THE REALIZATION PROBLEM FOR DELTA SETS OF NUMERICAL SEMIGROUPS

arXiv:1503.08496v2 [] 2 May 2016

STEFAN COLTON AND NATHAN KAPLAN

Abstract. The delta set of a numerical semigroup S, denoted ∆(S), is a factorization invariant that
measures the complexity of the sets of lengths of elements in S. We study the following problem: Which
finite sets occur as the delta set of a numerical semigroup S? It is known that min ∆(S) = gcd ∆(S) is
a necessary condition. For any two-element set {d, td} we produce a semigroup S with this delta set. We
then show that for t ≥ 2, the set {d, td} occurs as the delta set of some numerical semigroup of embedding
dimension three if and only if t = 2.

1. Introduction
There are a number of invariants that have been used to study the failure of unique factorization in
commutative cancellative monoids. Non-unique factorization in these monoids has received quite a bit of
attention in the recent literature, for example see [24] and the extensive list of references therein. Numerical
semigroups give a particularly concrete setting in which to study these factorization problems. One motivation for studying the factorization theory of numerical semigroups comes from their associated numerical
semigroup rings. These rings often give concrete instances of more general problems in commutative algebra
[18].
There are several factorization invariants of numerical semigroups and related commutative monoids that
have been studied extensively in the recent literature, for example the maximal denumerant [8], the catenary
and tame degree [3, 10, 25], and the ω-invariant [1, 16]. In this paper we focus on another invariant, the
delta set [4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19]. This set measures the complexity of sets of factorization lengths for
elements of the semigroup. The goal of studying these invariants is to understand when two semigroups have
similar factorization behavior. One idea behind the delta set is that in semigroups with similar factorization
behavior the structure of the sets of lengths should be similar.
Much effort has gone into computing invariants for certain classes of semigroups. The following related
question has received relatively less attention. Given a value for a factorization invariant, does there exist
a numerical semigroup realizing it? We focus on a particular question that we refer to as the realization
problem for delta sets of numerical semigroups.
Question 1.
(1) Which finite sets T occur as ∆(S) for some numerical semigroup S?
(2) Given an integer e ≥ 2, which finite sets T occur as ∆(S) for some numerical semigroup S with
embedding dimension e?
In this paper we show that any set T = {d, td} with d ≥ 1 and t ≥ 2 has a positive answer to the first
question by explicitly producing a semigroup S with ∆(S) = {d, td}. Factorizations in semigroups with
embedding dimension two are easy to understand, but several problems remain unsolved in the embedding
dimension three case. We show that if {d, td} with t ≥ 2 has a positive answer to the second question when
e = 3, then t = 2.
We also carefully study the minimal presentations of the classes of semigroups proving the results stated
above. The minimal presentation is a set of generators of a monoid associated to the semigroup that describes
all possible ways of moving between factorizations of the same element. These presentations are extremely
useful in understanding factorization properties and have been thoroughly investigated [20, 26, 27].
Date: May, 1 2016.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20M13, 20M14, 11B75.
Key words and phrases. Numerical Semigroup, Delta Set, Factorization Theory, Non-Unique Factorization.
1

1.1. Background. We recall that a numerical semigroup is an additive submonoid of N = {0, 1, 2, . . .} with
finite complement. Every numerical semigroup S has a unique minimal generating set, that is, there exists
a set of minimum cardinality {n1 , . . . , ne } of distinct positive integers such that
S = {a1 n1 + · · · + ae ne |ai ∈ N}.
The number of elements of a minimal generating set is called the embedding dimension of S and is usually
denoted by e. We write S = hn1 , . . . , ne i if S has minimal generating set {n1 , . . . , ne }.
The factorization homomorphism ϕ : Ne → S is defined by
ϕ(a1 , . . . , ae ) = a1 n1 + · · · + ae ne .
If ϕ(a1 , . . . , ae ) = x then we say that (a1 , . . . , ae ) is a factorization of x. The length of this factorization is
defined as a1 + · · · + ae . The set of factorizations of x is ϕ−1 (x), which is clearly finite. Let L(x) denote the
corresponding set of factorization lengths.
Suppose L(x) = {ℓ1 < ℓ2 < · · · < ℓm }. The delta set of x is the set of differences of consecutive elements
in this list,
∆(x) = {ℓi+1 − ℓi | i ∈ [1, m − 1]}.
S
The delta set of S is defined as ∆(S) = x∈S ∆(x). This set gives a measure of how far S is from being a
unique factorization domain. In a unique factorization domain, each element of the domain has exactly one
factorization. In a half-factorial domain, factorizations are not unique but every factorization has the same
length, so the delta set of each element is empty. The delta set of S consists of a single element d if and
only if at least one element has at least two factorization lengths and the set of lengths of every element is
an arithmetic progression with common difference d.
We give an overview of previous results on delta sets. It is known that ∆(S) is finite. An explicit finite
set that determines ∆(S) is given by the following result.
Theorem 1 (Corollary 3 in [12]). Let S = hn1 , . . . , ne i and N = 2en2 n2e + n1 ne . Then
[
∆(x).
∆(S) =
x∈S
x≤N

This result shows how to determine ∆(S) in finite time. It has subsequently been refined in Corollary
19 of [17]. Many algorithms related to numerical semigroups have been implemented in the numericalsgps
package for the computer algebra system GAP [15], and recently improvements have been suggested [5, 17].
We have used data from this package extensively throughout this project.
In order for a finite set T to occur as ∆(S) for a numerical semigroup S the following necessary condition
must be satisfied.
Proposition 1 (Proposition 1.4.4 in [24]). Let S be a numerical semigroup. Then min ∆(S) = gcd ∆(S).
The following result gives an easy way to compute this minimum value in terms of a minimal generating
set.
Proposition 2 (Proposition 2.9 in [7]). Let S = hn1 , . . . , ne i. Then
min ∆(S) = gcd{ni+1 − ni | i ∈ [1, e − 1]}.
There are not so many families of semigroups for which the delta set is known. However, it is easy to see
that every set consisting of a single element occurs as a delta set of a numerical semigroup of embedding
dimension two.
Proposition 3. Let S = hn1 , n2 i with n1 < n2 satisfying gcd{n1 , n2 } = 1. Then ∆(S) = {n2 − n1 }.
More generally, every set of the form {d, 2d, . . . , td} is also known to occur as a delta set.
Proposition 4 (Corollary 4.8 in [7]). Let S = hn, n + d, (d + 1)n − di with n ≥ 3, d ≥ 1 and gcd{n, d} = 1.
Then
 


