format: text

text:
# MODES OF DISC ACCRETION ONTO BLACK HOLES

## 1 Accretion discs around black holes: basics

Accretion is the physical process by which celestial bodies aggregate matter from their surroundings. In the case of compact objects, the gravitational binding energy that such matter must release for accretion to occur is a powerful source of luminosity. If the accreting material possesses angular momentum, though, gravitational contraction is impeded by a centrifugal barrier, as specific angular momentum is hard to dispose of, and the formation of a disc is unavoidable. It is such a disc that mediates the process of accretion: neighboring annuli of differentially rotating matter experience a viscous shear (of some kind) that transports angular momentum outwards and allows matter to slowly spiral in towards the center of the potential.

The variety of spectral energy distributions from accretion-powered objects is a clear sign that different accretion modes are possible. A fundamental discriminant is the radiative efficiency of the flow, defined as the ratio of the output bolometric luminosity to the rest mass energy accretion rate, $`ϵL/\dot{M}c^2`$. When radiative cooling is efficient (standard ‘Shakura-Sunyaev’ solution, hereafter SS $`^\mathrm{?}`$), the maximal energy per unit mass available is uniquely determined by the binding energy at the innermost stable orbit, and this fixes the efficiency. A general relativistic treatment $`^\mathrm{?}`$ reveals that $`ϵ`$ increases from 0.06 (non-spinning black holes) to 0.42 (maximally rotating Kerr black holes). For radiatively efficient discs, the bolometric luminosity is characterized (and in general limited) by the so-called Eddington luminosity: the luminosity at which the radiative momentum flux from a spherically symmetric source is balanced by the gravitational force of the central object: $`L_\mathrm{E}=\frac{4\pi Gm_\mathrm{p}Mc}{\sigma _\mathrm{T}}1.3\times 10^{38}\frac{M}{M_{}}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, where $`m_\mathrm{p}`$ is the proton mass and $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ the Thompson scattering cross section.

When, on the other hand, radiative cooling is negligible, accretion is adiabatic and $`ϵ1`$. Then, unless other mechanisms of energy redistribution are important, such as convection or conduction, the gravitational binding energy of the gas is converted into thermal energy and merely advected with the flow (advection dominated accretion flows or ADAF $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$). However, any imbalance between enthalpy, gravitational and kinetic energy can drastically modify the nature of the flow, which can be dominated by convective motions (CDAF $`^\mathrm{?}`$) or result in substantial mass outflow $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

I will begin this review with radiatively efficient discs, paying special attention to the properties of the SS solution (sec. 2.1) and of its modification due to the effects of turbulent magnetic fields in the disc and the generation of a magnetic corona (sec. 2.2). After a brief discussion of optically thin radiatively efficient solutions (sec. 2.3), I will turn to adiabatic flows, both optically thin (sec. 3.1) and thick (sec. 3.2), concluding with a brief discussion of the role of convection and outflows (sec. 3.3). In sec. 4, I sketch the possible relationships between different accretion modes and MHD jet production mechanisms, before summarizing (sec. 5). Most of the subjects touched upon here are discussed thoroughly in more comprehensive reviews $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

## 2 Radiatively efficient accretion discs

### 2.1 Optically thick flows: the standard solution

The SS solution represents an optically thick, geometrically thin, radiatively efficient accretion flow. In steady state, the disc structure is determined by solving simultaneously four conservation equations (of vertical momentum, mass, angular momentum and energy). If the equations of state for the pressure and opacity as functions of density and temperature are also given together with a viscosity law, the full disc structure can be calculated exactly. The flow is assumed to be geometrically thin, so that its pressure vertical scaleheight, $`H\frac{1}{2P}\frac{P}{z}`$, at a distance $`R`$, is much smaller than the radial coordinate, $`HR`$. In fact, since there is no net motion of the gas in the vertical direction, conservation of vertical momentum reduces to the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium, from which we get $`\frac{H}{R}\frac{c_\mathrm{s}}{v_\mathrm{K}}`$, namely the ratio of the disc height to the radius is approximately equal to the ratio of the local isothermal sound speed $`c_\mathrm{s}=(P/\rho )^{1/2}`$ to the local Keplerian velocity $`v_\mathrm{K}=(GM/R)^{1/2}`$. The mass conservation equation for steady state accretion reads $`\dot{M}=2\pi R\mathrm{\Sigma }v_r`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\rho 𝑑z2H\rho `$ is the surface density and $`v_r`$ is the radial velocity of the spiraling matter. Angular momentum conservation can be expressed by equaling the torque exerted by viscous stresses to the net rate of change of angular momentum. This yields $`W_{R\varphi }=\frac{\dot{M}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }}J(R)`$, where $`W_{R\varphi }`$ is the dominant ($`R\varphi `$) component of the stress tensor, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(GM/R^3)^{1/2}`$ is the angular velocity and the term $`J(R)=\left[1\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{in}}}{R}\right)^{1/2}\right]`$ comes from the (Newtonian) no-torque at the inner boundary condition, and measures the rate at which the angular momentum is deposited onto the compact object. From the energy conservation equation the surface emissivity can be calculated by taking the opposite of the divergence of the flux. This yields, for the heat production rate,

$$Q_+=\frac{3GM\dot{M}J(R)}{8\pi R^3},$$
(1)
which is completely independent on the yet unspecified viscosity law.

Understanding the nature of the disc viscosity, and therefore understanding how can the disc accrete, has been (and partially still is) the central problem of accretion disc theory. Observationally, the accretion rates needed to explain the luminosities we see are many orders of magnitude larger than standard microscopic viscosities could provide. But if the disc is turbulent the effective viscosity due to interacting eddies could easily be large enough $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The original SS solution relies on a dimensional scaling for the turbulent viscosity coefficient, $`\nu =W_{R\varphi }/\mathrm{\Omega }=\alpha _\mathrm{v}c_\mathrm{s}H`$, with the constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{v}<1`$ (subsonic turbulence).

In geometrically thin accretion discs, the internally generated heat $`Q_+`$ is transported vertically before being radiated at the surface. For optically thick discs, photons are transported to the surface via diffusion, and the vertical photon flux is given by $`F_0=\frac{c}{\rho \overline{\kappa }}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{rad}}}{dz}`$. Therefore, the energy dissipation is locally balanced by radiation from the two disc surfaces, and we have $`Q_{}F_0=Q_+`$. Such a balance is established over a thermal timescale, $`t_{\mathrm{th}}1/\alpha _\mathrm{v}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In thin discs, this is much smaller than the viscous time, the time available to the accreting gas to radiate the energy released by the viscous stresses: $`t_\mathrm{v}(R/H)^2J(R)/\alpha _\mathrm{v}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Indeed, we are led the conclusion that SS discs are “cool” enough in that $`kTGMm_\mathrm{p}/R`$, and therefore $`H/R1`$, as we had assumed.

The final expressions for the physical quantities in the disc as functions of central mass, accretion rate, viscosity parameter and radius have simple algebraic expression when both total pressure and opacity are dominated by one term only. As the free-free absorption is strongly suppressed at high temperatures, electron scattering is the main source of opacity in the inner, hotter parts of the disc, while free-free absorption dominates in the outermost, colder parts. Analogously, gas pressure dominates in the outer regions of the disc, while radiation pressure becomes predominant in the inner ones. Overall, three regions can be distinguished in a standard geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disc $`^\mathrm{?}`$: a) an inner part where electron scattering determines the opacity and radiation pressure is larger than gas pressure; b) a middle region where electron scattering is still more important than free-free absorption, but gas pressure dominates over radiation pressure; c) an outer region, where thermal gas pressure dominates and free-free absorption is the main source of opacity.

### 2.2 Beyond the standard model: Coupled magnetic disc–corona solutions

At present magneto-rotational instability (MRI)$`^\mathrm{?}`$ is favoured as the primary source of the turbulent viscosity needed to explain the luminosities of accreting black holes. Our knowledge of the physics of MHD turbulence in accretion discs can be used to build a self-consistent model of MRI-driven, thin accretion disc–corona systems in the following way.

Let us assume equipartition between kinetic turbulent energy and magnetic field excited by the MRI (Alfvén equal to turbulent speed, $`v_\mathrm{A}=v_\mathrm{t}`$). For almost incompressible flows $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the coefficient of turbulent viscosity $`\nu v_\mathrm{t}^2/3\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which implies $`Q_+=\frac{3}{2}c_\mathrm{s}\nu \rho \mathrm{\Omega }=c_\mathrm{s}P_{\mathrm{mag}}`$. Therefore, once the relationship between magnetic and disc pressure (given either by gas or radiation) is established, the accretion disc structure can be fully described.

To find such a relationship, we can assume $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the magnetic field escapes from the thin disc via buoyancy, with a timescale $`t_\mathrm{b}=H/2v_\mathrm{A}`$. Then, a crucial point is that the growth rate of MRI is influenced by the ratio of the gas to magnetic pressure $`^\mathrm{?}`$: $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Omega }c_\mathrm{g}/v_\mathrm{A}`$, where $`c_\mathrm{g}`$ is the gas sound speed. The saturation field can be found by noting that, asymptotically, $`\sigma t_\mathrm{b}=O(1)`$; this automatically gives the desired scaling for the magnetic pressure in MRI dominated turbulent flows:

$$P_{\mathrm{mag}}=\alpha _0\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{gas}}P_{\mathrm{tot}}},$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _0=(\frac{P_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\beta ^2P_{\mathrm{gas}}})^{1/2}`$ is a constant, not necessarily smaller than unity.

The magnetic flux escaping in the vertical direction may dissipate a substantial fraction of the gravitational binding energy of the accreting gas outside the optically thick disc, with obvious deep implications for the spectrum of the emerging radiation. The fraction $`f`$ of the total power dissipated in the low-density environment above and below the disc (in the so-called corona) is determined by the ratio of the vertical Poynting flux ($`F_\mathrm{P}v_\mathrm{A}P_{\mathrm{mag}}`$) to the local heating rate $`Q_+`$. Under the assumption of equipartition between turbulent and magnetic energies, this translates into

$$f=\frac{v_\mathrm{A}}{c_\mathrm{s}}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{2\alpha _0}\left(1+\frac{P_{\mathrm{rad}}(R)}{P_{\mathrm{gas}}(R)}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(3)
The ratio of the radiation to gas pressure can be calculated $`^\mathrm{?}`$ by simply taking the SS solution and modifying it by reducing the locally dissipated energy by the factor $`(1f)`$. Then, for every value of the physical parameters $`R`$, $`M`$, $`\dot{M}`$ and $`\alpha `$, Eq. (3) represents a nonlinear algebraic relation that determines $`f`$ and the full solution of the accretion disc–corona system. It turns out $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that for $`2\alpha _0<1`$ such a solution is unique, and has the following properties: $`f`$ tends to its maximum value, $`\sqrt{2\alpha _0}`$, when gas pressure dominates (low accretion rates), and decreases as the accretion rate increases and radiation pressure becomes more and more important$`^\mathrm{?}`$. If instead $`2\alpha _0>1`$, there are no subsonic (i.e. satisfying $`v_\mathrm{t}<c_\mathrm{s}`$) solutions for gas pressure dominated regions, while in the radiation dominated part of the flow two solutions are possible for every value of the accretion rate. The first is a “standard” (unstable) one, with $`f1`$, while the second appears due to the feedback effect of the closure relation (3). This new solution, which is discussed in detail in $`^\mathrm{?}`$, has $`f1`$ (corona dominated) as the accretion rate increases and is thermally and viscously stable. It represent a new class of geometrically thin, optically thick corona-dominated accretion discs, relevant for systems accreting at a rate above the Eddington one.

