arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 19 May 2010

Transcription

1 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 19 May 2010 Abstract. The first secant variety of a projective monomial curve is a threefold with an action by a one-dimensional torus. Its tropicalization is a three-dimensional fan with a one-dimensional lineality space, so the tropical threefold is represented by a balanced graph. Our main result is an explicit construction of that graph. As a consequence, we obtain algorithms to effectively compute the multidegree and Chow polytope of an arbitrary projective monomial curve. This generalizes an earlier degree formula due to Ranestad. The combinatorics underlying our construction is rather delicate, and it is based on a refinement of the theory of geometric tropicalization due to Hacking, Keel and Tevelev. 1. Introduction In this paper, we define and study four graphs that hide rich geometry: an abstract graph (the abstract tropical secant surface graph), a weighted graph in R n+1 (the tropical secant surface graph or master graph), a weighted graph in the (n 2)-sphere (the tropical secant graph) and, finally, a weighted graph representing a simplicial complex embedded in the same sphere (the Gröbner tropical secant graph), obtained by an appropriate refinement of the previous graph. All four graphs are parameterized by a sequence of n coprime distinct positive integers i 1,..., i n. As their names suggest, these graphs are stepping stones to construct either a tropical surface or the tropicalization of the first secant variety of a monomial curve in P n with exponents {0, i 1,..., i n }. The abstract tropical secant surface graph is constructed by gluing two caterpillar trees and several star trees, according to the combinatorics of the given integer sequence. We pick an embedding of this abstract graph in R n+1 by assigning integer coordinates to each node. Our embedding has a key feature: we can endow this graph with weights on all edges in such a way that it becomes balanced (Theorem 2.5). We call this weighted graph the tropical secant surface graph or master graph for short (Definition 2.1). As the name suggests, this balanced graph is closely related to a tropical surface and will be the main character in this story. More precisely, it is the building block for constructing the tropicalization of a classical threefold: the first secant variety of a monomial projective curve (1 : t i1 :... : t in ). By definition, the secant variety of the curve is the closure of the union of all lines that meet the curve in two distinct points. These varieties have been studied extensively in the literature; see [5, 18] and references therein for more details. One of the main contributions of this paper is a complete characterization of their tropical counterparts, which is carried out in full detail in Section 6. In recent years, tropical geometry has provided a new approach to attack implicitization problems [7, 10, 19, 20]. In particular, tropicalization interplays nicely with several classical constructions 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14Q05, 14T05 (Primary); 14M25 (Secondary). Key words and phrases. monomial curves, secant varieties, resolution graphs, tropical implicitization, Newton polytope. M.A. Cueto was supported by a UC Berkeley Chancellor s Fellowship and S. Lin was supported by a Singapore A*STAR Fellowship. 1

2 2 such as Hadamard products of subvarieties of tori. In short, we tropicalize classical varieties to obtain weighted polyhedral fans with the hope of recovering useful algebro-geometric information by working on the polyhedral-geometric side. Our paper illustrates this principle with a family of classical secant examples. More precisely, using tropical implicitization techniques, we effectively compute the Chow polytope of these secant varieties. An interesting subfamily of these varieties corresponds to monomial curves in P 4, where the first secant variety is a hypersurface. In this situation, the Chow polytope of the secant variety is the Newton polytope of the equation defining this hypersurface. Interpolation techniques can then be used to obtain this equation. These tropical implicitization methods are described in Section 7. As one may suspect, computing the tropicalization of an algebraic variety without any information about its defining ideal is not an easy task. This new point of view was pioneered by the work of Kapranov and his collaborators [13], and further developed by Hacking, Keel and Tevelev [15]. This new theory, known as geometric tropicalization (Theorem 4.1), relies on a parametric representation of the variety and the characterization of realizable tropical varieties (i.e. tropicalization of algebraic varieties) in terms of divisorial valuations, following the spirit of [1]. This can be quite difficult if the variety is non-generic. We can see this from the extensive number of pages we devote to computing the tropical surface corresponding to the master graph using this technique, and also from the small sample of examples of computations using geometric tropicalization available in the literature. As we explain in Section 4, the main obstacle for non-generic varieties lies in finding a suitable (tropical) compactification whose boundary has simple normal crossings ([21]), a condition which can be further relaxed to combinatorial normal crossings for algebraic surfaces [19]. This last condition requires a smooth divisorial boundary where no three prime boundary divisors meet at a point. In principal, this can be achieved by blow-ups of isolated surface singularities, and the difficulty becomes algebraic, since we need to carry all valuations along the different blow-ups. Despite the richness of this new valuative approach, this geometric perspective has a major obstacle to its full development: it does not provide information about the tropical variety as a weighted set. Multiplicities of maximal cells are missing in the construction of [15] and they are essential for tropical implicitization methods. We overcome this difficulty by providing a formula to compute these numbers in Theorem 4.2. A complete proof of this key result will appear in the forthcoming doctoral dissertation of the first author [6]. Equipped with these multiplicity formulas, we can return to the geometry and to the task of compactification. As we illustrate in Section 5, the combinatorics involved in this compactification process are by no means trivial. We should not expect them to be simple since they are the manifestation of the algebro-geometric process of resolution of singularities. In the case of surfaces, using any given rational parameterization, the question translates to resolving an arrangement of plane curves in the algebraic 2-torus T 2, which can be achieved in theory by blowing up plane curves at finitely many points. In practice, knowing which points to blow up and how the intersection multiplicities of all proper transforms and exceptional divisors are carried along the various blow-ups performed can be a combinatorial challenge. However, the surfaces studied in this paper (binomial surfaces obtained from a dehomogeneization of the first secant of monomial projective curves) have a very rich combinatorial structure, and we can make full use of this feature to compute their tropicalization via resolutions. Our methods allow us to read off the intersection numbers of the boundary divisors directly from the master graph, which encodes the resolution diagrams of the surface at each singular point (see Figure 1). This is carried out in Sections 3 and 5, in particular in Theorem 3.2. It is worth mentioning that this construction provides

