Rationality of the multivariate growth series for algebraic sets of virtually abelian groups

Yusuke Nakamura Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8602, Japan. [email protected] https://sites.google.com/site/ynakamuraagmath/
Abstract.

We prove the rationality of the multivariate relative growth series for algebraic sets of virtually abelian groups, which had been conjectured by Evetts and Levine.

Key words and phrases:
virtually abelian groups, periodic graphs, growth series, algebraic sets
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 20F65; Secondary 05A15, 05E16

1. Introduction

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω:S>0:𝜔𝑆subscriptabsent0\omega:S\to\mathbb{Z}_{>0}italic_ω : italic_S → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a positive integer weight. Let Ssuperscript𝑆S^{*}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the set of all words from S𝑆Sitalic_S. For a word σ=s1sS𝜎subscript𝑠1subscript𝑠superscript𝑆\sigma=s_{1}\cdots s_{\ell}\in S^{*}italic_σ = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define ω(σ):=i=1ω(si)assign𝜔𝜎superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝜔subscript𝑠𝑖\omega(\sigma):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\omega(s_{i})italic_ω ( italic_σ ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). For gG𝑔𝐺g\in Gitalic_g ∈ italic_G, we define ω(g)𝜔𝑔\omega(g)italic_ω ( italic_g ) as the smallest ω(σ)𝜔𝜎\omega(\sigma)italic_ω ( italic_σ ) for all words σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ that represent g𝑔gitalic_g. The growth series 𝕊G,S,ω(t)subscript𝕊𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}_{G,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of G𝐺Gitalic_G with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is defined as

𝕊G,S,ω(t):=i0sG,S,ω(i)ti[[t]],assignsubscript𝕊𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑡subscript𝑖0subscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖superscript𝑡𝑖delimited-[]delimited-[]𝑡\mathbb{S}_{G,S,\omega}(t):=\sum_{i\geq 0}s_{G,S,\omega}(i)t^{i}\in\mathbb{Z}[% [t]],blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_t ] ] ,

where sG,S,ω(i):=#{gGω(g)=i}assignsubscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖#conditional-set𝑔𝐺𝜔𝑔𝑖s_{G,S,\omega}(i):=\#\{g\in G\mid\omega(g)=i\}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) := # { italic_g ∈ italic_G ∣ italic_ω ( italic_g ) = italic_i }. In [Ben83], Benson proved that the growth series 𝕊G,S,ω(t)subscript𝕊𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}_{G,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is a rational function when G𝐺Gitalic_G is a virtually abelian group (see Theorem 2.6).

An n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ) is a pair of a directed graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ (that may have loops and multiple edges) and a free abelian group L𝐿Litalic_L of rank n𝑛nitalic_n such that L𝐿Litalic_L freely acts on ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ and its quotient graph Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L is finite (see Definition 2.2). For a vertex x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, the growth series 𝕊Γ,x0(t)subscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with respect to x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined by

𝕊Γ,x0(t):=i0sΓ,x0,iti[[t]],assignsubscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡subscript𝑖0subscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖superscript𝑡𝑖delimited-[]delimited-[]𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t):=\sum_{i\geq 0}s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i}t^{i}\in\mathbb{% Z}[[t]],blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_t ] ] ,

where sΓ,x0,isubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as the number of vertices of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ whose distance from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is i𝑖iitalic_i. The sequence (sΓ,x0,i)isubscriptsubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖𝑖(s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i})_{i}( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is studied in both areas of crystallography and combinatorics (cf. [GS19]*Introduction). Furthermore, this is also studied in relation to the Ehrhart theory (cf. [IN1, IN2]).

In [GKBS96], Grosse-Kunstleve, Brunner and Sloane conjectured that the growth series 𝕊Γ,x0(t)subscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of periodic graphs ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ are always rational functions. In [NSMN21], the author, Sakamoto, Mase and Nakagawa proved that this conjecture is true (see Theorem 2.3). This result is a generalization of Benson’s theorem since the Cayley graphs of virtually abelian groups are periodic graphs (see Remark 2.7). In the proof of Theorem 2.3, they use the commutative monoid theory, and the proof is essentially different from Benson’s original proof of Theorem 2.6, where he uses his theory of “polyhedral sets”.

In [EL22], Evetts and Levine generalize Benson’s theorem to the univariate relative growth series for algebraic sets of virtually abelian groups. For a positive integer d𝑑ditalic_d, a subset UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is called algebraic if U𝑈Uitalic_U is the set of solutions of a finite system of equations with d𝑑ditalic_d variables whose coefficients are in G𝐺Gitalic_G (see Definition 4.1). The univariate (relative) growth series 𝕊U,S,ωuni(t)subscriptsuperscript𝕊uni𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}^{\rm uni}_{U,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_uni end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of U𝑈Uitalic_U with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is defined by

𝕊U,S,ωuni(t):=𝐱Utω(𝐱)[[t]],assignsubscriptsuperscript𝕊uni𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡subscript𝐱𝑈superscript𝑡𝜔𝐱delimited-[]delimited-[]𝑡\mathbb{S}^{\rm uni}_{U,S,\omega}(t):=\sum_{{\bf x}\in U}t^{\omega({\bf x})}% \in\mathbb{Z}[[t]],blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_uni end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( bold_x ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_t ] ] ,

where ω(𝐱):=i=1ω(xi)assign𝜔𝐱superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝜔subscript𝑥𝑖\omega({\bf x}):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\omega(x_{i})italic_ω ( bold_x ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Furthermore, the multivariate (relative) growth series 𝕊U,S,ω(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑈𝑆𝜔𝐳\mathbb{S}_{U,S,\omega}({\bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) is defined by

𝕊U,S,ω(𝐳):=𝐱Uz1ω(x1)z2ω(x2)zdω(xd)[[z1,,zd]].assignsubscript𝕊𝑈𝑆𝜔𝐳subscript𝐱𝑈superscriptsubscript𝑧1𝜔subscript𝑥1superscriptsubscript𝑧2𝜔subscript𝑥2superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑑𝜔subscript𝑥𝑑delimited-[]subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑑\mathbb{S}_{U,S,\omega}({\bf z}):=\sum_{{\bf x}\in U}z_{1}^{\omega(x_{1})}z_{2% }^{\omega(x_{2})}\cdots z_{d}^{\omega(x_{d})}\in\mathbb{Z}[[z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}% ]].blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ] .

In [EL22], for any algebraic sets of any virtually abelian groups, the univariate growth series are proved to be rational functions ([EL22]*Theorem 4.3), and furthermore, the multivariate growth series are proved to be holonomic functions ([EL22]*Corollary 4.21). However, the rationality of the multivariate growth series remained a conjecture ([EL22]*Conjecture 5.1). The purpose of this paper is to give an affirmative answer to this conjecture.

Theorem 1.1 (=== Theorem 4.4).

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a finitely generated virtually abelian group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω a positive integer weight. Then, for any algebraic subset UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of G𝐺Gitalic_G, its multivariate growth series 𝕊Y,S,ω(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑌𝑆𝜔𝐳\mathbb{S}_{Y,S,\omega}({\bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) is a rational function.

Theorem 1.1 is a consequence of Theorem 3.5, which is the corresponding theorem for periodic graphs. The idea of the proof of Theorem 3.5 is to use an algebraic structure on the graded growth set

B:={(i,y)0×VΓdΓ(x0,y)i}0×VΓ,assign𝐵conditional-set𝑖𝑦subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γsubscript𝑑Γsubscript𝑥0𝑦𝑖subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓB:=\{(i,y)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\mid d_{\Gamma}(x_{0},y)\leq i% \}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma},italic_B := { ( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∣ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y ) ≤ italic_i } ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

which is studied in [NSMN21] (see Appendix A). In [IN2], further structure of B𝐵Bitalic_B, which is not used in this paper, is studied as an analogy to the Ehrhart ring. We believe that these ideas have potential for further applications to similar studies of virtually abelian groups.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce some notations on graphs and groups, and we also summarize facts on commutative monoid theory which will be used in Section 3. In Section 3, we prove Theorem 3.5. In Section 4, we prove Theorem 4.4. In Appendix A, we explain the algebraic structure of the graded growth set B𝐵Bitalic_B proved in [NSMN21]. The proofs in Appendix A are essentially the same as those in [NSMN21], but streamlined for mathematicians.

Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Professor Takeo Uramoto for pointing him to the connection between the paper [NSMN21] and the geometric group theory of virtually abelian groups. He would also like to thank Takuya Inoue for many discussions. The author is partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI No. 18K13384 and 22K13888.

2. Preliminaries

Notation 2.1.
  • For a set X𝑋Xitalic_X, #X#𝑋\#X# italic_X denotes its cardinality, and 2Xsuperscript2𝑋2^{X}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes its power set.

