Gotzmann’s persistence theorem for smooth projective toric varieties

Let J \subseteq S be an ideal, homogeneous with respect to the \mathbb{Z}^s-grading, and with Hilbert polynomial P_J(t_1,\dots,t_s)=P(t_1,\dots,t_s). By the assumption that P(t_1,\dots,t_s) is a Hilbert polynomial, such J exists. Suppose I^{\text{multilex}} and J^{\text{multilex}} are generated in degrees \leq(a_1,\dots,a_s), with a_i \geq 2 for all i. Recall that H_I(b_1,\dots,b_s)=P_I(b_1,\dots,b_s) and H_J(b_1,\dots,b_s)=P_J(b_1,\dots,b_s) when all b_i \geq a_i. Suppose that \operatorname{maxdeg}(P)=(p_1,\dots,p_s). By Lemma 3.2, P(t_1,\dots,t_s) can be written in the form

where the F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1) are Hilbert polynomials of standard-graded ideals generated in degrees \leq a_1. For a known P(t_1,\dots,t_s) we can explicitly find each of the F_{i_2 \dots i_s}. Similarly, we can write

for some q_2,\dots,q_s \in \mathbb{N}, where each G_{i_2, \dots, i_s}(t_1) is the Hilbert polynomial of some standard-graded ideal generated in degrees \leq a_1. The polynomial P_I(t_1,\dots,t_s) is therefore uniquely determined by q_2,\dots,q_s and the G_{i_2 \dots i_s}. Our aim is to show that q_i=p_i for all 2 \leq i \leq s, and G_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1)=F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1) for all i_2, \dots, i_s by using induction.

The first step of the proof is to fix the point (d_1,\dots,d_s) \in \mathbb{N}^s. We denote by P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r) the polynomials as in definition 3.4 for P and Q_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r) those for P_I. Recall from Lemma 3.8 that for each 2 \leq r \leq s and \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathbb{N}^{s-1} with b_i \geq a_i for all i<r, there exists a bilex ideal K \subseteq k[x_0,\dots,x_m,y_0,\dots,y_{n_r}] such that P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r)=P_K(1,t_r). We may further assume K is generated in degrees \leq(1,a_r). The same holds for the Q_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r). In particular we can apply Theorem 3.10 to both sets of polynomials. Let

be the Euclidean division of P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(u) by \binom{u+n_r}{n_r}, and define c(P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r)) to be the minimum value of u \in \mathbb{N} such that

This minimum must exist by Theorem 3.10 part (i). We now choose d_1 \in \mathbb{N} with d_1 \geq a_1 and such that d_1 is larger than the maximal Gotzmann number of the Hilbert polynomials F_{i_2 \dots i_s}. Once d_1 is fixed, set

and set c_2 = \max_{\boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}_2}\{c(P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{2}(t_2))\}. We then set d_2 = \max(a_2,c_2). In this way we recursively define

c_r = \max_{\boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}_{r-1}}\{c(P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r))\}, and d_r=\max(a_r,c_r), up to r=s. With (d_1,\dots,d_s) now fixed, we proceed with the proof.

We have defined \mathcal{B}_r for 2 \leq r \leq s. We similarly define

We assume as in the statement of the theorem that H_I(b_1,\dots,b_s)=P(b_1,\dots,b_s) for all points in \mathcal{B}_s. We will prove the following statements by induction on decreasing r for all 1 \leq r \leq s.

1. Q_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(d_r) = P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(d_r) and Q_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(d_r+1) = P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(d_r+1) for all \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}_r.

2. q_i=p_i for all possible i > r.

We begin with the base case of r=s. For (i), this case is exactly the assumption of Theorem 1.1, that H_I(b_1,\dots,b_s)=P(b_1,\dots,b_s) for all points in \{(b_1,\dots,b_s) \in \mathbb{N}^s \mid b_i \in \{d_i,d_i+1\}\}. For (ii), the statement is vacuously true.

