On the generators of the polynomial algebra as a module over the Steenrod algebra

Dang Vo Phuc and Nguyen Sum

arXiv: 1607.01095v1 · PDF · 5 July 2016
Categories: math.AT
Journal: Comptes Rendus Mathematique, Volume 353, Issue 11, November 2015, Pages 1035-1040
DOI: 10.1016/j.crma.2015.09.002
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Let P_k:= \mathbb F_2[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_k] be the polynomial algebra over the prime field of two elements, \mathbb F_2, in k variables x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k, each of degree 1. We are interested in the Peterson hit problem of finding a minimal set of generators for P_k as a module over the mod-2 Steenrod algebra, \mathcal{A}. In this paper, we study the hit problem in degree (k-1)(2^d-1) with d a positive integer. Our result implies the one of Mothebe [4,5].

Items 26

Notation

Notation 2.1

3WGM

We denote \mathbb N_k = \{1,2, \ldots , k\} and

\begin{aligned} X_{\mathbb J} = X_{\{j_1,j_2,\ldots , j_s\}} = \prod_{j\in \mathbb N_k\setminus \mathbb J}x_j , \ \ \mathbb J = \{j_1,j_2,\ldots , j_s\}\subset \mathbb N_k, \end{aligned}

In particular, X_{\mathbb N_k} =1,\ X_\emptyset = x_1x_2\ldots x_k, X_j = x_1\ldots \hat x_j \ldots x_k, \ 1 \leqslant j \leqslant k, and X:=X_k \in P_{k-1}.

Let \alpha_i(a) denote the i-th coefficient in dyadic expansion of a non-negative integer a. That means a= \alpha_0(a)2^0+\alpha_1(a)2^1+\alpha_2(a)2^2+ \ldots , for \alpha_i(a) =0 or 1 with i\geqslant 0. Set \alpha(a) = \sum_{i\geqslant 0}\alpha_i(a).

Let x=x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\ldots x_k^{a_k} \in P_k. Denote \nu_j(x) = a_j, 1 \leqslant j \leqslant k. Set \mathbb J_t(x) = \{j \in \mathbb N_k :\alpha_t(\nu_j(x)) =0\}, for t\geqslant 0. Then, we have x = \prod_{t\geqslant 0}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}.

Definition

Definition 2.2

W90I

For a monomial x in P_k, define two sequences associated with x by

\begin{aligned} \omega(x)=(\omega_1(x),\omega_2(x),\ldots , \omega_i(x), \ldots),\ \ \sigma(x) = (\nu_1(x),\nu_2(x),\ldots ,\nu_k(x)), \end{aligned}

where \omega_i(x) = \sum_{1\leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_{i-1}(\nu_j(x))= \deg X_{\mathbb J_{i-1}(x)},\ i \geqslant 1. The sequence \omega(x) is called the weight vector of x.

Let \omega=(\omega_1,\omega_2,\ldots , \omega_i, \ldots) be a sequence of non-negative integers. The sequence \omega is called the weight vector if \omega_i = 0 for i \gg 0.

Definition

Definition 2.3

K339

Let \omega be a weight vector and f, g two polynomials of the same degree in P_k.

i) f \equiv g if and only if f - g \in \mathcal A^+P_k. If f \equiv 0 then f is called hit.

ii) f \equiv_{\omega} g if and only if f - g \in \mathcal A^+P_k+P_k^-(\omega).

Definition

Definition 2.4

ND7B

Let x, y be monomials of the same degree in P_k. We say that x <y if and only if one of the following holds:

i) \omega (x) < \omega(y);

ii) \omega (x) = \omega(y) and \sigma(x) < \sigma(y).

Definition

Definition 2.5

QU1J

A monomial x is said to be inadmissible if there exist monomials y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_m such that y_t<x for t=1,2,\ldots , m and x - \sum_{t=1}^my_t \in \mathcal A^+P_k.

A monomial x is said to be admissible if it is not inadmissible.

Definition

Definition 2.6

IXWH

A monomial z in P_k is called a spike if \nu_j(z)=2^{d_j}-1 for d_j a non-negative integer and j=1,2, \ldots , k. If z is a spike with d_1>d_2>\ldots >d_{r-1}\geqslant d_r>0 and d_j=0 for j>r, then it is called the minimal spike.