2.1. Growth series of periodic graphs

In this paper, a graph means a directed weighted graph which may have loops and multiple edges. More precisely, a graph Γ=(VΓ,EΓ,sΓ,tΓ,wΓ)Γsubscript𝑉Γsubscript𝐸Γsubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑡Γsubscript𝑤Γ\Gamma=(V_{\Gamma},E_{\Gamma},s_{\Gamma},t_{\Gamma},w_{\Gamma})roman_Γ = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) consists of the set VΓsubscript𝑉ΓV_{\Gamma}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of vertices, the set EΓsubscript𝐸ΓE_{\Gamma}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of edges, the source function sΓ:EΓVΓ:subscript𝑠Γsubscript𝐸Γsubscript𝑉Γs_{\Gamma}:E_{\Gamma}\to V_{\Gamma}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the target function tΓ:EΓVΓ:subscript𝑡Γsubscript𝐸Γsubscript𝑉Γt_{\Gamma}:E_{\Gamma}\to V_{\Gamma}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and the weight function wΓ:EΓ>0:subscript𝑤Γsubscript𝐸Γsubscriptabsent0w_{\Gamma}:E_{\Gamma}\to\mathbb{Z}_{>0}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We abbreviate sΓsubscript𝑠Γs_{\Gamma}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, tΓsubscript𝑡Γt_{\Gamma}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and wΓsubscript𝑤Γw_{\Gamma}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to s𝑠sitalic_s, t𝑡titalic_t and w𝑤witalic_w when no confusion can arise.

Let ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ be a graph. A walk p𝑝pitalic_p is a sequence e1e2esubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of edges eiVΓsubscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑉Γe_{i}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying t(ei)=s(ei+1)𝑡subscript𝑒𝑖𝑠subscript𝑒𝑖1t(e_{i})=s(e_{i+1})italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for all 1i11𝑖11\leq i\leq\ell-11 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ - 1. We define the weight w(p)𝑤𝑝w(p)italic_w ( italic_p ) of p𝑝pitalic_p by w(p):=i=1w(ei)assign𝑤𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑤subscript𝑒𝑖w(p):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}w(e_{i})italic_w ( italic_p ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). For x,yVΓ𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉Γx,y\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we define dΓ(x,y)0{}subscript𝑑Γ𝑥𝑦subscriptabsent0d_{\Gamma}(x,y)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\cup\{\infty\}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∪ { ∞ } as the smallest weight w(p)𝑤𝑝w(p)italic_w ( italic_p ) of any walk p=e1e2e𝑝subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒p=e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_p = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with x=s(e1)𝑥𝑠subscript𝑒1x=s(e_{1})italic_x = italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and y=t(e)𝑦𝑡subscript𝑒y=t(e_{\ell})italic_y = italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Then, for x0VΓsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑉Γx_{0}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and i0𝑖subscriptabsent0i\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, sΓ,x0,i0subscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖subscriptabsent0s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as

sΓ,x0,i:=#{yVΓdΓ(x0,y)=i}.assignsubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖#conditional-set𝑦subscript𝑉Γsubscript𝑑Γsubscript𝑥0𝑦𝑖s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i}:=\#\{y\in V_{\Gamma}\mid d_{\Gamma}(x_{0},y)=i\}.italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := # { italic_y ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∣ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y ) = italic_i } .

The sequence (sΓ,x0,i)isubscriptsubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖𝑖(s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i})_{i}( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called the growth sequence of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with respect to x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The growth series 𝕊Γ,x0(t)subscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with respect to x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as its generating function

𝕊Γ,x0(t):=i0sΓ,x0,iti.assignsubscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡subscript𝑖0subscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖superscript𝑡𝑖\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t):=\sum_{i\geq 0}s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i}t^{i}.blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Definition 2.2 (cf. [IN1]).

Let n𝑛nitalic_n be a positive integer. An n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ) is a free abelian group Lnsimilar-to-or-equals𝐿superscript𝑛L\simeq\mathbb{Z}^{n}italic_L ≃ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of rank n𝑛nitalic_n and a graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with L𝐿Litalic_L-action with the following two conditions:

  • The L𝐿Litalic_L-action on ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is free, i.e., L𝐿Litalic_L freely acts on both VΓsubscript𝑉ΓV_{\Gamma}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and EΓsubscript𝐸ΓE_{\Gamma}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and their quotient sets VΓ/Lsubscript𝑉Γ𝐿V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L and EΓ/Lsubscript𝐸Γ𝐿E_{\Gamma}/Litalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L are finite sets.

  • The L𝐿Litalic_L-action preserves the edge relations and the weight function, i.e., for any uL𝑢𝐿u\in Litalic_u ∈ italic_L and eEΓ𝑒subscript𝐸Γe\in E_{\Gamma}italic_e ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we have sΓ(u(e))=u(sΓ(e))subscript𝑠Γ𝑢𝑒𝑢subscript𝑠Γ𝑒s_{\Gamma}(u(e))=u(s_{\Gamma}(e))italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ( italic_e ) ) = italic_u ( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ) ), tΓ(u(e))=u(tΓ(e))subscript𝑡Γ𝑢𝑒𝑢subscript𝑡Γ𝑒t_{\Gamma}(u(e))=u(t_{\Gamma}(e))italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ( italic_e ) ) = italic_u ( italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ) ) and wΓ(u(e))=wΓ(e)subscript𝑤Γ𝑢𝑒subscript𝑤Γ𝑒w_{\Gamma}(u(e))=w_{\Gamma}(e)italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ( italic_e ) ) = italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ).

The growth series of periodic graphs are known to be rational functions.

Theorem 2.3 ([NSMN21]*Theorem 2.2).

Let (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ) be a periodic graph, and let x0VΓsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑉Γx_{0}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, its growth sequence (sΓ,x0,i)isubscriptsubscript𝑠Γsubscript𝑥0𝑖𝑖(s_{\Gamma,x_{0},i})_{i}( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is quasi-polynomial type. In particular, its growth series 𝕊Γ,x0(t)subscript𝕊Γsubscript𝑥0𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,x_{0}}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is a rational function.

2.2. Growth series of groups

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω:S>0:𝜔𝑆subscriptabsent0\omega:S\to\mathbb{Z}_{>0}italic_ω : italic_S → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a positive integer weight. Let Ssuperscript𝑆S^{*}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the set of all words from S𝑆Sitalic_S. For a word σ=s1sS𝜎subscript𝑠1subscript𝑠superscript𝑆\sigma=s_{1}\cdots s_{\ell}\in S^{*}italic_σ = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define ω(σ):=i=1ω(si)assign𝜔𝜎superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝜔subscript𝑠𝑖\omega(\sigma):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\omega(s_{i})italic_ω ( italic_σ ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). For gG𝑔𝐺g\in Gitalic_g ∈ italic_G, we define ω(g)𝜔𝑔\omega(g)italic_ω ( italic_g ) as the smallest ω(σ)𝜔𝜎\omega(\sigma)italic_ω ( italic_σ ) for all words σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ that represent g𝑔gitalic_g. By convention, we define ω(g)=𝜔𝑔\omega(g)=\inftyitalic_ω ( italic_g ) = ∞ if g𝑔gitalic_g cannot be represented by S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then, for i0𝑖subscriptabsent0i\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, sG,S,ω(i)0subscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖subscriptabsent0s_{G,S,\omega}(i)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as

sG,S,ω(i):=#{gGω(g)=i}.assignsubscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖#conditional-set𝑔𝐺𝜔𝑔𝑖s_{G,S,\omega}(i):=\#\{g\in G\mid\omega(g)=i\}.italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) := # { italic_g ∈ italic_G ∣ italic_ω ( italic_g ) = italic_i } .

The sequence (sG,S,ω(i))isubscriptsubscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖𝑖(s_{G,S,\omega}(i))_{i}( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called the growth sequence of G𝐺Gitalic_G with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω. The growth series 𝕊Γ,S,ω(t)subscript𝕊Γ𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}_{\Gamma,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of G𝐺Gitalic_G with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is its generating function

𝕊G,S,ω(t):=i0sG,S,ω(i)ti.assignsubscript𝕊𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑡subscript𝑖0subscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖superscript𝑡𝑖\mathbb{S}_{G,S,\omega}(t):=\sum_{i\geq 0}s_{G,S,\omega}(i)t^{i}.blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Remark 2.4.

We need not to assume that S𝑆Sitalic_S generates G𝐺Gitalic_G even in Theorems 2.6 and 4.4.

Remark 2.5.

The Cayley graph Γ=ΓG,S,ωΓsubscriptΓ𝐺𝑆𝜔\Gamma=\Gamma_{G,S,\omega}roman_Γ = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of G𝐺Gitalic_G with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω is defined as follows:

  • VΓ:=Gassignsubscript𝑉Γ𝐺V_{\Gamma}:=Gitalic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_G.

  • EΓ:=G×Sassignsubscript𝐸Γ𝐺𝑆E_{\Gamma}:=G\times Sitalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_G × italic_S.

  • For e=(g,s)EΓ𝑒𝑔𝑠subscript𝐸Γe=(g,s)\in E_{\Gamma}italic_e = ( italic_g , italic_s ) ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we define

    sΓ(e)=g,tΓ(e)=gs,wΓ(e)=ω(s).formulae-sequencesubscript𝑠Γ𝑒𝑔formulae-sequencesubscript𝑡Γ𝑒𝑔𝑠subscript𝑤Γ𝑒𝜔𝑠s_{\Gamma}(e)=g,\qquad t_{\Gamma}(e)=gs,\qquad w_{\Gamma}(e)=\omega(s).italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ) = italic_g , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ) = italic_g italic_s , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e ) = italic_ω ( italic_s ) .

Then, the number sG,S,ω(i)subscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖s_{G,S,\omega}(i)italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) defined above coincides with the growth sequence sΓ,1G,isubscript𝑠Γsubscript1𝐺𝑖s_{\Gamma,1_{G},i}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ , 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ defined in Section 2.1.

A group G𝐺Gitalic_G is called virtually abelian if there exists an abelian subgroup H𝐻Hitalic_H of G𝐺Gitalic_G with finite index [G:H]<[G:H]<\infty[ italic_G : italic_H ] < ∞. In [Ben83], Benson proved that the growth series of virtually abelian groups are rational functions.