n+d−1
d .
∆(S) = d, 2d, . . . ,
d+2
2

The delta sets of the above proposition begin with a minimum value d and then contain all multiples
of d up to some maximum. We call this an interval with difference d. It is more difficult to find classes
of semigroups with delta sets not of this form. In order to show that an integer k is in the delta set of a
semigroup S we need only find an element x ∈ S with k ∈ ∆(x). Showing that k 6∈ ∆(S) is generally much
more challenging. The explicit computation of the delta sets of the following family show that large ‘gaps’
can occur within delta sets, that there are delta sets which are in some sense far from being intervals.
Proposition 5 (Proposition 4.9 in [7]). Let S = hn, n + 1, n2 − n − 1i with n ≥ 3. Then
∆(S) = [1, n − 2] ∪ {2n − 5}.
Very little is known about sets that cannot occur as delta sets. Given a semigroup S we can consider
factorizations with respect to a non-minimal generating set and give a corresponding definition of the delta
set of S. In this setting there is one main result relevant to the realization problem.
Theorem 2 (Theorem 3.12 in [9]). Let S = hn1 , n2 i and let s = in1 + jn2 with j ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ i < n2 . If
the delta set of S with respect to the generating set {n1 , n2 , s} is {1, t} then t = 2.
We note the similarity of this theorem to the main result of Section 3, however for the duration of the
paper we only consider factorizations with respect to minimal generating sets.
Extensive computer calculations described in [6] give examples of other sets that occur as delta sets. For
example, ∆(h6, 13, 14, 16i) = {1, 3}. The initial motivation for this work was to understand whether this is
one instance of a more general family of examples that have ∆(S) = {1, t} for larger values of t. In the next
section we give a construction of such a family.
The authors of [6] conjecture that for any t ≥ 3, {1, t} cannot occur as the delta set of a semigroup of
embedding dimension three. More specifically, they make the following conjectures.
Conjecture 1 (Conjectures 12.3 and 12.4 in [6]).
(1) Let S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i, gcd{n3 − n2 , n2 − n1 } = d, and suppose that |∆(S)| > 1. Then 2d ∈ ∆(S).
(2) Let S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i, gcd{n3 − n2 , n2 − n1 } = d, and suppose that |∆(S)| > 2. Then 3d ∈ ∆(S).
In Section 3 we prove a piece of the first part of this conjecture, that {d, td} for d ≥ 1, t ≥ 3 does not
occur as the delta set of an embedding dimension three numerical semigroup. While this paper was being
completed we discovered that these two conjectures have been proven in [19]. This paper also gives another
proof of one of our main results, Theorem 6, but uses significantly different methods.
2. A Family of Semigroups with Delta Sets of Size Two
We begin this section by recalling the definition of a minimal presentation of a numerical semigroup
S. Informally, a minimal presentation consists of a minimal set of ‘trades’ needed to go between any two
factorizations of an element x ∈ S. We describe this in more precise detail below using the notation of
Chapter 5 of [22] and Section 1 of Chapter 7 of [21]. We then introduce an explicit family of semigroups
and compute their minimal presentations. Finally, we use these minimal presentations to show that these
semigroups have delta sets of size two.
We closely follow the presentation of [20]. Let S = hn1 , . . . , ne i be a numerical semigroup of embedding
dimension e and recall the factorization homomorphism ϕ : Ne → S given in the previous section. The kernel
congruence of ϕ, ∼ is defined by u ∼ v if and only if ϕ(u) = ϕ(v). This is a congruence, meaning that
it is an equivalence relation compatible with addition. Given ρ ⊆ Ne × Ne , the congruence generated by ρ
is the least congruence containing it. We say that ρ is a system of generators of ∼ if ρ generates ∼ as a
congruence. A presentation of a numerical semigroup S is a system of generators of its kernel congruence.
The presentation is minimal if it is a minimal system of generators for this congruence. See the discussion
before and after Proposition 5.11 of [22] for precise definitions. This result, along with Propositions 8.4 and
8.5 of [21] give a concrete way to view these concepts.
Theorem 3. Let
S = hpx − 2, 2(px − 2) + 1, 2(px − 2) + p, . . . , 2(px − 2) + px−1 i
3

where p, x ≥ 2 and (p, x) 6= (2, 2). Then a minimal presentation of S has size x + 1 and is given by the
elements
((2p − 3, 2, 0, . . . , 0), (0, . . . , 0, p)), ((2x(p − 1) − 1, 0, . . . , 0), (0, p − 2, p − 1, . . . , p − 1))
and for each i ∈ [1, x − 1]
vi := ((0, . . . , 0, p, 0, . . . , 0), (2(p − 1), 0, . . . , 0, 1, 0 . . . , 0)),
where the entry p on the left is in the ith position, where we count starting at 0, and the entry 1 on the right is in
position i + 1.

