Let $A$ be a commutative ring. Let $f\in A\setminus\{0\}$ and $I\subseteq A$ any ideal. I would like to define the multiplicity of $f$ at $I$ as $$\mu_f(I):= \max\{\, d\ge 0 \mid f\in I^d\,\},$$ where $I^0:= A$. In the case where $A$ is Noetherian and either local or an integral domain, the Krull Intersection Theorem (Eisenbud, Corollary 5.4) implies that $\mu_f(I)$ is well-defined. Main scenario: $A$ is the local ring of a locally Noetherian scheme $X$ at some point $P$, $I$ is the corresponding maximal ideal and $f$ is locally representing a Cartier divisor on $X$.

I have only seen this in Hartshorne, Page 388, for surfaces, but I do not see why the definition should be limited to surfaces. In general, I only know the following definition of geometric multiplicity, for locally Noetherian schemes $X$ and points $P\in X$ of codimension one: $$\bar\mu_f(P):=\mathrm{length}_{\mathcal O_{X,P}}(\mathcal O_{X,P}/(f))$$ Does this coincide with the above definition? If yes, why is $\bar\mu$ so prominent? After all, $\mu$ is more general.

  • $\begingroup$ My guess is that $\mu_f$ misbehaves, but I don't know enough to say how it misbehaves. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Apr 22 '13 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yea, that was exactly my suspicion. I would like to know how (or rather when) it misbehaves, though - most of the time I am dealing with very forgiving kinds of schemes anyway. $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 22 '13 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ With the notation in the definition of $\overline{\mu}$, assume $P$ is a singular point. Then in general there is an $f\in\mathcal{O}_{X,P}$ such that $\mu_f(I)=1$, but none such that $\overline{\mu}_f(I)=1$. $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Apr 23 '13 at 15:41

In addition to two good answers, maybe one case the question has a positive answer is when $(R,m)$ is a regular local ring and $f$ is a nonzero element. For a Noetherian local ring $A$ and ideal $I$ which is primary to the maximal ideal, let $e(I, A)$ denote the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity of $A$ with respect $I$. Then $e(m/(f),R/(f)) = \hbox{ord} (f) e(m, R) = \hbox{ord} (f)$ where $\hbox{ord} (f) = \sup \{ i \mid f \in m^i \}$. Here $e(m, R) = 1$ since $R$ is a regular local ring.

The special case is when the dimension of a ring (not necessarily regular) $R$ is $1$ and $f$ is a non zero-divisor (but not a unit) of $R$. Assume that $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay (domain or reduced implies Cohen-Macaulyness in dim $1$). Then we have that length $(R/(f)) = e((f), R) \ge \hbox{ord} (f) e(m,R)$ where the last inequality follows from Theorem 14.10 in Matsumura's commutative ring theory. A positive answer to your question implies an equality in the formula and $e(m,R) = 1$. The latter condition is equivalent to $R$ being regular if $R$ is unmixed. Note that the associated graded ring is a polynomial ring over the residue field if a ring is regular. In particular, it is a domain. I believe that once $R$ is a regular local ring, then the equality follows.

I believe in Hartshorne's algebraic geometry book, a surface is a nonsingular (locally regular) projective surface over an algebraically closed field. This probably is a reason why it works well. I hope someone can add some geometric point of view.

  • $\begingroup$ I suppose $\mathrm{ord}(f)=\sup\{ i\mid f\in m^i \}$, yes? So basically, I can use my definition in the case where $X$ is a regular scheme, which might just be good enough for me. +1 and thanks! $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 23 '13 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ The definition of ord is what I used. It is in the second last sentence of the first paragraph. One good fact that might help you is that for a local ring $(R,m)$, $e(m,R) = e(gr_m(R)_+, gr_m(R))$ where $gr_m(R)_+ = \oplus_{i \ge 1} [gr_m(R)]_i$. Maybe it is worth looking at the definition of the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity in commutative algebra, the degree in algebraic geometry. Also, the associativity formula in commutative algebra can give a connection between geometric multiplicity in algebraic geometry. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Apr 23 '13 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ Your definition of $\mathrm{ord}(f)$ confuses me because for one thing, it does not depend on $f$ at all and second, $I\in m^i$ looks a lot like you ment to write $f\in m^i$. $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 23 '13 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about that. You are absolutely correct. Let me edit that part. One example is when $R = \mathbb{C}[[x]]$. For $f \in R$ One can not talk about a the highest degree in general, but there is well defined lowest degree. This is the order of $f$. Or where the Taylor series of $f$ at $0$ starts. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Apr 23 '13 at 21:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a bunch. I accepted this answer because it helps me most for what I am doing, but thanks to Filippo Edoardo and Will Savin for the very helpful explanations. $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 24 '13 at 13:00

The definitions do not coincide for $P$ a cusp. That is, consider the ring $k[t^2,t^3]$ and $I=(t^2, t^3)$. Then if $f=t^4$ the length is $3$ but the power is true. It agrees when the local ring is a DVR.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ a true two. ${}{}$ $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 22 '13 at 22:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the length is $4$ since $t^5 \notin (t^4)$. As mentioned in Filippo Alberto Edoardo's answer the failure might be coming from the point that the associated graded ring (tangent cone) is not a domain. In this example the associated graded ring is isomorphic to $k[X,Y]/(X^2)$ which is not a domain. Theorem 14.8 in Matsumura's book may give you some algebraic hint on the question and example. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Apr 23 '13 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ I meant to say Theorem 14.10 which is essentially a corollary of Theorem 14.9. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Apr 23 '13 at 5:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not that it really matters, but I thought $3$ sounded reasonable: We have the ring $k[t^2,t^3]/(t^4)=k[x,y]/(x^2,x^3-y^2)$ where $x=t^2$, $y=t^3$ and $xy=t^5$. One more question, though: You say that the Definitions agree when the local ring is a DVR: Do you have a reference? $\endgroup$ – Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 23 '13 at 7:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The ring $k[x,y] /(x^2, x^3-y^2)$ is isomorphic to $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$. The monomials of $k[x,y]$ that are not zero in this rings are $1,x,y,xy$. As you mentioned $xy <-> t^5$ is not zero. $\endgroup$ – Youngsu Apr 23 '13 at 18:13

One possible issue is that your multiplicity function is not in general a valuation. Indeed, for a noetherian ring $A$ and an ideal $I$ with respect to which $A$ is separated, $\mu_I$ is a discrete valuation of rank one if and only if the associated graded ring $\mathrm{gr}_I(A)$ is an integral domain. May be, one reason why the function becomes less interesting if this is not the case is that often one would like to understand the localization $A_I$ as the valuation ring with respect to $\mu_I$ (at least if $I$ is prime), but this is not always possible: given a regular ring $A$ and a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ in it, your function $\mu_\mathfrak{m}$ is a discrete valuation of rank 1 whenever $\mathfrak{m}\neq 0$ but if you drop these hypothesis this fails (as can be seen in Will Sawin's answer): moreover, the valuation ring is described explicitly as $A[\mathfrak{m}/x]_{(x)}$ for any $x\in\mathfrak{m}\setminus\mathfrak{m}^2$.

I suggest giving a look at chapter 6.7 of I. Swanson, C. Huneke Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings and Modules, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Series 336, which can be found here . The above results are Theorems 6.7.8 and 6.7.9, respectively.


Your Answer

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

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