LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

arXiv:1502.05163v2 [math.AG] 19 Jan 2016

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA
Abstract. We characterize the ideals I of On of finite colength whose integral closure is
equal to the integral closure of an ideal generated by pure monomials. This characterization,
which is motivated by an inequality proven by Demailly and Pham [8], is given in terms of
the log canonical threshold of I and the sequence of mixed multiplicities of I.

1. Introduction
Let On denote the ring of analytic function germs f : (Cn , 0) → C. Let I be an ideal of On
and let g1 , . . . , gr be a generating system of I. The log canonical threshold of I, denoted by
lct(I), is defined as the supremum of those s ∈ R>0 such that the function (|g1 |2 +· · ·+|gr |2 )−s
is locally integrable around 0. This number, which does not depend on the chosen generating
system of I, is always rational and has a deep relation with other invariants (see for instance
[1], [6] or [9]). Moreover, the log canonical threshold can be characterized in several ways
and is an object of interest in algebraic geometry, commutative algebra an complex analytic
geometry. We refer to [17], [20] and [29] for properties and fundamental results about this
1
number. The Arnold multiplicity of I, denoted by µ(I), is defined as µ(I) = lct(I)
.
If no confusion arises, we denote by m the maximal ideal of On . If i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, then ei (I)
will denote the mixed multiplicity e(I, . . . , I, m, . . . , m), where I is repeated i times and m is
repeated n − i times (we refer to [16, §17], [24] and [30] for the definition and basic properties
of mixed multiplicities). We recall that e1 (I) = ord(I), where ord(I) = max{r > 1 : I ⊆ mr },
and en (I) = e(I), where e(I) denotes the Samuel multiplicity of I.
If u is the plurisubharmonic function given by u = maxj log |gj |, then ei (I) = Li (u), where
Li (u) denotes the Lelong number of the current (ddc u)i at 0, for i = 1, . . . , n (see for instance
the proof of [23, Corollary 4.2] or [6]). Therefore, by Section 3.1 of the article [8] of Demailly
and Pham, if I denotes an ideal of On of finite colength generated by monomials, then
(1)

1
e1 (I)
en−1 (I)
+
+···+
6 lct(I).
e1 (I) e2 (I)
en (I)

Let us denote by DP(I) the sum that appears in the left hand side of (1). If I is an arbitrary
ideal of On of finite colength, then we define DP(I) in the same way.
In Section 2 we show two results relating the mixed multiplicities of I with the initial
ideals of the powers of I with respect to a specific local monomial ordering (the negative
lexicographical order). As a direct application of these results and relation (1) we obtain
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13H15; Secondary 32S05, 14B05.
1

2

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

that DP(I) 6 lct(I), for any ideal I ⊆ On of finite colength (see Remark 7). This article is
motivated by the question of characterizing when equality DP(I) = lct(I) holds.
We recall that, for any ideal I ⊆ On , the following chain of inequalities holds
(2)

1
e1 (I)
en−1 (I)
>
> ··· >
,
e1 (I)
e2 (I)
en (I)

as can be seen, for instance, in [16, Theorem 17.7.2], [25] or [27, p. 41]. As a consequence of
the inequality relating the arithmetical and the geometrical means of n positive real numbers,
we immediately obtain that, if I is an ideal of On of finite colength, then
1/n

n
en−1 (I)
e1 (I)
en−1 (I)
1
1 e1 (I)
(3)
=n
···
+
+···+
6 lct(I).
6
1/n
e(I)
e1 (I) e2 (I)
en (I)
e1 (I) e2 (I)
en (I)
(I)
(I)
Then we have that nµ(I)1/n 6 lct(I) and equality holds if and only if ee21 (I)
= · · · = en−1
.
en (I)
i
It is immediate to see that this last condition is equivalent to saying that ei (I) = e1 (I) , for
all i = 1, . . . , n, which in turn is equivalent to the condition e(I) = e1 (I)n = ord(I)n , by
(2). We have that I ⊆ mord(I) , then the condition e(I) = ord(I)n is equivalent to saying that
I = mord(I) , by the Rees’ Multiplicity Theorem (see for instance [14, p. 147] or [16, p. 222]).
Therefore it follows that nµ(I)1/n = lct(I) if and only if I = mord(I) . This last equivalence
was proven previously in [9, Theorem 1.4] by using another procedure.
Inspired by this result, we approach the problem of characterizing the equality DP(I) =
lct(I) by means of an expression for the integral closure of I. For this purpose, we introduce
a class of ideals that we call diagonal ideals (see Definition 8). We characterize this class in
Theorem 13. This theorem is supported by Corollary 11, where we show a result analogous
to Rees’ Multiplicity Theorem using DP(I) instead of e(I). As we will see (Example 15),
diagonal ideals are strictly contained in the class of ideals I ⊆ On of finite colegth for which
the equality DP(I) = lct(I) holds.

