A Factorization Algorithm for G-Algebras and Applications

0.18 MB·

by  Albert Heinle

A Factorization Algorithm for G-Algebras and Applications
Albert Heinle Viktor Levandovskyy
DavidR.CheritonSchoolofComputerScience LehrstuhlDfürMathematik
UniversityofWaterloo RWTHAachenUniversity
200UniversityAvenueWest Pontdriesch16
Waterloo,ONN2L3G1,Canada 52062Aachen,Germany
[e-mail] [e-mail]
6
1
0
2 ABSTRACT cijxixj +dij: 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n}i is called a G-algebra, if
n It has been recently discovered by Bell, Heinle and Levan- {xα11 ·...·xαnn :αi ∈N0} is a K-basis of A.
a dovskyythatalargeclass ofalgebras, includingtheubiqui-
G-algebras[1,19]arealsoknownasalgebrasofsolvabletype
J tous G-algebras, are finite factorization domains (FFD for
[18,20]andasPBWalgebras[4,5]. G-algebrasareNoethe-
1 short).
rian domains of finite global, Krull and Gel’fand-Kirillov
3 Utilizing this result, we contribute an algorithm to find
dimensions.
all distinctfactorizations ofagivenelement f ∈G,whereG
Weassumethatthereaderisfamiliarwiththebasictermi-
] isanyG-algebra,withminorassumptionsontheunderlying
A nology in the area of Gr¨obner bases, both in the commuta-
field.
tiveaswellasinthenon-commutativecase. Werecommend
R Moreover, the property of being an FFD, in combination
[3, 5, 19] as literature on thistopic.
with the factorization algorithm, enables us to propose an
. Recall, that r ∈ R\{0} is called irreducible, if in any
h analogous description of the factorized Gr¨obner basis algo-
at rithm for G-algebras. This algorithm is useful for various fOatchtoerriwzaisteio,nwerc=allarbreeidtuhceirblae.∈ U(R) or b ∈ U(R) holds.
m applications, e.g. in analysis of solution spaces of systems
oflinearpartialfunctionalequationswithpolynomialcoeffi-
[ Definition 2 (cf. [2]). LetAbea(notnecessarilycom-
cients,comingfromG. Additionally,itispossibletoinclude mutative) domain. We say that A is a finite factorization
1 inequality constraints for ideals in theinput. domain (FFD, for short), if every nonzero, non-unit ele-
v ment of A has at least one factorization into irreducible el-
6 Keywords ements and there are at most finitely many distinct factor-
9
izations into irreducible elements up to multiplicationof the
2 G-Algebras, Gr¨obner Bases, Factorization
irreducible factors by central units in A.
0
0 1. INTRODUCTION 2. MOTIVATIONANDAPPLICATIONS
.
2
Notations: ThroughoutthepaperwedenotebyKafield.
0
InthealgorithmicpartwewillassumeKtobeacomputable Problem 1. Let A be a finite factorization domain and
6
1 field. N0 =N∪{0} is the set of natural numbers including a K-algebra. Given f ∈ A\(U(A)∪{0}), compute all its
: zero. For a K-algebra R we denote by U(R) the group of factorizations of the form f = c·f1···fn, where c ∈ U(A)
v invertible (unit) elements of R, which is nonabelian in gen- and fi ∈A\U(A) are irreducible.
i eral. Forf ∈RwedenotebyRf theleftideal,generatedby
X
f. Themainfocusinthispaperliesinsocalled G-algebras, This paper is devoted in part to the algorithmic solution
r which are definedas follows. of Problem 1 for a broad class of G-algebras. With this al-
a
gorithmonecanapproachanumberofimportantproblems,
Definition 1. For n ∈ N and 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n consider which we discussin details.
theunitscij ∈K∗ andpolynomialsdij ∈K[x1,...,xn]. Sup- Let A bea K-algebra and 06=L⊂A a finitely generated
pose, that there exists a monomial total well-ordering ≺ on left ideal.
K[x1,...,xn],suchthatforany1≤i<j ≤neitherdij =0
or the leading monomialof dij issmaller than xixj with re- Problem 2. Compute a proper left ideal N )L.
spect to ≺. The K-algebra A := Khx1,...,xn | {xjxi =
Unfortunately,itisnotknowningeneral,whethertheprob-
lem of left maximality of a given ideal with respect to in-
clusionisdecidable. Thereforeweareinterestedinthelocal
negative form of it. Namely, if Problem 2 can be solved,
Permission tomake digital orhardcopies ofall orpartofthis workfor
personalorclassroomuseisgrantedwithoutfeeprovidedthatcopiesare then L is not left maximal. Moreover, for any N as above,
notmadeordistributedforprofitorcommercialadvantageandthatcopies we have a surjection from A/L to its proper factor-module
bearthisnoticeandthefullcitationonthefirstpage.Tocopyotherwise,to A/N, in otherwords theexact sequenceof left A-modules
republish,topostonserversortoredistributetolists,requirespriorspecific
permissionand/orafee. 0→N/L→A/L→A/N →0
ISSAC’16Waterloo,Ontario,Canada
Copyright20XXACMX-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX...$15.00. whichcontributestotheknowledgeofthestructureofA/L.
