Next Article in Journal
Eccentricity-Based Topological Indices of a Cyclic Octahedron Structure
Next Article in Special Issue
On Comon’s and Strassen’s Conjectures
Previous Article in Journal
Causality Effects of Interventions and Stressors on Driving Behaviors under Typical Conditions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Set Evincing the Ranks with Respect to an Embedded Variety (Symmetric Tensor Rank and Tensor Rank

Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, 38123 Povo, Italy
Mathematics 2018, 6(8), 140; https://doi.org/10.3390/math6080140
Submission received: 11 July 2018 / Revised: 7 August 2018 / Accepted: 8 August 2018 / Published: 14 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Decomposability of Tensors)

Abstract

:
Let X P r be an integral and non-degenerate variety. We study when a finite set S X evinces the X-rank of the general point of the linear span of S. We give a criterion when X is the order d Veronese embedding X n , d of P n and | S | ( n + d / 2 n ) . For the tensor rank, we describe the cases with | S | 3 . For X n , d , we raise some questions of the maximum rank for d 0 (for a fixed n) and for n 0 (for a fixed d).

1. Introduction

Let X P r be an integral and non-degenerate variety. For any q P r , the X-rank r X ( q ) of q is the minimal cardinality of a finite set S X such that q S , 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 q P r 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 S X be a finite set and q P r . We say that S evinces the X-rank of q if q S and | S | = r X ( q ) . We say that S evinces an X-rank if there is q P r 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 r X ( q ) 2 for all q P r . Call r X , max the maximum of all integers r X ( q ) . An obvious necessary condition is that | S | r X , max 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 q P r , then q S and q S for any S S . For any finite set S P r , set S : = S \ ( S S S ) . Note that S = if and only if either S = or S is linearly dependent (when | S | = 1 , S = S and S evinces itself). In some cases, it is possible to show that some finite S X evinces the X-rank of all points of S . We say that S evinces generically the X-ranks if there is a non-empty Zariski open subset U of S such that S evinces the X-ranks of all q U . We say that S totally evinces the X-ranks if S evinces the X-ranks of all q S . We first need an elementary and well-known bound to compare it with our results.
Let ρ ( X ) be the maximal integer such that each subset of X with cardinality ρ ( X ) is linearly independent. See ([43] Lemma 2.6, Theorem 1.18) and ([42] Proposition 2.5) for some uses of the integer ρ ( X ) . Obviously, ρ ( X ) r + 1 and it is easy to check and well known that equality holds if and only if X is a Veronese embedding of P 1 (Remark 1). If | S | ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 , then S totally evinces the X-ranks (as in [43] Theorem 1.18) while, for each integer t > ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 with t r + 1 , 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 | S | 3 (Propositions 3 and 4).
For all positive integers n , d let ν d , n : P n P r , r = n + d n 1 , denote the Veronese embedding of P n , i.e., the embedding of P n induced by the complete linear system | O P n ( d ) | . Set X n , d : = ν d , n ( P n ) . At least over an algebraically closed base field of characteristic 0 (i.e., in the set-up of this paper), for any q P r , the integer r X n , d ( q ) is the minimal number of d-powers of linear forms in n + 1 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 “ h 1 ( I A ( d / 2 ) ) = 0 ” just means that the vector space of all degree d / 2 homogeneous polynomials in n + 1 variables vanishing on A has dimension n + d / 2 n | A | , i.e., A imposes | A | independent conditions to the homogeneous polynomials of degree d / 2 in n + 1 variables.
Theorem 1.
Fix integers n 2 , d > k > 2 and a finite set A P n such that h 1 ( I A ( d / 2 ) ) = 0 . Set S : = ν d , n ( A ) . Then, S totally evinces the ranks for X n , d .
A general A P n satisfies the assumption of Theorem 1 if and only if | A | n + d / 2 n . For much smaller | A | , one can check the condition h 1 ( I A ( d / 2 ) ) = 0 if A satisfies some geometric conditions (e.g., if A is in linearly general position, it is sufficient to assume | A | n d / 2 + 1 ).
We conclude the paper with some questions related to the maximum of the X-ranks when X is a Veronese embedding of P n .

