Little dimension and the improved new intersection theorem
Tsutomu Nakamura, Ryo Takahashi, Siamak Yassemi

TL;DR
This paper introduces the little dimension, a new invariant for modules over commutative noetherian local rings, and uses it to extend the improved new intersection theorem, advancing understanding in commutative algebra.
Contribution
The paper defines the little dimension and applies it to generalize the improved new intersection theorem in commutative algebra.
Findings
Introduction of the little dimension invariant.
Extension of the improved new intersection theorem.
Potential applications to module theory.
Abstract
Let be a commutative noetherian local ring. We define a new invariant for -modules which we call the little dimension. Using it, we extend the improved new intersection theorem.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models · Commutative Algebra and Its Applications · Rings, Modules, and Algebras
Little dimension and the improved new intersection theorem
Tsutomu Nakamura
Dipartimento di Informatica - Settore di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Verona, Strada le Grazie 15 - Ca’ Vignal, I-37134 Verona, Italy
,
Ryo Takahashi
Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8602, Japan/Department of Mathematics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, USA
[email protected] https://www.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp/ takahashi/ and
Siamak Yassemi
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, College of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract.
Let be a commutative noetherian local ring. We define a new invariant for -modules which we call the little dimension. Using it, we extend the improved new intersection theorem.
Key words and phrases:
little dimension, improved new intersection theorem, big Cohen–Macaulay module
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
13C15, 13D22
Ryo Takahashi was partly supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 16K05098 and JSPS Fund for the Promotion of Joint International Research 16KK0099
1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, we assume that is a commutative noetherian local ring with maximal ideal and residue field . An -module is called a balanced big Cohen–Macaulay module if and any system of parameters of is a regular sequence on ; see [2, §8.5]. By a recent work of André [1] (see also [9]), any commutative noetherian local ring admits a balanced big Cohen–Macaulay module, and thus the following improved new intersection theorem holds (see [10, p.509] and [11, p.153]).
Theorem 1.1** (André [1], Evans–Griffith [4]).**
Let be a complex of free -modules of finite rank. Assume that
- (1)
* has finite length for all , and*
- (2)
there is an element such that has finite length.
Then .
In this paper, we extend this theorem by using a new invariant for modules; we define the little dimension of an -module as
[TABLE]
Note that we have if , and otherwise.
To state our main theorem, we introduce some notation. Let be a complex of -modules. The supremum, infimum and amplitude of are defined by
[TABLE]
The support of an -module , denoted by , is defined as the set of prime ideals of with . The following theorem is the main result of this paper.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let be a complex of flat -modules such that has nontrivial homology. Suppose that either
- (a)
* for some balanced big Cohen–Macaulay module , or*
- (b)
* for all .*
Then there is an inequality
[TABLE]
Under the assumption of Theorem 1.1, one has and , and the condition (b) in Theorem 1.2 is satisfied. Thus Theorem 1.2 extends Theorem 1.1 based on the existence of balanced big Cohen–Macaulay modules. We also emphasize that the main theorem can treat complexes of infinitely generated flat -modules.
In Section 2, we prove our main Theorem 1.2. In Section 3, we discuss the relationship between little dimensions and Cohen–Macaulay modules. Section 4 contains some examples concerning little dimensions. We also observe that the inequality of Theorem 1.2 can be an equality or a strict inequality.
2. Proof of the main theorem
Recall that the (Krull) dimension of an -module , denoted by , is defined as the supremum of the lengths of chains of prime ideals in . Also, the depth of an -complex is defined by
[TABLE]
where is a system of generators of , and stands for the Koszul complex on ; we refer the reader to [6, Theorem I] for details. We give a couple of properties of the little dimension.
Proposition 2.1**.**
For each -module satisfying one has .
Proof.
The second inequality is clear, which already appeared in the previous section. To show the first one, choose an element with . Then there is an ideal of such that and . Thus the first inequality follows from [12, Lemma 3.3]. ∎
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let and be -modules such that and .
- (1)
Let and . Then . In particular, . 2. (2)
There is an inequality .
Proof.
(1) The elements and are nonzero, and so is .