2. Local monomial orderings and mixed multiplicities
Let us fix a coordinate system x1 , . . . , xn ∈ Cn . If α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) ∈ Zn>0 , then we denote
the monomial xα1 1 · · · xαnn by xα . Let Monn = {xα : α ∈ Zn>0 }. Here we recall some definitions
taken from [13, Section 1.2] (see also [3, Chapter 4, §3]). A monomial ordering in Monn is a
total ordering > on the set Monn such that xα > xβ implies xγ xα > xγ xβ , for all α, β, γ ∈ Zn>0 .
Let > be a monomial ordering in Monn . We say that > is local when 1 > xα , for all
α ∈ Zn>0 . In the sequel we will consider the local monomial ordering > given by xα > xβ
if and only if there exists some i ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that (α1 , . . . , αi−1 ) = (β1 , . . . , βi−1 ) and
αi < βi , where α, β ∈ Zn>0 . In particular xn > xn−1 > · · · > x1 . This monomial ordering is
known as the negative lexicographical order (see [13, p. 14]).
P
If f ∈ On , f 6= 0, let f = k ak xk be the Taylor expansion of f around the origin. Then
we define the support of f , denoted by supp(f ), as the set of those k ∈ Zn>0 such that ak 6= 0.
Therefore we denote by in(f ) the maximum of the monomials xk , k ∈ supp(f ), with respect

LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

3

to the order >. Let us remark that, by the definition of the negative lexicographical order,
in(f ) exists. We will refer to in(f ) as the initial monomial of f (in [3] this monomial is called
the leading monomial of f and is denoted by lm(f )).
If I is an ideal of On , then we define the initial ideal of I, which we will denote by in(I),
as the ideal of On generated by all monomials in(f ) such that f ∈ I. If I has finite colength,
then in(I) has also finite colength and in(I) satisfies the following fundamental relation:
(4)

dimC

On
On
= dimC
.
I
in(I)

The above result follows from [3, Theorem 4.3, p. 177] (see also [13, Corollary 7.5.6]). However,
the ideals I and in(I) do not have the same multiplicity in general, as we see in the following
easy example.
Example 1. Let us consider the ideal I = hx + y 2, y 3 i ⊆ O2 . Using Singular [5] we have that
in(I) = hy 2 , xy, x2i and therefore e(I) = 3 and e(in(I)) = 4. We also observe that e1 (I) = 1
and e1 (in(I)) = 2.
Proposition 2. Let I be an ideal of On of finite colength. Then ej (I) 6 ej (in(I)), for all
j = 1, . . . , n, and lct(in(I)) 6 lct(I).
Proof. Let us consider the coordinates (x1 , . . . , xn , t) in Cn+1 . Since we suppose that I has
finite colength, then I admits a generating system formed by polynomials. In particular, by
[13, Corollary 7.4.6] and [13, Corollary 7.5.2], there exists an ideal J ⊆ On+1 generated by
homogeneous polynomials verifying the following properties:
(1) J0 = in(I) and J1 = I, where we denote by Jt the ideal of On obtained by fixing the
variable t in each element of J;
(2) On+1 /J is a flat C[t]-algebra;
(3) the rings On /Jt and On /I are isomorphic, for all t ∈ C r {0}.
By the lower semicontinuity of the log canonical threshold (see [7] or [17, Corollary 9.5.39]), we
have lct(J0 ) 6 lct(Jt ) = lct(I), for all t small enough, t 6= 0, where the equality lct(Jt ) = lct(I)
follows by the existence of a ring isomorphism On /Jt ≃ On /I, for all t ∈ C r {0}.
Let us fix an integer j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. We recall that ej (J0 ) = e(J0 , . . . , J0 , m, . . . , m), where
J0 is repeated j times and m is repeated n − j times. Hence, by [16, Theorem 17.4.9] (see
also [28, Corollaire 2.2]), the mixed multiplicity ej (I) is expressed as
(5)



On
ej (J0 ) = e J0
hhj+1 , . . . , hn i



,

for generic linear forms hj+1 , . . . , hn in C[x1 , . . . , xn ] (this set of linear forms is empty when
j = n).

4

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

Then, let us fix linear forms hj+1, . . . , hn ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ] such that relation (5) holds. By
the upper semicontinuity of Samuel multiplicity (see [11, p. 547] or [18, p. 126]) we have


On
(6)
ej (J0 ) > e Jt
> ej (Jt )
hhj+1, . . . , hn i
where the second inequality follows from [16, Theorem 17.4.9].
The existence of a ring isomorphism On /Jt ≃ On /I, for all t ∈ C r {0}, implies that there
exists a biholomorphism ϕt : (Cn , 0) → (Cn , 0) such that ϕ∗t (I) = Jt (see [10, p. 16] o [12,
p. 57]). In particular, we obtain that ej (I) = ej (Jt ), for all t 6= 0. Then, since J0 = in(I), we
have that ej (in(I)) > ej (I), for all j = 1, . . . , n, by virtue of (6).

