1. Introduction
Let
be an integral and non-degenerate variety. For any
, the
X-rank
of
q is the minimal cardinality of a finite set
such that
, where
denotes the linear span. The definition of
X-ranks captures the notion of tensor rank (take as
X the Segre embedding of a multiprojective space) of rank decomposition of a homogeneous polynomial (take as
X a Veronese embedding of a projective space) of partially symmetric tensor rank (take a complete linear system of a multiprojective space) and small variations of it may be adapted to cover other applications. See [
1] for many applications and [
2] for many algebraic insights. For the pioneering works on the applied side, see, for instance, [
3,
4,
5,
6,
7]. The paper [
7] proved that
X-rank is not continuous and showed why this has practical importance. The dimensions of the secant varieties (i.e., the closure of the set of all
with a prescribed rank) has a huge theoretical and practical importance. The Alexander–Hirschowitz theorem computes in all cases the dimensions of the secant varieties of the Veronese embeddings of a projective space ([
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14]). For the dimensions of secant varieties, see [
15,
16,
17] for tensors and [
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27] for partially symmetric tensors (i.e., Segre–Veronese embeddings of multiprojective spaces). For the important problem of the uniqueness of the set evincing a rank (in particular for the important case of tensors) after the classical [
28], see [
29,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
38]. See [
39,
40,
41,
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47] for other theoretical works.
Let be a finite set and . We say that S evinces the X-rank of q if and . We say that S evinces an X-rank if there is such that S evinces the X-rank of q. Obviously, S may evince an X-rank only if it is linearly independent, but this condition is not a sufficient one, except in very trivial cases, like when for all . Call the maximum of all integers . An obvious necessary condition is that and this is in very special cases a sufficient condition (see Propositions 1 for the rational normal curve). If S evinces the X-rank of , then and for any . For any finite set , set . Note that if and only if either or S is linearly dependent (when , and S evinces itself). In some cases, it is possible to show that some finite evinces the X-rank of all points of . We say that S evinces generically the X-ranks if there is a non-empty Zariski open subset U of such that S evinces the X-ranks of all . We say that S totally evinces the X-ranks if S evinces the X-ranks of all . We first need an elementary and well-known bound to compare it with our results.
Let
be the maximal integer such that each subset of
X with cardinality
is linearly independent. See ([
43] Lemma 2.6, Theorem 1.18) and ([
42] Proposition 2.5) for some uses of the integer
. Obviously,
and it is easy to check and well known that equality holds if and only if
X is a Veronese embedding of
(Remark 1). If
, then
S totally evinces the
X-ranks (as in [
43] Theorem 1.18) while, for each integer
with
, there is a linearly independent subset of
X with cardinality
t and not totally evincing the
X-ranks ( Lemma 3). Thus, to say something more, we need to make some assumptions on
S and these assumptions must be related to the geometry of
X or the reasons for the interest of the
X-ranks. We do this in
Section 3 for the Veronese embeddings and in
Section 4 for the tensor rank. For tensors, we only have results for
(Propositions 3 and 4).
For all positive integers let , , denote the Veronese embedding of , i.e., the embedding of induced by the complete linear system . Set . At least over an algebraically closed base field of characteristic 0 (i.e., in the set-up of this paper), for any , the integer is the minimal number of d-powers of linear forms in variables whose sum is the homogeneous polynomial associated to q.
We prove the following result, whose proof is elementary (see
Section 3 for the proof). In its statement, the assumption “
” just means that the vector space of all degree
homogeneous polynomials in
variables vanishing on
A has dimension
, i.e.,
A imposes
independent conditions to the homogeneous polynomials of degree
in
variables.
Theorem 1. Fix integers , and a finite set such that . Set . Then, S totally evinces the ranks for .
A general satisfies the assumption of Theorem 1 if and only if . For much smaller , one can check the condition if A satisfies some geometric conditions (e.g., if A is in linearly general position, it is sufficient to assume ).
We conclude the paper with some questions related to the maximum of the X-ranks when X is a Veronese embedding of .
2. Preliminary Lemmas
Remark 1. Let be an integral and non-degenerate variety. Since any points of are linearly dependent, we have . If X is a rational normal curve, then because any points of X spans . Now, we check that, if , then X is a rational normal curve. This is well known, but usually stated in the set-up of Veronese embeddings or the X-ranks of curves. Set and . Assume . Let be a general hyperplane. If , then has dimension and in particular it has infinitely many points. Any points of are linearly dependent. Now, assume . Since X is non-degenerate, we have . By Bertini’s theorem, contains d points of X. Since , and , we have . Hence, , i.e., X is a rational normal curve.
The following example shows, that in many cases, there are are sets evincing X-ranks, but not totally evincing X-ranks or even generically evincing X-ranks.
Example 1. Let , , be a rational normal curve. Take with , i.e., take , where is the tangential variety of X ([48]). Take evincing the X-rank of q. Thus, and S spans a hyperplane . Since and spans , is a proper closed algebraic subset of . Thus, for a general , we have and hence S does not generically evinces X-ranks. Lemma 1. If is a finite set evincing the rank of some , then each , , evinces the X-rank of some .