2. Preliminary Lemmas

Remark 1.
Let X P r be an integral and non-degenerate variety. Since any r + 2 points of P r are linearly dependent, we have ρ ( X ) r + 1 . If X is a rational normal curve, then ρ ( X ) = r + 1 because any r + 1 points of X spans P r . Now, we check that, if ρ ( X ) = r + 1 , 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 n : = dim X and d : = deg ( X ) . Assume ρ ( X ) = r + 1 . Let H P r be a general hyperplane. If n > 1 , then X H has dimension n 1 > 0 and in particular it has infinitely many points. Any r + 1 points of X H are linearly dependent. Now, assume n = 1 . Since X is non-degenerate, we have d n . By Bertini’s theorem, X H contains d points of X. Since ρ ( X ) = r + 1 , dim H = r 1 and H X H , we have d r . Hence, d = r , 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 X P r , r 3 , be a rational normal curve. Take q P r with r X ( q ) = r , i.e., take q τ ( X ) \ X , where τ ( X ) is the tangential variety of X ([48]). Take S X evincing the X-rank of q. Thus, | S | = r and S spans a hyperplane S . Since dim τ ( X ) = 2 and τ ( X ) spans P r , S τ ( X ) is a proper closed algebraic subset of S . Thus, for a general p S , we have r X ( p ) < | S | and hence S does not generically evinces X-ranks.
Lemma 1.
If S X is a finite set evincing the rank of some q P r , then each S S , S , evinces the X-rank of some q P r .
Proof. 
We may assume S S . Write S : = S \ S . Since S evinces the rank of q, S is linearly independent, but S { q } is not linearly independent. Since S and S , there are unique q S and q S such that q { q , q } . Since S evinces the rank of q, S evinces the rank of q . ☐
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 S such that r X ( q ) = | S | for all q U ; if S evinces totally the X-ranks, take U : = S . Fix S S , S 0 and set S : = S \ S . Let E be the set of all q S such that { q } S U . If q E , then r X ( q ) = | S | because r X ( q ) = | S | for each q { q } S U . Since S S = and S S = S is linearly independent, E is a non-empty open subset of S (a general element of S is contained in the linear span of a general element of S and a general element of S ). Now, assume U = S . Every element of S is in the linear span of an element of S and an element of S . ☐
Lemma 3.
Take a finite set S X , S .
(a) 
If | S | ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 , then S totally evinces the X-ranks.
(b) 
For each integer t > ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 , there is A X such that | A | = t and A does not totally evince the X-ranks.
Proof. 
Take q S and assume r X ( q ) < | S | . Take B X evincing the X-rank of q. Since | B | < | S | , we have B S . Since q S B , but no proper subset of either B or S spans q, S B is linearly dependent. Since | B | | S | 1 , we have | B S | ρ ( X ) , contradicting the definition of ρ ( X ) .
Now, we prove part (b). By Lemma 1, it is sufficient to do the case t = ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 + 1 . By the definition of the integer ρ ( X ) , there is a subset D X with | D | = ρ ( X ) + 1 and D linearly dependent. Write D = A E with | A | = ( ρ ( X ) + 1 ) / 2 + 1 and | E | = ρ ( X ) + 1 | A | . Note that | A | > | E | . Since | A | ρ ( X ) (remember that ρ ( X ) 2 ), both A and E are linearly independent. Since A E is linearly dependent, there is q A E . Since | D | = ρ ( X ) + 1 , every proper subset of D is linearly independent. Hence, A E = for all A A . Thus, q A . Since | E | < | A | , A does not evince the X-rank of q. ☐
Remark 2.
Take X P r such that r X ( q ) 2 for all q P r (e.g., by [49], we may take most space curves). Any set S X with | S | = 2 evinces its X-ranks if and only if X contains no line.