For the remainder of this section S will denote the semigroup given in Theorem 3.
It is known that the minimal presentation of a numerical semigroup of embedding dimension e has size
at least e − 1 and size at most (2n1 −e+1)(e−2)
+ 1, where n1 is the smallest nonzero element of S. The lower
2
bound is Theorem 9.6 in [21] and the upper bound is Theorem 8.26 in the same reference. The semigroups
for which the lower bound is an equality, for example those of embedding dimension two, are known as
complete intersection numerical semigroups. This class of semigroups has received considerable attention in
recent years [2, 14, 18], in part because of connections to commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. We
note that the semigroups of Theorem 3 are not complete intersections, but they have minimal presentations
of cardinality equal to the embedding dimension, exactly one greater than the lower bound.
Let S be a numerical semigroup of embedding dimension e and A = (A1 , . . . , Ae ) be a factorization of an
element n ∈ S. Recall that ϕ−1 (n) is the set of factorizations of n. The support of A, denoted supp(A), is
the set of i such that Ai 6= 0. Let B be another factorization of n. Then A and B are in the same R-class if
there exists a chain of distinct factorizations x0 , x1 , . . . , xk ∈ ϕ−1 (n) such that x0 = A, xk = B and for each
i ∈ [0, k − 1], supp(xi ) ∩ supp(xi+1 ) 6= ∅. This relation partitions the set ϕ−1 (n). The Betti elements are the
elements n ∈ S such that ϕ−1 (n) has more than one R-class. Since S is finitely presented, this set is finite.
We recall some notation from [20]. For n ∈ S we define ρn as follows:
• If ϕ−1 (n) has a single R-class, then ρn = ∅.
• Otherwise, let R1 , . . . , Rk be the different R-classes of ϕ−1 (n). Choose some vi ∈ Ri for each
i ∈ [1, k] and set ρn = {(v1 , v2 ), (v2 , v3 ), . . . , (vk−1 , vk )}.
S
Then ρ = n∈S ρn is a minimal presentation of S. It is known that all minimal presentations of S have the
same cardinality, but they are only unique under an additional hypothesis.
Theorem 4 (Corollary 6 in [20]). A numerical semigroup S is uniquely presented if and only if every Betti
element of S has exactly two factorizations.
Theorem 3 follows from giving the set of Betti elements of S and the factorizations of each such element.
Lemma 1. Let S be as in Theorem 3. The Betti elements of S are (2x(p−1)−1)(px −2) and p(2(px −2)+pi−1 )
for each i ∈ [1, x].
Before proving this lemma we show that the generating set given in Theorem 3 is minimal. Suppose that
this is not the case. Then there is a generator that is a nonnegative linear combination of smaller generators,
which means that for some i ∈ [1, x], 2(px − 2) + pi−1 can be written as a sum of other generators. Since
p, x ≥ 2 and at least one is greater than 2, we see that pi−1 6≡ 0 (mod px − 2), so this linear combination
must contain a term 2(px − 2) + pj−1 for some j < i. However, this implies that pi−1 − pj−1 is a sum of the
generators. Since pj−1 (pi−j − 1) < px − 2, this is impossible. Therefore, we have a minimal generating set.
We now describe the complete set of factorizations of each of the elements given in Lemma 1. For each of
these elements we exhibit two factorizations in different R-classes and show that every other element has a
single R-class. In fact, when p > 2 each of these elements has exactly two factorizations, which proves the
following.
Corollary 1. Let S be as in the statement of Theorem 3. Then S is uniquely presented if and only if p > 2.
Lemma 2. For i ∈ [1, x − 1], the element n = p(2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) has exactly two factorizations and they
are in different R-classes.
Proof. Suppose n = p(2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) where i ∈ [1, x − 1]. We check that
(1)

n = 2(p − 1) · (px − 2) + 1 · (2(px − 2) + pi ) = p · (2(px − 2) + pi−1 ).
4

This gives two factorizations of n in different R-classes. Suppose there is another factorization of n, B =
(B0 , B1 , . . . , Bx ). Then since




x
x
X
X
Bj pj−1  ,
Bj  2(px − 2) + 
n = B0 (px − 2) + 
j=1

j=1

we see that

x
X

(2)

Bj pj−1 ≡ pi

(mod px − 2).

j=1

Px
Since i ≤ x − 1 and pi ≤ px−1 < px − 2, if j=1 Bj > p then


x
X
n−
Bj  2(px − 2) ≤ n − 2(p + 1)(px − 2) = pi − 2(px − 2) < 0.
j=1

Px

Therefore, j=1 Bj ≤ p.
Px
If j=1 Bj = p, then
and (2) implies that

Px

the only way to write



j=1

Bj p

j−1

n−

i

x
X
j=1

= p . Since



Bj  2(px − 2) = pi ,


(p − 1) 1 + p + p2 + · · · + pi−1 = pi − 1,
i

p =

x
X

aj pj−1

j=1

Px
with each aj ≥ 0 and j=1 aj = p is to have ai = p and aj = 0 for j 6= i. This gives the second factorization
of (1).P
P
P
If xj=1 Bj < p then xj=1 Bj pj−1 < (p − 1)px−1 < px − 2 implies xj=1 Bj pj−1 = pi . The only way to
write
x
X
i
aj pj−1
p =
j=1

Px
with each aj ≥ 0 and j=1 aj < p is to have ai+1 = 1 and aj = 0 for j 6= i. This gives the first factorization
of (1) and completes the proof of the lemma.

Lemma 3. The element n = p(2(px − 2) + px−1 ) has exactly two factorizations when p > 2 and has exactly
three factorizations when p = 2. In either case, the factorizations of this element belong to exactly two
R-classes.
Proof. Let n = p(2(px − 2) + px−1 ). We check that
n = p · (2(px − 2) + px−1 ) = (2p − 3) · (px − 2) + 2 · (2(px − 2) + 1).

(3)

If p = 2 we have one additional factorization,
n = (2p − 1) · (px − 2) + 1 · (2(px − 2) + p).
Suppose
Pxthat there is another factorization B = (B0 , . . . , Bx ). As in the proof of the previous lemma, we
see that j=1 Bj pj−1 ≡ 2 (mod px − 2). Since
n − (p + 1)(2(px − 2) + 1) = px − 2(px − 2) = 4 − px < 0,

Px

we see that j=1 Bj ≤ p.
If p = 2 there are exactly three ways to add up at most two elements from {1, 2, 22, . . . , 2x−1 } to get
something equivalent to 2 modulo 2x − 2. If p > 2 there are exactly two ways to add up at most p elements
from {1, p, p2 , . . . , px−1 } two get something equivalent to 2 modulo px − 2, since their sum must equal either
5

2 or px . Choosing such a set determines the factorization B and we see that we have found all factorizations
of n.