3 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 3 a compactification of the toric arrangement given by the n + 1 binomial curves (w ij λ = 0) in T 2, for 0 j n. Such compactifications have been studied recently by L. Moci [17]. His construction, closely related to ours in spirit, realizes the wonderful compactification developed by De Concini and Procesi [8]. Equipped with the master graph representing this tropical surface, we describe the tropicalization of the first secant variety of any monomial curve C as a collection of four-dimensional cones in R n+1 with multiplicities (Theorem 6.8), or as a collection of 3-dimensional weighted cones in the tropical projective torus TP n = R n+1 /R 1. We encode these cones as a weighted graph in the (n 2)-sphere, constructed by gluing together specific nodes in the master graph, and identifying edges accordingly. Weights for these edges are computed from the original ones by combinatorial methods. We call this graph the tropical secant graph (Definition 6.6). Strictly contained as a subgraph of this graph is the first tropical secant complex of the tropicalization of our monomial curve (Propositions 8.2 and 8.4). This complex has recently been investigated in [9, 11] in an attempt to study tropicalizations of secant varieties of affine toric varieties. As we mentioned earlier, these tropical secant graphs are then exploited to recover geometric information about the original secant variety. More precisely, by combining algorithms developed in [7, 10] we use this graph as input to recover the multidegree of this secant threefold with respect to the rank-two lattice generated by the all-one s vector and the exponent vector of the curve. The degree of this variety was previously worked out in [18] and, unsurprisingly, our methods give similar combinatorial formulas for this degree in terms of the exponents i 1,..., i n. The main advantage of our approach is that, with the same effort, we can provide much more information about the secant variety, including the Chow polytope. Our construction is particularly enlightening in the case when n = 4, where the threefold secant variety becomes a hypersurface. In this special situation, we recover the Newton polytope of the defining equation. Although the lack of a fan structure in our description of this tropical variety is not an issue in our methods, it would be desirable to have one to predict extra combinatorial information about the Newton polytope, such as the number of facets. For this reason, we devote the last part of Section 7 to refining the presentation of the tropical secant graph to turn it into a weighted simplicial complex. This structure is inherited from the Gröbner fan structure of the defining ideal and from the coarsest fan structure of the tropical threefold. We choose the name Gröbner tropical secant graph to highlight this property. We illustrate all our constructions and results with the sequence {30, 45, 55, 78}, inspired by [18, Example 3.3], and with the rational normal curve (Example 8.1). Although secant varieties have been extensively studied in the past, we hope our work illustrates the power of tropical implicitization and how it can be used to go beyond implicitization methods even when looking at classical examples. Eventhough the theory is at an early stage and it is still evolving, we expect Theorem 4.2 to become a valuable tool for future applications. 2. The master graph In this section, we describe the main object of this paper: the master graph. We start by defining an abstract graph parameterized by n coprime positive integers i 1,..., i n. Throughout the paper, we set n 4. To simplify notation, we call i 0 = 0 and we assume i 1 < i 2 <... < i n. This graph will be built from two types of graphs: two caterpillar graphs G E,D, G h,d and a family of star graphs {G Fa,D} a parameterized by suitable subsets a of the index set {0, i 1,..., i n }. We construct the abstract graph by gluing all our graphs G E,D, G h,d and the family {G Fa,D} a along the common labeled nodes D ij. We call this abstract graph the abstract tropical secant surface graph.

4 4 Our first building block is the caterpillar graph G E,D, as illustrated on the top-left side of Figure 1. It consists of 2n 1 nodes and 2n 2 edges. Nodes are grouped in two levels, with labels E i1,..., E in 1 and D i1,..., D in. Similarly, our second graph, denoted by G h,d and depicted on the bottom-left side of Figure 1, consists of 2n nodes grouped in two levels with labels h i1,..., h in 1 and D 0, D i1,..., D in respectively, and 2n 1 edges. Finally, the third family of graphs is described by arithmetic progressions of integer numbers intersecting the index set in at least two elements. They correspond to the rightmost picture in Figure 1. We allow the common difference of this progression to be 1, so the set of all exponents {0, i 1,..., i n } is a valid subset. The size of each subset a {0, i 1,..., i n } associated to an arithmetic progression will coincide with the degree of the corresponding node F a in the abstract graph. Note that several arithmetic progression can give the same subset of {0, i 1,..., i n }, and hence the same node F a in the graph. If a = {i j1,..., i jk }, then the graph has k + 1 nodes and k edges: a central node F a and k nodes labeled D ij1,..., D ijk. The central node is connected to the other k nodes in the graph. As Example 2.3 reveals, only nodes of degree at least three will be relevant, so in principle we should only consider subsets of size at least three. However, to simplify the statements in the paper, we will allow subsets of size two as well. a = {i j1,..., i jk } Figure 1. The graphs G E,D, G h,d and {G Fa,D} a glue together to form the abstract tropical secant surface graph. We now embed the abstract tropical secant surface graph into R n+1 by mapping each node to an integer vector. Our chosen embedding has additional data: a weight for each edge in the graph. We call this weighted graph the tropical secant surface graph or master graph. We explain this construction in full detail below. For a numerical example, see Figure 2. Definition 2.1. The master graph is a weighted graph in R n+1 parameterized by {i 1,..., i n } with nodes: (i) D ij = e j := (0,..., 0, 1, 0,..., 0) (0 j n), (ii) E ij = (0, i 1,..., i j 1, i j,..., i j ), h ij = ( i j,..., i j, i j+1,..., i n ) (1 j n 1), (iii) F a = i e j a j where a {0, i 1,..., i n } has size at least two and is obtained by intersecting an arithmetic progression of integers with the index set {0, i 1,..., i n }. Its edges agree with the edges of the abstract tropical secant surface graph, and have weights: (i) m Di0,h i1 = 1, m Din,E in 1 = gcd(i 1,..., i n 1 ), m Din,h in 1 = i n, (ii) m Dij,E ij = gcd(i 1,..., i j ), m Dij,h ij = gcd(i j,..., i n ) (1 j n 1),