### 2.3 The SLE solution: radiatively efficient optically thin flows

The first self consistent alternative to the standard solution for rotating accretion flows around black holes was discovered $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in an attempt to explain the hard spectrum of the classical black hole candidate Cygnus X-1. This so-called SLE solution is a two temperature one, with the protons much hotter than the electrons $`T_\mathrm{p}T_\mathrm{e}`$. This is the case if the energy released by viscous dissipation was distributed equally among the carriers of mass, i. e. mostly to the protons (which radiate very inefficiently) and only a fraction $`m_\mathrm{e}/m_\mathrm{p}=1/1833`$ to the electrons. The hot proton component then dominates the pressure and keeps the disc geometrically thick. This in turn leads to low density (which scales as $`H^3`$ for given $`\dot{m}`$) and low Coulomb energy exchange between protons and electrons, that self-consistently implies $`T_\mathrm{p}T_\mathrm{e}`$. The four main equation of the disc structure are the same as in the standard model, but the heating–cooling balance is now described by two separate equations for the two species, where the electrons mainly cool by up-scattering soft radiation coming from an outer cold disc or from dense cloudlets embedded in the hot flow.

Although the model is able to reproduce reasonably well observed spectra of accreting black holes, it is thermally unstable $`^\mathrm{?}`$: an increase in $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ would lead to disc expansion in the vertical direction, further reduction of Coulomb cooling and increase of proton temperature, leading to an instability. This instability is cured if the effect of advection is taken into account in the energy equation, as will be briefly outlined in the following section.

## 3 Adiabatic accretion flows

### 3.1 Optically thin solutions

It was first noted by Ichimaru $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that, in an optically thin, geometrically thick accretion disc such as the SLE one, the density might be so low that the ions are unable to transfer energy to the electrons in a timescale smaller than the viscous one. Then, part of the energy is advected with the proton flow and swallowed by the central black hole. The energy equation then can be rewritten in a vertically integrated form: $`q_+q_{}=q_{\mathrm{adv}}\mathrm{\Sigma }v_\mathrm{r}T\frac{S}{R}`$, where $`S`$ is the specific entropy of the gas. This kind of solution was later named ‘ion supported torus’ $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and it was also demonstrated that it can be established only for accretion rates lower than a critical value $`\dot{m}<\dot{m}_{\mathrm{crit}}\alpha _\mathrm{v}^2`$, ensuring that the density is low enough, either because the accretion rate is low, or the viscosity high. The flow is optically thin and radiatively inefficient. In recent years, much work has been devoted to the detailed study of such flows, renamed Advection Dominated Accretion Flows (ADAF) after Narayan and Yi $`^\mathrm{?}`$ presented a full analytical self-similar 1D solution to the problem. This self-similar solution reveals the basic properties of an ADAF: a) the radial accretion time-scale is much shorter that that of a thin disc; b) sub-Keplerian rotation occurs, due to large internal pressure support; c) the flow is geometrically thick, in that the vertical scaleheight $`HR`$. More uncertain, but crucial, issues for determining physical and observable properties of ADAFs are the assumptions that ions and electrons interact only through Coulomb collisions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ or that only a tiny fraction of the turbulent energy is dissipated into the electrons $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

### 3.2 Optically thick solutions

The last class of accretion modes comprises adiabatic solutions at accretion rates close to (or above) the Eddington one. In these cases, the inflow timescale in the inner part of the disc becomes smaller than the time it takes for a photon to escape from the disc, and the radiation produced is trapped by the flow and advected with it $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The radius inside which radiation is trapped moves outwards as the accretion rate increasesaaaThere is, though, the possibility that magnetized radiation pressure dominated discs are subject to “photon bubble” instabilities $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that lead to strong density inhomogeneities. As shown in $`^\mathrm{?}`$, such discs may radiate well above the Eddington limit and remain geometrically thin without being disrupted.. When it becomes of the order of the Eddington one, the disc thickness stays moderate and a vertically integrated approximation may be retained (slim discs) $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the limit $`\dot{m}1`$, though, the behaviour of the disc and the possible relevance of strong outflows still remain open issues. Once again, the problem is inherently 2D, and the simultaneous roles of convection, advection and outflows have to be assessed in order to model properly the expected SED. Unlike for the the optically thin ADAF/CDAF cases, the observable features of these optically thick solutions have been investigated in only a handful of cases so far $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, thus reducing the general appreciation of their importance for interpreting observations.

### 3.3 The role of convection and outflows in adiabatic flows

The ADAF solution has received a great deal of interest in the last decade because of its potential capability to explain the observational data from our Galactic Center $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. On the other hand, geometrically thick adiabatic flows are ideal models to test global numerical simulations of MHD turbulent accretion flows against, without having to deal with the complications of radiative transfer needed to simulate thin, radiative efficient discs. Indeed, already when the 1D approximation of self-similar ADAF theory is abandoned, and the full 2D nature of the problem is analysed, both from the theoretical point of view $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and from numerical simulations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, it is clear that radiatively inefficient flows are prone to strong convective instabilities and/or powerful outflows. In general $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, convective flows are more likely at low values of the viscosity parameter, while strong outflows are generated for high values of $`\alpha _\mathrm{v}`$. In the former case (purely convective flows), accretion is effectively stifled, with little or no mass inflow or outflow: the energy extracted in the inner part is convectively transported outward. Such a redistribution of energy among fluid elements in the accreting gas alters the purely advective nature of the flow and modifies the radial profiles of physical quantities, as the density, with profound implication for the interpretation of the observed radiation. In the latter case, systematic outflows remove mass and energy from the flow, with little accretion onto the black hole $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Despite the big efforts made by several groups, both on the theory and on the simulation side, the relative importance of convection and outflow for adiabatic flows is still matter of a vigorous debate $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, the controversy being essentially over the capability of any hydrodynamical model supplemented with $`\alpha `$-like viscosity prescriptions to capture the basic physical properties of an inherently magneto-hydrodynamical system. As usual, it appears likely that such controversy will only be settled with the collection of more constraining observational data.

## 4 Accretion modes and jet engines

It is a well established observational fact that accretion onto rotating astrophysical object is often accompanied by the ejection of collimated outflows. Magnetic fields are likely to be a key element for the understanding of such a phenomenon and a number of model of magnetically-driven jets from rotating accretion flows have been devised (for recent reviews see $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$). Almost all of them link the power channeled into the jet to the intensity of the poloidal component of the magnetic field in the inner regions of the accretion flow $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$: $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}\left(\frac{B_\mathrm{P}}{4\pi }\right)^2A\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, where $`A`$ represent the area of the acceleration region and $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ is the rotational velocity of the field lines. Thus, the kinetic output from a magnetized, rotating accretion flow depends on two main factors: the scaleheight of the magnetically dominated structure (because $`B_\mathrm{p}/B_\varphi H/R`$) and the maximal rotational velocity attainable. The former should be large in all radiatively inefficient modes (in particular the more outflow-dominated ones at high viscosity parameter) and in those dominated by powerful magnetic coronae (at low/high accretion rates for low/high viscosities, respectively). The latter depends on the angular momentum of the central hole (high spin favors the generation of powerful jets) and on the inner boundary condition for the accretion flow, and can be tackled only by a full general relativistic treatment of the inner disc. Different combinations of the two factors may cause the variety of radio properties of AGN $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 5 Summary: a revised accretion map

Some of the properties of the different solutions can be summarized by the diagram that places them in the surface density ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$)–accretion rate ($`\dot{m}`$) plane (at fixed distance from the central source), as shown in Fig. 1. For low values of the viscosity parameter $`\alpha _0`$, the solutions split into two separate branches: the optically thin and the optically thick one. Optically thin solutions exist only at low accretion rates: they are the ADAF (thermally stable) and SLE (Shapiro-Lightman-Eardley, thermally unstable). Also at low $`\dot{m}`$, a geometrically thin, gas pressure dominated solution exists, with an optically thin corona whose relative power is $`f\sqrt{2\alpha _0}`$; this solution becomes unstable (and loses its corona) at the value of the accretion rate for which radiation pressure becomes larger than gas pressure at the given distance from the black hole. At even higher accretion rates only a radiatively inefficient, optically thick solution exists (‘slim disc’), which is thermally stable.

The topology of the diagram changes for high viscosity parameter: the advective, radiatively inefficient solutions (ADAF, slim disc) becomes a single branch, while radiatively efficient solutions form a second one. Of those, only corona-dominated, for accretion rates above a critical value, are stable.

Fig. 1 also shows in parenthesis the additional processes, beside those taken into account by the model, likely to be relevant for each kind of accretion mode. They are meant to be indicative of the open theoretical issues in the field, and will likely indicate the direction of the research in the immediate future.

## References


text:
# INTERNAL SHOCKS AND THE BLAZAR SEQUENCE

## 1 Introduction

The discovery that blazars are strong $`\gamma `$-ray emitters together with the results from the multiwavelength campaigns of these sources have allowed to deepen our knowledge on these objects. We know that the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of blazars is characterized by two broad emission peaks $`^\mathrm{?}`$ strongly variable on different timescales $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Two main radiation processes produce these peaks, i.e. the synchrotron at low frequencies and the inverse Compton at high energies (see e.g. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for a review). The relative importance of the two peaks and their location in frequency appear to be a function of the total power of blazars $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ leading to a blazar sequence. The blazar emission is variable on different timescales, which are typically weekes-months for the radio emission of the order of a day for the $`\gamma `$-ray.

