Modules, ideals and their Rees algebras Santiago Zarzuela University of Barcelona Conference on Commutative, Combinatorial and Computational Algebra In Honour to PilarPis´on-Casares Sevilla, February 11-16, 2008. Joint work with Ana L. Branco Correia, Lisbon 1
40
Embed
Modules, ideals and their Rees algebrasdepartamento.us.es/.../pilar/conferencias/zarzuela.pdf · 2008-02-19 · Modules, ideals and their Rees algebras Santiago Zarzuela University
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Modules, ideals and their
Rees algebras
Santiago Zarzuela
University of Barcelona
Conference on Commutative, Combinatorial
and Computational Algebra
In Honour to
Pilar Pison-Casares
Sevilla, February 11-16, 2008.
Joint work with Ana L. Branco Correia, Lisbon
1
1.- The Rees algebra of a module
• Let (R, m) be a commutative noetherian,
local ring of dimension d.
• G a finitely generated free R-module of rank
e > 0.
• E a submodule of G: E ⊂ G ' Re.
This embedding induces a natural morphism
of graded R-algebras between the symmetric
algebra of E and the symmetric algebra of
G, which is a polynomial ring over R in e
variables:
Φ : SymR(E) −→ SymR(G) ' R[t1, . . . , te]
2
Definition
The Rees algebra of E is the image of SymR(E)
by Φ:
R(E) := Φ(SymR(E))
Since Φ is a graded morphism we have that
R(E) =⊕
n≥0
Φn(SymnR(E))
Definition
The n-th Rees power of E is the homoge-
neous n-th component of the Rees algebra
of E
En := Φn(SymnR(E))
3
• R(E) =⊕
n≥0 En, and E = E1 generates
R(E) over R.
• En ⊂ Gn ' (R[t1, . . . , te])n ' R(n+e−1e−1 ).
Remark. This definition depends on the
chosen embedding of E into G:
Under slightly more general hypothesis, the
definition of the Rees algebra of a module
goes back to A. Micali, 1964 in the frame
of his study of the general properties of the
”universal algebras”.
A more recent discussion about ”what is the
Rees algebra of a module” has been done by
Eisenbud-Huneke-Ulrich, 2002.
4
Remark. If in addition E has rank, then
KerΦ = TR(Sym(E))
and so
R(E) ' SymR(E)/TR(SymR(E))
En ' SymnR(E)/TR(Symn
R(E))
So from now on we are going to assume
that
• E a finitely generated torsionfree R-module
having rank e > 0.
In this case, there exists an embedding
E ↪→ G ' Re
5
When G/E is of finite length the study of the
asymptotic behavior of the quotients Gn/En
is due to Buchsbaum-Rim, 1964:
They showed that for n À 0, the length
λR(Gn/En) assumes the values of a polyno-
mial in n of degree d + e− 1:
The Buchsbaum-Rim polynomial of E.
The normalized leading coefficient of this poly-
nomial is then known as the
Buchsbaum-Rim multiplicity of E: br (E).
6
2.- Integral closure and reductions of mod-
ules
Since R(E) ⊂ R[t1, . . . , te] we may consider
the integral closure R(E) of R(E) in R[t1, . . . , te]
which is a graded ring:
R(E) =⊕
n≥0
R(E)n
Definition
We call E := R(E)1 ⊂ G the integral closure
of E.
• Let U ⊂ E ⊂ G an R-submodule of E.
Definition
We say that U is a reduction of E if En+1 =
UEn for some n.
Equivalently, U is a reduction of E if, and
only if, U = E.
7
The theory of reductions and integral clo-
sure of modules was introduced by D. Rees
in 1987.
Later on, it was somehow rediscovered by T.
Gaffney in 1992 who used the Buchsbaum-
Rim multiplicity and the theory of integral
closure of modules in the study of isolated
complete intersection singularities (ICIS), ex-
tending B. Teissier’s work on Whitney’s reg-
ularity condition, 1973.
If U is a reduction of E and G/E is of finite
length then G/U is also of finite length and so
one can compute the Buchsbaum-Rim mul-
tiplicity of U .
One then can see that
br(U) = br(E)
8
The following result is the extension to mod-
ules of a well known criteria by D. Rees.
Theorem (Kirby-Rees 1994; Kleiman-Thorup,
1994)
Assume that R is quasi-unmixed. Let U ⊆E ⊆ G be such that G/U is of finite length.
