Constructing Sylvester-type resultant matrices using the Dixon formulation

Abstract A new method for constructing Sylvester-type resultant matrices for multivariate elimination is proposed. Unlike sparse resultant constructions discussed recently in the literature or the Macaulay resultant construction, the proposed method does not explicitly use the support of a polynomial system in the construction. Instead, a multiplier set for each polynomial is obtained from the Dixon resultant formulation using an arbitrary term (or a polynomial) for the construction. As shown in the Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1996), the generalized Dixon resultant formulation implicitly exploits the sparse structure of the polynomial system. As a result, the proposed construction for Sylvester-type resultant matrices is sparse in the sense that the matrix size is determined by the support structure of the polynomial system, instead of the total degree of the polynomial system. The proposed construction is a generalization of a related construction proposed by the authors in which the monomial 1 is used (RCWA’00, Proceedings of the 7th Rhine Workshop (2000), 167). It is shown that any polynomial (with support inside or outside the support of the polynomial system) can be used instead insofar as that polynomial does not vanish on any of the common zeros of the polynomial system. For generic unmixed polynomial systems (in which every polynomial in the polynomial system has the same support, i.e., the same set of terms), it is shown that the choice of a polynomial does not affect the matrix size insofar as the terms in the polynomial also appear in the polynomial system. The main advantage of the proposed construction is for mixed polynomial systems. Supports of a mixed polynomial system can be translated so as to have a maximal overlap, and a polynomial is selected with support from the overlapped subset of translated supports. Determining an appropriate translation vector for each support and a term from the overlapped support can be formulated as an optimization problem. It is shown that under certain conditions on the supports of polynomials in a mixed polynomial system, a polynomial can be selected leading to a Dixon dialytic matrix of the smallest size, thus implying that the projection operator computed using the proposed construction is either the resultant or has an extraneous factor of minimal degree. The proposed construction is compared theoretically and empirically, on a number of examples, with other methods for generating Sylvester-type resultant matrices.

[1]  Bernard Mourrain,et al.  Matrices in Elimination Theory , 1999, J. Symb. Comput..

[2]  B. Mourrain,et al.  Algebraic Approach of Residues and Applications , 1996 .

[3]  Bernd Sturmfels,et al.  Product formulas for resultants and Chow forms , 1993 .

[4]  J. Canny,et al.  Efficient Incremental Algorithms for the , 1994 .

[5]  C. Wampler,et al.  Basic Algebraic Geometry , 2005 .

[6]  Alicia Dickenstein,et al.  Multihomogeneous resultant formulae by means of complexes , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[7]  A. L. Dixon The Eliminant of Three Quantics in two Independent Variables , 1909 .

[8]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  A new sylvester-type resultant method based on the dixon-bezout formulation , 2003 .

[9]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Resultants for Unmixed Bivariate Polynomial Systems using the Dixon formulation ∗ , 2002 .

[10]  John F. Canny,et al.  A subdivision-based algorithm for the sparse resultant , 2000, JACM.

[11]  Tushar Saxena,et al.  Efficient variable elimination using resultants , 1997 .

[12]  S. Weintraub,et al.  Algebra: An Approach via Module Theory , 1992 .

[13]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Exact resultants for corner-cut unmixed multivariate polynomial systems using the Dixon formulation , 2003, J. Symb. Comput..

[14]  A. L. Dixon On a Form of the Eliminant of Two Quantics , 1908 .

[15]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Conditions for exact resultants using the Dixon formulation , 2000, ISSAC.

[16]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  International symposium on symbolic and algebraic computation poster abstracts 2003 , 2003, SIGS.

[17]  I. M. Gelʹfand,et al.  Discriminants, Resultants, and Multidimensional Determinants , 1994 .

[18]  F. S. Macaulay,et al.  The Algebraic Theory of Modular Systems , 1972 .

[19]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Comparison of various multivariate resultants , 1995, ISSAC 1995.

[20]  Bernard Mourrain,et al.  Generalized Resultants over Unirational Algebraic Varieties , 2000, J. Symb. Comput..

[21]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Resultants for unmixed bivariate polynomial systems produced using the Dixon formulation , 2004, J. Symb. Comput..

[22]  David A. Cox,et al.  Using Algebraic Geometry , 1998 .

[23]  J. Sylvester,et al.  XVIII. On a theory of the syzygetic relations of two rational integral functions, comprising an application to the theory of Sturm’s functions, and that of the greatest algebraical common measure , 1853, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

[24]  B. Sturmfels,et al.  Multigraded Resultants of Sylvester Type , 1994 .

[25]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Topics in resultants and implicitization , 2000 .

[26]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Sparsity considerations in the dixon resultant formulation , 1996, STOC 1996.

[27]  I. Shafarevich Basic algebraic geometry , 1974 .

[28]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Algebraic and geometric reasoning using Dixon resultants , 1994, ISSAC '94.