Proof. We may assume . Write . Since S evinces the rank of q, S is linearly independent, but is not linearly independent. Since and , there are unique and such that . Since S evinces the rank of q, evinces the rank of . ☐
Lemma 2. Every non-empty subset of a set evincing generically (resp. totally) X-ranks evinces generically (resp. totally) the X-ranks.
Proof. Assume that S evinces generically the X-ranks and call U a non-empty open subset of such that for all ; if S evinces totally the X-ranks, take . Fix , and set . Let E be the set of all such that . If , then because for each . Since and is linearly independent, E is a non-empty open subset of (a general element of is contained in the linear span of a general element of and a general element of ). Now, assume . Every element of is in the linear span of an element of and an element of . ☐
Lemma 3. Take a finite set , .
- (a)
If , then S totally evinces the X-ranks.
- (b)
For each integer , there is such that and A does not totally evince the X-ranks.
Proof. Take and assume . Take evincing the X-rank of q. Since , we have . Since , but no proper subset of either B or S spans q, is linearly dependent. Since , we have , contradicting the definition of .
Now, we prove part (b). By Lemma 1, it is sufficient to do the case . By the definition of the integer , there is a subset with and D linearly dependent. Write with and . Note that . Since (remember that ), both A and E are linearly independent. Since is linearly dependent, there is . Since , every proper subset of D is linearly independent. Hence, for all . Thus, . Since , A does not evince the X-rank of q. ☐
Remark 2. Take such that for all (e.g., by [49], we may take most space curves). Any set with evinces its X-ranks if and only if X contains no line. 3. The Veronese Embeddings of Projective Spaces
Let , , denote the Veronese embedding of . Set .
Proposition 1. Let , , be the rational normal curve.
- (a)
A non-empty finite set evinces some rank of if and only if .
- (b)
A non-empty finite set totally evinces the X-ranks if and only if .
Proof. By a theorem of Sylvester’s ([
48]), every
has
X-rank at most
d. Thus, the condition
is a necessary condition for evincing some rank. By Lemma 1 to prove part (a), it is sufficient to prove it when
. Take any connected zero-dimensional scheme
with
and
. Thus,
. Since
,
and
X is projectively normal, we have
and
for each
. This is equivalent to say that the line
meets
at a unique point,
q and
. By Sylvester’s theorem,
([
48]). Since
and
,
S evinces the
X-rank of
q.
If and , then A totally evinces the X-ranks by part (a) of Lemma 3 and the fact that . Now, assume . Fix a set with . Adapt the proof of part (b) of Lemma 3. ☐
Proposition 2. Fix a set , , with . The following conditions are equivalent:
- 1.
there is a line such that ;
- 2.
S evinces no -rank;
- 3.
there is such that S does not evince the -rank of q.
Proof. Obviously, (2) implies (3). If
is a subvariety and
, we have
. Thus, Sylvester’s theorem ([
48]) and Lemma 2 show that (1) implies (2).
Now, assume the existence of
such that
S does not evince the
X-rank of
q, i.e.,
. Take
such that
and take
such that
evinces the
X-rank of
q. Since
, (Ref. [
50] Lemma 1) gives
. Since
, (Ref. [
51] Lemma 34) gives the existence of a line
such that
. Let
be a general hyperplane containing
L. Since
H is general and
is a finite set, we have
. Since
, we have
and hence
. By ([
52] Lemma 5.2), we have
. ☐
See [
53,
54] for some results on the geometry of sets
with controlled Hilbert function and that may be useful to extend Proposition 2.
Proof of Theorem 1: Set
. Note that
for all
and in particular
. Fix
and assume
. Fix
such that
evinces the
-rank of
q. Since
and
, we have
. Thus, there is
containing
B, but with
, i.e.,
, while
. Since
, we have
. Since
,
is linearly independent. Since
evinces a rank, it is linearly independent. Grassmann’s formula gives
. We have
. Since
is a finite set, we have
. Since
, the residual exact sequence (also known as the Castelnuovo’s sequence)
gives
. Since
M is projectively normal,
. Thus, the Grassmann’s formula gives
. Since
, we get
. Since
, we get
, a contradiction. ☐
4. Tensors, i.e., the Segre Varieties
Fix an integer and positive integers . Set (the Segre variety) and . Let denote the Segre embedding. Let denote the projection on the i-th factor. For any , set and call the projection which forgets the i-th component. Let , denote the Segre embedding of . A key difficulty is that because contains lines.
Lemma 4. Let be any finite set such that there is with not injective. Then, evinces no rank.
Proof. By Lemma 1, we reduce to the case , say with , with if and only if . Since all lines of Y are contained in one of the factors of Y and all lines of are images of lines of Y, we get . Thus, each element of is contained in and hence it has rank 1. Since , evinces no rank. ☐
Lemma 5. Let such that there are and with , linearly dependent and linearly dependent. Then, evinces no rank.
Proof. Let
be a smooth quadric surface.