Theorem 2.6 (Benson [Ben83]).

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a finitely generated virtually abelian group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω a positive integer weight. Then, the sequence (sG,S,ω(i))isubscriptsubscript𝑠𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑖𝑖(s_{G,S,\omega}(i))_{i}( italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_i ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is of quasi-polynomial type. In particular, its growth series 𝕊G,S,ω(t)subscript𝕊𝐺𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}_{G,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is a rational function.

Remark 2.7.

When G𝐺Gitalic_G is a finitely generated virtually abelian group, we may take a free abelian subgroup L<G𝐿𝐺L<Gitalic_L < italic_G of finite rank and of finite index. The left L𝐿Litalic_L-action on G𝐺Gitalic_G induces a free L𝐿Litalic_L-action on the Cayley graph Γ=ΓG,S,ωΓsubscriptΓ𝐺𝑆𝜔\Gamma=\Gamma_{G,S,\omega}roman_Γ = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and the quotient graph Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L is a finite graph. Therefore, the Cayley graph ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a periodic graph. Hence, Theorem 2.6 can be seen as a special case of Theorem 2.3.

Benson’s original proof of Theorem 2.6 uses his theory of “polyhedral sets”. On the other hand, the proof of Theorem 2.3 uses the theory of commutative monoid explained in Subsection 2.3, and the argument is quite different from Benson’s argument.

2.3. Some facts in commutative monoid theory

We refer the reader to [BG09] and [NSMN21] for the terminology of commutative monoid and its module theory.

Theorem 2.8(1) below is well-known (cf. [Ogu]*Ch. I, Theorem 2.1.17.6, [BG09]*Corollary 2.11). Theorem 2.8(2) is proved in [NSMN21]*Theorem A12. We note that Theorem 2.8(2) can be seen as a discrete version of Motzkin’s theorem ([BG09]*Theorem 1.27).

Theorem 2.8.

Let M𝑀Mitalic_M be an integral commutative monoid, and let X𝑋Xitalic_X be a free M𝑀Mitalic_M-module. Let N1subscript𝑁1N_{1}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N2subscript𝑁2N_{2}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be finitely generated submonoids of M𝑀Mitalic_M. Let YiXsubscript𝑌𝑖𝑋Y_{i}\subset Xitalic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X be a finitely generated Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-submodule for i=1,2𝑖12i=1,2italic_i = 1 , 2. Then the following assertions hold.

  1. (1)

    N1N2subscript𝑁1subscript𝑁2N_{1}\cap N_{2}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated monoid.

  2. (2)

    Y1Y2subscript𝑌1subscript𝑌2Y_{1}\cap Y_{2}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated (N1N2)subscript𝑁1subscript𝑁2(N_{1}\cap N_{2})( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )-module.

The following theorem due to Hilbert and Serre is well-known in the theory of commutative algebra. The series HYsubscript𝐻𝑌H_{Y}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called the Hilbert series.

Theorem 2.9 (cf. [BG09]*Theorem 6.37).

Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer. Let M𝑀Mitalic_M be a commutative monoid, and let X𝑋Xitalic_X be an M𝑀Mitalic_M-module. Let N>0d×Msuperscript𝑁superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑀N^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{>0}^{d}\times Mitalic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_M be a finite subset, and let N0d×M𝑁superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑀N\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times Mitalic_N ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_M be the submonoid generated by Nsuperscript𝑁N^{\prime}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let Y0d×X𝑌superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑋Y\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times Xitalic_Y ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_X be a finitely generated N𝑁Nitalic_N-submodule. We define a function hYsubscript𝑌h_{Y}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

hY:0d0;𝐚#{xX(𝐚,x)Y}:subscript𝑌formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑subscriptabsent0maps-to𝐚#conditional-set𝑥𝑋𝐚𝑥𝑌h_{Y}:\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\to\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0};\quad{\bf a}\mapsto\#\{x% \in X\mid({\bf a},x)\in Y\}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; bold_a ↦ # { italic_x ∈ italic_X ∣ ( bold_a , italic_x ) ∈ italic_Y }

Then, the series

HY(𝐭):=𝐚0dhY(𝐚)𝐭𝐚[[t1,,td]]assignsubscript𝐻𝑌𝐭subscript𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑subscript𝑌𝐚superscript𝐭𝐚delimited-[]subscript𝑡1subscript𝑡𝑑H_{Y}({\bf t}):=\sum_{{\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}}h_{Y}({\bf a}){\bf t}^% {\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}[[t_{1},\ldots,t_{d}]]italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_a ) bold_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ]

is a rational function. Here, 𝐭𝐚superscript𝐭𝐚{\bf t}^{\bf a}bold_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes t1a1tdadsuperscriptsubscript𝑡1subscript𝑎1superscriptsubscript𝑡𝑑subscript𝑎𝑑t_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots t_{d}^{a_{d}}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 𝐚=(a1,,ad)𝐚subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑑{\bf a}=(a_{1},\ldots,a_{d})bold_a = ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

3. Rationality of the growth series of periodic graphs

This section is devoted to proving Theorem 3.5. Throughout this section, we fix an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ). We also fix x0VΓsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑉Γx_{0}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We define a graded growth set B𝐵Bitalic_B of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with respect to x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

B:={(i,y)0×VΓdΓ(x0,y)i}0×VΓ.assign𝐵conditional-set𝑖𝑦subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γsubscript𝑑Γsubscript𝑥0𝑦𝑖subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓB:=\{(i,y)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\mid d_{\Gamma}(x_{0},y)\leq i% \}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}.italic_B := { ( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∣ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y ) ≤ italic_i } ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Note that VΓsubscript𝑉ΓV_{\Gamma}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a free L𝐿Litalic_L-module structure by the free L𝐿Litalic_L-action on VΓsubscript𝑉ΓV_{\Gamma}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore, 0×VΓsubscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γ\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a free (0×L)subscriptabsent0𝐿\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times L\bigr{)}( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L )-module structure. The key point of the proof of Theorem 3.5 is to use the following algebraic structure of B𝐵Bitalic_B.

Theorem 3.1 ([NSMN21]).

For each subset SVΓ/L𝑆subscript𝑉Γ𝐿S\subset V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_S ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, there exist subsets MS0×Lsubscript𝑀𝑆subscriptabsent0𝐿M_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times Litalic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L and XS0×VΓsubscript𝑋𝑆subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓX_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the following conditions:

  1. (1)

    We have B=S2VΓ/LXS𝐵subscript𝑆superscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑋𝑆B=\bigcup_{S\in 2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}}X_{S}italic_B = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ∈ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  2. (2)

    Each MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated submonoid of 0×Lsubscriptabsent0𝐿\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times Lblackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L.

  3. (3)

    Each XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module.

In Appendix A, we give constructions of MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and we also give a proof of Theorem 3.1 for readers’ convenience. In this section, we fix MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that satisfy the properties (1)-(3).

Definition 3.2.

Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer. We identify the two sets (0×L)dsuperscriptsubscriptabsent0𝐿𝑑\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times L\bigr{)}^{d}( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 0d×Ldsuperscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑superscript𝐿𝑑\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times L^{d}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (resp.  (0×VΓ)dsuperscriptsubscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γ𝑑\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\bigr{)}^{d}( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 0d×VΓdsuperscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times V_{\Gamma}^{d}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) by the map

((a1,b1),,(ad,bd))((a1,,ad),(b1,,bd)).maps-tosubscript𝑎1subscript𝑏1subscript𝑎𝑑subscript𝑏𝑑subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑑subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏𝑑\bigl{(}(a_{1},b_{1}),\ldots,(a_{d},b_{d})\bigr{)}\mapsto\bigl{(}(a_{1},\ldots% ,a_{d}),(b_{1},\ldots,b_{d})\bigr{)}.( ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ↦ ( ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .
  1. (1)

    For a subset YVΓd𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑Y\subset V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_Y ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define BY0d×VΓdsubscript𝐵𝑌superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑B_{Y}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by

    BY:=Bd(0d×Y).assignsubscript𝐵𝑌superscript𝐵𝑑superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑌B_{Y}:=B^{d}\cap\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times Y\bigr{)}.italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∩ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_Y ) .
  2. (2)

    For 𝐒=(S1,,Sd)(2VΓ/L)d𝐒subscript𝑆1subscript𝑆𝑑superscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑{\bf S}=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{d})\in\bigl{(}2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}\bigr{)}^{d}bold_S = ( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define M𝐒subscript𝑀𝐒M_{\bf S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and X𝐒subscript𝑋𝐒X_{\bf S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

    M𝐒subscript𝑀𝐒\displaystyle M_{\bf S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :=MS1××MSd(0×L)d,assignabsentsubscript𝑀subscript𝑆1subscript𝑀subscript𝑆𝑑superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝐿𝑑\displaystyle:=M_{S_{1}}\times\cdots\times M_{S_{d}}\subset\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_% {\geq 0}\times L\bigr{)}^{d},:= italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
    X𝐒subscript𝑋𝐒\displaystyle X_{\bf S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :=XS1××XSd(0×VΓ)d.assignabsentsubscript𝑋subscript𝑆1subscript𝑋subscript𝑆𝑑superscriptsubscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γ𝑑\displaystyle:=X_{S_{1}}\times\cdots\times X_{S_{d}}\subset\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_% {\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\bigr{)}^{d}.:= italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

    For subsets NLd𝑁superscript𝐿𝑑N\subset L^{d}italic_N ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and YVΓd𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑Y\subset V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_Y ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we also define

    MN,𝐒:=M𝐒(0d×N),XY,𝐒:=X𝐒(0d×Y).formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝑀𝑁𝐒subscript𝑀𝐒superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑁assignsubscript𝑋𝑌𝐒subscript𝑋𝐒superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑌M_{N,\bf S}:=M_{\bf S}\cap\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times N\bigr{)},% \qquad X_{Y,\bf S}:=X_{\bf S}\cap\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times Y\bigr{% )}.italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_N ) , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_Y ) .