For the induction step, we will show that for 2 \leq r \leq s, (i) and (ii) holding for r implies (i) and (ii) hold for r-1. To see this is true, suppose (i) and (ii) hold for some 2 \leq r \leq s. Let

be the Euclidean division of P_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{r}(d_r) by \binom{d_r+n_r}{d_r}. We chose d_r such that d_r \geq c(P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{\boldsymbol{r}}(t_r)) for all possible \boldsymbol{b_r} \in \mathcal{B}_{r}. It follows that

for all \boldsymbol{b_r} \in \mathcal{B}_r by (i). As observed earlier, Lemma 3.8 implies that we can apply Crona’s Theorem 3.10 to Q_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{r}(t_r). Since equation (?) holds, the assumption of Theorem 3.10 part (ii) is satisfied. We therefore see that Q_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{r}(u)=P_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{r}(u) for all u \geq d_r and all \boldsymbol{b_r} \in \mathcal{B}_r, implying that Q_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r)=P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^{r}(t_r) in \mathbb{Q}[t_r] for all \boldsymbol{b_r} \in \mathcal{B}_r. Since q_i=p_i for all i > r by (ii), we can apply Remark 3.5 to conclude that q_r=p_r. We then match the coefficients of \binom{t_r-i_r+a_r}{i_r} in Q_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{r}(t_r) and P_{\boldsymbol{b_r}}^{\boldsymbol{r}}(t_r) for all 0 \leq i_r \leq p_r and all \boldsymbol{b_r} \in \mathcal{B}_r to see that

for all \boldsymbol{b_{r-1}} \in \mathcal{B}_{r-1}. This completes the proof of the induction step.

Since (i) and (ii) hold for r=1, it follows that q_i = p_i for all 2 \leq i \leq s, and that

for all (i_2,\dots,i_s) \in \mathcal{B}_1. Since we chose d_1 to be larger then the Gotzmann number of every Hilbert polynomial F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1), we have

for every (i_2,\dots,i_s) \in \mathcal{B}_1. We therefore apply Gotzmann’s persistence theorem to each G_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1) and conclude that G_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1)=F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1) in \mathbb{Q}[t_1] for all (i_2, \dots, i_s) \in \mathcal{B}_1. It follows that P_I=P.

As in Remark 4.2, using the surjective homomorphism of Lemma 4.1 we may find a homogeneous ideal I \subseteq S with H_I(b_1,b_2)=H_J(b_1,b_2) for all (b_1,b_2) \in \mathbb{N}^2. Consequently, we apply Theorem 1.1 to I \subseteq S to find appropriate (d_1,d_2) \in \mathbb{N}^2 such that if

then P_I(t_1,t_2)=P(t_1,t_2). Since P_I(t_1,t_2)=P_J(t_1,t_2) this then guarantees that P_J(t_1,t_2)=P(t_1,t_2).

Let S be as in Definition 4.6 and consider the ideal I \subseteq S from Lemma 4.9 with (S/I)_{\boldsymbol{b}} \cong (R/J)_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} for all \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}. As established in Remark 4.10, P(t_1,\dots,t_s) is an admissible polynomial, with f^{\#} P(u_1,\dots,u_s) = Q(u_1,\dots,u_s) for a Hilbert polynomial Q(u_1,\dots,u_s) on S. We observe that for \boldsymbol{b}=(b_1,\dots,b_s) \in \mathcal{B} we have H_I(\boldsymbol{b})=H_J(f(\boldsymbol{b})). In particular we therefore have an equality of polynomials

We apply Theorem 1.1 to I to find appropriate (d_1,\dots,d_{s}) \in \mathcal{B} such that verifying

for all \boldsymbol{b} with b_i \in \{d_{i},d_{i}+1\} guarantees that P_I(u_1,\dots,u_s)=Q(u_1,\dots,u_s). Equivalently, verifying

for all possible \boldsymbol{b} with b_i \in \{d_{i},d_{i}+1\} guarantees that f^{\#}P_J(u_1,\dots,u_s)=f^{\#}P(u_1,\dots,u_s). Thus, checking H_J(r_1,\dots,r_s)=P(r_1,\dots,r_s) at exactly the points

allows us to conclude that f^{\#}P_J(u_1,\dots,u_s)=f^{\#}P(u_1,\dots,u_s). As highlighted in Definition 4.6, f^{\#} is injective, and so it follows that P_J(t_1,\dots,t_s)=P(t_1,\dots,t_s).

