alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Algebraic dependence of cluster X-variables

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We prove that, over any field and with algebraically independent initial seed coordinates, two cluster XX-variables are algebraically dependent if and only if they are equal or reciprocal. In characteristic zero, this is equivalent to the vanishing of the wedge product of their differentials.

Introduction

Cluster XX-mutations identify the function fields of seed tori. Each seed gives a rational coordinate system, and coordinates from different seeds can satisfy algebraic relations. This paper determines when a relation involves only two coordinates: algebraic dependence forces equality or reciprocity. The result holds over an arbitrary field, with any chosen subset of mutation directions, provided the initial coordinates are independent indeterminates.

The differential version of this question was posed by Elbabak on MathOverflow [2]. For the standard mutation formula of Fock–Goncharov [3 §1.2.4, (13)], we prove that, in characteristic zero, two cluster XX-coordinates have vanishing wedge product of differentials precisely when they are equal or reciprocal. § 5 records the distinction between the standard formula and the formula displayed in that question, together with examples concerning specialization and positive characteristic.

The equality of cluster XX-variables has also been studied through exchange pairs. Sherman-Bennett [4 Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2] gives a combinatorial description in finite type: the classical types are treated using quadrilateral models, and the exceptional types are checked computationally. Cao–Keller–Qin [1 Theorems 7.5–7.6] give equality criteria and a parametrization by ordered exchange pairs in their general setting. Combined with our theorem, this parametrization identifies the one-variable subfields generated by XX-coordinates with unordered exchange pairs. The matrix convention and coefficient ring for this application are specified in § 4.2.

The proof has two steps. Algebraic dependence between two rational coordinates gives equality of their generated subfields and hence a fractional linear relation. For each monomial valuation arising from an ordered exponent lattice, the values of the coordinates in every seed form an integral basis and their leading coefficients are one. Two choices of order force the fractional linear map to preserve the pair consisting of zero and infinity; the leading coefficients determine its scalar factor.

Seeds and mutations

Let kk be a field, let n≥1n \ge1, and let x1,…,xnx_1,\ldots,x_n be algebraically independent indeterminates over kk. Put K=k(x1,…,xn)K = k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) and I={1,…,n}I = \{1,\ldots,n\}. Fix a subset Imut⊆II_{\mathrm{mut}} \subseteq I of mutable indices; the other indices are frozen. The initial exchange matrix B=(bij)i,j∈IB = (b_{ij})_{i,j\in I} is an integer skew-symmetrizable matrix. Thus there are positive integers d1,…,dnd_1,\ldots,d_n such that dibij=−djbjid_i b_{ij} = -d_j b_{ji} for all i,ji,j, and in particular bii=0b_{ii} = 0.

A rational coordinate system for K/kK/k is an ordered algebraically independent nn-tuple generating KK over kk. A seed consists of an exchange matrix and such a coordinate system. For a current seed (B,(zi)i∈I)(B,(z_i)_{i\in I}) and j∈Imutj \in I_{\mathrm{mut}}, write [a]+=max⁡(a,0)[a]_+ = \max(a,0) for an integer aa. Mutation in direction jj gives

zj′=zj−1,zi′=zizj[bij]+(1+zj)−bij(i≠j),(1)z'_j = z_j^{-1}, \qquad z'_i = z_i z_j^{[b_{ij}]_+}(1+z_j)^{-b_{ij}} \quad(i \ne j), \tag*{(1)}

and the matrix changes by

biℓ′={−biℓ,i=j or ℓ=j,biℓ+[bij]+[bjℓ]+−[−bij]+[−bjℓ]+,i,ℓ≠j.(2)b'_{i\ell} = \begin{cases} -b_{i\ell}, & i=j\text{ or }\ell=j,\\ b_{i\ell}+[b_{ij}]_+[b_{j\ell}]_+-[-b_{ij}]_+[-b_{j\ell}]_+, & i,\ell\ne j. \end{cases} \tag*{(2)}

All powers in (1) are taken in KK. If bij=0b_{ij}=0, the formula gives zi′=ziz'_i=z_i. If bij≠0b_{ij}\ne0, it is equivalent to

zi′=zi(1+zj−sgn⁡(bij))−bij,z'_i = z_i\left(1+z_j^{-\operatorname{sgn}(b_{ij})}\right)^{-b_{ij}},

where sgn⁡(a)\operatorname{sgn}(a) is 11 for a>0a>0 and −1-1 for a<0a<0. This is the convention in [3 §1.2.4, (13)]. There, the pullback of a target coordinate means its composition with the mutation map; here these pullbacks are written directly as elements of KK.