In the following lemma, we assume that N𝑁Nitalic_N is a submonoid of Ldsuperscript𝐿𝑑L^{d}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since VΓdsuperscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an Ldsuperscript𝐿𝑑L^{d}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-module, VΓdsuperscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT naturally has an N𝑁Nitalic_N-module structure.

Lemma 3.3.

Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer. Let N𝑁Nitalic_N be a finitely generated submonoid of Ldsuperscript𝐿𝑑L^{d}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let Y𝑌Yitalic_Y be a finitely generated N𝑁Nitalic_N-submodule of VΓdsuperscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For any subset Λ(2VΓ/L)dΛsuperscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑\Lambda\subset\bigl{(}2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}\bigr{)}^{d}roman_Λ ⊂ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the following assertions hold.

  1. (1)

    𝐒ΛMN,𝐒subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑀𝑁𝐒\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}M_{N,\bf S}⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated monoid.

  2. (2)

    𝐒ΛXY,𝐒subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑋𝑌𝐒\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}X_{Y,\bf S}⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated (𝐒ΛMN,𝐒)subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑀𝑁𝐒\bigl{(}\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}M_{N,\bf S}\bigr{)}( ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )-module.

Proof.

For each 𝐒=(S1,,Sd)(2VΓ/L)d𝐒subscript𝑆1subscript𝑆𝑑superscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑{\bf S}=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{d})\in\bigl{(}2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}\bigr{)}^{d}bold_S = ( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the product M𝐒=MS1××MSdsubscript𝑀𝐒subscript𝑀subscript𝑆1subscript𝑀subscript𝑆𝑑M_{\bf S}=M_{S_{1}}\times\cdots\times M_{S_{d}}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated monoid since MS1,,MSdsubscript𝑀subscript𝑆1subscript𝑀subscript𝑆𝑑M_{S_{1}},\ldots,M_{S_{d}}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are finitely generated monoids by Theorem 3.1(2). Since N𝑁Nitalic_N is a finitely generated monoid, MN,𝐒=M𝐒(0d×N)subscript𝑀𝑁𝐒subscript𝑀𝐒superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑁M_{N,\bf S}=M_{\bf S}\cap\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times N\bigr{)}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_N ) is also a finitely generated monoid by Theorem 2.8(1). Therefore, the intersection 𝐒ΛMN,𝐒subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑀𝑁𝐒\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}M_{N,\bf S}⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is also a finitely generated monoid again by Theorem 2.8(1).

For each 𝐒=(S1,,Sd)(2VΓ/L)d𝐒subscript𝑆1subscript𝑆𝑑superscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑{\bf S}=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{d})\in\bigl{(}2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}\bigr{)}^{d}bold_S = ( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the product X𝐒=XS1××XSdsubscript𝑋𝐒subscript𝑋subscript𝑆1subscript𝑋subscript𝑆𝑑X_{\bf S}=X_{S_{1}}\times\cdots\times X_{S_{d}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated M𝐒subscript𝑀𝐒M_{\bf S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module since each XSisubscript𝑋subscript𝑆𝑖X_{S_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated MSisubscript𝑀subscript𝑆𝑖M_{S_{i}}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module by Theorem 3.1(3). Since Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a finitely generated N𝑁Nitalic_N-module, XY,𝐒=X𝐒(0d×Y)subscript𝑋𝑌𝐒subscript𝑋𝐒superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑𝑌X_{Y,\bf S}=X_{\bf S}\cap\bigl{(}\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}\times Y\bigr{)}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × italic_Y ) is also a finitely generated MN,𝐒subscript𝑀𝑁𝐒M_{N,\bf S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module by Theorem 2.8(2). Therefore, the intersection 𝐒ΛXY,𝐒subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑋𝑌𝐒\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}X_{Y,\bf S}⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated (𝐒ΛMN,𝐒)subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑀𝑁𝐒\bigl{(}\bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}M_{N,\bf S}\bigr{)}( ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )-module again by Theorem 2.8(2). ∎

Definition 3.4.

Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer, and let YVΓd𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑Y\subset V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_Y ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a subset. For 𝐚=(a1,,ad)0d𝐚subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑑superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑{\bf a}=(a_{1},\ldots,a_{d})\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}bold_a = ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define

BY,𝐚subscript𝐵𝑌𝐚\displaystyle B_{Y,\bf a}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :={(y1,,yd)Y|dΓ(x0,yi)ai for each 1id},assignabsentconditional-setsubscript𝑦1subscript𝑦𝑑𝑌dΓ(x0,yi)ai for each 1id\displaystyle:=\bigl{\{}(y_{1},\ldots,y_{d})\in Y\ \big{|}\ \text{$d_{\Gamma}(% x_{0},y_{i})\leq a_{i}$ for each $1\leq i\leq d$}\bigr{\}},:= { ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_Y | italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_d } ,
SY,𝐚subscript𝑆𝑌𝐚\displaystyle S_{Y,\bf a}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT :={(y1,,yd)Y|dΓ(x0,yi)=ai for each 1id}.assignabsentconditional-setsubscript𝑦1subscript𝑦𝑑𝑌dΓ(x0,yi)=ai for each 1id\displaystyle:=\bigl{\{}(y_{1},\ldots,y_{d})\in Y\ \big{|}\ \text{$d_{\Gamma}(% x_{0},y_{i})=a_{i}$ for each $1\leq i\leq d$}\bigr{\}}.:= { ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_Y | italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_d } .

Let bY,𝐚:=#BY,𝐚assignsubscript𝑏𝑌𝐚#subscript𝐵𝑌𝐚b_{Y,{\bf a}}:=\#B_{Y,\bf a}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := # italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and sY,𝐚:=#SY,𝐚assignsubscript𝑠𝑌𝐚#subscript𝑆𝑌𝐚s_{Y,{\bf a}}:=\#S_{Y,\bf a}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := # italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote their cardinalities. Then, we define the multivariate growth series 𝔹Y,x0(𝐳),𝕊Y,x0(𝐳)[[z1,,zd]]subscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳subscript𝕊𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳delimited-[]subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑑\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z}),\ \mathbb{S}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})\in\mathbb{Z}[[z_% {1},\ldots,z_{d}]]blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) , blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ] of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y by

𝔹Y,x0(𝐳):=𝐚0dbY,𝐚𝐳𝐚,𝕊Y,x0(𝐳):=𝐚0dsY,𝐚𝐳𝐚.formulae-sequenceassignsubscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳subscript𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑subscript𝑏𝑌𝐚superscript𝐳𝐚assignsubscript𝕊𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳subscript𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑subscript𝑠𝑌𝐚superscript𝐳𝐚\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z}):=\sum_{{\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}}b_{Y,% \bf{a}}{\bf z}^{\bf a},\qquad\mathbb{S}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z}):=\sum_{{\bf a}\in% \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}}s_{Y,\bf{a}}{\bf z}^{\bf a}.blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Here, 𝐳𝐚superscript𝐳𝐚{\bf z}^{\bf a}bold_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes z1a1zdadsuperscriptsubscript𝑧1subscript𝑎1superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑑subscript𝑎𝑑z_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots z_{d}^{a_{d}}italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 𝐚=(a1,,ad)𝐚subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑑{\bf a}=(a_{1},\ldots,a_{d})bold_a = ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Theorem 3.5.

Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer. Let N𝑁Nitalic_N be a finitely generated submonoid of Ldsuperscript𝐿𝑑L^{d}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let Y𝑌Yitalic_Y be a finitely generated N𝑁Nitalic_N-submodule of VΓdsuperscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑V_{\Gamma}^{d}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then the multivariate growth series 𝔹Y,x0(𝐳)subscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) and 𝕊Y,x0(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳\mathbb{S}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y are rational functions.

Proof.

Since we have 𝕊Y,x0(𝐳)=(1z1)(1zd)𝔹Y,x0(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳1subscript𝑧11subscript𝑧𝑑subscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳\mathbb{S}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})=(1-z_{1})\cdots(1-z_{d})\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({% \bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) = ( 1 - italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⋯ ( 1 - italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ), it is sufficient to show that 𝔹Y,x0(𝐳)subscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) is a rational function.

