ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

arXiv:1708.03803v1 [] 12 Aug 2017

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM
Abstract. We analyze the vanishing and non-vanishing behavior of the graded Betti numbers
for Segre embeddings of products of projective spaces. We give lower bounds for when each of
the rows of the Betti table becomes non-zero, and prove that our bounds are tight for Segre
embeddings of products of P1 . This generalizes results of Rubei concerning the Green–Lazarsfeld
property Np for Segre embeddings. Our methods combine the Kempf–Weyman geometric technique for computing syzygies, the Ein–Erman–Lazarsfeld approach to proving non-vanishing of
Betti numbers, and the theory of algebras with straightening laws.

1. Introduction
For non-negative integers a1 , · · · , an , let X = Seg(a1 , · · · , an ) denote the image of the n-Segre
embedding
Pa1 × · · · × Pan −→ PA ,
where A = (a1 + 1) · · · (an + 1) − 1 and the ground field is the complex numbers C. Let S denote
the homogeneous coordinate ring of PA , let I ⊂ S denote the ideal of equations vanishing on X,
and let R = S/I denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of X. We study the (non-)vanishing
behavior of the syzygies of X, defined by:
Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an ) = TorSp (R, C)p+q .
Main Theorem. Assume that a1 ≥ · · · ≥ an ≥ 0. We have the non-vanishing for Kp,1 groups
Kp,1 (a1 , · · · , an ) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ p ≤ (a1 + 1) · · · (an−1 + 1) + an − 2.

(1.1)

For arbitrary q we have the vanishing of Kp,q groups
Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an ) = 0 for 0 ≤ p < P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) − q,

(1.2)

where P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) is defined recursively by the following rules:
(1) P (a; 0) = 0 and P (a; q) = ∞ for q > 0.
(2) For n > 1,
P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) =

min

(P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q − j) + j) · (j + 1).

0≤j≤min(q,an )

If a1 = · · · = an = 1 then the (non-)vanishing behavior of Kp,q is completely characterized by
Kp,q (1, · · · , 1) 6= 0 if and only if 2q+1 − 2 − q ≤ p ≤ 2n − 2n−q − q, and q = 0, · · · , n − 1. (1.3)
Note that Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an ) = Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an , 0) so there is no harm in assuming that all
ai > 0. We chose to allow some ai = 0 for more flexibility. To illustrate our theorem with an
example, consider the Segre embedding of P2 × P2 × P1 into P17 , which occurs by taking n = 3
Date: August 15, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D02.
Key words and phrases. Syzygies, Segre embeddings.
1

2

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

and (a1 , a2 , a3 ) = (2, 2, 1). The graded Betti table (as computed by Macaulay2 [GS]) records in
column p and row q the vector space dimension of Kp,q (2, 2, 1):
total:
0:
1:
2:
3:

0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
1 63 394 1179 2087 2692 3726 4383 3275 1530 407 45 2
1 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. 63 394 1179 1980 1702 396
63
8
.
. . .
. .
.
. 107 990 3330 4320 3267 1530 407 36 .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 9 2

The relevant values of the P -function are computed below
q
P (2, 2, 1; q)

0 1 2

3

4

0 2 6 14 ∞

P (2, 2, 1; q) − q 0 1 4 11 ∞
showing that the vanishing statement (1.2) is sharp in this example. Notice also that Kp,1 (2, 2, 1) 6=
0 precisely for 1 ≤ p ≤ 8 = (a1 + 1)(a2 + 1) + a3 − 2, so (1.1) is also sharp.
The (non-)vanishing properties of the groups Kp,2(a1 , · · · , an ) have been previously investigated by Rubei in relationship with the Green–Lazarsfeld property Np : she shows in [Rub02,
Rub07] that for any n ≥ 3 and any a1 , · · · , an ≥ 1 one has Kp,2 = 0 for p ≤ 3 and K4,2 6= 0. To
see how our results recover Rubei’s, we first note that the non-vanishing statement for arbitrary
products reduces using (3.1) to verifying that K4,2 (1, 1, 1) 6= 0, which in turn follows from (1.3)
by taking q = 2. For the vanishing of the groups Kp,2 we can apply (1.2) once we compute the
appropriate values for the P -function: we invite the reader to check that
• P (a1 , · · · , an ; 1) = 2 if n ≥ 2 and a2 ≥ 1, and that P (a, 0, · · · ; 1) = ∞;
• P (a1 , · · · , an ; 2) = 6 if n ≥ 2 and a2 ≥ 2, or if n ≥ 3 and a3 ≥ 1, while in all other cases
P (a1 , · · · , an ; 2) = ∞.
It follows from (1.2) that Kp,2 = 0 for n ≥ 3 and a1 , · · · , an ≥ 1, recovering the vanishing aspect
of Rubei’s result.
The vanishing statement (1.2) may seem hard to apply due to the recursive nature of the
P -function. Nevertheless, in the case when ai = a for all i we get an explicit closed formula as
follows. If we let q, r ≥ 0 such that (r − 1)a < q ≤ ra and set q0 = q − (r − 1)a, then we show in
Lemma 3.4 that
(
(q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1) for n > r,
P (a, a, · · · , a; q) =
∞
otherwise.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some basic notation and results
regarding syzygies, representation theory, and the Kempf–Weyman geometric technique. In
Section 3 we prove the vanishing statement (1.2) from our Main Theorem. In Section 4 we use
Artinian reduction as in [EEL16] to prove the non-vanishing (1.1) for Kp,1 groups. In Section 5
we construct a standard basis for the Artinian reduction of the coordinate ring of the Segre
variety, inspired by the theory of algebras with straightening laws, and devise an algorithm for
expressing every element in the said reduction as a linear combination of elements of the standard
basis. Equipped with a standard basis, we adapt the methods of [EEL16] to prove in Section 6 a
sharp non-vanishing result for the syzygies of Segre embeddings of products of P1 . We conclude
with a number of examples in Section 7.

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

3

2. Preliminaries
2.1. Syzygies. Let S denote a standard graded polynomial ring over C and let M be a finitely
generated graded S-module. For p ≥ 0 and q ∈ Z we let
S
Kp,q
(M) = TorSp (M, C)p+q ,

(2.1)

S
and refer to the groups Kp,q
(M) as the syzygy modules of M. We write Kp,q (M) instead of
S
Kp,q
(M) when there is no danger of confusion regarding the ring S.
It will be useful to interpret the syzygy modules with Koszul homology groups as follows.
Write S = SymC (V ) where V is the vector space of linear forms (say dim(V ) = r), and consider
the Koszul complex resolving the residue field:
p
r
^
^
V ⊗ S(−p) −→ · · · −→ S −→ 0.
K• :
0 −→
V ⊗ S(−r) −→ · · · −→

Since TorSp (M, C) is the p-th homology group of K• ⊗S M, it follows that we can compute Kp,q (M)
as the homology of the 3-term complex
p+1

^

V ⊗ Mq−1 −→

p
^

p−1

V ⊗ Mq −→

^

V ⊗ Mq+1 .

(2.2)

Finally, suppose that ℓ1 , · · · , ℓk is a regular sequence on M consisting of linear forms in S and
let
S = S/(ℓ1 , · · · , ℓk )
and
M = M ⊗S S.
Note that S can be thought of as a polynomial ring in k fewer variables and M is a finitely
generated graded S-module. For each p ≥ 0, q ∈ Z we have an isomorphism of vector spaces
S
S
Kp,q
(M) ≃ Kp,q
(M ).

(2.3)

2.2. The geometric technique. Here we introduce essential ingredients from the Kempf–
Weyman geometric technique, [Wey03, Chapter 5]. Let V be a finite dimensional complex vector
space, let PV denote the projective space of rank one quotients of V , and consider the tautological
sequence
0 −→ R −→ V ⊗ OPV −→ Q −→ 0
(2.4)
where Q ∼
= O(1) is the tautological rank one quotient bundle, and R is the tautological subbundle.
Suppose that U is another finite dimensional vector space, and let
S = SymC (U ⊗ V )

and

S = SymOPV (U ⊗ Q).