Let L ⊆ {1, . . . , n}, L 6= ∅. We define CnL = {x ∈ Cn : xi = 0, for all i ∈
/ L} and we denote
n
n
by πL the natural projection C → CL . Let us denote by On,L the subring of On formed by all
functions germs of On depending at most on the variables xi with i ∈ L. Let f ∈ On and let
P
us suppose that the Taylor expansion of f around the origin is given by f = k ak xk . Then
we denote by fL the sum of all terms ak xk such that k ∈ supp(f ) ∩ RnL . If J is an ideal of On
then we denote by JL the ideal of On,L generated by all elements fL , where f ∈ J.
Lemma 3. Let J be an ideal of On of finite colength and let L = {j, . . . , n}, for some
j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Then
in(JL ) = in(J)L .

Proof. If j = 1, there is nothing to prove, so let us suppose that j > 1. Let f ∈ J, such
that in(f )L 6= 0. In particular, it follows that fL 6= 0 and supp(in(f )) ⊆ supp(fL ), that is,
in(f )L = in(f ) = in(fL ). Then in(JL ) ⊇ in(J)L .
On the other hand, let f ∈ J such that fL 6= 0. Then there exists some element k ∈
′
supp(f ) such that k1 = · · · = kj−1 = 0. Hence xk > xk , for all k ′ ∈ supp(f ) such that
ki′ 6= 0, for some i ∈
/ L, by the definition of the negative lexicographical order. In particular
supp(in(f )) ⊆ supp(f )∩RnL and hence in(f ) = in(fL ). In particular in(fL ) = in(f )L . Therefore
in(JL ) ⊆ in(J)L .

If ϕ : Cn → Cn is a linear change of coordinates and J is an ideal of On , then we denote
by ϕ∗ (J) the ideal of On generated by the elements g ◦ ϕ, where g ∈ J.
Theorem 4. Let I be an ideal of On of finite colength. Then, for all j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we have
ej (in(ϕ∗ (I)t ))
t→+∞
tj
for a generic linear change of coordinates ϕ : Cn → Cn .

(7)

ej (I) = lim

Proof. By [16, Theorem 17.4.9], there exist generic linear forms h1 , . . . , hn ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ]
such that


On
ej (I) = e I
hh1 , . . . , hn−j i

LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

5

for all j = 1, . . . , n (where we consider that this set of linear forms is empty when j = n). Let
ϕ : Cn → Cn be the linear change of coordinates such that hi ◦ ϕ = xi , for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Let us denote by J the ideal ϕ∗ (I). Then
(8)


ej (I) = e I

On
hh1 , . . . , hn−j i




=e J

On
hx1 , . . . , xn−j i



= e(JL )

where L = {n − j + 1, . . . , n} and e(JL ) denotes the Samuel multiplicity of JL in the ring On,L .
By [21, Corollary 1.13] (see also [4, Theorem 1.1]) we have that
e (in(JLt ))
t→+∞
tj

e(JL ) = lim

where in(JLt ) is the initial ideal of JLt with respect to the negative lexicographical ordering in
the monomials of On,L , for all t ∈ Z>1 . By Lemma 3 we have e(in(JLt )) = e (in(J t )L ). Moreover
e(in(J t )L ) > ej (in(J t )) > ej (J t ), where the first inequality follows from [16, Theorem 17.4.9]
and the second inequality is an application of Proposition 2. Putting this information together
we obtain the following chain of inequalities:



e in(JLt ) = e in(J t )L > ej in(J t ) > ej (J t ) = tj ej (J).
Then, dividing each term of the previous inequalities by tj and taking limits, we arrive to
e (in(JLt ))
e (in(J t )L )
=
lim
t→+∞
t→+∞
tj
tj
ej (in(J t ))
ej (in(ϕ∗ (I)t ))
> lim
=
lim
t→+∞
t→+∞
tj
tj
ej (ϕ∗ (I)t )
= ej (ϕ∗ (I)) = ej (I).
> lim
t→+∞
tj

ej (I) = e(JL ) = lim

Then the result follows.



Remark 5. By the argument of the proof of the previous result, if we fix an index j ∈
{1, . . . , n − 1}, and h1 , . . . , hn−j are linear forms of C[x1 , . . . , xn ] such that ej (I) coincides
with the multiplicity of I in the quotient ring On /hh1 , . . . , hn−j i, then relation (7) holds by
taking ϕ : Cn → Cn as any linear change of coordinates such that hi ◦ ϕ = xi , for all
i = 1, . . . , j.
Corollary 6. Let I be an ideal of finite colength of On . Then
(9)


DP(I) = lim t DP in(ϕ∗ (I)t ) .
t→+∞

for a generic linear change of coordinates ϕ : Cn → Cn .