For each 𝐚0d𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑{\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we have bY,𝐚=#(BY({𝐚}×VΓd))b_{Y,\bf a}=\#\bigr{(}B_{Y}\cap\bigl{(}\{{\bf a}\}\times V_{\Gamma}^{d}\bigr{)% }\bigr{)}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = # ( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ ( { bold_a } × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). Since we have B=S2VΓ/LXS𝐵subscript𝑆superscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑋𝑆B=\bigcup_{S\in 2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}}X_{S}italic_B = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ∈ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by Theorem 3.1(1), we have

BY=𝐒(2VΓ/L)dXY,𝐒.subscript𝐵𝑌subscript𝐒superscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑subscript𝑋𝑌𝐒B_{Y}=\bigcup_{{\bf S}\in(2^{V_{\Gamma}/L})^{d}}X_{Y,{\bf S}}.italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

By the inclusion-exclusion principle, in order to show the rationality of

𝔹Y,x0(𝐳)=𝐚0d#((𝐒(2VΓ/L)dXY,𝐒)({𝐚}×VΓd))𝐳𝐚,subscript𝔹𝑌subscript𝑥0𝐳subscript𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑#subscript𝐒superscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑subscript𝑋𝑌𝐒𝐚superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑superscript𝐳𝐚\mathbb{B}_{Y,x_{0}}({\bf z})=\sum_{{\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}}\#\Biggl% {(}\Biggl{(}\bigcup_{{\bf S}\in(2^{V_{\Gamma}/L})^{d}}X_{Y,{\bf S}}\Biggr{)}% \cap\bigl{(}\{{\bf a}\}\times V_{\Gamma}^{d}\bigr{)}\Biggr{)}{\bf z}^{\bf a},blackboard_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT # ( ( ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∩ ( { bold_a } × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) bold_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

it is sufficient to show the rationality of the series

HΛ(𝐳):=𝐚0d#((𝐒ΛXY,𝐒)({𝐚}×VΓd))𝐳𝐚assignsubscript𝐻Λ𝐳subscript𝐚superscriptsubscriptabsent0𝑑#subscript𝐒Λsubscript𝑋𝑌𝐒𝐚superscriptsubscript𝑉Γ𝑑superscript𝐳𝐚H_{\Lambda}({\bf z}):=\sum_{{\bf a}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{d}}\#\left(\left(% \bigcap_{{\bf S}\in\Lambda}X_{Y,\bf S}\right)\cap\bigl{(}\{{\bf a}\}\times V_{% \Gamma}^{d}\bigr{)}\right){\bf z}^{\bf a}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT # ( ( ⋂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_S ∈ roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , bold_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∩ ( { bold_a } × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) bold_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for each subset Λ(2VΓ/L)dΛsuperscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿𝑑\Lambda\subset\bigl{(}2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}\bigr{)}^{d}roman_Λ ⊂ ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By Theorem 2.9, the rationality of each HΛ(𝐳)subscript𝐻Λ𝐳H_{\Lambda}({\bf z})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) follows from Lemma 3.3. ∎

4. Rationality of the multivariate growth series of algebraic sets of virtually abelian groups

Following [EL22], we introduce a concept called “algebraic sets” for groups.

Definition 4.1.

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a group, and let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer.

  1. (1)

    A finite system of equations in G𝐺Gitalic_G is a finite subset of GFd𝐺subscript𝐹𝑑G*F_{d}italic_G ∗ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where Fdsubscript𝐹𝑑F_{d}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the free group generated by {x1,,xd}subscript𝑥1subscript𝑥𝑑\{x_{1},\ldots,x_{d}\}{ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }.

  2. (2)

    For wGFd𝑤𝐺subscript𝐹𝑑w\in G*F_{d}italic_w ∈ italic_G ∗ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (g1,,gd)Gdsubscript𝑔1subscript𝑔𝑑superscript𝐺𝑑(g_{1},\ldots,g_{d})\in G^{d}( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we define w(g1,,gd)G𝑤subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔𝑑𝐺w(g_{1},\ldots,g_{d})\in Gitalic_w ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_G as follows: Let f1:FdG:subscript𝑓1subscript𝐹𝑑𝐺f_{1}:F_{d}\to Gitalic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_G be the group homomorphism satisfying f1(xi)=gisubscript𝑓1subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖f_{1}(x_{i})=g_{i}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each 1id1𝑖𝑑1\leq i\leq d1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_d. Let f2:GFdG:subscript𝑓2𝐺subscript𝐹𝑑𝐺f_{2}:G*F_{d}\to Gitalic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_G ∗ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_G be the group homomorphism induced by f1subscript𝑓1f_{1}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the identity map GG𝐺𝐺G\to Gitalic_G → italic_G. Then, we define w(g1,,gd):=f2(w)Gassign𝑤subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔𝑑subscript𝑓2𝑤𝐺w(g_{1},\ldots,g_{d}):=f_{2}(w)\in Gitalic_w ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) := italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ∈ italic_G.

  3. (3)

    For a finite system W𝑊Witalic_W of equations in G𝐺Gitalic_G, (g1,,gd)Gdsubscript𝑔1subscript𝑔𝑑superscript𝐺𝑑(g_{1},\ldots,g_{d})\in G^{d}( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is called a solution of W𝑊Witalic_W when w(g1,,gd)=1G𝑤subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔𝑑subscript1𝐺w(g_{1},\ldots,g_{d})=1_{G}italic_w ( italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT holds for all wW𝑤𝑊w\in Witalic_w ∈ italic_W.

  4. (4)

    A subset UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is called algebraic if there exists a finite system W𝑊Witalic_W of equations in G𝐺Gitalic_G such that U𝑈Uitalic_U is the set of solutions of W𝑊Witalic_W.

Definition 4.2.

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω a positive integer weight. Let d𝑑ditalic_d be a positive integer, and let UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a subset.

  1. (1)

    We define multivariate (relative) growth series 𝕊U,S,ω(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑈𝑆𝜔𝐳\mathbb{S}_{U,S,\omega}({\bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) of U𝑈Uitalic_U by

    𝕊U,S,ω(𝐳):=𝐱Uz1ω(x1)z2ω(x2)zdω(xd)[[z1,,zd]].assignsubscript𝕊𝑈𝑆𝜔𝐳subscript𝐱𝑈superscriptsubscript𝑧1𝜔subscript𝑥1superscriptsubscript𝑧2𝜔subscript𝑥2superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑑𝜔subscript𝑥𝑑delimited-[]subscript𝑧1subscript𝑧𝑑\mathbb{S}_{U,S,\omega}({\bf z}):=\sum_{{\bf x}\in U}z_{1}^{\omega(x_{1})}z_{2% }^{\omega(x_{2})}\cdots z_{d}^{\omega(x_{d})}\in\mathbb{Z}[[z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}% ]].blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ] .

    Here, by convention, we define ziω(xi)=0superscriptsubscript𝑧𝑖𝜔subscript𝑥𝑖0z_{i}^{\omega(x_{i})}=0italic_z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 if ω(xi)=𝜔subscript𝑥𝑖\omega(x_{i})=\inftyitalic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∞.

  2. (2)

    We define univariate (relative) growth series 𝕊U,S,ωuni(t)subscriptsuperscript𝕊uni𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡\mathbb{S}^{\rm uni}_{U,S,\omega}(t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_uni end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) of U𝑈Uitalic_U by

    𝕊U,S,ωuni(t):=𝐱Utω(𝐱)[[t]],assignsubscriptsuperscript𝕊uni𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡subscript𝐱𝑈superscript𝑡𝜔𝐱delimited-[]delimited-[]𝑡\mathbb{S}^{\rm uni}_{U,S,\omega}(t):=\sum_{{\bf x}\in U}t^{\omega({\bf x})}% \in\mathbb{Z}[[t]],blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_uni end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_x ∈ italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( bold_x ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z [ [ italic_t ] ] ,

    where ω(𝐱):=i=1ω(xi)assign𝜔𝐱superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝜔subscript𝑥𝑖\omega({\bf x}):=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\omega(x_{i})italic_ω ( bold_x ) := ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ω ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). By definition, we have 𝕊U,S,ωuni(t)=𝕊U,S,ω(t,,t)subscriptsuperscript𝕊uni𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡subscript𝕊𝑈𝑆𝜔𝑡𝑡\mathbb{S}^{\rm uni}_{U,S,\omega}(t)=\mathbb{S}_{U,S,\omega}(t,\ldots,t)blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_uni end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t , … , italic_t ).

In [EL22]*Corollary 4.16, Evetts and Levine prove that any algebraic subsets of virtually abelian groups are “coset-wise polyhedral” (see [EL22]*Definition 4.12). By using the language of commutative monoids and modules, their result can be described as follows.

Proposition 4.3 ([EL22], [CE]).

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a finitely generated virtually abelian group with a free abelian normal subgroup L𝐿Litalic_L with a finite index. Let UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be an algebraic subset. Then, U𝑈Uitalic_U can decompose as a finite disjoint union U=i=1Ui𝑈superscriptsubscriptsquare-union𝑖1subscript𝑈𝑖U=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{\ell}U_{i}italic_U = ⨆ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT so that each Uisubscript𝑈𝑖U_{i}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated Nisubscript𝑁𝑖N_{i}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module for some finitely generated submonoid NiLdsubscript𝑁𝑖superscript𝐿𝑑N_{i}\subset L^{d}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

The assertion follows from Corollary 4.16 in [EL22] and Proposition 3.11 and Lemma 3.10 in [CE]. ∎

We prove the rationality of multivariate growth series of algebraic sets of finitely generated virtually abelian groups. In [EL22], Evetts and Levine prove the rationality of the univariate growth series, but the rationality of multivariate growth series remained a conjecture.

Theorem 4.4 (cf. [EL22]*Conjecture 5.1).

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be a finitely generated virtually abelian group, SG𝑆𝐺S\subset Gitalic_S ⊂ italic_G a finite subset, and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω a positive integer weight. Then, for any algebraic subset UGd𝑈superscript𝐺𝑑U\subset G^{d}italic_U ⊂ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of G𝐺Gitalic_G, its multivariate growth series 𝕊Y,S,ω(𝐳)subscript𝕊𝑌𝑆𝜔𝐳\mathbb{S}_{Y,S,\omega}({\bf z})blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_z ) is a rational function.