5 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 5 (iii) m Eij,E ij+1 =gcd(i 1,..., i j ), m hij,h ij+1 =gcd(i j+1,..., i n ) (1 j n 2), (iv) m Fa,D ij = r ϕ(r), where we sum over the common differences r of all arithmetic progressions containing i j and giving the same subset a. Here, ϕ denotes Euler s phi function. Remark 2.2. As we mentioned earlier, if the subset a coming from an arithmetic progression has two elements, then F a is a bivalent node and we may eliminate it from the graph if desired, replacing its two adjacent edges by a single edge. Both edges (F ij,i k D ij and F ij,i k D ik ) will have the same multiplicity, so we assign this number as the multiplicity of the new edge D ij D ik. From the definition, it is immediate to check that the node E i1 is always bivalent. However, we will always keep it in our graph, since it will greatly simplify all our constructions in Section 6. We illustrate the definition of the master graph with an example. Note that the master graph may have nodes F a with 0 / a, unlike the case of the following example. This will be completely determined by the combinatorics of the set {i 1,..., i n }. Example 2.3. We compute the master graph associated to the set {30, 45, 55, 78}. For simplicity, we eliminate all nine bivalent nodes F ij,i k from the construction. We keep the bivalent grey node E i1. The resulting weighted graph has 16 vertices and 36 edges and it is depicted in Figure 2. There are five nodes of type F a, namely F 0,30,45,55,78 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1), F 0,30,45,78 = (1, 1, 1, 0, 1), F 0,30,45,55 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 0), F 0,30,45 = (1, 1, 1, 0, 0) and F 0,30,78 = (1, 1, 0, 0, 1). They correspond to the five unlabeled nodes in the picture. Figure 2. The master graph associated to the set {30, 45, 55, 78}.

6 6 Before stating the main result of this section, we recall the definition of a balanced graph: Definition 2.4. Let (G, m) R N be a weighted graph where each node has integer coordinates. Let w be a node in G and let {w 1,..., w r } be the set of nodes adjacent to w. Consider the primitive lattices Λ w = R w Z N and Λ w,wi = R w, w i Z N. Then Λ w,wi /Λ w is a rank one lattice, and it admits a unique generator which lifts to an element in the cone R 0 w, w i R N. Let u wi w be one such lifting. We say that the node w is balanced if r i=1 m w i,wu wi w R w. If all nodes of G are balanced, then we say that the weighted graph (G, m) satisfies the balancing condition. Theorem 2.5. The master graph satisfies the balancing condition. Proof. We proceed by analyzing the balance at each node, following Definition 2.4. The main difficulty will be to find the corresponding vector u wi w for each edge w i w in the graph. We define g ij := gcd(i 1,..., i j ) and g ij := gcd(i j,..., i n ). Note that these are the weights m Dij,E ij and m Eij,E ij+1 of the master graph. To simplify notation, we set E i0 = E in = h i0 = h in = 0, add edges E i0 E i1, E in 1 E in, h i0 h i1 and h in 1 h in to our graph and assign weight zero to these edges. We start by checking the balance at nodes E ij for 1 j n 1. In this case, we know that Λ Eij = Z E ij /g ij = Z (0, i 1 /g j,..., i j /g j,..., i j /g j ) and Λ Dij,E ij = Z E ij /g ij, e j. So u Dij E ij = D ij. On the other hand, Λ Eij+1,E ij = R E ij+1 /g ij+1, E ij /g ij Z n+1. By definition, we need to extend the primitive vector E ij /g ij to a basis of Λ Eij+1,E ij and check the sign of the new vector. In this case, u Eij+1,E ij = n k=j+1 e k. Next, we compute u Eij 1 E ij. Here Λ = Z E ij 1 /g ij 1, E ij /g ij is not a primitive lattice, and we need to extend E ij /g ij to a basis of its saturation Λ Eij 1,E ij. Our first candidate vector is (E ij E ij 1 )/(i j i j 1 ) = n k=j 1 e k. However, since g ij 1 need not equal g ij, we need to modify our choice. We propose v = (0, ai 1 /g ij 1,..., ai j 1 /g ij 1, b,..., b), for a, b such that ai j + bg ij 1 = g ij. We can check that all nonzero 2-minors of the matrix with rows E ij /g ij and v are of the form: b i k /g j (i j i k )/(g j g ij 1 ) = i k /g j 1, so their gcd equals one. Therefore, E ij /g ij and ±v generate a primitive lattice, which contains E ij 1 by construction. To determine the correct choice of sign for ±v, we write E ij 1 as a linear combination of E ij /g ij and v, where the coefficient of v needs to be positive. In this case, E ij 1 = g ij (1 a(i j i j 1 )/g ij ) E ij /g ij + g ij 1 (i j i j 1 )/g j v. Thus, we conclude that u Eij 1 E ij = v. Finally, we have u Din E in 1 = e n. With these weights, it is straight-forward to check that the graph is balanced at E ij. Working with g ij instead of g ij, a similar procedure will prove that the graph is balanced at the nodes h ij for all 1 j n 1. Balance at nodes F a follows by construction, so it remains to check the balance at the nodes D ij. In this case, u Eij D ij = E ij /g ij, u hij D ij = h ij /g ij, u Fa D ij = F a (i j a), and u Ein 1 D in = E in 1. The balancing equation at D ij gives ( ϕ(r))f a + E ij + h ij = a i j r n ( ϕ(r) i k i j ) e k. k=0 r i k i j By the fact that l k,l>0 ϕ(l) = k, we see that the graph is also balanced at D i j.