Lemma 2.1. Mutation is a birational involution. Every seed obtained by a finite sequence of mutations has a rational coordinate system for K/kK/k.

Proof. For i≠ji\ne j, a second mutation in direction jj gives

zi′′=zizj[bij]+(1+zj)−bij(zj−1)[−bij]+(1+zj−1)bij=zi,z''_i=z_i z_j^{[b_{ij}]_+}(1+z_j)^{-b_{ij}}(z_j^{-1})^{[-b_{ij}]_+}(1+z_j^{-1})^{b_{ij}}=z_i,

using [bij]+−[−bij]+=bij[b_{ij}]_+-[-b_{ij}]_+=b_{ij} and 1+zj−1=(1+zj)/zj1+z_j^{-1}=(1+z_j)/z_j. The pivot coordinate returns to zjz_j. In (2), the second increment for i,ℓ≠ji,\ell\ne j is the negative of the first, and the entries in row or column jj change sign twice. Thus the matrix also returns to its original value.

The matrix remains skew-symmetrizable by the same integers did_i. For i,ℓ≠ji,\ell\ne j, use

[bℓj]+=djdℓ[−bjℓ]+,[bji]+=didj[−bij]+,[b_{\ell j}]_+ = \frac{d_j}{d_\ell}[-b_{j\ell}]_+, \qquad[b_{ji}]_+ = \frac{d_i}{d_j}[-b_{ij}]_+,

and the analogous identities with both signs reversed. Substitution in (2) shows that the two increments satisfy the required skew-symmetry after multiplication by did_i and dℓd_\ell.

Since zjz_j is transcendental over kk, both zjz_j and 1+zj1+z_j are nonzero. The inverse formulas therefore give

k(z1′,…,zn′)=k(z1,…,zn)=K.k(z'_1,\ldots,z'_n)=k(z_1,\ldots,z_n)=K.

The transcendence degree of K/kK/k is nn, so these nn generators are algebraically independent. Induction on the length of the mutation sequence proves the assertion.

Let X⊂K×\mathcal{X}\subset K^\times, where K×=K∖{0}K^\times=K\setminus\{0\}, be the set of all coordinates occurring in seeds reachable from the initial seed. Frozen indices restrict the permitted mutation directions; their coordinates still transform by (1) when another direction is mutated. In particular, all initial coordinates, including the frozen ones, remain independent indeterminates in this definition. Simultaneously relabelling coordinates, matrix indices, and mutable indices preserves X\mathcal{X}.

Algebraic dependence

Elements X,Y∈KX,Y \in K are algebraically dependent over kk if P(X,Y)=0P(X,Y)=0 for some nonzero polynomial P(U,V)∈k[U,V]P(U,V) \in k[U,V]. Write k(X)k(X) for the subfield of KK generated by kk and XX.

Theorem 3.1. For X,Y∈XX,Y \in\mathcal{X}, the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. XX and YY are algebraically dependent over kk;

  2. k(X)=k(Y)k(X)=k(Y);

  3. Y=XY=X or Y=X−1Y=X^{-1}.

We first reduce dependence between rational coordinates to a fractional linear relation.

Lemma 3.2. Let FF be a field, let m≥0m \ge0, and let t1,…,tmt_1,\ldots,t_m be algebraically independent over FF. Every element of F(t1,…,tm)F(t_1,\ldots,t_m) that is algebraic over FF belongs to FF.

Proof. The case m=0m=0 is immediate. Write an algebraic element as h=P/Qh=P/Q, with P,Q∈F[t1,…,tm]P,Q \in F[t_1,\ldots,t_m] and Q≠0Q \ne0. Choose a nonzero polynomial f∈F[T]f \in F[T] with f(h)=0f(h)=0. It has positive degree. In an algebraic closure F‾\overline{F} of FF, factor

f(T)=c∏r=1d(T−αr),c≠0,f(T)=c\prod_{r=1}^{d}(T-\alpha_r),\qquad c\ne0,

listing each root with its multiplicity. Clearing denominators gives

c∏r=1d(P−αrQ)=0in F‾[t1,…,tm].c\prod_{r=1}^{d}(P-\alpha_r Q)=0\quad\text{in }\overline{F}[t_1,\ldots,t_m].