Then, U is a reduction of E if, and only if,
br(U) = br(E).
This result may be extended by using the
notion of equimultiplicity.
9
• Let F(E) := R(E)/mR(E), the fiber cone
of E.
Definition
We call the dimension of the fiber cone of E
the analytic spread of E:
l(E) := dimF(E)
• Assume that in addition E has rank e.
Definition
We say that E is equimultiple if
l(E) = htFe(E) + e− 1
where Fe(E) is the e-th Fitting ideal of E.
10
With these definitions the following result
may be viewed as an extension to modules
of a result by E. Boger.
Theorem (D. Katz, 1995)
Let R be quasi-unmixed and
U ⊂ E ⊂ G ' Re
R-modules with rank e such that Fe(U) and
Fe(E) have the same radical. Assume that U
is equimultiple. The following conditions are
then equivalent:
(i) U is a reduction of E.
(ii) br(Up) = br(Ep) for all p ∈ MinFe(U).
11
3.- Minimal reductions
• Let U ⊂ E be a reduction of E.
Definition
The least integer r such that Er+1 = UEr
is called the reduction number of E with re-
spect to U , and it is denoted by rU(E).
Definition
U is said to be a minimal reduction of E if
it is minimal with respect to inclusion among
the reductions of E.
Minimal reductions always exist and they sat-
isfy good properties (similarly to the case of
ideals).
12
Proposition
Let U ⊂ E be a reduction of E. Then:
(a) There always exists V ⊂ U which is a
minimal reduction of E, and for any minimal
reduction V ⊂ U , µ(U) ≥ µ(V ) ≥ l(E).
(b) V ⊂ E is a reduction with µ(V ) = l(E) if,
and only if, any minimal system of generators
of V is a homogeneous system of parame-
ters of F(E) (after taking residue classes in
E/mE ⊂ F(E)). In this case, V is a minimal
reduction of E.
(c) If the residue field R/m is infinite and V ⊂E is a minimal reduction, then condition (b)
always holds, V n ∩ mEn = mV n for all n ≥ 0
and F(V ) ⊂ F(E) is a Noether normalization
13
Definition
The reduction number of E: r(E) is the min-
imum of rU(E) where U ranges over all min-
imal reductions of E.
- If E is a module of linear type, that is, if
R(E) = Sym(E) then r(E) = 0.
The folllowing lower and upper bounds for
l(E) were proven by Simis-Ulrich-Vasconcelos,
2003:
e ≤ l(E) ≤ d + e− 1
- l(E) = e if, and only if, any minimal reduc-
tion of E is a free R-module.
14
4.- Ideal modules
What can be said about SuppG/E?
We would like to realize this set as the variety
of some special ideal.
Observe first that any reduction U of E has
also rank e.
Proposition
Assume gradeG/E ≥ 2. Then
V (Fe(U)) = V (Fe(E)) = SuppG/E = SuppG/U
for any reduction U of E.
Definition
We call E an ideal module if gradeG/E ≥ 2
15
In fact, this is one of the various equivalent
conditions in Simis-Ulrich-Vasconcelos, 2003
to define ideal modules:
- E is an ideal module if E∗∗ is free.
We note that the definition of ideal module
is intrinsic, but the condition gradeG/E ≥ 2
is not and depends on the embedding of E
into G.
Ideal modules satisfy some good properties.
In particular the following lower bound for the
analytic spread:
Proposition
Let E be an ideal module. Then,
e + 1 ≤ htFe(E) + e− 1 ≤ l(E)
16
Modules with finite colength are ideal mod-
ules with maximal analytic spread.
Proposition
Assume that depthR ≥ 2. The following
conditions are then equivalent:
(i) dimG/E = 0;
(ii) E is free locally in the punctured spec-
trum and gradeG/E ≥ 2. In this case,
l(E) = d + e− 1 = htFe(E) + e− 1
For instance, if R is Cohen-Macaulay of di-
mension 2 any ideal module is locally free in
the punctured spectrum.
17
5.- Deviation and analytic deviation
Assume that E is an ideal module but not
free. We define:
- The deviation of E by
d(E) := µ(E)− e + 1− htFe(E)
- The analytic deviation of E by
ad(E) := l(E)− e + 1− htFe(E)
If E is an ideal module then
d(E) ≥ ad(E) ≥ 0
(These definitions slightly differ from similar
ones by Ulrich-Simis-Vasconcelos, 2003)
18
Definition
We say that E is
1. a complete intersection if d(E) = 0,
2. equimultiple if ad(E) = 0,
3. generically a complete intersection if
µ(Ep) = htFe(E) + e− 1
for all p ∈ MinR/Fe(E).