7 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 7 3. The master graph is a tropical surface In this section, we explain the suggestive name tropical secant surface graph for the master graph. More concretely, we show that it is the tropicalization of a surface in C n+1 parameterized by the binomial map (λ, w) (1 λ, w i1 λ,..., w in λ). Before that, we review the basics of tropical geometry. Definition 3.1. Given an affine variety X C N with defining ideal I = I(X), we define the tropicalization of X to be the set T X = T I = {w R N : in w (I) does not contain a monomial}. Here, in w (I) = in w (f) : f I, and if f = α c α x α where all c α 0, then in w (f) = α w=w c α x α, where W = min{α w : c α 0}. In the case of an embedded projective variety X P N, the tropicalization of X is defined as T X R N+1 where X is the affine cone over X in C N+1. Although it may not be clear from Definition 3.1, tropicalizations are toric in nature. More precisely, let T N = (C ) N be the algebraic torus. Let Y be a subvariety of T N, also known as a very affine variety. Suppose I Y C[T N ] = C[y 1 ±,..., y± N ] is its defining ideal. We define the tropicalization of Y T N as T Y = {v R N : 1 / in v (I Y )}. Here, the initial ideal with respect to a vector v is the same as that in Definition 3.1. Consider the Zariski closure Y of Y in C N. It is easy to see that T Y equals T Y. Indeed, this follows from the fact that I Y is the saturation ideal ( I Y C[T N ] : (y 1 y N ) ) and I Y = I Y C[y 1,..., y N ]. Therefore, if we start with an irreducible variety X C N not contained in a coordinate hyperplane, then we can consider the very affine variety Y = X T N, which has the same dimension as X. The tropical variety T Y is a pure polyhedral subfan of the Gröbner fan of I and it preserves an important invariant of Y : both objects have the same dimension [1]. Tropical implicitization is a recently developed technique to approach classical implicitization problems [19]. For instance, when Y is a codimension-one hypersurface, I Y = g is principal and T Y is the union of non-maximal cones in the normal fan of the Newton polytope of g, so knowing T Y can help us in finding g. But to achieve this, we need to compute T Y without explicitly knowing I Y. We show how to do this in Section 4. A point w T X is called regular if T X is a linear space locally near w. We can attach a positive integer to each regular point of the tropical variety that carries information about the geometry of X. More precisely, we define the multiplicity m w of a regular point w to be the sum of multiplicities of all minimal associated primes of the initial ideal in w (I) [10]. The multiplicity of a maximal cone in T X agree with the multiplicity at any of its regular points. One can show that this assignment does not depend on the choice of the regular point and that with these multiplicities, the tropical variety satisfies the balancing condition [19, Corollary 3.4]. For example, if X is an irreducible hypersurface, the multiplicity of a maximal cone equals the lattice length of the corresponding edge in its Newton polytope [10]. In the case of projective varieties, or in general, when we have a torus action given by an integer lattice Λ, the tropical variety T X has a lineality space, that is, the maximal linear space contained in all cones of the fan T X. We call the underlying lattice Λ the lineality lattice. For example, the lineality space of a tropical hypersurface T (g) equals the orthogonal complement of the affine span of the Newton polytope of g, after appropriate translation to the origin. The extreme case is that of a toric varieties globally parameterized by a monomial map with associated matrix A. Its

8 8 tropicalization T X will be a classical linear space, namely, the row span of A. T X coincides with its lineality space as sets with constant multiplicity one [10]. Since the lineality space L is contained in all cones of T X, we can quotient the ambient space by this linear subspace, while preserving the fan structure [7]. Furthermore, we will intersect this new set with the unit sphere in R N+1 /L and consider the underlying weighted polyhedral complex. For example, if X is a surface with no non-trivial torus action, then we view T X as a graph in S N. We now realize the master graph as a tropical surface in R n+1 : Theorem 3.2. Fix a primitive strictly increasing sequence (0, i 1,..., i n ) of coprime integers. Let Z be the surface in C n+1 parameterized by (λ, ω) (1 λ, ω i1 λ,..., ω in λ). Then, the tropical surface T Z R n+1 coincides with the cone over the master graph as weighted polyhedral fans, with the convention that we assign the weight m Di1,E i1 + m Fe,D i1 to the cone over the edge D i1 E i1 if the ending sequence e = {i 1,..., i n } gives a node F e in the master graph. The proof of this statement involves techniques from geometric tropicalization and resolution of singularities of plane curves. Beautiful combinatorics are involved in its proof, as we show in Section 5. Corollary 3.3. With the notation of Theorem 3.2, the weighted graph obtained by identifying the nodes E i1 and F e in the master graph, and by replacing the multiplicity of the edge D i1 E i1 with the value i 1 + m Fe,D i1 agrees with the complex T Z S n. 4. Geometric Tropicalization In this section we present the basics of geometric tropicalization. The spirit of this theory relies on computing the tropicalization of subvarieties of tori by analyzing the combinatorics of their boundary in a suitable compactification. In what follows, we describe the method and its applications to implicitizations of subvarieties of tori. Let f 1,..., f N be Laurent polynomials in C[t ± 1,..., t± r ] and consider the rational map f : T r T N, f = (f 1,..., f N ). For simplicity, we will assume that the fiber of f over a generic point of Y T N is finite. Our goal is to compute the tropicalization T Y of the closure of the image of the map f inside the torus, without knowledge of its defining ideal. When the coefficients of f 1,..., f N are generic with respect to their Newton polytopes, a method for constructing T Y was given in [20, Thm 2.1] and proved in [19, Thm 5.1]. We describe an algorithm proposed in [19, 5] which may be applied to maps f which are non-generic. For simplicity, we state it for the case of parametric surfaces although the method generalizes to higher dimensional subvarieties as well. Theorem 4.1 (Geometric Tropicalization [15, 2]). Let T N be the N-dimensional torus with characters t 1,..., t N, and let Y be a closed surface in T N. Suppose Y is smooth and Y Y is any compactification whose boundary D = Y \ Y is a smooth divisor with simple normal crossings. Let D 1,..., D m be the irreducible components of D, and write Y,D for the intersection complex of the boundary divisor D, i.e. the graph on {1,..., m} defined by {k i, k j } Y,D D ki D kj. Define the integer vectors [D k ] := (val Dk (t 1 ),..., val Dk (t N )) Z N (k = 1,..., m) where val Dk (t j ) is the order of zero/pole of t j along D k. For any σ Y,D, let [σ] be the cone in Z N spanned by {[D k ] : k σ} and let R 0 [σ] be the cone in R N spanned by the same integer vectors. Then, T Y = R 0 [σ]. σ Y,D