Several studies, mainly based on the fitting of the observed SED, have allowed us to consistently derive the physical parameters in the emitting region of these sources, however many aspects in the understanding of relativistic jets remain open, most notably the jet energetics and particle acceleration. In order to explore these issues and their relationship we have considered a scenario where the plasma characteristics are not treated as free parameters, but are the result of the jet dynamics, thus relating the observed emission properties to the transport of energy along the jet. We have achieved that by quantitatively considering a dissipation mechanism within the jet responsible for the emission of blazars analogous to the standard mechanism proposed to explain gamma–ray bursts $`^\mathrm{?}`$: the internal shock model. This model was actually originally proposed for blazars more than two decades ago $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The most important assumption of the model is that the central power engine produces energy which is channeled into jets in an intermittent way, though such a time dependent process cannot be easily inferred from first principles. The model assumes that different parts of the jet (shells), moving at different speeds can collide producing shocks, giving rise to the non-thermal radiation we see. This mechanism has a limited efficiency because only a small fraction of the bulk energy can be converted into radiation (unless the contrast between the two initial Lorents factor is huge, see Beloborodov 2000 $`^\mathrm{?}`$; Guetta et al. 2001 $`^\mathrm{?}`$; but also Ghisellini 2002 $`^\mathrm{?}`$). In blazars, on the other hand, the radiative output has to be a small fraction of the energy transported by the jet (less than 10%), since most of the bulk energy has to go un–dissipated to the outer radio–lobes. The low efficiency required for blazars is a characteristic of the model, moreover the internal shock model can naturally explain other properties of these sources: a minimum dimension for the $`\gamma `$–ray source is required, as well as a minimum distance from the accretion disk, in order to avoid pair production. The internal shock model can naturally account for this, since the jet becomes radiative at ($`>10^{16}10^{17}`$ cm) from the black hole. The observed large amplitude variability must be explained by a non steady state model: we believe that the shell–shell collision scenario is the simplest among them. The shells that have already collided once can collide again, at larger distances from the black hole with reduced efficiency, since the Lorentz factor contrast of the colliding shells decreases. This can explain why the luminosity of jets decrease with distance. Fig. 1 shows the efficiency as a function of distance for a simulation we have done for Mkn 421 $`^\mathrm{?}`$. A detail study via numerical simulations of the predictions of this model in blazars has been carried out by $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for powerful objects (like 3C279). However the SED of this object does not represent the whole of the blazar family, which covers a wide range of spectral characteristics (luminosity, frequency of the peaks of emission and their relative intensity). We have applied our model to Mkn 421 and BL Lac itself which, besides being among the best studied BL Lac objects, are representative of the extremely blue and intermediate blazar class, respectively. Our aim is to see if the proposed scenario can explain the difference of the SED along the blazar sequence, more than to explain every detail of a particular spectrum of a specific object.

## 2 Internal shocks and spectrum

### 2.1 Generalities

In this work we use the approximate model of the unsteady wind described in detail in Spada et al. (2001) and in the following we report only its most relevant assumptions. We consider a compact source, of typical dimension $`R_010^{14}`$ cm, which produces an unstable relativistic wind characterized by an average luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. The emission from the jet is obtained by adding pulses radiated in a series of internal shocks that occur in the wind. The wind flow is described as a sequence of $`N=t_w/t_v`$ shells, where $`t_w`$ is the overall duration of the emission of the wind and $`t_vt_w`$ is the average interval between two consecutive shells. Each shell is characterized by four parameters (the subscript $`j`$ denotes the $`j_{\mathrm{th}}`$ shell): the ejection time $`t_j`$, randomly extracted from a uniform distribution with an average value of $`t_v`$; the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ that is randomly extracted from a distribution between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$; the mass $`M_j`$ also randomly extracted; the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_jR_0`$. The dynamics of the wind expansion is characterized by a series of two–shell collisions in which the faster shells catch up with the slower ones in the outer parts of the ejecta. The energy released in each shock is assumed to be distributed among electrons and magnetic field with fractions $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$, respectively. In this way we can determine the magnetic field strength needed to evaluate the synchrotron and the inverse Compton emission. Electrons are assumed to be accelerated at relativistic energies with a power law spectrum.

### 2.2 Local spectra

We refer the reader to Spada et al. (2001) for a detailed description of the derivation of the spectra that is obtained considering the synchrotron, the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) and the external Compton radiation mechanisms. The only thing we would like to point out is that even in the case of low power BL Lacs we consider the presence of a source of soft photons external to the jet, which we identified with the emission reprocessed in the broad line region (BLR). We consider a luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{ext}}=aL_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ (with $`a0.1`$) produced within $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$, corresponding to a radiation energy density (as measured in the frame comoving with the shell) $`U_{\mathrm{ext}}=(17/12)aL_{\mathrm{disk}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/(4\pi R_{\mathrm{BLR}}^2c)`$. (e.g. $`^\mathrm{?}`$). For simplicity, this seed photon component is considered to abruptly vanish beyond $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$. High and low power blazars have different line luminosities (and different photoionizing disk continua). According to Kaspi et al. (2000) $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ are related by $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}L_{\mathrm{disk}}^b`$ with $`b0.7`$ This implies that blazars with weaker broad emission lines should have smaller broad line regions. In turn, this implies that, in low power BL Lacs, the first collisions between shells can occur preferentially outside $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$.

## 3 Results and Discussion

We applied our model to Mkn 421 and BL Lac itself. In Tab. 1 we list the input parameters used for the model, and for comparison we also report the same parameters for 3C 279. Via the numerical simulations the full time–resolved spectral behavior of the sources can be determined. The full time–dependent behavior of the simulated sources can be also examined through animations (see http://ares.merate.mi.astro.it/$``$gabriele/421/index.html) in which the temporal and spectral evolutions are simultaneously shown.

The results of this work show that the internal shock model can satisfactorely account also for the properties of the low power blazars. We find that the key model parameters that need to be changed in order to reconstruct the sequence in the frame of the internal shock scenario, are indeed the broad lines intensity and the power carried in the jet which is proportional to the radiative luminosity. These parameters in turn regulate the SED shape, as they control the cooling efficiency of the emitting particles. The internal shock scenario in fact determines a characteristic time interval for the injection of relativistic electrons during each shell–shell collision, of the order of the dynamical timescale $`t_{cross}`$. The intensity of the spectrum out of each collision is maximized at the end of this particular timescale. Two regimes are relevant: fast and slow cooling, corresponding to whether electrons of energy $`\gamma _b`$ ($`\gamma _bm_ec^2`$ is the minimum energy of the injected electrons) can (fast cooling) or not (slow cooling) radiatively cool in $`t_{cross}`$. In highly powerful blazars the fast cooling regime applies in the inner regions (within the BLR) where also most of the power is dissipated. Consequently the peak frequencies are produced by the electrons of energy $`\gamma _bm_ec^2`$ (as even these electrons can cool in $`t_{cross}`$). In the lowest powerful blazars instead the slow cooling regime applies to all collisions. Consequently only the electrons with the highest energy can cool in $`t_{cross}`$ (even for the most powerful collisions): the peak frequencies thus shift to very high values. Between these two extremes there is the possibility of BL Lac objects with broad lines of intermediate intensity originating at a distance from the accretion disc within which very few (but not zero) shell-shell collisions can occasionally take place. This is the case of BL Lac itself and all the blazars of intermediate luminosity. Observationally this corresponds to a SED produced by internal shocks of moderate Compton to synchrotron luminosity ratio as the seed photons for Compton scattering are provided only by the synchrotron photons (collisions outside the BLR). The rare collisions within the BLR will give rise to a dramatic change in the SED characterized by a large increase of the Compton component as in the case of BL Lac itself.
One can conclude that the internal shock scenario explains the blazar sequence and the main characteristics of the blazar behaviour. While observationally we were able to see that the important quantity is the ratio between the observed luminosity in the jet and the disc (thus BLR), the internal shock scenario allows to i) directly connect the radiated jet luminosity with the effective power carried by the jet and ii) account for the preferred distance at which most of the jet luminosity is produced. While the latter distance is qualitatively the same for high and low power blazars, the BLR is instead located at very different distances in the two sub–classes of objects, as determined by the ionizing luminosity.

## References


text:
# Box-shaped matrices and the defining ideal of certain blowup surfaces

## 0. Introduction.

Ideals of minors of a matrix have been thoroughly studied over many decades. They play a significant role in the study of projective varieties. It had been a major classical problem to show that the ideal of $`t\times t`$ minors of a generic matrix is a prime and perfect ideal. The proof for a general value of $`t`$ was due to Eagon and Hochster from their important work in . In the first part of this paper, we generalize the notions of a matrix and its ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors to that of a box-shaped-matrix and its ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors. Our main theorem in this section is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 0.1 (Theorem 1.5).

If $`𝒜`$ is a box-shaped matrix of indeterminates, then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal in $`k[𝒜]`$ (here, $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$).

Coupled with previous work of Grone (), we also show that the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a generic box-shaped matrix is the defining ideal of a Segre embedding of the product of several projective space, namely $`(V_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (V_n)(V_1\mathrm{}V_n)`$. This geometric realization of the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a generic box-shaped matrix enables us to study its perfection (Theorem 1.8), its Hilbert function (Proposition 1.7), and gives a Gröbner basis (Theorem 1.11).

Box-shaped matrices not only describe the Segre embedding of the product of several projective spaces, but also provide a new tool for the study of projective embeddings of certain blowup surfaces. This study is carried out in the second part of this paper. To be more precise, let $`𝕏=\{P_1,\mathrm{}`$, $`P_s\}`$ be a set of $`s`$ distinct points in $`^2`$, and let $`I_𝕏=_{t\alpha }I_tR=k[w_1,w_2,w_3]`$ be the homogeneous decomposition of the defining ideal of $`𝕏`$, and $`^2(𝕏)`$ the blowup of $`^2`$ centered at $`𝕏`$. The second part of this paper studies the problem of finding systems of defining equations for $`^2(𝕏)`$ embedded in projective spaces by very ample divisors which correspond to the linear systems of plane curves going through the points in $`𝕏`$. This problem has also been considered by several authors in the last ten years, such as , , , , , ,  and .

A great deal of work has concentrated on an important special case, when $`s=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)`$ for some positive integer $`d`$ and the points in $`𝕏`$ are in generic position (cf. , , ). In this case,

$$I_𝕏=I_dI_{d+1}I_{d+2}\mathrm{}$$

is generated by $`I_d`$ (see ). We also address this situation.