To show that H generates I_{(v_1,\dots,v_s)} as a k-vector space, we show that for any monomial

and monomial \boldsymbol{x^v} \in S_{(a_1-v_1,\dots,a_s-v_s)}, then \boldsymbol{x^u} \boldsymbol{x^v} lies in H. Suppose m_i(\boldsymbol{x^v}) < m^i(\boldsymbol{x^u}) for some i. It follows from the strongly multistable property that

Further if we let

then \boldsymbol{x^u}\boldsymbol{x^v}=\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{2}}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{2}}, m_i(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{2}}) \geq m_i(\boldsymbol{x^v}) and m^i(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{2}}) \leq m^i(\boldsymbol{x^u}). We now repeat the above process for \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{2}} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{2}}. If k is the maximum power of x_{i,{m_i({\boldsymbol{x^v}}})} dividing \boldsymbol{x^v} then k repeats is enough to ensure that m_i(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}}) >m_i(\boldsymbol{x^{v}}). It follows that after a finite number n of repeats m_i(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{n}}) \geq m^i(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{n}}). Thus we can assume m_i(\boldsymbol{x^v}) \geq m^i(\boldsymbol{x^u}) for all i, completing the first part of the proof. To see that H(\boldsymbol{x^u}) \cap H(\boldsymbol{x^{u'}}) = \emptyset for \boldsymbol{x^u} \neq \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}, let

with c_i, c_i' monomials in S_{a_i \boldsymbol{e}_i}. Suppose \boldsymbol{x^u} \neq \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}. Then without loss of generality there exists a pair \{c_i,c_i'\} with c_i \succ c_i'. Let j be the smallest index such that the power of x_{i,j} is larger for c_i than c_i'. Note that m^i(\boldsymbol{x^{u'}})=m^i(c_i')>j since c_i and c_i' have equal degree. It therefore follows that for a monomial \boldsymbol{x^v} \in H(\boldsymbol{x^u}) the power of x_{i,j} dividing \boldsymbol{x^v} is strictly larger than for any monomial lying in H(\boldsymbol{x^{u'}}). Thus H(\boldsymbol{x^u}) \cap H(\boldsymbol{x^{u'}}) = \emptyset.

The proof is essentially the same as [aramova2000bigeneric]*Theorem 4.8. We decompose M as follows:

where \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{i-1},0,\dots,0)}, M_{j,k} \subseteq S_{a_i\boldsymbol{e}_i} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in S_{(0,\dots,0,a_{i+1},\dots,a_s)}. We will order the \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} such that \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{j'}} \succ \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{j}} if and only if j' < j, and similar for the \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}}. Observe that

An element in M^{x_i \text{lex}} can therefore be written as \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j}\boldsymbol{x^w}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}}, with \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{i-1},0,\dots,0)}, \boldsymbol{x^w} \in M_{j,k}^{\text{lex}} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in S_{(0,\dots,0,a_{i+1},\dots,a_s)}. We need to check that

To see that this is true, let \boldsymbol{x^{u'}} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{i-1},0,\dots,0)} and \boldsymbol{x^{w'}} \in S_{a_i\boldsymbol{e}_i} with \boldsymbol{x^{u'}} \in L(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j}) and \boldsymbol{x^{w'}} \in L(\boldsymbol{x^w}). We wish to show that \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}\boldsymbol{x^{w'}}\boldsymbol{x^v} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}}. Since M is x_1,\dots,x_{i-1}-lex it follows that for any \boldsymbol{x^{u'}} \in L(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j}) and any \boldsymbol{x^{w''}} \in M_{j,k}, \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}\boldsymbol{x^{w''}}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in M. In particular \boldsymbol{x^{u'}} = \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{j'}} for some j' < j and \boldsymbol{x^{w''}} \in M_{j',k}. Since this holds for any \boldsymbol{x^{w''}} \in M_{j,k}, M_{j,k} \subseteq M_{j',k} and consequently M_{j,k}^{\text{lex}} \subseteq M_{j',k}^{\text{lex}}. In particular, \boldsymbol{x^w} \in M_{j',k}^{\text{lex}} and so \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}\boldsymbol{x^w}\boldsymbol{x^v} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}}. By definition M^{x_i \text{lex}} is x_i-lex so it then follows that \boldsymbol{x^{u'}}\boldsymbol{x^{w'}}\boldsymbol{x^v} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}}.