Complete intersection modules were defined
by Buchsbaum-Rim, 1962 in the case of finite
colength as parameter modules.
More in general, Katz-Naude, 1995 studied
them under the classical name of modules of
the principal class.
19
The following is a simple example of com-
plete intersection module of rank two and
not free:
• Let R = K[[x, y]].
• Let G = R2 = Re1 ⊕Re2.
Then,
E = 〈xe1, ye1 + xe2, ye2〉 ⊂ G
is a complete intersection module of rank 2.
In this case,
F2(E) = (0 :R G/E) = (x, y)2
20
There is a list of basic properties satisfied by
complete intersection and equimultiple mod-
ules. For instance,
(1) If E is a complete intersection then E is
equimultiple and generically a complete in-
tersection.
(2) If R/m is infinite, then E is equimultiple
if, and only if, every minimal reduction U of
E is a a complete intersection.
Now we may extend to modules some criteria
for an equimultiple module to be a complete
intersection. The first one extends a simi-
lar result for ideals by Eisenbud-Herrmann-
Vogel, 1977.
21
Theorem
Let R be a Cohen-Macaulay ring and E a
non-free ideal module having rank e > 0.
Suppose that E is generically a complete in-
tersection. Then E is a complete intersection
if and only if E is equimultiple.
We also have the following version of the fa-
mous result by A. Micali, 1964 who proved
that a local ring (R, m) is regular if and only
if S(m) is a domain.
Theorem
Let R be a Noetherian local ring and let E
be an ideal module. Then
a) E is a complete intersection if and only
if E is equimultiple and of linear type.
b) If S(E) is a domain then E is a complete
intersection if and only if E is equimultiple.
22
6.- Some examples with small reduction
number
Rees algebras of modules recover the so called
multi-Rees algebras.
Let I1, . . . , Ie be a family of ideals of R. The
multi-Rees algebra of I1, . . . , Ie is the graded
ring
R(I1, . . . , Ie) := R[I1t1, . . . , Iete]
Let E := I1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ie ⊂ G = Re. Then,
R(E) ' R(I1, . . . , Ie)
Multi-Rees algebras have been successfully
used in connection with the theory of mixed
multiplicities: J. Verma, 1991... or to study
the arithmetical properties of the blow up
rings of powers of ideals: Herrmann-Ribbe-
Hyry-Tang, 1997...
23
First we observe that:
Proposition
Let E = I1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ie with Ii ⊂ R ideals satis-
fying grade Ii ≥ 2. Then E is not a complete
intersection.
But:
Proposition
Assume R to be Cohen-Macaulay with in-
finite residue field. Let I be an equimulti-
ple ideal with ht I = 2 and r(I) ≤ 1. Write
E = I ⊕ · · · ⊕ I = I⊕e, e ≥ 2. Then,
(i) r(E) = 1, l(E) = e + 1.
(ii) E is equimultiple.
24
We may get examples of generically a com-
plete intersection modules in the following
way:
Proposition
Assume R to be Cohen-Macaulay with infi-
nite residue field and d ≥ 3. Let p1, . . . , pe be
pairwise distinct prime ideals which are per-
fect of grade 2. Write E = p1⊕· · ·⊕pe, e ≥ 2.
Then,
(1) E is generically a complete intersection.
(2) E is not equimultiple.
(3) l(E) ≥ e + 2, ad(E) ≥ 1 with equalities if
d = 3.
(4) If d = 3, e = 2 and p1, p2 are complete
intersection then r(E) = 0
25
We note that the direct sum of equimulti-
ple (even complete intersection) ideals is not
necessarily an equimultiple module, as the
following easy example shows:
Example
Let R = k[[X1, X2, X3]] with k an infinite field
and write E = (X1, X2)⊕ (X1, X3). Then,
- E is generically a complete intersection;
- l(E) = 4;
- ad(E) = 1;
- r(E) = 0.
26
7.- Arithemtical conditions
The following result is an extension to mod-
ules of the well known Burch’s inequality. It
holds more in general (F. Hayasaka, 2007 for
instance) but we only state for ideal modules:
Theorem
Let E ( G ' Re be an ideal module. Then,
l(E) ≤ d + e− 1− inf depthGn/En
In addition, equality holds if R(E) is Cohen-
Macaulay.
