Let $K$ be a field. Let $V/K$ be an affine variety in $A^m$. Let f be a polynomial map (and hence a "morphism of finite type") $f:V\to A^n$. A theorem of Chevalley's tells us that im(f) is either a variety or "almost" a variety - that is, im(f) is a variety $W$ with perhaps a few varieties of lower dimension cut out from it.

Question: is the degree of $W$ (= Zariski closure of im(f)) bounded solely in terms of m, n, deg(V) and the degree of the polynomials $f_1,\dots ,f_n$ defining f (i.e. $f(\vec{x}) = (f_1(\vec{x}),...,f_n(\vec{x}))$?).

This seems intuitively obvious, but I do not know where to look for a reference. (It's also non-obvious how to adapt the proof of Chevalley's theorem I'm looking at so as to give this.) Does anybody where to look this up and/or how to prove this?


2 Answers 2


Call $r$ the dimension of $W$, $d$ the degree of $V$, and $e$ the largest degree of one of the $f_i$. Then I claim that $\deg W$ is at most $de^r$.

We may assume that $K$ is algebraically closed. We may also assume that the dimensions of $V$ and $W$ are the same (otherwise, cut $V$ with generic hyperplane sections until they become equal). Then the morphism $V \to W$ generically finite and non-empty fibers.

Now, let $L \subseteq \mathbb A^n$ be a generic linear subspace of codimension $r$ of $W$. The cardinality of the intersection $L \cap W$ is $\deg W$, and this is bounded above by the cardinality of $f^{-1}L$, which is finite. But $f^{-1}L$ is the intersection of $V$ with the zero loci of $r$ generic linear combinations of the $f_i$. Now use the following fact: if $X$ is a (not necessarily equidimensional) closed subset of an affine space, call $\deg X$ its degree (that is, the sum of the degrees of its irreducible components), and $H$ is a hypersurface of degree $e$, then $\deg(X\cap H) \leq e\deg X$. This reduces easily to the case that $X$ is irreducible, which is standard. This implies that the degree of $f^{-1}L$, that is, its cardinality, is at most $de^r$, which gives us what we want.

  • $\begingroup$ I like this argument (and have upvoted it), but why should the morphism $V \to W$ have nonempty fibers, given that $W$ is, by definition, the closure of the image of $V$? (I imagine this can be repaired, but I think it needs to be pointed out.) $\endgroup$ Apr 29, 2011 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Charles: I guess he meant $generically$ non-empty fibers. $\endgroup$
    – pinaki
    Apr 30, 2011 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, instead of "generically finite and non-empty fibers", I should have written "finite and non-empty general fibers". $\endgroup$
    – Angelo
    Apr 30, 2011 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ Great - thanks! This feels like it should be a standard argument - does anybody have a reference? $\endgroup$ May 2, 2011 at 18:40

[This was a bit long for a comment.]

Let $I \subset K[x_1, \dotsc, x_m]$, $J \subset K[y_1, \dotsc, y_n]$ be the ideals defining $V, W$, respectively. Then $J$ is precisely the kernel of the map $$K[y_1, \dotsc, y_n] \to K[x_1, \dotsc, x_m] / I$$ given by sending $$y_i \mapsto f_i.$$ If we have explicit generators for $I$, then there is a Groebner-basis algorithm for finding explicit generators for this kernel (see, e.g., Cox, Little, and O'Shea, Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms). I would be very surprised if a careful analysis of this algorithm would not provide explicit bounds on the number and degrees of the generators it gives for $J$, and hence on the degree of the variety $V(J) = W$. Of course, these bounds would be in terms of the number and degrees of the generators of $I$ (as well as the $f_i$), so you would need some way of bounding these from the degree of $V$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.