This polynomial ring is an integral domain, so P=αrQP=\alpha_r Q for some rr. Comparing a nonzero coefficient of QQ with the corresponding coefficient of PP gives αr∈F\alpha_r \in F. Hence h∈Fh \in F.

Lemma 3.3. Suppose that each of X,Y∈KX,Y \in K belongs to a rational coordinate system for K/kK/k. If XX and YY are algebraically dependent over kk, then

Y=aX+bcX+dY=\frac{aX+b}{cX+d}

for some a,b,c,d∈ka,b,c,d \in k with ad−bc≠0ad-bc \ne0.

Proof. Since XX is transcendental over kk, a nonzero relation P(X,Y)=0P(X,Y)=0 gives a nonzero polynomial over k(X)k(X) having YY as a root. Complete XX to a rational coordinate system, so that K=k(X)(z2,…,zn)K=k(X)(z_2,\ldots,z_n). Lemma 3.2 gives Y∈k(X)Y \in k(X). Interchanging XX and YY gives X∈k(Y)X \in k(Y), and therefore k(X)=k(Y)k(X)=k(Y).

There are nonconstant rational functions R,S∈k(T)R,S \in k(T) such that Y=R(X)Y=R(X) and X=S(Y)X=S(Y). Transcendence of XX implies S∘R=TS \circ R=T. For relatively prime polynomials P,QP,Q with Q≠0Q \ne0, the degree of the nonconstant rational function P/QP/Q is max⁡(deg⁡P,deg⁡Q)\max(\deg P,\deg Q), where polynomial degree is the largest exponent with nonzero coefficient. Nonconstant rational functions satisfy

deg⁡(S∘R)=deg⁡Sdeg⁡R.(3)\deg(S\circ R)=\deg S\deg R. \tag*{(3)}

Indeed, homogenize the numerator and denominator of each function to its degree. Each resulting pair of homogeneous polynomials has no common zero on the projective line P1(k‾)=k‾∪{∞}\mathbb{P}^{1}(\overline{k})=\overline{k}\cup\{\infty\}, where k‾\overline{k} is an algebraic closure of kk. Substituting the pair for RR into the pair for SS produces homogeneous polynomials of degree deg⁡Sdeg⁡R\deg S\deg R. A common zero would map to a common zero of the pair for SS, which is impossible. Thus the composed pair has no common factor, proving (3). It follows that deg⁡R=1\deg R=1, which gives the stated expression. Its nonconstancy is equivalent to ad−bc≠0ad-bc \ne0.

Fix the coordinates z1,…,znz_1,\ldots,z_n of a seed and a translation-invariant total order on the additive group Zn\mathbb{Z}^n. For α=(α1,…,αn)∈Nn\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n, where N={0,1,…}\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,\ldots\}, put zα=∏i=1nziαiz^\alpha=\prod_{i=1}^n z_i^{\alpha_i}. The support of a nonzero polynomial P=∑αpαzαP=\sum_\alpha p_\alpha z^\alpha is the finite set of exponents with pα≠0p_\alpha\ne0. Define ν(P)\nu(P) to be its least exponent and lc⁡(P)\operatorname{lc}(P) to be the coefficient of that exponent. For P,Q≠0P,Q\ne0, set

ν(P/Q)=ν(P)−ν(Q),lc⁡(P/Q)=lc⁡(P)/lc⁡(Q).(4)\nu(P/Q)=\nu(P)-\nu(Q),\qquad\operatorname{lc}(P/Q)=\operatorname{lc}(P)/\operatorname{lc}(Q). \tag*{(4)}

Thus ν\nu takes values in the ordered group Zn\mathbb{Z}^n, and lc⁡\operatorname{lc} takes values in k×k^\times.

Lemma 3.4. The definitions in (4) are independent of the chosen fraction. For f,g∈K×f,g\in K^\times,

ν(fg)=ν(f)+ν(g),lc⁡(fg)=lc⁡(f)lc⁡(g).\nu(fg)=\nu(f)+\nu(g),\qquad\operatorname{lc}(fg)=\operatorname{lc}(f)\operatorname{lc}(g).

If ν(f)≠ν(g)\nu(f)\ne\nu(g), then f+g≠0f+g\ne0, and its value and leading coefficient equal those of the summand with smaller value.