(2.5)

We think of S as a graded ring with U ⊗ V sitting in degree one, and similarly think of S as
a sheaf of graded algebras. Note that (2.4) induces a natural degree preserving surjective map
S ⊗ OPV −→ S.
Let M be a quasi-coherent sheaf of graded S-modules on PV and assume that M has no
higher cohomology. Set M = H 0 (PV, M), which is a graded S-module in the natural way.
Suppose further that M has a minimal graded free resolution
F• : 0 −→ Fr −→ · · · −→ F0 −→ M −→ 0,
L

where Fp = q∈Z Kp,q (M) ⊗OPV S and moreover the following conditions are satisfied:
• Each Kp,q (M) is a coherent sheaf on PV .
• For each p there are only finitely many values of q for which Kp,q (M) 6= 0.
• For q < q ′ the induced map Kp+1,q (M) ⊗ S −→ Kp,q′ (M) ⊗ S is identically zero.

(2.6)

4

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

Theorem 2.1. The module M = H 0 (PV, M) is a finitely generated S-module and for each p ≥ 0,
q ∈ Z we have that the vector space Kp,q (M) is a subquotient of
!
i
^
M
H j PV, (U ⊗ R) ⊗ Kp−i+j,q−j (M) .
i,j≥0

Proof. We have a Koszul complex (we write S in place of S ⊗ OPV ):
K : ··· →

i
^

(U ⊗ R) ⊗ S → · · · →

2
^

(U ⊗ R) ⊗ S → (U ⊗ R) ⊗ S → S → S → 0

which is acyclic since S is locally cut out by linear equations in S × PV . Since the terms are all
locally free, tensoring K with Kp,q (M) is an exact operation, so we can replace Fi in (2.6) with
K ⊗ Fi to get a double complex whose total complex T has homology equal to M in degree 0
and is 0 in all other degrees. We will label T cohomologically, so that
T

−i

=

M
j≥0

j
^
Fi−j ⊗ (U ⊗ R) ⊗ S.

Now replace each term in T with an injective resolution and take sections to get another double
complex whose total complex T has terms
M
Ti =
H j (PV, T i )
i,j≥0

j

j

such that H (T) = H (PV, M). By assumption, this is 0 if j > 0, so we have a long exact
sequence of graded S-modules
· · · → T−i → T−i+1 → · · · → T−1 → T0 → M → 0.

In particular, each Ti is a free S-module, so this is a graded free resolution. Tensoring this with
the residue field of S, we get a complex whose pth homological term in degree p + q is
!
i
^
M
H j PV, (U ⊗ R) ⊗ Kp−i+j,q−j (M) .
i,j≥0

Furthermore, this complex computes TorSp (M, C)p+q ∼
= Kp,q (M), so we get the desired statement. Finally, M is a finitely generated S-module since the assumptions above guarantee that
TorS0 (M, C)q is nonzero only for finitely many q, and each nonzero value is a finite-dimensional
vector space.


2.3. Representation theory. Let m = dim V . The irreducible algebraic representations of
GL(V ) are given by Schur modules Sλ (V ) tensored with some power of the determinant character det(V ). Here λ = (λ1 , . . . , λm ) is a weakly decreasing sequence of non-negative integers,
i.e., a partition. We can extend the notation for Schur functors for all weakly decreasing sequences of integers by setting Sλ (V ) = Sµ (V ) ⊗ det(V )⊗d where µi = λi − d. The irreducible
polynomial representations are exactly given by Sλ (V ) where λ is a partition. These will be the
only representations we will be concerned with, though when taking duals, it is convenient to
use non-polynomial representations. See [Wey03, Chapter 2] for background, but note that our
indexing conventions coincide with the Weyl functors defined there, not the Schur functors.
Let Σm denote the group of bijections of [m] = {1, . . . , m}. Given σ ∈ Σm , define its length
to be
ℓ(σ) = #{(i, j) | 1 ≤ i < j ≤ m, σ(i) > σ(j)}.

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

5

Also define
ρ = (m − 1, m − 2, . . . , 1, 0) ∈ Zm .
Given v ∈ Zm , define σ(v) = (vσ−1 (1) , . . . , vσ−1 (m) ) and σ • v = σ(v + ρ) − ρ. Note that given any
v ∈ Zm , either there exists σ 6= 1 such that σ • v = v, or there exists a unique σ such that σ • v
is weakly decreasing.
Theorem 2.2 (Borel–Weil–Bott). Let α = (α1 , . . . , αm−1 ) ∈ Zm−1 be a weakly decreasing sequence and set v = (d, α1 , . . . , αm−1 ) for d ∈ Z. Exactly one of the following two cases happens:
(1) There exists σ 6= 1 such that σ • v = v. In that case, H j (PV ; Qd ⊗ Sα (R)) = 0 for all j.
(2) Otherwise, there exists unique σ such that β = σ • v is weakly decreasing, in which case
(
Sβ (V ) if j = ℓ(σ)
H j (PV ; Qd ⊗ Sα (R)) =
.
0
if j 6= ℓ(σ)
The equality denotes that the two terms are isomorphic as GL(V )-representations.
See [Wey03, Corollary 4.1.9].
3. Vanishing of syzygies of Segre products
Consider a sequence of non-negative integers a = (a1 ≥ · · · ≥ an ) and suppose that V =
(V1 , · · · , Vn ) is a tuple of vector spaces with dim(Vi ) = ai + 1 for i = 1, · · · , n. The Segre variety
X = Seg(V ) is the image of the embedding
PV1 × · · · × PVn −→ P(V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn ),

([v1 ], · · · , [vn ]) 7→ [v1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ vn ].

We let S = SymC (V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn ) be the homogeneous coordinate ring of P(V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn ) and let
M
R=
Symd V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Symd Vn
d≥0

be the homogeneous coordinate ring of Seg(V ). We will be interested in studying the syzygy
modules
Kp,q (V ) = TorSp (R, C)p+q .
The description (2.2) of the Kp,q groups, where V = V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn and Mq = Symq V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗
Symq Vn , shows that the formation of Kp,q (V ) is functorial in V1 , · · · , Vn , and in fact it is given
by a polynomial functor. In particular, each Kp,q (V ) is a representation of the group GL =
GL(V1 ) × · · · × GL(Vn ). The functoriality shows that the vanishing behavior of Kp,q (V ) only
depends on the dimension vector a and not on the vector spaces Vi themselves, so we will often
write Kp,q (a) instead of Kp,q (V ), with no danger of confusion. The fact that each Kp,q (V ) is a
polynomial functor shows that
if ai ≥ bi for i = 1, · · · , n and if Kp,q (a) = 0 then Kp,q (b) = 0.

(3.1)

We now describe the vanishing result. Consider the function h : Z × Z −→ Z defined by
h(x, j) = (x + j) · (j + 1),
and define P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) recursively for a1 ≥ · · · ≥ an ≥ 0 and q ≥ 0 by the following rules:
(1) P (a; 0) = 0 and P (a; q) = ∞ for q > 0.
(2) For n > 1,
P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) =

min

0≤j≤min(q,an )

h(P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q − j), j).

(3.2)

6

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

Theorem 3.1. For q ≥ 0 and a1 ≥ · · · ≥ an ≥ 0, we have
Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an ) = 0 for 0 ≤ p < P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) − q.
Remark 3.2. It is not hard to prove by induction on n that
P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) = ∞ for q > a2 + · · · + an ,
which means that for such values of q we have Kp,q (a) = 0 for all p ≥ 0. This is a reflection of
the fact that the Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity of R is precisely equal to a2 + · · · + an , so for
the purpose of detecting regularity our result is sharp.

Remark 3.3. In the case when n = 2 one gets that P (a1 , a2 ; q) = q 2 +q for q ≤ a2 , so Kp,q (a1 , a2 ) =
0 whenever p < q 2 . In this case our result is again sharp, detecting the precise vanishing for the
syzygies of 2-factor Segre products (see [Wey03, Theorem 6.1.4] for the explicit description of all
the Kp,q groups).