We again follow the proof of [aramova2000bigeneric]*Theorem 4.8. As in Lemma 2.14, for i \geq 2 we decompose

where \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_j} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{i-1},0,\dots,0)}, M_{j,k} \subseteq S_{a_i\boldsymbol{e}_i} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in S_{(0,\dots,0,a_{i+1},\dots,a_s)}. If i=1, we simply have

for M_{1,k} \subseteq S_{a_1\boldsymbol{e_1}} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in S_{(0,a_2,\dots,a_s)}. We need to show that for \boldsymbol{m} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}}, if x_{l,p} divides \boldsymbol{m}, then x_{l,q}\frac{\boldsymbol{m}}{x_{l,p}} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}} for all 0 \leq q < p. If l \leq i then this holds by Lemma 2.14, since M^{x_i \text{lex}} is x_1, \dots, x_i-lex. Otherwise, note that the X=\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_1},\dots,\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{l_2}}\} form a strongly multistable set since M is strongly multistable. For l > i, if x_{l,p} divides \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} for some k then x_{l,q}\frac{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}}}{x_{l,p}} \in X for all 0 \leq q < p. We write x_{l,q}\frac{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}}}{x_{l,p}} = \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k'}} for some k' < k. Since M is strongly multistable, for fixed j, we have M_{j,k} \subseteq M_{j,k'} and consequently M_{j,k}^{\text{lex}} \subseteq M_{j,k'}^{\text{lex}}. It follows that if x_{l,p} divides \boldsymbol{m} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}} for l > i then x_{l,q}\frac{\boldsymbol{m}}{x_{l,p}} \in M^{x_i \text{lex}} for all 0 \leq q < p.

We now follow the proof of [aramova2000bigeneric]*Lemma 4.12. For a set of monomials M \subseteq S, define X_pM = \{x_{p,q}\boldsymbol{m} \mid 0 \leq q \leq n_p, \boldsymbol{m} \in M\}. To verify that I^{\text{multilex}} is an ideal, we need only check that for any (a_1,\dots,a_s) \in \mathbb{N} and 1 \leq p \leq s, we have X_{p} (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} \subseteq (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_{p}+1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}}. Note that X_{p}I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} \subseteq I_{(a_1,\dots,a_{p}+1,\dots,a_s)}, hence (X_{p}I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} \subseteq (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_p+1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}}. It follows that if we can show that X_{p}(I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} \subseteq (X_{p}I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} then we are done. Decompose I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} as

for M_j \subseteq S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{p-1},0,\dots,0)} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \in S_{(0,\dots,0,a_p,\dots,a_s)}. Observe that

Let X_p\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_1},\dots,\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{l_1}}\} = \{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_1},\dots,\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_{l_2}}\}. We similarly decompose

for N_k \subseteq S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{p-1},0,\dots,0)} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_k} \in S_{(0,\dots,0,a_p,\dots,a_s)}. For all 1 \leq j \leq l_1 and 0 \leq q \leq n_p we have x_{p,q}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} = \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_k} for some 1 \leq k \leq l_2, with M_j \subseteq N_k. If M_j \subseteq N_k it follows that M_j^{x_1 \dots x_{p-1} \text{lex}} \subseteq N_k^{x_1 \dots x_{p-1} \text{lex}} by Remark 2.11. Consequently,

In other words, X_p(I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{x_1 \dots x_{p-1} \text{lex}} \subseteq (X_pI_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{x_1 \dots x_{p-1} \text{lex}}. A similar argument shows that X_{p} (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} \subseteq (X_p (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{x_1 \dots x_p \text{lex}})^{x_{p+1} \dots x_s \text{lex}}. The strategy here is to decompose

with M_j \subseteq S_{(0,\dots,0,a_{p+1},\dots,a_s)} and \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{k}} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_p,0,\dots,0)}, and observe that (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} = \bigcup_{j=1}^{l_1}M_j^{x_{p+1} \dots x_s \text{lex}}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j}. We then consider the decomposition

with X_p\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_1}, \dots, \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_{l_1}}\}=\{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_1},\dots, \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_{l_2}}\} and N_k \subseteq S_{(0,\dots,0,a_{p+1},\dots,a_s)}. As before, we see that for all 1 \leq j \leq l_1 and 0 \leq q \leq n_p, we have x_{p,q} \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j}= \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{w}_k} for some 1 \leq k \leq l_2, and consequently M_j \subseteq N_k for this value of k. By Remark 2.11 we then have M_j^{x_{p+1} \dots x_s \text{lex}} \subseteq N_k^{x_{p+1} \dots x_s \text{lex}}. It follows that

or in other words, X_p(I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{\text{multilex}} \subseteq (X_p (I_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)})^{x_1 \dots x_p \text{lex}})^{x_{p+1} \dots x_s \text{lex}}.