It is well known that, in our situation, all the linear systems $`I_t`$ (for $`td+1`$) are very ample (cf. , ), so they all give embeddings of $`^2(𝕏)`$ in projective spaces. If in addition, there are no $`d`$ points of $`𝕏`$ lying on a line, then the linear system $`I_d`$ is also very ample. Under this assumption, Gimigliano studied the embedding of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear system $`I_d`$, which results in a White surface ( and ). White surfaces had also been studied in the classical literature ( and ). Gimigliano showed that the defining ideal of a White surface is generated by the $`3\times 3`$ minors of a $`3\times d`$ matrix of linear forms, and its defining ideal has the same Betti numbers as that of the ideal of $`3\times 3`$ minors of a $`3\times d`$ matrix of indeterminates (which was given by the Eagon-Northcott complex). The embedding of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear system $`I_{d+1}`$ (which results in a Room surface) was then studied in detail by Geramita and Gimigliano (). Geramita and Gimigliano were able to determine the resolution of the ideals defining the Room surfaces. They also proved that the defining ideals of the embeddings of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear systems $`I_t`$ are generated by quadrics, for all $`td+1`$, but they were unable to write down those generators when $`td+2`$.

In  and , a method of finding a system of defining equations for a diagonal subalgebra from that of a bigraded algebra was given. This, together with results of  (which gives the equations for the Rees algebra of the ideal of a set of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)`$ points in generic position), makes it possible, in theory, for one to write a system of defining equations for the embeddings of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear systems $`I_t`$ for all $`t`$. However, this method has its disadvantages as pointed out in . In the second part of this paper, we generalize Geramita and Gimigliano’s argument on the Room surfaces and give an explicit description of the defining ideals of the embeddings of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear systems $`I_t`$, for all $`td+1`$. Our main result in this section is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 0.2 (Theorem 2.6).

Suppose $`t=d+n`$ ($`n1`$). Then the projective embedding of $`^2(𝕏)`$ given by the linear system $`I_t`$ is generated by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ linear forms and the $`2\times 2`$ minors of a box-shaped matrix of linear forms.

Throughout this paper, $`k`$ will be our ground field. For simplicity, we assume that $`k`$ is algebraically closed and of characteristic 0 (though many of our results are true for any field $`k`$). We also let $`^2=_k^2`$ be the projective plane over $`k`$.

## 1. Box-shaped matrices and their ideals of $`2\times 2`$ minors.

The techniques we use in this section are inspired by those of  in his study of ideals of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a matrix.

Box-shaped matrices

Let $`S`$ be a commutative ring that contains a field $`k`$. An $`n`$-dimensional array ($`n2`$)

$$𝒜=(a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{1i_jr_j,j=1,\mathrm{},n},$$

can be realized as the box

$$𝐁=\{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)|1i_jr_j,j\},$$

in which each integral point $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ is assigned the value $`a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$.

Definition. An $`n`$-dimensional array $`𝒜`$, with its box-shaped realization $`𝐁`$, is called an $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$.

We associate to each box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$ of elements in $`S`$ a ring $`S_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$, the subring of $`S`$ obtained by adjoining the elements of $`𝒜`$ to the field $`k`$.

Definition. Suppose $`𝒜`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$ of elements in $`S`$. For each $`l=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, we call

$$a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_l\mathrm{}i_n}a_{j_1\mathrm{}j_l\mathrm{}j_n}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{l1}j_li_{l+1}\mathrm{}i_n}a_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{l1}i_lj_{l+1}\mathrm{}j_n}S_𝒜,$$

(where $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ and $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)`$ are any two integral points in $`𝐁`$), a $`2\times 2`$ minor about the $`l`$-th coordinate of $`𝒜`$. A $`2\times 2`$ minor of $`𝒜`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ minor about at least one of its coordinates. We let $`I_2(𝒜)`$ be the ideal of $`S_𝒜`$ generated by all the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$, and call it the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of the box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$.

From now on, unless stated otherwise, we focus our attention to box-shaped matrices of indeterminates. Suppose $`𝒜=(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁}`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional generic box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$ with its box-shaped realization $`𝐁`$. For each $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, let

$$𝒜_l=(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁\text{ and }i_l<r_l},$$

and denote by $`I_2(𝒜_l)`$ its ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors (in the appropriate ring). For each $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we also let

$$𝐁_l=\{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁|i_l=r_l\},$$

and

$$I_l=<I_2(𝒜_l),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l\}>.$$

Throughout this paper, to any box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$, we always associate box-shaped matrices $`𝒜_l`$, boxes $`𝐁_l`$ and all the ideals $`I_l`$ defined as above. The first crucial property of box-shaped matrices of indeterminates comes in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1.1.

Suppose $`𝒜=(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁}`$ is a box-shaped matrix of indeterminates in $`S`$. Then,

1. For any $`ls\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we have

$$I_lI_s=<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l𝐁_s\}>.$$
2. For any distinct elements $`l_1,l_2,\mathrm{},l_t`$ of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ ($`2tn`$), we have

$$_{j=1}^tI_j=<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_{j=1}^t𝐁_j\}>.$$

###### Proof.

(a) For convenience, we denote by $`LHS`$ and $`RHS`$ the left hand side and the right hand side of the presented equality, respectively. It is clear that $`RHSLHS`$. We need to show the opposite direction. Let $`FLHS`$. Since $`FI_l`$, we can write $`F=F^{}+F^{\prime \prime }`$, where

$$F^{}I_2(𝒜_l),\text{ and }F^{\prime \prime }=\underset{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l}{}F_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}.$$

It suffices to show that $`F^{\prime \prime }RHS`$. $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ certainly belongs to $`I_s`$. Now, for $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l`$, we write $`F_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ in the form

$$F_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s}{}G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}+G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},$$

where $`G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ is independent of the indeterminates $`\{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}|(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s\}`$. Then $`F^{\prime \prime }=G+G^{}`$, where

$$G=\underset{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l}{}G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},$$

and

$`G^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l,(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s}{}}G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l\text{}\text{}(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s}{}}\left(G_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}+x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{s1}j_si_{s+1}\mathrm{}i_n}T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}\right),`$
where

$$X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}=x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{s1}j_si_{s+1}\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{s1}i_sj_{s+1}\mathrm{}j_n},$$

and $`T_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}S_𝒜`$. Clearly, $`X_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n,j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ minor about the $`s`$-th coordinate of $`𝒜`$, and since the sum is taken on $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l`$ and $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s`$, the point $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_{s1},j_s,i_{s+1},\mathrm{},i_n)`$ belongs to $`𝐁_l𝐁_s`$. Thus, $`G^{}RHS`$.

It remains to show that $`GRHS`$. Again, we have $`GI_s`$, so we can write:

$$G=H+\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s}{}H_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n},$$

where $`HI_2(𝒜_s)`$. We may also assume that $`H`$ and $`H_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$, where $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_l𝐁_s`$, are independent of the indeterminates

$$\{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}|(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s\backslash (𝐁_l𝐁_s)\}.$$

Then

$$GH\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_l𝐁_s}{}H_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}=\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s\backslash (𝐁_l𝐁_s)}{}H_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}.$$

The left hand side of the above equality is independent of all the indeterminates

$$\{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}|(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_s\backslash (𝐁_l𝐁_s)\}.$$

Thus, both sides must be zero. This implies that

$$G=H+\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)𝐁_l𝐁_s}{}H_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}RHS.$$

We have proved $`LHSRHS`$. Thus, the given equality follows.

(b) We will use induction on $`t`$. For $`t=2`$ the equality is proved in part (a). Suppose $`t>2`$, and the equality is true for $`t1`$. We then have

$$_{j=1}^{t1}I_j=<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_{j=1}^{t1}𝐁_j\}>.$$

It remains to prove

$`<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_{j=1}^t𝐁_j\}>=`$
$`=`$ $`<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}|(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_{j=1}^{t1}𝐁_j\}>I_t.`$
We can proceed in the same lines of argument as that of the proof of part (a) to show that the equality above is indeed true. Hence, the presented equality is true for all $`2tn`$. ∎

In particular, we obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 1.1.1.

$`_{l=1}^nI_l=<I_2(𝒜),x_{r_1\mathrm{}r_n}>`$.

The prime-ideal theorem

From henceforth, we shall assume that our ring $`S`$ is a domain. The primeness of $`I_2(𝒜)`$ for a generic box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$ comes as a consequence of a series of lemmas. Note that even though the following lemmas are generalizations to higher dimension of those given in , most of the proofs require more arguments than what was given for their 2-dimensional statements.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Suppose $`F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})`$ is an element of $`S_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$. If, for some $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ of $`𝒜`$, there exists a positive integer $`\lambda `$ such that $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^\lambda FI_2(𝒜)`$, then, for any $`x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ of $`𝒜`$ there exists a non-negative integer $`\nu `$ such that $`x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^\nu FI_2(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`Z`$ the multiplicatively closed subset of $`S_𝒜`$ consisting of all non-negative powers of $`x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$, and let $`S_Z`$ be the localization of $`S_𝒜`$ at the set $`Z`$. Let $`\varphi :S_𝒜S_Z`$ be the ring homomorphism defined by $`\varphi (c)=c`$ for all $`ck`$, and

$$\varphi (x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})=\frac{x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}}{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}}\text{ for all }x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}𝒜.$$

Obviously, $`\varphi `$ is a well-defined map. It is easy to verify that $`\varphi (a)=0`$ for any $`2\times 2`$ minors $`a`$ of $`𝒜`$. Thus, $`\varphi (I_2(𝒜))=0`$. Moreover,

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}^\lambda F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})I_2(𝒜).$$

Therefore, in $`S_Z`$,

$$\left(\frac{x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}}{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}}\right)^\lambda F(\mathrm{},\varphi (x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}),\mathrm{})=0.$$

Since $`S_𝒜`$ is a domain, so is $`S_Z`$. Hence,

$$F(\mathrm{},\varphi (x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}),\mathrm{})=0\text{ in }S_Z.$$

Now, using binomial expansions, we can write

$$F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})=F(\mathrm{},\frac{x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}}{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}},\mathrm{})+K,$$

where $`K`$ belongs to the ideal of $`S_Z`$ generated by elements of the form

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}\frac{x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}}{x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}}.$$

The generators of this $`S_Z`$-ideal can be rewritten as

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}.$$

We shall prove that $`K`$ belongs to the ideal of $`S_Z`$ generated by $`I_2(𝒜)`$, or equivalently, we prove that these generators, considered as elements of $`S_𝒜`$, belong to $`I_2(𝒜)`$. Indeed, using induction on $`n`$, modulo $`I_2(𝒜)`$, we have

$`K_n`$ $`=`$ $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n1}x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}`$
$`=`$ $`x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n2}+(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n})x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n2}`$
$`x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}`$
$``$ $`x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n2}x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}`$
$`=`$ $`x_{i_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n}K_{n1},`$
where

$$K_{n1}=x_{j_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^{n2}x_{j_1i_2j_3\mathrm{}j_n}\mathrm{}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1}i_n}.$$

Since every indeterminate appearing in the expression $`K_{n1}`$ has $`j_1`$ in its first index, we can view $`K_{n1}`$ as just the same expression as $`K_n`$ but given by the $`(n1)`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix $`𝒜^{}=(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{i_1=j_1}`$. By induction hypothesis, $`K_{n1}`$ then belongs to $`I_2(𝒜^{})I_2(𝒜)`$. And hence, $`K_nI_2(𝒜)`$.