Proof. Let α0\alpha_0 and β0\beta_0 be the least support exponents of two nonzero polynomials. Every other pair of support exponents satisfies α+β>α0+β0\alpha+\beta>\alpha_0+\beta_0: both exponents are at least their respective minima, and at least one is larger. The least term of the product is therefore the product of the least terms, with nonzero coefficient. Applying this fact to PQ′=P′QPQ'=P'Q proves that (4) is well defined and proves the multiplication rules. For addition, pass to a common denominator. When the two numerator values differ, the smaller term survives with its coefficient unchanged. □

Lemma 3.5. For every seed (w1,…,wn)(w_1,\ldots,w_n) reachable from (z1,…,zn)(z_1,\ldots,z_n), the vectors vi=ν(wi)v_i=\nu(w_i) form a basis of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n, and lc⁡(wi)=1\operatorname{lc}(w_i)=1 for every ii.

Proof. In the initial seed, the values are the standard basis vectors e1,…,ene_1,\ldots,e_n, and all leading coefficients are one. Suppose the assertion holds for the current seed, with exchange matrix (biℓ)(b_{i\ell}). Its basis property gives vj≠0v_j\ne0 for every mutation direction jj. Lemma 3.4 then gives

ν(1+wj)=min⁡(0,vj),lc⁡(1+wj)=1.\nu(1+w_j)=\min(0,v_j),\qquad\operatorname{lc}(1+w_j)=1.

Applying (1) yields

vj′=−vj,vi′=vi+[bij]+vj−bijmin⁡(0,vj)(i≠j).(5)v'_j=-v_j,\qquad v'_i=v_i+[b_{ij}]_+v_j-b_{ij}\min(0,v_j)\quad(i\ne j). \tag*{(5)}

The minimum is either 00 or vjv_j. Thus (5) adds integer multiples of vjv_j to the other basis vectors and changes the sign of vjv_j. This transformation has determinant −1-1 and preserves the integral basis property. The multiplication rules in Lemma 3.4, applied also to inverses and integer powers, show that every new leading coefficient is one. Induction proves the assertion. □

Proof of Theorem 3.1. Suppose XX and YY are algebraically dependent. Choose a seed containing XX and relabel its coordinates so that z1=Xz_1=X. By Lemma 2.1, reversing a mutation path and then following another path reaches a seed containing YY. Lemma 3.3 gives

Y=R(X)=aX+bcX+d,ad−bc≠0.Y=R(X)=\frac{aX+b}{cX+d},\qquad ad-bc\ne0.

Use the lexicographic order on Zn\mathbb{Z}^n, comparing two vectors at their first unequal component. Then ν(X)=e1>0\nu(X)=e_1>0. If R(0)R(0) is finite and nonzero, both bb and dd are nonzero. The numerator and denominator have value zero, so ν(Y)=0\nu(Y)=0, contrary to Lemma 3.5. Consequently R(0)∈{0,∞}R(0)\in\{0,\infty\}.

Now reverse the entire lexicographic order and apply the construction (4) with this new order. Each finite support has a least element, and ν(X)=e1<0\nu(X)=e_1<0. If R(∞)R(\infty) is finite and nonzero, then a,c≠0a,c\ne0. The numerator and denominator both have value e1e_1, again giving ν(Y)=0\nu(Y)=0. Hence R(∞)∈{0,∞}R(\infty)\in\{0,\infty\}.

The condition ad−bc≠0ad-bc\ne0 makes RR an automorphism of the projective line, so R(0)R(0) and R(∞)R(\infty) are distinct. Therefore R(T)=λTR(T)=\lambda T or R(T)=λ/TR(T)=\lambda/T for some λ∈k×\lambda\in k^\times. In either valuation, XX, X−1X^{-1}, and YY have leading coefficient one. Comparing leading coefficients gives λ=1\lambda=1, proving (1)⇒\Rightarrow(3). Condition (3) implies (2). Under (2), expressing YY as a rational function of XX and clearing its nonzero denominator gives a nonzero polynomial relation, proving (1). □

Differentials and exchange pairs

Differentials

Let d:K→ΩK/k1d: K \to\Omega^1_{K/k} be the universal kk-derivation. In seed coordinates z1,…,znz_1,\ldots,z_n, the space ΩK/k1\Omega^1_{K/k} has KK-basis dz1,…,dzndz_1,\ldots,dz_n; the derivation is zero on kk and satisfies the Leibniz rule. Wedge products below belong to ΩK/k2=⋀K2ΩK/k1\Omega^2_{K/k}=\bigwedge_K^2\Omega^1_{K/k}.

