1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13P99, 13D40, 05C69, 05C38.
Mordechai Katzman
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Sheffield S3 7RH, United Kingdom, Fax number: 0044-114-222-3769 E-mail address : M.Katzman@sheffield.ac.uk
-
Abstract.
This paper presents two enumeration techniques based on Hilbert functions. The paper illustrates these techniques by solving two chessboard problems.
1 Introduction and preliminaries.
The purpose of this note is to illustrate two powerful enumeration techniques based on computational Commutative Algebra methods.
By way of illustration I chose to apply these methods to the following two elementary problems:
-
(1)
Consider a
chessboard. What is the maximal number of unattacked squares in the board after placing on it
queens? More generally, in how many ways can we place
queens on a chess board to obtain exactly
unattacked squares?
-
(2)
Consider an infinite chessboard. How many squares can a knight reach in
moves? How many squares can be reached in
moves and no less?
Although these problems are phrased in the language of chess, they are specific instances of more general graph-theoretical problems. The enumeration techniques presented here answer these more general problems.
At the heart of the methods presented in this paper are the notions of graded modules and their Hilbert functions. In essence, we will reduce each of the problems above to a problem about the enumeration of sets of monomials, and this enumeration will be achieved using Hilbert functions.
While the application of Hilbert functions to the problems presented in this paper is new, the use of Hilbert functions in combinatorics is not. The solution of some simple enumeration problems using Hilbert functions, such as finding the independence number of a graph, has long been part of the folklore of computational commutative algebra experts. An early and striking example of the use Hilbert functions in combinatorics is Richard P. Stanley's work on magic squares (I refer the reader to [8] for an accessible and thoroughly enjoyable account of this work.) We now review graded modules and Hilbert functions. Throughout this paper, all rings are commutative and with
;
will always denote a field.
A
-algebra
is
-graded if we can write
a direct sum of abelian groups, and the direct summands satisfy
for all
. Henceforth we shall also impose the condition
, which implies that each
is a
-vector space and that, if
is a finitely generated
-algebra, each
is a finite dimensional
-vector space. For each
we shall refer to the elements of
as being homogeneous of degree
.
A fundamental example of such a graded
-algebra is the ring of polynomials
.
We can endow
with different graded structures. We are all familiar with the
-grading
in which each
consists of the homogeneous polynomials of degree
. We can define another grading as follows: let
and define the degree of a monomial
to be
. We can now write
where each
is the
-vector space spanned by all monomials of degree
.
Let
be a
-graded
-algebra. An
-module
is graded if it has a
-grading compatible with that of
, i.e., if we can write
a direct sum of abelian groups, and the direct summands satisfy
for all
.
If
is a polynomial ring as in the examples above and
is a homogeneous ideal, i.e., an ideal generated by homogeneous elements, then
has a natural structure of a graded
-module. Let
be a
-graded
-algebra and let
be a graded
-module. We define the Hilbert function
of
to be the function
defined by
. The Hilbert series
of
is the generating function of the Hilbert function, i.e.,
If
is a polynomial ring as in the examples above with its familiar
-grading, and if we view
as a graded
-module, then
is just the number of monomials of degree
in
variables, i.e.,
, and
. If we were to assign degrees
to
we would obtain
Take
to be a polynomial ring with its familiar
-grading, let
be a homogeneous ideal and write
. One can show that
is of polynomial type, i.e., it agrees with a polynomial, the Hilbert polynomial
of
, for all
. The degree of
is one less than the Krull dimension of
. Also, one can write
where
is a polynomial which does not vanish at
and
is the Krull dimension of
.
2 Unattacked squares
We now consider the first question mentioned in the introduction. We naturally identify the squares of the
chessboard with pairs
where
.
We fix
, the size of the board. Let
be any field and define
to be the polynomial ring in
variables
We assign degree
to all the
variables and degree
to all the
variables.
Roughly, the
variables will correspond to squares in our
chessboard which are occupied by queens while the
variables will correspond to unattacked squares on the board.
We define
to be the ideal of
generated by the squares of all variables together with
Notice that
, as any other ideal generated by monomials, is homogeneous with respect to the
-grading of
.
For any
define
Proposition 2.1.
is the maximal number of squares on the
chessboard which can remain unattacked after placing on it
queens.
-
Proof.
Consider any monomial
in
whose image in
is not zero. Since
contains the squares of all the variables,
must be square-free and we may write
where all the variables in this expression are distinct. We next observe that for any
and
, a queen cannot move from square
to square
, otherwise,
wouldbe one of the generators of
and
would be zero modulo
. We showed that every monomial of degree
whose image in
is not zero corresponds to a configuration on the chessboard where the squares
are occupied by queens and the squares
are not attacked by any of these queens.