6

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

Proof. Let us fix a generic change of coordinates ϕ : Cn → Cn and let us denote the ideal
ϕ∗ (I) by J. Then, for any t ∈ Z>1 , we have
1
e1 (in(J t ))
en−1 (in(J t ))
+
t
+
·
·
·
+
t
e1 (in(J t ))
e2 (in(J t ))
en (in(J t ))
e1 (in(J t ))/t
en−1 (in(J t ))/tn−1
1
+
+
·
·
·
+
=
e1 (in(J t ))/t e2 (in(J t ))/t2
en (in(J t ))/tn


t DP in(J t ) = t

By Theorem 4 and the definition of DP(I) we immediately obtain the desired result.



Remark 7. Let I ⊆ On be any ideal of finite colength. Let ϕ : Cn → Cn be a linear change
of coordinates such that relation (9) holds for ϕ and I. As a direct consequence of [8, §3.1]
we obtain that DP(K) 6 lct(K), for any monomial ideal K of On of finite colength. Then


DP in(ϕ∗ (I)t ) 6 lct in(ϕ∗ (I)t )
for all t ∈ Z>1 . In particular

(10)



t DP in(ϕ∗ (I)t ) 6 t lct in(ϕ∗ (I)t ) 6 t lct(ϕ∗ (I)t ) = lct(I)

for all t ∈ Z>1 , were the second inequality follows from Proposition 2. Therefore, taking limits
when t → ∞ in all parts of the previous inequalities, we obtain
(11)

DP(I) 6 lct(I)

as a consequence of Corollary 6. Then we have shown an alternative approach to the deduction
of (11) as a corollary of the analogous inequality for monomial ideals.
To the best of our knowledge, the proof of (11) as a corollary of the analogous result
for monomial ideals explained in [8, §3.3] relies on the equality ej (I) = ej (in(I)), for all
j = 1, . . . , n, where in(I) denotes the initial ideal of I with respect to any monomial order.
However, as shown in Example 1, the ideals I and in(I) do not have the same set of mixed
multiplicities in general.
Let us also point out that if DP(I) = lct(I), then relation (10) and Corollary 6 show that

lct(I) = lim t lct in(ϕ∗ (I)t ) .
t→+∞

3. Mixed multiplicities and diagonal ideals
Let us fix along the remaining text a coordinate system x1 , . . . , xn in Cn , unless otherwise
stated. Let I be an ideal of On . We denote the integral closure of I by I and the Newton
polyhedron of I by Γ+ (I). Let us recall that Γ+ (I) is the smallest convex set of Rn+ containing
the supports of the elements of I. Therefore Γ+ (I) is equal to the convex hull of the set
{k + v : k ∈ supp(f ), f ∈ I, v ∈ Rn>0 }. In general it holds that Γ+ (I) = Γ+ (I) (see [2,
p. 399]). If I admits a generating system formed by monomials, then we say that I is a
monomial ideal.
We define the term ideal of I as the ideal generated by all the monomials xk such that
k ∈ Γ+ (I). We will denote this ideal by I 0 . If I is a monomial ideal, then I is also monomial

LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

7

and therefore I = I 0 (see [16, p. 11] or [19]); however the converse is not true, as is shown
by the ideal I of O2 given by I = hx2 + y 2 , xyi. The ideals I for which I is generated by
monomials are called Newton non-degenerate ideals (see [2] or [26]).
Definition 8. Let I be an ideal of On . We say that I is diagonal when there exist positive
integers a1 , . . . , an such that I = hxa11 , . . . , xann i.
Then any power of the maximal ideal of On is a diagonal ideal. Moreover, any diagonal ideal
is Newton non-degenerate. As a consequence of the previous definition, if I is diagonal then I 0
is also, but the converse is not true, as is shown by the ideal of O2 given by I = hx+y, x2 i ⊆ O2
(in this case I 0 is equal to the maximal ideal).
Let I be an ideal of On of finite colength. Then by virtue of (11) and the inclusion I ⊆ I 0
we have the inequalities
DP(I) 6 lct(I) 6 lct(I 0 ).

(12)

We recall the following result of Howald [15] (see also [19]), where lct(I) is characterized in
terms of a combinatorial characteristic of Γ+ (I) if I is a monomial ideal.
Theorem 9. [15] Let I be a monomial ideal of On . Then
lct(I) =

1

.
min µ > 0 : µ(1, . . . , 1) ∈ Γ+ (I)

Proposition 10. Let D ⊆ Rn>0 be the set defined by
(13)

D = {(t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈ Rn>0 : t21 6 t2 , t2j 6 tj−1 tj+1 , for all j = 2, . . . , n − 1}.

