Studying the set of common zeros of systems of polynomial equations is a fundamental problem in algebra and geometry. In this post we will look at *estimating* the cardinality of the set of common zeros, when we already know that it is finite. In fact, with some extra theory one can also determine whether the set of zeros is finite or not.

My main motivation here is to popularise the so-called footprint bound, especially among combinatorialists (combinators?). As an application, we will see a nice “conceptual” proof of the so-called Alon-Füredi theorem, which is a result that in particular solves the following well-known geometric problem whose -dimensional case appeared as Problem 6 in IMO 2007:

*Let be a finite subset of a field and let . What is the minimum number of hyperplanes in that can cover all the points in , while missing the point ?*

(The answer is .)

To be able to state the footprint bound we need some definitions. A *monomial order *is a total order on the set of all monomials in which satisfies the property for any monomials . For example, we can look at the graded lexicographic order in which we first compare the total degree of the monomials and if that’s equal then we compare them lexicographically, i.e., for and we have if or if and the left-most non-zero entry of the vector is positive (so for example, we will have ).

Now given a polynomial in and a monomial ordering , we denote the largest monomial appearing in w.r.t. “” by (a.k.a. leading monomial). And if is an ideal of polynomials then we define . Given an ideal , we are going to give an upper bound on the set . For that, let denote the set of those monomials which are not contained in the (monomial) ideal (these are also known as standard monomials). Then this set is known as the *footprint* of the ideal .

**Theorem 1** (Footprint bound [7], [5,§5.3]) If is finite, then we have . Moreover, the bound is sharp if the ideal is radical.

*Proof. *Exercise! (show that is a basis of the vector space .)

Of course, the usefulness of this bound (at least in combinatorial situations) depends on how easily we can calculate, or estimate, . Say is generated by and let . Then clearly , and since we have a finite list of monomials to check, with right choice of ‘s it can be easier to compute . Ideally, we would like to be equal to , and in fact this does happen when forms a Gröbner basis of (if you know what a Gröbner basis is; but you don’t really need to for the rest of this post). Let’s consider an example. Let and , and consider the graded lexicographical order. Then the multiples of the leading monomials can be seen pictorially as follows:

The monomials which are multiples of these four monomials, i.e. the monomials in the ideal generated by these leading monomials, correspond to the integer points in the shaded region. Therefore, the elements of corresponds to the points in the unshaded region, and hence , which implies that these polynomials have at most common solutions (Wolfram Alpha tells me that there are in fact only ).

Say we are now interested in estimating the number of zeros of a polynomial contained in a finite grid , where , assuming that does not vanish on all points of . This is precisely what the Alon-Füredi theorem is all about. Let and . Then is a polynomial of degree , and the points of the are the common solutions of the polynomials . What we are interested in is for . For that we will first assume that is in its *reduced* form, so that (with respect to any monomial ordering) is of the form where for all . We can always do this by reducing higher powers of by using the equation (the so-called grid reduction [3, Chapter 8]). Say and is the leading monomial of , with . Then is equal to the set of all monomials of the form where there exists an index for which . The number of such monomials is in fact equal to because is the total number of reduced monomials, and of them are those which are multiples of . If we let , then we have and , which directly implies the Alon-Füredi theorem:

**Theorem 2 **(Alon-Füredi [1, Theorem 5]) Let be a polynomial which does not vanish on the entire grid , then does not vanish on at least points of .

Compared to the other proof of the Alon-Füredi theorem, I feel like this proof gives us a better understanding of where that bound comes from and “why” this theorem is true. Also, the same proof also gives the generalized version of the Alon-Füredi theorem [3, Theorem 9.1.2] (over fields). Moreover, one can also prove Alon’s combinatorial nullstellensatz using the footprint bound as follows.

**Theorem 3 **(Combinatorial Nullstellensatz) Let be such that with satisfying for all . Then there exists an for which .

*Proof*. The size of the footprint of the ideal is strictly less than since , being the exponent of a leading monomial, is not contained in it. Therefore by the footprint bound we have , which implies that there is a point where does not vanish.

So, footprint bound is a nice algebraic result which has several interesting applications and extensions [2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. It is particularly useful for studying systems of polynomial equations over a finite field , where we can take the grid to be equal to . For further reading on this bound see the papers in the references below.

And now for the extra theory, here is a characterisation of systems of polynomial equations which have only finitely many common zeros (the so-called zero dimensional affine varieties over the algebraic closure of the field).

**Theorem 4 **([5, Page 234]) Let be an algebraically closed field and let be an affine variety in where is an ideal in . Then the following statements are equivalent:

- is a finite set.
- For each , there exists some such that .
- Let be a Gröbner basis for . Then for each , there exists some such that for some .
- The set is finite.
- The -vector space is finite-dimensional.

**References
**

[1] N. Alon and Z. Füredi. Covering the cube by affine hyperplanes. European J. Combin., 14(2):79–83, 1993.

[2] P. Beelen, M. Datta, and S. R. Ghorpade. Vanishing ideals of projective spaces over finite fields and a projective footprint bound. arXiv:1801.09139.

[3] A. Bishnoi, Some contributions to incidence geometry and polynomial method, PhD Thesis (2016), Ghent University.

[4] C. Carvalho. On the second Hamming weight of some Reed–Muller type codes. Finite Fields Appl., 24:88–94, 2013.

[5] D. Cox, J. Little, and D. O’Shea. Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2007.

[6] O. Geil. On the second weight of generalized Reed-Muller codes. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 48(3): 323-330, 2008.

[7] O. Geil and T. Høholdt. Footprints or generalized Bezout’s theorem. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 46(2):635–641, 2000.

[8] O. Geil and C. Thomsen. Weighted Reed–Muller codes revisited. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 66(1):195–220, 2013.

[9] O. Geil and U. Martínez-Penãs. Bounding the number of common zeros of multivariate polynomials and their consecutive derivatives, arXiv:1707.01354.

[10] R. Pellikaan and X.-W. Wu. List decoding of q-ary Reed-Muller codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 50(4):679–682, 2004.