Supposethatf ∈A\{0},f ∈/ Lhasfinitelymanyfactor- ForageneralS,itisunknown,whetherLS iscomputable.
izationsf =gihiuptomultiplicationbycentralunits,where If A is the nth Weyl algebra, S = K[x1,...,xn]\{0} and
i∈I,|I|<∞ and gi,hi ∈/ U(A). We donot requirethat gi L⊂Ahasfiniteholonomicrank,thenthereisanalgorithm
orhi areirreducible. Suppose,thatL(L+Af (A. Then [24,23]tocomputeLS (knownastheWeyl closure of L).
L+Af ⊆ i∈I(L+Ahi),hencethereisanaturalsurjective Thefactorizationcanbeusedintheprocessofcomputing
homomorphism of left A-modules LS asfollows. LetAbeanFFD.Givenℓ∈L,onecomputes
T
A A finitely many factorizations ℓ = aibi,i ∈ I for some finite
→ →0 indexing set I. Then let J := {j ∈I |(aj,bj)∈S×L}. If
L+Af i∈I(L+Ahi) J 6=∅, one has L+{Abj :j ∈J}⊆LS. In such a way one
obtains an approximation to LS. Note, that LS =A if and
Relations with solutTion spaces: Let F be an arbi-
only if L∩S 6=∅.
trary (in particular, not necessarily finitely generated) left
A-module,whichonecanthinkaboutasofthespaceofsolu-
3. HOWTO FACTORIN G-ALGEBRAS
tionsforA-modules. Then,forfixedKandanA-moduleM
onedenotesSol(M,F):=HomA(M,F),whichisaK-vector 3.1 General Algorithm
space and an EndA(M)-module[22].
ByinvokingtheNoether-Malgrangeisomorphism[22],we In a recent publication [2, Theorem 1.3], it was proven
obtain for an thenaturalinjective map of K-vectorspaces that each G-algebra G is a finitefactorization domain.
Inthesamepaper,anoutlinewasgivenhowonecouldfind
A A
0→Sol ,F →Sol ,F . allpossiblefactorizationsofanelementinG. Inthissection,
(cid:18) i∈I(L+Ahi) (cid:19) (cid:18)L+Af (cid:19) we will provide a thorough description of an algorithm to
find all possible factorizations of an element in a G-algebra
The latter sheTds light on thestructure of thespace of solu-
G, up tomultiplication by central units.
tions of A/(L+Af).
For this, we need to make a further assumption on our
Note, that the following version of the left Chinese re-
field K, which holdsfor most practical choices of K.
mainder theorem for modules holds:
Theorem 1. Let A be a K-algebra, I a finite set of in- Assumption: There exists an algorithm to determine if a
polynomial p in K[x] has roots in K. If p has roots in K,
dices and {Li : i ∈ I} are left ideals in A. Consider the
then thisalgorithm can produceall K-roots of p.
homomorphism
A/ Li −φ→ A/Li, a+ Li 7→(a+L1,...,a+L|I|). Recall,that{xα=xα11·...·xαnn :α∈Nn0}isaK-basisof
G. With respect to an admissible monomial ordering ≺ on
i\∈I Mi∈I i\∈I G wecan uniquelywrite every g∈G\{0} as g=cαxα+tg
Then the following holds with cα ∈ K\{0}. Moreover, either tg = 0 or xβ ≺ xα
1) φ is injective for any summand cβxβ, cβ 6= 0 of tg. Then lm(g) = xα
is the leading monomial of g and lc(g) = cα is the leading
coefficient of g. A polynomialg6=0 with lc(g)=1is called
2) if ∀i,j ∈I,i6=j holds Li+Lj =A, then φ is surjec-
monic.
tive.
It is important to recall [19], that lm(xα ·xβ) = xα+β
Ofcourse,onecanassumethatLiarepropernonzeroideals. holds ∀α,β∈Nn0 in a G-algebra.
In the second item of the Theorem 1 one says that the Proof of Algorithm 1. Let us begin with discussing
collection {Li : i ∈ I} is left comaximal. Then φ is an the termination. The set M in line 2 is finite, as it is a
isomorphism andone hasa finitedirect sum decomposition permutationofafiniteproductofthevariablesinG. SinceG
of the module A/ i∈ILi. Hence, there is a direct sum isaG-algebra,thesetoftotalwell-orderingsonit,satisfying
decomposition of thesolution spaces the Definition 1, is nonempty. By [4], in this set there is a
T
weighteddegreetotalordering,say≺w withstrictlypositive
weights. Withoutlossofgenerality letusassumethisisthe
Sol A/ Li,F =Sol A/Li,F = Sol(A/Li,F). orderingweareworkingwith. Thusforanymonomialthere
! !
