We study chains of nonzero edge ideals that are invariant under the action of the monoid \mathrm{Inc} of increasing functions on the positive integers. We prove that the sequence of Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity of ideals in such a chain is eventually constant with limit either 2 or 3, and we determine explicitly when the constancy behaviour sets in. This provides further evidence to a conjecture on the asymptotic linearity of the regularity of \mathrm{Inc}-invariant chains of homogeneous ideals. The proofs reveal unexpected combinatorial properties of \mathrm{Inc}-invariant chains of edge ideals.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of homogeneous ideals. Then for all n\gg 0, \operatorname{reg} I_n=Cn+D for certain constants C and D depending only on {\mathcal I}. Here \operatorname{reg} (-) denotes the Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant (not necessarily saturated) chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals. Let r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I})\ge 1. Then for all n\ge N=N(r), there is an equality \operatorname{reg} I_n = \operatorname{reg} I_{n+1}, and moreover \operatorname{reg} I_n \in \{2,3\}.
Keep using notations of Theorem 1.2. Let G_n be the graph on the vertex set [n]=\{1,2,\ldots,n\} corresponding to I_n for each n, and let E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where we assume that 1\le i_t<j_t \le r,\ i_1\le i_2\le \cdots\le i_s and if i_t=i_{t+1} then j_t<j_{t+1}. Denote q=\max\{1\le t\le s: i_t=i_1\}. Denote by \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n) the induced matching number of the graph G_n. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\gg 0;
Either j_q = \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}, or it holds that \min \{j_t-i_t: t=1,\ldots,s\}=1 and \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{3r})=1.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero squarefree monomial ideals with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}), and let d=d(I_r) be the maximal generating degree of I_r. Then \operatorname{reg} I_n \le 2d-1 for all n\gg 0.
For a monomial m\in R_n, denote by \operatorname{Msupp}(m) the maximal index 1\le i\le n such that x_i divides m. If m=1, we set \operatorname{Msupp}(1)=0. For a monomial ideal J\subseteq R_n, define \operatorname{Msupp}(J)=\max \{\operatorname{Msupp}(m): m\in G(J)\}.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of ideals with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}). Set p_n=\operatorname{Msupp}(I_n). We say that {\mathcal I} is quasi-saturated if I_{n+1}\cap R_{p_n}=I_n\cap R_{p_n} for all n\ge r.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of nonzero proper monomial ideals with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}). Denote p=\operatorname{Msupp} I_r, so 1\le p\le r. Then we have \operatorname{Msupp}(I_{n+1})\le\operatorname{Msupp}(I_n)+1, and in particular \operatorname{Msupp} I_n \le n-r+p for all n\ge r.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero proper monomial ideals with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}). Let p=\operatorname{Msupp}(I_r). Consider collection {\mathcal J}=(J_n)_{n\ge 1} of ideals given by
The following statements hold.
{\mathcal J} is an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero monomial ideals and I_n\subseteq J_{n+1} for all n\ge r.
There is an equality \operatorname{ind} {\mathcal J} = r+1.
The chain {\mathcal I} is quasi-saturated if and only if J_{r+1}=\langle I_r \rangle _{R_{r+1}}.
There is an equality \operatorname{reg} J_n= \operatorname{reg} (I_n,x_{n-r+p}) for all n\ge r+1.
Let J\subseteq R_n be a nonzero proper monomial ideal such that \operatorname{Msupp}(J)=p\ge 1. Let \delta(J) denote the maximal degree of an element of G(J). Then the q-invariant of J is defined to be the number
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}). We call q({\mathcal I}):=q(I_r) the q-invariant of the chain {\mathcal I}.
Let J=(x_1x_3,x_2x_4)\subseteq R_5=\Bbbk[x_1,\ldots,x_5]. Then \delta(J)=2, \operatorname{Msupp}(J)=4, so
The following statements hold.
For any monomial ideal I\subseteq R_n, there is an equality q(I)=q(\langle I \rangle_{R_{n+1}}).
Let I\subseteq J be nonzero monomial ideals of R_n such that \delta(I)\ge \delta(J) and \operatorname{Msupp}(I)\ge \operatorname{Msupp}(J). Then there is an inequality
The equality holds if and only if I=J.
Let J be a monomial ideal of S and x any variable of S. Then there is a chain
Here (J,x) denotes the ideal J+(x).
Let G be a graph with at least one edge. The following statements hold.
There is an inequality \operatorname{reg} I(G)\ge 1+\operatorname{indmatch}(G).
(Fröberg’s theorem) We have \operatorname{reg} I(G)=2 if and only if G is a cochordal graph.
There is an inequality
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be a quasi-saturated chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals with \operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I})=r. Then we have an equality \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge r, i.e. I_n has a 2-linear resolution for all such n.
By Fröberg’s theorem (Lemma 2.9(2)), we have to show that the graph G_n corresponding to I_n is cochordal for all n\ge r.
Assume the contrary, that i_1,\ldots,i_m is an induced cycle of length m\ge 4 in G_n^c for some n\ge r. By reindexing, we may assume that i_1=\min\{i_j: 1\le j\le m\}. Note that i_1,\ldots,i_m are pairwise distinct.
We claim that i_2 < \min\{i_3,\ldots,i_{m-1}\}. If this is not the case, then i_2 > i_j for some 3\le j\le m-1. Since \{i_1,i_j\}\notin G_n^c, x_{i_1}x_{i_j}\in I_n, and the \operatorname{Inc}-invariance of {\mathcal I} implies that x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\in I_{n+i_2-i_j}. Let p=\operatorname{Msupp}(I_n). The quasi-saturatedness of {\mathcal I} implies that I_s\cap R_p \subseteq I_n for all s\ge n. Now x_{i_1}x_{i_2} \in I_{n+i_2-i_j} \cap R_p \subseteq I_n, hence \{i_1,i_2\}\in G_n, a contradiction. Similarly i_m < \min\{i_3,\ldots,i_{m-1}\}.
Hence \min\{i_2,i_3,\ldots,i_m\}=\min\{i_2,i_m\}. We assume that \min\{i_2,i_3,\ldots,i_m\}=i_2, the remaining case being similar. Now \{i_2,i_m\}\notin G_n^c, so x_{i_2}x_{i_m}\in I_n. From above i_m<i_3, so arguing as in the last paragraph, we deduce x_{i_2}x_{i_3}\in I_n. This means \{i_2,i_3\} \in G_n, a contradiction. Hence G_n is cochordal for all n\ge r. The proof is completed.
The behaviour of the regularity for non-quasi-saturated chains of edge ideals is much more delicate. For instance, let (I_n)_{n\ge 1} be the \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain with I_n=(0) for n\le 9, I_{10}=(x_1x_{10},x_2x_4,x_3x_5,x_7x_9) and stability index r=10. Computations with Macaulay2 [GS96] give the following data.
In particular, the sequence (\operatorname{reg} I_n)_{n\ge 1} might be fairly irregular at the beginning. By Proposition 7.4, we have \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge 3r=30.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals with the stability index \operatorname{ind} {\mathcal I}=r\ge 1. Let G_n be the graph corresponding to I_n. Then for all n\ge 3r, the graph G_n does not contain any induced 3K_2 subgraph. In other words, we have \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)\le 2 for all n\ge 3r.
Furthermore, \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)=\operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+1}) for all n\ge 3r.
Assume the contrary, for some n\ge 3r, G_n contains an induced 3K_2 subgraph, say \{u_1v_1,u_2v_2,u_3v_3\}, where u_p<v_p. Since r=\operatorname{ind} {\mathcal I}, there exist 1\le i_p<j_p\le r, p=1,2,3 such that x_{i_p}x_{j_p}\in I_r and x_{u_p}x_{v_p} belongs to the \operatorname{Inc}-orbit of x_{i_p}x_{j_p}. Again denote \Delta_{p,n-r}=\Delta((i_p,j_p),n-r). By Lemma 3.3, that x_{u_p}x_{v_p} \in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}(x_{i_p}x_{j_p}) yields (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n-r}. We may assume i_1\le i_2\le i_3.