We have just proved that $`K`$ belongs to the ideal of $`S_Z`$ generated by $`I_2(𝒜)`$. Equivalently, $`F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})`$ belongs to the ideal of $`S_Z`$ generated by $`I_2(𝒜)`$. Therefore, there exists a $`\nu `$ such that

$$x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}^\nu F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})I_2(𝒜)\text{ in }S_𝒜.$$

The lemma is proved. ∎

###### Lemma 1.3.

Suppose $`l\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Suppose also that $`FS_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$ is a polynomial independent of the indeterminates $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ for all $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁_l`$ such that $`I_2(𝒜_l):F=I_2(𝒜_l)`$. Then $`I_l:F=I_l`$.

###### Proof.

The proof follows in exactly the same line as that of . ∎

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`FS_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$ and suppose that $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda FI_2(𝒜)`$ for some positive integer $`\lambda `$. Then $`FI_2(𝒜)`$. In other words, $`I_2(𝒜):x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda =I_2(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

We use induction on $`n`$. When $`n=2`$, the result follows from that of . Suppose $`n>2`$, $`𝒜`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix of indeterminates, and the lemma is true for any box-shaped matrices of lower dimension. We now use induction on $`r_1+\mathrm{}+r_n`$. We may assume that $`r_i2`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (since otherwise, $`𝒜`$ collapses to an $`(n1)`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix, and the result follows from the induction hypothesis), and the lemma is true for any $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix with smaller value of $`r_1+\mathrm{}+r_n`$.

If $`F`$ is of degree zero, then $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda F`$ belongs to the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a box-shaped matrix obtained from $`𝒜`$ by letting all the indeterminates $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$, for $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)(1,\mathrm{},1)`$, be zero. Yet, this ideal is zero, so $`F=0I_2(𝒜)`$. We may use induction again, assuming that the degree of $`F`$ is bigger than zero, and the lemma holds for polynomials whose degrees are smaller than that of $`F`$.

Now, $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda FI_2(𝒜)_{j=1}^nI_j`$ by Corollary 1.1.1, so in particular, $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda FI_j`$ for all $`j`$. Moreover, by the induction hypothesis, we have $`I_2(𝒜_j):x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda =I_2(𝒜_j)`$. Thus, by Lemma 1.3, $`I_j:x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda =I_j`$. This implies that $`F_{j=1}^nI_j=<I_2(𝒜),x_{r_1\mathrm{}r_n}>`$. Write $`F=F_1+x_{r_1\mathrm{}r_n}F_2`$, where $`F_1I_2(𝒜)`$. Since $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is homogeneous, we may assume that the degree of $`F_2`$ is smaller than that of $`F`$. We have $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda F=x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda F_1+x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda x_{r_1\mathrm{}r_n}F_2I_2(𝒜)`$. Thus, $`x_{r_1\mathrm{}r_n}x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda F_2I_2(𝒜)`$. By Lemma 1.2, there is a non-negative integer $`\nu `$ such that $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^{\lambda +\nu }F_2=x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\nu x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\lambda F_2I_2(𝒜)`$. By our induction hypothesis on the degree of $`F`$, we have $`F_2I_2(𝒜)`$. Hence, $`FI_2(𝒜)`$ as required. ∎

The primeness of the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a box-shaped matrix in the generic case is stated as follows.

###### Theorem 1.5.

If $`𝒜`$ is a box-shaped matrix of indeterminates, then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal in $`k[𝒜]`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})G(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})I_2(𝒜)`$, where $`F,GS_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$. Let $`Z`$ be the multiplicatively closed subset of $`S_𝒜`$ consisting of all non-negative powers of $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}`$, and let $`S_Z`$ be the localization of $`S_𝒜`$ at $`Z`$. Similar to what was done in Lemma 1.2, we define a map

$$\phi :S_𝒜S_Z,$$

by sending $`k`$ to $`k`$, and sending $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ to $`\frac{x_{i_11\mathrm{}1}x_{1i_21\mathrm{}1}\mathrm{}x_{1\mathrm{}1i_n}}{x_{1\mathrm{}1}^{n1}}`$ for all $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}𝒜`$. It is easy to verify that $`\phi (a)=0`$ for any $`2\times 2`$ minors $`a`$ of $`𝒜`$. Thus, $`\phi (I_2(𝒜))=0`$. Moreover, $`F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})G(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})I_2(𝒜)`$. Hence, in $`S_Z`$,

$$F(\mathrm{},\phi (x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}),\mathrm{})G(\mathrm{},\phi (x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}),\mathrm{})=0.$$

Since $`S_𝒜`$ is a domain, so is $`S_Z`$. Thus, at least one of the two factors has to be zero. Suppose

$$F(\mathrm{},\frac{x_{i_11\mathrm{}1}x_{1i_21\mathrm{}1}\mathrm{}x_{1\mathrm{}1i_n}}{x_{1\mathrm{}1}^{n1}},\mathrm{})=0.$$

Now, similar to what was done in Lemma 1.2, we deduce that there exists a $`\nu `$ such that $`x_{1\mathrm{}1}^\nu F(\mathrm{},x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\mathrm{})I_2(𝒜)`$ in $`S_𝒜`$. Hence, by Lemma 1.4, $`FI_2(A)`$, and this completes the proof. ∎

Segre embedding, Cohen-Macaulayness and Kozsul property

Suppose $`V_1,V_2,\mathrm{},V_n`$ are vector spaces of dimensions $`r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_n`$, respectively. Recall the following definition.

Definition. A tensor $`zV_1\mathrm{}V_n`$ is referred to as decomposable if there exist $`v_jV_j`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`z=v_1\mathrm{}v_n`$.

Now, let $`\{e_{j1},\mathrm{},e_{jr_j}\}`$ be a basis for $`V_j`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then a basis of $`V_1\mathrm{}V_n`$ is given by

$$\{ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=e_{1i_1}\mathrm{}e_{ni_n}|1i_jr_jj=1,\mathrm{},n\}.$$

A tensor $`zV_1\mathrm{}V_n`$ is represented by

$$z=\underset{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}{}y_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},$$

and a vector $`v_jV_j`$ is given by

$$v_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r_j}{}}u_{jk}e_{jk}.$$

Thus, to have $`z=v_1\mathrm{}v_n`$, is the same as to have

$$y_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=u_{1i_1}\mathrm{}u_{ni_n},\text{ for all }i_1\mathrm{}i_n.$$

This is clearly the equations describing the image of the following Segre embedding:

$$(V_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (V_n)(V_1\mathrm{}V_n).$$

Hence, a tensor $`zV_1\mathrm{}V_n`$ is decomposable if and only if its corresponding point in $`(V_1\mathrm{}V_n)`$ is in the image of the above Segre embedding.

The geometric realization of the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a generic matrix $`𝒜`$ comes from the work of Grone (), which we rephrase in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 1.6 (Grone, 1977).

Suppose $`𝒜`$ is a generic box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$, and $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ are vector spaces of dimension $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n`$, respectively. Then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ gives a set of equations that describe the decomposable tensors in $`V_1\mathrm{}V_n`$.

Since the Segre embedding of the product of several projective spaces is a closed immersion, Grone’s result gives an immediate corollary, which demonstrates the geometric realization of $`I_2(𝒜)`$.

###### Corollary 1.6.1.

If $`𝒜`$ is an $`n`$ dimensional generic box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$, then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ gives the defining ideal of the Segre embedding

$$(V_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (V_n)(V_1\mathrm{}V_n).$$

where $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ are vector spaces of dimensions $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n`$, respectively.

###### Proof.

The result follows from the fact that $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal. ∎

From this, we can calculate the Hilbert function of the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of a generic box-shaped matrix as follows.

###### Proposition 1.7.

The Hilbert function of $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is

$$𝐇(I_2(𝒜),t)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_i+t1}{t}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_i+t1}{t}\right)t0.$$

###### Proof.

It is easy to see that all homogeneous polynomials of degree $`t`$ on $`^{{\scriptscriptstyle r_i}1}`$ restricted to the image of $`^{r_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{r_n1}`$ gives all multi-homogeneous polynomials of degree $`(t,\mathrm{},t)`$ in $`^{r_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{r_n1}`$. Thus the Hilbert function of the homogeneous coordinate ring of the Segre embedding is $`_{i=1}^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_i+t1}{t}\right)`$. The proposition now follows. ∎

Remark: It is clear that any Segre embedding is Hilbertian, i.e. its Hilbert function and its Hilbert polynomial are the same.

The geometric realization of $`I_2(𝒜)`$ and Propostion 1.7 give us the perfection of $`I_2(𝒜)`$. The result is stated as follows.

###### Theorem 1.8.

If $`𝒜`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional generic box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$, then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a perfect ideal of grade $`_{i=1}^nr_i_{i=1}^nr_i+(n1)`$.

###### Proof.

We let $`S_i=k[y_{i,1},\mathrm{},y_{i,r_i}]`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`^{r_i1}`$ for all $`i`$. Clearly, $`S_i`$ is Cohen-Macaulay for all $`i`$. By results of \[28, page 378\] and Proposition 1.7, it follows by induction on $`n`$ that the Segre product $`\underset{¯}{}_{i=1}^nS_i`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring. Furthermore, this ring is exactly the coordinate ring of the Segre embedding $`^{r_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{r_n1}^{{\scriptscriptstyle r_i}1}`$. Thus, since $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is the defining ideal of this Segre embedding, i.e. $`\underset{¯}{}_{i=1}^nS_ik[𝒜]/I_2(𝒜)`$, we have $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a perfect ideal. The grade of $`I_2(𝒜)`$ comes from the codimension of the Segre embedding, which is exactly $`_{i=1}^nr_i_{i=1}^nr_i+(n1)`$. The theorem is proved. ∎

Remark: The perfection of $`I_2(𝒜)`$ also comes from a more general result of Hochster (\[17, Theorem 1\]).