i\∈I Mi∈I Mi∈I are only finitely many monomials which are smaller with
Note, that the right hand side can be a direct sum even if respect to ≺w. In particular, this applies to lt(a) and lt(b)
thecondition (2) is not satisfied, see Example 3. in line 5. The variety V will be a finite set due to the fact
Anotherapplication: LetAbeadomainandS ⊂Abe thatGisanFFD.Thus,thesetRinline9willalsobefinite.
multiplicativelyclosedOreset. ByOre’sTheoremthelocal- The recursive call will also terminate, since in each step we
izationS−1Aexistsandthereisaninjectivehomomorphism either discover that we cannot refine our factorization any
A→S−1A [5]. more, or we split a given factor into two factors of strictly
AleftidealL⊂AiscalledleftS-closedifLS =L,where smaller degrees.
LS := {a ∈ A | ∃s ∈ S sa ∈ L} ⊇ L is the S-closure of For the correctness discussion of our algorithm, we need
L. There is another characterization of S-closedness: LS = to show that we can calculate the variety V in line 8. We
ker(A→S−1(A/L)),wherethelatterhomomorphismofA- know, since G is an FFD, that the ideal generated by F is
modules is a 7→1−1a+S−1L. Then LS/L is the S-torsion either zero-dimensional over K[x] or it is an intersection of
submoduleof A/Land A/LS has noS-torsion. suchwithahigher-dimensionalidealH,whereasthevariety
of H does not contain points from an affine space over K.
Problem 3. Given S ⊂ A an Ore set and L ⊂ A, give Hencewe proceed with thezero-dimensional component F
0
an algorithm to compute LS. of F.
Algorithm 1 Factoring an element g in a G-algebra G torizations, namely
Input: g∈G\K. p=(e2f +2ef−2eh−e2−4e+f −2h−3)·(e+f)
Output: {(g1,...,gm)|m∈N,gi∈G\K for i∈
{1,...,m},g1···gm =g}(up tomultiplication of each and
factor bya central unit).
p=(e2f +ef2−2eh−e2+f2−3e−f −2h)·(e+1).
Assumption: Anadmissible monomial ordering ≺ on G is
fixed and g is monic with respect to it. Alltheothercombinationseitherproducethesamefactor-
izations or none.
1: R:={} When recursively calling the algorithm for each factor in
2: the found factorizations, we discover that the first two fac-
torizations have a reducible factor. In the end, one obtains
M :={(p1,...,pν)|ν ∈N,pi∈{x1,...,xn},
the followingtwo distinct factorizations of p into irreducible
lm(p1·...·pν)=lm(g)} factors:
p=(e2f +ef2−2eh−e2+f2−3e−f −2h)·(e+1)
3: for (p1,...,pν)∈M do
=(e+1)·(ef−e+f−2h−3)·(e+f).
4: for i:=1 to ν−1 do
5: Set up an ansatz for the K-coefficients of a·b = g
3.2 Implementation
with lt(a)=p1·...·pi and lt(b)=pi+1·...·pν.
6: F := the reduced Gr¨obner basis w.r.t. an elimina- WehavedevelopedanexperimentalimplementationofAl-
tion ordering of the ideal generated by the coeffi- gorithm 1 in the computer algebra system Singular [10].
cients of a·b−g. We will make it available as part of ncfactor.lib. Our
7: if F 6={1} then newlyimplementedproceduresfactorizeelementsinanyG-
8: V := Variety of hFi in an affinespace over K. algebra,whosegroundfieldisF(q1,...,qn),whereFiseither
9: R := R∪{(a,b) | a,b ∈ G,a·b = g, where the Q or a finiteprimefield and qi are transcendentaloverF.
coefficients of a,b are given by v∈V} Wedesignedthesoftwareinamodularway,sothatduring
10: endif runtimeour function checksif a more efficient factorization
11: end for algorithmisavailableforthespecificgivenG-algebraand/or
12: endfor inputpolynomial. Ifthisisthecase,theinputisre-directed
13: if R={} then to this function. In this way, the user can call the general
14: return {(g)} function to factor elements in any one of the supported G-
15: else algebras,andrunstheavailableoptimizedalgorithms,where
16: Recursively factor a and b for each (a,b)∈R. available, without calling them individually.
17: endif
3.3 PossibleImprovements
18: return R
Algorithm1solvestheproblemoffindingallpossiblefac-
torizations of an element in a G-algebra, but it will not be
veryefficientingeneral. Thisisnotonlyduetothecomplex-
Ourassumption abovestatesthatwecanfindallK-roots
ity of thenecessary calculation of a Gr¨obner basis [21], but
ofaunivariatepolynomial. SinceF iszero-dimensional,for
0
alsothesizeofthesetM isabottleneck. In[12,13],analgo-
anyvariablexithereisthecorrespondingunivariatepolyno-
rithmforfactoring elementsinthenthWeylalgebraispre-
mial,generatingtheprincipalidealF0∩K[xi]. Bybackwards
sented,whichissimilartoAlgorithm1. Themaindifference
substitution,weobtaintheentireK-varietyoftheidealgen-
isthattheZn-gradedstructureisutilized. There,thehomo-
erated byF .