The behavior of the function P (a1 , · · · , an ; q) is hard to describe in general, so we specialize
to the case when a1 = · · · = an = a when a more concrete formula can be given. In this case we
have
Lemma 3.4. Consider non-negative integers a, q, r, such that (r − 1)a < q ≤ ra. If we let
q0 = q − (r − 1)a, and write an for the sequence (a1 , · · · , an ) with ai = a, then we have
(
(q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1) for n > r,
P (an ; q) =
∞
otherwise.
Remark 3.5. If we take r = n − 1 and q = ra then we get P (an ; (n − 1)a) = (a + 1)n − (a + 1).
Theorem 3.1 then predicts that
Kp,(n−1)a (an ) = 0 for p < (a + 1)n − 1 − na.
Since R is Gorenstein of projective dimension (a+1)n −1−na, and since its Castelnuovo–Mumford
regularity is (n − 1)a, it follows that Kp,(n−1)a (an ) 6= 0 if and only if p = (a + 1)n − 1 − na, so our
vanishing result is again sharp in this case. In fact this argument shows that for every 0 ≤ r < n
we have that
K(a+1)r+1 −1−(r+1)a,ra (ar+1 ) 6= 0
which by (3.1) implies that
K(a+1)r+1 −1−(r+1)a,ra (an ) 6= 0,
and since P (an ; ra) − ra = (a + 1)r+1 − 1 − (r + 1)a, the vanishing result is sharp whenever a
divides q.

Proof of Lemma 3.4. We prove the formula for P (an ; q) by induction on n: when n = 1, it
asserts that P (a; 0) = 0 and P (a; q) = ∞ for q > 0, which is just condition (1) in the definition
of the function P . If n = 2 then our formula asserts that P (a2 ; q) = q 2 + q for 0 ≤ q ≤ a and
P (a2 ; q) = ∞ for q > a, which is a special case of Remark 3.3. If q = 0 then r = 1, q0 = a and
our formula reads
P (an ; 0) = (a2 + a) · (a + 1)−1 + (a + 1)0 − (a + 1) = 0,
which follows from (3.2) since P (an ; 0) = P (an−1 ; 0).
We assume from now on that n ≥ 3 and q ≥ 1. If q > (n − 1)a then q − j > (n − 2)a for
every 0 ≤ j ≤ min(q, a) and therefore P (an−1, q − j) = ∞ by induction. It follows from (3.2)

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

7

that P (an ; q) = ∞ as well. We may then assume that q ≤ (n − 1)a, so we can find 1 ≤ r < n
satisfying (r − 1)a < q ≤ ra, and we can set q0 = q − (r − 1)a.
We begin by proving that P (an ; q) ≤ (q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1), for which
according to (3.2) it is sufficient to find 0 ≤ j ≤ min(q, a) such that
(P (an−1 ; q − j) + j) · (j + 1) = (q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1)

(3.3)

If r ≤ n − 2 then it follows by induction that P (an−1 ; q) = (q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1)
so we can take j = 0 in (3.3). If r = n − 1 ≥ 2 then we get by induction that
P (an−1; q − a) = (q02 + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−2 + (a + 1)r−1 − (a + 1)
and since q > (r − 1)a ≥ a, we can take j = a in (3.3).
To conclude our induction we need to verify that
(P (an−1; q−j)+j)·(j +1) ≥ (q02 +q0 )·(a+1)r−1 +(a+1)r −(a+1) for all 0 ≤ j ≤ min(q, a). (3.4)
We let q ′ = q − j and consider two possible scenarios according to whether q ′ > (r − 1)a or
q ′ ≤ (r − 1)a.
(r − 1)a < q ′ ≤ ra: we set q0′ = q ′ − (r − 1)a = q0 − j. If r = n − 1 then P (an−1 ; q ′ ) = ∞ so
(3.4) is trivial. We may thus assume that r ≤ n − 2 and therefore
P (an−1 ; q ′ ) = ((q0′ )2 + q0′ ) · (a + 1)r−1 + (a + 1)r − (a + 1).
Using the fact that q02 + q0 − ((q0′ )2 + q0′ ) = j · (q0 + q0′ + 1) we can rewrite (3.4) as
P (an−1 ; q ′ ) · j + j · (j + 1) ≥ j · (q0 + q0′ + 1) · (a + 1)r−1 .
If j = 0 this is an equality, otherwise we can divide by j and rewrite it as
((q0′ )2 + q0′ + a + 1) · (a + 1)r−1 + j − a ≥ (q0 + q0′ + 1) · (a + 1)r−1
which is equivalent to
((q0′ )2 + a − q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 ≥ a − j.
Since q0′ ≥ 1 we get (q0′ )2 + a − q0 ≥ q0′ + a − q0 = a − j, while since r ≥ 1 we get (a + 1)r−1 ≥ 1,
from which the inequality follows.
(r − 2)a < q ′ ≤ (r − 1)a: we set q0′ = q ′ −(r −2)a = q0 + a−j. If r = 1 then q ′ = 0, q0 = q = j,
and (3.4) is an equality. We may thus assume that r ≥ 2, in which case
P (an−1 ; q ′ ) = ((q0′ )2 + q0′ ) · (a + 1)r−2 + (a + 1)r−1 − (a + 1).
Using the fact that (q0′ )2 + q0′ − (q02 + q0 ) = (a − j) · (q0′ + q0 + 1), and adding P (an−1; q ′ ) · (a −
j) − j(j + 1) + (a + 1)2 to both sides of (3.4) we can rewrite the inequality as
(a − j) · (q0′ + q0 + 1) · (a + 1)r−1 ≥ (a − j) · (P (an−1 ; q ′ ) + j + a + 1).
If a = j then this is an equality, otherwise we can divide by a − j and rewrite it as
(q0′ + q0 ) · (a + 1)r−1 ≥ ((q0′ )2 + q0′ ) · (a + 1)r−2 + j,
which is equivalent to
(q0′ · a + q0 · a + q0 − (q0′ )2 ) · (a + 1)r−2 ≥ j.
Since r ≥ 2 we get (a + 1)r−2 ≥ 1. Since q0′ ≤ a we have q0′ · a − (q0′ )2 ≥ 0. Since q0 > 0, we get
q0 · a + q0 ≥ a + 1 > j, so the desired inequality follows, concluding the proof.


8

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

Proof of Theorem 3.1. We prove the vanishing result by induction on n, the case n = 1 being
trivial: R = S and Kp,q (a1 ) = 0 unless p = q = 0.
Assume from now on that n > 1, and consider the tautological sequence on PVn :
0 −→ R −→ Vn ⊗ OPVn −→ Q −→ 0,
where Q is the tautological rank one quotient bundle, and R is the tautological subbundle. We
use the notation (2.5), with U = V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn−1 and V = Vn . We consider the quasi-coherent
sheaf of S-algebras
M
M=
Symd V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Symd Vn−1 ⊗ Qd ,
d≥0

0

and note that R = H (PVn , M). By functoriality, M has a minimal graded free resolution (2.6)
where
Kp,q (M) = Kp,q (V1 , · · · , Vn−1) ⊗ Qp+q .
Theorem 2.1 yields that Kp,q (V1 , · · · , Vn ) is a subquotient of
!
i
^
M
p+q−i
j
⊗ Kp−i+j,q−j (V1 , · · · , Vn−1).
H PVn , (V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn−1 ⊗ R) ⊗ Q

(3.5a)

i,j≥0

Suppose that the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 is false, so that Kp,q (a1 , · · · , an ) 6= 0 for some p, q
with
p + q < P (a1 , · · · , an ; q).
(3.5b)
We can therefore find i, j ≥ 0 such that the corresponding term in (3.5a) is non-zero. It follows
that Kp−i+j,q−j (V1 , · · · , Vn−1 ) 6= 0, so we get by induction that
p + q − i ≥ P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q − j).
(3.5c)
V
Moreover, we must also have H j (PVn , i (V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn−1 ⊗ R) ⊗ Qp+q−i ) 6= 0. Using Cauchy’s
identity [Wey03, Corollary 2.3.3], to get the decomposition
i
^

(V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn−1 ⊗ R) =

M

Sλ R ⊗ Sλ† (V1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Vn−1 )

|λ|=i

(here λ† is the transpose partition of λ), we conclude that there exists a partition λ of i such that
H j (PVn , Sλ R ⊗ Qp+q−i ) 6= 0, which by Bott’s theorem is possible only when λj ≥ p + q − i + j + 1,
which in particular implies
i = |λ| ≥ λ1 + · · · + λj ≥ j · λj ≥ j · (p + q − i + j + 1).
For such a partition to exist it is thus necessary that
i ≥ j ·(p+q −i+j +1) = j ·(j +1)+j ·(p+q −i)

(3.5c)

≥ j ·(j +1)+j ·P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q −j). (3.5d)

Combining (3.5c) with (3.5d) we get that
p + q = (p + q − i) + i ≥ (P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q − j) + j) · (j + 1) = h(P (a1 , · · · , an−1 ; q − j), j),
which contradicts (3.5b).



ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

9

4. The non-vanishing of Kp,1 via Artinian reduction
Given a sequence of positive integers a = (a1 ≥ · · · ≥ an ), we let X = Seg(a1 , · · · , an ) denote
the image of the Segre embedding
Pa1 × · · · × Pan −→ PA ,
where A = (a1 + 1) · · · (an + 1) − 1. Let S denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of PA , let
I ⊂ S denote the ideal of equations vanishing on X, and let R = S/I denote the homogeneous
S
(R) then the main result of this section is the
coordinate ring of X. If we let Kp,1 (a) = Kp,1
following.
Theorem 4.1. With notation as above we have
Kp,1(a) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ p ≤ (a1 + 1) · · · (an−1 + 1) + an − 2.
To prove the theorem we will construct an explicit Artinian reduction R of R obtained by
modding out by a regular sequence of linear forms. Inspired by [EEL16], we then exhibit explicit
S
(R), which by (2.3) is
cycles in Koszul homology in order to prove the non-vanishing of Kp,1
equivalent to the non-vanishing of Kp,1(a).
We begin by writing
S = C[zi1 ,··· ,in : 0 ≤ ik ≤ ak for k = 1, · · · , n]
in which case the ideal I will be generated by binomials
zi1 ,··· ,in · zj1 ,··· ,jn − zi′1 ,··· ,i′n · zj1′ ,··· ,jn′ , where {ik , jk } = {i′k , jk′ } as multisets for each k = 1, · · · , n.
We next consider the poset
P(a) = {i = (i1 , · · · , in ) : 0 ≤ ik ≤ ak for k = 1, · · · , n},

(4.1)

with the ordering given by i ≤ j if ik ≤ jk for all k. We write |i| = i1 + · · · + in , let
min(i, j) = (min(i1 , j1 ), · · · , min(in , jn )),
max(i, j) = (max(i1 , j1 ), · · · , max(in , jn )).
The coordinate ring R of the Segre variety is an ASL (algebra with straightening law, see [Eis80,
DCEP82] for an introduction to this subject) on the poset P(a), with the straightening law
zi · zj = zmin(i,j) · zmax(i,j) .
We define for 0 ≤ r ≤ a1 + · · · + an the element
X
xr =
zi .

(4.2)
(4.3)

|i|=r

It follows from [Bru89, Proposition 2.1] that (4.3) provides a system of parameters for the
maximal homogeneous ideal of R. We write
S = S/(x0 , · · · , xa1 +···+an )

and

R = R/(x0 , · · · , xa1 +···+an ) = R ⊗S S.

Since R is Cohen–Macaulay, R is a finite dimensional vector space (called an Artinian reduction
of R) of dimension equal to the degree of the Segre variety. This is computed by the multinomial
coefficient


(a1 + · · · + an )!
a1 + · · · + an
=
.
(4.4)
deg(R) = dimC (R) =
a1 , · · · , an
a1 ! · · · an !

10

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

We will construct an explicit basis for R below, but before doing so we use the Artinian reduction
R to prove the non-vanishing of the Kp,1 groups. We start with the following.
Lemma 4.2. To any subset V ⊆ P(a) we associate a set of linear forms in R1
Z(V) = {zv : v ∈ V}.

(4.5)

We have that Z(V) is a linearly independent set if and only if for each 0 ≤ k ≤ |a| there exists
an element v k ∈ P(a) \ V with |v k | = k. The set Z(V) is a basis of R1 if and only if the choice
for vk is unique for each k.
Proof. We have that {zu : u ∈ P(a)} is a basis of R1 = S1 . It follows from (4.3) that R1 is the
quotient of R1 by the relations
X
0 ≤ k ≤ |a|.
(4.6)
zv = 0,
v∈P(a)
|v|=k

These relations are independent since they involve disjoint sets of variables, hence the conclusion
follows.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. Consider the element z = z0,0,··· ,0,1 ∈ R. Note that by (4.2) and the fact
that x0 = z0 = 0 in R1 , it follows that z is annihilated by
zi1 ,··· ,in−1 ,0 where 0 ≤ ik ≤ ak for k = 1, · · · , n − 1, and ik 6= 0 for at least one value of k.
We claim that z is also annihilated by
z0,··· ,0,j where j = 2, · · · , an .
To see this, we use (4.6) to express
z0,0,··· ,0,1 = −z1,0,··· ,0,0 − z0,1,··· ,0,0 − · · · − z0,0,··· ,1,0 ,
and apply (4.2). It follows from Lemma 4.2 that the set Z(V) is linearly independent in R1
where
V = {(i1 , · · · , in−1 , 0) : 0 ≤ ik ≤ ak and some ik 6= 0 for 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1}
∪ {(0, · · · , 0, j) : 2 ≤ j ≤ an }.
Observe that |V| = (a1 + 1) · · · (an−1 + 1) + an − 2. Using the fact that S 1 = R1 , in order to
S
prove the non-vanishing of Kp,1(a) = Kp,1
(R) it is enough to construct a p-cycle in the 3-term
complex obtained by setting V = S 1 = R1 and M = R in (2.2),
p+1

^

R1 −→

p
^

p−1

R1 ⊗ R1 −→

^

R1 ⊗ R2 ,

and to show that this cycle is not a boundary. Fix 1 ≤ p ≤ |V|, consider an arbitrary subset
W ⊂ V with |W| = p, and define


p
^
^


zw ⊗ z ∈
R1 ⊗ R1 .
c=
w∈W

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

11

Since for all w ∈ W we have z · zw = 0 in R2 , it follows that c is a cycle. If c was a boundary,
then it would also be a cycle in the Koszul complex
p+1

^

R1 −→

p
^

p−1

R1 ⊗ R1 −→

^

R1 ⊗ Sym2 (R1 ).

This is not the case since the products z · zw ∈ Sym2 (R1 ) are linearly independent.



5. Standard basis and the straightening algorithm
Keeping the notation from the previous section, our goal is to construct a natural basis for
the graded Artinian ring R, which we will call the standard basis, and to give an algorithm for
expressing every element of R as a linear combination of standard basis elements. We will refer
to this algorithm as the straightening algorithm.
5.1. The standard basis. To construct an explicit basis for R, we introduce the collection of
increasing lattice paths from 0 to a = (a1 , · · · , an ), defined by


γ(0)
=
0,






=
a,
γ(|a|)
n
L(a) = γ : {0, 1, · · · , |a|} −→ Z
.
|γ(t)| = t for all t = 0, · · · , |a|,





γ(t) ≤ γ(t + 1) for all t = 0, · · · , |a| − 1. 

The data of a path γ ∈ L(a) is equivalent to that of a sequence s(γ)1≤t≤|a| where s(γ)t
records which coordinate jumps by one at step t: s(γ)t is equal to the unique index i for which
γ(t)i > γ(t − 1)i . We define the descents of a path γ (or those of the corresponding sequence
s(γ)) to be the set
Desc(γ) = {t : s(γ)t > s(γ)t+1 } ⊂ {1, · · · , |a| − 1}.

(5.1)

For each γ ∈ L(a) we define
mγ =

Y

zγ(t) ∈ R.

(5.2)

t∈Desc(γ)

Example 5.1. If a = (1, 1, 1) and γ(0) = 0, γ(1) = (0, 0, 1), γ(2) = (0, 1, 1), γ(3) = (1, 1, 1) then
s(γ) = (3, 2, 1), Desc(γ) = {1, 2} and
mγ = z0,0,1 · z0,1,1 .
On the other hand, if γ(0) = 0, γ(1) = (0, 0, 1), γ(2) = (1, 0, 1), γ(3) = (1, 1, 1) then s(γ) =
(3, 1, 2), Desc(γ) = {1} and
mγ = z0,0,1 .