In order to characterize the set of factorizations of the last Betti element of S we prove a lemma that
allows us to better understand the factorization in each R-class with the largest number of copies of px − 2,
the smallest generator of S.
Lemma 4. Suppose that A = (A0 , A1 , . . . , Ax ) is a factorization of n ∈ S with Ai ≥ p for some i ∈ [1, x].
Then either A is in the same R-class as a factorization (B0 , . . . , Bx ) with B0 > A0 , or n = p(2(px −2)+pi−1 ).
Proof. Suppose that n 6= p(2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) and that A is a factorization of n with Ai ≥ p. Since
n 6= p · (2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) either Ai ≥ p + 1 or Aj 6= 0 for some j 6= i.
If Ax ≥ p then A is in the same R-class as the factorization (A0 + 2p − 3, A1 + 2, A2 , . . . , Ax−1 , Ax − p).
If Ai ≥ p for some i ∈ [1, x − 1] then A is in the same R-class as (A0 + 2p − 2, A′1 , . . . , A′x ) where A′i =
Ai − p, A′i+1 = Ai+1 + 1, and A′j = Aj otherwise.

The following result shows that if a factorization contains too many copies of the smallest generator then
the set of all factorizations of this element consists of a single R-class.
Lemma 5. Suppose that A = (A0 , A1 , . . . , Ax ) is a factorization of n ∈ S with A0 ≥ 2x(p − 1) − 1. Then
ϕ−1 (n) consists of a single R-class, or n = (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2).
Proof. As in the proof of the previous lemma, if n 6= (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2) then either A0 > 2x(p − 1) − 1
or there exists some i ∈ [1, x] with Ai > 0. Then
A′ = (A0 − (2x(p − 1) − 1), A1 + p − 2, A2 + p − 1, . . . , Ax + p − 1)
is another factorization in the same R-class as A. Every factorization has support that intersects either
supp(A) or supp(A′ ). For n 6= (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2), supp(A) ∩ supp(A′ ) 6= ∅ and these factorizations are
in the same R-class. Therefore, ϕ−1 (n) consists of a single R-class.

Lemma 6. The element n = (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2) has exactly two factorizations and they are in different
R-classes.
Proof. Suppose n = (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2) and that A = (A0 , . . . , Ax ) is a factorization of n. Since
!
!
x
x
X
X
x
x
i−1
n = A0 (p − 2) +
Ai (p − 2) +
Ai p
,
i=1

i=1

Px

we see that i=1 Ai pi−1 ≡ 0 (mod px − 2). First suppose that for each i ∈ [1, x] that Ai < p. Then either
Ai = 0 for all i ∈ [1, x] or A1 = p − 2 and A2 , . . . , Ax = p − 1. In the first case we get the factorization
(2x(p − 1) − 1, 0, . . . , 0) and in the second case we get (0, p − 2, p − 1, . . . , p − 1).
Now suppose that there is some other factorization (B0 , B1 , . . . , Bx ) where Bi ≥ p for some i ∈ [1, x].
The proof of Lemma 4 shows that we can exchange p copies of the generator 2(px − 2) + pi−1 to get another
factorization C = (C0 , . . . , Cx ) with C0 > B0 . If there is an i ∈ [1, x] with Ci ≥ p we can again trade p
copies of a single generator to find another factorization with a larger number of copies of the first generator.
Eventually this process terminates since we have a larger number of copies of the first generator each time.
When it does, we get a factorization D = (D0 , D1 , . . . , Dx ) that must have Dj = 0 for all j ∈ [1, x] as
P
x
j−1
≡ 0 (mod px − 2), Dj < p for each j ∈ [1, x], and D0 > 0. However since we traded p copies
j=1 Dj p
of a single generator 2(px − 2) + pi−1 to go from the previous factorization to D, we see that
p · (2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) ≡ pi ≡ 0

(mod px − 2),

which is impossible. Therefore, the only two factorizations are those listed above.



We have characterized the set of factorizations of a special set of x + 1 elements of S and now show that
the set of factorizations of any other element form a single R-class. This proves that we have found the Betti
elements of S, which completes the proof of Theorem 3.
6

Proof of Lemma 1. Suppose that n ∈ S has at least two R-classes and that n is not equal to (2x(p − 1) −
1)(px − 2) or p(2(px − 2) + pi−1 ) for any i ∈ [1, x].
Suppose that A = (A0 , A1 , . . . , Ax ) and B = (B0 , B1 , . . . , Bx ) are factorizations of n in distinct R-classes.
Then A and B have disjoint support. We replace A and B with the factorizations in their R-classes with
the largest values of A0 and B0 . Without loss of generality we can suppose that B0 = 0. By Lemma 4 we
can suppose that Ai , Bi < p for each i ∈ [1, x]. By Lemma 5 we can suppose that A0 < 2x(p − 1) − 1.
Since A and B are factorizations of the same element and B0 = 0, we have
!
!
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
i−1
x
Bi pi−1 .
Bi (px − 2) +
Ai p
= 2
Ai (p − 2) +
A0 + 2
This implies

i=1

i=1

i=1

x
X

Ai pi−1 ≡

x
X

Bi pi−1

i=1

(mod px − 2).

i=1

i=1

Every integer k ∈ [0, px − 1] can be written uniquely as
k=

x
X

ai pi−1 ,

i=1

Px

i−1

where 0 ≤ ai < p. The only way for i=1 Bi p
to be at least px − 2 is when (B1 , . . . , Bx ) = (p − 2, p −
P
x
1, . . . , p − 1), or (p − 1, . . . , p − 1). In the first case i=1 Bi pi−1 is congruent to 0 modulo px − 2, and in the
second case it is congruent to 1. In both of these special cases the factorization B is in the same R-class
as
with a larger number of copies of the smallest generator, which is a contradiction. If
Pxa factorization
i−1
6≡ 0, 1 (mod px − 2) then the values of (B1 , . . . , Bx ) are completely determined and must be
i=1 Bi p
equal to (A1 , . . . , Ax ), contradicting the assumption that these factorizations have disjoint support.