0 geneous polynomials of degree zero form a K-algebra A(n0),
which is isomorphic to a commutative multivariate polyno-
Example 1. Let us consider the universal enveloping al-
mial ring. The set of homogeneous polynomials of degree
gebra U(sl ) of sl [11], represented by
2 2
z ∈ Zn\{0n} has the structure of a cyclic A(n0)-bimodule.
Khe,f,h|fe=ef−h,he=eh+2e,hf =fh−2fi. Hence, factorization of homogeneous polynomials with re-
spect to the Zn-grading reduces to factoring commutative
In U(sl ), we want to factorize the element
2 polynomials with minoradditional combinatorial steps. An
p:=e3f +e2f2−e3+e2f+2ef2−3e2h−2efh−8e2 inhomogeneous polynomial f has now the highest graded
part α(f) and the lowest graded part ω(f), both of them
+ef+f2−4eh−2fh−7e+f−h.
ratherpolynomials thanmonomials. Henceα(f),ω(f)have
potentially smaller numbers of different factorizations than
We fix the lexicographic ordering on U(sl ), i.e. the leading
2
term of p is e3f. thepermutationsoftheleadingtermcollectedinM inAlgo-
rithm 1. Indeed, it suffices to consider firstly factorizations
Therefore the set M in line 2 is given as
into twopolynomials and for each candidatepair an ansatz
M :={(e,e,e,f),(e,e,f,e),(e,f,e,e),(f,e,e,e)}. is made for the graded terms between the highest and the
lowestgradedparts. Thismeans,thatthesetM hassmaller
When choosing (e,e,e,f), for i = 1 one obtains the fac-
sizeingeneralwhenusingthistechnique. Additionally,this
torization
approach takes the lowest graded part into account, which
p=(e+1)·(e2f+ef2−3eh−2fh−e2+f2−7e+f−h). allows to eliminate certain invalid cases beforehand. The
performance increase is reflected by the benchmarks pre-
By picking (e,e,f,e), for i=3 one obtains two more fac- sented in [12, 17].
Hence, for practical implementations of Algorithm 1, one any of ϕ or ψ would have a non-trivial A factor, we would
0
shouldexamineeachpossibleG-algebraseparatelyandtake obtain again that p is reducible in A . This leaves as only
0
advantage of potential extra structure, like the presence of options p = ef or p = fe = ef −h, as claimed. Thus,
nontrivialZn-gradingoranisomorphismtoanalgebrawith we have shown that irreducible elements in A , which are
0
this structure. reducible in A, can be easily identified and factored.
We will conclude this section by summarizing the condi- Now consider the same polynomial p as in Example 1.
tions that can lead to an improved version of Algorithm 1. With respect to the (1,−1,0)-grading it decomposes into the
Let A bea K-algebra, which possesses anontrivial(i.e. not followinggradedparts: α(p)=−e3,ω(p)=f2 (aswesee,in
all weight vectors are zero) Zn-(multi)grading. Then one thiscasewehavemonomialsingradedparts,whileingeneral
can infer thefollowing additional information: rather polynomials appear) and the intermediate parts are
1. For z ∈Zn, Az :={a∈A:deg(a)=z}∪{0} is a K- e3f −3e2h−8e2+e2f−4eh−7e+
vector space. Moreover, ⊕zAz =A and AiAj ⊆Ai+j deg:2 deg:1
for all i,j ∈Zn.
| {z } | {z }
+e2f2−2efh+ef−h+2ef2−2fh+f.
2. A0n, the graded part of degree zero, is a K-algebra
itself (since A0A0⊆A0). deg:0 deg:−1
3. Forz∈Zn\{0n}, thez-thgraded part Az is anA0n- Among the|factorizat{izons of α(p})=|−e3 a{nzd ω(p)}=f2 into
bimodule (sinceA0Az,AzA0 ⊆Az). two factors, consider the case (−e2)·e and f ·f. Thus,
we’re looking for a,b ∈ A with α(a) = e2,ω(a) = f and
In orderto beuseful for factorizing purpose,thisgrading α(b)=e,ω(b)=f and p=ab holds. In b we have only one
should havethe following properties: possible intermediate graded part b (ef,h), namelyof degree
0
0 since degα(b) = 1 and degω(b) = −1. In a we have to
4. The graded part of degree zero, A0n, which is a K- specifythepartsofdegrees1resp. 0,thatisa (ef,h)·eresp.
algebra, is additionally an FFD with ”easy” factor- 1
a (ef,h). After the multiplication, we obtain the following
ization, preferably the commutative polynomial ring. 0
graded decomposition of intermediate graded terms of ab:
Furthermore, for keeping the set M in Algorithm 1
small, it would bedesirable ifin A0n a randomlycho- −e2b0+a1e2+a1eb0+a0e−e2f+
sen polynomial is irreducible with high probability.
deg:2 deg:1
5. The irreducible elements in A0n, that are reducible | {z } | {z }
+a ef +a b +ef−h+fb +a f.
in A, can be identified and factorized in an efficient 1 0 0 0 0
manner. Preferably, one has a finitenumber of monic deg:0 deg:−1
elements of such type.
