Algebraic Dimension and Reduction of LVMB manifolds

Let V \in [V]_{\mathbb{R}} be a representative of the class. Denoting by \{e_j\}_{j=1}^n the canonical basis of {\mathbb{R}}^n, we observe that [V]_{\mathbb{R}} is balanced if and only if \mathbbm{1}_n \coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^n e_j \in \operatorname{Rel}(V), by definition of Gale duality, this is equivalent to \operatorname{Rel}(W) \subseteq \mathbbm{1}_n^\perp for any W \in \mathfrak{G}([V]_{\mathbb{R}}). Let this be W = (w_1,\dots, w_n). Consider the linear functional \varphi = \sum_{j=1}^n e_j^* and the linear map

Since \ker\varphi = \mathbbm{1}_n^\perp and \operatorname{Rel}(W) = \ker\pi, the inclusion \operatorname{Rel}(W) \subseteq \mathbbm{1}_n^\perp is equivalent to \varphi \circ \ker\pi = 0. As \pi = \operatorname{coker}(\ker\pi), this holds if and only if there exists a linear functional \psi :{\mathbb{R}}^{n-d} \to {\mathbb{R}} closing the diagram

Therefore we have \psi(w_j) = \varphi(e_j) = 1 for any j, and \psi(w_j - w_n) = 0 for any j. Thus, we have constructed an affine hyperplane w_n + \ker\psi containing all the vectors in W, hence proving it is graded. Conversely, supposing that W is graded, we observe that such a hyperplane determines a map \psi fitting in the diagram above, thus, reversing all the implications in the proof, we conclude that V is balanced.

Let n be the number of vectors in the original configuration (V,\mathcal{T}); consequently, n+k is the number of vectors in the augmented configuration (V',\mathcal{T}'), the first k of which are ghosts. Thus, for any \tau' \in \mathcal{T}', j \in \tau' if and only if j-k \in \tau. We can write this shift compactly as \tau' = \tau + k. With this notation, applying Gale Transform, we have

Therefore, any \tau'^* \in \mathcal{T}'^* can be written as \tau'^* = \{1,\dots,k\} \cup (\tau^* + k) for a unique \tau^* \in \mathcal{T}^*. So

Taking the union over \tau'^* \in \mathcal{T}^*, we obtain

From the definition of U(\mathcal{T}), its complementary S can be written as

with V(z_j) Zariski closed subsets in {\mathbb{C}}^n; notice that S \neq \emptyset as 0 \in V(z_j) for any j \in \{1,\dots,n\}. The proof consists in showing that S coincides with

Let \underline{z} \in A, thus there exists \sigma \notin \mathcal{T} such that z_j = 0 for all j \in \sigma. We observe that, for any \tau^* \in \mathcal{T}^*, by construction \sigma \not\supseteq \tau; thus it must intersect its complementary \tau^* in some index j \in \sigma \cap \tau^*. Hence, for any \tau^* \in \mathcal{T}^*, one has \prod_{j \in \tau^*} z_j = 0, thus \underline{z} \in S.

Conversely, let \underline{z} \in S; therefore, for any \tau^* \in \mathcal{T}^* there exists j \in \tau^* such that z_j = 0. Consider the set

and the intersections J_{\tau^*} \cap \tau^*: these are assured to be nonempty by the existence of z \in S. Notice that J \cap \tau^* \neq \emptyset if and only if J \notin \mathcal{T}; since the former condition is always satisfied and by construction z_j = 0 for all j \in J, we conclude that \underline{z} \in A. In particular, S = A implies that U(\mathcal{T}) can be written in the form

for some coordinate subspaces S_\ell. Notice that, since \emptyset \in \mathcal{T}, none of these can be the whole {\mathbb{C}}^n.

Finally, we observe that if there are no indispensable indices in \mathcal{T}^*, then \{j\} \in \mathcal{T} for any j \in \{1,\dots,n\}. Hence for any \tau \notin \mathcal{T}

and so c = \min_\ell \operatorname{codim}_{{\mathbb{C}}^n} S_\ell > 1. On the other hand, for any indispensable index i \in \mathcal{T}^* we have V(z_i) \subseteq S, since this is a coordinate hyperplane, we conclude that c = 1.