Now as n\ge 3r, n-r \ge 2r\ge 2\max\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}, hence by Corollary 3.7, the 3K_2 graph \{u_1v_1,u_2v_2,u_3v_3\} is not an induced subgraph of G_n. This contradiction shows that G_n does not contain any induced 3K_2 subgraph for all n\ge 3r.
Take n\ge 2r. We prove that \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=\operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r+1}).
Step 1: First assuming \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=2 and n\ge 2r, we show the equality \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r+1})=2. Since \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=2 there exists an induced 2K_2 in G_{n+r}, say u_1v_1, u_2v_2 where u_p < v_p. We may assume that u_1 < u_2. Assume that \{i_1,j_1\}, \{i_2,j_2\} \in G_r where 1\le i_p < j_p\le r and (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta((i_p,j_p),n). Since n\ge 2r, by Lemma 3.6, we have
Assume that E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where 1\le i_p < j_p\le r for p=1,\ldots,s.
Now u_1v_1, u_2v_2 is an induced 2K_2 in G_{n+r}, hence we have
Claim 1: The conditions (?) imply that u_1v_1, (u_2+1)(v_2+1) form a 2K_2 in G_{n+r+1}.
Assume the contrary, then from Lemma 3.3, for some 1\le p\le s, one of the points (u_1,u_2+1), (u_1,v_2+1),(v_1,u_2+1), (v_1,v_2+1) belongs to \Delta((i_p,j_p),n+1). We treat the case (u_1,u_2+1) \in \Delta((i_p,j_p),n+1), the remaining cases are similar. The following chain is valid
In particular, i_p\le u_1, u_2\le n+j_p. Per (?) and n\ge 2r, we also have
Combining these inequalities yields (u_1,u_2) \in \Delta((i_p,j_p),n), contradicting (?). Hence u_1v_1, (u_2+1)(v_2+1) form a 2K_2 in G_{n+r+1}, whence the desired conclusion \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r+1})=2.
Step 2: Next we show that if \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=2 and n\ge 2r+1, then also \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r-1})=2.
Choose u_1v_1, u_2v_2, i_1,j_1,i_2,j_2 as in Step 1. We claim that u_1v_1,(u_2-1)(v_2-1) form a 2K_2 in G_{n+r-1}.
Since (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta((i_1,j_1),n), we get (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta((i_1,j_1),v_1-j_1). But by (?), v_1-j_1 < i_2-j_1 < r-1, so as n\ge 2r+1, (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta((i_1,j_1),n-1), namely u_1v_1\in E(G_{n+r-1}). As per (?),
we deduce (u_2-1,v_2-1)\in \Delta((i_2,j_2),n-1), so that (u_2-1)(v_2-1)\in E(G_{n+r-1}). Since n\ge 2r+1 and i_2\le r, together with (?),
Assume now that u_1v_1 and (u_2-1)(v_2-1) do not form a 2K_2 in G_{n+r-1}. Then as u_1 < v_1 < u_2-1< v_2-1, for some 1\le p\le s, \Delta((i_p,j_p),n-1) contains one of the points (u_1,u_2-1), (u_1,v_2-1), (v_1,u_2-1), (v_1,v_2-1). We treat the case (u_1,u_2-1)\in \Delta((i_p,j_p),n-1), the remaining cases are similar.
We have a chain
which clearly implies
namely (u_1,u_2)\in \Delta((i_p,j_p),n). This contradicts (?).
Hence u_1v_1,(u_2-1)(v_2-1) form a 2K_2 in G_{n+r-1} and \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r-1})=2, as desired.
From Step 1 and Step 2, for any n\ge 2r, the equality \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=2 holds if and only if \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r+1})=2. Since I_n is a nonzero edge ideal, 1\le \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r}) \le 2, for all n\ge 2r, and we deduce that \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r})=\operatorname{indmatch}(G_{n+r+1}) for all such n. The proof is concluded.
For a point (i,j)\in {\mathbb R}^2 and a positive real number n, denote by \Delta((i,j),n) the right isosceles triangles with the vertices (i,j), (i,j+n), (i+n,j+n).
Let 1\le i< j\le r and n\ge r be positive integers. Then for integers u<v, the following are equivalent:
x_ux_v\in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}(x_ix_j);
(u,v)\in \Delta((i,j),n-r).
In particular, let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals with r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}), and denote E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where 1\le i_p < j_p\le r for p=1,\ldots,s. Then for each n\ge 0,
The second assertion follows from the fact that I_{n+r}=\langle \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n+r}(I_r) \rangle_{R_{n+r}} and the first assertion. Let us prove the latter.
(1) \Rightarrow (2): Since x_ux_v\in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}(x_ix_j), for some \pi\in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}, we have u=\pi(i), v=\pi(j). Since \pi is increasing, \pi(r)\le n, and 1\le i<j\le r, we have
This implies (u,v)\in \Delta((i,j),n-r).
(2) \Rightarrow (1): Assume that (u,v)\in \Delta((i,j),n-r). Then there is a chain
Choose \pi: {\mathbb N} \to {\mathbb N} such that
Then \pi \in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}, as \pi(r)=r+v-j\le n. It is also clear that \pi(i)=u, \pi(j)=v, hence x_ux_v=\pi(x_ix_j)\in \operatorname{Inc}_{r,n}(x_ix_j), as desired.
Let {\mathcal I} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain with I_7=(x_2x_7,x_3x_4) and I_n=\operatorname{Inc}_{7,n}(I_7) for n\ge 7. Then using Lemma 3.3, we can compute
See Figure ?. More generally, for each n>7, the generators of the ideal I_n correspond to the lattices points in the union of the two triangles \Delta((2,7),n-7) and \Delta((3,4),n-7).
Assume that A_1=(i_1,j_1), A_2=(i_2,j_2) \in {\mathbb R}_{\ge 1}^2 are (not necessarily distinct) points such that i_p< j_p, i_1\le i_2. Let n\ge \max\{2(j_1-i_1+i_2-j_2),1\} be an integer. Let (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n}, p=1,2 be two points such that (u_1,v_2), (u_2,v_1) \notin \bigcup_{p=1}^2\Delta_{p,n}. Then the following inequalities hold:
u_1< v_1, u_2<v_2;
u_1<i_2 and v_2> j_1+n;
i_1<i_2 and j_1<j_2, thus A_1 and A_2 are distinct.
Denote \Delta_p=\Delta_{p,n} for short. Note that
For (1): Since v_p\ge u_p+j_p-i_p and j_p>i_p, we get v_p>u_p, namely (1) is true.
For (2): By the hypothesis (u_2,v_1)\notin \Delta_1, so the following chain is invalid
But u_2\ge i_2, so u_2-i_1\ge i_2-i_1\ge 0, namely the first inequality of the last chain is valid. The last inequality is also valid since (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1. Hence the middle one is false, namely
The last inequality follows from (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1. From the last chain, we get u_1 < u_2.
By the hypothesis (u_1,v_2)\notin \Delta_2, so the following chain is invalid
The middle and the last inequalities are true since from (u_2,v_2)\in \Delta_2, and u_1<u_2, we deduce u_1-i_2 < u_2-i_2 \le v_2-j_2 \le n. Hence the first inequality of the last display is false, namely u_1 <i_2.