Byfixingthem|aximalp{ozssibledegr}ee o|fa0{,za1,}b0 ∈K[ef,h],
6. Forz∈Zn\{0n},thez-thgradedpartAz isafinitely we can create and solve a system of equations which the co-
generatedA0n-bimodule,preferablyacyclicbimodule. efficients of a0,a1,b0 have to satisfy. In this example an
ansatzintermsof1,h,ef,i.e. 9unknowncoefficients, leads
Then the Algorithm 1 can be modified along the lines of to the system of18 at most quadratic equations, whichleads
algorithmsfrom[12,13],whichwehavealsosketchedabove. totheuniquesolution: b (ef,h)=0,a (ef,h)=2ef−2h−3
0 0
Let usillustrate thisapproach by a concrete example. anda (ef,h)=ef−h−2. Substituting the polynomials,we
1
arrive at the followingfactorization with polynomials sorted
Example 2. As in Example 1, let A=U(sl2), that is according to the grading:
A=Khe,f,h|fe=ef−h,he=eh+2e,hf =fh−2fi. p=(−e2+e2f −2eh−4e+2ef−2h−3+f)·(e+f)
Af first, let us determine which gradings are possible. Let ThisisalreadyknowntousfromtheExample1. Inananal-
we,wf and wh be the weights of the variables, not all zero. ogous way one can address other factorizations. Note, that
The two last relations of A imply that wh = 0, and the in the ansatz we made, significantly less variables for un-
first one implies we +wf = wh = 0, that is wf = −we. known coefficients and a system of less equations of smaller
Hence a Z-grading (we,wf,wh) = (1,−1,0) is enough for total degree were used, compared to the general Algorithm.
our purposes, since A = K[ef,h] is commutative and the
0
z-th graded part is a cyclic A0-bimodule, generated by ez if 4. THEFACTORIZEDGRÖBNERBASISAL-
z >0 and by f|z| otherwise. This property guarantees, that GORITHMFORG-ALGEBRAS
∀r∈K[ef,h] and ∀z ∈N there exists q ,q ∈K[ef,h], such
1 2
that rez = ezq and ezr = q ez and the same holds for the In what follows, by the term ideal we always mean a left
1 2
multiplication by fz. Note, that deg(qi)=deg(r). ideal (unless otherwise specified).
We claim that the only monic irreducible elements in A0, The factorized Gr¨obner approach has been studied ex-
which are reducible in A, are given by ef and ef −h. The tensively for the commutative case [8, 7, 9, 14, 15], and
proof to this claim is similar to the one for [13, Lemma implementations are e.g. provided in the computer algebra
2.4], which we outline here: Let p be an irreducible element systems Singular[10] and Reduce[16].
in A0, which reduces into p = ϕ·ψ in A, where ϕ,ψ ∈ The leading motivation is to split a Gr¨obner basis com-
A\K are monic. Since A is a domain, the factors ϕ,ψ are putation into smaller pieces with respect to the degrees of
homogeneous with deg(ϕ) = k and deg(ψ) = −k for some their generators. The union of the varieties of the ideals
k∈Z. If|k|>1ork=0, pwouldbereducibleinA ,which generated by these smaller pieces equals the variety of the
0
violates our assumption. Hence only k = 1 is possible. If initial system.
In thecommutativecase, thereis also a way to constrain Algorithm 2 Factorized Gr¨obner bases Algorithm for G-
thesolutionspace. Onecanprovideanextrasetofelements, Algebras (FGBG)
that should not be reducible by the computed Gr¨obner ba- Input: B:={f ,...,f }⊂G, C :={g ,...,g}⊂G.
1 k 1 l
sises. In this way, one excludes certain unwanted solutions, Output: R:={(B˜,C˜)|
which is useful in practice. (B˜,C˜) is factorized constrained Gr¨obnertuple} with
Thesearchforvarietiesinthecommutativecasetranslates hBi⊆ hB˜i
tothesearchforsolutionsinthenon-commutativecase: All (B˜,C˜)∈R
Assumption: Allelements in B and C are monic.