Q is projectively equivalent to the Segre embedding of
and each point of
has at most
Q-rank 2 by [
47] (Proposition 5.1). By Lemma 1, we may assume
. By Lemma 4, we may assume that
is injective. Thus,
. Since
is not linearly independent and it has cardinality 3, it is contained in a line of
. Thus,
is contained in a line of one of the factors of
. By assumption,
is contained in a line of
. Thus,
S is contained in a subscheme of
Y isomorphic to
. Since each point of
has
Q-rank
and
,
evinces no rank. ☐
Remark 3. Fix a finite set such that is linearly independent. S evinces no tensor rank if there is a multiprojective subspace such that and is larger than the maximum tensor rank of .
Note that Lemmas 4 and 5 may be restated as a way to check for very low if there is some as in Lemma 3 exists.
Proposition 3. Take with . Let be the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y containing S. The following conditions are equivalent:
- 1.
S evinces no rank;
- 2.
S does not generically evince ranks;
- 3.
S does not totally evince ranks;
- 4.
.
Proof. Since any two distinct points of are linearly independent (i.e., is a line) and is the set of all points with -rank 1, S evinces no rank if and only if . Use the fact that the lines of are contained in one of the factors of . Since is cut out by quadrics, if , then . Since we see that all points of have rank 2 ☐
Proposition 4. Take with and linearly independent. Write with . Let be the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y containing A. Write with and . We have .
If is injective for all i and either or or and , then S totally evinces its ranks. In all other cases for a general with , does not generically evince its ranks.
Proof. If
is not injective for some
i, then
S evinces no rank by Lemma 4. Thus, we may assume that each
is injective for all
i. Each factor of
is the linear span of
in
. Hence,
. Omitting all factors which are points, we get the form of
we use. If
(resp.
, resp.
), then each point of
has rank 1 (resp. 1, resp.
). Thus, in these cases,
S evinces no rank. If either
or
, then
and
([
23,
26]). Thus, the last assertion of the proposition is completed.
(a) Assume
and
. Taking a projection onto the first two factors, we reduce to the case
(this reduction step is used only to simplify the notation). Take a
containing
B (this is possible because
). Since
is the minimal multiprojective subspace of
Y containing
A, we have
. Since
, (Ref. [
52] Lemma 5.1) gives
. Thus, either there is
with
and
not injective (we excluded this possibility) or
(i.e.,
) and
is contained in a line
R. Set
. We get
and hence
A is a contained in a proper multiprojective subspace, contradicting the definition of
.
(b) Assume and . By part (a), we may assume . Taking a projection, we reduce to the case , i.e., . Take H as in step (a). As in step (a), we get and contained in a line R of the Segre embedding of , contradicting the definition of .
(c) Assume
. By step (b), we may assume
. Taking a projection onto the first four factors of
, we reduce to the case
. Fix any
containing
B. Assume for the moment
. By ([
52] Lemma 5.1), we have
, i.e., either there are
,
with
and
of
and the projection of
A onto the last 2 factors of
is contained in a line. The last possibility is excluded by the minimality of
. Thus,
exists. Set
and write
. Permuting the factors of
, we see that, for each
, there is
with
and
is a singleton, where
denote the projection onto the factors of
corresponding to
E. Since the cardinality of the set
of all subset of
with cardinality 2 is larger than the cardinality of the set of all subsets of
A with cardinality 3, there are
such that
and
. If
, say
, then
is not injective, contradicting our assumption. If
, we have
. Since
, we get
, a contradiction. ☐
Remark 4. Take a finite and fix . Let be the subset with . It is easier to prove that S evinces the rank of q if we know that the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y containing A is the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y with . Note that this is always true if , i.e., if the tensor q is concise.
5. Questions on the Case of Veronese Varieties
Let
denote the maximum of all
-ranks (in [
55,
56] it is denoted with
). The integer
depends on two variables,
n and
d. In this section, we ask some question on the asymptotic behavior of
when we fix one variable, while the other one goes to
.
Let
denote the
-rank of a general
. These integers do not depend on the choice of the algebraically closed base field
with characteristic 0. The diagonalization of quadratic forms gives
. The integers
,
, are known by an important theorem of Alexander and Hirschowitz ([
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13]); with four exceptional cases, we have
. An important theorem of Blekherman and Teitler gives
(and even
with a few obvious exceptions) ([
57,
58]). In particular, for a fixed
n, we have
It is reasonable to ask if
exists and its value. Of course, it is tempting also to ask a more precise information about
for
. In the case
, De Paris proved in [
55,
56] that
([
56] Theorem 3), which equality holds if
d is even ([
56] (Proposition 2.4)) and suggested that equality holds for all
d. Since
even for odd
d, the integer
grows like
. Thus, there is an interesting interval between the general upper bound of [
57] (which, in this case, has order
) and
. There are very interesting upper bounds for the dimensions of the set of all points with rank bigger than the generic one ([
59]).
For all
, study
and compare for
with
and
. Of course, this is almost exactly known when
by Sylvester’s theorem ([
48]) and De Paris ([
55,
56]), but
for
is both ∼
and ∼
and so we do not have any suggestion for the case
.