By construction \Lambda = \Lambda^{\mathbb{R}} \leftindex^{t}{\Pi} for some period matrix \Pi. Thus, any affine rational relation in \operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda^{\mathbb{R}}) \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^n induces an affine rational relation among the \Lambda_j’s; this correspondence is clearly injective. Conversely, any c \in \operatorname{Rel}_\text{aff}(\Lambda) \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^{n} satisfies c \,\Lambda^{\mathbb{R}} \leftindex^{t}{\Pi} = 0; taking complex conjugates, we obtain

hence,

Being \Pi a period matrix, [\leftindex^{t}{\Pi} | \leftindex^{t}{\overline{\Pi}}] \in \mathrm{GL}(2m,{\mathbb{C}}), whence c \, \Lambda^{\mathbb{R}} = 0.

Both J+\operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda) and {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}_{\geq 0} are closed convex subsets of {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}; moreover, by assumption, they intersect at J. Thus, taking the asymptotic cones, we have

as J+\operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda) is an affine subspace and {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}_{\geq 0} a closed convex cone.

By the geometry of the LVMB datum \Lambda, the right-hand side of equation1 is \{0\}. Indeed, by Gale duality, \operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda) is spanned by the rows of the matrix

with \left(-\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} v_j, v_1,\dots, v_{n-1}\right) forming an odd and balanced vector configuration that is Gale dual to \Lambda^{\mathbb{R}}. Thus, any w \in \operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda) is of the form w = \sum_{\ell=1}^{n-1} \langle v_\ell,v\rangle e_\ell for some v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d. If \langle v_j, v\rangle were all non-negative (or all non-positive) for j=k,\dots,n-1, the vectors v_k,\dots, v_{n-1} would lie in a closed half plane of {\mathbb{R}}^d. This never happens, since the non-ghost vectors of a triangulated vector configuration span the rays of a complete fan.

The statement then follows observing that, by intersection_compatibility,

whence (J+\operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda)) \cap ( {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}_{\geq 0}) is compact.

By [Thiella2026preprint, Prop. 1.5], the datum \Lambda of any LVMB pair (\Lambda,\mathcal{T}^*) can be written as

with \Lambda^{{\mathbb{R}}}_\text{good} a Gale dual configuration of some odd and balanced vector configuration of the form

with \ell_{ij} \in {\mathbb{R}}, and \Pi \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 2m} a suitable period matrix. Because of good_period_relation, such a \Pi is of the form

for some P \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times (k-1)}. Since the columns of \Pi are {\mathbb{R}}-linearly independent, the column rank satisfies \operatorname{rk}_{\mathbb{R}}^\text{col} P = k-1; this also fulfils \operatorname{rk}_{\mathbb{R}}^\text{col} P \leq 2 \operatorname{rk}_{\mathbb{C}}^\text{col} P as \operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(P^1,\dots,P^{k-1}) \subseteq \operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(P^1,\dots,P^{k-1})_{\mathbb{R}}. Therefore,

On the other hand, we immediately have \operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^\text{col} P \leq \min(k-1,m). Since W is spanned by the rows of P, the first part of the statement then follows by observing that \dim_{\mathbb{C}} W = \operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^\text{row} P = \operatorname{rk}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^\text{col} P.

For the second part, we consider the vector subspace

Since P has complex rank r \coloneqq \dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}W, we have \dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} S = k-1-r; moreover, as W is spanned by the rows of P, one has W = \overline{S}^\perp with respect to the standard Hermitian product of {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}. On the other hand, the columns of P are {\mathbb{R}}-linearly independent, so S \cap {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1} = \{0\}. Therefore, one has S \cap \overline{S} = \{0\}, and so \dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} (\overline{S} \oplus S) = 2(k-1-r). Finally, we observe that (W \cap {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}) \otimes {\mathbb{C}} = W \cap \overline{W}; as this satisfies