Theorem 5.2. The set
B(a) = {mγ : γ ∈ L(a)}

(5.3)

is a basis of R, called the standard basis.
Remark 5.3. Note that the maximal degree of a monomial mγ for γ ∈ L(a) is a2 + · · · + an (there
exist a1 values of t for which s(γ)t = 1, and none of these values belongs to Desc(γ)). This is
consistent with the fact that a2 + · · · + an is the Castelnuovo–Mumford regularity of R as an
S-module (or equivalently that of R as an S-module).


12

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

In order to prove Theorem 5.2 we fix some notation and establish a series of preliminary results.
Given a monomial
m = zv1 · · · zvr where |v1 | ≤ · · · ≤ |vr | and v i ∈ P(a)

(5.4)

we define the lexicographic rank of m, denoted lexrk(m), to be
lexrk(m) = (|v1 |, · · · , |vr |) ∈ Zr≥0 .
We consider the lexicographic order on Zr≥0 given by
(d1 , · · · , dr ) ≺ (e1 , · · · , er ) if there exists an index i ≤ r with dj = ej , for j < i, and di < ei ,
and the induced order on monomials: m ≺ m′ if lexrk(m) ≺ lexrk(m′ ). This is not to be confused
with the partial order defining the poset P(a) in (4.1), which we write as <. An important fact
which we will use throughout is that the lexicographic order is compatible with multiplication:
if m ≺ m′ are monomials of degree r, and if m′′ is any other monomial then m · m′′ ≺ m′ · m′′ .
We define the rank of a monomial m as in (5.4) to be
rk(m) = | lexrk(m)| = |v1 | + · · · + |vr | ∈ Z≥0 .
Notice that the notion of rank induces a Z-grading on S, and that the relations (4.2) and (4.6)
that are used to define R as a quotient of S are homogeneous with respect to this grading. It
follows that R inherits a Z2 -grading given by degree and rank, respectively.
Lemma 5.4. If u, v ∈ P(a) and |u| = |v| then we have an expression in R
X
cw,w′ · zw · zw′
zu · zv =

where cw,w′ ∈ Z and each term in the sum has |w| < |u|. In other words, zu · zv can be expressed
as a linear combination of monomials of smaller lexicographic rank.
Proof. If u 6≤ v then we use (4.2) to get
zu · zv = zmin(u,v) · zmax(u,v) ,
so the conclusion follows by taking w = min(u, v) and w ′ = max(u, v) and cw,w′ = 1. We may
thus assume that u ≤ v, which together with the fact that |u| = |v| implies u = v. Using (4.6)
we can write
X
zv = −
zv′ ,
(5.5)
v6=v′ ∈P(a)
|v′ |=|v|

and the conclusion follows from the previous case by observing that all the terms in the above

sum satisfy |v′ | = |u| and v′ 6= u.
Corollary 5.5. The degree r homogeneous component Rr of R is spanned by monomials
zu1 · · · zur with ui ∈ P(a) and u1 < · · · < ur .

(5.6)

Proof. The vector space Rr is spanned by monomials zv 1 · · · zvr where |v1 | ≤ · · · ≤ |v r | and
v i ∈ P(a). We assume that the conclusion of the corollary is false, and consider a minimal
monomial m = zv1 · · · zvr which is not expressible as a linear combination of monomials as in
(5.6). We let 1 ≤ i < r be the smallest index for which v i ≮ v i+1 . If v i = v i+1 then we apply
Lemma 5.4, while if v i 6= v i+1 we apply the relation (4.2) to re-express m as a linear combination
of monomials mj of smaller lexicographic rank. By the minimality of m, all the monomials mj
are expressible as linear combinations of monomials as in (5.6). This means that the same must
be true about m, contradicting our assumption.


ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

13

For any u < v ∈ P(a) we let
f (u, v) = min{i : ui < vi }, the first index where u and v differ, and
l(u, v) = max{i : ui < vi }, the last index where u and v differ.
Lemma 5.6. Every degree three monomial zu zv zw ∈ R3 can be expressed as a linear combination
X
cu′ ,v′ ,w′ · zu′ zv′ zw′
(5.7)
zu zv zw =

where cu′ ,v′ ,w′ ∈ Z, and the sum ranges over triples (u′ < v ′ < w′ ) with f (v′ , w′ ) < l(u′ , v′ ) and
(|u′ |, |v′ |, |w′ |)  (|u|, |v|, |w|).
Proof. Arguing as in the proof of Corollary 5.5 we choose a monomial m = zu zv zw of smallest
lexicographic rank for which the conclusion of the lemma fails (assuming there exists one).
Corollary 5.5 (and its proof) implies that we may assume u < v < w. Since m can’t be expressed
as in (5.7), we must have
f (v, w) = f ≥ l = l(u, v).
We rewrite zv using (5.5) and consider any v 6= v ′ ∈ P(a) with |v′ | = |v|. One of the following
holds:
• vi′ < ui for some i = 1, · · · , n. Using (4.2) we get
zu zv′ zw = zmin(u,v′ ) zmax(u,v′ ) zw ,
and since | min(u, v′ )| < |u| the right hand side has smaller lexicographic rank and hence
can be expressed as in (5.7).
• vi′ > wi for some i = 1, · · · , n. We argue as in the previous case, using zv′ zw =
zmin(v ′ ,w) zmax(v ′ ,w) .
• ui ≤ vi′ ≤ wi for all i = 1, · · · , n. Since |v| = |v′ | and v 6= v ′ there exists i such that
vi > vi′ . Since vi′ ≥ ui we get that i ≤ l, and since wi ≥ vi > vi′ it follows that
f (v′ , w) ≤ i ≤ l.
By a similar argument, there exists j such that vj < vj′ which yields
l(u, v′ ) ≥ j ≥ f.
Since i 6= j and f ≥ l we get that f (v ′ , w) < l(u, v′ ), hence zu zv′ zw can be expressed as
in (5.7).
The above analysis allows us to express m as in (5.7), contradicting the assumption and thus
concluding the proof.

A similar argument shows the following.
Lemma 5.7. Every degree two monomial zu zv ∈ R2 can be expressed as a linear combination
X
cu′ ,v′ · zu′ zv′
(5.8)
zu zv =
where cu′ ,v′ ∈ Z, and the sum ranges over pairs (u′ < v′ ) with f (u′ , v′ ) < l(0, u′ ), f (v′ , a) <
l(u′ , v′ ), (|u′ |, |v′ |)  (|u|, |v|).
Proof. Left to the reader.



14

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

Proof of Theorem 5.2. It is enough to prove that the monomials mγ span R, since their number
is equal to the vector space dimension of R by (4.4). Using the arguments in Corollary 5.5,
and Lemmas 5.6 and 5.7, it follows that Rr is spanned by monomials m = zu1 · · · zur where
u1 < · · · < ur and
(5.9a)
f (ui , ui+1 ) < l(ui−1 , ui ) for all i = 1, · · · , r,
0
r+1
where we make the convention that u = 0 and u
= a. We thus fix such a monomial m and
let di = |ui | for i = 0, · · · , r + 1. The goal is to construct a path γ ∈ L(a) with γ(di ) = ui and
Desc(γ) = {d1 , · · · , dr }, which will show that m = mγ .
Observe that for every v ≥ 0 there exists a unique path γv ∈ L(v) with no descents: we make
the convention vn+1 = 1 and for every 0 ≤ k ≤ |v| we consider the unique index 0 ≤ i ≤ n with
v1 + · · · + vi ≤ k < v1 + · · · + vi+1
and let
γv (k) = (v1 , · · · , vi , k − v1 − · · · − vi , 0, · · · , 0).
(5.9b)
We define γ ∈ L(a) by concatenating the paths γui+1 −ui in the following sense: we let γ(|a|) = a,
while for i = 0, · · · , r and di ≤ k < di+1 we define
γ(k) = ui + γui+1 −ui (k − di ).

(5.9c)

It is clear that γ(di ) = ui for all i = 0, · · · , r + 1, and that Desc(γ) ⊆ {d1 , · · · , dr }. The fact that
each of d1 , · · · , dr appears in Desc(γ) follows from (5.9a), since for each i = 1, · · · , r we have
s(γ)di = l(0, ui − ui−1 ) = l(ui−1 , ui )

and

s(γ)di +1 = f (0, ui+1 − ui ) = f (ui , ui+1 ).



