abstract algebra - Algebraic proof of Ehrhart's th...

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/84395...

11

help

Algebraic proof of Ehrhart's theorem

Rd be a d -dimensional polytope, where all vertices lie on integral coordinates, and let L(P , n) denote the number of integral
d
lattice points contained in the scaled polytope n P , i.e. L(P , n) := #((n P ) Z ). Then we know by a theorem of Ehrhart:
Let P

1. The generating function E(P , t)

polynomial with h(1)
2.

0.

n
:=
n=0 L(P , n) t is a rational function of the form E(P , t) =

h(t)
(1t)d+1

, where h is a

L(P , n) is a polynomial in n for all positive integers.

I wonder if these results can also be obtained by the following algebraic approach: Let k be an arbitrary field and
M := Cone(P {1}) Zd+1 considered as submonoid of Rd+1 . Then the Noetherian monoid algebra k[M] is Z-graded with
respect to the (d + 1)-th coordinate, and the corresponding Hilbert series of k[M] coincides with E(P , t) . By the Hilbert-Serre
theorem this series is a rational function of the form E(P , t)

f(t)
. It is also clear that if we can show that all
i 1tei

be 1, it follows that L(P , n) is a polynomial function for all sufficiently large n.

ei can be chosen to

Is there an elegant way to proceed with this approach to get the same results as above?
(abstract-algebra) (geometry) (commutative-algebra) (integer-lattices) (discrete-geometry)

edited Jun 22 at 22:12

asked Jun 22 at 20:35

Dune
1,794

15

@user26857: This book is indeed very helpful! I will answer my question as soon as I understand all details of the
proof (unless somebody else will do it in the meantime). Dune Jun 23 at 20:07
Wow, this is a beautiful result! +1 Olivier Bgassat Jul 28 at 18:55

1 Answer
The answer to my question is "Yes". Both points can be shown in a purely algebraic setting.
Surprisingly, it is quite easy to show that L(P , n) is a polynomial function for all sufficiently
large n. The hard part is to show that it is actually a polynomial function for all positive
integers, which needs much deeper results. All this can be found in [Bruns, Herzog - CohenMacaulay-Rings].
The easy part: In contrast to my explanations before the question, we need two different
n+1
monoids here. Let M = R+ (P {1}) Z
and let N be the submonoid of M generated
n
by {(p, 1) : p P Z }. It is easy to see that M is integral over N , i.e. for each x M
there is an n Z+ with n x N (Actually, M is the integral closure of N in Z
.)
Therefore k[N] k[M] is an integral ring extension, and hence we can consider k[M] as
finitely generated k[N] -module. Both rings are graded with respect to the last coordinate, and
k[N] is (by definition) generated by homogeneous elements of degree 1 as a k-algebra. Now
by the Hilbert-Serre-Theorem the Hilbert series of the k[N] -module k[M] (= the Ehrhart
n+1

series of P ) has the form E(P , t)

homogeneous generators of k[N] .

h(t)
, where m equals the number of those
(1t)m

Let E(P , t) = n=0 f(n) X be the general form of the generating function. Then
because of its special form, we just discovered, it follows that f(n) equals p(n) for some
polynomial function p and all sufficiently large n. Furthermore, the largest integer n for which
f(n) = p(n) fails to hold is given by deg(E(P , t)) = deg(h) m (see for example
[Stanley - Enumerative Combinatorics] for these well known results). The last quantity is also
called the a-invariant of the graded ring and is denoted by a(k[M]) . So in order to show the
assertion, it remains to show a(k[M]) < 0. Here begins the hard part.
n

The hard part: I don't understand all of this in detail yet. The proof of Theorem 6.3.11 in the
book of Bruns and Herzog exploits the fact that k[M] is Cohen-Macaulay. For such graded
rings the a-invariant can be read off from the so called *canonical module. In this case the
*canonical module of k[M] can be specified in terms of the interior of M , and from this it is

1 of 2

Tuesday, 26 August, 2014 12:45 PM

abstract algebra - Algebraic proof of Ehrhart's th...

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/84395...

easy to show that a(k[M]) is actually negative.

Maybe I add further explanations here if I got a better understanding someday, but this may
take a while.
edited Jul 29 at 9:12

answered Jul 28 at 16:47

Dune
1,794

15

@user26857: In the book of Bruns and Herzog, Definition 3.6.13: "Let k be a field, and R a Cohen-Macaulay positively
graded k-algebra. Then a(R) = min{i : (R )i 0} is called the a-invariant of R". Here R is the *canonical
module. So in this book your definition is a theorem. But probably it might be vice versa elsewhere. Dune Jul 28
at 21:04
See also the same book, Definition 4.4.4. user26857 Jul 29 at 5:24
@user26857: Ok, you convinced me. I edited a little bit. Dune Jul 29 at 9:13

2 of 2

Tuesday, 26 August, 2014 12:45 PM