6
$\begingroup$

First we give some definitions from Section 3 of the paper Monomials, Binomials, and Riemann-Roch by Manjunath and Sturmfels and then we restate a claim from that paper offered without proof. Finally we provide an example that seems to contradict that claim. The question is

Question: Is the example given below a counterexample to the claim? And if not, why not?

Definitions

Fix an Artinian monomial ideal $I$ of a polynomial ring $K[\mathbf{x}] = K[x_1, \dots, x_n]$. A monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}}$ is a socle monomial of $I$ if $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \notin I$ and $x_i\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \in I$ for all $i$. Let $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$ be the set of all socle monomials of $I$.

Def: $I$ is reflection invariant if there is a canonical monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}$ such that the map that sends a monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}}$ is an involution on $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$.

Following these definitions the authors note the following.

The Claim

Claim: $I$ is reflection invariant with canonical monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}$ if and only if the monomial ideal generated by $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$ equals the Alexander dual $I^{[\mathbf{K} + \mathbf{e}]}$ where $\mathbf{e} = (1,1,\dots, 1)$.

The (Counter?) Example

Let $I = \langle a^4,~ab^2,~b^3,~a^3c,~abc,~c^3 \rangle \subset K[a,b,c]$ and let $\mathbf{K} = (3,2,2)$. Then

$$\mathrm{MonSoc}(I) = \left\{a^{3}b,~a^{2}c^{2},~b^{2}c^{2}\right\}.$$

By (the constructive proof of) Proposition 5.2 in this paper the ideal $J = \langle a^4, a^2b, b^3, ac, b^2c, c^3 \rangle$ is the unique Artinian ideal with

$$\mathrm{MonSoc}(J) = \left\{\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \mid \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \in \mathrm{MonSoc}(I)\right\}.$$

Moreover, the same algorithm can be used to show that $I$ is the unique Artinian ideal with

$$\mathrm{MonSoc}(I) = \left\{\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{c}} \mid \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{c}} \in \mathrm{MonSoc}(J)\right\}.$$

In particular, the map that sends a monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}}$ is an involution on $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$, so $I$ is reflection-invariant with canonical monomial $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}$. We now get a contradiction to the claim above by computing the Alexander dual (in Macaulay2, for example) and noting that the minimal generators of $I^{[(4,3,3)]}$ are $\{a^4bc,~a^2b^3c,~ab^2c^3\} \neq \mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$.

Again, the question is

Question: Is the example just given a counterexample to the above claim? And if not, why not?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the generators of Alexander dual $I^{[4,3,3]}$ are precisely the monomials $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K} + \mathbf{1}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}}$ for $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \in \mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$. This is similar to Proposition 1 on page 5 of this paper where the facet ideal of a matroid is expressed as the Stanley-Reisner ideal of the Alexander dual of the (independence complex) of the dual matroid. $\endgroup$
    – Aaron Dall
    Oct 21, 2018 at 15:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

Note: The following is the result of an email exchange with one of the coauthors of the paper cited in the OP.

In the definition of a reflection-invariant monomial ideal the requirement that the map $\phi: \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{c}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}}/\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{c}}$ be an involution on $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$ is not the usual definition of involution, i.e., that the map is its own inverse. Instead, the map $\phi$ is required to be both an involution on and a permutation of $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$. This additional requirement is not mentioned in the paper, though upon closer reading, it is used in a number of the proofs.

As for the example in the OP, the map $\phi$ is clearly not a permutation of $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$. Moreover, one can show that $I$ is not reflection-invariant for any choice of $\mathbf{K}$. So the ideal $I$ is not reflection-invariant. Also, with this new restriction on permissible involutions it is easy to prove the note following the definition of reflection invariance in the paper in question.

Edit: Thanks to @benblumsmith's comment the heart of the matter is now clear. The map that sends $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{b}} \mapsto \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{K}-\mathbf{b}}$ has domain and codomain equal to $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$ (as opposed to the set of all monomials in the quotient ring $K[\mathbf{x}]/\left\langle x_1^{K_1+1}, \dots, x_n^{K_n+1}\right\rangle$). So it's clear that the example in the OP is not a counterexample.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do not understand why the definition of involution as "a map that is its own inverse" does not already imply that the map is a permutation of $\operatorname{MonSoc}(I)$. Surely in order to be its own inverse a map must have identical domain and codomain? Otherwise, the inverse does not even have the same domain, so how could it be the same map? $\endgroup$
    – benblumsmith
    Oct 24, 2018 at 2:31
  • $\begingroup$ @benblumsmith: Your comment clarifies my confusion even further. The domain and codomain of the map $\phi$ aren't given. If one assumes that both are equal to $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$ (which is what the authors intended and the right thing to do), then the map must be a permutation. I, however, took the domain and codomain to be the set of all monomials and the statement "an involution of $\mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$" to mean $\phi (\phi (\mathrm{MonSoc}(I))) = \mathrm{MonSoc}(I)$. Then $\phi$ need not take socle monomials to socle monomials. But this (my) interpretation is not the intended one. $\endgroup$
    – Aaron Dall
    Oct 24, 2018 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ I see. (I think you must have meant you took the domain and codomain as the set of all Laurent monomials? B/c $\phi$ does not send monomials to monomials in general.) My sense of usage is that "$\phi$ is an involution of/on $X$" always implies that $\phi:X\to X$. In the present case, $\phi$ is an involution on the set $L$ of all Laurent monomials; but this means it's automatic that $\phi^2(X)=X$ (and $\phi^2|_X = 1_X$) for any subset $X$ of $L$. Thus "$\phi$ is an involution on (specific) $X$" isn't actually a statement about $X$ unless you also take it to mean that $\phi$ maps $X$ to $X$. $\endgroup$
    – benblumsmith
    Oct 25, 2018 at 12:26
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly @benblumsmith. If you want to write up your points as a new answer I'll happily accept/upvote it. Otherwise, I'll write it up and reference your helpful comments. $\endgroup$
    – Aaron Dall
    Oct 25, 2018 at 13:07

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.