9 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 9 We complement the previous result with a formula giving the multiplicities of regular points in tropical surfaces. A similar formula will hold in higher dimensions. Theorem 4.2. [6] In the notation of Theorem 4.1, the multiplicity of a regular point w in the tropical surface equals: m w = (D k1 D k2 ) index ( (R Z [σ]) Z N : Z[σ] ), σ Y,D w R 0 [σ] where D k1 D k2 denotes the intersection number of these divisors and we sum over all two-dimensional cones σ whose associated rational cone R 0 [σ] contains the point w. To compute T Y using the previous theorems, we need a method to construct a compactification Y Y whose boundary has simple normal crossings (SNC). In words, we requires all components of the divisor D to be smooth and to intersect as transversally as possible. One method for producing such a compactification is taking the closure Y of Y in P N and resolving the singularities of the boundary Y \ Y to fulfill the SNC condition. This latter step can be difficult. Nonetheless, if Y is a surface, it is enough to relax the resolution to give a boundary with combinatorial normal crossings (CNC), that is no three divisors intersect at a point [19]. We describe the resolution process for our binomial surface Z in the next section. Roughly speaking, a full resolution will give us several extra (exceptional) divisors that yield bivalent nodes in the intersection complex. If we contract these curves with negative self-intersection, we obtain a singular surface whose boundary divisor has CNC. This weaker condition will suffice to construct our tropical surface and prove Theorem Combinatorics of Monomial Curves In this section, we compute the tropical variety of the surface Z described in Theorem 3.2. Let f ij := ω ij λ (0 j n) and consider the parameterization f : C 2 Z given by these n + 1 polynomials. Since geometric tropicalization involves subvarieties of tori, we restrict our domain to X = C 2 n j=0 (f i j = 0). We give a compactification of X which, in turn, gives the desired tropical compactification of Z T n+1 with CNC boundary via the map f. In the first part of this section, we explain in full detail the resolutions giving a compactification of X and we argue that divisors giving bivalent nodes in the resolution diagrams may be eliminated, since they can be contracted while preserving the CNC condition. In the second part, we justify this procedure from the tropical perspective of Theorem 4.1. We end this section with the computation of multiplicities of regular points in the tropical surface using Theorem 4.2. This will conclude the proof of Theorem 3.2. We start by constructing a tropical compactification of X. First, we naively compactify X inside P 2. The components of the boundary divisor are D ij = (fi h j (ω, λ, u) = 0) and D = (u = 0), where fi h j is the homogeneization of f ij with respect to the new variable u. We encounter three types of singularities: the origin, the point (0 : 1 : 0) at infinity, and isolated singularities in T 2. We resolve them all by blow-ups at these singular points. The resolutions diagrams from Figures 3 and 4 are precisely the graphs in the left of Figure 1. The nodes E ij (1 j n 1) and h ij (2 j n 1) correspond to exceptional divisors, whereas h i1 refers to the strict transform of the divisor D. All intersection multiplicities involving divisors E ij or h ij equal one. Following Theorem 4.2, we see that the computation of multiplicities in the graph T Z reduces to calculating indices of suitable lattices associated to edges of T Z.

10 10 Figure 3. Resolution by blow-ups at the origin, where E ij denote exceptional divisors and D i j are strict transforms of the boundary divisors D ij. We now describe the resolution process at the origin. At this singular point, all n curves D i1,..., D in intersect and they are tangential to each other. For any j, after a single blow-up, the strict transform D i j of a given D ij is isomorphic to D ij 1 (via the change of coordinates λ = wλ ), so we can resolve this singularity after i n 1 blow-ups. We will make use of this feature to compute the pull-back of each divisor D ij one step at a time. For example, after the first blow-up, the proper transform of D ij will equal π1(d ij ) = D i j + E 1, where E 1 = (w = 0) is the exceptional divisor. After a second blow-up, we get π2(e 1 ) = E 1 + E 2, and π2(d i j ) E 2 = D i j D ij 2, so (π 1 π 2 ) (D ij ) = D i j + E 1 + 2E 2 with D i j D ij 2 and E 1 D i j = 0. To simplify notation, we label all exceptional divisors by E l and we denote by D i j the strict transform of D ij under the composition of all blow-ups. All exceptional divisors satisfy: { { 1 if l k = 1, E l E k = D 1 if l = i j, i 0 otherwise. j E l 0 otherwise. If we call π the composition of all blow-ups performed, we obtain by induction (1) π (D ij ) = D i j + i j l=1 l E l + i n 1 l=i j+1 i j E l 1 j n. By convention, the sum over an empty set equals 0. If we eliminate the bivalent nodes E l from Figure 3, we obtain the resolution diagram G D,E depicted in the left of Figure 1, with the convention that in the latter, the strict transform of D ij is also denoted by D ij. From (1), we see that each exceptional divisor gives the integer vector E ij described in Theorem 2.5. At infinity, the resolution process is more delicate. Here, the singular point p = (0 : 1 : 0) corresponds to the intersection of D and all divisors D ij with i j 2. In this case, p is a singular point of all prime divisors D ij, i j 2, so we first need to perform a blow-up to smooth them out. More precisely, if π 0 denotes this blow-up and H is the exceptional divisor, we obtain π0(d ij ) = D i j + (i j 1)H, π0(d ) = D + H, where H = (t = 0) is the exceptional divisor and D i j = (ω t ij 1 ) D ij 1, D = (w = 0) are the strict transforms. As the reader may have discovered already, the setting after applying π 0 is very similar to the one we described for the singularity at the origin. However, there are some minor differences between these two local behaviors that are worth pointing out. Near the point p, we have the intersection of D is 1,..., D in 1 divisors, where s is the minimum index satisfying i s 2, and two extra divisors, D and H, which had no counterpart near the origin. Along the resolution, D will be separated from the other divisors after a single blow-up, whereas the strict transform H will continue to be tangential to all divisors D i j that intersect it. In the end, the strict transform of the divisor H will be contracted (it has