5.2. The straightening algorithm. Based on the arguments in the proof of Theorem 5.2 we
can devise a recursive algorithm for expressing any monomial m of the form (5.4) as a linear
combination of elements of the standard basis B(a).
Consider a monomial
m = zu1 · · · zur ∈ Rr , with ui ∈ P(a) and |u1 | ≤ · · · ≤ |ur |,
and make the convention that u0 = 0 and ur+1 = a. If u1 = 0 or ur = a then m = 0. Otherwise,
Step 1: Is there an index i = 1, · · · , r − 1 such that ui 6≤ ui+1 ? If there is one, consider any
such index and use (4.2) to replace m by m′ where
m′ = zu1 · · · zui−1 · zmin(ui ,ui+1 ) · zmax(ui ,ui+1 ) · zui+2 · · · zur
Observe that lexrk(m′ ) < lexrk(m), and run the algorithm on m′ .
If there is no such index i then go to Step 2.
Step 2: Is there an index i = 1, · · · , r such that f (ui , ui+1 ) ≥ l(ui−1 , ui )? If there is one,
consider the maximal such index i and use (5.5) to write
X
m(ui
m=−
v),
ui 6=v∈P(a)
|v|=|ui |

v) is obtained from m by replacing ui with v. Run the algorithm on each
where m(ui
i
m(u
v).
If there is no such index i then go to Step 3.
Step 3: Construct the path γ ∈ L(a) via (5.9c) by concatenating the paths γui+1 −ui defined
through (5.9b) and observe that m = mγ .

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

15

Example 5.8. Suppose that n = 4 and a = (1, 1, 1, 1), and consider the monomial
m = z0,0,0,1 · z0,1,0,1 · z1,1,0,1 .
Set u0 = (0, 0, 0, 0), u1 = (0, 0, 0, 1), u2 = (0, 1, 0, 1), u3 = (1, 1, 0, 1), u4 = (1, 1, 1, 1).
Since (0, 0, 0, 1) < (0, 1, 0, 1) < (1, 1, 0, 1) we can proceed directly to Step 2. We have
f ((0, 0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0, 1)) = 2 and l((0, 0, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0, 1)) = 4,
f ((0, 1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0, 1)) = 1 and l((0, 0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0, 1)) = 2,
f ((1, 1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 1, 1)) = 3 and l((0, 1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0, 1)) = 1,
so i = 3 is the only index for which f (ui , ui+1 ) ≥ l(ui−1 , ui ). We write
z1,1,0,1 = −z1,1,1,0 − z1,0,1,1 − z0,1,1,1 .
(4.2)
If v = (1, 1, 1, 0) then z0,1,0,1 · zv = z0,1,0,0 · z1,1,1,1 = 0, so m((1, 1, 0, 1)
v) = 0. It follows that
reasoning, if v = (1, 0, 1, 1) then m((1, 1, 0, 1)

m = −m((1, 1, 0, 1)

v) = 0. By a similar

(0, 1, 1, 1)) = −z0,0,0,1 · z0,1,0,1 · z0,1,1,1 .

We now consider
m′ = z0,0,0,1 · z0,1,0,1 · z0,1,1,1 ,
and set v 0 = (0, 0, 0, 0), v 1 = (0, 0, 0, 1), v 2 = (0, 1, 0, 1), v3 = (0, 1, 1, 1), v 4 = (1, 1, 1, 1). We find
that i = 2 is the only index for which f (v i , vi+1 ) ≥ l(v i−1 , vi ) and write
z0,1,0,1 = −z1,1,0,0 − z1,0,1,0 − z1,0,0,1 − z0,1,1,0 − z0,0,1,1 .
If w = (1, 1, 0, 0), (1, 0, 1, 0) or (0, 1, 1, 0) then using (4.2) we get z0,0,0,1 · zw = 0 and therefore
m′ ((0, 1, 0, 1)
w) = 0. If w = (1, 0, 0, 1) then zw ·z0,1,1,1 = z0,0,0,1 ·z1,1,1,1 = 0, so m′ ((0, 1, 0, 1)
w) = 0. It follows that
m′ = −m′ ((0, 1, 0, 1)

(0, 0, 1, 1)) = −z0,0,0,1 · z0,0,1,1 · z0,1,1,1 .

Putting everything together, and writing γ for the unique path with s(γ) = (4, 3, 2, 1) we obtain
m = −m′ = z0,0,0,1 · z0,0,1,1 · z0,1,1,1 = mγ .



6. (Non-)vanishing of syzygies for a Segre product of copies of P1
In this section we study the syzygies of X = Seg(1n ), the Segre product of n copies of P1 . In
particular, we prove that the vanishing result of Theorem 3.1 is sharp. More precisely, it follows
from Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.4 that
Kp,q (1n ) = 0 for p < 2q+1 − 2 − q, and q = 0, · · · , n − 1.
Using the fact that Seg(1n ) is arithmetically Gorenstein, it follows that
Kp,q (1n ) = 0 for p > 2n − 2n−q − q, and q = 0, · · · , n − 1.
The main result of this section is
Theorem 6.1. With the notation as above, we have
Kp,q (1n ) 6= 0 for 2q+1 − 2 − q ≤ p ≤ 2n − 2n−q − q, and q = 0, · · · , n − 1.

(6.1)

16

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

The remaining part of this section will focus on proving Theorem 6.1. Recall that R (resp. S)
is the quotient of R (resp. S) by the regular sequence x0 , x1 , · · · , xn defined in (4.3), and that
by (2.3) we have
S
Kp,q (1n ) = Kp,q
(R).
It suffices then to prove the corresponding non-vanishing for the syzygies of R as an S-module,
for which we employ the strategy of [EEL16], expanding on the arguments from Section 4. We
prove (6.1) for fixed q, by induction on n = q + 1, q + 2, · · · . When n = q + 1 we only need to
consider p = 2q+1 − 2 − q and the conclusion follows from the fact that Seg(1q ) has projective
dimension 2q+1 − q − 1, regularity q, and is arithmetically Gorenstein (see Remark 3.5). When
q = 1, (6.1) is a special case of Theorem 4.1. By duality we conclude that (6.1) also holds for
q = n − 2. We will therefore assume from now on that n ≥ q + 3.
By (3.1), the non-vanishing Kp,q (1n−1 ) 6= 0 implies that Kp,q (1n ) 6= 0, so instead of (6.1) it is
enough to prove that
Kp,q (1n ) 6= 0 for 2n−1 − 2n−1−q − q < p ≤ 2n − 2n−q − q.

(6.2)

Recall from (5.3) the definition of the standard basis B = B(1n ) of R. We write Bq ⊂ B for the
subset consisting of elements of degree q, for q = 0, · · · , n − 1. Just as in Theorem 4.1, we will
prove the non-vanishing of Kp,q (1n ) by exhibiting a Koszul cycle which is not a boundary, and
having the form
p
^
c = (zv1 ∧ zv2 ∧ · · · ∧ zvp ) ⊗ m ∈
S 1 ⊗ Rq ,
(6.3)
where v i ∈ L(1n ) and m ∈ Bq . We consider the unique path γ ∈ L(1n ) for which
s(γ) = (n, n − 1, · · · , n − q + 1, 1, 2, · · · , n − q),
and take
m = mγ = z(0n−1 ,1) · z(0n−2 ,12 ) · · · z(0n−q ,1q ) .

(6.4)

We consider the set

A = {v ∈ L(1n ) : vi = 0 for some i ≥ n − q + 1} ∪ {(0n−q , 1q )}

(6.5)

\ {(0, 1i , 0n−i−1 ) : i = 0, · · · , q}.

We show that the elements of Z(A) annihilate m. To do so we start with an important observation.
Recall that R has a Z2 -grading given by degree and rank. We write Rd,r for the span of
monomials of degree d and rank r.
Lemma 6.2. We have that
Rd,r = 0 if r <




d+1
.
2

Proof. It suffices to check that a standard basis element mν of degree d has rank r ≥
do so, note that


X
X
d+1
(5.2)
rk(mν ) =
.
|ν(t)| =
t ≥ 1+2+···+d =
2
t∈Desc(ν)

d+1
2



. To

t∈Desc(ν)

where the inequality follows from the fact that Desc(ν) consists of d distinct elements from
{1, · · · , n}.


ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

17

Lemma 6.3. We have that |A| = 2n − 2n−q − q and
m · zv = 0 for all v ∈ A.
Proof. The formula for |A| follows from (6.5). Suppose first that v ∈ A is such that vi = 0 for
some i ≥ n − q + 1. Using (4.2) we get
z(0n−q ,1q ) · zv = zv′ · zv′′ ,
′

where v = min((0

n−q

, 1 ), v) satisfies |v′ | < q. This proves that
q

m · zv = z(0n−1 ,1) · z(0n−2 ,12 ) · · · z(0n−q+1 ,1q−1 ) · zv′ · zv′′ = 0
by applying Lemma 6.2 since m′ = z(0n−1 ,1) · z(0n−2 ,12 ) · · · z(0n−q+1 ,1q−1 ) · zv′ satisfies


q+1
′
′
′
deg(m ) = q and rk(m ) = 1 + 2 + · · · + (q − 1) + |v | <
.
2
If instead we have that v = (0n−q , 1q ) then m · zv has degree q + 1 and rank
so the conclusion m · zv = 0 follows from Lemma 6.2.
We next consider the set

q+1
2



+q <

D = {v = (v1 , 0n−q−1, vn−q+1 , · · · , vn ) : v 6= 0 and v 6= (1, 0n−q−1, 1q )}.

q+2
2



,


(6.6)

We have that
D ⊂ A and |D| = 2q+1 − 2 ≤ 2n−1 − 2n−1−q − q.
The desired non-vanishing result now follows once we prove the following.
Lemma 6.4. Let 2q+1 − 2 ≤ p ≤ 2n − 2n−q − q and consider any set V with |V| = p and
D ⊆ V ⊆ A. If we choose an ordering v 1 , · · · , vp of the elements of V and define c via (6.3) then
S
c represents a non-zero cohomology class in Kp,q
(R).
Indeed, the assumption that n ≥ q +3 guarantees that 2q+1 −2 ≤ 2n−1 −2n−1−q −q. Lemma 6.4
S
(R) 6= 0 for 2n−1 − 2n−1−q − q ≤ p ≤ 2n − 2n−q − q and since we know by
then implies that Kp,q
S
induction that Kp,q
(R) 6= 0 for 2q+1 − 2 − q ≤ p ≤ 2n−1 − 2n−1−q − q, the non-vanishing (6.1)
follows.
Proof of Lemma 6.4. It follows from Lemma 6.3 that m · zv = 0 for all v ∈ V, so c is a Koszul
cycle, hence we only need to verify that c is not a boundary. We first introduce some more
notation. Consider x ∈ R and mν ∈ B: we say that x divides mν , and write x|mν , if there
exists x′ ∈ R such that mν appears with non-zero coefficient in the expression of x · x′ as a linear
combination of the elements in B. Example 5.8 shows for instance that for n = 4 we have
z0,1,0,1 and z1,1,0,1 divide z0,0,0,1 · z0,0,1,1 · z0,1,1,1 .
Since S 1 = R1 , the set B1 is a basis of S 1 . It consists of
B1 = Z(L(1n ) \ {(1i , 0n−i ) : i = 0, · · · , n}).
V
This induces for every p, q a basis Bq∧p of p S 1 ⊗ Rq given by

Bq∧p = {z1 ∧ · · · ∧ zp ⊗ mν : {z1 , · · · , zp } is a subset of B1 of size p and mν ∈ Bq }.

Note that Z(D) ⊆ B1 , but Z(A) 6⊆ B1 , so the Koszul cycle c is not necessarily an element of
Bq∧p . Nevertheless, there exists scalars αz1 ,··· ,zp such that c is expressed as a linear combination
X
(6.7)
αz1 ,··· ,zp · z1 ∧ · · · ∧ zp ⊗ m.
c=
z1 ,··· ,zp ∈B1

18

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

This expression is obtained from (6.3) by replacing any element zvi ∈
/ B1 with the corresponding
linear combination of elements in B1 . Since Z(D) ⊆ B1 , none of the elements zvi with vi ∈ D
are affected by this replacement, hence we have
if αz1 ,··· ,zp 6= 0 then {z1 , · · · , zp } ⊇ Z(D).

(6.8)

We won’t be concerned with the precise value of the scalars αz1 ,··· ,zp , but we note that all of the
terms in (6.7) have the monomial m as the factor in Rq . It will also be important to note that
using Lemma 4.2 we get that Z(A) is a linearly independent set. As a consequence Z(V) is
linearly independent and thus c 6= 0.
V
If c was a boundary, then c = ∂(b) for some b ∈ p+1 S 1 ⊗ Rq−1 , where ∂ denotes the Koszul
∧(p+1)
differential. We express b as a linear combination of elements in Bq−1 and observe that this
linear combination involves, with non-zero coefficient, terms of the form
∧(p+1)

z1 ∧ · · · ∧ zp+1 ⊗ mν ∈ Bq−1

where z1 , · · · , zp are such that the coefficient αz1 ,··· ,zp in (6.7) is non-zero, and where the expression of zp+1 · mν as a linear combination of elements in Bq involves m appearing with non-zero
coefficient, i.e. zp+1 divides m. By Lemma 6.5 below, if zp+1 divides m then zp+1 ∈ Z(D), which
combined with (6.8) implies that zp+1 ∈ {z1 , · · · , zp }, contradicting the fact that z1 ∧· · ·∧zp+1 ⊗mν
∧(p+1)
was an element of Bq−1 .

To conclude the proof of Theorem 6.1 we prove the following.
Lemma 6.5. If zu ∈ B1 divides m then u ∈ D.
Proof. Consider elements zu ∈ B1 and mν ∈ Bq−1 and assume that we have an expression of
zu · mν in terms of the basis Bq :
zu · mν = α · m + · · · for some non-zero scalar α.
Using the grading of R by rank, we obtain


q+1
.
rk(zu ) + rk(mν ) = rk(m) =
2
We write mν = zu1 · · · zuq−1 with 1 ≤ |u1 | < · · · < |uq−1 | ≤ n − 1, and rewrite the above equality
as
|u| + |u1 | + · · · + |uq−1 | = 1 + 2 + · · · + q.
(6.9)
Let i0 denote the maximal index for which |ui0 | = i0 (if it does not exist, set i0 = 0), so that
|uj | ≥ j + 1 for j = i0 + 1, · · · , q − 1. If |u| ≤ i0 then it follows from Lemma 6.2 that
zu · zu1 · · · zui0 = 0, thus zu · mν = 0,
contradicting the assumption that α 6= 0. If |u| ≥ i0 + 2 then
|u| + |u1 | + · · · + |uq−1 | ≥ (i0 + 2) + 1 + · · · + i0 + (i0 + 2) + · · · + q > 1 + 2 + · · · + q,
contradicting (6.9). It follows that |u| = i0 + 1 and |uj | = j + 1 for j = i0 + 1, · · · , q − 1.
If ui0 6≤ u then we can use (4.2) to write zui0 · zu = zu′ · zu′′ with |u′ | < i0 , which implies by
Lemma 6.2 that
zu1 · · · zui0 −1 · zu′ = 0, and therefore zu1 · · · zui0 · zu = zu1 · · · zui0 −1 · zu′ · zu′′ = 0.