We have an immediate corollary.

###### Corollary 1.8.1.

Suppose $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ are vector spaces of dimensions $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n`$. Then, the homogeneous coordinate ring of the Segre embedding

$$(V_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (V_n)(V_1\mathrm{}V_n)$$

is always Cohen-Macaulay.

We now recall the following folklore result (cf. ).

###### Lemma 1.9 (, Lemma 6.3A).

Let $`I`$ be a proper ideal of $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ such that $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/I`$ is $``$-flat, and $`I`$ is perfect of grade $`g`$. Suppose $`S`$ is a Noetherian ring and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ are elements of $`S`$. Let $`I^{}`$ be the ideal given by the image of $`I`$ under the ring homomorphism of $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]S`$ sending $`x_i`$ to $`a_i`$. Then $`\text{grade }I^{}g`$, and if the equality is attained then $`I^{}`$ is a perfect ideal.

We note also that our calculations and arguments, so far, are independent of the field $`k`$. In fact, the same calculations and arguments would apply if we have any commutative Noetherian ring with identity instead of $`k`$. Thus, our results hold when we substitute $`k`$ by $``$, the ring of integers. This, together with Lemma 1.9, gives rise to the following result for any box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 1.10.

Suppose $`𝒜`$ is any $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$. Then,

$$\text{grade }I_2(𝒜)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}r_i+(n1),$$

and if the equality is attained then $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a perfect ideal.

###### Proof.

The result follows from Lemma 1.9 and the fact that our Theorem 1.8 is still true if instead of $`k`$ we have the ring $``$. ∎

We return to the generic situation. Suppose again that

$$𝒜=(x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)𝐁}$$

is a generic box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times \mathrm{}\times r_n`$. The following theorem gives a Gröbner basis for $`I_2(𝒜)`$.

###### Theorem 1.11.

Under the degree reverse lexicographic monomial ordering on $`S_𝒜=k[𝒜]`$, in which the variables $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ are ordered by lexicographic ordering on their indices (assuming that $`1<2<\mathrm{}<n`$), the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ form a Gröbner basis for $`I_2(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`_{\text{lex}}`$ be the lexicographic ordering on $`^n`$. We order the variables of $`S_𝒜`$ by

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)_{\text{lex}}(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n),$$

and use degree reverse lexicographic ordering on the monomials of $`S_𝒜`$. We shall prove that under this monomial ordering, the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ form a Gröbner basis for $`I_2(𝒜)`$.

Let $`𝒢`$ be the collection of all $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$. It suffices to show that the leading terms of $`𝒢`$ generate the leading term ideal of $`I_2(𝒜)`$. By contradiction, suppose $`FI_2(𝒜)`$, and $`T`$, the leading term of $`F`$, is not generated by the leading terms of $`𝒢`$. Clearly, from the nature of $`I_2(𝒜)`$, $`T`$ is a monomial with at least 2 different indeterminates. We consider a new partial ordering on the indeterminates of $`S_𝒜`$, defined by

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}i_lj_ll=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

Suppose $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ and $`x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ are any two different indeterminates present in $`T`$. Without loss of generality, assume that $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}<x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$, i.e. there exists a positive integer $`u`$ such that $`i_l=j_l`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{},u1`$, and $`i_u<j_u`$. It is easy to see that if $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ then there exists another integer $`v>u`$ such that $`i_v>j_v`$. In this case,

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{v1}j_vi_{v+1}\mathrm{}i_n}<x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}<x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{v1}i_vj_{v+1}\mathrm{}j_n}.$$

Thus, $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ is the leading term of

$$x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{v1}j_vi_{v+1}\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{v1}i_vj_{v+1}\mathrm{}j_n}𝒢,$$

whence $`T`$ is generated by the leading terms of $`𝒢`$, a contradiction. Hence, these two indeterminates must be comparable, i.e. $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$. This is true for any two different indeterminates of $`T`$. Therefore, $`T`$ can be rewritten as

$$T=x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}x_{t_{21}\mathrm{}t_{2n}}\mathrm{}x_{t_{p1}\mathrm{}t_{pn}},$$

for some positive integer $`p2`$, where

$$x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}x_{t_{21}\mathrm{}t_{2n}}\mathrm{}x_{t_{p1}\mathrm{}t_{pn}}.$$

Now, let $`[y_{i,1}:\mathrm{}:y_{i,r_i}]`$ represent the homogeneous coordinates of $`^{r_i1}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is the defining ideal of the Segre embedding

$$^{r_11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{r_n1}^{{\scriptscriptstyle r_i}1},$$

$`F`$ vanishes when we substitute the indeterminate $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ by $`_{l=1}^ny_{l,i_l}`$ for all $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n)`$. It is also clear that after this substitution, $`F`$ becomes a polynomial on the variables $`y_{i,j}`$. This polynomial is zero for all values of the variables $`y_{i,j}`$, so it must be the zero polynomial (since the ground field $`k`$ is infinite). This implies that there must be a term $`T^{}`$ of $`F`$ ($`T^{}T`$) which cancels $`T`$ after the substitution. Suppose $`x_{k_1\mathrm{}k_n}`$ is an indeterminate present in $`T^{}`$. Since $`T^{}`$ cancels $`T`$ after the substitution, for each $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`k_l\{t_{1l},\mathrm{},t_{pl}\}`$. From the partial ordering on the indeterminates in $`T`$, it is now clear that $`k_lt_{1l}`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{},n`$, whence $`x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}x_{k_1\mathrm{}k_n}`$. If $`x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}<x_{k_1\mathrm{}k_n}`$ for every indeterminate $`x_{k_1\mathrm{}k_n}`$ in $`T^{}`$, then $`T<T^{}`$, which is a contradiction since $`T`$ is the leading term of $`F`$. Otherwise, suppose $`x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}`$ is contained in $`T^{}`$, then by considering $`T/x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}`$ and $`T^{}/x_{t_{11}\mathrm{}t_{1n}}`$, and continuing the process, we eventually would, again, get a contradiction.

The theorem is proved. ∎

Remark: From the proof above, it is easy to see that the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ form a Gröbner basis for $`I_2(𝒜)`$ under any monomial ordering on $`S_𝒜`$ that satisfies the condition that if $`g=x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}x_{p_1\mathrm{}p_n}x_{q_1\mathrm{}q_n}`$ is an element of $`𝒢`$, where $`x_{p_1\mathrm{}p_n}x_{q_1\mathrm{}q_n}`$, then $`x_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}x_{j_1\mathrm{}j_n}`$ is the leading term of $`g`$. Degree reverse lexicographic monomial ordering is merely one of those monomial orderings that satisfies this condition. We choose this ordering since it is pratical in most computational algebra packages, such as CoCoA and Macaulay2.

The theorem gives rise to an interesting corollary.

###### Corollary 1.11.1.

Suppose $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ are vector spaces of dimensions $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_n`$. Then, the homogeneous coordinate ring of the Segre embedding

$$(V_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (V_n)(V_1\mathrm{}V_n)$$

is a Kozsul algebra.

###### Proof.

This follows from the fact that all $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ are quadratic forms. ∎

3-dimensional box-shaped matrices

In the last part of this section, we briefly look at a particular class of box-shaped matrices, those of dimension 3. Besides the usual matrices, 3-dimensional box-shaped matrices are the easiest that can be visualized. To visualize all the $`2\times 2`$ minors of a 3-dimensional box-shaped matrix, one only needs to take any two lines parallel to one of the axes, and looks at their intersection with any two planes parallel to the other two axes of our fixed system of coordinates. 3-dimensional box-shaped matrices not only describe the Segre embedding of the product of 3 projective spaces, but also give a tool in studying certain blowup surfaces, as it will be discussed in the next section. We first extend the notion of a box-shaped matrix of indeterminates to that of a weak box-shaped matrix of indeterminates.

Definition. Suppose $`𝒜=(a_{ijk})_{(i,j,k)𝐁}`$ is a box-shaped matrix of forms in a ring $`S`$. For each integer $`l`$ let $`𝒜_{(x,l)}`$ be the matrix given by the collection $`\{a_{ijk}|(i,j,k)𝐁,i=l\}`$. We call $`𝒜_{(x,l)}`$ an x-section of the box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$. The y-sections and z-sections of $`𝒜`$ are defined similarly.

Definition. A box-shaped matrix $`𝒜=(x_{ijk})_{(i,j,k)𝐁}`$, with box-shaped realization $`𝐁`$, of forms in a domain $`S`$ is called a weak box-shaped matrix of indeterminates if

1. All the entries in $`𝒜`$ are indeterminates of $`S`$, i.e. algebraically independent over $`k`$.
2. $`<I_2(𝒜),x_{r_1r_2r_3}>=_{l=1}^3I_l`$ where the ideals $`I_l`$ are defined as that of a general $`n`$-dimensional box-shaped matrix.
3. There exists an integral point $`(i,j,k)B`$ such that when we set all indeterminates other than $`x_{ijk}`$ of $`k[𝒜]`$ to zero, the ideal $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is the zero ideal.
4. The ideals of $`2\times 2`$ minors of sections $`𝒜_{x,i}`$, $`𝒜_{y,j}`$ and $`𝒜_{z,k}`$ are prime ideals.

With this bigger class of box-shaped matrices, the primeness of their ideals of $`2\times 2`$ minors still holds.