Lemma 1 together with the complete set of factorizations of each of these elements proves Theorem 3.
Now that we have a more detailed understanding of the factorizations of elements of S we can easily compute
∆(S).
Theorem 5. Let S be as in the statement of Theorem 3. Then
∆(S) = {p − 1, (p − 1)x}.
We note that if p = x = 2 then we get the non-minimal generating set for S {2, 5, 6}. Following the
conventions of [9], the delta set of h2, 5i with respect to this generating set is {1, 2}, which is consistent with
Theorem 5.
Proof. By Proposition 2 the minimum element of ∆(S) is equal to the greatest common divisor of the
differences between consecutive minimal generators. These differences are
{px − 1, p − 1, p(p − 1), . . . , px−2 (p − 1)},
a set with greatest common divisor equal to p − 1. Therefore, min ∆(S) = p − 1. The characterization of the
factorizations of (2x(p − 1) − 1)(px − 2) given in Lemma 6 shows that x(p − 1) ∈ ∆(S).
Therefore, if A = (A0 , . . . , Ax ) and B = (B0 , . . . , Bx ) are two factorizations of the same element of S,
then
x
X
(Ai − Bi ) = k · (p − 1),
|A − B| :=
i=0

for some k ≥ 0. Throughout
Px the restPofx the proof we suppose that A and B are two factorizations of the
same element in S with i=0 Ai > i=0 Bi and that there are no factorizations with length in between
these two. We will show that if |A − B| > p − 1 then |A − B| = x(p − 1), completing the proof.
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that |A − B| = k(p − 1) with k ∈ [2, x − 1]. If such a pair of
factorizations exists, then by canceling common elements there exists such a pair where for each i either
Ai = 0 or Bi = 0. We first show that we can make simplifying assumptions about the Ai and Bi by showing
that if these assumptions are not satisfied then we can either find a factorization of length exactly p − 1
longer than the length of B or exactly p − 1 shorter than the length of A.
7

If Bx ≥ p, then (B0 + 2p − 3, B1 + 2, B2 , . . . , Bx−1 , Bx − p), is a factorization of the same element with
length exactly p−1 longer than the length of B, which is a contradiction. If Bi ≥ p for some i ∈ [1, x−1] then
′
(B0 + 2p − 2, B1′ , B2′ , . . . , Bx′ ), where Bi′ = Bi − p, Bi+1
= Bi+1 + 1, and Bj′ = Bj otherwise, is a factorization
of the same element with length exactly p − 1 longer than the length of B, which is a contradiction.
We have
x
X

(Ai − Bi ) 2(px − 2) + pi−1 = 0.
(A0 − B0 )(px − 2) +
i=1

This gives

A0 − B0 + 2

x
X

(Ai − Bi ) +

i=1

Px

i=1 (Ai
px

− Bi )pi−1
= 0,
−2

which implies
2k(p − 1) +

(4)

Px

i=1 (Ai
px

− Bi )pi−1
= A0 − B0 .
−2

Since Bi ≤ p − 1 for i ∈ [1, x] we have
Px
i−1
−(p − 1)(1 + p + · · · + px−1 )
1
i=1 (Ai − Bi )p
≥
= −1 − x
,
x
x
p −2
p −2
p −2
which implies that this sum is at least −1, as it is an integer. So by (4)
2k(p − 1) − 1 ≤ A0 − B0 ≤ A0 .
Since k ≥ 2 and p ≥ 2 we see that A0 ≥ 4p − 5 ≥ 2p − 2, and conclude that B0 = 0 by cancellation.
Since A0 ≥ 2p−2, if Ai ≥ 1 for any i ∈ [2, x] then (A0 −2(p−1), A′1 , . . . , A′x ) where A′i−1 = Ai−1 +p, A′i =
′
Ai − 1, and A′j = Aj otherwise, gives another factorization of the same element with length exactly p − 1
shorter than the length of A, which is a contradiction. If A1 ≥ 2 then (A0 −(2p−3), A1 −2, A3 , . . . , Ax−1 , Ax +
p) is a factorization of the same element with length exactly p − 1 shorter than the length of A, which is a
contradiction. Therefore we can suppose that A1 ≤ 1 and Ai = 0 for all i ∈ [2, x].
Note that since B0 = 0,
x
X

(Ai − Bi ) = A0 + (A1 − B1 ) −

x
X

Bi = k(p − 1),

i=2

i=0

and
Px
A1 − B1 − i=2 Bi pi−1
2k(p − 1) +
= A0
px − 2
by (4).
Since p ≥ 2, A1 ≤ 1, and at least one Bi ≥ 1, in order for the fraction to be an integer we must have
A1 −

x
X

Bi pi−1 = −(px − 2)t

i=1

for some positive integer t. Since each Bi < p and A1 ≤ 1 we must have t = 1. Since at least one of A1 , B1
equals zero, we see that A1 = 0 and
(B0 , B1 , . . . , Bx ) = (0, p − 2, p − 1, . . . , p − 1).
Since Ai = 0 for all i ∈ [1, x] we have A0 = pxn−2 = 2x(p − 1) − 1. This gives |A − B| = (p − 1)x, which
contradicts the assumption that |A − B| < (p − 1)x.