Proof.

By the same argument as in Remark 2.7, the Cayley graph Γ=ΓG,S,ωΓsubscriptΓ𝐺𝑆𝜔\Gamma=\Gamma_{G,S,\omega}roman_Γ = roman_Γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G , italic_S , italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of G𝐺Gitalic_G with respect to S𝑆Sitalic_S and ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω becomes a periodic graph. Therefore, the assertion follows from Proposition 4.3 and Theorem 3.5. ∎

Appendix A Algebraic structure of the graded growth set

This appendix is devoted to proving Theorem 3.1. The proofs in this section are essentially the same as those in [NSMN21], but streamlined for mathematicians.

A.1. Notations and Preliminaries

Following [IN1]*Section 2, we introduce some additional notations on graphs.

Definition A.1.

Let Γ=(VΓ,EΓ,s,t,w)Γsubscript𝑉Γsubscript𝐸Γ𝑠𝑡𝑤\Gamma=(V_{\Gamma},E_{\Gamma},s,t,w)roman_Γ = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_s , italic_t , italic_w ) be a graph.

  1. (1)

    For a walk p=e1e2e𝑝subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒p=e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_p = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we define s(p):=s(e1)assign𝑠𝑝𝑠subscript𝑒1s(p):=s(e_{1})italic_s ( italic_p ) := italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), t(p):=t(e)assign𝑡𝑝𝑡subscript𝑒t(p):=t(e_{\ell})italic_t ( italic_p ) := italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), length(p)=length𝑝\operatorname{length}(p)=\ellroman_length ( italic_p ) = roman_ℓ and

    supp(p):={s(e1),t(e1),t(e2),,t(e)}VΓ.assignsupp𝑝𝑠subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒2𝑡subscript𝑒subscript𝑉Γ\operatorname{supp}(p):=\{s(e_{1}),t(e_{1}),t(e_{2}),\ldots,t(e_{\ell})\}% \subset V_{\Gamma}.roman_supp ( italic_p ) := { italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) } ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
  2. (2)

    A path in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a walk e1e2esubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that s(e1),t(e1),t(e2),,t(e)𝑠subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒2𝑡subscript𝑒s(e_{1}),t(e_{1}),t(e_{2}),\ldots,t(e_{\ell})italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are distinct. A walk of length 00 is considered as a path.

  3. (3)

    A cycle in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ is a walk e1e2esubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with s(e1)=t(e)𝑠subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒s(e_{1})=t(e_{\ell})italic_s ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) such that t(e1),t(e2),,t(e)𝑡subscript𝑒1𝑡subscript𝑒2𝑡subscript𝑒t(e_{1}),t(e_{2}),\ldots,t(e_{\ell})italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , … , italic_t ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are distinct. A walk of length 00 is not considered as a cycle. CycΓsubscriptCycΓ\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma}roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the set of cycles in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ.

  4. (4)

    C1(Γ,)subscript𝐶1ΓC_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ) denotes the group of 1111-chains on ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with coefficients in \mathbb{Z}blackboard_Z (i.e., C1(Γ,)subscript𝐶1ΓC_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ) is the free abelian group generated by EΓsubscript𝐸ΓE_{\Gamma}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). For a walk p=e1e2e𝑝subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒p=e_{1}e_{2}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_p = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, let pdelimited-⟨⟩𝑝\langle p\rangle⟨ italic_p ⟩ denote the 1111-chain i=1eiC1(Γ,)superscriptsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝐶1Γ\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}e_{i}\in C_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ). H1(Γ,)C1(Γ,)subscript𝐻1Γsubscript𝐶1ΓH_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})\subset C_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ) ⊂ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ) denotes the 1111-st homology group (i.e., H1(Γ,)subscript𝐻1ΓH_{1}(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ , blackboard_Z ) is the subgroup generated by pdelimited-⟨⟩𝑝\langle p\rangle⟨ italic_p ⟩ for pCycΓ𝑝subscriptCycΓp\in\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma}italic_p ∈ roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). We refer the reader to [Sunada] for more detail.

Definition A.2.

Let (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ) be an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph.

  1. (1)

    Since L𝐿Litalic_L is an abelian group, we use the additive notation: for uL𝑢𝐿u\in Litalic_u ∈ italic_L and xVΓ𝑥subscript𝑉Γx\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we define u+x:=u(x)assign𝑢𝑥𝑢𝑥u+x:=u(x)italic_u + italic_x := italic_u ( italic_x ) as the translation of x𝑥xitalic_x by u𝑢uitalic_u.

  2. (2)

    The quotient graph Γ/L=(VΓ/L,EΓ/L,sΓ/L,tΓ/L,wΓ/L)Γ𝐿subscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscript𝑠Γ𝐿subscript𝑡Γ𝐿subscript𝑤Γ𝐿\Gamma/L=(V_{\Gamma/L},E_{\Gamma/L},s_{\Gamma/L},t_{\Gamma/L},w_{\Gamma/L})roman_Γ / italic_L = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is defined by VΓ/L:=VΓ/Lassignsubscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑉Γ𝐿V_{\Gamma/L}:=V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, EΓ/L:=EΓ/Lassignsubscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿E_{\Gamma/L}:=E_{\Gamma}/Litalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, and the functions sΓ/L:EΓ/LVΓ/L:subscript𝑠Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscript𝑉Γ𝐿s_{\Gamma/L}:E_{\Gamma}/L\to V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L → italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, tΓ/L:EΓ/LVΓ/L:subscript𝑡Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscript𝑉Γ𝐿t_{\Gamma/L}:E_{\Gamma}/L\to V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L → italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, and wΓ/L:EΓ/L>0:subscript𝑤Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscriptabsent0w_{\Gamma/L}:E_{\Gamma}/L\to\mathbb{Z}_{>0}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT induced from sΓsubscript𝑠Γs_{\Gamma}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, tΓsubscript𝑡Γt_{\Gamma}italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and wΓsubscript𝑤Γw_{\Gamma}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  3. (3)

    For any xVΓ𝑥subscript𝑉Γx\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and eEΓ𝑒subscript𝐸Γe\in E_{\Gamma}italic_e ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, let x¯VΓ/L¯𝑥subscript𝑉Γ𝐿\overline{x}\in V_{\Gamma/L}over¯ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e¯EΓ/L¯𝑒subscript𝐸Γ𝐿\overline{e}\in E_{\Gamma/L}over¯ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote their images in VΓ/L=VΓ/Lsubscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑉Γ𝐿V_{\Gamma/L}=V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L and EΓ/L=EΓ/Lsubscript𝐸Γ𝐿subscript𝐸Γ𝐿E_{\Gamma/L}=E_{\Gamma}/Litalic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L. For a walk p=e1e𝑝subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒p=e_{1}\cdots e_{\ell}italic_p = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ, let p¯:=e1¯e¯assign¯𝑝¯subscript𝑒1¯subscript𝑒\overline{p}:=\overline{e_{1}}\cdots\overline{e_{\ell}}over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG := over¯ start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⋯ over¯ start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG denote its image in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L.

  4. (4)

    When x,yVΓ𝑥𝑦subscript𝑉Γx,y\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfy x¯=y¯¯𝑥¯𝑦\overline{x}=\overline{y}over¯ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG italic_y end_ARG, there exists an element uL𝑢𝐿u\in Litalic_u ∈ italic_L such that u+x=y𝑢𝑥𝑦u+x=yitalic_u + italic_x = italic_y. Since the L𝐿Litalic_L-action is free, such uL𝑢𝐿u\in Litalic_u ∈ italic_L uniquely exists. We denote this unique u𝑢uitalic_u by yx𝑦𝑥y-xitalic_y - italic_x.

  5. (5)

    Let q0subscript𝑞0q_{0}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a path in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L, and let q1,,qCycΓ/Lsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞subscriptCycΓ𝐿q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell}\in\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma/L}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be cycles. The sequence (q0,q1,,q)subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞(q_{0},q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell})( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is called walkable if there exists a walk qsuperscript𝑞q^{\prime}italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L such that q=i=0qidelimited-⟨⟩superscript𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑖0delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖\langle q^{\prime}\rangle=\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}\langle q_{i}\rangle⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩.

  6. (6)

    Let μ:H1(Γ/L,)L:𝜇subscript𝐻1Γ𝐿𝐿\mu:H_{1}(\Gamma/L,\mathbb{Z})\to Litalic_μ : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Γ / italic_L , blackboard_Z ) → italic_L be the group homomorphism defined in [IN1]*Definition 2.8. This homomorphism is uniquely determined by the following condition (see [IN1]*Lemma 2.7): For any walk p𝑝pitalic_p in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with s(p)¯=t(p)¯¯𝑠𝑝¯𝑡𝑝\overline{s(p)}=\overline{t(p)}over¯ start_ARG italic_s ( italic_p ) end_ARG = over¯ start_ARG italic_t ( italic_p ) end_ARG, we have μ(p¯)=t(p)s(p)𝜇delimited-⟨⟩¯𝑝𝑡𝑝𝑠𝑝\mu(\langle\overline{p}\rangle)=t(p)-s(p)italic_μ ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ⟩ ) = italic_t ( italic_p ) - italic_s ( italic_p ).

In the proof of Theorem 3.1 in Subsection A.2, we will use the following easy lemma on a decomposition of a walk to a path and cycles.

Lemma A.3 ([IN1]*Lemma 2.12, Remark 2.13(2)).

