2
$\begingroup$

Let $S = k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a field $k$ of characteristic zero. Let $M$ be a finitely generated graded $S$-module. The regularity of the Hilbert function $H(n,M)$ of $M$ is the smallest degree $r(M)$ such that for any $n \ge r(M)$ the Hilbert function agrees with the Hilbert polynomial $P_M(n)$. On the other hand, the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity $reg(M)$ is the largest $i+j$ such that $(H_m^i(M))_j \neq 0$, where $H_m^i(M)$ is the $i$th graded local cohomology of $M$. By using Serre's formula \begin{align} H(n,M) - P(n,M) = \sum_{i= depth(M)}^{dim(M)} (-1)^i dim_k (H_m^i(M))_n, \end{align} we can show that $r(M) \le reg(M)-depth(M)+1$; just plug the upper bound $reg(M)-depth(M)+1$ into the formula and notice that the right hand side is zero.

Question: How can we show that $reg(M)-dim(M)+1 \le r(M)$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just out of curiosity: why do you write 'How can we show that' instead of 'Is it true that'? Did you already have a reason to believe it should be true? $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Mar 27 '17 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ @R.vanDobbendeBruyn: Yes, i had seen it quoted without proof. I will study your proof soon ;) $\endgroup$ – Manos Mar 27 '17 at 12:52
3
$\begingroup$

Notation. Let $k$ be a field, and let $R = k[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$, with maximal homogeneous ideal $\mathfrak m = (x_1,\ldots,x_d)$. Let $M$ be a finitely generated homogeneous $R$-module.

If $r(M)$ is the smallest number such that $H(n,M) = P_M(n)$ for all $n \geq r(M)$, then in fact the result is false, as shown by the following example. However, we will show below that the result is trivially true if we redefine $r(M)$; see the remark below.

Example. Let $d = 1$, and consider the module $M = R \oplus k(1) \oplus \ldots \oplus k(a)$ for some $a \in \mathbb Z_{> 0}$. Here, $k(n)$ is nonzero only in degree $-n$. Thus, $$H(n,M) = \dim M_n = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}1 & n \geq -a,\\ 0 & n<-a. \end{array}\right.$$ Thus, $P_M(n) = 1$ and $r(M) = -a$. We have an exact sequence $$0 \to \Gamma_{\mathfrak m}(M) \to M \to \bigoplus_{n \in \mathbb Z} H^0(\mathbb P^0, \tilde{M}(n)) \to H^1_{\mathfrak m}(M) \to 0;\label{Seq 1}\tag{1}$$ see Eidenbud's Commutative Algebra, Theorem A4.1. Thus, we compute \begin{align*} \Gamma_{\mathfrak m}(M) &= k(1) \oplus \ldots \oplus k(a),\\ H^1_{\mathfrak m}(M) &= \bigoplus_{d > 0} k(d). \end{align*} Thus, $\operatorname{reg}(M) = 0$, coming from $H^1_{\mathfrak m}(M)_{-1} \neq 0$. Since $a$ is arbitrary, we see that there can be no lower bound on $r(M)$ in terms of $\operatorname{reg}(M)$ and $\dim\operatorname{Supp}(M)$.

This example is not limited to $d = 1$: in any odd dimension one can add finite length modules to $M = R$ to extend the range where the Hilbert function equals the Hilbert polynomial. We need odd dimension because by Serre's formula and since $\operatorname{depth}(M) = \dim\operatorname{Supp}(M) = d$ (for $M = R$), the difference $H(n,M) - P_M(n)$ is positive if $d$ is even, so we cannot add something to $H(n,M)$ to make them equal in a larger range (note that finite length stuff does not affect $P_M(n)$).

Remark. If we let $r'(M)$ be the smallest integer such that $H^i_\mathfrak m(M)_n = 0$ for all $n \geq r'(M)$, then Serre's formula implies $r(M) \leq r'(M)$, and the above example shows that the difference can be arbitrarily large. Moreover, with this new definition, the inequalities $$\operatorname{reg}(M) - \dim\operatorname{Supp}(M) + 1 \leq r'(M) \leq \operatorname{reg}(M) - \operatorname{depth}(M) + 1$$ become obvious: if $H^i_\mathfrak m(M)_j \neq 0$, then $\operatorname{depth}(M) \leq i \leq \dim\operatorname{Supp}(M)$, so $$i+j - \dim\operatorname{Supp}(M) \leq j \leq i+j - \operatorname{depth}(M).\label{Eq 2}\tag{2}$$ The result follows from taking the supremum of (\ref{Eq 2}) over all $i,j$ for which $H^i_\mathfrak m(M)_j \neq 0$. (The $+1$ comes from the fact that $r'(M)$ is defined in terms of vanishing rather than nonvanishing.) $\square$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi R. There is a serious issue in the induction step: you are assuming that the irrelevant ideal is not an associated prime, thus there exists a linear form $f$ that is $M$-regular. However, it may so be the case that $\dim M>0$ but $depth(M)=0$, even when $ann(M)$ is proper ideal of the irrelevant ideal. I have tried fixing this, e.g., by replacing $M$ with $M/N$, where $N$ is the maximal submodule of $M$ of finite length, but now it is not clear how to get the inquality on $M$ from that of $M/N$. Alternatively we may try doing induction on $depth(M)$, but the base case... $\endgroup$ – Manos Apr 1 '17 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ ...$depth(M)=0$ seems somewhat hard. So the proof does not seem as easy after all. Let me know what you think... $\endgroup$ – Manos Apr 1 '17 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Manos: thanks for pointing that out. I actually found a counterexample for the version as stated, but I managed to pull the French trick of redefining my objects to make the statement trivial. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Apr 2 '17 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting. I like $R=k[x], \, M = R(-\alpha) \oplus R/(x^{\alpha})$ better as a counterexample (which is definitely inspired by your counterexample). Can you please clean up your answer a little bit so that i can accept it? If you don't mind just include only the necessary information about the counterexample (also $depth(M)$ is not in general equal to $\dim Supp(M)$, perhaps you mean $\dim (M)$; anyway the discussion in the remark seems more appropriately placed in a comment). $\endgroup$ – Manos Apr 2 '17 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Manos: I've cleaned it up a bit, but left enough information to keep the answer accessible to non-experts (such as myself). Also, I don't know what you mean by $\dim(M)$ if not $\dim\operatorname{Supp}(M)$, but the only place where I asserted equality was for the specific module $M = R$. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Apr 3 '17 at 0:14

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.