8

3. Two-Element Delta Sets of Semigroups with Embedding Dimension Three
In this section we characterize precisely which two-element sets occur as the delta set of some numerical
semigroup of embedding dimension three. By Proposition 1, such a set must be of the form {d, td} for some
positive integers d ≥ 1 and t ≥ 2. We show that {d, td} occurs as a delta set if and only if t = 2.
Theorem 6. Suppose that S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i. Let d = gcd{n3 − n2 , n2 − n1 }. Then |∆(S)| = 2 implies that
∆(S) = {d, 2d}.
The main tool in this argument is a careful consideration of the minimal presentations of embedding dimension three numerical semigroups. We follow the presentation in Section 4 of [13]. A numerical semigroup
S must have |N \ S| < ∞. The largest element of N \ S is called the Frobenius number, and is denoted F (S).
A semigroup S is symmetric if for each i ∈ [1, F (S)] exactly one of {i, F (S) − i} is in S. There are two cases
to consider based on whether S is a symmetric or not.
Proof. Let S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i with n1 < n2 < n3 be a numerical semigroup of embedding dimension three that
is not symmetric. We recall some facts from [13] that are also covered in detail in Chapter 9 of [21]. For
i ∈ [1, 3] there exist positive integers rij such that
ci ni = rij nj + rik nk ,
where ci = min{k ∈ N \ {0} | kni ∈ hnj , nk i}. There is a unique minimal presentation of S given by
σ = {((c1 , 0, 0), (0, r12 , r13 )), ((0, c2 , 0), (r21 , 0, r23 )), ((0, 0, c3 ), (r31 , r32 , 0))}.
We note that
(c1 , −r12 , −r13 ) + (−r21 , c2 , −r23 ) + (−r31 , −r32 , c3 ) = (0, 0, 0).
The three elements c1 n1 , c2 n2 , c3 n3 are distinct and each has exactly two factorizations. Let δ1 = c1 −
(r12 + r13 ), δ3 = (r31 + r32 ) − c3 , and δ2 = |c2 − (r21 + r23 )|. Since n1 < n2 < n3 we see that δ1 , δ3 > 0,
and that δ1 , δ3 ∈ ∆(S), and δ2 ∈ ∆(S) if it is nonzero. Moreover, Corollary 3.1 of [13] implies that
max ∆(S) = max{δ1 , δ3 } and that each element of ∆(S) can be written as
λ1 δ1 + λ3 δ3
for some λ1 , λ3 ∈ Z. If |∆(S)| > 1 then δ1 6= δ3 . We also have that δ2 = |δ1 −δ3 |. Suppose that ∆(S) = {d, td}
with t > 2. Then {δ1 , δ3 } = {d, td} and δ2 = (t − 1)d, which is a contradiction.
We now consider the case where S is a symmetric numerical semigroup of embedding dimension three,
closely following the presentation of Section 4.3 of [13]. Theorem 10.6 in [21] implies that S = ham1 , am2 , bm1 +
cm2 i for some nonnegative integers m1 , m2 , a, b, c satisfying a, b+c ≥ 2 and gcd{m1 , m2 } = 1 = gcd{a, bm1 +
cm2 }. Without loss of generality suppose m2 > m1 . Theorem 17 in [20] implies that a minimal presentation
of S is
σ = {((m2 , 0, 0), (0, m1 , 0)), ((0, 0, a), (b, c, 0))}.
This presentation is not necessarily unique.
j k
We see that the element am1 m2 ∈ S has exactly two factorizations, so m2 − m1 ∈ ∆(S). Let r = mc1
j k
and s = mb2 . In Section 4.3 of [13] the authors show that the set of lengths of a(bm1 + cm2 ) is given by
{a, b + c − s(m2 − m1 ), b + c − (s − 1)(m2 − m1 ), . . .
. . . , b + c + (r − 1)(m2 − m1 ), b + c + r(m2 − m1 )},

and that |∆(S)| = 1 if and only if a = b + c + k(m2 − m1 ) for some integer k ∈ [−s − 1, r + 1]. Assume that
this is not the case.
Suppose that ∆(S) = {d, td} with t > 2. By assumption, a is not equal to b + c + k(m2 − m1 ) for any
k ∈ [−s − 1, r + 1]. If
b + c − s(m2 − m1 ) < a < b + c + r(m2 − m1 ),
then there exists k ∈ [−s, r − 1] such that
b + c + k(m2 − m1 ) < a < b + c + (k + 1)(m2 − m1 ).
9

Taking differences shows that
{b + c + (k + 1)(m2 − m1 ) − a, a − (b + c + k(m2 − m1 ))} ⊆ ∆ (a(bm1 + cm2 )) .
These elements are both smaller than m2 − m1 , so if ∆(S) = {d, td} then m2 − m1 = td. However, if both
of these elements are equal to d then t = 2, which is a contradiction. Therefore, |∆(S)| ≥ 3, which is a
contradiction.
We now consider two final cases. First suppose that a < b + c − s(m2 − m1 ) and recall that a 6=
b + c − (s + 1)(m2 − m1 ). Let d1 = m2 − m1 and d2 = b + c − s(m2 − m1 ) − a, and note that d1 , d2 ∈ ∆(S)
and d1 6= d2 . Now consider the set of lengths of the element a(bm1 + cm2 ) + am1 m2 . This element has
factorizations (m2 , 0, a) and (b − sm2 , c + sm1 + m1 , 0), and no factorizations of lengths in between. We
conclude that
|b + c − s(m2 − m1 ) − a − (m2 − m1 )| = |d2 − d1 | ∈ ∆(a(bm1 + cm2 ) + am1 m2 ).
Since {d1 , d2 } = {d, td} we conclude that (t − 1)d ∈ ∆(S), which is a contradiction.
The other case to consider is when a > b + c + r(m2 − m1 ). A version of exactly the same argument with
−s replaced by r again shows that (t − 1)d ∈ ∆(S). This completes the proof.

We now show that for each d ≥ 1, there is a numerical semigroup S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i with ∆(S) = {d, 2d}.
In fact, there is a symmetric semigroup of this type.
Proposition 6. Let d ≥ 1 be a positive integer and p be an odd prime that does not divide d. Let S =
p2 , p2 + 2d, p2 − (p − 2)d . Then ∆(S) = {d, 2d}.
Proof. We verify that S is a symmetric numerical semigroup. It is of the form ham1 , am2 , bm1 + cm2 i with
a = m1 = p, m2 = p + 2d, b = p − d − 1, and c = 1. Clearly gcd{p, p + 2d} = 1 since gcd{p, 2d} = 1. Also,
gcd{p, p2 − (p − 2)d} = 1 since gcd{p, (p − 2)d} = 1.
We compute
min ∆(S) =
=

gcd ∆(S) = gcd{p2 + 2d − p2 , p2 − (p2 − (p − 2)d)}
gcd{2d, (p − 2)d} = d,

since p is an odd prime. By Theorem 17 of [20], this semigroup has a unique minimal presentation since
0 < b < m2 and 0 < c < m1 . The Betti elements are m1 m2 and bm1 + cm2 , which give delta set elements
m2 − m1 and a − (b + c). We see that
max ∆(S) = max{m2 − m1 , a − (b + c)} = max{2d, d},
completing the proof.