then,

The proof consists of several steps: Step 1 By construction, N is the quotient of \mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T})) by the {\mathbb{C}}^m-action \alpha defined in equation:LVMBaction. If \pi : \mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T})) \to N is the holomorphic projection on the orbit space, we can observe that the inverse image sheaf \pi^{-1}\mathcal{M}_N is the subsheaf of \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T}))} consisting of local sections that are \alpha-invariant meromorphic functions on \mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T})); we denote it by \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T}))}^\alpha. Moreover, since \pi is a surjective holomorphic submersion with connected fibers, we have \mathcal{M}_N \cong \pi_*\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T}))}^\alpha. In particular, for global sections, this isomorphism reads as

and therefore the algebraic dimension of N coincides with the transcendence degree of the second extension.

Since we are assuming k \geq 1, we have \mathbb{P}(U(\mathcal{T})) = \mathbb{P}(({\mathbb{C}}^*)^k \times \tilde U). This is isomorphic to ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times \tilde U, so we may restrict the action to this subset and seek invariant meromorphic functions thereon; this is achieved by choosing a representative in [\Lambda]_{\mathbb{C}} with \Lambda_1 = 0 and projectivizing away the first coordinate of ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k}. We can observe that \tilde U = {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k} \setminus E and, by minimal_codimension_no_ghosts, E is the union of Zariski closed subsets of codimension > 1 in {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k}. By the E. E. Levi extension theorem (see e.g. [HarveyPolking1975, Thm 1.1] and the remark below), any meromorphic function on ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times \tilde U extends uniquely to ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k}. Thus, the problem reduces to the computation of

Step 2 Since ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k} is a domain of holomorphy, any \alpha-invariant meromorphic function h on ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k} can be written as the quotient of two entire functions h = \frac{f}{g}. On ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k} we introduce the coordinates (z,w) with z \in ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} and w \in {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k}. We consider the universal covering {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1} \to ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1} given on each factor as \zeta_j \mapsto e^{2\pi i \zeta_j}. Thus, the meromorphic lift \tilde h of h can be written as the quotient of two entire functions \tilde h = \frac{\tilde f}{\tilde g}. Since \operatorname{Pic}({\mathbb{C}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k})=\{0\}, \tilde f and \tilde g can be chosen without common zero loci. Similarly, we consider the lift of the action \alpha to the universal covering, this is an action which on each coordinate writes as

where \Lambda = (L,M) is a partitioning of the points in \Lambda collecting the indispensable points in L = (\Lambda_2,\dots, \Lambda_{k}) and the remaining ones in M = (\Lambda_{k+1},\dots, \Lambda_{n}). Notice that, having contracted the first coordinate of ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^k, the first indispensable point in L is \Lambda_2. Since \tilde h lifts h and the latter is \alpha-invariant, \tilde h is invariant under the lifted action \tilde \alpha and also under the action of the deck transformation group \Gamma = {\mathbb{Z}}^{k-1}. These actions clearly commute. Therefore, for any t \in {\mathbb{C}}^m,

and thus, again using the fact that \operatorname{Pic}({\mathbb{C}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-k})=\{0\}, there exists a holomorphic function \psi_t(\zeta,w) such that

Similarly, the invariance of \tilde h under the covering action of \Gamma forces \tilde f and \tilde g to transform as

for some holomorphic function \varphi_\gamma(\zeta) depending on \gamma \in \Gamma. Step 3 Upon multiplying both \tilde f and \tilde g by the same unit u \in \mathcal{O}^*({\mathbb{C}}^{n-1}), we claim that \psi_t(\zeta,w) = \psi_t. Such a u can be found by solving a linear PDE involving the fundamental vector fields of the action \tilde \alpha. Indeed, with respect to the coordinates (\zeta,w), these are the holomorphic vector fields