Next we have to show that v_2 > n+j_1. Assume the contrary that v_2\le n+j_1. By the hypothesis, (u_1,v_2)\notin \Delta_1, hence the following chain is invalid
The first inequality holds. By assumption, the last inequality holds as well. Therefore the middle inequality does not hold, namely v_2 < u_1-i_1+j_1 \le v_1, using (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1. Hence as u_1<i_2,
By the hypothesis (u_2,v_1)\notin \Delta_2, so the following chain is invalid
Thanks to (?) and (u_2,v_2)\in \Delta_2, 0\le u_2-i_2 \le v_2-j_2 < v_1-j_2. Hence the first two inequalities in the last display are valid, and the last one is not. In other words,
By the hypothesis, (u_2,v_1)\notin \Delta_1, so the following chain is invalid
The first and the last inequalities are true, since u_2\ge i_2\ge i_1 and (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1. Hence the middle one is false, namely u_2 > v_1+i_1-j_1. Together with (?), this yields
Now (u_2,v_2)\in \Delta_2, so u_2\le v_2-j_2+i_2. Combining with (?) and (?), we get
This yields
contradicting the hypothesis n\ge \max\{2(j_1-i_1+i_2-j_2),1\}. Hence the assumption v_2\le n+j_1 is wrong, and v_2>j_1+n, finishing the proof of (2).
For (3): We get i_1\le u_1 <i_2 and j_1+n <v_2 \le j_2+n, consequently j_1<j_2. Hence A_1 and A_2 are distinct. This concludes the proof.
Assume that A_1=(i_1,j_1), A_2=(i_2,j_2) \in {\mathbb R}_{\ge 1}^2 are points such that i_p< j_p, i_1\le i_2. Let n\ge \max\{2(j_1-i_1+i_2-j_2),j_1+j_2-2i_1, 1\} be an integer. Let (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n}, p=1,2 be two points such that none of the points (u_1,u_2),(v_1,v_2),(u_1,v_2),(u_2,v_1) belongs to \bigcup_{p=1}^2\Delta_{p,n}. Then the following inequalities hold:
In particular, the closed intervals [u_1,v_1] and [u_2,v_2] are disjoint.
Conversely, let (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n}, p=1,2 be two points such that
Then none of the points (u_i,u_j), (u_i,v_j), (v_j,u_i), (v_i,v_j) where 1\le i,j\le 2, i\neq j, belongs to the set \bigcup_{p=1}^2\Delta_{p,n}.
Let \Delta_p=\Delta_{p,n}. Since (u_1,v_2), (u_2,v_1) do not belong to \Delta_1\cup \Delta_2, by Lemma 3.5, we have u_1<v_1, u_2<v_2, and
Assume the contrary that v_1\ge i_2. By the assumption (v_1,v_2)\notin \Delta_2, so the chain 0\le v_1-i_2 \le v_2-j_2\le n is invalid. Since the first and the last inequalities hold, the middle one is false. Consequently
using (u_2,v_2)\in \Delta_2. Together with (Proof), we deduce
By the hypothesis, (u_2,v_1)\notin \Delta_1, so the following chain is invalid
The first and the last inequalities are true, since u_2\ge i_2\ge i_1 and (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1. Hence the middle one is false, namely
Using (?), this yields
By the hypothesis, (u_1,u_2)\notin \Delta_1, so the following chain is false
Since (u_1,v_1)\in \Delta_1, the first inequality in the chain is valid. Per (?), u_2< v_1, so u_2-j_1< v_1-j_1\le n. Hence in the last chain only the middle inequality can be false, and consequently
The second inequality follows from (?).
Per (Proof), n+2i_1-j_1+i_2-j_2 < u_1<i_2, so n < j_2+j_1-2i_1, contradicting the hypothesis on n. Therefore the assumption v_1\ge i_2 is wrong, and v_1 < i_2.
The last inequality implies v_1 < i_2\le u_2. Now 0\le u_1-i_1 \le v_1-j_1 < u_2-j_1, but (u_1,u_2)\notin \Delta_1, so the chain 0\le u_1-i_1 \le u_2-j_1 \le n is invalid. Only the last inequality can be wrong, so u_2 > n+j_1, as desired.
Finally, for the remaining inequality i_2 < n+j_1, we use
as j_p>i_p. Hence v_1 < i_2 < n+j_1 < u_2.
The second assertion holds since u_1 <v_1 <u_2<v_2.
The third assertion is a simple accounting. Indeed, as i_p<j_p, points in \bigcup_{p=1}^2\Delta_{p,n} are of the form (x,y) with x<y. Hence using the hypothesis
we only need to consider the points (u_1,u_2), (u_1,v_2), (v_1,u_2), (v_1,v_2). Each of these points does not lie in \Delta_{2,n} since u_1 < v_1 <i_2. Also none of them lies in \Delta_{1,n} since n+j_1 < u_2 < v_2. The proof is completed.
Let A_1=(i_1,j_1), A_2=(i_2,j_2), A_3=(i_3,j_3)\in {\mathbb R}_{\ge 1}^2 be three given points such that i_p< j_p. Assume that i_1\le i_2\le i_3.
Denote
Then N \le M=2\max\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}. Moreover, for all n\ge M and for every three points (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n}, p=1,2,3, one of the twelve points (u_i,u_j), (v_i,v_j), (u_s,v_t) (where 1\le i<j\le 3, 1\le s, t\le 3, s\neq t), belongs to \bigcup_{p=1}^3\Delta_{p,n}.
Since 1\le i_p<j_p, we get N \le 2\max\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}. Assume the contrary, that for some n\ge 2\max\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}, and some three points (u_p,v_p)\in \Delta_{p,n}, p=1,2,3, none of the twelve points (u_i,u_j), (v_i,v_j), (u_s,v_t) (where 1\le i<j\le 3, 1\le s, t\le 3, s\neq t), belongs to \bigcup_{p=1}^3\Delta_{p,n}.
Using Lemma 3.6 for (A_1, A_2, (u_1,v_1), (u_2,v_2)) and (A_2,A_3, (u_2,v_2), (u_3,v_3)), we get the following inequalities
But then n < i_3 < \max\{j_1,j_2,j_3\}. This contradiction finishes the proof.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals with the stability index \operatorname{ind} {\mathcal I}=r\ge 1. Let G_n be the graph corresponding to I_n. Let m\ge 5 be an integer. Then for all n\ge mr, the complement graph G_n^c of G_n has no induced cycle C_m.
In particular, for all n\ge 5r, the complement graph G_n^c of G_n has no induced cycle C_m for any integer m such that 5\le m \le \dfrac{n}{r}.
It suffices to prove the first assertion.
Assume the contrary, that there exists n\ge (m-1)r such that G_{n+r}^c contained an induced cycle a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m,a_1 where 1\le a_i\le n+r, a_i\neq a_j for i\neq j. We may assume that a_1=\min\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m\}.
Hence (a_p,a_q)\in G_{n+r} for all 1\le p<q\le m such that q-p\ge 2 and (p,q)\neq (1,m). By the definition of the stability index, for each pair of integers (p,q) such that 1 \le p, q\le m, q-p\ge 2 and (p,q)\neq (1,m), there exists (i_{pq},j_{pq})\in G_r where 1\le i_{pq} <j_{pq}\le r such that (a_p,a_q)^\le \in \Delta((i_{pq},j_{pq}),n). As in the proof of Lemma 4.2, we have
Claim 1: For all 1\le p\le m, none of the points (a_p,a_{p+1}), (a_{p+1},a_p) belongs to
For 2\le p\le m-2, note that (a_p,a_{p+1})\notin \Delta_{1(p+1)} by Claim 1. Hence the following chain is false
Since a_p\ge a_1 and (a_1,a_{p+1})\in \Delta_{1(p+1)}, the first inequality is true. The last inequality is also true, so the middle one is false. Equivalently, we get
For 3\le p\le m-1, note that (a_{p+1},a_p) \notin \Delta_{1p} by Claim 1. Therefore the following chain is invalid
As a_{p+1}\ge a_1, the first and last inequalities are valid, hence the middle one is not. Thus
Applying Lemma 3.5 with the data (A_{13}, A_{2m}, (a_1,a_3), (a_2,a_m)) as in the proof of Lemma 4.2, we get
Case I: a_2\le a_m. By Lemma 4.2, a_m=\max\{a_1,\ldots,a_m\}.