11 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 11 Figure 4. Resolution by blow-ups at infinity. Here, s is the minimum index with i s 2. negative self-intersection number), explaining why we do not see it in the resolution diagram G h,d (Figure 1). If we choose to keep it, we get the diagram depicted in Figure 4. Here, all exceptional divisors are denoted by h l (2 l i n ) and we label the strict transforms of D, D ij and H by h 1, D i j and H respectively. In this case, the pull-backs under the composition π of the last i n 1 blow-ups give: π (D ) = h 1 + i n l=2 h l, π (H) = H + i n l=2 (l 1) h l, π (D i j ) = D i j + i j l=2 (l 1) h l + i n l=i (i j+1 j 1) h l (i j 2). Composing π with the initial blow-up π 0 desingularizing the divisors D ij, we get: { (π π0 ) (D ij ) = D i j + (i j 1)H + i j l=2 (l 1) h j + i n l=i (i j+1 j 1)l h l (i j 2), (π π 0 ) (D ) = H + h 1 + i n l=2 l h l. All intersection numbers h l h l+1, h ij D i j and h in H equal one, whereas all other pairs have intersection number zero. In addition, the strict transform h 1 of D intersects D 0 at a point, thus D D 0 = 1. Finally, only if i 1 = 1, the divisor h 1 will also intersect D i1 at a third point, giving h 1 D 1 = 1. In all other cases, h 1 D i1 = 0. We now explain the transition from the resolution diagram at infinity to the graph G h,d. As we did when blowing up the origin, we only keep the exceptional divisors giving non-bivalent nodes in the resolution diagram, that is the n 1 divisors h ij (2 j n). The degree of the node h 1 will be determined by the value of the index s. If i 1 2, then s = 1 and h 1 will be a bivalent node adjacent to D 0 and h i1, so it will be removed from the resolution diagram. On the contrary, if i 1 = 1, then s = 2 and h 1 will have degree 3 and will be adjacent to the nodes D 0, D 1 and h i2. In any of these two cases, and after removing all bivalent nodes and the divisor H, we obtain the graph G h,d, depicted at the bottom-left of Figure 1. We now study multiple intersections among the divisors D j inside T 2. If (λ, ω) satisfies f ij = ω ij λ = 0 and f ik = ω i k λ = 0, then ω ij = λ = ω i k, so ω is a primitive r-th root of unity for some r (i k i j ). Equivalently, i j i k s (mod r), ω = e 2πip/r and λ = ω s for p coprime to r. All other curves (f il = 0) with i l s (mod r) will also meet at (λ, ω). We represent this crossing point (λ, ω) by x p,r,s and the index set of curves meeting at x p,r,s by a r,s, or a for short. That is, x p,r,s = (e 2πips/r, e 2πip/r ), a = a r,s := {i j i j s (mod r)}. Furthermore, the gradients of the curves (f j = 0) meeting at the point x p,r,s are pairwise independent, so these curves intersect transversally at the point x p,r,s. If three or more curves (f ij = 0) meet at a point in T 2, we blow up this point to separate the curves. After a single blow-up at each crossing point x p,r,s, we obtain a new divisor F a,xp,r,s

12 12 (the exceptional divisor) which intersects the strict transform of all D ij (i j a) with multiplicity one, if j a. The resolution diagram will correspond to the graph G Fa,D in the right-hand side of Figure 1, where we identify the node F a with the corresponding divisor F a,xp,r,s. From these intersection numbers, we conclude that [F a,xp,r,s ] = i e j a j for all intersection points x p,r,s giving the same subset a. Thus, we get a single integer vector F a = i e j a j in the intersection complex, as desired. To simplify the computation of multiplicities in the tropical variety T Z, we also blow up crossings with a = 2. Equipped with the smooth set X obtained by resolving the multiple intersection points in the boundary of X P 2, we can focus on the tropical side of the construction. From this perspective, we explain why we can contract bivalent nodes and the strict transform of the divisor H, leading to a singular surface, whose boundary divisor satisfies the CNC condition. This, in turn, will allow us to compute multiplicities at all regular points of T Z. First, we use the extended map f : P 2 T n+1 P n, together with the resolution π : X X P 2, to push-forward the intersection complex of X to the intersection complex of Z (Z T n+1 ) for a suitable compactification Z. The extension of our original map f is defined as f(w, λ, u) = ((u λ)/u, (w i1 λu i1 1 )/u i1,..., (w in λu in 1 )/u in ). We compose f with the chain π of all three types of blow-ups discussed above to get f = f π : X T n+1. We pull-back the characters t j (0 j n) of T n+1 under f to obtain f (t 0 ) = π (f (t 0 )) = π (D i0 D ) and f (t j ) = π (D ij i j D ) for j 1. For simplicity and to agree with the notation of the graphs in Figure 1, we denote strict transforms of all divisors with the label of the corresponding original divisors. With this convention, f (t j ) equals i j i n 1 D ij + l E l + i j E l D H in l h l + F a,xp,r,s if j < 2, l=1 l=i j+1 l=2 a i j x p,r,s i j i n 1 i j D ij + l E l + i j E l i j D H i j h l in l h l + F a,xp,r,s else. l=1 l=i j+1 l=2 l=i j+1 a i j x p,r,s Therefore, using Theorem 4.1, we get the following rays in the tropical variety T Z: [D ij ] = e j ; [H] = e j ; [F a,xp,r,s ] = e j ; [D ] = [h 1 ] = e j i j e j ; j i j a i j<2 i j 2 (2) [h l ] = i j<2 l e j i j e j l i j l>i j 2 [E l ] = l i j l e j + l>i j i j e j (1 l i n 1 ). l e j (2 l i n ) ; We see that [h in ] = i n [H], which explains why we do not see the divisor H in the resolution graph G h,d from Figure 1. Likewise i 1 [F i1,...,i n ] = [E i1 ] if gcd(i n i 1,..., i 2 i 1 ) 1. However, these are not the only identifications we can perform to simplify the construction of the tropical complex T Z S n 2. The next result implies that we can eliminate the bivalent nodes E l, h l (l i j ) from the tropical complex. These two facts allow us to reduce our resolution graphs to G E,D, G h,d, and G Fa,D, thus proving the set theoretic equality in Theorem 3.2. Lemma 5.1. With the notation of (2), and denoting by s the minimum index such that i s 2, we have equalities

