Let $R$ be a finitely generated graded ring over a field $k$. Let $R_\ell$ be the degree-$\ell$ homogeneous component of $R$.

By the Noether normalization theorem, $R$ is finite over a graded polynomial algebra $S = k[\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n]$, where the $\theta_i$ are a homogeneous system of parameters. Let $d_1,\dots,d_n$ be the degrees of the $\theta_i$.

Then the Hilbert series of $R$ has the form

$$\sum_{\ell \geq 0} (\dim_kR_\ell) t^\ell = \frac{\text{polynomial}}{\prod_1^n \left(1-t^{d_i}\right)}.$$

One proof is to observe that $R$ has a finite graded free resolution (of length $\leq n$) by the Hilbert syzygy theorem, and then to explicitly write down the Hilbert series using the resolution.

My question concerns the polynomial in the numerator; in particular its value at $t=1$. Call this polynomial $p(t)$. If $R$ happens to be a Cohen-Macaulay ring, then $R$ is already free as an $S$-module, and $p(t)$ explicitly gives the degrees of the generators for $R$ as an $S$-module. Then $p(1)$ is just the rank of $R$ as $S$-module.

What happens if $R$ is not Cohen-Macaulay? The term-by-term interpretation of $p(t)$ is now too much to hope for since coefficients may be negative, but:

Is $p(1)$ still the rank of something? In particular, if $K$ is $S$'s fraction field, is it the dimension of $R\otimes_S K$ over $K$?

(As often happens at this site, as I wrote out the question I began to think more clearly about it, and I think the answer is yes, as follows. Consider the graded free resolution of $R$ over $S$. Each module in the resolution has an analogous number $p_j(1)$ where $p_j$ is the numerator of the Hilbert series of the $j$th module in the resolution, and we should have

$$p(1) = \sum_{j\geq 0} (-1)^jp_j(1)$$

because (i) in each degree we have an exact sequence of finite dimensional $k$-vector spaces in which dimension is additive in short exact sequences, so the analogous relation holds for the entire Hilbert series; (ii) everything is over a common denominator so the analogous relation holds in the numerators; (iii) so it certainly continues to hold when you specialize to $t=1$.

These numbers $p_j(1)$ are just the ranks of the modules in the resolution, because they are all free. Tensoring the resolution by $K$ preserves exactness because $K$ is flat over $S$ [localization is exact], but now everything is a vector space over $K$ and all the $p_j(1)$'s can be interpreted as vector space dimensions of their corresponding modules. Since vector space dimension is additive in short exact sequences, the relation $p(1) = \sum (-1)^jp_j(1)$ now implies that $p(1)$ coincides with the $K$-dimension of $R\otimes_S K$. Do you buy it?)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You always get that $p(1)$ is the rank of $R$ as an $S$-module (you almost proved it!); see e.g. Bruns and Herzog, Lemma 4.1.13. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 22 '17 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 - By rank of $R$ as $S$-module you mean dimension of $R\otimes_S K$ as $K=\operatorname{Frac} S$-vector space, right? In which case, I now think I did prove it! The argument in B-H 4.1.13 is more concise but I think the substance is the same. $\endgroup$ – Ben Blum-Smith Dec 22 '17 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's what I mean. You can also use Corollary 1.4.6 (same book). $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 22 '17 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! (The relevant result is corollary 1.4.5 in my copy.) $\endgroup$ – Ben Blum-Smith Dec 26 '17 at 2:50
  • $\begingroup$ It seems you use the 1993 edition, that's why. (Be careful, that edition contains many mistakes.) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Dec 26 '17 at 8:26

The answer is yes. The proof in the OP is correct.

In comments, @user26857 points to Winfried Bruns and Jurgen Herzog's book Cohen-Macaulay Rings, where various forms of the result also appear. The special case where all the $d$'s equal $1$ appears as 4.1.13 in that book. In my edition, the underlying result on the rank of the module appears as 1.4.5. (@user26857 cites 1.4.6 so I assume it appears differently in different editions.) In both cases, the substance of the proof is essentially that given in the OP.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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