Case I.1: a_2 \le a_{m-1}. By Claim 1, (a_1,a_2)\notin \Delta_{1(m-1)} hence the following chain is false
The first inequality in the chain holds since (a_1,a_{m-1})\in \Delta_{1(m-1)}, and the last inequality also holds since a_2\le a_{m-1}\le n+j_{1(m-1)}. Hence the middle inequality is false, namely
Now (a_{m-1},a_m)\notin \Delta_{2m} by Claim 1 so the following chain is false
Since (a_2,a_m)\in \Delta_{2m} and a_2 \le a_{m-1} by the hypothesis of Case I.1, we see that the first and last inequalities of the last chain are true. Thus the middle one is false, namely
Using (?), (?) multiple times, and (?), we get
Together with (?) and (?), we get
so n< (m-2)r+i_{2m} \le (m-1)r. This contradicts the hypothesis n\ge (m-1)r from above.
Case I.2: a_2 > a_{m-1}.
Consider the points (a_{m-1},a_2)\in \Delta_{2(m-1)} and (a_3,a_m)\in \Delta_{3m}. Since none of the points (a_3,a_2), (a_{m-1},a_m) belongs to \Gamma, by Lemma 3.5 and the fact that a_m=\max\{a_i: 1\le i\le m\}, we get i_{2(m-1)}<i_{3m}, and
Consider the points (a_1,a_{m-2})\in \Delta_{1(m-2)} and (a_{m-1},a_2)\in \Delta_{2(m-1)}. Arguing as above using Lemma 3.5 and the fact that a_1\le a_{m-1}, we get
We have (a_3,a_2)\notin \Delta_{2(m-1)} per Claim 1, so the following chain is invalid
Thanks to (?), a_3>a_{m-1}\ge i_{2(m-1)} and a_2-j_{2(m-1)}\le n, the middle inequality is false, namely
Combining (?), (?), (?), and (?), we obtain
Hence n < (m-3)r+i_{3m} \le (m-2)r, a contradiction. This finishes Case I.
Case II: a_2 > a_m. Relabel the vertices as follows: b_1=a_1, b_i=a_{m+2-i} for 2\le i\le m. Then b_1=\min\{b_1,\ldots,b_m\} and b_2 < b_m. Arguing as for Case I, we finish Case II and the proof.
With usual notations, let n\ge 2r be an integer. Let H be an induced subgraph of G_{n+r} such that H contains an induced anticycle C_m^c (where m\ge 5) whose consecutive vertices are labeled as a_1,\ldots,a_m \in \{1,\ldots,n+r\} such that a_1=\min\{a_1,\ldots,a_m\}. Then \max\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m\}=\max\{a_2,a_m\}.
Again, denote E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where 1\le i_p < j_p\le r for p=1,\ldots,s. Denote \Delta_p:=\Delta_{p,n}:=\Delta((i_p,j_p),n) for 1\le p\le s.
It suffices to show that if a_2\le a_m, then a_m=\max\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m\}. Indeed, for the case a_m < a_2, reindex the vertices as follows: b_1=a_1, b_i=a_{m+2-i} for 2\le i\le m. Then b_1=\min \{b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_m\} and b_2= a_m < a_2=b_m. Thus we may assume that a_2\le a_m, and we show that a_m=\max\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m\}.
By the definition of the stability index, for each pair of integers (p,q) such that 1 \le p, q\le m, q-p\ge 2 and (p,q)\neq (1,m), there exists (i_{pq},j_{pq})\in G_r where 1\le i_{pq} <j_{pq}\le r such that (a_p,a_q)^\le \in \Delta((i_{pq},j_{pq}),n).
For simplicity, denote \Delta_{pq}=\Delta((i_{pq},j_{pq}),n). We let a_{m+1}=a_1, A_{pq}=(i_{pq},j_{pq}) for 1\le p<q\le m, q\ge p+2, (p,q)\neq (1,m).
Claim 1: For all 1\le p\le m, none of the points (a_p,a_{p+1}), (a_{p+1},a_p) belongs to
Proof of Claim 1: First assume that for some 1\le t\le m, we have
Therefore, there exists an integer t\in\{1,\ldots,s\} such that (a_p,a_{p+1})\in \Delta_t. Since i_t<j_t, a_p<a_{p+1}. Now
and H is an induced subgraph of G_{n+r}, thus \{a_p,a_{p+1}\}\in E(H), a contradiction. Hence (a_p,a_{p+1})\notin \Gamma. Similarly for (a_{p+1},a_p), we finish the proof of Claim 1.
Now consider the two points (a_1,a_3)=(a_1,a_3)^{\le} \in \Delta_{13}, (a_2,a_m)=(a_2,a_m)^{\le} \in \Delta_{2m}.
Observe that i_{13}< i_{2m}. Indeed, assume the contrary i_{2m} \le i_{13}. By Claim 1, (a_2,a_3), (a_1,a_m)\notin \Delta_{2m} \cup \Delta_{13}. Note that n\ge 2r \ge 2\max\{j_{2m}, j_{13}\}. Hence using Lemma 3.5 with (A_{2m}, A_{13}, (a_2,a_m), (a_1,a_3)) in place of (A_1,A_2, (u_1,v_1), (u_2,v_2)), we get
contradicting the minimality of a_1.
This implies that i_{13}<i_{2m}. The last inequality puts us in a position to apply Lemma 3.5 for the data (A_{13}, A_{2m}, (a_1,a_3), (a_2,a_m)), as by Claim 1, it holds that (a_1,a_m), (a_2,a_3) \notin \Delta_{13} \cup \Delta_{2m}. The results are the following inequalities
In particular, a_3<a_m. Continuing this argument inductively by looking at (a_1,a_{i+1}) and (a_i,a_m) for 3\le i\le m-2, we get a_m=\max\{a_p: 1\le p\le m\}, as desired.
In general, it may happen that the graph G_n corresponding to I_n is not weakly chordal for all large n.
Take I_4=(x_1x_3,x_2x_4) and I_n=\operatorname{Inc}_{4,n} (I_4) for all n\ge 4. Explicitly, for all n\ge 4,
For each n\ge 4, G_n^c contains the induced cycle with vertices 1, 2, 3,\ldots,n, of length n, as one may easily check.
In particular, for all n\ge 5, G_n is not weakly chordal. Moreover for each n\ge 6, \operatorname{reg} I_n \ge \operatorname{reg} I(C_n^c)=3. Together with Theorem 6.1 below, we conclude that \operatorname{reg} I_n=3 for all n\ge 6.
On the other hand, using Lemma 3.6 for (i_1,j_1)=(1,3), (i_2,j_2)=(2,4), we deduce that G_{n+4} has no induced 2K_2 for all n\ge \max\{2(3-1+2-4),3+4-2\times 1,1\}=5. In other words, \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)=1 for all n\ge 9. Therefore we get \operatorname{reg}(I_n) =3 > 2= \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)+1 for all n\ge 9.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals. Let r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I}) be the stability index of the chain. Denote E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where 1\le i_t<j_t \le r,\ i_1\le i_2\le \cdots\le i_s and if i_t=i_{t+1} then j_t<j_{t+1}. Denote q=\max\{1\le t\le s: i_t=i_1\}.
Keep using Notation 5.1. Assume \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}=j_q+1 and \min\{j_t-i_t: t=1,\ldots,s\}\ge 2. Then for all n\ge 3r, there is an inequality \operatorname{reg}(I_n)\ge 3.
By Fröberg’s theorem, we have to show that G_{n+r} is not cochordal for all n\ge 2r. It suffices to construct an induced anticycle C_m^c in G_{n+r}, for some m\ge 4. Keep using notations as in Construction 5.7. We wish to show that the vertices a_1,\ldots, a_{m} in Construction 5.7 form an induced anticycle in the graph G_{n+r}.
This follows from combining Lemmas 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11. Therefore \operatorname{reg} I_n\ge 3 for all n\ge 3r.
For simplicity, denote \Delta_t=\Delta((i_t,j_t),n) for any t=1,\ldots,s. Set J=\{1,2,\ldots,s\},\ J_1=\{t\in J\mid j_t-i_t=\min\{j_1-i_1,\ldots,j_s-i_s\}\}. Denote
With Notation 5.3, we have j_H\le j_B. Moreover, the following statements are equivalent:
B=H;
B\in J_1;
j_H=j_B.
Clearly j_H\le j_B=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}. Since H=\max J_1, it is also clear that (1) \Longrightarrow (2). We prove that (2) \Longrightarrow (3) and (3) \Longrightarrow (1).
(2) \Longrightarrow (3): Assume that B\in J_1. Then B\le H=\max J_1 and j_B-i_B=j_H-i_H. From Notation 5.1, j_H-j_B=i_H-i_B\ge 0 as H\ge B. But the definition of B yields j_H\le j_B, hence j_H=j_B. Thus (3) is true.
(3) \Longrightarrow (1): Assume that j_H=j_B. The definition of B implies H\le B, so i_H\le i_B. In particular, j_H-i_H\ge j_B-i_B. But j_H-i_H=\min\{j_1-i_1,\ldots,j_s-i_s\}, so j_H-i_H=j_B-i_B, and hence i_H=i_B. The only situation when i_H=i_B and j_H=j_B are both valid is B=H. Hence (1) is true. The proof is concluded.
Keep using Notation 5.3. In this construction, we assume that i_b\le i_h.
Note that in this case i_1=i_q < i_b, since j_q=\max\{j_t: i_t=i_1\} < \max\{j_t: t=1,\ldots,s\} = j_b. Hence q\in J\setminus J_1. Indeed, if not, then j_q-i_q=\min\{j_t-i_t: 1\le t\le s\}. This implies q=1, and h=\min \{t: j_t-i_t=\min\{j_1-i_1,\ldots,j_s-i_s\}\}=1, and by the assumption, i_b \le i_h=i_1, a contradiction. Thus q\in J\setminus J_1 and i_q < i_b\le i_h. This justifies the first step of ?, which is useful for sorting the triangles \Delta_p.
Apply Algorithm ? and assume that (\beta-1) is the number of repeating steps of this algorithm. By what said above, \beta\ge 2, as J_2\neq \emptyset. The algorithm gives
and u_{\beta}= \min J_{\beta}. Note that q\in J\setminus \bigcup_{t=1}^{\beta-1} J_t since i_q< i_b and i_t\ge i_b for any t\in J_1 \cup \cdots \cup J_{\beta-1}. Hence J_{\beta}\neq \emptyset, so because the algorithm stops, we get i_{u_{\beta}} <i_b.
It follows that we obtain a sequence h=u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_{\beta}\in J such that
Keep using Notation 5.3. The following algorithm is used to rearrange the positions of the triangles \Delta_p.
In the case j_H=j_B, note that H=B by Lemma 5.4, and therefore ? does nothing. In other words, K_1=J_1, \gamma=1, and v_1=H=B in this case.
Consider the case j_H<j_B. Apply Algorithm ? and assume that (\gamma-1) is the number of repeating steps of this algorithm. Thanks to Lemma 5.4, B\notin K_1=J_1 and j_{v_1}=j_H < j_B. So K_2\neq \emptyset and \gamma \ge 2.
Claim 1: If B\in K_t for some 2\le t\le \gamma, then B=\max K_t=v_t.
Indeed, since B\in K_t, B\le \max K_t=v_t. From the setting of Notation 5.1, i_B\le i_{v_t}. Since B\in K_t, j_B-i_B=j_{v_t}-i_{v_t}, so j_{v_t}-j_B=i_{v_t}-i_B\ge 0. The definition of B implies j_{v_t}-j_B\le 0, so 0=j_{v_t}-j_B=i_{v_t}-i_B. This forces B=v_t.
Claim 2: It holds that B\in J\setminus \bigcup_{t=1}^{\gamma-1} K_t. In particular B\in K_\gamma and
Indeed, we have since that B\notin K_1. Assume that B\in K_t for some 2\le t\le \gamma-1, then B=v_t by Claim 1. But then j_{v_t}=j_B, contradicting the description of ?. Hence B\in J\setminus \bigcup_{t=1}^{\gamma-1} K_t. The description of the algorithm yields j_{v_{\gamma-1}}<j_B, so K_\gamma \neq \emptyset. Since the algorithm stops, we deduce j_{v_\gamma}=j_B. The definition of B in Notation 5.3 yields v_\gamma \le B, so i_{v_\gamma}\le i_B. In particular, j_B-i_B \le j_{v_\gamma}-i_{v_\gamma}, so the definition of K_\gamma, that reads
implies that B\in K_\gamma. Using Claim 1, we conclude that B=\max K_\gamma=v_\gamma.
So at the end of Algorithm ?, we obtain a sequence of indices H=v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{\gamma}=B such that
Keep using Notation 5.3. Let h=u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_{\beta} be as in Construction 5.5 and H=v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{\gamma}=B be as in Construction 5.6 (recalling Equation (?)). Now for n\ge 2r, we construct an induced anticycle C_m^c in G_{n+r} by considering the following two cases.
Case I: i_b \le i_h. We employ Algorithm ? to construct the initial vertices of C_m^c in G_{n+r}. Note that the numbers \beta, h=u_1, u_2,\ldots,u_{\beta} in ? come from the output of ?.
Note that
Indeed, by Construction 5.5, i_{u_\beta} < i_b \le i_{u_{\beta-1}}, so a_1=\epsilon(j_{u_{\beta}} - i_{u_{\beta}}-1) + i_{u_{\beta}} <i_b \le i_{u_{\beta-1}}. Hence at the step d=1,
From this, (?) follows.
At the end of Algorithm ?, we get a sequence a_1,\ldots,a_{d+1} satisfying
where t=\min\{\alpha\in\{1,\ldots,\beta\} \mid i_{u_\alpha}\le a_d\}.
At this point, note that v_\gamma=B per (?), so
using the hypothesis on n. Thus we may apply Algorithm ? with a_\textsf{index}:=a_{d+1}. Note that the numbers \gamma, H=v_1, v_2,\ldots,v_{\gamma}=B in ? come from the output of ?.
Consider the \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} of edge ideals with stability index 9 and
Clearly the conditions j_q+1=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\} and \min \{j_t-i_t \mid t=1,\ldots,s\} \ge 2 of Proposition 5.2 are satisfied. In this case i_1=1, q=2, j_2=8, \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_6 \}=9=8+1, and \min \{j_t-i_t \mid t=1,\ldots,6\}=3.
The plot of the corresponding points (i_t,j_t), t=1,\ldots,6 is as in ?.
Running ?, we get
Running ?, we get
Note that b=3, B=6, h=4, H=5 and
Let n=18= 2r. Running ? on Macaulay2 [GS96] with the input G_9 and n=18, we get the sequence
Running ? with the input G_9, n=18 and a_\textsf{index}=a_2=4, noting that i_B=i_6=5, j_B=j_6=9, we get the sequence
Hence G_{27} has an induced anticycle C_{13}^c whose consecutive vertices are
Similarly, G_{28} has an induced C_{14}^c whose consecutive vertices are
while G_{29} has an induced C_{14}^c with consecutive vertices
With the notations as in Construction 5.7, we have m\ge 4.