(2) Choose elements and such that and . Using (1), we have , and get the inequality . It remains to note that holds. ∎
Denote by the unbounded derived category of all -modules. For an -complex we denote by the restricted Tor-dimension, which is by definition the supremum of where runs through the flat -modules. Now we can prove our main theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Let be a balanced big Cohen–Macaulay -module. If , then , and there is nothing to prove. Hence, we assume . It follows from Lemma 2.2(1) that . In particular, we have . By the fact that is big Cohen–Macaulay and [12, Theorem 2.1], we get . Thus, it suffices to show .
(a) As , it hold that by assumption. Hence in . We have by Lemma 2.2(1). Therefore by Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.2(2). Now the inequality follows.
(b) Set . If , then since , and so we can apply (a) to deduce the assertion. Hence, we assume .
Let us show that for all . Fix a nonmaximal prime ideal of . It follows from [3, Proposition (5.3.4) and Theorems (5.3.6), (5.3.8)] that
[TABLE]
If , then we see from [5, Remark 2.9] and [14, Theorems (3.2) and (3.3)] that . Hence . If , then ; see [5, Proposition 2.8]. In other words, . Thus, the last term of ( ‣ 2) is nonpositive, which implies . As by assumption, we obtain , which shows for all . Consequently, for all , as required.
By the proof of [8, Chapter I, Lemma 4.6(3)], we get an injective resolution of the -complex as , and
[TABLE]
Since , we observe that , which implies . Consequently, we get . ∎
Remark 2.3**.**
We may wonder whether or not in Theorem 1.2 the condition (b) implies the condition (a). This implication does not necessarily hold even for a bounded complex of free modules of finite rank. Indeed, suppose that is not regular. Take a minimal system of generators of the maximal ideal , and let be a Koszul complex. Then, clearly, the condition (b) is satisfied. As , if (a) is satisfied as well, then is acyclic, and it follows that
[TABLE]
which contradicts Proposition 2.1. Therefore, the condition (a) is not satisfied.
It is seen from the proof of Theorem 1.2 and [12, Theorem 2.1] that for a complex which does not satisfy (a) but satisfies (b), the inequality in Theorem 1.2 is strict. In fact, in the above example we have
[TABLE]
Recall that for an ideal of , the codimension of is defined by . For a complex of free -modules of finite rank, the codimension of is defined by , where (this is called in [2] the expected rank of ). Using our Theorem 1.2, we recover [2, Theorem 9.4.1]:
Corollary 2.4**.**
Let be a complex of finitely generated free -modules with . For each one has .
Proof.
Let be a balanced big Cohen–Macaulay -module. Lemma 2.2(1) implies . By [2, Lemma 9.1.8] we have , whence . Theorem 1.2 yields , which shows . ∎
3. Little Cohen–Macaulay modules
Let be a finitely generated -module. Recall that is called Cohen–Macaulay if . Following this, we say that is little Cohen–Macaulay if . Also, recall that the Cohen–Macaulay defect of is defined by
[TABLE]
Following this, we define the little Cohen–Macaulay defect of by
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we denote by the upper Gorenstein dimension of , that is, the infimum of , where runs over the faithfully flat homomorphisms and runs over those surjective homomorphisms which satisfy with .
Remark 3.1**.**
Let be a finitely generated -module.
(1) Assume . Then by Proposition 2.1. Hence .
(2) There is an inequality , and the equality holds if the right-hand side is finite. We refer the reader to [15] for details.
Using the little Cohen–Macaulay defect and our Theorem 1.2, we can improve a theorem of Sharif and Yassemi [13] concerning the Cohen–Macaulay defect.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be a finitely generated -module of finite upper Gorenstein dimension. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The assertion follows by replacing and in the proof of [13, Theorem 2.1] with and respectively, and using Theorem 1.2 instead of the new intersection theorem. ∎
Remark 3.3**.**
In view of Remark 3.1(1), Theorem 3.2 gives a refinement of [13, Theorem 2.1].
We obtain a couple of corollaries of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.4**.**
Let be a finitely generated -module of finite projective dimension. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first inequality follows from Theorem 3.2 and Remark 3.1(2). The second inequality is an immediate consequence of the first one and the Auslander–Buchsbaum formula. ∎
Corollary 3.5**.**
The following are equivalent.
- (1)
The local ring is Cohen–Macaulay. 2. (2)
There exists a Cohen–Macaulay -module of finite projective dimension. 3. (3)
There exists a Cohen–Macaulay -module of finite upper Gorenstein dimension. 4. (4)
There exists a little Cohen–Macaulay -module of finite projective dimension. 5. (5)
There exists a little Cohen–Macaulay -module of finite upper Gorenstein dimension.