Thus, any \tilde\alpha-invariant meromorphic function \tilde h = \frac{\tilde f}{\tilde g} fulfills \xi_j(\tilde h) = 0 for all j = 1,\dots, m, and so \xi_j(\tilde f) \tilde g = \tilde f \xi_j(\tilde g). Since \tilde f and \tilde g have been chosen without common zero loci, this condition forces \tilde f | \xi_j(\tilde f), hence there exists q_j(\zeta,w) \in \mathcal{O}({\mathbb{C}}^{n-1}) such that \xi_j(\tilde f) = \tilde f q_j(\zeta,w). Similarly, we also have \xi_j(\tilde g) = \tilde g q_j(\zeta,w). As the acting group is abelian, [\xi_i,\xi_j]=0 for all i and j; thus

As we did before, the point configuration \Lambda can be thought as the block matrix

and, by dim_W, the vector space W = \operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(L^1,\dots, L^{m}) has dimension \dim_{\mathbb{C}} W \eqqcolon r \leq \min(m,k-1). Since the L^j’s might not be linearly independent, we reparametrize {\mathbb{C}}^m so that \{L'^1,\dots,L'^r\} forms a basis of W and L'^{r+1},\dots, L'^{m} = 0. We denote by M'^j the other vectors after the change of basis. Moreover, by performing a linear change of coordinates on {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}, we can find new coordinates \zeta'_j such that \sum_{\ell=1}^r L'^j_\ell \frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_\ell} = \frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_j'} for 1\leq j \leq r and \frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta_j} = \frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta_j'} for r < j \leq k-1. With respect to these changes of coordinates, the fundamental vector fields are of the form

The unit u(\zeta',w) = e^{v(\zeta',w)} we need is a solution of the following PDE

for some constants c_j \in {\mathbb{C}}. Equivalently, we can solve

Being holomorphic, q_j(\zeta',w) and v(\zeta',w) can be expanded in power series as

Observe that for any multi-index I, one has w_j \frac{\partial}{\partial w_j} (w^I) = I_j w^I, thus the PDE

reduces to the following equations by comparing the corresponding terms in the power series expansions. Namely, these are

while for j > r one gets the algebraic equations

In both groups we have collected the term \varepsilon_{I,j} \coloneqq \sum_{i=1}^{n-k}{M'}_i^j I_i.

We first take into account the equations (\ddag). We notice that p_{j,0}(\zeta') = c_j is a twofold constraint. Of course, it determines the values for c_j when j > r, but also forces p_{j0}(\zeta') to be constant for j > r. However, this is precisely what occurs here, due to the rigidity of the condition \xi_j'(\tilde f) = \tilde f q_j. Indeed, since for j > r the vector field \xi_j' acts as a scaling with respect to the coordinates we have chosen, this condition reads as

where b is the lowest total degree such that f_I(\zeta') \not\equiv 0 for some |I| = b. Comparing all the terms of total degree b, we have then

If I^* is any multi-index of total degree b such that f_{I^*}(\zeta') \not\equiv 0, the equation above then forces p_{j,0}(\zeta') = \varepsilon_{I^*,j} which proves the constancy of p_{j,0} for j>r. In turn, this implies that \varepsilon_{I,j} = \varepsilon_{I^*,j} for any I such that f_I(\zeta') \not\equiv 0. Even though for j \leq r we could perform any choice for c_j, for simplicity we henceforth fix c_j = p_{j,0}(0) for any j. Moreover, if \varepsilon_{I;j} = 0 for some I \neq 0, the condition p_{j;I}(\zeta') = 0, which must necessarily hold, is already a consequence of equation:log_unit_equation.

The equations appearing in (\dag) are genuinely PDEs, to solve them we introduce the conformal substitutions.

Thus, for j \leq r, the PDEs read as

indeed, p'_{j,0}(\zeta') = p_{j,0}(\zeta') since \varepsilon_{0,j} = 0 for every j =1,\dots,m. We define the family of holomorphic 1-forms in the variables \zeta'_1,\dots,\zeta'_r

whose coefficients are holomorphic functions in the whole set of coordinates \zeta'_1, \dots, \zeta'_{k-1}. The condition \xi_j(q_i) = \xi_i(q_j) implies that, in the new coordinates, \frac{\partial p'_{jI}}{\partial \zeta_i'} = \frac{\partial p'_{iI}}{\partial \zeta_j'} for every 1 \leq i,j \leq k-1 and every multi-index I. If d_{\leq r} denotes the differential with respect to the first r variables, we can observe that the last condition is equivalent to d_{\leq r}\omega_I = 0 for every I. Therefore, the Poincaré Lemma with parameters (see e.g. [BerhanuCordaroHounie2008, § VII.3]) guarantees the existence of a function

which fulfills d_{\leq r} \mu_I' = \omega_I and which is holomorphic in the last k-1-r coordinates. In fact, as \omega is of type (1,0), {\bar\partial}_{\leq r} \mu_I=0. After reverting the conformal substitution, we find solutions \nu_I(\zeta') uniquely determined up to the addition of a holomorphic function \eta'_I.

Whenever the ratio \frac{p_{jI}}{\varepsilon_{I,j}} can be defined, it is independent of j by the compatibility condition \xi_j'(q_i) = \xi_i'(q_j). These ratios determine the corresponding \eta_I’s: imposing \nu_I to be a solution of (\ddag) indeed forces

Finally, we show that the determination of \eta' provided by (\ddag) does not affect the PDE in (\dag). This is trivial if \varepsilon_{I,j} = 0, otherwise this is another consequence of the identity \xi_j'(q_i) = \xi_i'(q_j). Indeed, for i \leq r < j

Therefore, the unit u \in \mathcal{O}^*({\mathbb{C}}^{n-1}) solving equation:unit_equation can be obtained by integrating equation:log_unit_equation along the flow of the \xi_j’s. In particular, \psi_t(\zeta,w) can be reduced to the pure character

Step 4 LVMB_invariance,deck_invariance impose some constraints on the power series expansion of \tilde f and \tilde g. In general, these have the following form:

Comparing the J’th terms, deck_invariance implies

for every J. Furthermore, LVMB_invariance forces the power series expansion of \tilde f to fulfill

where we have adopted the notations \langle J;M,t\rangle \coloneqq \sum_{\ell =1}^{n-k} J_\ell \langle M_\ell, t \rangle and L t \coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^m L^j t_j. Therefore, condition_on_power_series holds if and only if, for any J,

Without loss of generality, we may assume \tilde f does not to vanish identically; in this case we choose a reference multi-index J_0 such that c_{J_0}(\zeta) is not identically zero. Therefore, we can rewrite \tilde h as

where, r_J(\zeta) = \frac{c_J(\zeta)}{c_{J_0}(\zeta)} and s_J(\zeta) = \frac{d_J(\zeta)}{c_{J_0}(\zeta)}. These functions have the advantage of being \Gamma-invariant, indeed

This means that r_J and s_J descend to meromorphic functions on ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1}. Since this is a domain of holomorphy, these are ratios of entire functions; moreover, as the domain is a multi-annulus, they can be written as ratios of convergent Laurent series. With respect to the coordinates \zeta_j, their expansions are

We now examine how these expressions transform under the action of \tilde \alpha restricted to the first k-1 coordinates, we can observe that r_J’s (and similarly s_J’s) fulfill the equation

Therefore, for any J, one has

which can be written in a single line as

for all t \in {\mathbb{C}}^m. This holds if and only if, for any \hat I \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{k-1},

Since exponentials with different frequencies are linearly independent, the non-vanishing terms are precisely those satisfying

for some \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}^m depending on J_0 and M. From this, we deduce that r_J(\zeta) does not vanish identically only if there exists I_J such that the pair (I_J,J) \in (0,J_0) + I(\Lambda); for any such r_J(\zeta), we consider the rescaling

which is \tilde \alpha-invariant and meromorphic. Proceeding similarly for the functions s_J, we can write

where \hat r_J(\zeta) are invariant under the action of the product \Gamma \times {\mathbb{C}}^m, and e^{2\pi i \langle I_J,\zeta\rangle} w^J = z^{I_J} w^J are resonant Laurent monomials.

Step 5 For any \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}^m, the set of solutions of fundamental_equation is

By the geometry of the LVMB datum, this is finite. Indeed, S_\lambda is a discrete subset of (J_0 + \operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda)) \cap ({\mathbb{R}}^{k-1} \times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-k}_{\geq 0}), which is compact by compact_intersection. This also implies that for any J there exist only finitely many multi-indexes I_J such that (I_J,J) \in S_\lambda. Step 6 For any K \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1} we associate the Laurent monomial

this defines a map \operatorname{\mathcal{L}} : {\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1} \to {\mathbb{C}}[{\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1}], that is the canonical injection of {\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1} into its group {\mathbb{C}}-algebra [Lang2002, II.§ 3]. In particular, for any linearly independent set \{K^1,\dots,K^{s}\} \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1}, its image \{\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(K^1),\dots, \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(K^s)\} is algebraically independent in {\mathbb{C}}(\{z_i, w_j\}_{i,j}).

This fact gives us a natural basis with respect to which writing the resonant Laurent monomials in intermediate_expression: indeed, since any K \in S_\lambda can be uniquely written as K = (0,J_0) + \kappa_K with \kappa_K \in I(\Lambda), this determines the Laurent monomial

which is the product of the first integral Laurent monomial \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\kappa_K) (cf. [GrašičJarrahRomanovski2025]) with a fixed monomial \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(J_0) in the coordinates w_j. Moreover, if (\kappa^1,\dots, \kappa^a) is a {\mathbb{Z}}-basis of I(\Lambda), any \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(K) is of the form

for some \mu_j \in {\mathbb{Z}}. Therefore, \tilde f and \tilde g can be expressed as the finite sums

and each \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(K) is a finite product of the first integral Laurent monomials \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\kappa^j) times a fixed \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(J_0). Therefore, we have written \tilde h as the rational expression

with coefficients in the field of \alpha-invariant meromorphic functions on ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^{k-1}.

Step 7 As observed in Step 2, the coefficients of the last rational expression lift to meromorphic functions on {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}; their lift is invariant under the restriction of \tilde\alpha to {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}, as well as under the deck action of \Gamma. As we observed in Step 2 these actions commute. With respect to the coordinates of the covering \zeta_j’s, the product of these actions coincides with the translation along the subgroup

By dim_W, \dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}W \leq \min(m,k-1). Note that the subgroup W + \Gamma \subset {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1} is not closed in general; consequently the orbits of the combined action of \tilde\alpha and the deck transformations \Gamma may fail to be separated. Let \mathcal{M}^{W + \Gamma} be the set of meromorphic functions of {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1} invariant under the translation by W + \Gamma. We consider the following complex vector subspace

consisting of all vectors along which the directional derivative of all meromorphic functions in \mathcal{M}^{W + \Gamma} vanishes. We claim that K is the connected component containing the identity of \overline{K+\Gamma}. Indeed, by definition of K, any f \in \mathcal{M}^{W+\Gamma} is invariant under translation by K + \Gamma; being meromorphic, f is invariant under translation by the whole \overline{K + \Gamma}. Thus, when we take directional derivatives, we find df(v) \equiv 0 for any v in the connected component of \overline{K + \Gamma} containing the identity. Since K contains all the subspaces with this property, K = (\overline{K + \Gamma})^0. Therefore, by the classification theorem of closed subgroups of {\mathbb{R}}^{2k-2} [Bourbaki1989GenTopChapters5-10, VII.§ 1.2], there exists a finitely generated subgroup \Gamma_0 such that \overline{K + \Gamma} = K \oplus \Gamma_0. Since K \oplus \Gamma_0 \supseteq W + \Gamma, we have K \oplus (\Gamma_0 \otimes {\mathbb{R}}) \supseteq W + (\Gamma \otimes {\mathbb{R}}); therefore, by dim_W,

and so K \oplus (\Gamma_0 \otimes {\mathbb{R}}) = {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}. In particular, \Gamma_0 projects onto a lattice in {\mathbb{C}}^{k-1}/K, hence

is a complex torus such that \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^q}(\mathbb{T}^q) \cong \mathcal{M}^{W + \Gamma}. One can verify that

Step 8 Since the first integral Laurent monomials are the images of I(\Lambda) under \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}, by final_rational_expression and the previous step,