Note that by construction, a_2-a_1 =j_t-i_t-1 for some 1\le t\le s, hence a_2=a_1+j_t-i_t-1 < i_b+j_t-i_t-1< 2r. On the other hand, a_{m-1} > n+i_B > 2r, by the hypothesis on n. Hence m\ge 4.
With the notations as in Construction 5.7, we have \{a_p,a_{p+1}\}\notin E(G_{n+r}) for all p=1,\ldots,m with a_{m+1}=a_1.
Since i_B+n<a_{m-1}<a_m=j_B +n and i_q\le a_1<i_b, we get \{a_{m-1},a_m\}, \{a_1,a_m\}\notin E(G_{n+r}). Now assume that p \in \{1,\ldots, m-2\}.
Case 1: a_p < i_h. In this case, a_{p+1} is determined from a_p by Algorithm ?. Hence 1\le p\le d and a_p\le a_d<i_h. Set
It follows that t\ge 2 and i_{u_t}\le a_p<i_{u_{a}} for all 1\le a\le t-1. Moreover, we see that
Now if there exists an integer \alpha\in\{1,\ldots,s\} such that (a_p,a_{p+1})\in \Delta_\alpha then i_{\alpha} \le a_p<i_{u_{t-1}} and j_\alpha -i_\alpha\le a_{p+1}-a_p < j_{u_t}-i_{u_t}. By the definitions of u_t and J_t, we must have
which implies \alpha\in J_\nu for some \nu=1,\ldots,t-1. Thus, a_p\ge i_\alpha \ge i_{u_\nu}. By (Proof), we get \nu \ge t, a contradiction. This means (a_p,a_{p+1})\notin \Delta_\alpha for all \alpha=1,\ldots,s.
Case 2: a_p\ge i_h. In this case, a_{p+1} is determined from a_p by Algorithm ?. Set
It follows that t\ge 1 and a_{p+1}-a_p=j_{v_t}-i_{v_t}-1<j_{v_t}-i_{v_t}. If t=1 then
for all \alpha=1,\ldots,s. Hence (a_p,a_{p+1})\notin \Delta_\alpha for all \alpha=1,\ldots,s. Now we consider the case where t\ge 2. By (?), we get n+i_{v_{t-1}}<a_p\le n+i_{v_t} and
Furthermore,
Since j_{v_t}-i_{v_t}>j_{v_{t-1}}-i_{v_{t-1}} per Construction 5.5, one has
Now if there exists an integer \alpha\in\{1,\ldots,s\} such that (a_p,a_{p+1})\in \Delta_\alpha then
which implies j_\alpha>j_{v_{t-1}}. Combining with the fact that
and the definitions of K_t and v_t, we must have \alpha\in \cup_{i=1}^{t-1}K_i. This implies that \alpha\in K_\nu for some 1\le \nu \le t-1. As a consequence,
The third inequality in the last chain holds because of Construction 5.5. For the second inequality, note that j_\alpha-i_\alpha=j_{v_\nu}-i_{v_\nu}, as \alpha, v_\nu \in K_\nu. By definition, v_\nu= \max K_\nu\ge \alpha, hence
as desired.
Now (?) contradicts the inequality (?). So (a_p,a_{p+1})\notin \Delta_\alpha for all \alpha=1,\ldots,s.
With the notations as in Construction 5.7, we have \{a_p,a_z\}\in E(G_{n+r}) for any 1\le p<z\le m such that z-p\ge 2 and (p,z)\ne (1,m).
We proceed through two steps.
Step 1: \{a_1,a_z\}\in E(G_{n+r}) for all 3\le z\le m-1.
Indeed, a_{m-1} < a_m=n+j_B=n+j_q+1, thanks to the hypothesis, hence a_z \le a_{m-1} \le n+j_q.
We first consider the case where i_b\le i_h. Then thanks to Algorithm ?, i_{u_{\beta}}\le a_1. If a_z\le j_{u_{\beta}}+n, then (a_1,a_z)\in \Delta_{u_{\beta}}, as the following chain holds
In this chain, the middle inequality holds because thanks to Equation (?),
If a_z > n+j_{u_\beta}, then
hence (a_1,a_z)\in \Delta_q because the following chains holds
In other words, \{a_1,a_z\}\in E(G_{n+r}) for all 3\le z\le m-1 in this case.
Next consider the case i_h<i_b. We show that \{a_1,a_z\}\in E(G_{n+r}) for any 3\le z\le m-1 by going along the same lines by replacing {u_{\beta}} by u_1=h. We leave the details to the interested reader. This completes the proof of Step 1.
Step 2: \{a_p,a_z\}\in E(G_{n+r}) for all 2\le p < z\le m and z-p\ge 2.
Observe that a_p\ge i_b. We consider two cases.
Case 1: a_p < i_h. Again let
then t\ge 2 as u_1=h. We have i_{u_t}\le a_p<i_{u_{t-1}} and a_{p+1}-a_p=j_{u_t}-i_{u_t}-1 by Algorithm ?. If a_z\le j_{u_t}+n then
which gives 0\le a_p-i_{u_t}\le a_z-j_{u_t}\le n, i.e. (a_p,a_z)\in \Delta_{u_t}. On the other hand, if a_z>j_{u_t}+n, then we claim (a_p,a_z)\in \Delta_{b}. Indeed, since a_z>2r\ge i_{u_{t-1}}+j_b-i_b>a_p+j_b-i_b and a_z\le j_b+n, the chain
is valid.
Case 2: a_p \ge i_h. If z=m then we have that (a_p,a_m)\in \Delta_b\cup \Delta_B, as i_b\le a_p\le i_B+n for all 2\le p\le m-2. More precisely, it can be checked that if a_p \ge i_B then (a_p,a_m) \in \Delta_B, while if a_p < i_B then (a_p,a_m) \in \Delta_b. If z\le m-1, then as
we may let
Then a_{z-1}\le i_{v_\mu}+n and by Algorithm ?, a_z-a_{z-1}=j_{v_\mu}-i_{v_\mu}-1. Therefore
and
It follows that if a_p\ge i_{v_\mu}, then (a_p,a_z)\in\Delta_{v_\mu}, since the following chain holds
Finally, it remains to consider the case i_b\le a_p< i_{v_\mu}. If a_z\ge j_b -i_b +i_{v_\mu}, then
which yields
In other words, (a_p,a_z)\in \Delta_b.
Assume that a_z< j_b -i_b +i_{v_\mu}. In this case, the definition of \mu implies \mu=1, hence
Since n\ge 2r\ge j_b -i_b +i_{v_\mu}-j_h>a_z-j_h, the following chain holds
This also finishes the proof of the lemma.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals. Let r=\operatorname{ind}({\mathcal I})\ge 1. Then for all n\ge 4r, there is an inequality \operatorname{reg} I_n\le 3.
For a graph H, by abuse of notation, write \operatorname{reg} H for the regularity of the ideal I(H). Let n\ge 3r be an integer. We prove that if H is an induced subgraph of G_{n+r}, then \operatorname{reg} H\le 3. Induction on the cardinality of E(H).
If E(H)=\emptyset then \operatorname{reg} H= \operatorname{reg} (0) =-\infty. Assume that E(H)\neq \emptyset. Let u_1 be the maximal value of u\in V(H) such that for some u<v, v\in V(H), \{u,v\} belongs to E(H). Let v_1\in V(H) be a neighbor of u_1 in H such that v_1>u_1. By Lemma 6.2 and Fröberg’s theorem, \operatorname{reg}(H\setminus N_H[v_1]) \le 2. This together with Lemma 2.10, yields the chain
Clearly \{u_1,v_1\} \in E(H) \setminus E(H\setminus v_1). Also H\setminus v_1 is an induced subgraph of G_{n+r}, hence by the induction hypothesis \operatorname{reg} (H\setminus v_1)\le 3. Therefore \operatorname{reg}(H) \le 3. This finishes the induction and choosing H=G_{n+r}, we get the desired conclusion.