It is easy to see that the converse is also true and so we have established a bijection between the configurations of
queens and
unattacked squares and the set of monomials of degree
which are not zero modulo
.
Notice that all the graded components
are spanned as
-vector spaces by monomials of degree
, and that a basis for
is given by the set of all such monomials whose images in
are not zero. So now we can see that the condition
can be translated using the bijection established above to the statement that it is possible to place
queens on the chessboard so that one can find
unattacked squares but not
unattacked squares. □
We now address the more general question: in how many ways
can we place
queens on a chessboard to obtain exactly
unattacked squares?
Proposition 2.2.
For any
-
Proof.
We proceed to prove this by reverse induction of
. When
the equality
follows easily from the discussion in the proof of the previous proposition.
Pick now any
.
is the number of ways one can choose the position of
queens and
squares unattacked by these queens. For each such choice, one can extend the set of
unattacked squares to a maximal set of
unattacked squares by the same
queens. To obtain
we need to count only those choices for which
or, equivalently, we need to subtract from
the number of configurations which which extend to a maximal one with
unattacked squares. The induction hypothesis implies that there are exactly
configurationswith
queens and a maximal set of
unattacked squares, and each one of these produces
configurations with
queens and
unattacked squares which can be extended to a maximal set of
unattacked squares. Subtracting all these, we get the desired result. □
Table 1 lists the values of
when
for
and
(blank entries are zero.) For example, the table shows that
and that
, which means that the largest number of unattacked squares one can have when 8 queens are placed on a regular chessboard is 11, and that there are 48 such configurations. This is the answer to a question originally published by W. W. Rouse Ball in 1896 [2] (see also chapter 34 in [3] .) This calculation was produced by FreeSquares, a C++ program which can be found in [5] . (There are several widely used computer packages which can compute multi-graded Hilbert series, but unfortunately they are not very efficient.)
The method introduced in this section generalizes naturally to deal with graph-theoretical problems which we now describe. Let
be a finite graph. If
and
are disjoint sets of vertices of
we say that
and
are independent if there is no edge connecting a vertex in
with a vertex in
. For a given
what is the maximal size of a set of vertices which is independent of a set of
vertices?
In how many ways can one choose independent
and
with given size?
Let
be the vertices of
. One obtains the solution to this more general problem by replacing the ring
with
and the ideal
above with the ideal generated by the squares of all the variables and
3 Knight moves in an infinite chessboard.
We now consider the second set of questions mentioned in the introduction: How many squares can a knight in an infinite chessboard reach in
moves? How many squares can be reached in
moves and no less moves? We will denote the first number with
and the second with
.
The implementation of the results in this section relies on Gröbner bases techniques– the reader may want to consult [1] for an introduction to Gröbner bases. However, to appreciate the general ideas behind the approach of this section no knowledge of Gröbner bases is needed.
We again let
be any field and let
be the
-subalgebra of
generated by
The first step towards the solution of this problem is to realize that
is the cardinality of
while
is the number of elements in
but not in any
for
.
We can produce a presentation for
by mapping a polynomial ring
to
by
where
is the
th element of
. We denote this mapping with
. Notice that the restriction of
to the set of degree-
monomials in
gives a surjection onto the elements of
.
Let
be the kernel of the map above. This kernel can be computed effectively using Gröbner bases techniques as follows: let
be the ideal of
generated by
and fix an elimination order where
are the largest variables. Then
is generated by the elements of a Gröbner basis for
which do not contain the variables
(cf. chapter 1 of [7] .) Recall also that
is a binomial ideal.
Notice that the ring
is not very interesting: it is in fact identical to
(here is a chess proof:
because a knight can move one square to the right in three moves. By symmetry also
.) However,
is far more interesting for reasons explained below.
Since the restriction of
to the set of degree-
monomials in
is a surjection onto
, to find
we need to find the size of a maximal set of degree-
monomials in
which are distinct modulo
. Two such monomials
and
are distinct modulo
if and only if
is not in the largest homogeneous sub-ideal
of
. It is easy to compute
: the elements of
are the elements of the homogenization of
with respect to a new variable, say
, which do not involve
, thus we can compute
by homogenizing a Gröbner basis for
using a graded lexicographic order (cf. exercise 1.6.19 in [1] ) and eliminating the variable
. We notice that this Gröbner basis can be chosen to consist of binomials, and so
is also a binomial ideal.