Lemma

Lemma 2.7

057Z

i) All the spikes in P_k are admissible and their weight vectors are weakly decreasing.

ii) If a weight vector \omega is weakly decreasing and \omega_1 \leqslant k, then there is a spike z in P_k such that \omega (z) = \omega.

Used by Proof, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 2.8 (See Singer )

4VL8

Suppose x \in P_k is a monomial of degree n, where \alpha(n + k) \leqslant k. Let z be the minimal spike of degree n. If \omega(x) < \omega(z), then x is hit.

Theorem

Theorem 2.9 (See)

YFYP

Let n =\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(2^{d_i}-1) with d_i positive integers such that d_1 > d_2 > \ldots >d_{k-2} \geqslant d_{k-1}, and let m = \sum_{i=1}^{ k-2}(2^{d_i-d_{k-1}}-1). If d_{k-1} \geqslant k-1 \geqslant 3, then

\dim (QP_k)_n = (2^k-1)\dim (QP_{k-1})_m.

Definition

Definition 3.1

FN9W

Let (i;I) \in \mathcal N_k, let r = \ell(I) be the length of I, and let u be an integer with 1 \leqslant u \leqslant r. A monomial x \in P_{k-1} is said to be u-compatible with (i;I) if all of the following hold:

i) \nu_{i_1-1}(x)= \nu_{i_2-1}(x)= \ldots = \nu_{i_{(u-1)}-1}(x)=2^{r} - 1,

ii) \nu_{i_u-1}(x) > 2^{r} - 1,

iii) \alpha_{r-t}(\nu_{i_u-1}(x)) = 1,\ \forall t,\ 1 \leqslant t \leqslant u,

iv) \alpha_{r-t}(\nu_{i_t-1} (x)) = 1,\ \forall t,\ u < t \leqslant r.

Definition

Definition 3.2

ZL04

Let (i;I) \in \mathcal N_k, x_{(I,u)} = x_{i_u}^{2^{r-1}+\ldots + 2^{r-u}}\prod_{u< t \leqslant r}x_{i_t}^{2^{r-t}} for r = \ell(I)>0, x_{(\emptyset,1)} = 1. For a monomial x in P_{k-1}, we define the monomial \phi_{(i;I)}(x) in P_k by setting

\phi_{(i;I)}(x) = \begin{cases} (x_i^{2^r-1}f_i(x))/x_{(I,u)}, &\text{if there exists $u$ such that}\\ &\text{$x$ is $u$-compatible with $(i, I)$,}\\ 0, &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases}

Then we have an \mathbb F_2-linear map \phi_{(i;I)}:P_{k-1}\to P_k. In particular, \phi_{(i;\emptyset)} = f_i.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 3.3 (See)

JVHQ

Let b be a positive integer and let j_0, j_1, \ldots , j_{b-1} \in \mathbb N_k. We set i = \min\{j_0,\ldots , j_{b-1}\}, I = (i_1, \ldots, i_r) with \{i_1, \ldots, i_r\} = \{j_0,\ldots , j_{b-1}\}\setminus \{i\}. Then, we have

\prod_{0 \leqslant t <b}X_{j_t}^{2^t} \equiv_{\omega_{(k,b)}} \phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^b-1}).

Used by Proof

Definition

Definition 3.4

J9H7

For any (i;I) \in \mathcal N_k, we define the homomorphism p_{(i;I)}: P_k \to P_{k-1} of algebras by substituting

p_{(i;I)}(x_j) =\begin{cases} x_j, &\text{ if } 1 \leqslant j < i,\\ \sum_{s\in I}x_{s-1}, &\text{ if } j = i,\\ x_{j-1},&\text{ if } i< j \leqslant k. \end{cases}

Then, p_{(i;I)} is a homomorphism of \mathcal A-modules. In particular, for I =\emptyset, p_{(i;\emptyset)}(x_i)= 0 and p_{(i;I)}(f_i(y)) = y for any y \in P_{k-1}.