Keep using notations of Theorem 6.1. Let G_n be the graph corresponding to I_n. Let H be an induced subgraph of G_n with at least one edge. Set
Let v_1\in V(H) be any vertex such that u_1 <v_1 and \{u_1,v_1\} \in E(H). Then for every n\geq 4r and every choice of H and v_1 as above, the graph H\setminus N_H[v_1] is cochordal.
Assume the contrary that for some n\ge 3r and some induced subgraph H of G_{n+r} with E(H)\neq \emptyset, the graph H\setminus N_H[v_1] is not cochordal.
Assume that E(G_r)=\{\{i_1,j_1\},\ldots,\{i_s,j_s\}\} where s\ge 1, 1\le i_p < j_p\le r for all p=1,\ldots,s. For each 1\le t\le s, denote \Delta_t=\Delta((i_t,j_t),n) for simplicity. Therefore,
Hence there exists an integer \ell\in\{1,\ldots,s\} such that (u_1,v_1)\in\Delta_\ell. Observe that (i_\ell+j, v_1) \in \Delta_\ell for all 0\le j \le u_1-i_\ell. Hence
Since H is an induced subgraph of G_{n+r}, it holds that
Therefore V(H\setminus N_H[v_1])\subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,i_\ell-1\}\cup V_1, where i_\ell+j\notin V_1 for all 0\le j \le u_1-i_\ell, in particular, if u\in V_1 then u> u_1. If follows from the maximality of u_1 in the hypothesis that:
Step 1: We claim that H\setminus N_H[v_1] has no induced 2K_2.
Note that H\setminus N_H[v_1] is also an induced subgraph of G_{n+r}. By Lemma 3.6, the graph H\setminus N_H[v_1] has no induced 2K_2. Indeed, assume that \{u_2,v_2\}, \{u_3,v_3\} is an induced 2K_2 of H\setminus N_H[v_1] where u_p<v_p. Then Lemma 3.6 implies that for some non-negative number j_{2s}, u_3 > n+j_{2s} >n. This contradicts (?) and the fact that n\ge 3r >i_\ell.
Step 2: Since H\setminus N_H[v_1] is not cochordal, and yet does not contained any induced 2K_2= C_4^c, it necessarily contains an induced anticycle C_m^c, where m\ge 5. Label the consecutive vertices of C_m^c as a_1,\ldots,a_m (following the terminology of ?). By reindexing, we may assume that a_1=\min\{a_p: 1\le p\le m\}. Let a_{m+1}=a_1.
For each 1\le p <q\le m such that q-p\ge 2, (p,q)\neq (1,m), it holds that \{a_p,a_q\} \in E(H\setminus N_H[v_1]), so (a_p,a_q)^\le\in \Delta_{pq}, where \Delta_{pq}=\Delta((i_{pq},j_{pq}),n) is one of the sets \Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_s. As in the proof of Lemma 4.2, we have
Claim 1: For all 1\le t\le m, none of the points (a_t,a_{t+1}), (a_{t+1},a_t) belongs to
Consider two cases according to whether a_2\le a_m or a_m< a_2.
Case I: a_2\le a_m. Thanks to Lemma 4.2, we get a_m=\max\{a_p: 1\le p\le m\}.
Apply Lemma 3.5 for the points (a_1,a_3)\in \Delta_{13} and (a_2,a_m) \in \Delta_{2m}. The conclusion is that a_1< i_{2m} and
Case I.1: a_2 \le a_{m-1}. By Claim 1, (a_{m-1},a_m)\notin \Delta_{2m}, hence the following chain is false
The first inequality in the chain holds since a_{m-1}\ge a_2\ge i_{2m}, and the last inequality also holds since a_m\le j_{2m}+n. Hence the middle inequality is false, namely
By Claim 1, (a_{m-2},a_{m-1})\notin \Delta_{1(m-1)}, hence the following chain is false
The first inequality in the chain holds since a_{m-2}\ge a_1\ge i_{1(m-1)}, and the last inequality also holds since a_{m-1}\le j_{1(m-1)}+n. Hence the middle inequality is false, namely
Combining (?), (?), and (?), we obtain
Since a_{m-2} \le a_m, a_{m-2}\neq a_m, and \{a_{m-2},a_m\} \in E(H\setminus N_H[v_1]), we obtain a_{m-2}\le i_\ell-1 by (?). Thus
so that
where the last inequality follows from i_\ell < j_\ell \le \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}\le r. This contradicts the hypothesis n\ge 3r.
Case I.2: a_2 > a_{m-1}. Looking at the points (a_1,a_{m-2})=(a_1,a_{m-2})^\le \in \Delta_{1(m-2)} and (a_{m-1},a_2)=(a_2,a_{m-1})^\le \in \Delta_{2(m-1)}. Note that a_1 \le a_{m-1}, and (a_1,a_2), (a_{m-1},a_{m-2})\notin \Delta_{1(m-2)} \cup \Delta_{2(m-1)} thanks to Claim 1, so arguing as above using Lemma 3.5, we deduce i_{1(m-2)} < i_{2(m-1)}. Moreover, the same result yields
Since \{a_2,a_m\} \in E(H\setminus N_H[v_1]), a_2\le a_m and a_2\neq a_m, we get from (?) that a_2 \le i_\ell-1. Combining with (?), we obtain
hence
This contradicts the hypothesis n\ge 3r.
Case II: a_2> a_m. Relabel the vertices as follows: b_1=a_1, b_i=a_{m+2-i} for 2\le i\le m. Then b_1=\min\{b_1,\ldots,b_m\} and b_2 < b_m. Arguing as for Case I, we finish Case II and conclude that H\setminus N_H[v_1] is cochordal. The proof is completed.
Let {\mathcal I}=(I_n)_{n\ge 1} be an \operatorname{Inc}-invariant chain of eventually nonzero edge ideals. Keep using Notation 5.1. Then for all n\ge N=\max\{5r, 2r(r-2), 4(r+q(I_r))\}, there is an equality
and moreover \lim\limits_{n\to \infty} \operatorname{reg} I_n \in \{2,3\}.
In addition, the following statements are equivalent
\operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\gg 0;
\operatorname{reg} I_N=2;
Either j_q = \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}, or it holds that \min \{j_t-i_t: t=1,\ldots,s\}=1 and \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{3r})=1.
First assume that \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{3r})=2. Then by Theorem 3.1, we deduce \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)=2 for all n\ge 3r. Hence using Lemma 2.9, for all such n,
Together with Theorem 6.1, we get \operatorname{reg} I_n=3 for all n\ge 4r.
Next assume that \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{3r})=1. Then by Theorem 3.1, \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)=1 for all n\ge 3r.
If \min \{j_t-i_t: t=1,\ldots,s\}=1 then by Proposition 7.3, \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}.
If j_q = \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\} then \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge 3r by Proposition 7.4.
It remains to consider the case \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}\ge j_q+1 and \min \{j_t-i_t: t=1,\ldots,s\}\ge 2. In this case, by Theorem 7.6, we deduce that \operatorname{reg} I_n=3 for all n\ge 4(r+q(I_r)). All the desired assertions follow from the above arguments.
We note that the number N=\max\{ 5r, 2r(r-2), 4(r+q(I_r))\} in Theorem 7.1 can be replaced by a constant depending only on r. Indeed, let p=\operatorname{Msupp} I_r \le r, since I_r is quadratic and nonzero, by Definition 2.5,
Therefore 4(r+q(I_r))\le 2(r^2+5r), and thus N\le 2(r^2+5r). Hence we can replace N by 2(r^2+5r) in the statement of Theorem 7.1. While we do not know the optimal (minimal) value for the number N such that \operatorname{reg} I_n=\operatorname{reg} I_{n+1} for all n\ge N, Remark 7.5 below shows that this value has to be at least 3r-9.
Keep using Notation 5.1. If \operatorname{indmatch}(G_{3r})=1 and \min \{j_p-i_p: p=1,\ldots,s\}=1, then \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}.
By Fröberg’s theorem, we have to show that G_n is cochordal for all n \ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}.
By the hypothesis, I_n is a nonzero edge ideal for all n\ge r. Thanks to Theorem 3.1, \operatorname{indmatch}(G_n)=1 for all n\ge 3r. And hence G_n does not contain any induced 2K_2 for all n\ge 3r. Take n\ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}. We show that G_n is cochordal.
It suffices to prove that G_n does not contain any induced C_m^c for m\ge 5. Assume the contrary, that for some m\ge 5 and some n\ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}, G_n contain an induced C_m^c. By Proposition 4.1,
By the hypothesis, for some 1\le p\le s, we have j_p=i_p+1. Since
we deduce that A=\{i_p,i_p+1,\ldots,i_p+n-r+1\} is a clique in G_n. Note that |V(G_n\setminus A)| \le n-(n-r+2)=r-2.
Denote the consecutive vertices of the induced C_m^c as a subgraph of G_n by a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m. Denote a_{m+1}=a_1. So a_i, a_{i+1} are not adjacent for all 1\le i\le m. Since A is a clique and C_m^c is an induced subgraph of G_n, this implies \{a_1,\ldots,a_m\} \cap A has at most m/2 elements. Hence
In particular, m\le 2(r-2), contradicting (?). Therefore the above assumption is wrong, and G_n is cochordal for all n\ge \max\{5r, 2r(r-2)\}. This concludes the proof.
Keep using Notation 5.1. If j_q=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\} then \operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge 3r.
By Fröberg’s theorem, we have to show that G_{n+r} is cochordal for all n\ge 2r. Assume the contrary, that for some m\ge 4 and some n\ge 2r, G_{n+r} contain an induced C_m^c.
Label the consecutive vertices of the induced C_m^c by a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_m in such a way that a_1=\min\{a_1,\ldots,a_m\}.
We may assume that a_2\le a_m (when a_2< a_m, relabel the vertices as b_1=a_1, b_i=a_{m+2-i} for 2\le i\le m).
By the hypothesis j_q=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\} and i_1=\cdots=i_q=\min\{i_1,\ldots,i_s\}, one has i_q\le a_i\le j_q+n for i=1,\ldots,m. Since (a_1,a_m)\notin \Delta_q=\Delta((i_q,j_q),n), following chain is false
It follows that a_1> a_m+i_q-j_q. Assume that (a_1,a_3)\in \Delta_b, (a_2,a_m)=(a_2,a_m)^\le \in \Delta_c and (a_1,a_{m-1})\in \Delta_d, with b,c,d \in \{1,2,\ldots,s\} (note that b=d if m=4).
Consider the points (a_1,a_3)\in \Delta_b and (a_2,a_m) \in \Delta_c. Since \{a_1,a_m\}, \{a_2,a_3\}\notin E(G_{n+r}), we have (a_1,a_m), (a_2,a_3)\notin \Delta_b \cup \Delta_c. Arguing as in Lemma 6.2, using Lemma 3.5 for the two points (a_1,a_3), (a_2,a_m) and the fact that a_1 <a_2, we get i_b<i_c, moreover a_1<i_c\le r and a_m>n+j_b. Thus
which implies n<r+j_q-j_b-i_q<2r. This contradicts the hypothesis n\ge 2r. Therefore the above assumption is wrong, and G_{n+r} is cochordal for all n\ge 2r. This concludes the proof.
The lower bound 3r in the statement of Proposition 7.4 is nearly sharp. Let r\ge 5 be an integer, (I_n)_{n\ge 1} be the invariant chain with stability index r and I_r=(x_1x_r,x_{r-3}x_{r-1}). The hypothesis of Proposition 7.4 is clearly satisfied. We claim that \operatorname{reg} I_{3r-10} \ge 3. Indeed, it is not hard to check that \{2r-8,2r-6\}, \{r-4,3r-10\} form a 2K_2 in G_{3r-10}, so Lemma 2.9 implies the desired inequality. Thus the lower bound 3r in the statement “\operatorname{reg} I_n=2 for all n\ge 3r” cannot be improved to 3r-10.
Keep using Notation 5.1. Assume \max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}\ge j_q+1 and \min\{j_p-i_p: p=1,\ldots,s\}\ge 2. Then for all n\ge 4(r+q(I_r)), there is an equality \operatorname{reg}(I_n)=3.
The hypothesis implies that r\ge 4. We proceed by induction on q(I_r)\ge 0. The case q(I_r)=0 is vacuous: in that case I_r=(1) and the hypothesis is not satisfied.
Assume that q(I_r)>0. Let p=\operatorname{Msupp}(I_r)=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}. If p=j_q+1, then by Proposition 5.2, we deduce that \operatorname{reg} I_n\ge 3 for all n\ge 3r. Together with Theorem 6.1, we get \operatorname{reg} I_n= 3 for all n\ge 4(r+q(I_r)).
Now assume that p\ge j_q+2.
Let {\mathcal J}=(J_n)_{n\ge 1} be the chain defined in Proposition 2.4. By the last result, \operatorname{ind}({\mathcal J})=r+1 and since \langle I_r \rangle_{R_{r+1}}\subseteq J_{r+1} are quadratic monomial ideals with
Lemma 2.7 implies that q(J_{r+1})\le q(\langle I_r \rangle_{R_{r+1}})=q(I_r).
We claim that q(J_{r+1})< q(I_r). Assume the contrary, then Lemma 2.7 implies that J_{r+1}=\langle I_r \rangle_{R_{r+1}}. By Proposition 2.4, we get {\mathcal I} is a quasi-saturated chain. But now x_{i_1}x_{j_q} \in I_r, so x_{i_1}x_{j_q+1} \in I_{r+1} by \operatorname{Inc}-invariance. Since \operatorname{Msupp}(I_r)=\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\} \ge j_q+1 and {\mathcal I} is quasi-saturated, we deduce
Thus x_{i_1}x_{j_q+1} \in I_r, namely \{i_1,j_q+1\} \in E(G_r). This contradicts the fact that j_q=\max\{j_t \mid i_t=i_1\}. Therefore q(J_{r+1})< q(I_r).
Let H_n be the graph corresponding to J_n for each n.
Observation: There is an equality
This follows from inspecting the definition
and the fact that I_{r+1}=\langle \operatorname{Inc}_{r,r+1}(I_r) \rangle_{R_{r+1}}.
From the Observation and the assumption that p\ge j_q+2, we see that the chain {\mathcal J} also satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 7.6. In details,
By the induction hypothesis for the chain {\mathcal J}, we get for all n\ge 4(r+1+q(J_{r+1})) that
Since q(J_{r+1})<q(I_r), we have 4(r+q(I_r)) \ge 4(r+1+q(J_{r+1})). For each n\ge 4(r+q(I_r)) \ge \max \{4(r+1+q(J_{r+1})),r+1\}, we get
The inequality in the chain follows from Lemma 2.8. The first equality in the last chain is due to Proposition 2.4. Together with Theorem 6.1, we get
This finishes the induction and the proof.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2212.06621v2 by Do Trong Hoang, Hop D. Nguyen and Quang Hoa Tran, 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/2212/2212.06621.jsonl.