3. The Veronese Embeddings of Projective Spaces

Let ν d , n : P n P r , r : = 1 + n + d n , denote the Veronese embedding of P n . Set X n , d : = ν d , n ( P n ) .
Proposition 1.
Let X P d , d 2 , be the rational normal curve.
(a) 
A non-empty finite set S X evinces some rank of P d if and only if | S | d .
(b) 
A non-empty finite set A X totally evinces the X-ranks if and only if | A | ( d + 2 ) / 2 .
Proof. 
By a theorem of Sylvester’s ([48]), every q P d has X-rank at most d. Thus, the condition | S | d is a necessary condition for evincing some rank. By Lemma 1 to prove part (a), it is sufficient to prove it when | S | = d . Take any connected zero-dimensional scheme Z X with deg ( Z ) = 2 and S Z = . Thus, deg ( Z S ) = d + 2 . Since X P 1 , deg ( O X ( 1 ) ) = d and X is projectively normal, we have h 1 ( I S Z ( 1 ) ) = 1 and h 1 ( I W ( 1 ) ) = 0 for each W S Z . This is equivalent to say that the line Z meets S at a unique point, q and q Z red . By Sylvester’s theorem, r X ( q ) = d ([48]). Since q S and | S | = d , S evinces the X-rank of q.
If A and | A | ( d + 2 ) / 2 , then A totally evinces the X-ranks by part (a) of Lemma 3 and the fact that ρ ( X ) = d + 1 . Now, assume d | A | > ( d + 2 ) / 2 . Fix a set E X \ A with | E | = d + 2 | A | . Adapt the proof of part (b) of Lemma 3. ☐
Proposition 2.
Fix a set S X n , d , n 2 , with | S | = d + 1 . The following conditions are equivalent:
1. 
there is a line L P n such that | S L | > ( d + 2 ) / 2 ;
2. 
S evinces no X n , d -rank;
3. 
there is q S such that S does not evince the X n , d -rank of q.
Proof. 
Obviously, (2) implies (3). If X X is a subvariety and q X , we have r X ( q ) r X ( q ) . Thus, Sylvester’s theorem ([48]) and Lemma 2 show that (1) implies (2).
Now, assume the existence of q S such that S does not evince the X-rank of q, i.e., r X ( q ) d . Take A P n such that ν ( A ) = S and take B P n such that ν d ( B ) evinces the X-rank of q. Since q S , (Ref. [50] Lemma 1) gives h 1 ( P n , I A B ( d ) ) > 0 . Since | A B | 2 d + 1 , (Ref. [51] Lemma 34) gives the existence of a line L P n such that | L ( A B ) | d + 2 . Let H P n be a general hyperplane containing L. Since H is general and A B is a finite set, we have H ( A B ) = L ( A B ) . Since | L ( A B ) | d + 2 , we have | A B \ H ( A B ) | d 1 and hence h 1 ( P n , I A B \ H ( A B ) ( d 1 ) ) = 0 . By ([52] Lemma 5.2), we have A \ A H = B \ B H . ☐
See [53,54] for some results on the geometry of sets S X n , d with controlled Hilbert function and that may be useful to extend Proposition 2.
Proof of Theorem 1:
Set k : = d / 2 . Note that h 1 ( I A ( x ) ) = 0 for all x k and in particular h 1 ( I A ( d k ) ) = 0 . Fix q ν d , n ( A ) and assume r X n , d ( q ) < | A | . Fix B P n such that ν d , n ( B ) evinces the X n , d -rank of q. Since h 1 ( I A ( k ) ) = 0 and | A | > | B | , we have h 0 ( I B ( k ) ) > h 0 ( I A ( k ) ) . Thus, there is M | O P n ( k ) | containing B, but with A M , i.e., A \ A M , while B \ B M = . Since h 1 ( I A ( d k ) ) = 0 , we have h 1 ( I A \ A M ( d k ) ) = 0 . Since h 1 ( I A ( d ) ) = 0 , ν d , n ( A ) is linearly independent. Since ν d , n ( B ) evinces a rank, it is linearly independent. Grassmann’s formula gives dim ν d , k ( A ) ν d , b ( B ) = | A B | + h 1 ( I A B ( d ) ) 1 . We have A B = ( ( A B ) M ) ( A \ A M ) . Since A \ A B is a finite set, we have h 2 ( I A \ A B ( d k ) ) = h 2 ( O P n ( d k ) ) = 0 . Since h 1 ( I A \ A M ( d k ) ) = 0 , the residual exact sequence (also known as the Castelnuovo’s sequence)
0 I A \ A B ( d k ) I A B ( d ) I M ( A B ) , M ( d ) 0
gives h 1 ( I A B ( d ) ) = h 1 ( M , I M ( A B ) ( d ) ) . Since M is projectively normal, h 1 ( M , I M ( A B ) ( d ) ) = h 1 ( I A B ( d ) ) . Thus, the Grassmann’s formula gives dim ν d , n ( A M ) ν d , n ( B M ) = | A B M | + h 1 ( I A B ( d ) ) 1 . Since B M , we get ν d , n ( A M ) ν d , n ( B M ) = ν d , k ( A ) ν d , b ( B ) . Since A M A , we get q ν d , n ( A ) , a contradiction. ☐

4. Tensors, i.e., the Segre Varieties

Fix an integer k 2 and positive integers n 1 , , n k . Set Y : = i = 1 k P n i (the Segre variety) and N : = 1 + i = 1 k ( n i + 1 ) . Let ν : Y P N denote the Segre embedding. Let π i : Y P n i denote the projection on the i-th factor. For any i { 1 , , k } , set Y [ i ] : = h i P n h and call η i : Y Y [ i ] the projection which forgets the i-th component. Let ν [ i ] : Y [ i ] P N i , N i : = 1 + h i ( n h + 1 ) denote the Segre embedding of Y [ i ] . A key difficulty is that ρ ( ν ( Y ) ) = 2 because ν ( Y ) contains lines.
Lemma 4.
Let S Y be any finite set such that there is i { 1 , k } with η i | S not injective. Then, ν ( S ) evinces no rank.
Proof. 
By Lemma 1, we reduce to the case | S | = 2 , say S = { a , b } with a = ( a 1 , , a k ) , b = ( b 1 , , b k ) with a i = b i if and only if i > 1 . Since all lines of Y are contained in one of the factors of Y and all lines of ν ( Y ) are images of lines of Y, we get S ν ( Y ) . Thus, each element of ν ( S ) is contained in ν ( Y ) and hence it has rank 1. Since | S | > 1 , ν ( S ) evinces no rank. ☐
Lemma 5.
Let S Y such that there are S S and i { 1 , , k } with | S | = 3 , ν i ( η i ( S ) ) linearly dependent and π i ( S ) P n i linearly dependent. Then, ν ( S ) evinces no rank.
Proof. 
Let Q P 3 be a smooth quadric surface. Q is projectively equivalent to the Segre embedding of P 1 × P 1 and each point of P 3 has at most Q-rank 2 by [47] (Proposition 5.1). By Lemma 1, we may assume S = S . By Lemma 4, we may assume that η i | S is injective. Thus, | η i | S | = 3 . Since ν i ( η i ( S ) ) is not linearly independent and it has cardinality 3, it is contained in a line of ν i ( Y [ i ] ) . Thus, η i ( S ) is contained in a line of one of the factors of Y [ i ] . By assumption, π i ( S ) is contained in a line of P n i . Thus, S is contained in a subscheme of Y isomorphic to P 1 × P 1 . Since each point of P 3 has Q-rank 2 and | S | = 3 , ν ( S ) evinces no rank. ☐
Remark 3.
Fix a finite set A Y such that S : = ν ( A ) is linearly independent. S evinces no tensor rank if there is a multiprojective subspace Y Y such that A Y and | S | is larger than the maximum tensor rank of ν ( Y ) .
Note that Lemmas 4 and 5 may be restated as a way to check for very low | S | if there is some Y as in Lemma 3 exists.
Proposition 3.
Take S ν ( Y ) with | S | = 2 . Let Y 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. 
Y P 1 .
Proof. 
Since any two distinct points of P N are linearly independent (i.e., S is a line) and ν ( Y ) is the set of all points with ν ( Y ) -rank 1, S evinces no rank if and only if S ν ( Y ) . Use the fact that the lines of ν ( Y ) are contained in one of the factors of ν ( Y ) . Since ν ( Y ) is cut out by quadrics, if S ν ( Y ) , then | S ν ( Y ) | 2 . Since S S ν ( Y ) , we see that all points of S \ S have rank 2 ☐
Proposition 4.
Take S ν ( Y ) with | S | = 3 and ν ( S ) linearly independent. Write S = ν ( A ) with A Y . Let Y be the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y containing A. Write Y = P m 1 × P m s with s 1 and m 1 m s > 0 . We have m 1 2 .
If η i | A is injective for all i and either m 2 = 2 or s 4 or m 1 = 2 and s = 3 , then S totally evinces its ranks. In all other cases for a general E Y with | E | = 3 , ν ( E ) does not generically evince its ranks.
Proof. 
If η i | A is not injective for some i, then S evinces no rank by Lemma 4. Thus, we may assume that each η i | A is injective for all i. Each factor of Y is the linear span of π i ( A ) in P n i . Hence, m 1 2 . Omitting all factors which are points, we get the form of Y we use. If Y = P 1 (resp. P 2 , resp. P 1 × P 1 ), then each point of S has rank 1 (resp. 1, resp. 2 ). Thus, in these cases, S evinces no rank. If either Y = P 2 × P 1 or Y = ( P 1 ) 3 , then σ 2 ( P 2 × P 1 ) = P 5 and σ 2 ( ( P 1 ) 3 ) = P 7 ([23,26]). Thus, the last assertion of the proposition is completed.
(a) Assume s 2 and m 2 = 2 . Taking a projection onto the first two factors, we reduce to the case s = 2 (this reduction step is used only to simplify the notation). Take a H | O Y ( 1 , 0 ) | containing B (this is possible because h 0 ( O P 2 ( 1 ) ) = 3 > | B | ). Since Y is the minimal multiprojective subspace of Y containing A, we have A \ A H . Since B \ B H = , (Ref. [52] Lemma 5.1) gives h 1 ( I A \ A H ( 0 , 1 ) ) > 0 . Thus, either there is A A with | A | = 2 and η 1 | A not injective (we excluded this possibility) or | A \ A H | = 3 (i.e., A H = ) and η 1 ( A ) P 2 is contained in a line R. Set M : = P 2 × R . We get A M and hence A is a contained in a proper multiprojective subspace, contradicting the definition of Y .
(b) Assume s 3 and m 1 = 2 . By part (a), we may assume m 2 = 1 . Taking a projection, we reduce to the case s = 3 , i.e., Y = P 2 × P 1 × P 1 . Take H as in step (a). As in step (a), we get A H = and η 1 ( A ) contained in a line R of the Segre embedding of P 1 × P 1 , contradicting the definition of Y .
(c) Assume s 4 . By step (b), we may assume m 1 = 1 . Taking a projection onto the first four factors of Y , we reduce to the case Y = ( P 1 ) 4 . Fix any H | O Y ( 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 ) | containing B. Assume for the moment A H . By ([52] Lemma 5.1), we have h 1 ( I A \ A H ( 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 ) ) > 0 , i.e., either there are a = ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , a 4 ) A , b = ( b 1 , b 2 , b 3 , b 4 ) A with a b and ( a 3 , a 4 ) = ( b 3 , b 4 ) of A H = and the projection of A onto the last 2 factors of Y is contained in a line. The last possibility is excluded by the minimality of Y . Thus, a , b A exists. Set A : = { a , b , c } and write c = ( c 1 , c 2 , c 3 , c 4 ) . Permuting the factors of Y , we see that, for each E { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } , there is A E A with | A E | = 2 and π E ( A E ) is a singleton, where π E : Y P 1 × P 1 denote the projection onto the factors of Y corresponding to E. Since the cardinality of the set S of all subset of { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } with cardinality 2 is larger than the cardinality of the set of all subsets of A with cardinality 3, there are E , F S such that E F and A E = A F . If E F , say E F = { i } , then η i | A is not injective, contradicting our assumption. If E F = , we have E F = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } . Since A E = A F , we get | A E | = 1 , a contradiction. ☐
Remark 4.
Take a finite S ν ( Y ) and fix q ν ( S ) . Let A Y be the subset with ν ( A ) = S . 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 Y of Y with q ν ( Y ) . Note that this is always true if Y = Y , i.e., if the tensor q is concise.

5. Questions on the Case of Veronese Varieties

Let r max ( n , d ) denote the maximum of all X n , d -ranks (in [55,56] it is denoted with r max ( n + 1 , d ) ). The integer r max ( n , d ) depends on two variables, n and d. In this section, we ask some question on the asymptotic behavior of r max ( n , d ) when we fix one variable, while the other one goes to + .
Let r gen ( n , d ) denote the X n , d -rank of a general q P r . These integers do not depend on the choice of the algebraically closed base field K with characteristic 0. The diagonalization of quadratic forms gives r max ( n , 2 ) = r gen ( n , 2 ) = n + 1 . The integers r gen ( n , d ) , d > 2 , are known by an important theorem of Alexander and Hirschowitz ([8,9,10,11,12,13]); with four exceptional cases, we have r gen ( n , d ) = d n + d n / ( n + 1 ) . An important theorem of Blekherman and Teitler gives r max ( n , d ) 2 r gen ( n , d ) (and even r max ( n , d ) 2 r gen ( n , d ) 1 with a few obvious exceptions) ([57,58]). In particular, for a fixed n, we have
1 ( n + 1 ) ! lim   inf d + r max ( n , d ) / d n lim   sup d + r max ( n , d ) / d n 2 ( n + 1 ) ! .
It is reasonable to ask if lim   inf d + r max ( n , d ) / d n exists and its value. Of course, it is tempting also to ask a more precise information about r max ( n , d ) for d 0 . In the case n = 2 , De Paris proved in [55,56] that r max ( 2 , d ) ( d 2 + 2 d + 5 ) / 4 ([56] Theorem 3), which equality holds if d is even ([56] (Proposition 2.4)) and suggested that equality holds for all d. Since r max ( 2 , d + 1 ) r max ( 2 , d ) even for odd d, the integer r max ( 2 , d ) grows like d 2 / 4 . Thus, there is an interesting interval between the general upper bound of [57] (which, in this case, has order d 2 / 3 ) and r max ( 2 , d ) . There are very interesting upper bounds for the dimensions of the set of all points with rank bigger than the generic one ([59]).
What are
lim   sup n + ( n + 1 ) ! r max ( n , d ) d n and lim   inf n + ( n + 1 ) ! r max ( n , d ) d n ?
For all d 3 , study r max ( n , d ) r max ( n , d 1 ) and compare for d 0 r max ( n , d ) r max ( n , d 1 ) with r max ( n 1 , d ) and r gen ( n 1 , d ) . Of course, this is almost exactly known when n = 2 by Sylvester’s theorem ([48]) and De Paris ([55,56]), but r max ( 2 , d ) r max ( 2 , d 1 ) for d 0 is both ∼ r gen ( 1 , d ) and ∼ r max ( 1 , d ) / 2 and so we do not have any suggestion for the case n > 2 .

Funding

The author was partially supported by MIUR and GNSAGA of INdAM (Italy).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Landsberg, J.M. Tensors: Geometry and Applications Graduate Studies in Mathematics; American Mathematical Society: Kingston, ON, Canada; New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 128. [Google Scholar]
  2. Iarrobino, A.; Kanev, V. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. In Power Sums, Gorenstein Algebras, and Determinantal Loci; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 1721. [Google Scholar]
  3. Comon, P. Tensor decompositions: state of the art and applications, Mathematics. In Signal Processing, V (Coventry, 2000); McWhirter, J.G., Proudler, I.K., Eds.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; Volume 71, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kolda, T.G.; Bader, B.W. Tensor decomposition and applications. SIAM Rev. 2009, 51, 455–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lickteig, T. Typical tensorial rank. Linear Algebra Appl. 1985, 69, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lim, L.H.; Comon, P. Multiarray signal processing: Tensor decomposition meets compressed sensing. C. R. Mecanique 2010, 338, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lim, L.H.; de Silva, V. Tensor rank and the ill-posedness of the best low-rank approximation problem. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2008, 30, 1084–1127. [Google Scholar]
  8. Alexander, J. Singularités imposables en position générale aux hypersurfaces de P n . Composi. Math. 1988, 68, 305–354. [Google Scholar]
  9. Alexander, J.; Hirschowitz, A. Un lemme d’Horace différentiel: application aux singularité hyperquartiques de P 5 . J. Algebr. Geom. 1992, 1, 411–426. [Google Scholar]
  10. Alexander, J.; Hirschowitz, A. La méthode d’Horace éclaté: application à l’interpolation en degré quatre. Invent. Math. 1992, 107, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alexander, J.; Hirschowitz, A. Polynomial interpolation in several variables. J. Algebr. Geom. 1995, 4, 201–222. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brambilla, M.C.; Ottaviani, G. On the Alexander–Hirschowitz Theorem. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 2008, 212, 1229–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chandler, K. A brief proof of a maximal rank theorem for generic double points in projective space. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2000, 353, 1907–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Postinghel, E. A new proof of the Alexander–Hirschowitz interpolation theorem. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 2012, 191, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Abo, H.; Ottaviani, G.; Peterson, C. Induction for secant varieties of Segre varieties. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2009, 361, 67–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aladpoosh, T.; Haghighi, H. On the dimension of higher secant varieties of Segre varieties P n × × P n . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 2011, 215, 1040–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Catalisano, M.V.; Geramita, A.V.; Gimigliano, A. Secant varieties of P 1 × × P 1 (n-times) are NOT defective for n 5 . J. Algebr. Geom. 2011, 20, 295–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Abo, H. On non-defectivity of certain Segre-Veronese varieties. J. Symb. Comput. 2010, 45, 1254–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abo, H.; Brambilla, M.C. Secant varieties of Segre-Veronese varieties P m × P n embedded by O ( 1 , 2 ) . Exp. Math. 2009, 18, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ab, H.; Brambilla, M.C. New examples of defective secant varieties of Segre-Veronese varieties. Collect. Math. 2012, 63, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abo, H.; Brambilla, M.C. On the dimensions of secant varieties of Segre-Veronese varieties. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 2013, 192, 61–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baur, K.; Draisma, J.; de Graaf, W. Secant dimensions of minimal orbits: computations and conjectures. Exp. Math. 2007, 16, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baur, K.; Draisma, J. Secant dimensions of low-dimensional homogeneous varieties. Adv. Geom. 2010, 10, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Catalisano, M.V.; Geramita, A.V.; Gimigliano, A. On the rank of tensors, via secant varieties and fat points. In Zero-Dimensional Schemes and Applications (Naples, 2000); Landsberg, J.M., Ed.; American Mathematical Society: Kingston, ON, Canada; New York, NY, USA, 2002; Volume 123, pp. 133–147. [Google Scholar]
  25. Catalisano, M.V.; Geramita, A.V.; Gimigliano, A. Ranks of tensors, secant varieties of Segre varieties and fat points. Linear Algebra Appl. 2002, 355, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Catalisano, M.V.; Geramita, A.V.; Gimigliano, A. Segre-Veronese embeddings of P 1 × P 1 × P 1 and their secant varieties. Collect. Math. 2007, 58, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  27. Laface, A.; Postinghel, E. Secant varieties of Segre-Veronese embeddings of ( P 1 ) r . Math. Ann. 2013, 356, 1455–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kruskal, J.B. Three-way arrays: rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with application to arithmetic complexity and statistics. Linear Algebra Appl. 1977, 18, 95–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bocci, C.; Chiantini, L.; Ottaviani, G. Refined methods for the identifiability of tensors. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 2014, 193, 1691–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chiantini, L.; Ottaviani, G. On generic identifiability of 3-tensors of small rank. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2012, 33, 1018–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chiantini, L.; Ottaviani, G.; Vanniuwenhoven, N. An algorithm for generic and low-rank specific identifiability of complex tensors. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2014, 35, 1265–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chiantini, L.; Ottaviani, G.; Vanniuwenhoven, N. On identifiability of symmetric tensors of subgeneric rank. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 2017, 369, 4021–4042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chiantini, L.; Ottaviani, G.; Vanniuwenhoven, N. Effective criteria for specific identifiability of tensors and forms. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2017, 38, 656–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Domanov, I.; De Lathauwer, L. On the uniqueness of the canonical polyadic decomposition of third-order tensors–part I: Basic results and unique- ness of one factor matrix. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2013, 34, 855–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Domanov, I.; De Lathauwer, L. On the uniqueness of the canonical polyadic decomposition of third-order tensors—Part II: Uniqueness of the overall decomposition. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2013, 34, 876–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Domanov, I.; De Lathauwer, L. Generic uniqueness conditions for the canonical polyadic decomposition and INDSCAL. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 2015, 36, 1567–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Massarenti, A.; Mella, M.; Staglian’o, G. Effective identifiability criteria for tensors and polynomials. J. Symbolic Comput. 2018, 87, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sidiropoulos, N.D.; Bro, R. On the uniqueness of multilinear decomposition of N-way arrays. J. Chemom. 2000, 14, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Abo, H.; Ottaviani, G.; Peterson, C. Non-defectivity of Grassmannians of planes. J. Algebr. Geom. 2012, 21, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Araujo, C.; Massarenti, A.; Rischter, R. On nonsecant defectivity of Segre-Veronese varieties. arXiv, 2016; arXiv:1611.01674. [Google Scholar]
  41. Boralevi, A. A note on secants of Grassmannians. Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste 2013, 45, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  42. Buczyńska, W.; Buczyński, J. Secant varieties to high degree Veronese reembeddings, catalecticant matrices and smoothable Gorenstein schemes. J. Algebr. Geom. 2014, 23, 63–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buczyński, J.; Ginensky, A.; Landsberg, J.M. Determinantal equations for secant varieties and the Eisenbud–Koh–Stillman conjecture. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2013, 88, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Buczyński, J.; Landsberg, J.M. Ranks of tensors and a generalization of secant varieties. Linear Algebra Appl. 2013, 438, 668–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chiantini, L.; Ciliberto, C. On the dimension of secant varieties. J. Europ. Math. Soc. 2006, 73, 436–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Draisma, J. A tropical approach to secant dimension. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 2008, 212, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Landsberg, J.M.; Teitler, Z. On the ranks and border ranks of symmetric tensors. Found. Comput. Math. 2010, 10, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Comas, G.; Seiguer, M. On the rank of a binary form. Found. Comp. Math. 2011, 11, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Piene, R. Cuspidal projections of space curves. Math. Ann. 1981, 256, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ballico, E.; Bernardi, A. Decomposition of homogeneous polynomials with low rank. Math. Z. 2012, 271, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Bernardi, A.; Gimigliano, A.; Idà, M. Computing symmetric rank for symmetric tensors. J. Symb. Comput. 2011, 46, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ballico, E.; Bernardi, A. Stratification of the fourth secant variety of Veronese variety via the symmetric rank. Adv. Pure Appl. Math. 2013, 4, 215–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ballico, E. Finite subsets of projective spaces with bad postulation in a fixed degree. Beitrage zur Algebra und Geometrie 2013, 54, 81–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ballico, E. Finite defective subsets of projective spaces. Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma 2013, 4, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
  55. De Paris, A. The asymptotic leading term for maximum rank for ternary forms of a given degree. Linear Algebra Appl. 2016, 500, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. De Paris, A. High-rank ternary forms of even degree. Arch. Math. 2017, 109, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Blekherman, G.; Teitler, Z. On maximum, typical and generic ranks. Math. Ann. 2015, 362, 1021–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Blekherman, G.; Teitler, Z. Some examples of forms of high rank. Collect. Math. 2016, 67, 431–441. [Google Scholar]
  59. Buczyński, J.; Han, K.; Mella, M.; Teitler, Z. On the locus of points of high rank. Eur. J. Math. 2018, 4, 113–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ballico, E. Set Evincing the Ranks with Respect to an Embedded Variety (Symmetric Tensor Rank and Tensor Rank. Mathematics 2018, 6, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/math6080140

AMA Style

Ballico E. Set Evincing the Ranks with Respect to an Embedded Variety (Symmetric Tensor Rank and Tensor Rank. Mathematics. 2018; 6(8):140. https://doi.org/10.3390/math6080140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ballico, Edoardo. 2018. "Set Evincing the Ranks with Respect to an Embedded Variety (Symmetric Tensor Rank and Tensor Rank" Mathematics 6, no. 8: 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/math6080140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop