Theorem 1.1
4N8ILet I be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. For all s \le 4 and all intermediate ideals J \in \operatorname{Inter}(I^s,\overline{I^s}), we have
\operatorname{reg} J = \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s} = \operatorname{reg} (I^s).
Integral closure of small powers of edge ideals and their regularity
- arXiv
- 2109.09268v2 · PDF · 27 September 2021
- Categories
- math.AC, math.CO
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.
Abstract
Let I(G) be the edge ideal of a simple graph G over a field k. We prove that
{\rm reg}(\overline {I(G)^s}) = {\rm reg}(I(G)^s),
for all s \le 4. Furthermore, we provide an example of a graph G such that
{\rm reg} I(G)^s = {\rm reg} \overline{I(G)^s} = {\rm reg} I(G)^{(s)} = \begin{cases} 5 + 2s & \text{ if char k} = 2 \\ 4 + 2s & \text{ if char k} \neq 2, \end{cases}
for all s \ge 1.
Items 64
Example 1.2
T1OHLet
\begin{gathered}
I=(x_1y_1, x_2y_1, x_3y_1, x_7y_1, x_9y_1, x_1y_2, x_2y_2, x_4y_2, x_6y_2, x_{10}y_2,x_1y_3, x_3y_3, x_5y_3,x_6y_3,\\
x_8y_3, x_2y_4, x_4y_4, x_5y_4, x_7y_4, x_8y_4,x_3y_5, x_4y_5, x_5y_5, x_9y_5, x_{10}y_5,x_6y_6,x_7y_6, x_8y_6,x_9y_6,\\ x_{10}y_6,z_1z_2,z_2z_3,z_1z_3,z_4z_5,z_5z_6,z_4z_6) \subseteq k[x_1,\ldots,x_{10},y_1,\ldots,y_6,z_1,\ldots,z_6],
\end{gathered}
be the edge ideal of the disjoint union of two triangles and the graph in the Dalili and Kummini’s example [DK]. By Corollary 5.2, for each s \ge 1, we have
\operatorname{reg} I^s = \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s} = \operatorname{reg} I^{(s)} = \begin{cases} 5 + 2s & \text{ when } \operatorname{char} \mathrm{k} = 2 \\
4 + 2s & \text{ when } \operatorname{char} \mathrm{k} \neq 2. \end{cases}
In particular, \operatorname{reg} I^s, \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s}, \operatorname{reg} I^{(s)}, and their asymptotic constants all depend on the characteristic of the base field.
Uses Corollary 5.2
Definition 2.1
DBEPFor a squarefree monomial ideal I, the Stanley-Reisner complex of I is defined by
\Delta(I) = \{ F \subset [n] \mid x_F \notin I\}.
For a simplicial complex \Delta, the Stanley-Reisner ideal of \Delta is defined by
I_\Delta = (x_F \mid F \notin \Delta).
The Stanley-Reisner ring of \Delta is \mathrm{k}[\Delta] = S/I_\Delta.
Lemma 2.2
D7T9Let I, J be squarefree monomial ideals of S = \mathrm{k} [x_1,\ldots, x_n]. Then
\Delta(I) is a cone over t \in [n] if and only if x_t does not divide any minimal generator of I.
I \subseteq J if and only if \Delta(I) \supseteq \Delta(J).
\Delta(I + J) = \Delta(I) \cap \Delta(J).
\Delta(I \cap J) = \Delta(I) \cup \Delta(J).
Theorem 2.3
OOCQLet I \subseteq R and J \subseteq S be proper monomial ideals in standard graded polynomial rings over a field \mathrm{k}. Let P be the sum of the extensions of I and J to R \otimes_\mathrm{k} S. Then
\operatorname{reg} P^s = \max_{i\in [1,s-1], j\in [1,s]} \left ( \operatorname{reg} I^i + \operatorname{reg} J^{s-i}, \operatorname{reg} I^j + \operatorname{reg} J^{s-j+1} - 1\right ).
In particular,
\operatorname{reg} P^s \ge \operatorname{reg} I^j + \operatorname{reg} J^{s-j+1} - 1, \text{ for } j \in [1,s].
Definition 2.4
KGKULet I be a monomial ideal of S. The exponent set of I is E(I) = \{\mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n | x^\mathbf a \in I\}. The Newton polyhedron of I is
\operatorname{NP}(I) = \operatorname{conv} (\mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n | x^\mathbf a \in I ),
the convex hull of the exponent set of I in \operatorname{\mathbb {R}}^n.
Lemma 2.5
9TK0Let I be a monomial ideal of S. Then the integral closure of I is a monomial ideal with the exponent set E(\overline {I}) = \operatorname{NP}(I) \cap \operatorname{\mathbb {Z}}^r.
Definition 2.6
LZ6IA monomial ideal I of S is said to be normal if \overline{I^s} = I^s for all s \ge 1.
Corollary 2.7
QFH5Let I be a monomial ideal. Then
\overline{(I_V)} = (\overline{I})_V.
Corollary 2.8
46WSLet I be a monomial ideal. Let J \in \operatorname{Inter}(I^s,\overline{I^s}) be an intermediate ideal. Let V \subseteq [n] be a subset. Then J_V \in \operatorname{Inter}(I_V^s, \overline{I_V^s}).
Used by Proof
Lemma 2.9
F6HALet I be a monomial ideal. Then \rho_j(\overline{I}) \le \rho_j(I), for all j = 1, \ldots, n. In particular, if I is squarefree, then \rho_j(\overline{I^s}) \le s for all j = 1, \ldots, n.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.9
Let x^\mathbf a be a minimal generator of \overline{I}. By Lemma 2.5, there exists non-negative real numbers c_1, ..., c_m with \sum_{i=1}^m c_i = 1 and minimal generators x^{\mathbf b_1}, ..., x^{\mathbf b_m} of I such that
a_j \ge \sum_{i=1}^m c_i b_{ij}
for all j. Since x^\mathbf a is minimal, this implies that a_j = \lceil \sum_{i=1}^m c_i b_{ij} \rceil for all j. Since b_{ij} \le \rho_j(I) and \sum_{i=1}^m c_i = 1, this implies that \sum_{i=1}^m c_i b_{ij} \le \rho_j(I). Thus a_j \le \rho_j(I). The conclusion follows.
Uses Lemma 2.5
Theorem 2.10
CE4YLet I = I(G) be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let f be a minimal generator of \overline{I(G)^s}. Then there exist odd cycles C_1, ..., C_{2a}, and edges e_1, ...,e_b of G such that
f = C_1 \cdots C_{2a} \cdot e_1 \cdots e_b,
where (|C_1| + \cdots + |C_{2a}|)/2 + b = s. Furthermore, the odd cycles C_i can be chosen so that N(C_i) \cap C_j = \emptyset for all i \neq j \in \{1, ..., 2a\}.
Proof of Theorem 2.10
For each pair C_1, C_2 of induced disjoint odd cycles, denote m_{C_1,C_2} = x_{C_1} \cdot x_{C_2}. Denote P the set of all pairs of disjoint odd cycles in G. By [V, Proposition 8.7.19], we have
\overline{\mathcal{R}(It)} = S[It,m_{C_i,C_j}t^{m_{i,j} /2} \mid (C_i,C_j) \in P],
where m_{i,j} = \deg m_{C_i,C_j}. The conclusion follows by taking the graded component of degree s and a remark that if N(C_i) \cap C_j \neq \emptyset, then x_{C_i}\cdot x_{C_j} \in I^{u} with u= m_{i,j}/2.
Lemma 2.11
UOTFLet I be a monomial ideal in S. Then
\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{reg}(S/I)=\max\{|\mathbf a|+i~|~\mathbf a\in\operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n,i\ge 0,\widetilde{H}_{i-1}(\operatorname{lk}_{\Delta_\mathbf a(I)}F;\mathrm{k})\ne 0\\ \text{ for some $F\in \Delta_\mathbf a(I)$ with $F\cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a=\emptyset$}\}.
\end{gathered}
In particular, if I=I_\Delta is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a simplicial complex \Delta then \operatorname{reg}(\mathrm{k}[\Delta])=\max\{i \mid \widetilde{H}_{i-1}(\operatorname{lk}_{\Delta}F;\mathrm{k})\ne 0\text{ for some }F\in \Delta\}.
Remark 2.12
91QJLet I be a monomial ideal in S and a vector \mathbf a\in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n. In the proof of [T, Theorem 1], the author showed that if there exists j\in [n] such that a_j\ge \rho_j(I) then \Delta_\mathbf a(I) is either a cone over \{j\} or the void complex.
Used by Remark 2.14
Definition 2.13
97W4Let I be a monomial ideal in S. A pair (\mathbf a,i) \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n\times\operatorname{\mathbb {N}} is called an extremal exponent of I if \operatorname{reg}(S/I) = |\mathbf a| + i as in Lemma 2.11.
Remark 2.14
KH1MWe sometime call \mathbf a instead of (\mathbf a,i) an extremal exponent of I. Let \mathbf a be an extremal exponent of I. Then x^\mathbf a \notin I and \Delta_{\mathbf a}(I) is not a cone over t with t\in\operatorname{supp}\mathbf a. In particular, by Remark 2.12, \mathbf a belongs to the finite set
\Gamma(I)=\{\mathbf a\in\operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n~|~ a_j<\rho_j\text{ for all } j=1,\ldots,n\}.
Lemma 2.15
7BVXLet I be a monomial ideal in S and \mathbf a\in\operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n. Then
I_{\Delta_{\mathbf a}(I)}=\sqrt{I : x^\mathbf a}.
Remark 2.16
GYXPLemma 2.17
WC8KLet I be a monomial ideal and x be a variable. Then
\operatorname{reg} (I,x) \le \operatorname{reg} I.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.17
See [CHHKTT, Corollary 4.8] or [MNPTV, Lemma 2.14].
Lemma 2.18
01MOLet J be a monomial ideal in S and V \subseteq [n]. We have
\operatorname{reg} (J_V) \le \operatorname{reg} (J).
In particular, for a monomial ideal I \subseteq S then
\operatorname{reg} \overline{I_V^s} \le \operatorname{reg} I^s.
Lemma 2.19
7SRMLet I be a monomial ideal and the pair (\mathbf a,i) \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n\times\operatorname{\mathbb {N}} be its extremal exponent. If x is a variable that appears in \sqrt{I:x^\mathbf a} and x \notin \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a, then
\operatorname{reg} (I) = \operatorname{reg} (I,x).
Lemma 2.20
IZ4KLet I, J be proper monomial ideals of S. Let (\mathbf a,i) be an extremal exponent of I. If \Delta_\mathbf a(I) = \Delta_\mathbf a(J), then \operatorname{reg} I \le \operatorname{reg} J. In particular, if J \subseteq I and \Delta_\mathbf a(I) = \Delta_\mathbf a(J) for all exponent \mathbf a\in\operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n such that x^\mathbf a \notin I then \operatorname{reg} I \le \operatorname{reg} J.
Lemma 2.21
Q0SZLet I be a monomial ideal in S generated by the monomials f_1, ..., f_s and \mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n. Then \sqrt{I:x^\mathbf a} is generated by \sqrt{f_1/\gcd(f_1, x^\mathbf a)}, ..., \sqrt{f_s/\gcd(f_s,x^\mathbf a)}.
Lemma 2.22
NRL9[MV2, Lemma 2.16] Let F be an independent set of G, and \mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n an exponent. Assume that
\sum_{j\in N(F)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I \left ( \prod_{u \notin N[F]} x_u^{a_u} \right ) \ge s,
then x_F \in \sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a}. Conversely, if x_F is a minimal generator of \sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a} then (2.22) holds.
Lemma 2.23
Q24LLet I = I(G) be an edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let \mathbf a, \mathbf b \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n be exponents, and f a monomial in S. Then
\operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf a).
\operatorname{rp}_{\mathbf a + \mathbf b}(f) \ge \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) + \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f).
If \operatorname{supp} f \cup \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a \supseteq \operatorname{supp} C, where C is an odd cycle of length 2\ell+1, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \ell. Furthermore, if \operatorname{supp} f \cap \operatorname{supp} C \neq \emptyset then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \ell+1.
Let C_1, C_2 be disjoint odd cycles of length 2 \ell_1 +1, 2\ell_2+1 respectively. If \operatorname{supp} f \cup \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a \supseteq (\operatorname{supp} C_1 \cup \operatorname{supp} C_2), and \operatorname{supp} f \cap (\operatorname{supp} C_1 \cup \operatorname{supp} C_2) \neq \emptyset then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \ell_1 + \ell_2 + 1.
Let F = \operatorname{supp} f. Then
\operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \sum_{j\in N(F)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I \left ( \prod_{u \notin N[F]} x_u^{a_u} \right ).
Proof of Lemma 2.23
Parts (1) and (2) follow from the definition. For part (3), it suffices to note that \operatorname{ord}_I(x_C) = \ell and \operatorname{ord}_I(x_ix_C) = \ell+1 for any i \in \operatorname{supp} C. Part (4) follows from Part (2) and Part (3). Part (5) follows from Lemma 2.22 and a remark that if F is not an independent set then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) = \infty.
Uses Lemma 2.22
Lemma 3.1
GHRYLet I be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let \mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n be an exponent such that x^\mathbf a \notin I^s. Assume that \mathbf a has a decomposition \mathbf a = \mathbf b + \mathbf{c} satisfying the following conditions:
x_i \in \sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a} for all i \in N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b],
N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b] \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf{c} = \emptyset.
Let H be the restriction of G to [n] \setminus N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b]. Denote t = s - \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf b). Then,
\sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a} = \left ( x_i \mid i \in N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b] \right ) + \sqrt{I(H)^{t}:x^\mathbf{c}}.
In particular, if (\mathbf a,i) is an extremal exponent of I^s then
\operatorname{reg} (I^s) \le \operatorname{reg} I(H)^t + |\mathbf b|.
Proof of Lemma 3.1
First, we prove the equality (3.1). From the assumption, it is clear that the left hand side contains the right hand side. Let V = [n] \setminus N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b]. It suffices to prove that if f is a minimal generator of \sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a} with \operatorname{supp} f \subseteq V, then f \in \sqrt{I(H)^t:x^\mathbf{c}}. If f \in I, then by definition, f \in I(H) \subseteq \sqrt{I(H)^t:x^\mathbf{c}}. Thus, we may assume that F = \operatorname{supp} f is an independent set. By Lemma 2.22, we have
\sum_{j \in N(F)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I( h )\ge s, \text{ where } h:= \prod_{u \notin N[F]} x_u^{a_u}.
Since N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b] \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf{c} = \emptyset, N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf{c}] \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf b = \emptyset. In particular, N[F] \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf b = \emptyset. Hence,
\sum_{j\in N(F) \cap V} c_j = \sum_{j \in N(F)} a_j.
Let
h_1 := \prod_{u\in V\setminus N[F]} x_u^{c_u} = \prod_{u \in V \setminus N[F]} x_u^{a_u}.
Hence, h = x^\mathbf b h_1. Since N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b] \cap \operatorname{supp} h_1 = \emptyset, \operatorname{ord}_I(h) = \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf b) + \operatorname{ord}_I(h_1). Thus
\sum_{j \in N(F) \cap V} c_j + \operatorname{ord}_I(h_1) = \sum_{j \in N(F)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I(h) - \operatorname{ord}_I(b) \ge t.
By Lemma 2.22, f \in \sqrt{I(H)^t : x^\mathbf{c}} as required.
We now prove (3.1). By (3.1), \Delta_\mathbf a(I^s) = \Delta_\mathbf{c}(I(H)^t). Since (\mathbf a,i) is an extremal exponent of I^s, x^\mathbf a \notin I^s, hence t \ge 1 and x^\mathbf{c} \notin I^t. By Lemma 2.11,
\operatorname{reg} I^s = |\mathbf a| +i+1 = |\mathbf b| + |\mathbf{c}| + i+1 \le |\mathbf b| + \operatorname{reg} I(H)^t.
The conclusions follow.
Definition 3.2
3SJOA decomposition \mathbf a = \mathbf b + \mathbf{c}, where \mathbf b \neq 0 satisfying the conditions of Lemma 3.1 is called a good decomposition of \mathbf a with respect to I^s. We also call a decomposition x^\mathbf a = x^\mathbf b \cdot x^\mathbf{c} good if the corresponding decomposition on the exponents \mathbf a = \mathbf b + \mathbf{c} is.
Lemma 3.3
J4TELet I be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Fix a power s \ge 2. Let \mathbf a \in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n be an extremal exponent of I^s. Assume that \mathbf a has a good decomposition \mathbf a = \mathbf b + \mathbf{c}. Let H be the restriction of G to [n] \setminus N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b]. Let K be the restriction of G to a proper subset of \operatorname{supp} \mathbf b. Assume that \operatorname{reg} I(K)^{s-t+1} \ge |\mathbf b| + 1, where t = s - \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf b) and that L = I(H) + I(K) satisfies \operatorname{reg} L^s \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^s}. Then \operatorname{reg} I^s \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s}.
Proof of Lemma 3.3
By Lemma 3.1, \operatorname{reg} I^s \le \operatorname{reg} I(H)^s + |\mathbf b|. By Theorem 2.3,
\operatorname{reg} L^s \ge \operatorname{reg} I(H)^t + \operatorname{reg} I(K)^{s-t+1} - 1 \ge \operatorname{reg} I(H)^t + |\mathbf b| \ge \operatorname{reg} I^s.
By assumption \operatorname{reg} L^s \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^s}, hence
\operatorname{reg} I^s \le \operatorname{reg} L^s \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^s} \le \overline{I^s},
where the last inequality follows from Lemma 2.18.
Lemma 3.4
B66SLet J_1 \subseteq J_2 be any two intermediate ideals in \operatorname{Inter}(I^3, \overline{I^3}). Let \mathbf a\in \operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n be an exponent such that x^\mathbf a \notin J_2. Then
\sqrt{J_2:x^\mathbf a} = \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}.
In particular, \Delta_\mathbf a(J_2) = \Delta_\mathbf a(J_1).
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.4
Since J_1 \subseteq J_2, \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a} \subseteq \sqrt{J_2:x^\mathbf a}. By Lemma 2.21, it suffices to prove that if f = \sqrt{P/\gcd(P,x^\mathbf a)} for a minimal generator P of J_2 then f \in \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}. We may assume that P \notin J_1. In particular, P \notin I^3. By Theorem 2.10, there exist two disjoint triangles C_1 and C_2 such that P = x_{C_1} \cdot x_{C_2}. Since f = \sqrt{P/\gcd(P,x^\mathbf a)}, we have
\operatorname{supp} f \subseteq \operatorname{supp} P \subseteq \operatorname{supp} f \cup \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a.
Since f\neq 1, \operatorname{supp} f \cap \operatorname{supp} P \neq \emptyset. By Lemma 2.23,
\operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge 3 \implies f \in \sqrt{I^3:x^\mathbf a} \subseteq \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}.
The last statement follows from Lemma 2.15.
Theorem 3.5
XZB2Let I be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let J \in \operatorname{Inter}(I^3, \overline{I^3}) be an intermediate ideal. Then
\operatorname{reg} J = \operatorname{reg} \overline {I^3} = \operatorname{reg} I^3.
Used by Proof
Proof of Theorem 3.5
Let J_1 \subseteq J_2 be any two intermediate ideals in \operatorname{Inter}(I^3, \overline{I^3}). By Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 2.20, \operatorname{reg} J_2 \le \operatorname{reg} J_1.
It remains to prove that \operatorname{reg} I^3 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^3}. We prove by induction on n = |V(G)|. By Theorem 2.10, we may assume that n \ge 6, as if n \le 5, then \overline{I^3} = I^3. Let (\mathbf a,i)\in\operatorname{\mathbb {N}}^n\times\operatorname{\mathbb {N}} be an extremal exponent of I^3. If x^\mathbf a \notin \overline{I^3}, by Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 2.20, \operatorname{reg} I^3 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline {I^3}. Now assume that x^\mathbf a \in \overline{I^3}. By Theorem 2.10, there exist two triangles C_1, C_2 in G such that N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset and x^\mathbf a = x_{C_1} \cdot x_{C_2} \cdot f, for some monomial f \in S. Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^3,
N[C_1 \cup C_2] \cap \operatorname{supp} f = \emptyset.
Furthermore, x_i \in \sqrt{I^3:x^\mathbf a} for all i \in N[C_1 \cup C_2]. Thus, the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_{C_1} x_{C_2}) \cdot f is a good decomposition of I^3. Let K be a maximum induced matching of C_1 \cup C_2. Then \operatorname{reg} I(K)^3 = 7 = |\mathbf b| + 1. Then L := I(H) + I(K) is the restriction of I to K \cup H which is a proper subset of [n]. By induction \operatorname{reg} L^3 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^3}. By Lemma 3.3, \operatorname{reg} I^3 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^3}. The conclusion follows.
Lemma 3.6
PEGSLet J_1 \subseteq J_2 be intermediate ideals in \operatorname{Inter}(I^4, \overline{I^4}). Let \mathbf a be an exponent such that x^\mathbf a \notin J_2. Assume that \sqrt{J_2 : x^\mathbf a} \neq \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}. Let f be a minimal generator of \sqrt{J_2:x^\mathbf a} such that f \notin \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}. Then we must have
There exist two triangles C_1, C_2 with N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset such that x^\mathbf a = C_1 \cdot C_2 \cdot x^\mathbf b where 1 \neq x^\mathbf b \notin I.
\deg f = 1 and \operatorname{supp} f \notin \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a.
Proof of Lemma 3.6
By Lemma 2.21, there exists a minimal generator P of J_2 such that f = \sqrt{P/\gcd(P,x^\mathbf a)}. In particular,
\operatorname{supp} f \subseteq \operatorname{supp} P \subseteq \operatorname{supp} f \cup \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a.
Since f \notin \sqrt{J_1 :x^\mathbf a}, we have P \notin I^4 and f \notin I. By Theorem 2.10, there are two cases.
Case 1. P = x_{C_1} \cdot x_{C_2} where C_1, C_2 are disjoint cycles of length 3 and 5 respectively. By Lemma 2.23 and (Proof),
\operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge 4 \implies f \in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} \subseteq \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}, \text{ a contradiction}.
Case 2. P = x_{C_1} \cdot x_{C_2} \cdot x_e, where C_1, C_2 are 3-cycles such that N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset and e is an edge of G. Assume that C_1 = 123, C_2 = 456, and e = uv, note that u,v might coincide with \{1, ..., 6\}. Since f \notin I,
|\operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,2,3\}| \le 1, |\operatorname{supp} f \cap \{4,5,6\}| \le 1, \text{ and } | \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{u,v\} | \le 1.
Let \mathbf b, \mathbf{c} be the restriction of \mathbf a to \{1,2,3\} and \{4,5,6\} respectively. There are several subcases:
Subcase 2.a. |\{u,v\} \cap \{1,2,3,4,5,6\} | = 2. Since N[123] \cap \{4,5,6\} = \emptyset, we may assume that u = 5, v = 6. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,2,3\} \neq \emptyset, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) \ge 2, \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) \ge 2. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{4,5,6\} \neq \emptyset, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) \ge 1, \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) \ge 3. In either cases, \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge 4, hence f\in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a}, a contradiction
Subcase 2.b. |\{u,v\} \cap \{1,2,3,4,5,6\}| = 1. We may assume that u = 6, v = 7. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,2,3\} \neq \emptyset, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) \ge 2, \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) \ge 2, hence f \in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a}, a contradiction. Thus, we must have \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,2,3\} = \emptyset. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{4,5,6\} \neq \emptyset, by (Proof), there are subcases as follows.
2.b.\alpha. If 4 \in \operatorname{supp} f or 5 \in \operatorname{supp} f then 6\in \operatorname{supp} \mathbf{c}. Thus \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) \ge 3, hence \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge 4, a contradiction.
2.b.\beta. If 6 \in \operatorname{supp} f, let \mathbf{d} be the restriction of \mathbf a to \{4,5,7\}. Then \operatorname{rp}_{\mathbf{d}}(f) \ge 3, hence \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) + \operatorname{rp}_{\mathbf{d}} (f) \ge 4, a contradiction.
Thus, we must have \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,..,6\} = \emptyset. Therefore, f = x_7, and x_1\cdots x_5 x_6^2 | x^\mathbf a. But
x_7^2 x_6^2 x_4x_5 x_1x_2 \in I^4 \implies f \in \sqrt{J_1:x^\mathbf a}, \text{ a contradiction}.
Subcase 2.c. |\{u,v\} \cap \{1,2,3,4,5,6\} | = 0. We may assume that u = 7, v=8. Let \mathbf{d} be the restriction of \mathbf a to \{7,8\}. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,2,3\} \neq \emptyset, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) \ge 2. If \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{4,5,6\} \neq \emptyset, then \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) \ge 2. In either cases, \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf a(f) \ge \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf b(f) + \operatorname{rp}_\mathbf{c}(f) + \operatorname{rp}_{\mathbf{d}}(f) \ge 2 + 1 + 1 = 4, a contradiction. Therefore, \operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1, ..., 6\} = \emptyset. Thus \operatorname{supp} f \subseteq \{7,8\}. Since f \notin I, \deg f = 1. We may assume that f = x_8. Hence x_1\cdots x_7 | x^\mathbf a. Furthermore, 8 \notin \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a, as f = \sqrt{P/\gcd(P,x^\mathbf a)}.
The conclusion follows.
Lemma 3.7
OZV5Let I = I(G) be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let J_1 \subseteq J_2 be intermediate ideals in \operatorname{Inter}(I^4, \overline{I^4}). Then
\operatorname{reg} J_2 \le \operatorname{reg} J_1.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.7
We prove by induction on n = |V(G)|. Let (\mathbf a,i) be an extremal exponent of J_2. By Lemma 2.20, we may assume that \Delta_\mathbf a(J_2) \neq \Delta_\mathbf a(J_1). By Lemma 3.6, there exists f \in \sqrt{J_2 : x^\mathbf a} such that \deg f = 1 and \operatorname{supp} f \notin \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a. Let K_1, K_2 be the restriction of J_1, J_2 to V = [n] \setminus \operatorname{supp} f. By Corollary 2.8, K_1 \subseteq K_2 are intermediate ideals in \operatorname{Inter}(I_V^4,\overline{I_V^4}). By induction \operatorname{reg} K_2 \le \operatorname{reg} K_1. By Lemma 2.19 and Lemma 2.18,
\operatorname{reg} J_2 = \operatorname{reg} (J_2,f) = \operatorname{reg}(K_2,f) \le \operatorname{reg}(K_1,f) = \operatorname{reg}(J_1,f) \le \operatorname{reg} J_1.
The conclusion follows.
Lemma 3.8
V31GAssume that there exist two induced cycles C_1, C_2 with N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset of length 3 and 5 respectively, such that x_{C_1}x_{C_2} | x^\mathbf a. Then \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le\operatorname{reg} \overline {I^4}.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.8
Write x^\mathbf a = x_{C_1} x_{C_2} \cdot f, where f is a monomial in S. Since x^\mathbf a\notin I^4,
N[C_1 \cup C_2] \cap \operatorname{supp} (f) =\emptyset.
Furthermore, x_i \in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} for all i \in N[C_1 \cup C_2]. Thus the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_{C_1}x_{C_2}) \cdot f is a good decomposition. Hence, \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Uses Definition 3.2
Lemma 3.9
60XUAssume that there exist two triangles C_1, C_2 with N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset and an edge e such that x_{C_1}x_{C_2}x_e | x^\mathbf a. Then \operatorname{reg}(I^4) \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.9
Without loss of generality, we may assume that x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_6 x_ux_v \cdot f, where C_1=123 and C_2=456 are triangles with N[C_1] \cap C_2 = \emptyset, uv is an edge of G and f is a monomial in S. Note that u,v might belong to \{1, ..., 6\}. Since x_i(x_1\cdots x_6) \in I^3 for all i \in N[\{1, ..., 6\}], and x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, we have
x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a \text{ for all } i \in N[\{1, ...,6\}] \implies N[\{1,...,6\}] \cap \operatorname{supp} f = \emptyset.
Assume first that \{u,v\} \cap \{1, ..., 6\} \neq \emptyset. Say u = 6. If i \in N(v), then
(x_1x_2)(x_4x_6)(x_5x_6)(x_vx_i)x_3 \in I^4 \implies x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a.
Together with (Proof) and the fact that x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, we have
x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a \text{ for all } i \in N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b] \implies N[\operatorname{supp} \mathbf b ] \cap \operatorname{supp} f = \emptyset,
where x^\mathbf b = x_1\cdots x_5 \cdot x_6^2 \cdot x_v. Thus the decomposition x^\mathbf a = x^\mathbf b \cdot f is a good decomposition, hence \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
We now assume that \{u,v\} \cap \{1,...,6\} = \emptyset. Assume that u = 7, v= 8. There are two cases.
Case 1. N(\{1,...,6\}) \cap \{7,8\} = \emptyset. By (Proof), the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_1\cdots x_6) \cdot (x_7x_8 f) is a good decomposition, hence \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Case 2. N(\{1,...,6\}) \cap \{7,8\} \neq \emptyset. We may assume that 67 \in G. Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, we deduce that
N(\{1,2,3\}) \cap (\{8\} \cup \operatorname{supp} f) = \emptyset.
We claim that 7 \notin N(\{1,2,3\}). Assume by contradiction that 7 \in N(\{1,2,3\}). Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, a_7 = 1 and x_8 \notin N(\{1, ..., 6\}). Furthermore,
x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a \text{ for all } i \in N(\{8\} \cup \operatorname{supp} f).
By Remark 2.16, there exists a minimal generator g of \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} such that x_8 | g. By (Proof) and (Proof), \operatorname{supp} g is an independent set and
\operatorname{supp} g \cap N(\operatorname{supp} \mathbf a \setminus \{7\}) = \emptyset \implies N(\operatorname{supp} g) \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a = \{7\}.
Let h = \prod_{u \notin N[\operatorname{supp} g]} x_u^{a_u}. Since 8\in \operatorname{supp} g, 7 \in N(\operatorname{supp} g), hence h | x_1\cdots x_6 \cdot f has \operatorname{ord}_I(h) \le 2. Thus
\sum_{j \in N(\operatorname{supp} g)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I(h) \le 3,
a contradiction to Lemma 2.22.
Thus, 7 \notin N(\{1,2,3\}). By (Proof) and (Proof) the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_1x_2x_3) \cdot (x_4\cdots x_8 \cdot f) is a good decomposition. Hence, \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Lemma 3.10
3PJEAssume that x^\mathbf a\notin \overline{I^4} and \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) \neq \Delta_\mathbf a(\overline{I^4}). Then \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.10
By Lemma 3.6, there exist two triangles 123 and 456 with N[\{1,2,3\}] \cap \{4,5,6\} = \emptyset and a monomial f \neq 1 such that \operatorname{supp} f is an independent set and x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_6 \cdot f. Since x^\mathbf a \notin \overline{I^4}, we have |\operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,...,6\} | \le 1. First assume that |\operatorname{supp} f \cap \{1,...,6\} | = 1, say x_6 |f. Write x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_5 \cdot x_6^t \cdot g, where t \ge 2. Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4,
x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a \text{ for all } i \in N[\{1,2,3\}] \implies N[\{1,2,3\}] \cap \operatorname{supp} g = \emptyset.
Thus the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_1x_2x_3) \cdot (x_4x_5x_6^tg) is a good decomposition. Hence, \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Thus, we may assume that x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_6 \cdot x_7^{a_7} \cdots x_u^{a_u}, where a_7, ..., a_u > 0. There are two cases.
Case 1. N(\{1,...,6\}) \cap \{7, ...,u\} \neq \emptyset. Assume that 67 \in G. Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, we have
x_i \in I^4:x^\mathbf a \text{ for } i \in N[\{1,2,3\}] \implies N[\{1,2,3\}] \cap \{8, ..., u\} = \emptyset.
There are two subcases:
Subcase 1.a. 7 \in N(\{1,2,3\}). Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, a_7 = 1. With argument similar to Case 2 in the proof of Lemma 3.9, we see that if u > 7, then \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) is a cone over u, which is a contradiction. Thus, x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_7. Then
\sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} = (x_i \mid i \in N[\{1,...,6\}]) + I(H),
where H is the restriction of G to [n] \setminus N[\{1,...,6\}]. Thus \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) = \Delta(I(H)). By Lemma 2.11, \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 7. Let L= I(H) + K be the restriction of I to [n] \setminus N[\{1,...,6\}] \cup \{1,2,4,5\}, where K = (x_1x_2,x_4x_5). Then by induction, \operatorname{reg} L^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^4}. By Theorem 2.3, we have
\operatorname{reg} L^4 \ge \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} K^4 - 1 = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 8 > \operatorname{reg} I^4,
which is a contradiction to Lemma 2.18.
Subcase 1.b. 7 \notin N(\{1,2,3\}). By (Proof), the decomposition x^\mathbf a = (x_1x_2x_3) \cdot (x_4x_5x_6 x_7^{a_7}\cdots x_u^{a_u}) is a good decomposition. Hence \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Case 2. N(\{1,...,6\}) \cap \{7, ...,u\} = \emptyset. If either of the intersections N[\{1,2,3\}] \cap N[\{4,5,6\}], N(\{1,...,6\}) \cap N(\{7, ..., u\}), N(i) \cap N(j) for i \neq j \in \{7,...,u\} is non-empty, say r belongs to one of them, then x_r \in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} and r \notin \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a. Let J be the restriction of I to [n] \setminus \{r\}. By Lemma 2.18, Lemma 2.19, and induction,
\operatorname{reg} I^4 = \operatorname{reg} (I^4,x_r) = \operatorname{reg} (J^4,x_r) \le \operatorname{reg} (\overline{J^4},x_r) \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Thus, we may assume that
N[123] \cap N[456] = \emptyset, N[\{1,...,6\}] \cap N(\{7,...,u\}) = \emptyset, \text{ and } N(i) \cap N(j) = \emptyset,
for i\neq j \in \{7, ..., u\}. For a set U \subset [n], we denote by (U) := (x_i \mid i \in U) the ideal generated by variables in U. The notation (U)*(V) denotes the product of two linear ideals. Since \operatorname{ord}_I(x_1 \cdots x_6) = 2, it is clear that
\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} & \supseteq I + (N[\{1,...,6\}]) * (N(\{7,...,u\}) ) \\
&+ (N[\{1,2,3\}]) * (N[\{4,5,6\}]) + \sum_{i,j \in \{7,...,u\}, ~ i < j} (N(i)) * (N (j)).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}
We first claim
a_j = 1 \text { for all } j = 7,\ldots, u.
Proof (Proof of (Proof)).
Assume by contradiction that a_t > 1 for some t\in \{7, ..., u\}. Without loss of generality, we may assume that a_j > 1 for all j = 7, ..., t and a_j = 1 for all j = t+1, ..., u. Then
x_i \in \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} \text{ for all } i \in N(\{7,...,t\}).
By Remark 2.16, there exists a minimal generator g of \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} such that x_7 | g. Since g is minimal, by (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof), we deduce that \operatorname{supp} g is an independent set and
\operatorname{supp} g \cap N(\{7,...,t\}) = \emptyset \text{ and } |\operatorname{supp} g \cap (N[\{1,...,6\}] \cup N(\{t+1, ..., u\})) | \le 1.
In particular, \sum_{j \in N(\operatorname{supp} g)} a_j \le 1. Furthermore, \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf a) = 2, thus
\sum_{j \in N(\operatorname{supp} g)} a_j + \operatorname{ord}_I \left ( \prod_{u\notin N[\operatorname{supp} g]} x_u^{a_u} \right ) \le 1 + 2 = 3,
a contradiction to Lemma 2.22.
Thus x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_6 \cdot x_7 \cdots x_u. We now claim that (Proof) is an equality, namely
\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} & = I + (N[\{1,...,6\}]) * (N(\{7,...,u\}) ) \\
&+ (N[\{1,2,3\}]) * (N[\{4,5,6\}]) + \sum_{i,j \in \{7,...,u\}, ~ i < j} (N(i)) * (N (j)).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}
Proof (Proof of (Proof)).
Let x_U be a minimal generator of \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a}. We may assume that U is an independent set. Since \operatorname{ord}_I(x^\mathbf a) = 2, by Lemma 2.22, we must have \sum_{j\in N(U)} a_j \ge 2. Furthermore, by assumption (Proof), we deduce that there are two indices i,j \in \{1, ..., u\} such that U \cap N(i) \neq 0 and U \cap N(j) \neq 0. Thus x_U belongs to the right hand side.
We now claim:
u = 7, \text { hence } x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_7.
Proof (Proof of (Proof)).
Assume by contradiction that u > 7. Let
\begin{aligned}
J &= I + (N[\{1,2,3\}]) * (N[\{4,5,6\}]) + (N[\{1,...,6\}]) * (N(\{7,...,u\}) ) \\
&+ \sum_{i,j \in \{7,...,u\}, ~ i < j, (i,j) \neq (u-1,u)} (N(i)) * (N (j)).
\end{aligned}
By (Proof), \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} = J + (N(u-1))* (N(u)) = (J + (N(u-1)) \cap (J+(N(u))). Let \Gamma_1 and \Gamma_2 be the simplicial complexes corresponding to J + (N(u-1)) and J + (N(u)). By Lemma 2.2, \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) = \Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2 and \Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 corresponds to J + (N(u-1)) + (N(u)). By Lemma 2.2, \Gamma_1 is a cone over u-1 and \Gamma_2 and \Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 are cones over u. Since F \cap \operatorname{supp} \mathbf a = \emptyset, \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_1} F is a cone over u-1, \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_2} F and \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2} F are cones over u. Looking at the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for simplicial homology, \operatorname{lk}_{\Delta_\mathbf a(I^4)} F has trivial homology, a contradiction.
Thus, x^\mathbf a = x_1 \cdots x_7. Let J = I + (N[\{1,2,3]) * (N[\{4,5,6\}]). Then by (Proof), \sqrt{I^4:x^\mathbf a} = (J + (N[\{1,\ldots,6\}])) \cap (J + (N(7))). Let \Delta = \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) and \Gamma_1 and \Gamma_2 be the simplicial complexes corresponding to J + (N[\{1,\ldots,6\}]) and J + (N(7)). Then \Delta = \Gamma_1 \cup \Gamma_2. By Lemma 2.2, \Gamma_2 and \Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 are cones over 7. Thus \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_2}F and \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_1} F \cap \operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_2}F have trivial homology. Applying the Mayer-Vietoris sequence we have
0\to \widetilde{H}_{i-1} (\operatorname{lk}_{\Gamma_1} F;\mathrm{k}) \to \widetilde{H}_{i-1} (\operatorname{lk}_{\Delta}F;\mathrm{k}) \to 0.
By Lemma 2.11,
\operatorname{reg} I^4 = |\mathbf a| + i + 1 \le \operatorname{reg} I_{\Gamma_1} + 7.
Since J + (N[\{1,...,6\}]) = I(H) + (N[\{1,...,6\}]) where H is the restriction of I to [n] \setminus N[\{1,...,6\}]. Thus I_{\Gamma_1} = I(H). Let L be the restriction of I to [n] \setminus N[\{1,...,6\}] \cup \{1,2,4,5\}. Then L = I(H) + K, where K = (x_1x_2,x_4x_5). By induction, \operatorname{reg} L^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{L^4}. By Theorem 2.3,
\operatorname{reg} L^4 \ge \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} K^4 - 1 = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 8 > \operatorname{reg} I^4,
a contradiction to Lemma 2.18. That concludes the proof of the Lemma.
Theorem 3.11
4G2HLet I be the edge ideal of a simple graph G. Let J \in \operatorname{Inter}(I^4, \overline{I^4}) be an intermediate ideal. Then
\operatorname{reg} J = \operatorname{reg} \overline {I^4} = \operatorname{reg} I^4.
Used by Proof
Proof of Theorem 3.11
By Lemma 3.7, it suffices to prove that \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}. Let (\mathbf a,i) be an extremal exponent of I^4. There are two cases.
Case 1. x^\mathbf a \notin \overline{I^4}. By Lemma 2.20, we may assume that \Delta_\mathbf a(I^4) \neq \Delta_\mathbf a(\overline{I^4)}. By Lemma 3.10, \operatorname{reg} I^4 \le \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^4}.
Case 2. x^\mathbf a \in \overline{I^4}. Since x^\mathbf a \notin I^4, the conclusion follows from Theorem 2.10, Lemma 3.8, and Lemma 3.9.
Theorem 4.1
RLWZLet I = I_\Delta be the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a one-dimensional simplicial complex \Delta. Assume that I is non-normal. Then \operatorname{girth} \Delta \le 4. Furthermore, for all s \ge 1, and all J \in \operatorname{Inter}(I^s, \overline{I^s}), we have
\operatorname{reg} J = \operatorname{reg} I^s = \begin{cases} 3s & \text{ if } \operatorname{girth} \Delta = 3\\
2s + 1 & \text{ if } \operatorname{girth} \Delta = 4.\end{cases}
Proof of Theorem 4.1
If \operatorname{girth} \Delta \ge 4 then I_\Delta is the edge ideal of a graph G which is a complement of \Delta. By Theorem 2.10, I is non-normal if and only if G has an induced subgraph consisting of two disjoint odd cycles. Since \dim \Delta = 1, these two odd cycles must be triangles. Hence, \operatorname{girth} \Delta \le 4. Let (\mathbf a,i) be an extremal exponent of J. By Lemma 2.9 and Remark 2.14, a_j \le s-1 for all j \in [n]. There are two cases.
Case 1. \operatorname{girth} \Delta = 3. The arguments in [MV2, Lemma 3.2] carry over give us \operatorname{reg} J = 3s.
Case 2. \operatorname{girth} \Delta = 4. Then I = I_\Delta is the edge ideal of a graph G which is the complement of \Delta. The lower bound \operatorname{reg} J \ge 2s + 1 follows from Lemma 2.18. Thus, it suffices to prove that |\mathbf a| +i \le 2s. The argument in [MV2, Lemma 3.3] stills apply, and thus if i = 2, then |\mathbf a| \le 2s-2, hence |\mathbf a| + i \le 2s. Now assume that i \le 1, thus we may assume that |\mathbf a| \ge 2s-1. Since I^s \subseteq J \subseteq \overline{I^s} \subseteq I^{(s)}, we have
\sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a} \subseteq \sqrt{J:x^\mathbf a} \subseteq \sqrt{I^{(s)}:x^\mathbf a} = \sqrt{I^s:x^\mathbf a}
where the last equality follows from Lemma 2.11 and [MV2, Lemma 3.5]. By Lemma 2.11, \Delta_\mathbf a(J) = \Delta_\mathbf a(I^s). By Lemma 2.20 and [MV2, Theorem 1.1], we deduce that
\operatorname{reg} J \le \operatorname{reg} I^s = 2s+1.
That concludes the proof of the Theorem.
Example 4.2
7FFNLet
\begin{aligned}
I = & (x_1x_2,x_1x_3,x_2x_3, x_4x_5,x_4x_6,x_5x_6,x_3x_7,x_1x_4x_7,x_2x_4x_7,x_1x_5x_7,x_2x_5x_7,\\
& x_6x_7,x_1x_8,x_2x_4x_8,x_3x_4x_8,x_5x_8,x_2x_6x_8,x_3x_6x_8,x_2x_7x_8,x_4x_7x_8) \subseteq \mathrm{k}[x_1,...,x_8].
\end{aligned}
It is easy to check with Macaulay2 [M2] that \dim \Delta(I) = 1. Furthermore, I is non-normal, as f = x_1\cdots x_6 \in \overline{I^3}, but f \notin I^3. For each s \ge 0, let f_1 = f \cdot (x_1x_8)^s, f_2 = f\cdot (x_2x_6x_8)^s. Then f_1, f_2 are minimal generators of \overline{I^{s+3}}. By Theorem 4.1,
\operatorname{reg} \left ( I^{s+3} + (f_1) \right ) = \operatorname{reg} \left ( I^{s+3} + (f_1,f_2) \right ) = 3s + 9,
for all s \ge 0.
Uses Theorem 4.1
Example 4.3
NOHBLet
\begin{aligned}
I = & (x_1x_2,x_1x_3,x_2x_3, x_4x_5,x_4x_6,x_4x_7,x_5x_6,x_5x_7,x_6x_7,x_3x_8,x_4x_8,x_5x_8,x_6x_8,x_7x_8,\\
& x_1x_9,x_2x_9,x_3x_9,x_4x_9,x_7x_9,x_1x_{10},x_2x_{10}, x_3x_{10},x_5x_{10},x_6x_{10},x_8x_{10}) \subseteq \mathrm{k}[x_1,...x_{10}].
\end{aligned}
It is easy to check with Macaulay2 [M2] that \dim \Delta(I) = 1. For each s \ge 0, let f_1 = x_1\cdots x_6 (x_8x_{10})^s, f_2 = x_1\cdots x_5 x_7 (x_4x_9)^s, f_3 = x_1\cdots x_4 x_6x_7 (x_7x_8)^s. Then f_1, f_2,f_3 are minimal generators of \overline{I^{s+3}}. By Theorem 4.1,
\operatorname{reg} \left ( I^{s+3} + (f_1,f_2) \right ) = \operatorname{reg} \left ( I^{s+3} + (f_1,f_3) \right ) = 2s+7,
for all s \ge 0.
Uses Theorem 4.1
Theorem 5.1
EDJILet H be a graph whose edge ideal I(H) satisfies the condition
\operatorname{reg} I(H)^s \le \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2s - 2 \text{ for all } s \ge 1.
Let T be a graph whose edge ideal I(T) satisfies the condition
\operatorname{reg} I(T)^s = \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2s-2 \text{ for all } s \ge 1.
Let G = H \cup T be the disjoint union of H and T. Then for all s \ge 1 we have
\operatorname{reg} I(G)^s = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2s - 3.
Proof of Theorem 5.1
By Theorem 2.3, we have
\operatorname{reg} I(G)^s = \max_{i\in[1,s-1],j\in[1,s]} (\operatorname{reg} I(H)^i + \operatorname{reg} I(T)^{s-i}, \operatorname{reg} I(H)^j + \operatorname{reg} I(T)^{s-j+1} - 1).
For all 1 \le i \le s-1, we have
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{reg} I(H)^i + \operatorname{reg} I(T)^{s-i} &\le \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2i- 2 + \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2(s-i)-2\\
& < \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2s-3.
\end{aligned}
For all 2 \le j \le s, we have
\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{reg} I(H)^j + \operatorname{reg} I(T)^{s-j+1} &\le \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2j - 2 + \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2(s-j) \\
& = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(T)+2s-2.
\end{aligned}
Finally,
\operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(T)^s = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(T) + 2s- 2.
The conclusion follows.
Uses Theorem 2.3
Corollary 5.2
T5PJLet G = C_1 \cup C_2 \cup H be the disjoint union of two triangles and a bipartite graph H whose \operatorname{reg} I(H) depends on the characteristic of the base field (e.g. the Dalili-Kummini’s example [DK]). Then for all s \ge 1, we have
\operatorname{reg} I^s = \operatorname{reg} I^{(s)} = \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s} = \operatorname{reg} I(H) +2s.
In particular, \operatorname{reg} I^s, \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s}, \operatorname{reg} I^{(s)} depend on the characteristic of the base field as \operatorname{reg} H does.
Used by Example 1.2
Proof of Corollary 5.2
By Theorem 5.1
\operatorname{reg} I^s = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(C_1 \cup C_2) + 2s-3 = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2s.
With similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 5.1, by [HNTT, Theorem 5.11], and the fact that I(H)^s = I(H)^{(s)}, \operatorname{reg} I(C_1)^{(s)} = \operatorname{reg} I(C_2)^{(s)} = 2s for all s \ge 1, we deduce that
\operatorname{reg} I^{(s)} = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + \operatorname{reg} I(C_1 \cup C_2) + 2s-3 = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2s.
By [KK, Theorem 4.14], we have \operatorname{reg} I^s = \operatorname{reg} \overline{I^s}. The Corollary follows.
Uses Theorem 5.1
Remark 5.3
0FPELet H be the bipartite graph in Dalili-Kummini’s example. Computation with Macaulay2 [M2] shows that \operatorname{reg} I(H)^2 = 6 does not depend on the characteristic of the base field.
Let G be the union of H and an edge. Then G is a bipartite graph. By Theorem 5.1, for all s \ge 1, \operatorname{reg} I(G)^s = \operatorname{reg} I(H) + 2s - 1 depend on the characteristic of the base field.
To get an example of a connected graph with the same phenomenon as in Corollary 5.2, let P be the fiber product of the edge ideal I(G) in Corollary 5.2 with any edge ideal I(L) of a bipartite graph such that \operatorname{reg} I(L)^s < 2s + 4. By [NV2, Corollary 5.2], [MV1, Lemma 6.2], and [KK, Theorem 4.14], we deduce that \operatorname{reg} P^s = \operatorname{reg} P^{(s)} = \operatorname{reg} \overline{P^s} = \operatorname{reg} I(G)^s depend on the characteristic of the base field.
Uses Theorem 5.1
Remark 5.4 (Katzman’s example)
47U6Let I\subseteq \mathrm{k}[x_1,\ldots,x_{11}] be the following edge ideal:
\begin{gathered}
I=(x_1x_2, x_1x_6, x_1x_7, x_1x_9, x_2x_6, x_2x_8, x_2x_{10}, x_3x_4, x_3x_5, x_3x_7, x_3x_{10},\\
x_4x_5, x_4x_6, x_4x_{11}, x_5x_8, x_5x_9, x_6x_{11}, x_7x_9, x_7x_{10}, x_8x_9, x_8x_{10}, x_8x_{11}, x_{10}x_{11}).
\end{gathered}
Computation with Macaulay2 [M2] shows that \operatorname{reg} I^2 = 5 does not depend on the characteristic of the base field. It is interesting if we can prove that
\operatorname{reg} I^s \le \operatorname{reg} I + 2s - 2,
for all s \ge 2. If this is true, then the mixed sum P of I with the edge ideal of a triangle gives an example of a non-normal edge ideal on 14 variables with
\operatorname{reg} P^s = \begin{cases} 3 + 2s & \text{ if } \operatorname{char} \mathrm{k} = 2 \\
2 + 2s & \text{ if } \operatorname{char} \mathrm{k} \neq 2.\end{cases},
for all s \ge 1.
Source and licence
The text on this page is from arXiv:2109.09268v2 by Nguyen Cong Minh and Thanh Vu, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2109/2109.09268.jsonl.