Proof.
The implications (2) (4) and (3) (5) are shown by Remark 3.1(1), while the implications (2) (3) and (4) (5) follow from Remark 3.1(2). If is Cohen–Macaulay, then the -module with a parameter ideal has finite length and finite projective dimension. This shows (1) (2). It is immediate from the first inequality in Theorem 3.2 that (5) (1) holds. Now the five conditions are proved to be equivalent. ∎
Let be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring. In view of Corollary 3.5, it is natural to ask if there exists a non-Cohen–Macaulay, little Cohen–Macaulay -module of finite projective dimension. Evidently, we have to assume that has positive dimension, and then the question is actually affirmative: Let be a parameter ideal of and put . Then , and . Hence it may be more meaningful to look for an indecomposable one. However, we do not have such an example even in the case that is regular. For example, if is a discrete valuation ring with uniformizer , then every indecomposable -module is isomorphic to either or for some , and hence is Cohen–Macaulay. This lead us to the following modified question.
Question 3.6**.**
Let be a regular local ring of dimension at least two. Does there exist an indecomposable non-Cohen–Macaulay, little Cohen–Macaulay -module?
Remark 3.7**.**
Let be a surjective homomorphism of (commutative noetherian) local rings. Let be a (possibly infinitely generated) -module. Then and . Indeed, the first equality follows from the description of a depth by a Koszul complex. The second one holds since for any and , where is the maximal ideal of . These equalities would help us extend the above question to a homomorphic image of a regular local ring.
We make observations that give some restrictions to construct a module as in Question 3.6. Recall that a finitely generated -module is called unmixed if , where stands for the set of prime ideals in such that .
Proposition 3.8**.**
Let be an -module. If is cyclic or unmixed, then .
Proof.
First, we consider the case where is cyclic. Then for some ideal of , and we have
[TABLE]
Next, we consider the case where is unmixed. Take an element satisfying . Suppose . Then for all , the ideal is not contained in . Using the assumption and prime avoidance, we find an element which is -regular. Then , which implies . This contradicts the choice of . ∎
Recall that is called coprimary if has a unique associated prime. A typical example of a coprimary ring is an integral domain. Here is a direct consequence of the above proposition.
Corollary 3.9**.**
Suppose that is coprimary. Let be a nonzero ideal of . Regarding as an -module, one has .
Proof.
Note that there are inclusions . Since consists only of one element, one has . The assertion now follows from Proposition 3.8(2). ∎
4. Several examples illustrating our results
In this section, we make observations on our results obtained in the previous sections, by presenting various examples. In the following two examples, we consider the inequality given in Theorem 1.2. As we see, it is sometimes an equality, and is sometimes a strict inequality.
Example 4.1**.**
(1) Let be the Koszul complex of an element . Then one has if and only if is a subsystem of parameters of . Indeed, it is clear that , while by Proposition 3.8. Moreover, satisfies the condition (a) of Theorem 1.2 when is a subsystem of parameters.
(2) Let be a Cohen–Macaulay local ring. Let be an -module which is either cyclic or unmixed. Assume that has finite projective dimension, and let be a minimal free resolution of . Then, by the Auslander–Buchsbaum formula, if and only if is Cohen–Macaulay. In fact, and by Proposition 3.8. Moreover, satisfies the condition (b) of Theorem 1.2 because for .
In the next example, we treat complexes of infinitely generated flat -modules.
Example 4.2**.**
(1) Let be the natural exact sequence, where denotes the set of positive integers. Then is a flat resolution of , and . There are natural isomorphisms and , where the latter holds since is finitely presented. Hence . This also yields , which implies . On the other hand, Theorem 1.2 implies . Therefore the equality holds.
(2) Let and . Note that satisfies the condition (b) of Theorem 1.2 when is a non-zerodivisor of . We have , and as . Also, it is seen that . Hence, as with Example 4.1(1), one has if and only if is a subsystem of parameters of . See also Example 4.5(3).
Next we consider the two inequalities given in Proposition 2.1.
Example 4.3**.**
(1) Let be a finitely generated -module with , and set . One then has .