###### Proposition 1.12.

$`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal in $`k[𝒜]`$ for any weak box-shaped matrix of indeterminates $`𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

First, we can always re-arrange the indices such that $`(i,j,k)`$ becomes $`(1,1,1)`$. The proof now follows in the same lines as that of Theorem 1.5. ∎

## 2. Projective embeddings of blowup surfaces.

Let $`𝕏^2`$ be a set of $`s=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)`$ points ($`d,d1`$) that are in generic position. Let $`^2(𝕏)`$ be the blowup of $`^2`$ along the points of $`𝕏`$, and let $`I_𝕏=_{td}I_tR=k[w_1,w_2,w_3]`$ be the defining ideal of $`𝕏`$. Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ be the surface obtained by embedding $`^2(𝕏)`$ using the linear system $`I_t`$ ($`t=d+n,n1`$). In this section, we give an explicit description for a system of defining equations for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ for any $`t`$. We start by a simple result, which could be of folklore.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`S,R`$ and $`T`$ are Noetherian commutative rings with identity, and $`\varphi :SR`$ and $`\psi :RT`$ are surjective ring homomorphisms. Suppose also that $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n`$ are generators for $`\text{ker }\varphi S`$ and $`g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_m`$ are generators for $`\text{ker }\psi R`$. Let $`p_j`$ be a preimage of $`g_j`$ for all $`j`$, then $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n,p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ give a set of generators for $`\text{ker }(\psi \varphi )S`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly $`f_i`$’s and $`p_j`$’s are all in $`\text{ker }(\psi \varphi )`$. Moreover, if $`x\text{ker }(\psi \varphi )`$ then either $`\varphi (x)=0`$ or $`\varphi (x)`$ is a linear combination of the $`g_j`$’s. The result is now trivial. ∎

To proceed, it follows from  that $`I_𝕏`$ is minimally generated in degree $`d`$. By the Hilbert-Burch theorem, these generators are the $`d\times d`$ minors of a $`d\times (d+1)`$ matrix, say $`𝐋`$, of linear forms :

$$𝐋=(L_{ij}),L_{ij}R_1\text{ for }i=1,2,\mathrm{},d\text{ and }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

In this notation,

$$I_𝕏=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_{d+1}),F_i=(1)^{i+1}\text{det}(𝐋\backslash i^{\text{th}}\text{ column}).$$

For $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)`$, we write $`w^\alpha `$ for $`w_1^{\alpha _1}w_2^{\alpha _2}w_3^{\alpha _3}`$, and denote $`|\alpha |=\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3`$. A system of generators of the vector space $`I_t`$ is given by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)(d+1)`$ forms $`w^\alpha F_j`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1`$ and $`|\alpha |=n`$.

Consider the rational map

$$\phi :^2^p,p=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)(d+1)1,$$

given by $`\phi (P)=[w^\alpha F_j]`$ (we order the $`\alpha `$’s by lexicographic ordering with $`w_1>w_2>w_3`$). $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ embedded in $`^p`$ is given by the closure of the image of $`\phi `$.

Let $`z_1=w_1^n,z_2=w_1^{n1}w_2,\mathrm{},z_u=w_3^n`$, where $`u=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)`$ (again, we arrange the terms in lexicographic order). We use homogeneous coordinates $`[x_{ij}]_{1iu,1jd+1}`$ of $`^p`$ such that

$`\phi ([w_1:w_2:w_3])`$ $`=`$ $`[x_{ij}],\text{ where }x_{ij}=z_iF_j.`$ (2.1)
The vector space dimension of $`I_t`$ is $`(n+1)d+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)`$, so there must be $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ dependence relations among the $`w^\alpha F_j`$’s. Those relations can be found as follows.

Let $`\beta =(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)`$ with $`|\beta |=n1`$. For each $`l=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$, we have

$$0=\text{ det }\left(\begin{array}{c}w^\beta L_{l1}w^\beta L_{l2}\mathrm{}w^\beta L_{ld+1}\\ 𝐋\end{array}\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d+1}{}}L_{lj}w^\beta F_j.$$

Since $`L_{lj}=_{k=1}^3\lambda _{ljk}w_k`$, so by grouping similar terms, we get

$$\underset{|\alpha |=n,1jd+1}{}\mu _{l\alpha j}w^\alpha F_j=0,l=1,2,\mathrm{},d,$$

where

$$\mu _{l\alpha j}=\underset{w^\beta w_k=w^\alpha }{}\lambda _{ljk}\text{ for each }l,\alpha \text{ and }j.$$

These are the dependence relations of the $`w^\alpha F_j`$’s. In terms of $`z_i`$’s, we can rewrite them as

$$\underset{i,j}{}\mu _{lij}z_iF_j=0,l=1,2,\mathrm{},d.$$

These give rise to the following equations:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1iu,1jd+1}{}}\mu _{lij}x_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`0,l=1,2,\mathrm{},d.`$ (2.2)
There are $`d`$ relations of the form (2.2) for each $`\beta `$, and the number of such $`\beta `$’s is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$. By abuse of notation, we denote the collection of all these $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ relations by (2.2). The relations in (2.2) would be independent relations if we can show that the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)(d+1)`$ matrix E of the coefficients $`\mu _{lij}`$ has maximal rank. Indeed, we shall use a similar argument to that given by Geramita and Gimigliano ().

###### Lemma 2.2.

E has maximal rank.

###### Proof.

We assume, without loss of generality, that none of the points of $`𝕏`$ is $`P=[0:0:1]`$, and that the first minor of $`𝐋`$, $`F_1`$, does not vanish at $`P`$. Suppose

$$𝐋=A_1w_1+A_2w_2+A_3w_3,$$

where the $`A_i`$s have entries in the ground field. This means that $`A_3`$ has maximal rank $`d`$ (since $`F_1(P)0`$).

If we arrange the $`\beta `$s in lexicographic order with $`w_1>w_2>w_3`$ then E would have the form

$$𝐄=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}A_1& \mathrm{}& A_2& \mathrm{}& A_3& 0& & \\ \mathrm{}& A_1& \mathrm{}& A_2& \mathrm{}& A_3& 0& \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& A_3\end{array}\right]$$

(The $`A_3`$ of the latter row is totally on the right of the $`A_3`$ of the former row). On each $`A_3`$, take $`d`$ columns that give a matrix $`A_3^{}`$ which has nonzero determinant. Putting them all together, we obtain a $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ matrix, which looks like the following:

$$𝐄^{}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}A_3^{}& & & \\ & A_3^{}& & 0\\ X& & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & A_3^{}\end{array}\right],$$

a lower-triangular matrix. Clearly, $`\text{det}𝐄^{}=(\text{det}A_3^{})^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}0`$. Thus, the matrix E has maximal rank. ∎

Obviously, on $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$, the coordinates of the points satisfy the equations in (2.2). These are the equations coming from the dependence relations of the $`w^\alpha F_j`$’s that we are looking for.

Consider the matrix

$$M=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}x_{11}& x_{12}& \mathrm{}& x_{1d+1}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}& \mathrm{}& x_{2d+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ x_{u1}& x_{u2}& \mathrm{}& x_{ud+1}\end{array}\right]$$

It is easy to see that the points of $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$ satisfy all the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`M`$. Denote the collection of these equations by (\**).

Moreover, on $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$, each column of $`M`$ has the form :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}z_1F_j\\ z_2F_j\\ \mathrm{}\\ z_uF_j\end{array}\right)$$

where $`z_1=w_1^n,\mathrm{},z_u=w_3^n`$ for some point $`[w_1:w_2:w_3]^2\backslash 𝕏`$. Clearly, the $`z_i`$’s satisfy the defining equations of the Veronese surfaces, which are known to be the $`2\times 2`$ minors of certain Catalecticant matrices (see  for definition). Thus, on $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$, the coordinates $`x_{1j},x_{2j},\mathrm{},x_{uj}`$ satisfy the $`2\times 2`$ minors of the Catalecticant matrix $`\text{Cat}(1,n1;3)`$ of size $`3\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$, for all $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1`$. Denote the collection of these equations by (\***).

From (2.1), on $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$, we have:

$$x_{1j}/z_1=x_{2j}/z_2=\mathrm{}=x_{uj}/z_u,\text{ for all }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

This can be rewritten as a number of systems of equations, one for each $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},u`$

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}x_{ij}/z_i& =& x_{1j}/z_1\\ x_{ij}/z_i& =& x_{2j}/z_2\\ & \mathrm{}& \\ x_{ij}/z_i& =& x_{uj}/z_u\end{array}\text{ for }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

Those relations give us, for each $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},u`$ :

$$(S_i)\{\begin{array}{ccc}x_{ij}z_1x_{1j}z_i& =& 0\\ x_{ij}z_2x_{2j}z_i& =& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & \\ x_{ij}z_ux_{uj}z_i& =& 0\end{array}\text{ for }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

It is not hard to see that if the coordinates of $`Q=[x_{ij}]^p`$ and $`P=[z_i]^{u1}`$ satisfy system $`(S_i)`$ for some $`i`$, where $`z_i0`$, then they satisfy systems $`(S_i)`$ for all $`i`$.

Before going further, we prove a similar proposition to that of .

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`Q=[x_{ij}]`$ be a point on $`^p`$, and suppose the coordinates of $`Q`$ satisfy equations in (\**). Then there exists a unique $`P=[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_u]^{u1}`$ such that the homogeneous coordinates of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy the systems $`(S_i)`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Proof.

Since the coordinates of $`Q`$ satisfy equations in (\**), the matrix $`M(Q)`$ has rank 1, i.e. the rows of $`M(Q)`$ are all multiples of any nonzero row of $`M(Q)`$. Suppose the first row of $`M(Q)`$ is not identically zero (similar argument works for other rows). Then there exist $`\nu _i`$, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},u`$, such that

$$x_{ij}=\nu _ix_{1j},\text{ for all }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

We want $`P^{u1}`$ such that the coordinates of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy the systems $`(S_i)`$ for all $`i`$. We first consider such $`P`$ that the coordinates of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy $`(S_1)`$. This is the same as solving for $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_u`$ from $`(S_1)`$. The coefficients matrix becomes (projectively) a collection of :

$$N_j=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \nu _2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \nu _3& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& \\ \nu _u& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right),\text{ for }j=1,2,\mathrm{},d+1.$$

Since $`N_j`$ is independent of $`j`$ and has rank exactly $`u1`$, the system $`(S_1)`$ has exactly one projective solution, that gives a unique point $`P^{u1}`$. Moreover, this $`P`$ clearly has non-zero $`z_1`$ entry. Thus, the coordinates of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy $`(S_i)`$ for all $`i`$. Hence, $`P`$ exists and is unique. ∎

Let $`𝐕`$ be the algebraic set in $`^p`$ defined by all the equations in (2.2), (\**) and (\***). We have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.4.

$`𝐕=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ as sets.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)𝐕`$. Since $`𝐕`$ is closed, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ is integral (so $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ is irreducible, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}=\overline{\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)}`$ ), we have

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}𝐕.$$

We only need to show that

$$𝐕\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}.$$

Having Proposition 2.3, if we can show that for any points $`P=[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_u]`$ and $`Q=[x_{ij}]`$ such that the coordinates of $`Q`$ satisfy the equations in (2.2), (\**) and (\***), and coordinates of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy the systems $`(S_i)`$ for all $`i`$, $`Q`$ must be in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$, then we will have $`𝐕\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$, and so are done. Suppose $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are such points. We can always assume that $`z_10`$. Consider the system of equations given by all the equations in $`(S_1)`$ (if instead, $`z_i0`$, then we look at the system $`(S_i)`$). As a system of linear equations in indeterminates (note the way we have rearranged the indices)

$$\{x_{ij}|1jd+1,1iu\},$$

the coefficients matrix is :

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B& & & \\ & B& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & B\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \\ z_2& z_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \\ z_3& 0& z_1& \mathrm{}& 0& \\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& & \\ z_u& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& z_1& \end{array}\right).$$

Clearly, $`B`$ has rank $`u1`$, and has a non-trivial solution $`[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_u]`$. Therefore, the solution to $`A`$ must have the form :

$$[x_{ij}]=[c_1z_1:c_1z_2:\mathrm{}:c_1z_u:c_2z_1:\mathrm{}:c_2z_u:\mathrm{}:c_{d+1}z_1:\mathrm{}:c_{d+1}z_u],$$

where $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{d+1}`$ are constants not all zero, and the indeterminates are ordered by $`1jd+1`$ and $`1iu`$.

