4
$\begingroup$

Given a specific ring $R$ (eg, $R=k[x_{1}, \cdots, x_{n}]/I)$ is there a (simple) way to determine whether or not $R$ satisfies Serre's condition $S_{n}$? In particular, is there a way to do this in Macaulay2?

($R$ satisfies $S_{n}$ if $depth R_{p} \geq \min(height(p), n)$ for all $p \in Spec R$.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ So wait, can we assume that R is finitely presented (over a base ring with known properties) or no? (If we can't assume that, I am very doubtful that you'll be able to compute all that much with software). $\endgroup$ Aug 27, 2010 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ sure, we can assume that R is finitely presented. Even if R is a quotient of a polynomial ring, I'm not sure how to go about determining if it's $S_{n}$. $\endgroup$
    – LAM
    Aug 28, 2010 at 6:10

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

I think there is a neat answer to this question.

Lemma: Let $S$ be regular local of dimension $d$, $M$ a f.g $S$-module. Then: $$\text{depth}(M)\geq n \Longleftrightarrow \text{Ext}^i(M,S)=0\ \text{for} \ i>d-n$$

Proof: LHS is equivalent to $e= \text{pd}_SM \leq d-n$. By using a minimal free resolution of $M$ to compute Ext, one sees that $\text{Ext}^i(M,S)$ is not $0$ for $i=e$ (Nakayama's lemma) and $0$ for $i>e$.

Now let $A=k[x_1,\cdots,x_d]$, $R=A/I$. Here is the main:

Claim: $R\ \text{is}\ (S_n) \Longleftrightarrow \text{dim}(\text{Ext}_A^i(R,A))\leq d-n-i \ \forall i>d- \text{dim}(R)$

(of course, we only need to check for values of $i$ up to $d$, as $A$ has finite global dimension $d$).

Proof: By Lemma one needs to check that for all $p\in \text{Spec} \ A$: $$\text{Ext}_{A_p}^i(M_p,A_p)=0\ \text{for} \ i>\text{dim}(A_p) -\min\{n,\text{\dim}(R_p)\}=\max\{\text{dim}(A_p)-n,\text{dim}(A_p)-\text{dim}(R_p)\}$$

This condition is equivalent to the fact that for all $i>0$ and each $p$ in the support of $\text{Ext}_A^i(R,A)$ we must have $i\leq \max\{\text{dim}(A_p)-n,d-\text{dim}(R)\}$. Note if $i < d-\text{dim}(R)$, $\text{Ext}^i(R,A)=0$, so the claim follows.

You can compute both Ext and dimension with Macaulay 2.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I am unclear about several things: (1) What are $M$ and $S$ in the second part? (2) How do you pass between the Ext's of $A$-modules and $R$-modules? (3) Where does the dimension in the claim come from? $\endgroup$ Aug 28, 2010 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Victor: In the second part, applying Lemma for $M=M_p$,$S=A_p$ and $n=\min\{n,ht(p)\}$. For (3), see my next to last sentence. $\endgroup$ Aug 28, 2010 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I see, I may messed up something about the dimensions. $\endgroup$ Aug 28, 2010 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ The claim is correct whenever R is equidimensional. $\endgroup$ Oct 7, 2022 at 21:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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