Let (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ) be an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph.

  1. (1)

    For a walk qsuperscript𝑞q^{\prime}italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L, there exists a walkable sequence (q0,q1,,q)subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞(q_{0},q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell})( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) such that q=i=0qidelimited-⟨⟩superscript𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑖0delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖\langle q^{\prime}\rangle=\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}\langle q_{i}\rangle⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and supp(q)=i=0supp(qi)suppsuperscript𝑞superscriptsubscript𝑖0suppsubscript𝑞𝑖\operatorname{supp}(q^{\prime})=\bigcup_{i=0}^{\ell}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

  2. (2)

    Let q0subscript𝑞0q_{0}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a path in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L, and let q1,,qCycΓ/Lsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞subscriptCycΓ𝐿q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell}\in\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma/L}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be cycles. Then, (q0,q1,,q)subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞(q_{0},q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell})( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is walkable if and only if there exists a permutation σ:{1,2,,}{1,2,,}:𝜎1212\sigma:\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}\to\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}italic_σ : { 1 , 2 , … , roman_ℓ } → { 1 , 2 , … , roman_ℓ } such that

    (supp(q0)1iksupp(qσ(i)))supp(qσ(k+1))suppsubscript𝑞0subscript1𝑖𝑘suppsubscript𝑞𝜎𝑖suppsubscript𝑞𝜎𝑘1\biggl{(}\operatorname{supp}(q_{0})\cup\bigcup_{1\leq i\leq k}\operatorname{% supp}(q_{\sigma(i)})\biggr{)}\cap\operatorname{supp}(q_{\sigma(k+1)})\not=\emptyset( roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∪ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ∩ roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_k + 1 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ ∅

    holds for any 0k10𝑘10\leq k\leq\ell-10 ≤ italic_k ≤ roman_ℓ - 1.

  3. (3)

    For a walk qsuperscript𝑞q^{\prime}italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Γ/LΓ𝐿\Gamma/Lroman_Γ / italic_L and a vertex x0VΓsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑉Γx_{0}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying s(q)=x0¯𝑠superscript𝑞¯subscript𝑥0s(q^{\prime})=\overline{x_{0}}italic_s ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, there exists the unique walk p𝑝pitalic_p in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ satisfying p¯=q¯𝑝superscript𝑞\overline{p}=q^{\prime}over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG = italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and s(p)=x0𝑠𝑝subscript𝑥0s(p)=x_{0}italic_s ( italic_p ) = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

A.2. Proof of Theorem 3.1

In this subsection, we give a proof of Theorem 3.1 (=== Lemma A.5+{}+{}+Theorem A.6). Throughout this subsection, we fix an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional periodic graph (Γ,L)Γ𝐿(\Gamma,L)( roman_Γ , italic_L ). We also fix x0VΓsubscript𝑥0subscript𝑉Γx_{0}\in V_{\Gamma}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

In Section 3, we have defined a graded growth set B𝐵Bitalic_B of ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ with respect to x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

B:={(i,y)0×VΓdΓ(x0,y)i}0×VΓ.assign𝐵conditional-set𝑖𝑦subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉Γsubscript𝑑Γsubscript𝑥0𝑦𝑖subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓB:=\{(i,y)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\mid d_{\Gamma}(x_{0},y)\leq i% \}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}.italic_B := { ( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∣ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_y ) ≤ italic_i } ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Definition A.4.

For each subset SVΓ/L𝑆subscript𝑉Γ𝐿S\subset V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_S ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, we define subsets MS0×Lsubscript𝑀𝑆subscriptabsent0𝐿M_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times Litalic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L and XS0×VΓsubscript𝑋𝑆subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓX_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as follows.

  1. (1)

    First, we define MS0×Lsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑆subscriptabsent0𝐿M^{\prime}_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times Litalic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L by

    MS:={(w(q),μ(q))|qCycΓ/L such that supp(q)S}.assignsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑆conditional-set𝑤𝑞𝜇delimited-⟨⟩𝑞qCycΓ/L such that supp(q)SM^{\prime}_{S}:=\bigl{\{}(w(q),\mu(\langle q\rangle))\ \big{|}\ \text{$q\in% \operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma/L}$ such that $\operatorname{supp}(q)\subset S$}% \bigr{\}}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { ( italic_w ( italic_q ) , italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q ⟩ ) ) | italic_q ∈ roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that roman_supp ( italic_q ) ⊂ italic_S } .

    Then, we define MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as the submonoid of 0×Lsubscriptabsent0𝐿\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times Lblackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_L generated by MSsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑆M^{\prime}_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (1,0)10(1,0)( 1 , 0 ).

  2. (2)

    We define a subset XS0×VΓsubscript𝑋𝑆subscriptabsent0subscript𝑉ΓX_{S}\subset\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

    XS:={(i,y)0×VΓ|There exists a walk p in Γ from x0 to ysuch that w(p)i and supp(p¯)=S.}.X_{S}:=\left\{(i,y)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\times V_{\Gamma}\ \middle|\ \begin{% array}[]{l}\text{There exists a walk $p$ in $\Gamma$ from $x_{0}$ to $y$}\\ \text{such that $w(p)\leq i$ and $\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})=S$.}\end{% array}\right\}.italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { ( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL There exists a walk italic_p in roman_Γ from italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to italic_y end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL such that italic_w ( italic_p ) ≤ italic_i and roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) = italic_S . end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY } .
Lemma A.5.

The following assertions hold.

  1. (1)

    We have B=S2VΓ/LXS𝐵subscript𝑆superscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑋𝑆B=\bigcup_{S\in 2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}}X_{S}italic_B = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ∈ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  2. (2)

    For each subset SVΓ/L𝑆subscript𝑉Γ𝐿S\subset V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_S ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, the monoid MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is finitely generated.

Proof.

We shall prove (1). Suppose (i,y)B𝑖𝑦𝐵(i,y)\in B( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ italic_B. Then, by the definition of B𝐵Bitalic_B, there exists a walk p𝑝pitalic_p in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to y𝑦yitalic_y with w(p)i𝑤𝑝𝑖w(p)\leq iitalic_w ( italic_p ) ≤ italic_i. Then, we have (i,y)XS𝑖𝑦subscript𝑋𝑆(i,y)\in X_{S}( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for S=supp(p¯)𝑆supp¯𝑝S=\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})italic_S = roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ). Therefore, we have BS2VΓ/LXS𝐵subscript𝑆superscript2subscript𝑉Γ𝐿subscript𝑋𝑆B\subset\bigcup_{S\in 2^{V_{\Gamma}/L}}X_{S}italic_B ⊂ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S ∈ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since the opposite inclusion is trivial, the assertion (1) is proved.

Since CycΓ/LsubscriptCycΓ𝐿\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma/L}roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finite set, MSsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑆M^{\prime}_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is also a finite set, which proves (2). ∎

Theorem A.6 ([NSMN21]*Lemma 2.13).

For each subset SVΓ/L𝑆subscript𝑉Γ𝐿S\subset V_{\Gamma}/Litalic_S ⊂ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_L, XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module.

Proof.

First, we prove MS+XSXSsubscript𝑀𝑆subscript𝑋𝑆subscript𝑋𝑆M_{S}+X_{S}\subset X_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Take (i,y)XS𝑖𝑦subscript𝑋𝑆(i,y)\in X_{S}( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, by the definition of XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exists a walk p𝑝pitalic_p in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to y𝑦yitalic_y satisfying w(p)i𝑤𝑝𝑖w(p)\leq iitalic_w ( italic_p ) ≤ italic_i and supp(p¯)=Ssupp¯𝑝𝑆\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})=Sroman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) = italic_S. Take qCycΓ/L𝑞subscriptCycΓ𝐿q\in\operatorname{Cyc}_{\Gamma/L}italic_q ∈ roman_Cyc start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ / italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that supp(q)Ssupp𝑞𝑆\operatorname{supp}(q)\subset Sroman_supp ( italic_q ) ⊂ italic_S. Since supp(q)supp(p¯)supp𝑞supp¯𝑝\operatorname{supp}(q)\cap\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})\not=\emptysetroman_supp ( italic_q ) ∩ roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) ≠ ∅, by Lemma A.3(2)(3), there exists a walk psuperscript𝑝p^{\prime}italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

p¯=q+p¯,supp(p¯)=supp(q)supp(p¯)=S.formulae-sequencedelimited-⟨⟩¯superscript𝑝delimited-⟨⟩𝑞delimited-⟨⟩¯𝑝supp¯superscript𝑝supp𝑞supp¯𝑝𝑆\langle\overline{p^{\prime}}\rangle=\langle q\rangle+\langle\overline{p}% \rangle,\qquad\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p^{\prime}})=\operatorname{supp}(q% )\cup\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})=S.⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ = ⟨ italic_q ⟩ + ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ⟩ , roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) = roman_supp ( italic_q ) ∪ roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) = italic_S .

Then, we have

t(p)=μ(q)+t(p)=μ(q)+y.𝑡superscript𝑝𝜇delimited-⟨⟩𝑞𝑡𝑝𝜇delimited-⟨⟩𝑞𝑦t(p^{\prime})=\mu(\langle q\rangle)+t(p)=\mu(\langle q\rangle)+y.italic_t ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q ⟩ ) + italic_t ( italic_p ) = italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q ⟩ ) + italic_y .