We have a chain of inclusions

The second inclusion follows immediately from the previous part and Remark 2.11. The first inclusion is a direct generalisation of the first part of the proof of [aramova2000bigeneric]*Lemma 4.12. Combining everything, we obtain

This completes the proof.

As highlighted in Section ?, for every I there exists a strongly multistable ideal with the same Hilbert function. The ideal \operatorname{multigin}(I) is one such example. Lemmas 2.14, 2.15 and 2.16 then show that for any strongly multistable ideal there exists a multilex ideal with the same Hilbert function.

We begin by relabelling the variables of I_2, replacing x_{i,j} with y_{i,j}, to obtain an ideal I_2' \subseteq k[y_{1,0},\dots,y_{1,n_1},\dots,y_{s,0},\dots,y_{s,n_s}]. Let

with \deg(x_{i,j})=\deg(y_{i,j})=\boldsymbol{e}_i. Note that S' is the Cox ring of

Consider the ideal J_1 = I_1+I_2'+K \subseteq S', where K is generated by all monomials of the form x_{i,j} y_{p,q}. The Hilbert function of this ideal agrees with H_{I_1}(b_1,\dots,b_s) + H_{I_2}(b_1,\dots,b_s) for b_i \geq 1. Note that each x_{i,j}y_{p,q} has degree \leq(2, \dots, 2), so J_{1} is generated in degrees \leq(a_1, \dots, a_s). We also observe that J_{1} is a monomial ideal. Now applying the same argument to J_1 and I_3 allows us to obtain a monomial ideal J_2 in \operatorname{Cox}(\mathbb{P}^{3(n_1+1)-1} \times \dots \times \mathbb{P}^{3(n_s+1)-1}), generated in degrees \leq (a_1,\dots,a_s), and with H_{J_1}(b_1,\dots,b_s)+H_{I_3}(b_1,\dots,b_s)=H_{J_2}(b_1,\dots,b_s). We continue to repeat this argument to obtain the ideal J, which is a monomial ideal in \operatorname{Cox}(\mathbb{P}^{l(n_1+1)-1} \times \dots \times \mathbb{P}^{l(n_s+1)-1}).

We pass to J=I^{\text{multilex}}, which has the same Hilbert function as I but is strongly multistable. Consider the set

For \boldsymbol{i}=(i_2,\dots,i_s) \in \mathcal{I} consider the set of monomials

Fix some \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}} \in L^{\boldsymbol{i}}. We consider the set of monomials M_1^{\boldsymbol{i}} \subseteq S_{(a_1,0,\dots,0)} with \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}}M_1^{\boldsymbol{i}} \subseteq J_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)}. The set M_1^{\boldsymbol{i}} generates a strongly stable ideal J_{1}^{\boldsymbol{i}} in the standard-graded polynomial ring k[x_{1,0},\dots,x_{1,n_1}] with Hilbert function H_{J_{1}^{\boldsymbol{i}}}(b_1). Since J_{1}^{\boldsymbol{i}} is strongly stable and generated in degrees \leq a_1 we observe that H_{J_{1}^{\boldsymbol{i}}}(b_1)=P_{J_{1}^{\boldsymbol{i}}}(b_1) for b_1 \geq a_1. Consider the set of monomials

For each \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \in N_1^{\boldsymbol{i}}, \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}} \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} corresponds to a monomial in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} \setminus J_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)}. For such a monomial \boldsymbol{x^u} = \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} the corresponding term in the partial Stanley decomposition of J is