Corollary 4.1. If char⁡k=0\operatorname{char} k=0, then for X,Y∈XX,Y\in\mathcal{X},

dX∧dY=0⟺Y=X or Y=X−1.dX\wedge dY=0 \Longleftrightarrow Y=X\ \text{or}\ Y=X^{-1}.

Proof. Suppose first that X,YX,Y are algebraically independent. Extend them to a transcendence basis of K/kK/k, and let FF be the field generated by that basis over kk. The extension K/FK/F is finite: KK is finitely generated over FF, and its generators are algebraic. It is separable because the characteristic is zero.

The partial derivations with respect to XX and YY on FF extend to KK. To see this, adjoin the finitely many algebraic generators one at a time. If an adjoined element α\alpha has minimal polynomial f(T)=∑iciTif(T)=\sum_i c_iT^i, a derivation DD of the preceding field extends by

D(α)=−∑iD(ci)αif′(α).D(\alpha)=-\frac{\sum_iD(c_i)\alpha^i}{f'(\alpha)}.

Separability gives f′(α)≠0f'(\alpha)\ne0. This formula makes the ideal generated by ff stable under the extended derivation on the polynomial ring, so it defines a derivation on the quotient field. The two extended partial derivations take the pairs (X,Y)(X,Y) to (1,0)(1,0) and (0,1)(0,1). Applying them to any KK-linear relation between dXdX and dYdY makes both coefficients zero. Thus dX∧dY≠0dX\wedge dY\ne0.

It follows that a vanishing wedge product forces algebraic dependence, and Theorem 3.1 gives Y=XY=X or Y=X−1Y=X^{-1}. Conversely, these identities give dY=dXdY=dX and dY=−X−2dXdY=-X^{-2}dX, respectively, and hence a zero wedge product.

Exchange pairs

Assume in this subsection that char⁡k=0\operatorname{char} k=0 and Imut=II_{\mathrm{mut}}=I. Label seed positions along mutation paths by tt, and denote our exchange matrix and coordinates at tt by BtB_t and Xi;tX_{i;t}, respectively, for 1≤i≤n1\le i\le n. Consider the upper cluster algebra U\mathcal{U} over Z\mathbb{Z} with initial exchange matrix BTB^T and trivial coefficient semifield {1}\{1\}, whose multiplication and auxiliary addition both send (1,1)(1,1) to 11. Its initial cluster variables A1,…,AnA_1,\ldots,A_n are independent indeterminates, with ambient field Q(A1,…,An)\mathbb{Q}(A_1,\ldots,A_n). Write Ai;tA_{i;t} for the cluster variables along the same mutation paths. Explicitly, U\mathcal{U} is the intersection, inside this ambient field, of the Laurent polynomial rings

Z[A1;t±1,…,An;t±1]\mathbb{Z}[A_{1;t}^{\pm1},\ldots,A_{n;t}^{\pm1}]

over all seed positions tt.

Across an edge t↔t′t\leftrightarrow t' in direction jj, all AA-coordinates except the jjth remain unchanged, and

Aj;tAj;t′=∏i=1nAi;t[(BtT)ij]++∏i=1nAi;t[−(BtT)ij]+.(6)A_{j;t}A_{j;t'}=\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i;t}^{[(B_t^T)_{ij}]_+}+\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i;t}^{[-(B_t^T)_{ij}]_+}. \tag*{(6)}

An empty product equals one. The ordered pair (Aj;t,Aj;t′)(A_{j;t},A_{j;t'}) is an ordered exchange pair; its unordered version is the corresponding unordered exchange pair.

In [1 Definition 2.5], mutation of XiX_i in direction jj uses the (j,i)(j,i) matrix entry. Our formula uses the (i,j)(i,j) entry, which accounts for the transpose above. Formula (2) commutes with transposition, so the XX-variables in the two conventions agree along each mutation path. Moreover, BTB^T is skew-symmetrizable: reciprocal symmetrizing factors 1/di1/d_i, multiplied by a common denominator, give positive integer factors for BTB^T.