Lemma

Lemma 3.5

LPE5

If x is a monomial in P_k, then p_{(i;I)}(x) \in P_{k-1}(\omega(x)).

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.5

Set y = p_{(i;I)}\left(x/x_i^{\nu_i(x)}\right). Then, y is a monomial in P_{k-1}. If \nu_i(x) = 0, then y = p_{(i;I)}(x) and \omega(y) = \omega(x). Suppose \nu_i(x) >0 and \nu_i(x) = 2^{t_1} + \ldots + 2^{t_c}, where 0 \leqslant t_1 < \ldots < t_c,\ c\geqslant 1.

If I = \emptyset, then p_{(i;I)}(x) = 0. If I \ne \emptyset, then p_{(i;I)}(x) is a sum of monomials of the form \bar y := \big(\prod_{u=1}^cx_{s_u-1}^{2^{t_u}}\big)y, where s_u \in I, 1 \leqslant u \leqslant c. If \alpha_{t_u}(\nu_{s_u-1}(y)) =0 for all u, then \omega(\bar y) = \omega(x). Suppose there is an index u such that \alpha_{t_u}(\nu_{s_u-1}(y)) =1. Let u_0 be the smallest index such that \alpha_{t_{u_0}}(\nu_{s_{u_0}-1}(y)) =1. Then, we have

\omega_i(\bar y) = \begin{cases}\omega _i(x), &\text{if } i \leqslant t_{u_0},\\ \omega _i(x)-2, &\text{if } i = t_{u_0}+1.\end{cases}

Hence, \omega (\bar y) < \omega(x) and \bar y \in P_{k-1}(\omega(x)). The lemma is proved.

Lemma

Lemma 3.6 (See)

3MAQ

Let b be a positive integer and let (j;J), (i;I) \in \mathcal N_k with \ell(I) < b.

i) If (i;I)\subset (j;J), then p_{(j;J)}\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^b-1}) = X^{2^b-1}\ \ \text{\rm mod}(P_{k-1}^-(\omega_{(k,b)})).

ii) If (i;I)\not\subset (j;J), then p_{(j;J)}\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^b-1}) \in P_{k-1}^-(\omega_{(k,b)}).

Used by Proof, Proof

Proposition

Proposition 3.7

XLGK

Let d be a positive integer and let p=\min\{k,d\}. Then, the set

B(d) :=\big\{\big[\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^d-1})\big]_{\omega_{(k,d)}} : (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,p}\big\}

is a basis of the \mathbb F_2-vector space QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}). Consequently \dim QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}) = \sum_{t=1}^p\binom kt.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 3.7

Let x be a monomial in P_k(\omega_{(k,d)}) and [x]_{\omega_{(k,d)}} \ne 0. Then, we have \omega(x) = \omega_{(k,d)}. So, there exist j_0,j_1,\ldots, j_{d-1} \in \mathbb N_k such that x = \prod_{0 \leqslant t < d}X_{j_t}^{2^t}. According to Lemma 3.3, there is (i;I) \in \mathcal N_k such that x = \prod_{0 \leqslant t < d}X_{j_t}^{2^t}\equiv_{\omega_{(k,d)}} \phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^d-1}), where r = \ell(I) < p = \min\{k,d\}. Hence, QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}) is spanned by the set B(d).

Now, we prove that the set B(d) is linearly independent in QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}). Suppose that there is a linear relation

\sum_{(i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,p}}\gamma_{(i;I)} \phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^d-1}) \equiv_{\omega_{(k,d)}} 0,

where \gamma_{(i;I)} \in \mathbb F_2. By induction on \ell(I), using Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 3.6 with b=d, we can easily show that \gamma_{(i;I)} =0 for all (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,p}. The proposition is proved.