Now, since the coordinates of $`Q`$ also satisfy the equations in (\***), which are the defining equations of Veronese surfaces, there exists a unique point $`T=[w_1:w_2:w_3]^2`$ such that $`z_1=w_1^n,z_2=w_1^{n1}w_2,\mathrm{},z_u=w_3^n`$. Thus,

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`[c_1w_1^n:\mathrm{}:c_{d+1}w_3^n].`$ (2.3)
Lastly, the coordinates of $`Q`$ satisfy $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ equations in (2.2), so

$$𝐋(T)\left[\begin{array}{c}c_1\\ c_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ c_{d+1}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right].$$

If $`T𝕏`$, then $`𝐋(T)`$ has rank exactly $`d`$. Thus,

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}c_1\\ c_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ c_{d+1}\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left[\begin{array}{c}F_1(T)\\ F_2(T)\\ \mathrm{}\\ F_{d+1}(T)\end{array}\right].`$ (2.12)
This implies that $`Q\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$.

If $`T𝕏`$, then $`𝐋(T)`$ has rank exactly $`d1`$, so there is a 2-dimensional solution space, and these resulting $`Q`$s lie on a line of $`𝐕`$, which is one of the exceptional lines of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$.

Hence, we always have $`Q\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$. We have proved that $`𝐕=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ as sets. ∎

To continue our study, we let $`S=k[x_{ij}]`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`^p`$. Suppose $`𝐂`$ is the Catalecticant matrix $`\text{Cat}(1,n1;3)`$ of indeterminates $`\{z_i\}_{0i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{2}\right)}`$. $`𝐂`$ is of size $`3\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$. Consider the box $`𝐁`$ of size $`(d+1)\times 3\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be the box-shaped matrix obtained by assigning each integral point $`(i,j,k)`$ of $`𝐁`$ the indeterminate $`x_{il}`$ where $`l`$ is the integer such that $`z_l`$ is at the $`(j,k)`$-position in $`𝐂`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

$`𝒜`$ is a weak box-shaped matrix of indeterminates.

###### Proof.

Clearly, each x-section of $`𝒜`$ has its ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors as the defining ideal of a Veronese surface, so its ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors is a prime ideal. Also, each y-section and z-section of $`𝒜`$ is a matrix of indeterminates, whence whose ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors is also a prime ideal. Moreover, $`x_{111}`$ surely satisfies property (c) of $`𝒜`$ being a weak box-shaped matrix. It remains to show that

$$<I_2(𝒜),x_{(d+1)3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}>=_{l=1}^3I_l.$$

For convenience, we let $`r_1=d+1,r_2=3,r_3=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$, and consider $`𝒜`$ as a box-shaped matrix of size $`r_1\times r_2\times r_3`$. We shall first prove that

$$I_2I_3=<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{ir_2r_3}|i=1,\mathrm{},r_1\}>.$$

The proof will go in the same line as that of part (a) of Lemma 1.1. Firstly, it is clear that $`<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{ir_2r_3}|i=1,\mathrm{},r_1\}>I_2I_3`$. It remains to show the other inclusion. Let $`FI_2I_3`$. Doing exactly as we did before, we end up with $`F=F^{}+G^{}+G`$, where $`F^{},G^{}I_2(𝒜)`$, and

$$G=\underset{ik}{}G_{ik}x_{ir_2k},$$

where $`G_{ik}`$’s are independent of the variables $`x_{ijr_3}`$. Again, we have $`GI_3`$, so we can write

$$G=H+\underset{i,j}{}H_{ij}x_{ijr_3},$$

where $`HI_2(𝒜_3)`$. We may assume that the $`H_{ir_2}`$’s are independent of all the variables $`\{x_{ijr_3}|jr_2\}`$. By the nature of the $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ and the symmetry (in construction) of Catalecticant matrices, it can be seen that if a $`2\times 2`$ minor of $`𝒜`$ has one indeterminate belonging to $`\{x_{ijr_3}|(i,j,r_3)𝐁\}`$ then it must have at least two adjacent indeterminates belonging to $`\{x_{ijr_3}|(i,j,r_3)𝐁\}`$. Thus, by re-grouping and rewriting, we can always assume that $`H`$ is also independent of the indeterminates $`\{x_{ijr_3}|(i,j,r_3)𝐁\}`$. Now, clearly, $`G=H+_iH_{ir_2}x_{ir_2r_3}<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{ir_2r_3}|i=1,\mathrm{},r_1\}>`$. We have shown that $`I_2I_3=<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{ir_2r_3}|i=1,\mathrm{},r_1\}>`$.

It now follows in the same line of the proof of part (b) of Lemma 1.1 that

$$<I_2(𝒜),\{x_{ir_2r_3}|i=1,\mathrm{},r_1\}>I_3=<I_2(𝒜),x_{r_1r_2r_3}>.$$

The lemma is proved. ∎

We obtain the main result of this section as follows.

###### Theorem 2.6.

The subscheme $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ in $`^p`$ is defined by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)d`$ linear forms and the $`2\times 2`$ minors of a box-shaped matrix of linear forms.

###### Proof.

Let $`S=k[x_{ij}]`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`^p`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be the weak box-shaped matrix of indeterminates as above, and again, let $`I_2(𝒜)`$ be the ideal of $`2\times 2`$ minors of $`𝒜`$ in $`k[𝒜]`$. We also let $`𝐈`$ be the ideal generated by $`I_2(𝒜)`$ and all the linear equations in (2.2). Let $`𝒱`$ be the subscheme of $`^p`$ defined by $`𝐈`$.

It is easy to see that $`𝐈`$ contains all the equations in (2.2), (\**) and (\***), so as sets, $`𝒱𝐕`$ (where $`𝐕`$ is the subvariety of $`^p`$ defined by the equations in (2.2), (\**) and (\***)).

Suppose now that $`P=[\overline{w_1}:\overline{w_2}:\overline{w_3}]^2\backslash 𝕏`$ and $`Q=[\overline{x_{ij}}]=\phi (P)`$. Let $`\overline{z_1}=\overline{w_1}^n,\overline{z_2}=\overline{w_1}^{n1}\overline{w_2},\mathrm{},\overline{z_u}=\overline{w_3}^n`$ then $`\overline{x_{ij}}=\overline{z_i}F_j(P)`$. Consider a $`2\times 2`$ minors $`a_{(K,L,M,N)}`$ of $`𝒜`$ corresponding to the 4 points $`K,L,M`$ and $`N`$ in the box-shaped realization of $`𝒜`$. There are 3 possibilities for the tuple $`(K,L,M,N)`$.

Case 1. $`K=(i,j,k),L=(m,j,p),M=(m,n,p)`$ and $`N=(i,n,k)`$ for some integers $`i,j,k,m,n`$ and $`p`$ (when the projections of $`K,L,M,N`$ on the $`zx`$-plane collapse to a line).

Case 2. $`K=(i,j,k),L=(m,j,k),M=(m,n,p)`$ and $`N=(i,n,p)`$ for some integers $`i,j,k,m,n`$ and $`p`$ (when the projections of $`K,L,M,N`$ on the $`yz`$-plane collapse to a line).

Case 3. $`K=(i,j,k),L=(m,n,k),M=(m,n,p)`$ and $`N=(i,j,p)`$ for some integers $`i,j,k,m,n,`$ and $`p`$ (when the projections of $`K,L,M,N`$ on the $`xy`$-plane collapse to a line).

By the construction of $`𝒜`$ and the fact that $`[\overline{z_1}:\mathrm{}:\overline{z_u}]`$ is in the Veronese surface, i.e. it satisfies all the $`2\times 2`$ minors of C, it is easy to check that $`Q`$ satisfies the minors $`a_{(K,L,M,N)}`$. This is true for any $`Q\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)`$ and any $`2\times 2`$ minors $`a_{(K,L,M,N)}`$ of $`𝒜`$, so $`\phi (^2\backslash 𝕏)𝒱`$, whence $`𝐕𝒱`$.

We have shown that in all cases, $`𝐕𝒱`$. Hence, as sets, $`𝒱=𝐕=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$.

Now, by Proposition 1.12, we know that $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal. Consider the following sequence of surjective ring homomorphisms:

$$k[x_{ij}]\stackrel{\varphi }{}k[w^\alpha t_j]\stackrel{\psi }{}k[w^\alpha F_j],$$

defined in the obvious way; that is, both $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ send $`k`$ to $`k`$, and $`\varphi `$ sends $`x_{ij}`$ to $`w^\alpha t_j`$ where $`w^\alpha `$ is labelled $`z_i`$, and $`\psi `$ sends $`w^\alpha t_j`$ to $`w^\alpha F_j`$.

We note that in proving equalities (2.3) and (2.12), we actually proved more. Firstly, the proof of (2.3) and the fact that $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is a prime ideal imply that $`I_2(𝒜)`$ is the kernel of $`\varphi `$. Secondly, the proof of (2.12) shows that if we consider the equations in (2.2) as polynomials over the $`w^\alpha t_j`$’s, then those polynomials are zero exactly when $`t_j=F_j`$ (since $`t_j=F_j`$ at all but a finite set of points $`𝕏`$). This implies that $`k[w^\alpha t_j]/ak[w^\alpha F_j]`$, where $`a`$ is the ideal generated by the images of the equations in (2.2) through $`\varphi `$. Thus, $`a`$ is the kernel of $`\psi `$. Now, by Lemma 2.1, we conclude that I is the kernel of $`\psi \varphi `$. In other words, I is the defining ideal of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ embedded in $`^p`$ (since the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}`$ embedded in $`^p`$ is exactly $`k[w^\alpha F_j]`$). The theorem is proved. ∎

Remark: When $`t=d+1`$, our box-shaped matrix $`𝒜`$ collapses to be a normal matrix of size $`3\times (d+1)`$, and the above result coincides with that obtained by Geramita and Gimigliano in .

Acknowledgement. This paper is part of the author’s PhD thesis. I would like to thank my research advisor A.V. Geramita for his inspiration and guidance.