lemma 3.1.

(3) \implies (1). Assume that M is not positive. Let N \subset M be a minimal such that N is not positive. Let N=\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\} and N^c = E(H[V(N)])\setminus N = \{e'_1,\ldots, e'_m\} be edges and e_i=\{u_{i1},u_{i2},u_{i3}\} for all i. Let \rho : V(N) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} be a map. By not positiveness of N one has \sum_{u_i \in e_i} \rho(u_i) = y_i and \sum_{u_j \in e'_j} \rho(u_j) = -y_j, where y_i,y_j >0, for all 1\leq i \leq n and 1\leq j \leq m, has no solution. Now we represent the system of linear equations using a matrix by Ax=Y, where x=[\rho(u_{11}),\ldots,\rho(u_{n3})]^t, Y=[y_1,\ldots, y_{n+m}]. Notice that each row of A corresponds to an edge, and the number of non-zero entries in each column of A corresponds to the degree of the respective vertex. Then we have \operatorname{Rank}(A,Y) > \operatorname{Rank}(A). Let R_i denotes i^{th} row of matrix A. First, n rows of matrix A corresponds to edges of N and rows from n+1 to n+m correspond to edges of N^c. Therefore we get a_1R_1 + \ldots + a_nR_n = a_{n+1}R_{n+1} + \ldots + a_{n+m}R_{n+m}, where a_i>0 be a positive integer for all 1 \leq i \leq n and a_j be a non negative integer for all n+1 \leq j \leq n+m. Then we get \deg_{N_1}(u_{i1})=\deg_{N_1}(u_{i2})=\deg_{N_1}(u_{i3})=a_i +1, for all i, where edge set of N_1=\{N \cup \{e'_j \mid a_j\neq 0 \text{ for } n+1 \leq j \leq n+m\}\}, and e'_j is the edge associated with R_j. Hence H[V(N)] has a subgraph N_1 such that N \subseteq N_1 and \deg_{N_1}(u_{i1}) =\deg_{N_1}(u_{i2})=\deg_{N_1}(u_{i3})= k, where k\geq 2 for all \{u_{i1},u_{i2},u_{i3}\} \in N.

Suppose there exists a subset V(N) \subseteq V(M) such that H[V(N)] has a subgraph N_1 \supseteq N with \deg_{N_1}(u_i) =\deg_{N_1}(a_i)=\deg_{N_1}(v_i)= k, where k\geq 2 for all \{u_i,a_i,v_i\} \in N. Assume that N and N_1 are minimal with this property. Now, we construct an alternating closed walk in a subgraph N_1 with respect to N. From the construction ?, it follows that there exists a strong alternate closed walk in (H[V(N)],N,u_1) such that \deg_{N_1}(u_i) =\deg_{N_1}(a_i)=\deg_{N_1}(v_i)= k, where k\geq 2 for all \{u_i,a_i,v_i\} \in N, which is a contradiction.

The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1.

Suppose M is positive and edges \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\}, V(M) \setminus \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} \in E(H[V(M)]). By positiveness of M, there exists a weight function \mu such that it satisfies Equation ?. This implies that \sum_{i=1}^{2r}\mu(x_i) > 0 and \sum_{i=1}^{2r}\mu(x_i) < 0, since \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} and V(M) \setminus \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} are edges of H[V(M)]. This contradicts the positivity of M.