(2) Let with a field. Let be the maximal ideal of . Then we have , and . In fact, note that and . Hence by (1). Proposition 3.8 implies .
(3) Suppose . Take an -regular element , and set . Then and . Also, , where the first equality is seen by the definition of the little dimension, while the second equality follows from Proposition 3.8. We conclude that .
The third assertion of the above example gives the strict inequalities, assuming that has positive depth. The following proposition gives the same inequalities in the case where has depth zero.
Proposition 4.4**.**
Assume . Let be a minimal generator of such that is a prime ideal of , is not -primary, and is a field. Then, regarding as an -module, we have the strict inequalities .
Proof.
As and , we have . Hence , and . As is a field, we have , and is the -primary component of the zero ideal [math] of . Write . Then , and we have
[TABLE]
where the strict inequality follows from the assumption that .
It follows from the above argument that . If , then is a field and , which is a contradiction. Hence . Suppose that there is a minimal generator of with . Then for some , and is contained in the prime ideal . As , we have and get for some . Since , the element must be a unit of . Thus and is -primary, this is a contradiction. We conclude that . ∎
Example 4.5**.**
Let be a field.
(1) Let . Then . The zero ideal of has an irredundant primary decomposition , which shows . Proposition 4.4 yields . To be more precise, , and .
(2) There is also an example of an equidimensional local ring. Let . Then . We have , and . Proposition 4.4 implies . In fact, we have , and .
(3) Let us present an example of an infinitely generated module. Take an element , and set . Then there is an inclusion , where denotes the -adic completion of . The inclusions yield . Now suppose that is a non-zerodivisor. Then, there is an isomorphism , from which we obtain . We see from Example 4.2(2) that . Thus, under the assumption that is not Cohen–Macaulay, we have .
Let be a nonzero finitely generated -module of finite projective dimension. Combining the first inequality in Corollary 3.4 with Remark 3.1(1), we have . We give examples where either/both of these inequalities become strict.
Example 4.6**.**
(1) Let and be as in Example 4.3(3). Then has projective dimension one (hence finite), and it holds that .
(2) Suppose that is regular and . Then Corollary 3.9 implies . As , we have . (Here, the regularity of is needed just to have that is finite. More precisely, we have for any coprimary local ring with .)
(3) Let with a field, and set . Let be the maximal ideal of . By Example 4.5(1), we have , and . Now we regard as an -module. Then , and by Remark 3.7. It holds that , and . Thus and . On the other hand, we have and . This shows that the assumption that has finite projective dimension is necessary for the first inequality in Corollary 3.4 to hold true.
Acknowledgments**.**
The basic ideas of this paper were conceived by Hans-Bjørn Foxby, more than five years after Siamak Yassemi finished his formal apprenticeship with Foxby [7]. The authors would like to dedicate this paper to their friend Hans-Bjørn Foxby for sharing his useful ideas with them. Part of this work was completed while Siamak Yassemi was visiting the Max Planck Institute in Bonn-Germany. He wishes to express his gratitude to the Institute for its warm hospitality and for providing a stimulating research environment. In addition, Tsutomu Nakamura acknowledges support from the Program Ricerca di Base 2015 of the University of Verona. Finally, the authors thank the referee for reading the paper carefully and giving them valuable comments.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Y. André , La conjecture du facteur direct, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 127 (2018), 71–93.
- 2[2] W. Bruns; J. Herzog , Cohen–Macaulay rings, revised edition, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 1998.
- 3[3] L. W. Christensen , Gorenstein dimensions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1747, Springer-Verlag, Berlin , 2000.
- 4[4] E. G. Evans; P. Griffith , The syzygy problem, Ann. of Math. (2) 114 (1981), no. 2, 323–333.
- 5[5] H.-B. Foxby , Bounded complexes of flat modules, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 15 (1979), no. 2, 149–172.
- 6[6] H.-B. Foxby; S. Iyengar , Depth and amplitude for unbounded complexes, Commutative algebra (Grenoble/Lyon, 2001) , 119–137, Contemp. Math., 331 , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI , 2003.
- 7[7] H.-B. Foxby; S. Yassemi , Small dimension and intersection theorem (infinite version), private notes, 1999.
- 8[8] R. Hartshorne , Residues and duality, Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A. Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64, With an appendix by P. Deligne, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 20, Springer–Verlag, Berlin–New York , 1966.