13 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 13 (i) R 0 [E l ], [E l+1 ] R 0 [E l+1 ], [E l+2 ] = R 0 [E l+1 ] (i j l i j+1 2, 0 < j < n 1); R 0 [E ij ],..., [E ij+1 ] = R 0 [E ij ], [E ij+1 ] (1 j n 2). (ii) R 0 [h l ], [h l+1 ] R 0 [h l+1 ], [h l+2 ] = R 0 [h l+1 ] (2 i j l i j+1 2, 0 < j < n); R 0 [h ij ],..., [h ij+1 ] = R 0 [h ij ], [h ij+1 ] (1 j n 1). (iii) R 0 [h 2 ],..., [h is ] = R 0 [h 2 ], [h is ] and R 0 [E 1 ],..., [E i1 ] = R 0 [E i1 ]. (iv) If s = 1, then h 1 = h is so [D ] = [h 1 ] = [h i1 ] and R 0 [h 1 ], [h 2 ],..., [h i1 ] = R 0 [h i1 ]. If s = 2, then R 0 [h 1 ],..., [h i2 ] = R 0 [D ], [h i2 ]. Moreover, among maximal cones over the master graph, there are no two-dimensional intersections except when F e, e = {i 1,..., i n }, is a node in the master graph, in which case have i 1 [F e ] = [E i1 ] and R 0 [F e ], [D i1 ] = R 0 [E i1 ], [D i1 ]. Proof. We prove the identities involving the rays [E l ] (1 l i n 1 ) in (i). The claim for [h l ] in (ii) can be proven analogously. Assume i j l i j+1 2. Then [E l+1 ] = [E l ] + k j+1 e k and [E l+2 ] = [E l ] + 2 k j+1 e k and the first identity follows by simple linear algebra arguments. To prove the second claim, it suffices to show that [E l ] R 0 [E ij ], [E ij+1 ] if i j < l < i j+1. In fact, by linear algebra calculations, we obtain [E l ] = ij+1 l i j+1 i j [E ij ] + l ij i j+1 i j [E ij+1 ], and the result follows. The identities in (iii) follow from the equalities [h l ] = is l i s 2 [h 2] + l 2 i s 2 [h i s ] (for all 2 l i s ) and [E l ] = l j 1 e j = l i 1 [E i1 ]. A similar argument gives part (iv). To prove the last statement we consider all pairs of maximal cones and compute their intersection. We get either the origin or the cone over a node in the master graph. A similar computation will be carried out in Lemma 6.11, Theorems 6.13 and 6.14, and Lemma 7.3. Finally, we compute the multiplicities of all edges in the intersection complex Z,Z (Z T n+1 ) using Theorem 4.2. By construction, the divisor H only intersects the divisor h in, and the corresponding integer vectors are linearly dependent. Therefore, the associated cone [σ] in Theorem 4.1 is 1-dimensional and we may safely discard the ray [H] from the picture. From the construction of the desingularization X, we know that the intersection number of any pair of divisors is either one or zero. Using Lemma 5.1, we see that they are no 2-dimensional overlaps, except for the cones over the edges D i1 E i1 and F i1,...,i n D i1. The formula for computing the multiplicity for the edges containing D ij, h ij, E ij, except for the edge D i1 E i1, will involve a single summand, namely the corresponding lattice index. We compute this number as a gcd of the 2-minors of a matrix whose rows are the two nodes of each edge, and we obtain the weights assigned to the master graph. To end, we obtain the multiplicity of the cones over the edges F a D ij in T Z, with a {i 1,..., i n }. In this case, all summands in the formula equal one and so the multiplicity agrees with the number of summands. That is, given a of size at least two and i j a, we need to compute all possible common differences r of arithmetic sequences giving the set a. The multiplicity equals r ϕ(r). Finally, if e = {i 1,..., i n } gives a node F e in the master graph, the divisors E i1 and F e give proportional rays [E i1 ] and [F e ] in the intersection complex. The multiplicities of cones over edges F e D ij with j 2 equal r ϕ(r) for all common differences r generating the set e. However, the formula to compute the multiplicity of the cone over the edge F e D i1 has an extra summand: the one involving the divisors E i1, D i1. Hence, we obtain the multiplicity m Di1,E i1 + m = i Fi1,...,in,Di r ϕ(r) as stated in Theorem 3.2. This concludes our proof.

14 14 6. The master graph under Hadamard products In this section, we use the tropical secant surface graph to construct a new weighted graph which coincides with the tropicalization of the first secant variety of a monomial projective curve C parameterized by (1 : t i1 :... : t in ), where 0 = i 0 i 1... i n are integers. We call this graph the tropical secant graph. We define the first secant variety of the curve C as Sec 1 (C) = {a p + b q : a, b C, p, q C} P n. As discussed in Section 3, tropicalizations are toric in nature. Thus, for the rest of this section, instead of looking at the projective varieties C and Sec 1 (C), we will study the corresponding very affine varieties which are intersections of their affine cones in R n+1 with the algebraic torus T n+1. To simplify notation, we will also denote them by C and Sec 1 (C) in a way that is clear from the context. The tropicalizations of the projective varieties and their corresponding very affine varieties are the same. We parameterize this secant variety by the secant map φ: T 4 T n+1, φ(a, b, s, t) = (as i k + bt i k ) 0 k n. After a monomial change of coordinates b = λa and t = ωs, this map can also be written as (3) φ(a, s, ω, λ) = ( as i k (ω i k λ) ) 0 k n. From this observation, it is natural to consider the Hadamard product of subvarieties of tori: Definition 6.1. Let X, Y T N be subvarieties of tori. The Hadamard product of X and Y equals X Y = {(x 1 y 1,..., x N y N ) x X, y Y } T N. From the construction, we get the following characterization of our secant variety, where Z is precisely the surface Z from Theorem 3.2. Proposition 6.2. The first secant variety Sec 1 (C) R n+1 of the monomial curve C parameterized by t (1 : t i1 :... : t in ) P n equals C Z T n+1 where Z is the surface parametrized by (λ, ω) (1 λ, ω i1 λ,..., ω in λ). We now explain the relationship between Hadamard products and their tropicalization: Proposition 6.3. [7] Given C, Z as in Proposition 6.2, then as sets T Sec 1 (C) = T C + T Z, where the sum on the right-hand side denotes the Minkowski sum in R n+1. Here, since the surface C is parametrized by monomials, its tropicalization T C is a single cone R Z Λ with constant weight one, where Λ is the rank-2 lattice Z (1,..., 1), (0, i 1,..., i n ) Z n+1. In addition, T Z is a pointed polyhedral fan, and the lineality space of T Sec 1 (C) is T C. Before diving into the computation of T Sec 1 (C) for any projective monomial curve C, we show that it suffices to treat the case of exponent vectors that are primitive and whose coordinates are all distinct. This will simplify the combinatorics encoded in the multiplicities as well. More precisely, Lemma 6.4. Via reparameterizations, we can assume that the exponent vector parameterizing the curve C is a primitive lattice vector (0, i 1,..., i n ) with 0 = i 0 < i 1 <... < i n.