Let us consider the function f : Rn>0 → R given by
f (t1 , . . . , tn ) =

1
t1
tn−1
+ + ...
,
t1 t2
tn

for all (t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈ Rn>0 . Let a = (a1 , . . . , an ), b = (b1 , . . . , bn ) ∈ D such that ai 6 bi , for all
i = 1, . . . , n. Then f (a) > f (b) and equality holds only if and only if a = b.
Proof. Let us see first that D is convex. For all j = 1, . . . , n, we define Dj = {(t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈
Rn>0 : t2j 6 tj−1 tj+1 }, where we set t0 = 1, for all t = (t1 , . . . , tn ) ∈ Rn>0 . Then it suffices to see
that Dj is convex, for all j = 1, . . . , n, since D = D1 ∩ · · · ∩ Dn .
Let us fix an index j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Let s = (s1 , . . . , sn ) and t = (t1 , . . . , tn ) be elements of Dj
p
p
p
p
and let λ ∈ [0, 1]. We define u = ( λsj−1 , (1 − λ)tj−1) and v = ( λsj+1 , (1 − λ)tj+1 ).
Let us denote by u · v the usual scalar product of u and v. By applying the definition of Dj
and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we find that
p
p
2
√
√
(14) (λsj + (1 − λ)tj )2 6 λ sj−1 sj+1 + (1 − λ) tj−1 tj+1
(15)

= (u · v)2 6 kuk2 kvk2 = (λsj−1 + (1 − λ)tj−1 )(λsj+1 + (1 − λ)tj+1).

Then λs + (1 − λ)t ∈ Dj , for all λ ∈ [0, 1], and hence Dj is convex. Therefore D is convex.

8

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

The proof of the inequality f (a) > f (b) is contained in the proof of [8, Lemma 3.1], however
we reproduce it for the sake of completeness and for its implications in the proof of the second
part of the result.
Let us consider the function g : [0, 1] → R>0 defined by g(λ) = f (a + λ(b − a)), for all
λ ∈ [0, 1]. We observe that
(16)

∂f
1
(t) = − 2 ,
∂t1
t1

∂f
1
tj−1
(t) = − 2 +
,
∂tj
tj
tj+1

∂f
tn−1
(t) = − 2
∂tn
tn

∂f
(t) 6 0, for all t ∈ D and
for all t ∈ Rn>0 and all j = 2, . . . , n − 1. In particular, we have ∂t
j
all j = 1, . . . , n. Then

n 
X
∂f
′
(a + λ(b − a)) (bj − aj ) 6 0
(17)
g (λ) =
∂tj
j=1

for all λ ∈ ]0, 1[. Hence g is a decreasing function, which implies that f (a) > f (b).
Let us suppose that f (a) = f (b), which means that g(0) = g(1). Then there exists some
λ0 ∈ ]0, 1[ such that g ′(λ0 ) = 0, by the Mean Value Theorem. Let c0 = a + λ0 (b − a) ∈ D. By
∂f
(17) and the fact that ∂t
(t) 6 0, for all t ∈ D and all j = 1, . . . , n, we conclude that
j
(18)

∂f
(c0 )(b1 − a1 ) = 0,
∂t1

∂f
(c0 )(bj − aj ) = 0,
∂tj

∂f
(c0 )(bn − an ) = 0
∂tn

for all j = 2, . . . , n − 1.
Let us suppose that an 6= bn . Then (18) implies that

an−1 + λ0 (bn−1 − an−1 )
∂f
(a + λ0 (b − a))(an − bn ) = −
(bn − an ) = 0.
∂tn
(an + λ0 (bn − an ))2

Then λ = −bn−1 /(an−1 − bn−1 ), which contradicts the hypothesis that λ ∈ ]0, 1[. Therefore
an = bn .
If we assume that an−1 6= bn−1 , by (16) and (18), we conclude that
(19)

(λ0 bn−1 + (1 − λ0 )an−1 )2 = (λ0 bn−2 + (1 − λ0 )an−2 )(λ0 bn + (1 − λ0 )an ).

We observe that, by inequality (14), this condition can not hold if a2j < aj−1 aj+1 or b2j <
bj−1 bj+1 . So (19) forces that
(20)

a2n−1 = an−2 an

and

b2n−1 = bn−2 bn .

By (14), (15) and the characterization of equality in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, condition (19) is equivalent to saying that
p
p
(1 − λ0 )an
(1 − λ0 )bn
p
=p
,
(1 − λ0 )an−2
(1 − λ0 )bn−2

which in turn is equivalent to saying that an /an−2 = bn /bn−2 . Then, since an = bn , we obtain
that an−2 = bn−2 . Hence an−1 = bn−1 , by (20), and thus we arrive to a contradiction. The
remaining equalities aj = bj , for all j = 1, . . . , n − 2, follow analogously. Then the result is
proven.


LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

9

Corollary 11. Let R be a Noetherian local ring. Let us suppose that R is quasi-unmixed. Let
I1 , I2 be two ideals of finite colength of R such that I1 ⊆ I2 . Then
(21)

DP(I1 ) 6 DP(I2 )

and equality holds if and only if I1 = I2 .
Proof. If I1 = I2 , then ei (I1 ) = ei (I2 ), for all i = 1, . . . , n (see [16, §17.4] or [28, p. 306]) and
hence DP(I1 ) = DP(I2 ). Let D be the set defined in Proposition 10. Let us consider the
vectors
(22)

a = (e1 (I2 ), . . . , en (I2 )),

b = (e1 (I1 ), . . . , en (I1 )).

Since I1 ⊆ I2 , then ei (I2 ) 6 ei (I1 ), for all i = 1, . . . , n. Moreover, the vectors a and b
defined in (22) belong to D, by (2). Then we can apply Proposition 10 to deduce that
DP(I1 ) 6 DP(I2 ) and equality holds if and only if ei (I1 ) = ei (I2 ), for all i = 1, . . . , n. In
particular DP(I1 ) = DP(I2 ) implies e(I1 ) = e(I2 ). The equality e(I1 ) = e(I2 ) together with
the inclusion I1 ⊆ I2 implies that I1 = I2 by the Rees’ Multiplicity Theorem [16, p. 222]. 
∂f
∂f
If f ∈ On , then we denote by J(f ) the ideal of On generated by ∂x
. Let us
, . . . , ∂x
n
1
suppose that f has an isolated singularity at the origin, that is, the ideal J(f ) has finite
colength in On . Let µ∗ (f ) denote the vector (µ(1) (f ), . . . , µ(n) (f )), where µ(i) (ft ) denotes the
Milnor number of the restriction of ft to a generic plane of dimension i in Cn passing through
the origin, for all i = 1, . . . , n (see [28, § 1]).
We say that a given property (Pt ) holds for all |t| ≪ 1 if there exists an open ball U centered
at 0 in C such that the property (Pt ) holds whenever t ∈ U.

Corollary 12. Let ft : (Cn , 0) → (C, 0) be an analytic deformation such that ft has an
isolated singularity at the origin, for all |t| ≪ 1. Then
(1) DP(J(ft )) is lower semicontinuous, that is, DP(J(f0 )) 6 DP(J(ft )), for all |t| ≪ 1
(2) DP(J(ft )) is constant, for |t| ≪ 1, if and only if µ∗ (ft ) is constant, for |t| ≪ 1.

Proof. By the results of Teissier in [28, §1], it is well known that µ(i) (ft ) = ei (J(ft )), where
µ(i) (ft ) denotes the Milnor number of the restriction of ft to a generic plane of dimension i
in Cn passing through the origin. Since Milnor numbers are upper semicontinuous (see [12,
Theorem 2.6]), we conclude that ei (J(ft )) 6 ei (J(f0 )), for all i = 1, . . . , n. Then both items
of the result follow as an immediate consequence of Proposition 10.

Theorem 13. Let I be an ideal of On of finite colength. Then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(a) I is diagonal.
(b) lct(I 0 ) = DP(I).
Proof. The implication (a) ⇒ (b) is a direct consequence of Theorem 9 and the known equality
lct(I) = lct(I) (see [17, §11.1]).

10

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

Let us prove (b) ⇒ (a). Let us suppose first that I is an ideal generated by monomials
such that lct(I 0 ) = DP(I). Hence lct(I) = µ1 , where µ0 = min{µ > 0 : µe ∈ Γ+ (I)} and
0
e = (1, . . . , 1), by Theorem 9. Let π denote a supporting hyperplane of Γ+ (I) containing the
point µ0 e and defined by the zeros of a linear form with rational coefficients. Let us write
the equation of π as
xn
x1
+···+
=1
c1
cn
where c1 , . . . , cn ∈ Q>0 . If necessary, we can reorder the variables to obtain c1 6 . . . 6 cn .
Let r be a positive integer such that rc1 , . . . , rcn ∈ Z>1 and let us denote by H the ideal of
rcn
1
On generated by xrc
1 , . . . , xn . Since π is a supporting hyperplane of Γ+ (I) passing through
the point µ0 e, we have I r ⊆ H and lct(I r ) = lct(H). Moreover ei (H) = r i c1 · · · ci , for all
i = 1, . . . , n, since c1 6 · · · 6 cn . Therefore
(23) lct(I r ) = lct(H) =

1
1
1
e1 (H)
en−1 (H)
1
+
+···+
=
+
+···+
= DP(H).
rc1 rc2
rcn
e1 (H) e2 (H)
en (H)