This contributes

to the Hilbert polynomial of I, where i_j = n_j - m^j(\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}}). Since the monomials in N_1^{\boldsymbol{i}} form a partial Stanley decomposition for J_1^{\boldsymbol{i}} we have that

for t_1 \geq a_1. Consequently, the expression (Proof) becomes

We repeat the above procedure for all possible monomials \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_l} \in L^{\boldsymbol{i}}. Note that all monomials in L^{\boldsymbol{i}} for a fixed \boldsymbol{i} will have the same binomial coefficients appearing in the corresponding piece of the Hilbert polynomial (Proof). It therefore makes sense for us to add the P_{J^{\boldsymbol{i}}_l}(t_1) together. By Lemma 3.1, the sum of the Hilbert polynomials of the J_{l}^{\boldsymbol{i}} agrees with the Hilbert polynomial for a new monomial ideal J_{i_2 \dots i_s} generated in degrees \leq a_1. We will denote the Hilbert polynomial of J_{i_2 \dots i_s} by F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1). We have

Note that since H_{J^{\boldsymbol{i}}_{l}}(b_1)=P_{J^{\boldsymbol{i}}_{l}}(b_1) for all b_1 \geq a_1, we have

for all b_1 \geq a_1. By equation (Proof) the monomials in L^{\boldsymbol{i}} contribute in total

to the Hilbert polynomial of I. Varying \boldsymbol{i} \in \mathcal{I} and repeating this procedure we obtain

where each F_{i_2 \dots i_s}(t_1) is the Hilbert polynomial of a monomial ideal J_{i_2 \dots i_s} generated in degrees \leq a_1.

Fix d= \binom{\overline{a}_1+n}{\overline{a}_1} and let \overline{n}=ld-1. Let T'=k[z_0,\dots,z_{\overline{n}},y_0,\dots,y_m], with \deg(z_i)=(1,0) and \deg(y_j)=(0,1) Let \{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_{1}},\dots,\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_d}\} be the set of monomials in T_{(\overline{a}_1,0)}, and consider the family of maps of vector spaces

for 1 \leq i \leq l. Define the set of monomials

for 1 \leq i \leq l, b_2 \in \mathbb{N}. Notice that for i \neq j, M_{b_2}^{i} is disjoint from M_{b_2}^{j}, and that each M_{b_2}^{i} is bilex when viewed as an ideal in the ring k[z_{(i-1)d}, \dots z_{id-1},y_0,\dots,y_m]. Let M_{b_2} = \bigcup_{i=1}^{l} M_{b_2}^i. Then

1. M_{b_2} is bilex for the correct relabelling of the z_0,\dots,z_{ld-1},

2. H_{I_1}(\overline{a}_1,b_2) + \dots + H_{I_l}(\overline{a}_1,b_2) = |T'_{(1,b_2)}|-|M_{b_2}|,

3. for J=(M_{a_2}) \subseteq T', |T'_{(1,b_2)}|-|M_{b_2}| = H_J(1,b_2) for all b_2 \geq a_2.

To see (i), note that the monomials N_{b_2}^{i}=\{\boldsymbol{y^v} \in T_{(0,b_2)} \mid z_i\boldsymbol{y^v} \in M_{b_2}\} form a lexsegment for any z_i \in T'. It follows that M_{b_2} is y-lex as in Definition 2.9, but may not be x-lex. However, we can relabel the z_i so that the N_{b_2}^i are (non strictly) descending in size and thus obtain a bilex set. Part (ii) follows from the definition of M_{b_2}, and the disjointness of the M_{b_2}^i. Finally, part (iii) holds since each I_i is generated in degrees \leq (a_1,a_2). The result then follows, since J is a bilex ideal after relabelling variables.

Recall from Definition 3.4 that if b_i > p_{i} for any i > r then P_{\boldsymbol{b}}^r(t_r)=0, so we focus on the case that b_i \leq p_{i} for i > r. We pass from I to J=I^{\text{multilex}}, which is generated in degrees \leq (a_1,\dots,a_s). We begin with the case r=s. For a given monomial \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \in S_{(b_1,\dots,b_{s-2},0,0)} set M_j \subseteq S_{(0,\dots,0,b_{s-1},a_s)} to be the set of monomials such that M_j \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \subseteq J_{(b_1,\dots,b_{s-1},a_s)}, and denote by J_j \subseteq k[x_{s-1,0},\dots,x_{s-1,n_{s-1}},x_{s,0},\dots,x_{s,n_s}] the bigraded ideal generated by M_j. Since J is multilex, J_{j} is bilex, and generated in degrees \leq(b_{s-1},a_s). Further, we have