15 TROPICAL SECANT GRAPHS OF MONOMIAL CURVES 15 The first claim follows by reparameterizing the curve C as t (1 : t i 1 g :... : t in g ), where g = gcd(i 1,..., i n ). The second assertion is a direct consequence of the following result that shows the interplay between maps on tori and their tropicalization. Let α: T r T N be a monomial map whose exponents are encoded in a matrix A Z N r. Theorem 6.5. [19] Let V T r be a subvariety. Then, T (α(v )) = A(T V ). Moreover, if α induces a generically finite morphism of degree δ on V, the multiplicity of a regular point w of T (α(v )) is (4) m w = 1 δ m v index (L w Z N : A(L v Z r )), v where the sum is over all points v T V with Av = w. We also assume that the number of such v is finite and that all of them are regular points in T V. In this setting, L v, L w denote the linear span of neighborhoods of v T V and w A(T V ) respectively. Proof of Lemma 6.4. Let {0, i 1,..., i r } be the distinct values in the exponent vector defining the curve C in increasing order. We partition the set of indices {0,..., n} into S 0... S r, where each S j consists of all indices with the same value i j. The monomial map α: T r T n+1 (t 1,..., t r ) (1,..., 1, t }{{} 1,..., t 1,..., t }{{} r,..., t r ) }{{} S 0 times S 1 times S r times is 1-1 and the linear map A induced by α is injective. Therefore, T Sec 1 (α(c)) = T (α(sec 1 (C))) = A(T Sec 1 (C)), and any fan structure in T Sec 1 (C) translates immediately to a fan structure in T Sec 1 (α(c)) by the injectivity of A. Finally, using formula (4), we see that multiplicities match up, i.e. m v = m α(v) for any regular points v, α(v). This concludes our proof. Our next goal is to explain the relationship between T Sec 1 (C) and the master graph presented in Section 3. First, Proposition 6.3 expresses the tropical secant variety as a set, namely as the Minkowski sum of T C and T Z. Despite what one might think at first glance, a Minkowski sum of fans does not have any canonical fan structure derived from those of its summands. Some maximal cones can be subdivided, while others can be merged into bigger cones. Nonetheless, we can still use Proposition 6.3 to describe T Sec 1 (C) not just as a set, but as a collection of four-dimensional cones {T C +σ} where σ varies over maximal cones of T Z whose sum with T C has the correct dimension. Furthermore, by assigning appropriate weights to each cone in the collection, this presentation even allows us the compute the multiplicity of any regular point ω in T Sec 1 (C) as the sum of weights of cones containing ω, in agreement with the spirit of Theorem 4.2. Each maximal cone σ in T Z is represented by an edge in the master graph. Thus, if we reduce the collection T Sec 1 (C) by its lineality space T C and intersect it with the (n 2)-sphere, we obtain a collection of weighted edges which are in bijection with edges of the master graph. Intersections between cones of the collection T Sec 1 (C) come in several flavors. If the intersection between a pair of cones is four-dimensional, we call it an overlap. If these cones coincide, we say the overlap is complete; otherwise, it is partial. If their intersection is three-dimensional, we call it a crossing. If the intersection is a common face of both cones, we say that the crossing is nodal; otherwise, it is internal. We wish to summarize all complete overlaps and nodal crossings in our collection of weighted edges. This data is recorded in the tropical secant graph from Definition 6.6. For a numerical example, see Figure 5. Meanwhile, partial overlaps and internal crossings will be considered in Theorems 6.13, 6.14 and 7.4 when discussing fan structures. A special role will be

16 16 played by the subsets e = {i 1,..., i n } and b = {0, i 1,..., i n 1 }, the beginning and ending sequences, as Remark 6.7 will show. Definition 6.6. The tropical secant graph is a weighted subgraph of the master graph in R n+1, with nodes: (i) D ij = e j := (0,..., 0, 1, 0,..., 0) (0 j n), (ii) E ij = k<j i k e k + i j ( k j e k) = (0, i 1,..., i j 1, i j,..., i j ) (1 j n 1), (iii) F a = i e j a j where a {0, i 1,..., i n } varies among all proper subsets containing at least two elements that are obtained from an arithmetic progression. The edges have positive weights: (i) m Eij,E ij+1 = gcd(i 1,..., i j ) gcd (i n i t ) (1 j n 2), j<t<n (ii) m Dij,E ij = gcd ( gcd(i 1,..., i j 1 ) gcd (i s i j ) ; gcd (i j i k ) gcd(i j+1,..., i n ) ) (1 j n 1), j<s n 0 k<j (iii) m Fa,D ij = 1 2 ϕ(r) gcd ( gcd ( i l i k ) ; gcd ( i l i k ) ) where a = {i k i k s r i l,i k / a i l,i k a i j (mod r)} for some r, s, and 2 a n (By convention, a gcd over an empty set of indices is taken to be 0.) Remark 6.7. We explain in words the transition from the master graph to the tropical secant graph in reducing by T C. First, the edges D in E in 1, D in h in 1 and D i0 h i1 are deleted. Second, the node F 0,i1,...,i n and all its adjacent edges disappear. Third, the nodes h ij (1 j n 1) collapse to the corresponding nodes E ij (1 j n 1). Lastly, if F e (resp. F b ) is a node in the master graph, we identify it with E i1 (resp. E in 1 ) due to the identities i 1 F e = E i1, (i n i n 1 ) F b = E in 1 + (i n i n 1 ) 1 + ( 1) (0, i 1,..., i n ). In this identification, the edges adjacent to the first node are added to those of the second. We also merge the corresponding edges E i1 D i1 and F e D i1 (resp. E in 1 D in 1 and F b D in 1 ) in the tropical secant graph, assigning the sum of their weights to the new edge. As in the case of the master graph, if we have a subset a = {i j, i k } coming from an arithmetic progression, then the corresponding node F a is bivalent and can be removed from the tropical secant graph. We then replace the two edges F a D ij and F a D ik of equal weight with a single edge D ij D ik of the same weight. After the above deletion of edges and collapse of nodes, some of the other nodes may also become bivalent, so we are allowed to remove them as well. However, we will keep them in the statements and examples to simplify notation. We now show that the tropical secant graph characterizes the tropicalization of the first secant of any monomial curve: Theorem 6.8. Given a monomial curve C in P n parameterized by n coprime integers, the tropicalization of its first secant variety is the cone from T C over the tropical secant graph of the curve. The remainder of this section will be devoted to proving Theorem 6.8, and in particular, to explaining the mysterious formulas for the weights of our tropical secant graph. The key fact in this construction is that we can express the Hadamard product in terms of the monomial map α: T 2n+2 T n+1 given by the matrix A = (I n+1 I n+1 ) Z (n+1) 2(n+1), so we can use Theorem 6.5 to compute our tropical variety. The subvariety V T 2n+2 is the Cartesian product C Z T 2n+2. From [7], we know that T V = T (C Z) = T C T Z and that the multiplicity at a regular point v = (c, z) of V equals m z. By dimensionality arguments, α is generically finite