Since I = I 0 , we have that lct(I) = DP(I), by hypothesis. Thus
1
1
lct(I) = DP(I) = DP(I r ),
r
r
where the last equality follows from the relation ei (I r ) = r i ei (I), for all i = 1, . . . , n (see [16,
Proposition 17.5.1]). Then (23) and (24) show that DP(I r ) = DP(H) and, by Corollary 11,
we obtain that I r = H. Thus rΓ+ (I) = Γ+ (I r ) = Γ+ (H), which implies that Γ+ (I) has a
unique compact face ∆ of dimension n − 1. Since the vertexes of Γ+ (I) are contained in Zn>1 ,
we conclude that we can take r = 1 and that, in this case, the hyperplane π contains ∆.
Consequently ci ∈ Z>1 and ci = ei (I)/ei−1 (I), for all i = 1, . . . , n. Hence I = hxc11 , . . . , xcnn i,
which means that I is diagonal.
Let I be an arbitrary ideal of On of finite colength such that lct(I 0 ) = DP(I). Then, by a
direct application of (12) and Corollary 11 we obtain the following chain of inequalities
(24)

(25)
(26)

lct(I r ) =

1
e1 (I 0 )
en−1 (I 0 )
+
+
·
·
·
+
e1 (I 0 ) e2 (I 0 )
en (I 0 )
e1 (I)
en−1 (I)
1
+
+···+
= DP(I).
>
e1 (I) e2 (I)
en (I)

DP(I) = lct(I) = lct(I 0 ) >

Hence we deduce that lct(I 0 ) = DP(I 0 ), which implies, by the case analyzed before, that
I 0 is a diagonal ideal. Moreover (25) and (26) also show that DP(I) = DP(I 0 ). Then I = I 0 ,
by Corollary 11, and consequently I is a diagonal ideal.

Remark 14. (i) We observe that condition (b) of Theorem 13 is equivalent to impose the
conditions lct(I) = DP(I) and lct(I) = lct(I 0 ), by (12). In general the condition lct(I) =
DP(I) does not imply lct(I) = lct(I 0 ) and hence it does not force the ideal I to be diagonal,
as is shown in Example 15. Obviously, the condition lct(I) = lct(I 0 ) holds if I is a monomial
ideal. If I is an arbitrary ideal of On , let us denote by KI the ideal of On generated by all the
monomials xk such that xk ∈ I. Then lct(KI ) 6 lct(I) 6 lct(I 0 ). If we suppose that µ(I 0 ) ∈

LOG CANONICAL THRESHOLD AND DIAGONAL IDEALS

11

0

Z>1 and the monomial (x1 · · · xn )µ(I ) is integral over I, then we have lct(KI ) = lct(I 0 ), by
Theorem 9, and then lct(I) = lct(I 0 ).
(ii) If I denotes and ideal of On of finite colength generated by monomials, then the
equivalence between the conditions lct(I) = DP(I) and I is diagonal also follows as a corollary
of a more general result stated for multi-circled plurisubharmonic singularities and proved by
Rashkovskii in [22, Theorem 1.5] following techniques from pluripotential theory.
Example 15. Let us consider the polynomials of O2 given by g1 = (x + y)2 + y 4 and g2 =
(x + y)y 2. Let I be the ideal of O2 generated by g1 and g2 . Then e1 (I) = ord(I) = 2
and e(I) = 8. If we apply to I the linear coordinate change (x, y) 7→ (x − y, y), then we
obtain the ideal J = hx2 + y 4 , xy 2i. We observe that J is a Newton non-degenerate ideal
(see [2] or [26]), which implies that J = J 0 = hx2 , y 4i. Then J is diagonal and hence
lct(I) = lct(J) = lct(J 0 ) = 43 = 12 + 28 = DP(I).
We observe that Γ+ (I) has a unique compact face ∆ of dimension 1, hence I is diagonal
if and only if I is generated by monomials, which is to say that I is Newton non-degenerate.
Following the notation introduced in [2, p. 398] we see that (g1 )∆ = (x + y)2 , (g2 )∆ = 0, and
hence the solutions of the system (g1 )∆ = (g2 )∆ = 0 are not contained in {(x, y) ∈ C2 : xy =
0}. Then I is not Newton non-degenerate, by [2, Proposition 3.6] and thus I is not a diagonal
ideal, although lct(I) = DP(I).
Acknowledgement. This work has been supported by DGICYT Grant MTM2015-64013-P.
The author wishes to thank Professor A. Rashkovskii for his helpful comments.
References
[1] P. Aluffi, Log canonical threshold and Segre classes of monomial schemes, Manuscripta Math. 146,
No.1–2, (2015), 1–6.
[2] C. Bivià-Ausina, Joint reductions of monomial ideals and multiplicity of complex analytic maps, Math.
Res. Lett. 15, No. 2 (2008), 389–407.
[3] D. Cox, J. Little and D. O’Shea, Using algebraic geometry. Second Edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
[4] S. D. Cutkosky, A general volume = multiplicity formula, Acta Math. Vietnam. 40, No. 1 (2015), 139–
147.
[5] W. Decker, G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister and H. Schönemann, Singular 3-1-3 — A computer algebra system
for polynomial computations, http://www.singular.uni-kl.de (2011).
[6] J.-P. Demailly, Estimates on Monge-Ampère operators derived from a local algebra inequality. In: Passare, M. (ed) Complex Analysis and Digital Geometry. Proceedings of the Kiselmanfest (2006), pp. 131–
143. Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, 2009.
[7] J.-P. Demailly and J. Kollár, Semi-continuity of complex singularity exponents and Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano orbifolds, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 34 (2001), No. 4, 525–556.
[8] J.-P. Demailly and Pham Hoàng Hiêp, A sharp lower bound for the log canonical threshold, Acta Math.
212, No. 1 (2014), 1–9.
[9] T. de Fernex, L. Ein and M. Mustaţă, Multiplicities and log canonical threshold, J. Algebraic Geom. 13
(2004), No. 3, 603–615.