Applying Lemma 3.7, we observe that there exists m \in \mathbb{N} such that

for an ideal K \subseteq k[x_0,\dots,x_m,y_0,\dots,y_{n_s}]. For the case 2 \leq r < s the polynomial P^{r}_{\boldsymbol{b}}(t_r) is the coefficient of

in P_I(b_1,\dots,b_{r-1},t_r,\dots,t_s). Consider the set of monomials

A monomial \boldsymbol{x^u} \in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} \setminus J_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} which satisfies m^j(\boldsymbol{x^u})=n_j-b_{j} for all r < j \leq s will contribute a term to the partial Stanley decomposition whose associated Hilbert polynomial is of the form

for some G(t_1,\dots,t_r). Therefore, to find the coefficient of

in P_I(t_1,\dots,t_r) we focus on monomials whose degree (0,\dots,0,a_{r+1},\dots,a_s) part is in the set M. For a given \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i} \in M consider the set of monomials M_i \subseteq S_{(a_1,\dots,a_{r-1},a_r,0 \dots, 0)}, such that \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i}M_i \subseteq J_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)}. Since J is multilex the set M_i generates a multilex ideal

generated in degrees \leq(a_1,\dots,a_r). Varying \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i} we get a collection of these multilex ideals J_i. For a given \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i} let N_i denote the degree (a_1,\dots,a_r,0,\dots,0) monomials not in M_i. The monomials in N_i form a partial Stanley decomposition for the strongly multistable ideal J_i. Further, the monomials \bigcup_{\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i} \in M} \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i}N_i are exactly the monomials in S_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} \setminus J_{(a_1,\dots,a_s)} satisfying m^j(\boldsymbol{x^u})=n_j-b_{j} for all r < j \leq s. The pieces of the partial Stanley decomposition of I associated to the monomials in \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{u}_i}N_i contribute

to the Hilbert polynomial of I. It follows that

For a fixed J_i and fixed monomial \boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \in S_{(b_1,\dots,b_{r-2},0,\dots,0)} define the bigraded ideal

which is generated by the set of monomials M_{i,j} \subseteq S_{r_{(0,\dots,0,b_{r-1},a_r,0,\dots,0)}} such that M_{i,j}\boldsymbol{x}^{\boldsymbol{v}_j} \subseteq J_{i_{(b_1,\dots,b_{r-1},a_r)}}. The proof is now similar to the r=s case. The ideals J_{i,j} are bilex since each J_i is multilex. Further, we have

Now applying Lemma 3.7, there exists m_i \in \mathbb{N} such that

for a bilex ideal K_i \subseteq k[x_0,\dots,x_{m_i},y_0,\dots,y_{n_r}], generated in degrees \leq(1,a_r). Again applying Lemma 3.7, there exists m \in \mathbb{N} such that

for a bilex ideal K \subseteq k[x_0,\dots,x_m,y_0,\dots,y_{n_r}] generated in degrees \leq (1,a_r).

Recall that

when u \geq a_i and b_j \geq a_j for all possible j. By Remark 3.9 there exists m \in \mathbb{N} such that H_I(b_1,\dots,b_{i_1},u,b_{i+1},\dots,b_s) = P_K(1,u) for some bilex ideal K in \operatorname{Cox}(\mathbb{P}^m \times \mathbb{P}^{n_i}), generated in degrees \leq (1,a_i). The result then follows by Theorem 3.10.

Let S=k[x_0,\dots,x_n,y_0,\dots,y_m], with the grading given by \deg(x_i)=(1,0) and \deg(y_j)=(0,1). Note that n=d-s, since R_{(1,0)} has a basis given by \{z_{s+2},\dots,z_{d+2}\}. We have chosen S such that R_{(1,0)} and R_{(0,1)} are isomorphic to the vector spaces S_{(1,0)} and S_{(0,1)}. We define a map of k-algebras \psi \colon S \rightarrow \widetilde{R}. Explicitly, set \psi(x_i)=z_{s+2+i} and set \psi(y_i)=e_i, where e_0,\dots,e_m is the monomial basis of R_{(0,1)}. We now verify that the map \psi is surjective.

Consider a monomial \boldsymbol{z^u}=z_1^{r_1} \dots z_{d+2}^{r_{d+2}} \in R_{(b_1,b_2)} for some (b_1,b_2) \in \mathbb{N}^2. We have that

We can rearrange the monomial \boldsymbol{z^u} to exhibit it as the product of b_1 elements of R_{(1,0)} and b_2 elements of R_{(0,1)} as follows. Consider the multiset

In other words,

where each z_i is repeated r_i times. Equation (?) implies that \mathcal{Z} has size r_1a_1+\dots+r_sa_s+b_1. We relabel r_1a_1+\dots+r_sa_s of the elements of \mathcal{Z} to variables of the form z_{i,j,k} for 1 \leq i \leq s, 1 \leq j \leq r_i, 1 \leq k \leq a_i. For a fixed i between 1 and s we have r_ia_i elements lying in the multiset \mathcal{Z} labelled z_{i,1,1},\dots,z_{i,r_i,a_i}. Let f denote the product of the remaining b_1 elements of \mathcal{Z}, which as previously observed all lie in R_{(1,0)}. Then

Note that each

is an element of R_{(0,1)}. This rearrangement of the monomial \boldsymbol{z^u} shows that it is the product of elements in R_{(1,0)} and R_{(0,1)}, ensuring that \psi is surjective.

Given \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}, we define a map \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} \colon S_{\boldsymbol{b}} \rightarrow R_{f(\boldsymbol{b})}. Consider the morphism of k-algebras \tau induced by

where \boldsymbol{e}^i_{k} is the kth element of the monomial basis for R_{\boldsymbol{c_{i}}}. The map \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} is defined by restricting \tau to S_{\boldsymbol{b}}. Let \pi \colon R \rightarrow R/J be the usual quotient map. To prove the lemma, we need to show that \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} is surjective. We then postcompose with \pi |_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} \colon R_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} \rightarrow (R/J)_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} to obtain a surjective map to (R/J)_{f(\boldsymbol{b})}. To see that \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} is surjective for \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}, we apply Theorem 4.8 to observe that there is a surjective map

We then repeatedly apply Theorem 4.8 to obtain a surjective map

Note that there is a canonical isomorphism H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(f(\boldsymbol{b}))) \cong R_{f(\boldsymbol{b})}. Further, since h^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(\boldsymbol{c}_i))=n_i+1, we can identify each H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(\boldsymbol{c}_i)) with k[x_{i,0},\dots,x_{i,n_i}]_1. The map (Proof) to R_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} is induced by mapping x_{i,k} \mapsto \boldsymbol{e}^i_{k+1}, and then identifying tensor products of such elements with their product in R. Since this multiplication in R commutes, this map factors through the vector space obtained by replacing each H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(\boldsymbol{c}_i))^{\otimes b_i} with \text{Sym}^{b_i}(H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(\boldsymbol{c}_i))), which we can itself identify with k[x_{i,0},\dots,x_{i,n_i}]_{b_i}. It follows that the map (Proof) factors through the vector space

We now observe that the map induced from S_{\boldsymbol{b}} to R_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} is exactly the map \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} defined earlier. We therefore obtain a commutative diagram

In particular since equation (Proof) is a surjection it follows that \tau_{\boldsymbol{b}} is also a surjection. Consequently the induced map \widetilde{\tau_{\boldsymbol{b}}} \colon S_{\boldsymbol{b}} \rightarrow (R/J)_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} is also a surjection. We define an ideal I = \bigcup_{\boldsymbol{b} \in \mathbb{N}^{s+1}, b_0 \geq 1} (\text{ker}(\widetilde{\tau_{\boldsymbol{b}}})). Observe that for f \in \text{ker}(\widetilde{\tau_{\boldsymbol{b}}}), g \in S with \deg(g)=\boldsymbol{b'}, we have fg \in \text{ker}(\widetilde{\tau_{\boldsymbol{b+b'}}}). It follows that I_{\boldsymbol{b}} = \text{ker}(\widetilde{\tau_{\boldsymbol{b}}}). We conclude that we have an isomorphism of vector spaces (S/I)_{\boldsymbol{b}} \cong (R/J)_{f(\boldsymbol{b})} for all \boldsymbol{b} \in \mathcal{B}. We will denote these isomorphisms by \psi_{\boldsymbol{b}}.