So we have reduced the problem of computing
to the problem of finding the size of a maximal set of degree-
monomials in
which are distinct modulo
. Fix any term ordering in
and let
be a Gröbner basis for
consisting of binomials. Now for any two monomials
of the same degree,
modulo
if and only if
reduces to
with respect to
. Since each reduction of a monomial with respect to
produces a new monomial (of same degree), to produce a maximal set of degree-
monomials in
which are distinct modulo
we may pick all monomials of degree
which are non-zero modulo
, i.e.,
where the second equality is a celebrated theorem proved by F. S. Macaulay in [6] .
An easy computation with Macaulay2 ([4] ) shows that
and that the Hilbert polynomial of
is
. Since
we obtain
We now proceed to compute
. We again fix a monomial ordering in
which refines the total degree ordering. List all the monomials in
in ascending order, and let
be the set of all degree-
monomials in
which are not congruent modulo
to a monomial appearing earlier in the list. We now show that
.
If for two distinct degree-
monomials
we have
then
contradicting the choice of
. Hence the restriction of
to
is injective. Similarly, if for some degree-
monomial
there exist a monomial
of degree
so that
then
and since
we get a contradiction to the choice of
. Hence the restriction of
to
is a surjection onto
.
Using the fact that
has a Gröbner basis generated by binomials we may deduce that
is the set of all monomials which are not in
and so
Another straightforward computation with Macaulay2 shows that
and that the Hilbert polynomial of
is
. Since
we obtain
The methods of this section also generalize in a natural way. Let
be a finite set and consider an infinite directed graph
whose vertex set is
and for any
,
is a directed edge if and only if
.
By replacing
above and its presentation
with the presentation
which maps
to
for all
, we can, by following exactly the same procedures as before, produce closed formulas for the functions
which count how many endpoints all length
paths starting at a fix vertex have, and closed formulas for the functions
which count how many vertices are at a distance of
from a fixed vertex.
Theorem 3.1.
For any directed graph
as above, there exist polynomials
and
so that
and
for all
.
-
Proof.
This is an immediate consequence of the fact that Hilbert functions are of polynomial type.
□
Appendix: A Macaulay2 implementation.
All the methods in this paper are easy to implement with existing computer systems. As an example aimed to tempt the reader to experiment with these systems we present a Macaulay2 program for the solution of the enumeration problem in the previous section:
R=ZZ/101[u,a,b,y˙–1˝..y˙–8˝,MonomialOrder=>Lex]; I=–u*a*b-1˙R,y˙–1˝-a*b^2,y˙–2˝-a^2*b,y˙–3˝*a-b^2,y˙–4˝*a^2-b, y˙–5˝*b^2-a,y˙–6˝*b-a^2,y˙–7˝*a*b^2-1˙R,y˙–8˝*a^2*b-1˙R˝; G=gens gb ideal I; J=selectInSubring(3,G); S1=ZZ/101[y˙–1˝..y˙–8˝,t]; J=substitute(J,S1); H0=homogenize(gens gb J,t); S2=ZZ/101[t,y˙–1˝..y˙–8˝,MonomialOrder=>Lex]; H0=substitute(H0,S2); G=gens gb ideal H0; H=selectInSubring(1,G); S=ZZ/101[y˙–1˝..y˙–8˝]; J=substitute(J,S); H=substitute(H,S); print(hilbertSeries coker J); print(hilbertPolynomial(coker J, Projective=>false)); print(hilbertSeries coker H); print(hilbertPolynomial(coker H, Projective=>false));
This produces the following output:
6 5 4 3 2 4$T -4$T -8$T +12$T +17$T +6$T+1 -------------------------------2 (-$T+1) 28$i-20 5 4 2 4$T -8$T +12$T +5$T+1 --------------------3 (-$T+1) 2 7$i +4$i+1
References
-
W. W. Adams and P. Loustaunau. An Introduction to Gröbner Bases, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 3, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1994)
-
W. W. Rouse Ball. Mathematical recreations & essays. Macmillan, London (1940)
-
M. Gardner, A Gardner's workout. A K Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, (2001)
-
D. Grayson and M. Stillman: Macaulay 2 – a software system for algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2.
-
M. Katzman. FreeSquares Available from http://www.shef.ac.uk/katzman/ComputerAlgebra/ComputerAlgebra.html
-
F. S. Macaulay, Some properties of enumeration in the theory of modular systems. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 26, pp. 531–555.
-
B. Sturmfels. Gröbner bases and convex polytopes, University Lecture Series, 8. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1996)
-
Richard P. Stanley. Combinatorics and commutative algebra. Second edition. Progress in Mathematics, 41. Birkhuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1996.
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Sheffield S3 7RH, United Kingdom, Fax number: 0044-114-222-3769 E-mail address : M.Katzman@sheffield.ac.uk