12

CARLES BIVIÀ-AUSINA

[10] G. Fischer, Complex analytic geometry. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 538. Springer-Verlag, 1976.
[11] T. Gaffney and S. Kleiman, Specialization of integral dependence for modules, Invent. Math. 137 (1999),
No. 3, 541–574.
[12] G.-M. Greuel, C. Lossen and E. Shustin, Introduction to singularities and deformations. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2007.
[13] G.-M. Greuel and G. Pfister, A Singular introduction to commutative algebra. Second edition. Springer,
Berlin, 2008.
[14] M. Herrmann, S. Ikeda and U. Orbanz, Equimultiplicity and blowing up. An algebraic study. With an
appendix by B. Moonen. Springer, Berlin (1988)
[15] J. Howald, Multiplier ideals of monomial ideals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), No. 7, 2665–2671.
[16] C. Huneke and I. Swanson, Integral Closure of Ideals, Rings, and Modules. London Math. Soc. Lecture
Note Series 336 (2006), Cambridge University Press.
[17] R. Lazarsfeld, Positivity in algebraic geometry II. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete,
Vol. 49, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
[18] J. Lipman, Equimultiplicity, reduction, and blowing up, in Commutative Algebra (Fairfax, Va., 1979),
pp. 111–147, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 68, Dekker, New York, 1982.
[19] J. D. McNeal and Y. E. Zeytuncu, Multiplier ideals and integral closure of monomial ideals: an analytic
approach., Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), no. 5, 1483–1493.
[20] M. Mustaţă, impanga lecture notes on log canonical thresholds. Notes by Tomasz Szemberg. EMS Ser.
Congr. Rep., Contributions to algebraic geometry, 407–442, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2012.
[21] M. Mustaţă, On multiplicities of graded sequences of ideals, Journal of Algebra 256 (2002), No. 1,
229–249.
[22] A. Rashkovskii, Extremal cases for the log canonical threshold, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 353, No. 1 (2015),
21–24.
[23] A. Rashkovskii, Multi-circled singularities, Lelong numbers and integrability index, J. Geom. Anal. 23,
No. 4 (2013), 1976-–1992.
[24] D. Rees, Generalizations of reductions and mixed multiplicities, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 29 (1984),
No. 3, 397–414.
[25] D. Rees and R. Y. Sharp, On a theorem of B. Teissier on multiplicities of ideals in local rings, J. London
Math. Soc. (2) 18 (1978), No. 3, 449–463.
[26] B. Teissier, Monomial ideals, binomial ideals, polynomial ideals, Trends in commutative algebra, pp. 211–
246. Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 51, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004.
[27] B. Teissier, Sur une inégalité à la Minkowski pour les multiplicités, (appendix to a paper by D. Eisenbud
and H. I. Levine), Ann. of Math. (2) 106 (1977), No. 1, 38-–44.
[28] B. Teissier, Cycles évanescents, sections planes et conditions of Whitney, Singularités à Cargèse,
Astérisque, no. 7–8 (1973), 285–362.
[29] B. Totaro, The acc conjecture for log canonical thresholds (after de Fernex, Ein, Mustaţă, Kollár),
Séminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2009/2010. Exposés 1012–1026. Astérisque No. 339 (2011), Exp. No. 1025,
371–385.
[30] I. Swanson, Multigraded Hilbert functions and mixed multiplicities, in Syzygies and Hilbert functions,
267–280, Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., 254, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2007.
Institut Universitari de Matemàtica Pura i Aplicada, Universitat Politècnica de València,
Camı́ de Vera s/n, 46022 València, Spain
E-mail address: carbivia@mat.upv.es

