Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Well, I have asked this question on MO, I do not like asking duplicate question on both sites, however, my question might be too elementary for them, so I decided to post it here. Sorry if you feel it is not appropriate.

Let $A$ be a commutative Noetherian ring, $R$ be a standard graded algebra over $A$, $M$ be finitely generated graded $R$-module. Let $R_{+}$ be the irrelevant ideal. The Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $M$ or regularity for short is defined as follows: $$\text{reg}(M):=\text{max}\lbrace a(H_{R_+}^{i}(M))+i|\ i\ge 0\rbrace,$$ where $a(H)$ denotes the maximal non-vanishing degree of a graded module $H$. Let $x_1,...,x_s$ be linear forms in $R$. This set of elements is called an $M$-filter regular sequence if $x_{i}\notin \mathfrak{p}$ for any associated prime $\mathfrak{p}\nsupseteq R_{+}$ of $(x_1,...,x_{i-1})M$ for $i=1,...,s$.

Then, people claim that $\text{reg}(M)=\text{max}\lbrace a((x_1,...,x_i)M:R_{+}/(x_1,...,x_{i})M)|\ i=1,...,s\rbrace$.

Could you explain for me why the two above definitions are equivalent ? What is the motivation of filter regular sequence ?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

For all $k\ge 0$ we set $a_k(M)=a(H_{R_+}^{k}(M))$.

Lemma. Let $z\in R_1$ be an $M$-filter regular element. Then, for all $k\ge 0$, we have $$a_{k+1}(M)+1\le a_k(M/zM)\le\max\{a_k(M),a_{k+1}(M)+1\}.$$

Proof. By the definition of $M$-filter regularity and a similar result for modules to this one Noetherian ring and primary decomposition result we get $(0:_Mz)\subseteq\bigcup_{n\ge 0}(0:_MR_+^n)$. In particular $(0:_Mz)$ is annihilated by $R_+^n$ for some $n\ge 0$ which in terms of local cohomology means that $H_{R_+}^i(0:_Mz)=0$ for all $i\ge 1$. This shows easily that $H_{R_+}^i(M)=H_{R_+}^i(M/(0:_Mz))$ for all $i\ge 1$. From the following short exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow M/(0:_Mz)\stackrel{z\cdot}\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow M/zM\longrightarrow 0$$ we get a long exact sequence for the local cohomology $$H_{R_+}^i(M)_n\longrightarrow H_{R_+}^i(M/zM)_n\longrightarrow H_{R_+}^{i+1}(M)_{n-1}\longrightarrow H_{R_+}^{i+1}(M)_n$$ and this proves the assertion.

Proposition. Let $z_1,...,z_s\in R_1$ be an $M$-filter regular sequence. Then $\max\{a_i(M)+i|\ i=0,\dots,s\}=\text{max}\lbrace a((z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M)|\ i=0,...,s\rbrace.$

Proof. By using Lemma successively we get $$a_i(M)+i\le a_0(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M)\le\max\{a_j(M)+j|\ j=0,\dots,i\}.$$ This implies that $$\max\{a_i(M)+i|\ i=0,\dots,t\}=\max\{a_0(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M)|\ i=0,\dots,t\}$$ for all $t\le s$.

Now we identify $H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))$ with $$\bigcup_{n\ge 0}(z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}^n/(z_1,...,z_{i})M.$$ Set $a=a_0(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M)$. Then we have $H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))_a\subseteq(z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M\subseteq H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))$ and therefore $a((z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M)=a$.

Edit. $H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))_a\subseteq(z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M$ since $H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))$ is a graded $R$-module and $H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))_a$ is its top graded part, so $R_+H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))_a=0$.

$(z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M\subseteq H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))$ implies $((z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M)_j\subseteq H_{R_+}^{0}(M/(z_1,\dots,z_i)M))_j$ for all $j$. For $j>a$ the right hand side is $0$, while for $j=a$ is not. This shows that $a((z_1,...,z_i)M:R_{+}/(z_1,...,z_{i})M)=a$.

share|improve this answer
    
The result and its proof are coming from Trung's papers. –  user26857 Oct 23 '12 at 11:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.