G-algebras are finite factorization domains and a general T
factorization algorithm via Algorithm 1 is given. Many of
1: for i=1 to k do
them are abstractions of algebras of operators, and one is
2: if fi is reduciblethen
interestedtofindcommonsolutionsofcertainsetsofopera- 3: M := {(f(1),f(2) | f(1),f(2) ∈ G \ K,lc(f(1)) =
tors,writtenaspolynomials. Righthandfactorsofelements i i i i i
correspond to partial solutions, and hencea split similar to lc(fi(2))=1,fi(1)·fi(2) =fi,fi(1) is irreducible}
thecommutativecaseishelpfultorecoverpartialsolutions. 4: if thereexists (a,b),(a˜,˜b)∈M with a˜6=a then
Motivatedbythisobservation,weattempttogeneralizethe 5: return
factorized Gr¨obnerbasisalgorithm totheG-algebracase in
thissection. Ouralgorithmincludesthepossibilitytointro-
duceconstraints,similartothemethodsinthecommutative FGBG(B\{fi})∪{b},C∪ {˜b}
casUen.fortunately, not all nice properties transfer into the (a,[b)∈M  (a˜,b[˜b6=)∈˜bM 
 
non-commutativecase, as thefollowing example depicts. 6: endif
7: end if
Example 3. In the commutative case, one has the prop-
8: endfor
erty that the radical of the input ideal will be equal to the
9: P :={(fi,fj)|i,j ∈{1,...,k},i<j}
intersection of the radicals of allideals computed by the fac-
10: while P 6=∅ do
torized Gr¨obner basis algorithm.
11: Pick (f,g)∈P
We will show via a counter-example that we do not have
12: P :=P \{(f,g)}
the same property for G-algebras.
13: s:= S-polynomialof f and g
Consider
14: h:=NF(s,B)
p=(x6+2x4−3x2)∂2−(4x5−4x4−12x2−12x)∂ 15: if h6=0 then
16: if h is reducible then
+(6x4−12x3−6x2−24x−12)∈A .
1 17: return FGBG(B∪{h},C)
This polynomial appears in [24] and has two different fac- 18: endif
torizations, namely 19: P :=P ∪{(h,f)|f ∈B}
20: B:=B∪{h}
p=(x4∂−x3∂−3x3+3x2∂+6x2−3x∂−3x+12)· 21: endif
(x2∂+x∂−3x−1) 22: if thereexistsi∈{1,...,l}withNF(gi,B)=0then
23: return ∅
=(x4∂+x3∂−4x3+3x2∂−3x2+3x∂−6x−3)· 24: endif
(x2∂−x∂−2x+4) 25: end while
26: return {(B,C)}
Areduced Gr¨obnerbasisofhx2∂+x∂−3x−1i∩hx2∂−x∂−
2x+4i, computed in Singular [10], is given by
{3x5∂2+2x4∂3−x4∂2−12x4∂+x3∂2−2x2∂3+16x3∂ Gr¨obner basis of hBi, and NF(g,B) 6= 0 for every g ∈ C.
We call a constrained Gr¨obner tuple factorized, if every
+9x2∂2+18x3+4x2∂+4x∂2−42x2−4x∂−12x−12, f ∈ B is either irreducible or has a unique irreducible left
2x4∂4−2x4∂3+11x4∂2+12x3∂3−2x2∂4−2x3∂2 divisor.
+10x2∂3−44x3∂−17x2∂2+64x2∂+12x∂2+66x2 Itispossibletostrengthentheassumptionsonafactorized
constrainedGr¨obnertuplesbyonlyallowingcompletelyirre-
+52x∂+4∂2−168x−16∂−60}.
ducibleelementsinB,whichmightbepreferabledepending
on the concrete problem. However, in our application, we
Hence, one main difference will be that we do not claim
allow elements with only one factorization. In this way, we
that the union of all solutions of our smaller pieces in the
increase the number of solutions we can find for a certain
factorizing Gr¨obner basis algorithm will always be equal to
system B ⊂ G by using our generalized factorized Gr¨ob-
all common solutions of the initial set of polynomials. In
ner basis algorithm. This methodology also appears in the
general, we will only find a subset of all solutions using our
contextofsemifirs,wheretheconceptofsocalledblockfac-
method. However,inthisexample,thespaceofholomorphic
torizations or cleavages has been introduced to study the
solutions of the differential equation associated to p in fact
reducibility of a principal ideal [6, Chapter3.5].
coincides with the union of the solution spaces of the two
generators of theintersection stated above. Proof of Algorithm 2. Wewillfirstdiscussthetermi-
nation aspect of Algorithm 2. SinceM as calculated in line
Definition 3. Let B,C be finite subsets in G. We call 3isoffinitecardinality,theexistencecheckinline4can be
the tuple (B,C) a constrained Gr¨obner tuple, if B is a done in a finite number of steps. Line 5 consists of a finite
number of recursive calls to FGBG. The algorithm reaches respectively
thislineifthereisanelementf inB,whichisreducibleand
f :=x∂3+x2∂−x∂2+∂3−x2+x∂−2∂2−x+1
has a non-unique irreducible left divisor. In each recursive 2
call, the algorithm is called with an altered version of the =(x∂2+x2+∂2+x−∂−1)·(∂−1)
set B, where f is being replaced in B by b ∈ G, where b =(x∂−x+∂−2)·(∂2+x).
is chosen such that there exists an irreducible a in G with
f = ab. Therefore, after a finite depth of recursion, FGBG Hence, in line 5, FGBG will return two recursive calls of
will be called with a set B containing elements that are ei- itself, namely
ther irreducible or have an unique irreducible left divisor.