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

19

This yields zu · mν = 0, contradicting the assumption that α 6= 0. A similar contradiction is
obtained if u 6≤ ui0 +1 . These arguments show more generally that for every collection v 1 , · · · , v q ∈
L(1n ) with |vi | = i for all i = 1, · · · , q we have
zv1 · · · zvq = 0 unless v 1 < · · · < v q .
For such monomials, we can thus modify the Straightening Algorithm to consist of a series of
operations involving only the following modification of Step 2:
Step 2′ : If m′ = zv 1 · · · zvq with v 1 < · · · < v q , |vi | = i and m′ 6∈ Bq then consider the maximal
index i for which f (vi , v i+1 ) ≥ l(v i−1 , v i ). Replace m′ by
X
(6.10)
m′ (v i
−
v)
v i 6=v∈P(1n )
|v|=|vi |
v i−1 <v<v i+1

and apply Step 2′ to each of the monomials m′ (vi
v): note that this and every subsequent
application of Step 2′ will preserve the factors zvi+1 · · · zvq .
We apply the modified version of the straightening algorithm to the monomial

j

if j ≤ i0 ;
u
j
′
m = zv1 · · · zvq , where v = u
if j = i0 + 1;

uj−1 if j ≥ i + 2.
0

If v q remains unchanged in the process, then vq = (0n−q , 1q ) (since m′ = α · m + · · · ) and in
particular u ≤ (0n−q , 1q ), which yields u ∈ D as desired.
Otherwise v q must be changed at the first iteration of Step 2′ : we have i = q in (6.10) and
v = (0n−q , 1q ) must appear among the terms in (6.10). If i0 ≤ q − 2 then we obtain
u = vi0 +1 ≤ v q−1 < v
and conclude as before that u ∈ D.
We are left with the case i0 = q − 1, when u = v q and uq−1 = v q−1 . Let l = l(uq−1 , u) ≤
f (u, (1n )), and note that since |uq−1 | = q − 1 and |u| = q, l is the unique index where u differs
from uq−1 , and in particular ul = 1. Moreover, every vector u 6= v ∈ L(1n ) with v > uq−1 and
|v| = q is obtained from u by replacing ul with 0 and changing one of the zero entries in u to 1.
Since v = (0n−q , 1q ) is one of these vectors, it follows that l ≤ n − q, and moreover l is the unique
index in {1, · · · , n − q} for which ul = 1. If l > 1 then f (u, 1n ) = 1 < l which is a contradiction.
It follows that l = 1, u2 = · · · = un−q = 0 and thus u ∈ D.

7. Examples
To illustrate the (non-)vanishing behavior in (1.3) we record below the graded Betti tables of
Segre embeddings of products of P1 that we were able to compute using Macaulay2:
0
total: 1
0: 1
1: .

1
1
.
1

Betti table of Seg(1, 1)

total:
0:
1:
2:

0
1
1
.
.

1 2 3 4
9 16 9 1
. . . .
9 16 9 .
. . . 1

Betti table of Seg(1, 1, 1)

20

LUKE OEDING, CLAUDIU RAICU, AND STEVEN V SAM

0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11
total: 1 55 320 891 1436 1375 1375 1436 891 320 55 1
1 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. 55 320 891 1408 1183 192
28
.
. . .
. .
.
.
28 192 1183 1408 891 320 55 .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . 1

Betti table of Seg(1, 1, 1, 1)
Besides the examples above and the one in the introduction, the only Betti table for a Segre
product of n ≥ 3 factors that we were able to determine computationally is for Seg(2, 1, 1):
total:
0:
1:
2:

0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7
1 24 84 126 94 46 21 4
1 . .
. . . . .
. 24 84 126 84 10 . .
. . .
. 10 36 21 4

where you can check directly that statements (1.1) and (1.2) in our Main Theorem are sharp.
The first case when our results are not sharp arises for the Segre embedding of P2 × P2 × P2
into P26 , where we have additional vanishing as explained below.
Lemma 7.1. K10,1 (2, 2, 2) = K11,1 (2, 2, 2) = 0.
Proof. First, consider the resolution of Seg(2, 2, 1). Since K8,1 (2, 2, 1) is a sum of polynomial
representations of GL(3)×GL(3)×GL(2) of degree 9, and it has dimension 8, the only possibility
is that
K8,1 (2, 2, 1) = S3,3,3 (C3 ) ⊗ S3,3,3 (C3 ) ⊗ S8,1 (C2 ).
There is a nonzero equivariant map
K8,1 (2, 2, 1) → K7,1 (2, 2, 1) ⊗ C3 ⊗ C3 ⊗ C2 ,
which implies, by the Pieri rule, that the 63-dimensional space K7,1 (2, 2, 1) contains a summand
of the form
S3,3,2 (C3 ) ⊗ S3,3,2 (C3 ) ⊗ Sλ (C2 )
where λ is either (8) or (7, 1). The former gives a representation of dimension 81, which is too
large, so we conclude that λ = (7, 1). Since this representation has dimension 63, we conclude
that
K7,1 (2, 2, 1) = S3,3,2 (C3 ) ⊗ S3,3,2 (C3 ) ⊗ S7,1 (C2 ).
Now, we try to compute K11,1 (2, 2, 2) using Theorem 2.1. We work over the space of lines in
V3 with dim(V3 ) = 3 and
M
M=
Symd (V1 ) ⊗ Symd (V2 ) ⊗ Symd (Q).
d≥0

The only terms in Theorem 2.1 that can possibly contribute are
!
!
11−i
12
^
^
1
0
(V1 ⊗ V2 ⊗ R) .
H
(V1 ⊗ V2 ⊗ R) ,
H Ki,1 (M) ⊗

We focus on which representations of GL(V3 ) these produce. The first term contributes groups
of the form H 1 (Sλ (R)) where λ1 ≤ dim(V1 ⊗ V2 ) = 9, and such that (λ1 − 1, 1, λ2) is weakly
decreasing by Bott’s theorem. But no such partition exists, so there is no contribution.

ON THE (NON-)VANISHING OF SYZYGIES OF SEGRE EMBEDDINGS

21

For the second term, we get representations of the form S(λ1 ,λ2 ,11−i) (C3 ) where λ1 + λ2 = i + 1.
If i ≤ 6, there is no such partition. If i = 7, 8, the above argument shows that λ2 = 1, so again
there is no such partition. A similar argument applies to show that K10,1 (2, 2, 2) = 0.

Since P (2, 2, 2; 3) = 12, the conclusion (1.2) of our main theorem shows that Kp,3 (2, 2, 2) = 0
if p < 9. Since the coordinate ring of Seg(2, 2, 2) is Gorenstein and it has projective dimension
20 and regularity 4, the vanishing K10,1 (2, 2, 2) = K11,1 (2, 2, 2) = 0 implies that
K9,3 (2, 2, 2) = K10,3 (2, 2, 2) = 0,
so we get more vanishing than predicted in the third row of the Betti table.
Unlike (1.2) which fails to be tight for Seg(2, 2, 2), it follows from Lemma 7.1 that (1.1) still
gives the precise non-vanishing range in this example, namely Kp,1(2, 2, 2) 6= 0 for 1 ≤ p ≤ 9.
Acknowledgments
Experiments with the computer algebra software Macaulay2 [GS] have provided numerous
valuable insights. Raicu acknowledges the support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and of
the National Science Foundation Grant No. 1600765. Sam was partially supported by National
Science Foundation Grant No. 1500069.
References
[Bru89] Winfried Bruns, Additions to the theory of algebras with straightening law, Commutative algebra
(Berkeley, CA, 1987), Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 15, Springer, New York, 1989, pp. 111–138.
MR1015515 (90h:13012)
[DCEP82] Corrado De Concini, David Eisenbud, and Claudio Procesi, Hodge algebras, Astérisque, vol. 91, Société
Mathématique de France, Paris, 1982. With a French summary. MR680936
[EEL16] Lawrence Ein, Daniel Erman, and Robert Lazarsfeld, A quick proof of nonvanishing for asymptotic
syzygies, Algebr. Geom. 3 (2016), no. 2, 211–222, DOI 10.14231/AG-2016-010. MR3477954
[Eis80] David Eisenbud, Introduction to algebras with straightening laws, Ring theory and algebra, III (Proc.
Third Conf., Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1979), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol. 55,
Dekker, New York, 1980, pp. 243–268. MR584614
[GS] Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman, Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic
geometry, Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[Rub02] Elena Rubei, On syzygies of Segre embeddings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), no. 12, 3483–3493,
DOI 10.1090/S0002-9939-02-06597-8. MR1918824
, Resolutions of Segre embeddings of projective spaces of any dimension, J. Pure Appl. Algebra
[Rub07]
208 (2007), no. 1, 29–37, DOI 10.1016/j.jpaa.2005.11.010. MR2269826
[Wey03] Jerzy Weyman, Cohomology of vector bundles and syzygies, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics,
vol. 149, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. MR1988690 (2004d:13020)
Department of Mathematics, Auburn University, 221 Parker Hall, Auburn, AL 36849
E-mail address: oeding@auburn.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, 255 Hurley, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow” of the Romanian Academy
E-mail address: craicu@nd.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison
E-mail address: svs@math.wisc.edu