Furthermore, we have

w(p)=w(q)+w(p)w(q)+i.𝑤superscript𝑝𝑤𝑞𝑤𝑝𝑤𝑞𝑖w(p^{\prime})=w(q)+w(p)\leq w(q)+i.italic_w ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_w ( italic_q ) + italic_w ( italic_p ) ≤ italic_w ( italic_q ) + italic_i .

These show that (w(q)+i,μ(q)+y)XS𝑤𝑞𝑖𝜇delimited-⟨⟩𝑞𝑦subscript𝑋𝑆\bigl{(}w(q)+i,\mu(\langle q\rangle)+y\bigr{)}\in X_{S}( italic_w ( italic_q ) + italic_i , italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q ⟩ ) + italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence, we conclude that MS+XSXSsubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑆subscript𝑋𝑆subscript𝑋𝑆M^{\prime}_{S}+X_{S}\subset X_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since it is clear that (1,0)+XSXS10subscript𝑋𝑆subscript𝑋𝑆(1,0)+X_{S}\subset X_{S}( 1 , 0 ) + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we conclude that XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module.

Next, we show that XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is generated by

XS:={(i,y)XS|iW(#S)2},assignsubscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑆conditional-set𝑖𝑦subscript𝑋𝑆𝑖𝑊superscript#𝑆2X^{\prime}_{S}:=\bigl{\{}(i,y)\in X_{S}\ \big{|}\ i\leq W\cdot(\#S)^{2}\bigr{% \}},italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { ( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_i ≤ italic_W ⋅ ( # italic_S ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ,

where W:=maxeEΓw(e)assign𝑊subscript𝑒subscript𝐸Γ𝑤𝑒W:=\max_{e\in E_{\Gamma}}w(e)italic_W := roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ( italic_e ). Take (i,y)XS𝑖𝑦subscript𝑋𝑆(i,y)\in X_{S}( italic_i , italic_y ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By the definition of XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exists a walk p𝑝pitalic_p in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to y𝑦yitalic_y satisfying w(p)i𝑤𝑝𝑖w(p)\leq iitalic_w ( italic_p ) ≤ italic_i and supp(p¯)=Ssupp¯𝑝𝑆\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p})=Sroman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ) = italic_S. By decomposing p¯¯𝑝\overline{p}over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG (Lemma A.3(1)), there exists a walkable sequence (q0,q1,,q)subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞(q_{0},q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell})( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) such that p¯=i=0qidelimited-⟨⟩¯𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑖0delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖\langle\overline{p}\rangle=\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}\langle q_{i}\rangle⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ and i=0supp(qi)=Ssuperscriptsubscript𝑖0suppsubscript𝑞𝑖𝑆\bigcup_{i=0}^{\ell}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})=S⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_S. By Lemma A.3(2), by rearranging the indices of q1,,qsubscript𝑞1subscript𝑞q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we may assume the following condition for each 0j10𝑗10\leq j\leq\ell-10 ≤ italic_j ≤ roman_ℓ - 1:

  • (0ijsupp(qi))supp(qj+1)subscript0𝑖𝑗suppsubscript𝑞𝑖suppsubscript𝑞𝑗1\left(\bigcup_{0\leq i\leq j}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})\right)\cap% \operatorname{supp}(q_{j+1})\not=\emptyset( ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ∩ roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ ∅.

Furthermore, we may also assume the following condition for each 0j10𝑗10\leq j\leq\ell-10 ≤ italic_j ≤ roman_ℓ - 1:

  • If 0ijsupp(qi)Ssubscript0𝑖𝑗suppsubscript𝑞𝑖𝑆\bigcup_{0\leq i\leq j}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})\not=S⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≠ italic_S, then 0ijsupp(qi)0ij+1supp(qi)subscript0𝑖𝑗suppsubscript𝑞𝑖subscript0𝑖𝑗1suppsubscript𝑞𝑖\bigcup_{0\leq i\leq j}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})\subsetneq\bigcup_{0\leq i% \leq j+1}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊊ ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

In particular, there exists 00superscript0\leq\ell^{\prime}\leq\ell0 ≤ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ roman_ℓ with the following conditions:

  • (q0,q1,,q)subscript𝑞0subscript𝑞1subscript𝑞superscript(q_{0},q_{1},\ldots,q_{\ell^{\prime}})( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a walkable sequence,

  • 0isupp(qi)=Ssubscript0𝑖superscriptsuppsubscript𝑞𝑖𝑆\bigcup_{0\leq i\leq\ell^{\prime}}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})=S⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_S, and

  • #S#(supp(q0))=#Slength(q0)1superscript#𝑆#suppsubscript𝑞0#𝑆lengthsubscript𝑞01\ell^{\prime}\leq\#S-\#(\operatorname{supp}(q_{0}))=\#S-\operatorname{length}(% q_{0})-1roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ # italic_S - # ( roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = # italic_S - roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 1.

Hence, by Lemma A.3(2)(3), there exists a path psuperscript𝑝p^{\prime}italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in ΓΓ\Gammaroman_Γ from x0subscript𝑥0x_{0}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

p¯=0iqi,supp(p¯)=0isupp(qi)=S.formulae-sequencedelimited-⟨⟩¯superscript𝑝subscript0𝑖superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖supp¯superscript𝑝subscript0𝑖superscriptsuppsubscript𝑞𝑖𝑆\displaystyle\langle\overline{p^{\prime}}\rangle=\sum_{0\leq i\leq\ell^{\prime% }}\langle q_{i}\rangle,\qquad\operatorname{supp}(\overline{p^{\prime}})=% \bigcup_{0\leq i\leq\ell^{\prime}}\operatorname{supp}(q_{i})=S.⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ , roman_supp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) = ⋃ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_supp ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_S .

Then, since

length(p)lengthsuperscript𝑝\displaystyle\operatorname{length}(p^{\prime})roman_length ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =length(q0)+1ilength(qi)absentlengthsubscript𝑞0subscript1𝑖superscriptlengthsubscript𝑞𝑖\displaystyle=\operatorname{length}(q_{0})+\sum_{1\leq i\leq\ell^{\prime}}% \operatorname{length}(q_{i})= roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
length(q0)+#Sabsentlengthsubscript𝑞0superscript#𝑆\displaystyle\leq\operatorname{length}(q_{0})+\ell^{\prime}\cdot\#S≤ roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ # italic_S
length(q0)+(#Slength(q0)1)#Sabsentlengthsubscript𝑞0#𝑆lengthsubscript𝑞01#𝑆\displaystyle\leq\operatorname{length}(q_{0})+(\#S-\operatorname{length}(q_{0}% )-1)\cdot\#S≤ roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ( # italic_S - roman_length ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 1 ) ⋅ # italic_S
(#S)2,absentsuperscript#𝑆2\displaystyle\leq(\#S)^{2},≤ ( # italic_S ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

we have

w(p)Wlength(p)W(#S)2.𝑤superscript𝑝𝑊lengthsuperscript𝑝𝑊superscript#𝑆2w(p^{\prime})\leq W\cdot\operatorname{length}(p^{\prime})\leq W\cdot(\#S)^{2}.italic_w ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_W ⋅ roman_length ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_W ⋅ ( # italic_S ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Therefore, we conclude (w(p),t(p))XS𝑤superscript𝑝𝑡superscript𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑆\bigl{(}w(p^{\prime}),t(p^{\prime})\bigr{)}\in X^{\prime}_{S}( italic_w ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since

iw(p)=iw(p)++1iw(qi),𝑖𝑤superscript𝑝𝑖𝑤𝑝subscriptsuperscript1𝑖𝑤subscript𝑞𝑖\displaystyle i-w(p^{\prime})=i-w(p)+\sum_{\ell^{\prime}+1\leq i\leq\ell}w(q_{% i}),italic_i - italic_w ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_i - italic_w ( italic_p ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
yt(p)=t(p)t(p)=+1iμ(qi),𝑦𝑡superscript𝑝𝑡𝑝𝑡superscript𝑝subscriptsuperscript1𝑖𝜇delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖\displaystyle y-t(p^{\prime})=t(p)-t(p^{\prime})=\sum_{\ell^{\prime}+1\leq i% \leq\ell}\mu(\langle q_{i}\rangle),italic_y - italic_t ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_t ( italic_p ) - italic_t ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) ,

we have

(i,y)(w(p),t(p))=(iw(p),0)++1i(w(qi),μ(qi))MS.𝑖𝑦𝑤superscript𝑝𝑡superscript𝑝𝑖𝑤𝑝0subscriptsuperscript1𝑖𝑤subscript𝑞𝑖𝜇delimited-⟨⟩subscript𝑞𝑖subscript𝑀𝑆(i,y)-\bigl{(}w(p^{\prime}),t(p^{\prime})\bigr{)}=\bigl{(}i-w(p),0\bigr{)}+% \sum_{\ell^{\prime}+1\leq i\leq\ell}\bigl{(}w(q_{i}),\mu(\langle q_{i}\rangle)% \bigr{)}\in M_{S}.( italic_i , italic_y ) - ( italic_w ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_t ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) = ( italic_i - italic_w ( italic_p ) , 0 ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ( italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_μ ( ⟨ italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ) ) ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Therefore, we have XS=MS+XSsubscript𝑋𝑆subscript𝑀𝑆subscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}=M_{S}+X^{\prime}_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since XSsubscriptsuperscript𝑋𝑆X^{\prime}_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finite set, we conclude that XSsubscript𝑋𝑆X_{S}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a finitely generated MSsubscript𝑀𝑆M_{S}italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module. ∎

References

{biblist*}