Conversely, suppose an edge \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} \in E(H[V(M)]) and V(M) \setminus \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} \notin E(H[V(M)]). Then we show that M is positive by induction on the number of edges in E(H[V(M)]) \setminus M. Let t be the number of edges in E(H[V(M)]) \setminus M. For the case t=1, the statement follows from Remark 2.1(b). Now, assume the statement is true for t=s-1. Suppose for t=s, M is not positive. By non positiveness of M one has, for every map \rho, the \sum_{u_i \in e_i} \rho(u_i) = y_i and \sum_{u_j \in e'_j} \rho(u_j) = -y_j, where y_i,y_j >0, e_i \in M, e_j' \in E(H[V(M)])\setminus M for all 1\leq i \leq 2 and 3\leq j \leq s+2, has no solution. Now we represent the system of linear equations using a matrix by Ax=Y, where x=[\rho(x_1),\ldots,\rho(x_{2r})]^t, Y=[y_1,\ldots, y_{s+2}]. Then we have \operatorname{Rank}(A,Y) > \operatorname{Rank}(A). Let R_i denotes i^{th} row of matrix A. First, 2 rows of matrix A correspond to edges of M, and rows from 3 to s+2 correspond to edges of E(H[V(M)]) \setminus M. By induction hypothesis, it follows that removing a row, say R_k, where 3 \leq k \leq s+2, then there exists a \rho such that \operatorname{Rank}(A\setminus R_k,Y) = \operatorname{Rank}(A \setminus R_k). Therefore, we get a_1R_1 + a_2R_2 = (a_{3}R_{3} + \ldots \hat{a_{k}R_{k}}+ \ldots + a_{s+2}R_{s+2}) + a_{k}R_{k}, where a_1,a_2,a_k>0 be a positive integers and a_j be a non negative integer for all 3 \leq j \neq k \leq s+2. Let R_{k} correspond to an \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\}. Then the rows R_3, \ldots, \hat{R_K}, \ldots, R_{s+2} has an edge correspond to V(M) \setminus \{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_r}\} \in E(H[V(M)]) which is a contradiction. Thus, we get M is positive as desired.

First, we assume that the generators f_e^{(d)} of L_H^\mathbb{K}(d) form a regular sequence. Since for each edge e \in E, one adds a monomial m_e to f_e^{(d)} with the same degree such that m_e and m_{e'} are coprime if e \neq e'. Then, with a suitable term order, initial terms of f_e^{(d)} are pairwise coprime monomials m_e. By Remark 3.7 it is enough to show that the ideal (f_e^{(d)}+m_e \mid e\in E) is a Cartwright-Sturmfels ideal. Since f_e^{(d)} of L_H^\mathbb{K}(d) form a regular sequence the K-polynomial of S/L_H^\mathbb{K}(d) is F(x)=\prod_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\} \in E} (1-x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_r}) \in \mathbb{Q}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]. By Cartwright-Sturmfels^* property, it is enough to show that the existence of a monomial ideal I in the polynomial ring S_1=\mathbb{K}[y_1,\ldots,y_n] with \mathbb{Z}^n multigraded induced by \deg(y_i)=\mathfrak{e_i} \in \mathbb{Z}^n such that K-polynomial of I is F(1-x_1,\ldots,1-x_n) as an S_1-module. We claim that K- polynomial of I=\prod_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\} \in E}(y_{i_1},\ldots,y_{i_r}) is F(1-x_1,\ldots,1-x_n). That is, we need to prove that the tensor product K_E = \otimes_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\}\in E}K_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\}} of the truncated Koszul complexes

associated to y_{i_1},\ldots,y_{i_r} resolves the ideal I. Set edge set E'=E \setminus \{\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}\}, and ideals I'= \prod_{\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\} \in E'}(y_{i_1},\ldots,y_{i_r}) and I''= (y_{a_1},\ldots,y_{a_r}). Then, by induction on the number of edges, one has K_{E'} resolves the ideal I'. Since the H is a good forest, for an edge \{a_1,\ldots,a_r\} one has r-1 variables of y_{a_1},\ldots,y_{a_r} does not appear in the generators of I'. Then, y_{a_1},\ldots,y_{a_r} forms a regular I'-sequence. Therefore, Tor_{\ell}^{S_1}(I',I'')=0 for all \ell \geq 1. Hence K_E resolves I' \otimes I'' and I' \otimes I'' = I'I''. This proves that the ideal L_H^\mathbb{K}(d) is a Cartwright-Sturmfels ideal.