• FGBG({∂−1,f },{∂−1,∂3+x∂−∂2−x+1})
We can make this assumption on B when FGBG reaches 2
line 9. Lines 10–25 describe the Buchberger algorithm to • FGBG({∂3+x∂−∂2−x+1,f },C)
2
computea Gr¨obner basis, with two differences:
For simplicity, we will ignore the first call, as C contains
1. IfthenormalformhofanS-polynomialwithrespectto ∂−1, which also appears in the generator list.
Bisnot0,wecheckhforreducibility. Ifhisreducible, Furthermore, the new element b1 :=∂3+x∂−∂2−x+1
we call FGBG recursively,adding hto B. only has one possible factorization. Therefore, we consider
now the factorizations of f . This leads again in line 5 to
2
two recursive calls:
2. Wecheckthesystemforconsistency,i.e. ifthereisan
elementinC thatreduceswithrespecttoB,wereturn • FGBG({b ,∂−1},{∂−1,∂2+x})
1
theempty set.
• FGBG({b ,∂2+x},C)
1
Each recursive call will terminate, since we add an element
As before, we can ignore the first recursive call. Thus, we
to B that will reduce an S-polynomial to zero, which could
are left with ({b ,∂2+x},C) to proceed on line 9.
not bereduced tozero before. 1
The normal form of the S-polynomial of b and ∂2+x is
Forthecorrectnessdiscussion,oneobservesthatlines1–8 1
equal to zero. Further, the normal form of b with respect
servethepurposetosplit thecomputation based on there- 1
to h∂2+xi, is equal to zero, i.e. ∂2+x is a right divisor of
ducibility of theelementsin theinitial set B. If an element
f ∈ B factorizes in more than one way, we recursively call b1. Hence, we can omit b1 and our complete Gr¨obner basis
is given by {∂2 +x}. Since NF(∂ −1,h∂2 +xi) 6= 0, our
FGBG with (B \{f})∪{b} as the generator set for each
algorithm returns {({∂2+x},C)} as final output.
maximal right hand factor b of f. Hence,theleft ideal gen-
Note,thatifwewouldhavechosenC =∅inthebeginning,
eratedby(B\{f})∪{b}willcontainhBi,andthushBiwill
the output of our algorithm would have been
be contained in theintersection of all of them, as required.
Asalready mentionedin thetermination discussion,lines {({∂−1},{b }),({∂2+x},{∂−1})},
1
10–25 describe the Buchberger algorithm. After computing
i.e. we recover hBi=h∂2+xi∩h∂−1i in this case.
an S-polynomial h, we check for its reducibility. If there is
more than one maximal right factor r of h, we call FGBG
Remark 1. Onecanalsoinsertanearlyterminationcri-
recursively and add h to our set B. Here, we have again a
terion inside Algorithm 2, namely after at least one factor-
guarantee that the left ideal generated by B is a subset of
ized constrained Gr¨obner tuple has been found. This is in
theleft ideal generated byB∪{h}.
the commutative case motivated by the fact that in practice
Theadditionalconstraints thatweimpose on eachrecur-
users are often not interested in all the elements in a vari-
sivecallenableustominimizeourcomputations,butdonot
ety but would be content with at least one. For example, the
violatethesubsetproperty. Intheend,itisensuredthatin
computer algebra system Reduce can be instructed to stop
allcomputedconstrainedGr¨obnertuples(B˜,C˜),noelement
after finding one factorized Gr¨obner basis (see [16]). In the
in C lies in the left ideal generated byB˜.
non-commutativecase,wecanonlyhopeforpartialsolutions
in general, but a mechanism to stop a computation once at
Example 4. Let us execute FGBG on an example. Let least one is found is also desirable.
B:={∂4+x∂2−2∂3−2x∂+∂2+x+2∂−2, 5. CONCLUSIONS
x∂3+x2∂−x∂2+∂3−x2+x∂−2∂2−x+1} Analgorithm for factoring elements in G-algebras, where
the underlyingfield K has the property that we are able to
be a subset of the first Weyl algebra A1. We assume that extract all possible K-roots of any polynomial in K[x], has
C := {∂ −1}, and that our ordering is the degree reverse been shown (Algorithm 1).
lexicographic one with ∂ > x. This example is taken from This algorithm and the FFD-property of G-algebras en-
the Singularmanual[10](anditisaGr¨obnerbasisforthe ableustoproposeageneralizationofthefactorizedGr¨obner
leftidealh∂2+xi∩h∂−1i;hencewewouldexpect theoutput basis algorithm for G-algebras (Algorithm 2).
with our chosen C to be h∂2 +xi). Each element factors A future work would be to identify improvements to Al-
separately as gorithm 1 for practically interesting G-algebras. This has
been studied e.g. for partial q-differential, differential and
f1 :=∂4+x∂2−2∂3−2x∂+∂2+x+2∂−2 difference operators in [12, 13], where the Zn graded struc-
=(∂3+x∂−∂2−x+2)·(∂−1) ture resp. a certain embedding has been utilized. In the
meantime, we haveimplementedtheunimprovedversion in
=(∂−1)·(∂3+x∂−∂2−x+1)
the Singular library ncfactor.lib, which will be made
available shortly. Ourimplementation identifiesbeforehand Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, pages 194–201.