4. Further Questions

In this section we first suggest many other classes of semigroups with interesting delta sets that we can
describe explicitly. We then give two related realization problems for numerical semigroups. Extensive
computation suggests many other statements analogous to Theorem 5.
Conjecture 2. Let m ≥ 1 be a positive integer and k ≥ 0 be nonnegative integer. Let
S = h3 · 2m+k − 2m , 2(3 · 2m+k − 2m ) + 1, . . . , 2(3 · 2m+k − 2m ) + 2m i.
Then S is a complete-intersection numerical semigroup with minimal presentation given by
((3 · 2k+1 − 1, 0, . . . , 0), (0, . . . , 0, 3 · 2k − 1))
and for each i ∈ [1, m]
vi := ((0, . . . , 0, 2, 0, . . . , 0), (2, 0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0))
where the first 2 is in the i + 1 position, where we count starting at 0, and the 1 is
also have that

k

{1, . . . , 3 · 2 }
∆(S) = {1, . . . , 3 · 2k } \ ({3 · 2k + 1 − 3k|k ∈ N} \ 1)


{1, . . . , 3 · 2k } \ ({3 · 2k + n − 7k|k ∈ N, n = 1, 2, 5} \ 1)
10

in the i + 2 position. We
if m = 1,
if m = 2,
if m ≥ 3.

Using the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 1, we see the given generating set of S is always
minimal as 2i − 2j < 3 · 2m+k − 2m for the given parameters.
It would be very interesting to compare this class of complete intersection numerical semigroups to those
given in [2, 14]. Slight variations of the semigroups given above seem to give interesting delta sets.
Conjecture 3. For x ≥ 2 if S = h2x , 2 · 2x + 1, . . . , 2 · 2x + 2x−1 i, then
∆(S) = {1, 2, 3}.
For x ≥ 3 if S = h2

x−1

− 1, 2(2

x−1

− 1) + 1, . . . , 2(2x−1 − 1) + 2x−2 i, then
∆(S) = {1, 2, x}.

For x ≥ 2, if S = h2

x+1

− 3, 2(2

x+1

− 3) + 1, . . . , 2(2x+1 − 3) + 2x i, then
∆(S) = {1, x, x + 1}.

For c ≥ 4 and x ≥ 2, if
S = h2x+c−3 − c, 2(2x+c−3 − c) + 1, . . . , 2(2x+c−3 − c) + 2x+c−5 i,
then
∆(S) = {1, x + i0 , x + i1 , . . . , x + i⌊(c−1)/2⌋ },


ij−1 + 1 if j ≡ 1 (mod 2)
where i0 = 0, and ij = ij−1 + 2 if j ≡ 2 (mod 4) .


ij−1 + 3 if j ≡ 0 (mod 4)

Using the same argument as in Lemma 1, we see S is minimal in each of these cases. Note that these
semigroups are given by a construction very similar to the one from Theorem 5. All of these semigroups are
of the general form
S = h2x − c, 2(2x − c) + 1, 2(2x − c) + 2x+h i,
where c ≥ 1 and h ≥ 0. Further generalizations give several other explicit classes of delta sets.
Conjecture 4. For any fixed c, h ≥ 0 and for each n ≥ 2 let
Sn = h2x − c, n(2x − c) + 1, 2x − c, n(2x − c) + 2, . . . , n(2x − c) + 2x+h i.
Suppose ∆(S2 ) = {1, c0 , c1 , . . . , ck }. Then ∆(Sn ) is
[
{1, . . . , n − 1} {(n − 1)(c0 − 1) + 1, (n − 1)(c1 − 1) + 1, . . . , (n − 1)(ck − 1) + 1}.

The last equation of Conjecture 3 can be generalized as follows. For c ≥ 4, x ≥ 2, and n ≥ 2, if
S = h2x+c−3 − c, n(2x+c−3 − c) + 1, . . . , n(2x+c−3 − c) + 2x+c−5 i,

then
∆(S) = {1, . . . , n − 1, (n − 1)(x + i0 − 1) + 1, . . . , (n − 1)(x + i⌊(c−1)/2⌋ − 1) + 1}
with the integers ij defined as above.
As above, for the parameters given here the generating set of S is minimal.
It seems likely that these conjectures can be generalized further. For example, the formula above gives
∆(h2x+1 − 4, 2(2x+1 − 4) + 1, . . . , 2(2x+1 − 4) + 2x−1 i) = {1, x, x + 1},
for x ≥ 2. Computation suggests that for x ≥ 7, removing the last element gives
∆(h2x−2 − 4, 2(2x−2 − 4) + 1, . . . , 2(2x−2 − 4) + 2x−5 i) = {1, 2, 4, 5, x, x + 1}.
We would like to understand whether every finite subset containing 1 occurs as a delta set. The only
finite set containing 1 with maximum element at most 5 that we have not yet found is {1, 3, 4, 5}. We have
also performed extensive computations in an attempt to find a numerical semigroup S with ∆(S) = {1, 3, 6}
but have not yet been successful.
We end this paper by describing two related realization problems. We have focused so far on computing
delta sets of numerical semigroups, a measure of the complexity of the structures of all of the sets of lengths
of the infinite set of elements of the semigroup. It is also interesting to ask finer questions about sets of
lengths of individual elements of a semigroup.
11

Question 2.
(1) Which finite sets occur as ∆(x) for some element x in some numerical semigroup S?
(2) Which finite sets occur as L(x) for some element x in some numerical semigroup S?
There are sets that have a positive answer to this first question that do not occur as ∆(S) for any
semigroup S. For example, in the semigroup S = h4, 9, 11i the element 36 has set of lengths equal to {4, 6, 9}
and therefore has delta set equal to {2, 3}. Since it is not true that the minimum element of ∆(x) must be
equal to the greatest common divisor of ∆(x) there are no obvious restrictions on sets that have a positive
answer to this first question. It is also not clear that every set that occurs as ∆(S) for some semigroup S
will also occur as ∆(x) for some individual element.
The second question was suggested by Alfred Geroldinger. It is clear that an element of a semigroup S
has a factorization of length 1 if and only if it is a minimal generator, and in that case there is a unique
factorization of this element. However, there are no obvious restrictions on sets not containing 1 to have a
positive answer to this second question. Sets of lengths within a given semigroup are known to satisfy certain
structural conditions. Similar realizations questions for sets of lengths have been considered by Schmid in
other settings [28]. It is likely that Geroldinger’s structure theorem for sets of lengths, [23, 24], will be a
useful starting place for studying these questions.
5. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Christopher O’Neill for sharing helpful programs for computing delta sets, and Pedro
Garcı́a-Sánchez for alerting them to the reference [19]. The second author thanks Alfred Geroldinger for
helpful correspondence related to the final section of the paper. The authors also thank Gilana Reiss and
the Science Research Mentorship Program at Hunter College High School. Finally, the authors thank the
referee for several comments that helped improve the paper.
References
[1] D. F. Anderson, S. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Torkornoo, An algorithm to compute ω-primality in a numerical monoid.
Semigroup Forum 82 (2011), no. 1, 96-108.
[2] A. Assi and P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, Constructing the set of complete intersection numerical semigroups with a given
Frobenius number. Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput. 24 (2013), no. 2, 133-148.
[3] P. Baginski, S. Chapman, R. Rodriguez, G. Schaeffer, and Y. She, On the delta set and catenary degree of Krull monoids
with infinite cyclic divisor class group. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), no. 8, 1334-1339.
[4] P. Baginski, S. Chapman, and G. Schaeffer, On the delta set of a singular arithmetical congruence monoid. J. Theor.
Nombres Bordeaux 20 (2008), no. 1, 45-59.
[5] T. Barron, C. O’Neill, and R. Pelayo, On dynamic algorithms for factorization invariants in numerical monoids. To appear
in Math. Comp. (2015).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07435
[6] C. Bibby, S. Chapman, C. Leverson, A. Malyshev, and D. Steinberg, Determining delta sets of numerical monoids. (2008),
preprint.
[7] C. Bowles, S. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Reiser, On delta sets of numerical monoids, J. Algebra Appl. 5 (2006), 1-24.
[8] L. Bryant, J. Hamblin, and L. Jones, Maximal denumerant of a numerical semigroup with embedding dimension less than
four. J. Commut. Algebra 4 (2012), no. 4, 489-503.
[9] S. Chapman, J. Daigle, R. Hoyer, and N. Kaplan. Delta sets of numerical monoids using non-minimal sets of generators.
Comm. Algebra 38 (2010), no. 7, 2622-2634.
[10] S. Chapman, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and D. Llena, The catenary and tame degree of numerical monoids. Forum Math. 21
(2009), no. 1, 117-129.
[11] S. Chapman, F. Gotti, and R. Pelayo, On delta sets and their realizable subsets in Krull monoids with cyclic class groups.
Colloq. Math. 137 (2014), no. 1, 137-146.
[12] S. Chapman, R. Hoyer, and N. Kaplan, Delta sets of numerical monoids are eventually periodic, Aequationes Math. 77
(2009), no. 3, 273-279.
[13] S. Chapman, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, A. Malyshev, and D. Steinberg, On the delta set and the betti elements of a
BF-monoid. Arab. J. Math. 1 (2012), no. 1, 53-61.
[14] M. D’Anna, V. Micale, and A. Sammartino, Classes of complete intersection numerical semigroups. Semigroup Forum 88
(2014), no. 2, 453-467.
[15] M. Delgado, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and J. Morais, “numericalsgps”: a gap package on numerical semigroups.
http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/numericalsgps.html
[16] J. I. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, M. A. Moreno-Frı́as, and A. Vigneron-Tenorio, A computation of the ω-primality and asymptotic
ω-primality with applications to numerical semigroups. Israel J. Math. 206 (2015), no. 1, 395-411.
[17] J. I. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, M. A. Moreno-Frı́as, and A. Vigneron-Tenorio, Computation of delta sets of numerical monoids. (2015).
Monatsh. Math. 178 (2015), no. 3, 457-472.
12

[18] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and M. J. Leamer, Huneke-Wiegand conjecture for complete intersection numerical semigroup rings.
J. Algebra 391 (2013) 114-124.
[19] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, and A. Moscariello, Delta sets for numerical semigroups with embedding dimension three.
(2015).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02116
[20] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and I. Ojeda, Uniquely presented finitely generated commutative monoids. Pacific J. Math. 248 (2010),
no. 1, 91-105.
[21] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and J. Rosales, Numerical semigroups. Developments in Mathematics, 20. Springer, New York 2009.
[22] P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and J. Rosales, Finitely generated commutative monoids. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Commack,
NY, 1999. xiv+185 pp.
[23] A. Geroldinger, A structure theorem for sets of lengths. Colloq. Math. 78 (1998), no. 2, 225-259.
[24] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch, Non-unique factorizations: Algebraic, combinatorial and analytic theory, Pure and
Applied Mathematics, 278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2006.
[25] M. Omidali, The catenary and tame degree of numerical monoids generated by generalized arithmetic sequences. Forum
Math. 24 (2012), no. 3, 627-640.
[26] A. Philipp, A characterization of arithmetical invariants by the monoid of relations. Semigroup Forum 81 (2010), no. 3,
424-434.
[27] A. Philipp, A characterization of arithmetical invariants by the monoid of relations II: the monotone catenary degree and
applications to semigroup rings. Semigroup Forum 90 (2015), no. 1, 220-250.
[28] W. Schmid, A realization theorem for sets of lengths. J. Number Theory 129 (2009), no. 5, 990-999.
Department of Mathematics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511
E-mail address: stefan.colton@yale.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
E-mail address: nckaplan@math.uci.edu

13