As a consequence, we have the following arith-
metical characterization for the equimultiplic-
ity of an ideal module, when its Rees algebra
is Cohen-Macaulay.
27
Proposition
Assume that R is Cohen-Macaulay and let
E ⊂ G ' Re be an ideal module with rank
e, but not free. If R(E) is Cohen-Macaulay
then the following are all equivalent:
(i) E is equimultiple;
(ii) depthGn/En = d− htFe(E) for all n > 0;
(iii) depthGn/En = d− htFe(E) for infinitely
many n.
Now, combining this with the previous char-
acterization of the complete intersection prop-
erty for equimultiple ideal modules we get the
following:
28
Proposition
Assume that R is Cohen-Macaulay and let
E ⊂ G ' Re be an ideal module with rank
e, but not free. Assume E is generically a
complete intersection. Then, the following
are equivalent:
(i) E is a complete intersection;
(ii) Gn/En are Cohen-Macaulay for all n > 0;
(iii) Gn/En are Cohen-Macaulay for infinitely
many n.
This is a version for ideal modules of an old
result by Cowsik-Nori, 1976 later on refined
by M. Brodmann, 1979.
(i) ⇒ (ii) was proven by Katz-Kodiyalam,
1997.
29
8.- The generic Bourbaki ideal of a mod-
ule
In order to get an ideal providing information
about the Rees algebra of E, Simis-Ulrich-
Vasconcelos, 2003 introduced the
- generic Bourbaki ideal of a module.
In general, an exact sequence of the form
0 → F → E → I → 0
where F is a free R-module and I is an R-
ideal is called a Bourbaki sequence. I is then
a Bourbaki ideal of E.
Roughly speaking, a generic Bourbaki ideal I
of E is a Bourbaki ideal of E, after a special
Nagata extension R′′ of R.
30
Under suitable hypothesis, the Rees algebra
of E is a isomorphic to the Rees algebra of I
modulo a regular sequence of homogeneous
elements of degree 1.
The construction is as follows:
Assume e ≥ 2 and let U =∑n
i=1 Rai be a
submodule of E such that E/U is a torsion
module (which holds if U is a reduction of
E). Further, let
Z = {zij | 1 ≤ i ≤ n,1 ≤ j ≤ e− 1}be a set of n× (e−1) indeterminates over R.
We fix the notation
R′ = R[Z] , R′′ = R′mR′ = R(Z) ,
U ′ = U ⊗R′ , E′ = E ⊗R′
U ′′ = U ⊗R′′ , E′′ = E ⊗R′′ .
31
Now, take the elements
xj =n∑
i=1
zijai ∈ U ′ ⊂ E′
and let
F =e−1∑
j=1
R′′xj.
Proposition (Simis-Ulrich-Vasconcelos, 2003)
F ⊂ E′′ is a free module over R′′ of rank e-1.
Consider now the exact sequence of R′′-modules
0 → F → E′′ → E′′/F → 0
If E′′/F is torsionfree then it is isomorphic to
an ideal of R′′:
IU(E)
that we call a generic Bourbaki ideal of E
with respect to U .
32
The above happens whenever
gradeFe(E) ≥ 2
in particular when E is an ideal module.
In this case, IU(E) may also be chosen with
grade IU(E) ≥ 2
Proposition
Assume that IU(E) is a generic Bourbaki ideal
of E with respect to U . Then:
a) l(IU(E)) = l(E)− e + 1.
b) If k is infinite, r(IU(E)) ≤ r(E).
c) µ(IU(E)) = µ(E)− e + 1.
33
Proposition
Furthermore to the above conditions, assume
that
(1) gradeR(E)+ = e or
(2) R(IU(E)) satisfies (S2).
Then, there exists a family of elements
x = x1, . . . , xe−1
such that x is regular sequence in R(E′′) and
R(IU(E)) ' R(E′′)/(x)
Moreover, r(IU(E)) ≥ r(E) and if U = E,
r(IU(E)) = r(E).
(In fact, these elements are homogeneous of
degree 1 and a basis of F ⊂ E′′.)
34
9.- Generic Bourbaki ideals as Fitting ide-
als
Sometimes, generic Bourbaki ideals can be
explicitly computed as a Fitting ideal.
The procedure is the following:
• Let {x1, . . . , xn} be a generating set of E′′containing the basis {x1, . . . , xe−1} of F .