By compact_intersection, any relation in \operatorname{Rel}(\Lambda) involves at least one non-indispensable index; hence any non-constant first integral Laurent monomial \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\kappa) depends explicitly on some of the coordinates w_j’s. On the other hand, the meromorphic functions of \mathbb{T}^q depend only on the coordinates \zeta_i’s, whose exponential is the set of coordinates z_i’s. Therefore, all non-constant monomials in \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(I(\Lambda)) are algebraically independent of the functions in \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^q}(\mathbb{T}^q). Thus,

In particular, for k \leq 2, \dim_{\mathrm{alg}}\!\left(N\right) \leq a(\Lambda). Since by Meersseman_lower_bound (i.e. [Meersseman2000, Thm. 4]) \dim_{\mathrm{alg}}\!\left(N\right) \geq a(\Lambda), with the equality when k=0, we obtain \dim_{\mathrm{alg}}\!\left(N\right) = a(\Lambda) for any LVMB manifold N with k \leq 2.

In the last step of the proof of algebraic_dimension_formula, we showed that, if k\geq 1,

with \operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(I(\Lambda)) = \{\operatorname{\mathcal{L}}(\kappa) : \kappa \in I(\Lambda)\} denoting the set of Laurent monomial arising from the first integrals of the LVMB configuration presented in Step 6. Moreover, the proof of [Meersseman2000, Thm. 4] shows that the same isomorphism holds also when k=0; in this case q = 0 automatically. Since the field extension \mathcal{M}_{N}(N)/\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^{q}}(\mathbb{T}^{q}) is totally transcendental, \mathcal{M}_{N}(N)/{\mathbb{C}} is generated by the set

where \{g_1,\dots,g_\ell\} is a set of generators for \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^{q}}(\mathbb{T}^{q})/{\mathbb{C}} and \{\kappa_1,\dots, \kappa_{a(\Lambda)}\} is a basis for I(\Lambda). We now consider Ueno’s map

which is dominant onto the second component \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^{a(\Lambda)}, since \mathcal{M}_{N}(N)/\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^{q}}(\mathbb{T}^{q}) is totally transcendental. On the other hand, since \{g_1,\dots,g_\ell\} generate \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{T}^{q}}(\mathbb{T}^{q})/{\mathbb{C}}, the projection \operatorname{pr}_1 \circ \Phi_N^0 is dominant onto a possibly singular subvariety of \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^\ell which, by construction, is birationally equivalent to an abelian variety \mathbb{T}^{r} of dimension r \leq q \leq \left\lfloor \frac{k-1}{2} \right\rfloor; namely the algebraic reduction of the torus \mathbb{T}^{q}. After finitely many blowups that resolve the indeterminacy, we therefore obtain the algebraic reduction \Phi_N : \widetilde{N} \to \mathbb{T}^{r} \times \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^{a(\Lambda)}.

Let \{e_j\}_j and \{e_j'\}_j be the canonical bases of {\mathbb{R}}^n and {\mathbb{R}}^{n'} respectively. Let \pi : {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^d be the map sending e_j \mapsto v_j, and \pi' : {\mathbb{R}}^{n'} \to {\mathbb{R}}^d defined by e'_j \to w_j. Then, by definition \operatorname{Rel}(V) = \ker \pi \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n} and \operatorname{Rel}(V') = \ker\pi' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n'}. We now show that, in our setting, the isomorphism provided by Schanuel’s Lemma [Faith1973, Lemma 11.28] is rational. Consider the following commutative diagram with exact rows

There, F,G are constructed as follows: since \pi({\mathbb{Z}}^n) = Q = \pi'({\mathbb{Z}}^{n'}), for any e_j' \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n'} there exists h_j = \sum_{i=1}^n h_j^i e_i\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n such that \pi'(e_j') = \pi(h_j). The assignment e_j' \mapsto h_j defines a linear map f : {\mathbb{R}}^{n'} \to {\mathbb{R}}^n which is rational since h_j^i \in {\mathbb{Z}} and satisfies \pi' = \pi \circ f. This map induces F as the rational linear isomorphism represented by the matrix

moreover, it makes the diagram commute. Defining G symmetrically, we obtain a rational isomorphism \Phi = G \circ F^{-1} that restricts to a rational isomorphism

by the universal property of kernels.

Therefore, if W is the rational core of \operatorname{Rel}(V), by maximality, \widetilde W \coloneqq W \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{n'} is the rational core of \operatorname{Rel}(V) \oplus {\mathbb{R}}^{n'}. Since \varphi is rational, its image \varphi(\widetilde W) is the rational core of {\mathbb{R}}^{n} \oplus \operatorname{Rel}(V'). This splits as \varphi(\widetilde W) = {\mathbb{R}}^n \oplus W', with W' the rational core of \operatorname{Rel}(V'). A fortiori, this implies

By an entirely analogous argument applied to the rational envelopes of \operatorname{Rel}(V) and \operatorname{Rel}(V') respectively, we also deduce n - b(V) = n' - b(V').

For the first part we take S = {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus\{0\} as the maximal multiplicative system in {\mathbb{Z}}, so that

where the isomorphism is canonically induced by the bilinear map (x,\frac{p}{q}) \mapsto \frac{px}{q} via the universal property of the tensor product. Since Q is a torsion-free, finitely generated module over a PID

For the second part, we consider a new vector configuration V' = (w_1,\dots,w_{n'}) which we assume to be adapted to the splitting Q = L \oplus Q_\text{d}, i.e. such that \{w_1,\dots,w_r\} generates L, and \{w_{r+1},\dots,w_{n'}\} generates Q_\text{d}. We consider the linear map

and the subgroups

With respect to the splitting D_1 \oplus D_2 = {\mathbb{Z}}^{n'}, \pi decomposes as \pi_1 \oplus \pi_2 according to the following diagram

where the vertical arrows are respectively the canonical coprojections and the canonical maps induced by them on kernels. Since L is a lattice in a complement of Q_\text{d} \otimes {\mathbb{R}} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^d, we have \ker(\pi_1\otimes{\mathbb{R}}) = K_1 \otimes {\mathbb{R}}. Moreover, with respect to the identifications above,

Let T = (K_1 \oplus D_2)\otimes {\mathbb{R}} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n'}; this is a rational space containing \operatorname{Rel}(V'). Indeed, K_1 \otimes {\mathbb{R}} = \ker(\pi_1\otimes{\mathbb{R}}), D_2 \otimes {\mathbb{R}} \supseteq\ker(\pi_2\otimes{\mathbb{R}}) and

We claim that T is the rational envelope of \operatorname{Rel}(V'). To verify this, consider any rational subspace T' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n'} containing \operatorname{Rel}(V'); by many_inclusions it also contains K_1 \oplus K_2. Such a T' must contain D_2 \otimes {\mathbb{R}} as well. Were this not the case, we could find a non-trivial linear functional f : D_2\otimes {\mathbb{R}} \to {\mathbb{R}} taking rational values on D_2 and satisfying T' \cap D_2 \subseteq \ker f; up to rescaling it, we may also assume f(D_2) \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}. Because of the inclusions

f factors as

and by construction \frac{D_2\otimes {\mathbb{R}}}{\ker(\pi_2\otimes{\mathbb{R}})} \cong Q_\text{d}\otimes {\mathbb{R}}: this isomorphism identifies Q_\text{d} with a dense subgroup of the quotient. Evaluating \bar f on Q_\text{d}, we have \bar f(Q_\text{d}) = (\bar f \circ p)(D_2) = f(D_2) \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}. On the other hand, since \bar f is continuous, \bar f(Q_\text{d}) is dense in f(D_2 \otimes {\mathbb{R}}): this forces f(D_2) = \{0\}, a contradiction. Therefore, T' \supseteq T, whence T is the rational envelope of \operatorname{Rel}(V'). Thus, \dim_{{\mathbb{R}}} T = b(V') and \operatorname{rk}L = n' - b(V') = n - b(V), with the second equality following from rationality_measure_is_intrinsic.