ifanimprovedmethodisalreadyincludedinncfactor.lib ACM, 2014.
for a specific algebra and, if this is the case, re-directs the [13] M. Giesbrecht, A.Heinle, and V.Levandovskyy.
input there. This modular design allows us to update the Factoring linear partial differential operators in n
function once an improved algorithm is available for a cer- variables. Journal of Symbolic Computation, pages –,
tainG-algebra. Theuseofthefunctionstaysthesameafter 2015.
such an update. [14] H.-G.Gr¨abe. On factorized gr¨obner bases. In
Another interesting future direction would be to charac- Computer algebra in science and engineering, pages
terize further the connection between the solution space of 77–89. World Scientific. Citeseer, 1995.
a polynomial system B ⊂ G and the union of the solution [15] H.-G.Gr¨abe. Triangular systems and factorized
spaces of the output of Algorithm 2 when called with B. Gr¨obner bases. Springer, 1995.
Especially, it would be interesting to identify properties of
[16] A.Hearn. Reduceuser’s manual, version 3.8 (2004).
G and B, underwhich both spaces coincide.
[17] A.Heinle and V.Levandovskyy.Factorization of
AnimplementationofAlgorithm2wouldalsobeofprac-
Z-homogeneouspolynomials in thefirst (q)-weyl
tical interest, which the authors intend to provide in the
algebra. arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.5674, 2013.
near future.
[18] A.Kandri-Rodyand V.Weispfenning.
Non-commutativegr¨obnerbasesinalgebras ofsolvable
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
type.9(1):1–26, 1990.
We thank Eugene Zima, Jason P. Bell and Mark Gies- [19] V.Levandovskyy.Non-commutativecomputeralgebra
brecht for insightful discussions we had with them. We are for polynomial algebras: Gr¨obnerbases, applications
grateful to Wolfram Koepf for the information on internals and implementation. Doctoral Thesis, Universit¨at
of Reduce. Kaiserslautern, 2005.
[20] H.Li. Noncommutative Gr¨obner bases and
7. REFERENCES filtered-graded transfer. Springer,2002.
[21] E. W. Mayrand A. R.Meyer. The complexity of the
[1] J. Apel. Gr¨obnerbasen in nichtkommutativen
word problemsfor commutativesemigroups and
Algebren undihre Anwendung.Dissertation,
polynomial ideals. Advances in mathematics,
Universit¨at Leipzig,1988.
46(3):305–329, 1982.
[2] J. P. Bell, A.Heinle, and V. Levandovskyy.On
[22] W.M. Seiler. Involution. The formal theory of
noncommutativefinitefactorization domains. To
differential equations and its applications in computer
Appear in the Transactions of the American
algebra. Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics
Mathematical Society; arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.6178,
24. Berlin:Springer, 2010.
2014.
[23] H.Tsai. Algorithms for algebraic analysis. PhD thesis,
[3] B. Buchberger. Introductionto Gr¨obnerBases. In
Universityof California at Berkeley, 2000.
Gr¨obner Bases and Applications, pages 3–31. Berlin:
[24] H.Tsai. Weylclosure of a linear differential operator.
Springer,1997.
Journal of Symbolic Computation, 29:747–775, 2000.
[4] J. Bueso, J. G´omez-Torrecillas, and F. Lobillo.
Re-filteringand exactnessof theGelfand-Kirillov
dimension. Bull. Sci. Math.,125(8):689–715, 2001.
[5] J. Bueso, J. G´omez-Torrecillas, and A. Verschoren.
Algorithmic methods in non-commutative algebra.
Applications to quantum groups. Dordrecht: Kluwer
AcademicPublishers, 2003.
[6] P.M.Cohn.Free ideal rings and localization ingeneral
rings, volume3. Cambridge UniversityPress, 2006.
[7] S.R. Czapor. Solving algebraic equations: combining
buchberger’salgorithm withmultivariatefactorization.
Journal of Symbolic Computation, 7(1):49–53, 1989.
[8] S.R. Czapor. Solving algebraic equationsvia
buchberger’salgorithm. In Eurocal’87, pages 260–269.
Springer,1989.
[9] J. H. Davenport.Looking at a set of equations.
Thechnical report, pages 87–06, 1987.
[10] W. Decker,G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister, and
H.Sch¨onemann.Singular4-0-2 — A computer
algebra system for polynomial computations.
http://www.singular.uni-kl.de,2015.
[11] J. Dixmier. Enveloping algebras, volume14. Newnes,
1977.
[12] M. Giesbrecht, A.Heinle, and V. Levandovskyy.
Factoringlineardifferentialoperatorsinnvariables.In
Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on