Uses Lemma 3.3, Lemma 3.5, Lemma 3.6

Lemma

Lemma 3.8

84SR

C_k is the set of the admissible monomials in P_{k-1} such that their weight vectors are \bar\omega_{(k,1)}=(k-3,1). Consequently, \dim QP_{k-1}(\bar\omega_{(k,1)}) = (k-3)\binom{k}2.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.8

Let z be a monomial in P_{k-1} such that \omega(z) = (k-3,1). Then, z = x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j^2 with 1\leqslant j_1 < j_2 < \ldots < j_{k-3}<k and 1 \leqslant j <k. If z \not\in C_k, then j < j_1. Then, we have

z = \sum_{s=1}^{k-3}x_{j_s}^2x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots \hat x_{j_s}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j +Sq^1(x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j).

Since x_{j_s}^2x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots \hat x_{j_s}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j <z for 1 \leqslant s \leqslant k-3, z is inadmissible.

Suppose that z \in C_k. If there is an index s such that j = j_s, then z is a spike. Hence, by Lemma 2.7, it is admissible. Assume that j \ne j_s for all s. If z is inadmissible, then there exist monomials y_1,\ldots, y_m in P_{k-1} such that y_t < z for all t and z =\sum_{t=1}^m y_t + \sum_{u\geqslant 0} Sq^{2^u}(g_u), where g_u are suitable polynomials in P_{k-1}. Since y_t < z for all t, z is a term of \sum_{u\geqslant 0} Sq^{2^u}(g_u), (recall that a monomial x in P_k is called a term of a polynomial f if it appears in the expression of f in terms of the monomial basis of P_k.) Based on the Cartan formula, we see that z is not a term of Sq^{2^u}(g_u) for all u>0. If z is a term of Sq^{1}(y) with y a monomial in P_{k-1}, then y = x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j := \tilde y. So, \tilde y is a term of g_0. Then, we have

\begin{aligned}\bar y := x_{j_1}^2x_{j_2}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j = \sum_{s=2}^{k-3}&x_{j_s}^2x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\ldots \hat x_{j_s}\ldots x_{j_{k-3}}x_j\\ &+\sum_{t=1}^m y_t + Sq^1(g_0+\tilde y) + \sum_{u\geqslant 1} Sq^{2^u}(g_u). \end{aligned}

Since j_1 < j, we have y_t < z < \bar y for all t. Hence, \bar y is a term of Sq^1(g_0+\tilde y) + \sum_{u\geqslant 1} Sq^{2^u}(g_u). By an argument analogous to the previous one, we see that \tilde y is a term of g_0+\tilde y. This contradicts the fact that \tilde y is a term of g_0. The lemma is proved.

Uses Lemma 2.7

Proposition

Proposition 3.9

VLKW

Let d be a positive integer and let q =\min\{k,d-1\}. Then, the set

\bar B(d):=\bigcup_{z \in C_k} \big\{\big[\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}})\big]_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} : \ (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,q}\big\}

is linearly independent in QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}). If d >k, then \bar B(d) is a basis of QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}). Consequently \dim QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}) \geqslant (k-3)\binom k2\sum_{u=1}^q\binom ku with equality if d>k.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 3.9

We prove the first part of the proposition. Suppose there is a linear relation

\mathcal S:= \sum_{((i;I),z) \in \mathcal N_{k,q}\times C_k}\gamma_{(i;I),z} \phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}}) \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} 0,

where \gamma_{(i;I),z} \in \mathbb F_2. We prove \gamma_{(j;J),z} = 0 for all (j;J) \in \mathcal N_{k,q} and z \in C_k. The proof proceeds by induction on m=\ell(J). Let (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,q}. Since r=\ell (I) < q =\min\{k,d-1\}, X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}} is 1-compatible with (i;I) and x_i^{2^r-1}f_i(X^{2^{d-1}-1}) is divisible by x_{(I,1)}. Hence, using Definition 3.2, we easily obtain

\begin{aligned}\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}}) =\phi_{(i;I)}(X^{2^{d-1}-1})f_i(z^{2^{d-1}}). \end{aligned}

A simple computation show that if g \in P_{k-1}^-(\omega_{(k,d-1)}), then gz^{2^{d-1}} \in P_{k-1}^-(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}); if (i;I) \subset (j;\emptyset), then (i;I) = (j;\emptyset); by Lemma 3.5, p_{(j;\emptyset)}(\mathcal S) \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} 0. Hence, applying Lemma 3.6 with b = d-1, we get

p_{(j,\emptyset)}(\mathcal S) \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} \sum_{z\in C_k}\gamma_{(j;\emptyset),z}X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}}\equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} 0.

Since z is admissible in P_{k-1}, X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}} is also admissible in P_{k-1}. Hence, the last relation implies \gamma_{(j;\emptyset),z} = 0 for all z \in C_k. Suppose 0 < m < q and \gamma_{(i;I),z} = 0 for all z\in C_k and (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,q} with \ell(I) < m. Let (j;J) \in \mathcal N_{k,q} with \ell(J) =m. Note that by Lemma 3.5, p_{(j;J)}(\mathcal S) \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} 0; if (i;I) \in \mathcal N_{k,q}, \ell(I) \geqslant m and (i;I)\subset (j;J), then (i;I) = (j;J). So, using Lemma 3.6 with b=d-1 and the inductive hypothesis, we obtain

p_{(j,J)}(\mathcal S) \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} \sum_{z\in C_k}\gamma_{(j;J),z}X^{2^{d-1}-1}z^{2^{d-1}}\equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} 0.

From this equality, one gets \gamma_{(j;J),z} = 0 for all z \in C_k. The first part of the proposition follows.

The proof of the second part is similar to the one of Proposition 3.3 in [su3]. However, the relation \equiv_{\bar\omega_{(k,d)}} is used in the proof instead of \equiv.

Uses Definition 3.2, Lemma 3.5, Lemma 3.6

Theorem

Theorem 3.10

NTMS

Let n= 4(2^d-1) with d a positive integer. The dimension of the \mathbb F_2-vector space (QP_5)_{n} is determined by the following table:

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

Used by Proof

Proof

Proof (Proof of Main Theorem)

Z6Q8

For k=3, the theorem follows from the results of Kameko [ka]. For k=4, it follows from the results in [su1, su3]. Theorem 3.10 implies immediately this theorem for k=5.

Suppose k \geqslant 6. Lemma 3.8 implies that QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,1)}) \ne 0. Hence,

\begin{aligned}\dim (QP_k)_{k-1} &\geqslant \dim QP_k(\omega_{(k,1)}) +\dim QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,1)})\\ &> \dim QP_k(\omega_{(k,1)})= k= c(k,1). \end{aligned}

So, the theorem holds for d=1.

Now, let d>1 and \widetilde\omega_{(k,d)} = ((k-1)^{(d-2)}, k-3,k-4,2). Since \widetilde\omega_{(k,d)} is weakly decreasing, by Lemma 2.7, QP_k(\widetilde\omega_{(k,d)}) \ne 0. We have \deg(\omega_{(k,d)}) = \deg(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}) = \deg (\widetilde\omega_{(k,d)}) = (k-1)(2^d-1) = n and (QP_k)_n \cong \bigoplus_{\deg \omega = n}QP_k(\omega). Hence, using Propositions 3.7 and 3.9, we get

\begin{aligned}\dim(QP_k)_n &= \sum_{\deg \omega = n}\dim QP_k(\omega) \\ &\geqslant \dim QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}) + \dim QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}) + \dim QP_k(\widetilde\omega_{(k,d)})\\ &> \dim QP_k(\omega_{(k,d)}) + \dim QP_k(\bar\omega_{(k,d)}) \geqslant c(k,d). \end{aligned}

The theorem is proved.

Uses Theorem 3.10, Lemma 3.8, Lemma 2.7, Proposition 3.7, Proposition 3.9

Corollary

Corollary 3.11

T475

Under the hypotheses of Main Theorem,

\begin{aligned}\dim(QP_k)_n \geqslant N(k,n) +\sum_{t=2}^p\binom kt + (k-3)\binom{k}2\sum_{u=2}^{q}\binom ku. \end{aligned}

Corollary

Corollary 3.12 (See Mothebe)

750X

Under the above hypotheses,

\dim (QP_k)_n \geqslant N(k,n) + \sum_{t=2}^p\binom kt .

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:1607.01095v1 by Dang Vo Phuc and Nguyen Sum, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1607/1607.01095.jsonl.