The standing assumptions of [1 §1.4] require a factorial base domain of characteristic zero and exchange binomials that are nonunits over the coefficient ring. The choice Z\mathbb{Z} satisfies these conditions. Each nonconstant exchange binomial in (6) is a nonunit; a zero column gives the binomial 22, also a nonunit over Z\mathbb{Z}. Quotients of nonzero polynomials in independent initial XX-variables with nonnegative integer coefficients form the universal semifield used in [1], with ordinary multiplication and addition of rational functions. Our XX-mutation pattern over this semifield has initial matrix BTB^{T} in that paper’s convention. By [1 Theorem 7.6(i)], there is a bijection

ψ:Xj;t⟼(Aj;t,Aj;t′).(7)\psi: X_{j;t} \longmapsto(A_{j;t}, A_{j;t}^{\prime}). \tag*{(7)}

Mutation at jj inverts Xj;tX_{j;t}, so

ψ(Xj;t−1)=(Aj;t′,Aj;t).\psi(X_{j;t}^{-1}) = (A_{j;t}^{\prime}, A_{j;t}).

Finally, the embedding Q(x1,…,xn)↪k(x1,…,xn)\mathbb{Q}(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \hookrightarrow k(x_1,\ldots,x_n) preserves all equalities among these rational functions. Thus (7) defines a bijection on the set X\mathcal{X} in the present characteristic-zero setting.

Corollary 4.2. Under the assumptions of this subsection, k(X)=k(Y)k(X) = k(Y) for X,Y∈XX,Y \in\mathcal{X} if and only if ψ(X)\psi(X) and ψ(Y)\psi(Y) have the same unordered exchange pair.

Proof. By Theorem 3.1, equality of the fields is equivalent to Y=XY = X or Y=X−1Y = X^{-1}. Under ψ\psi, these alternatives give the same ordered pair or the reversed pair. Conversely, two orderings of the same unordered pair are equal or reversed, and injectivity of ψ\psi gives the corresponding identity between XX and YY.

Parallel classes

Return to the arbitrary field and mutable index set of § 2. Algebraic independence defines an algebraic matroid on X\mathcal{X}: a finite subset is independent when its elements are algebraically independent over kk, and an arbitrary subset is independent when each finite subset is independent. Every coordinate is transcendental over kk, so this matroid has no loops. The parallel class of XX consists of XX and the distinct elements that form a dependent pair with XX.

Corollary 4.3. The parallel class of X∈XX \in\mathcal{X} is

X∩{X,X−1}.\mathcal{X} \cap\{X,X^{-1}\}.

If XX occurs in a mutable position of a seed, this class has exactly two elements.

Proof. The description follows from Theorem 3.1. Mutation in a mutable position containing XX produces X−1X^{-1}. These elements are distinct because XX is transcendental over kk.

Examples

A noninvolutive mutation rule

The question [2] displays the rule

xi′=xi(1+xj[−bij]+)−bij,i≠j.x_i^{\prime} = x_i(1+x_j^{[-b_{ij}]_+})^{-b_{ij}}, \qquad i \ne j.

with [a]+=max⁡(a,0)[a]_+ = \max(a,0). Over C(x1,x2)\mathbb{C}(x_1,x_2), take

B=(0−110),j=2.B = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \qquad j = 2.

This displayed rule gives x1′=2x1x_1^{\prime} = 2x_1, which is algebraically dependent on x1x_1 and distinct from both x1x_1 and x1−1x_1^{-1}. Applying the same rule a second time in direction 22 gives 2x1/(1+x2)2x_1/(1+x_2). Thus this rule differs from the involutive mutation (1), which is the formula used in Theorem 3.1.

Specializing a frozen coordinate

Take B=(01−10)B=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix} and Imut={1}I_{\mathrm{mut}}=\{1\}. Mutation gives

x1′=x1−1,x2′=x2(1+x1).x_1'=x_1^{-1}, \qquad x_2'=x_2(1+x_1).

These expressions are regular along x2=1x_2=1, and substitution gives x2′=1+x1x_2'=1+x_1. The specialized coordinate is algebraically dependent on x1x_1 and distinct from x1x_1 and x1−1x_1^{-1}. The independent initial frozen coordinate in Theorem 3.1 therefore has an essential role when the set X\mathcal{X} includes frozen coordinates.

Differentials in positive characteristic

Let char⁡k=p>0\operatorname{char} k=p>0 and take

B=(0−pp0).B=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -p \\ p & 0\end{pmatrix}.

Mutation in direction 2 produces the pair X=x1X=x_1 and Y=x1(1+x2)p=x1(1+x2p)Y=x_1(1+x_2)^p=x_1(1+x_2^p). Hence

dY=(1+x2p) dx1,dX∧dY=0.dY=(1+x_2^p)\,dx_1,\qquad dX\wedge dY=0.

On the other hand, k(X,Y)=k(x1,x2p)k(X,Y)=k(x_1,x_2^p) has transcendence degree two over kk, so X,YX,Y are algebraically independent. This gives a positive-characteristic failure of the differential criterion in Corollary 4.1.

A dependent triple

In k(u,v)k(u,v), mutation in direction 1 for B=(01−10)B=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix} produces w=v(1+u)w=v(1+u). The three coordinates u,v,wu,v,w satisfy w−v−uv=0w-v-uv=0. Each pair is algebraically independent: u,vu,v are the initial coordinates, and

k(u,w)=k(u,v),k(v,w)=k(u,v),k(u,w)=k(u,v),\qquad k(v,w)=k(u,v),

as follows from v=w/(1+u)v=w/(1+u) and u=w/v−1u=w/v-1. This example works over every field.

An asymptotic proof over the complex numbers

Proof of Theorem 3.1 over C\mathbb{C}. Suppose X,Y∈XX,Y\in\mathcal{X} are algebraically dependent, and choose seed coordinates z1,…,znz_1,\ldots,z_n with z1=Xz_1=X. Lemma 3.3 gives Y=R(X)Y=R(X) for a fractional linear map RR. Choose positive real numbers r1,…,rnr_1,\ldots,r_n that are linearly independent over Q\mathbb{Q}, and substitute zi=triz_i=t^{r_i}, where t>0t>0 tends to zero. The mutation formulas preserve positive coordinates, so all expressions along a finite mutation path are defined.

We prove inductively that every current coordinate has an asymptotic expression

wi(t)=tsi(1+o(1)),w_i(t)=t^{s_i}(1+o(1)),

where o(1)o(1) denotes a real function tending to zero, and s1,…,sns_1,\ldots,s_n are linearly independent over Q\mathbb{Q}. Initially si=ris_i=r_i. At a mutation in direction jj, the exponent sjs_j is nonzero. Thus 1+wj1+w_j has leading term 11 if sj>0s_j>0 and tsjt^{s_j} if sj<0s_j<0, with coefficient one in both cases. The new exponents are

sj′=−sj,si′=si+[bij]+sj−bijmin⁡(0,sj)(i≠j).s_j'=-s_j,\qquad s_i'=s_i+[b_{ij}]_+s_j-b_{ij}\min(0,s_j)\quad(i\ne j).

This is an invertible integer linear transformation of the exponent tuple. It preserves rational linear independence, and the leading coefficients remain one.

Along this path, XX tends to zero, and YY tends to zero or infinity. Hence R(0)∈{0,∞}R(0)\in\{0,\infty\}. Repeating the argument with zi=t−riz_i=t^{-r_i} makes XX tend to infinity and gives R(∞)∈{0,∞}R(\infty)\in\{0,\infty\}. Since RR is a projective automorphism, it permutes these two points. Therefore Y=λXY=\lambda X or Y=λX−1Y=\lambda X^{-1} for some λ∈C×\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^{\times}. Along the first path, comparison of exponents and leading coefficients gives λ=1\lambda=1. The remaining implications follow by taking generated fields and clearing denominators, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1.

Qiyue Tang

Zhili College, Tsinghua University

Beijing 100084, China

[email protected]

References

  1. [1]P. Cao, B. Keller and F. Qin, The valuation pairing on an upper cluster algebra, J. Reine Angew. Math. 806 (2024), 71–114. doi:10.1515/crelle-2023-0080. arXiv:2204.09576v2.DOI
  2. [2]Elbabak, Differential (in)dependencies between cluster variables, MathOverflow, question 302052, 5 June 2018. https://mathoverflow.net/q/302052 (accessed 5 October 2026).
  3. [3]V. V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 42 (2009), 865–930. doi:10.24033/asens.2112.DOI
  4. [4]M. Sherman-Bennett, Combinatorics of X-variables in finite type cluster algebras, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 165 (2019), 273–298. arXiv:1803.02492v2.

Paper details

vlnc:W_4kbsb8qu
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents