On codimension two flats in Fermat-type arrangements

arXiv:1705.00639v1 [math.AG] 1 May 2017

Grzegorz Malara and Justyna Szpond

February 19, 2018

Abstract
In the present note we study certain arrangements of codimension 2 flats in projective spaces,
we call them Fermat arrangements. We describe algebraic properties of their defining ideals. In
particular, we show that they provide counterexamples to an expected containment relation between
ordinary and symbolic powers of homogeneous ideals.

1

Introduction

A Fermat-type arrangement of degree n > 1 of hyperplanes in projective space PN is given by
linear factors of the polynomial
Y
FN,n = FN,n (x0 , . . . , xN ) =
(xni − xnj ).
06i<j6N

These arrangements sometimes appear under the name of Ceva arrangements in the literature, see
e.g. [1, Section 2.3.I]. The name Fermat arrangement has been used for lines in P2 e.g. by Urzua,
see [13, Example II.6]. Fermat arrangements of lines have attracted recently considerable attention,
see e.g. [11], because of their appearance on the border line of the following fundamental problem.
Problem 1.1 (Containment problem). Let I be a homogeneous ideal in the polynomial ring
C[x0 , . . . , xN ]. Determine all pairs of integers m and r such that the containment
I (m) ⊂ I r

(1)

between the symbolic and ordinary powers of the ideal I holds.
We recall that for m > 0 the m-th symbolic power of I is defined as
\
(I m RP ∩ R) ,
I (m) =

(2)

P ∈Ass(I)

where Ass(I) is the set of associated primes of I. A ground breaking result of Ein, Lazarsfeld and
Smith [4] (rendered by Hochster and Huneke in positive characteristic [7]) asserts that there is
always the containment in (1) for m and r subject to the inequality
m > hr,

(3)

where h is the maximum of heights of all associated primes of I. The natural question: To which
extend the bound in (3) is sharp has fueled a lot of research in the last 15 years. Considerable
attention has been given to the following question of Huneke.
Question 1.2 (Huneke). Let Z be a finite set of points in P2 and let I be the homogeneous ideal
defining Z. Is then
I (3) ⊂ I 2 ?
(4)

1

2
Note that the containment I (4) ⊂ I 2 follows in this situation directly from (3). On the other
hand it is very easy to find sets of points in P2 for which the containment I (2) ⊂ I 2 fails. Question 1.2
remained open for quite a long time. It is by now known that there are sets of points in P2 for which
the containment in (4) fails. The first counterexample has been given by Dumnicki, Szemberg and
Tutaj-Gasińska in [3]. This counterexample is provided by the set of all 12 intersection points of the
Fermat arrangement of 9 lines in P2 (i.e. n = 3 in this arrangement). The paper [3] suggested that
arrangements with arbitrary n > 3 should provide further counterexamples. This has been worked
out and verified to hold by Harbourne and Seceleanu, see [6, Proposition 2.1]. Whereas Fermat
configurations of lines allow no deformations, a series of counterexamples allowing parameters has
been presented recently in [8]. Apart of those series there are some sporadic counterexamples to
Question 1.2 available. The nature of all these examples has not been yet fully understood.
The statement of (1) does not restrict to ideals supported on points. In particular, Huneke’s
question can be reformulated for codimension 2 subvarieties in the projective space of arbitrary
dimension N .
Question 1.3 (Huneke-type). Let V be codimension 2 subvariety in PN and let I be the homogeneous ideal defining V . Is then
I (3) ⊂ I 2 ?
(5)
This question has been answered to the negative in [10]. More precisely, we showed [10, Theorem 4.3] that the containment (5) fails for V consisting of all lines in P3 contained in at least 3
hyperplanes among those defined by linear factors of F3,n for all n > 3. In the present note, we
investigate the ideals defining codimension 2 linear flats of multiplicity at least 3 cut out by the
Fermat-type arrangement given by FN,n with n > 3, as well as ordinary and symbolic powers of
these ideals.

2

Notation and basic properties

The bookkeeping of all data is quite essential for what follows. In the present section we establish
the notation and prove some basics facts.
By x0 , x1 , . . . , xN we denote the coordinates in the projective space PN . We fix an integer
n > 3. This integer is not present in the short hand notation introduced below. We hope that
it will not lead to any confusion since we work always with n fixed. We introduce the following
bracket symbol. For an integer 1 6 k 6 N let i0 , . . . , ik be (k + 1) mutually distinct elements in
the set {0, . . . , N }.
Y
[xi1 . . . xik ] :=
(6)
(xnip − xniq ).
p<q

Thus, in particular,
FN,n = [x0 . . . xN ].
The notation in (6) fulfills the antisymmetry condition. More precisely, we have for any pair p, q
such that 1 6 p < q 6 k:
[xi1 . . . xip . . . xiq . . . xik ] = (−1)q−p [xi1 . . . xiq . . . xip . . . xik ].
Lemma 2.1 (Expansion rule). For k > 2 there is
[xi0 . . . xik−1 xik ] = [xi0 . . . xik−1 ]

k−1
Y

[xij xik ].

j=0

Proof. This follows straightforward from the definition in (6).
For example
[xyzw] = [xyz](xn − wn )(y n − wn )(z n − wn ).
We have also the following Laplace-type rule.

(7)

3
Lemma 2.2 (Laplace expansion). We have
[xi0 . . . xik ] =

k
X
j=0

n . . . xn [x . . . x
c
(−1)j+k xni0 . . . xc
ij . . . xik ].
ik i0
ij

As usual b
a means that the term a is omitted.

Proof. In order to alleviate notation, we drop the double index notation. It’s sufficient to show
[x0 . . . xk ] =

k
X
cnj . . . xnk [x0 . . . xbj . . . xk ].
(−1)j+k xn0 . . . x

(8)

j=0

Both sides are polynomials of degree k(k+1)
n. It is enough to show that the right hand side vanishes
2
along all hyperplanes of the form xi = δxj , where δ is some root of 1 of degree n. By symmetry it
is enough to check this for x0 = δx1 . Then the right hand side in (8) is
(−1)k xn1 . . . xnk [x1 . . . xk ] + (−1)k+1 xn0 xn2 . . . xnk [x0 x2 . . . xk ],
since x0 = δx1 we get 0.
Thus the right hand side of (8) is equal to λ · [x0 . . . xk ] for some λ ∈ C. In order to establish
λ, we evaluate at x0 = 0, which gives
λ(−xn1 ) . . . (−xnk )[x1 . . . xk ] = (−1)k xn1 . . . xnk [x1 . . . xk ],
hence λ = 1.
Also the next fact is very useful.
Lemma 2.3 (Substitution rule). For any u ∈ {0, . . . , N } and 1 6 k 6 N there is
[xi0 . . . xik ] =

k
X

[xi0 . . . xij−1 xu xij+1 . . . xik ].

j=0

For example
[xyz] = [wyz] + [xwz] + [xyw].
Proof. In order to alleviate notation we drop the double index notation. It is clear that the
statement is invariant under the symmetry group on the (N + 1) variables. Also it convenient to
use (7) and write the assertion in the following form
[x0 . . . xk ] =

k
X
j=0

(−1)j [xu x0 . . . xj−1 xbj xj+1 . . . xk ].

(9)

The argumentation is similar to that in proof of Lemma 2.2. Both sides in (9) are polynomials of
degree k(k+1)
n. We substitute x0 = δx1 . Then the right hand side is
2
[xu x1 . . . xk ] − [xu x0 x2 . . . xk ]
which is clearly 0. Thus we have
k
X

[xi0 . . . xij−1 xu xij+1 . . . xik ] = λ · [x0 . . . xk ],

j=0

for some λ ∈ C. In order to determine λ, we substitute xu = x0 . Then
[x0 . . . xk ] = λ · [x0 . . . xk ],
which implies λ = 1.

4
We conclude these preparations by another useful rule.
Lemma 2.4 (Useful rule). For k > 2 and auxiliary variables y1 , . . . , yk we have
[x0 . . . xk ] =

k
X
j=0

(−1)j [x0 . . . xbj . . . xk ][xj y1 ] . . . [xj yk ].

Proof. The proof parrots that of Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 and is left to the reader. In order to
determine the constant λ one might substitute yi = xi for i = 1, . . . , k.

3

Fermat arrangements of codimension two flats

In this section we study, for n > 3, the union VN,n of codimension 2 flats W in PN such that there
are at least 3 hyperplanes among those defined by the linear factors of FN,n vanishing along W . Let
IN,n be the radical ideal defining VN,n . The set VN,n is the union of N + 1 cones with vertices in
the coordinate points Ei = (0 : . . . : |{z}
1 . . . : 0) over the sets VN −1,n (i) defined in the hyperplanes
i

Hi = { xi = 0 }. Let IN −1,n (i) be the ideal defining VN −1,n (i) in the variables x0 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xN .
The geometry of the arrangement implies the following relation between the defined ideals.
Lemma 3.1. Keeping the notation above, we have for all N > 3
IN,n =

N
\

IN −1,n (i).

i=0

For the proof of the main Theorem 4.1 we need a more direct description of ideals IN,n in terms
of generators.
Proposition 3.2. Consider the ideal IN,n for some integers N > 2 and n > 3.
a) Let N = 2M be an even number. Let A = {i1 , . . . , iM } be a subset of M elements in the set
{0, 1, . . . , N } and let B = {j0 , . . . , jM } be the complimentary set. The ideal IN,n is generated by all
polynomials of the form
gA = xi1 . . . xiM [xi1 . . . xiM ][xj0 . . . xjM ].
b) Let N = 2M + 1 be an odd number. Let A = {i0 , . . . , iM } be a subset of M + 1 elements in the
set {0, 1, . . . , N } and let B = {j0 , . . . , jM } be the complimentary set. The ideal IN,n is generated
by all polynomials of the form
gA = xi0 . . . xiM [xi0 . . . xiM ][xj0 . . . xjM ].
Proof. The proof goes by induction on N . The first step, N = 2 has been shown in [3, Lemma
2.1]. Using the presentation in Lemma 3.1, we will show that generators gA are contained in each
of the intersecting ideals. To this end we study first the case N is even with N = 2M .
Since everything is invariant under the permutation group, it suffices to work with the set
A = {0, 1, . . . , M − 1}. Then
gA = x0 x1 . . . xM−1 [x0 . . . xM−1 ][xM . . . x2M ].
We have the following two cases. Assume that M 6 i 6 2M . Then the ideal IN −1,n (i) contains
as a generator
hA = x0 . . . xM−1 [x0 . . . xM−1 ][xM . . . xbi . . . x2M ].
It is easy to see that gA is divisible by hA , indeed
gA = ±

2M
Y

j=M

[xj xi ]hA .

5
Assume now that 0 6 i 6 M − 1. After renumbering the variables we can in fact assume that i = 0.
Let Aj = {1, . . . , M − 1, M + j} for j = 0, . . . , M and let hAj be the corresponding generators of
IN −1,n (i), i.e.
\
hAj = x1 . . . xM−1 xM+j [x1 . . . xM−1 xM+j ][xM . . . x
M+j . . . x2M ].
Then

M
X

gA =

n−1
(−1)j+M−1 x0 xM+j
[x0 x1 ] . . . [x0 xM−1 ]hAj .

j=0

To see this we will alter the right hand side of the above equality. First note that by Lemma 2.1
we have
M
X

n−1
(−1)j+M−1 x0 xM+j
[x0 x1 ] . . . [x0 xM−1 ]x1 . . . xM−1 xM+j [x1 . . . xM−1 xM+j ][xM . . . x
\
M+j . . . x2M ] =

j=0

x0 . . . xM−1

M
X

(−1)j+M−1 xnM+j [x0 x1 ] . . . [x0 xM−1 ][x1 . . . xM−1 ][x1 xM+j ] . . . [xM−1 xM+j ][xM . . . x
\
M+j . . . x2M ].

j=0

Again by the Expansion rule it reduces to:
x0 . . . xM−1 [x0 . . . xM−1 ]

M
X
(−1)j [xM+j 0][xM+j x1 ] . . . [xM+j xM−1 ][xM . . . x
\
M+j . . . x2M ].
j=0

By Lemma 2.4 with y1 = x1 , . . ., yM−1 = xM−1 , yM = 0 this expression reduces to
x0 . . . xM−1 [x0 . . . xM−1 ][xM . . . x2M ] = gA .
Now we pass to the case N is odd with N = 2M + 1.
Let A = {0, . . . , M } and
gA = x0 x1 . . . xM [x0 . . . xM ][xM+1 . . . x2M+1 ].
There are again two subcases. Assume that 0 6 i 6 M . Then the ideal IN −1,n (i) contains the
generator
gA′ = x0 x1 . . . xbi . . . xM [x0 . . . xbi . . . xM ][xM+1 . . . x2M+1 ]
with A′ = A \ {i}. Then gA is divisible by gA′ , indeed

\
gA = ±xi [x0 xi ] . . . [x
i xi ] . . . [xM xi ]gA′ .
For M + 1 6 i 6 2M + 1 it suffices, up to renumbering the variables to consider i = 2M + 1. In
the ideal IN −1,n (i) there are generators
gAj = x0 x1 . . . xbj . . . xM [x0 . . . xbj . . . xM ][xj xM+1 . . . x2M ]
n
o
for Aj = 0, 1, . . . b
j . . . , M . Then
gA =

M
X

(−1)j xj [xM+1 x2M+1 ] . . . [x2M x2M+1 ] · gAj .

j=0

Again, we reduce the right hand side of this equality. To begin with we have
M
X
j=0

(−1)j xj [xM+1 x2M+1 ] . . . [x2M x2M+1 ] · x0 x1 . . . xbj . . . xM [x0 . . . xbj . . . xM ][xj xM+1 . . . x2M ] =

6

x0 . . . xM

M
X
j=0

(−1)j [x0 . . . xbj . . . xM ][xj xM+1 ] . . . [xj x2M ][xM+1 . . . x2M ][xM+1 x2M+1 ] . . . [x2M x2M+1 ].

Combining this with Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 we get
x0 . . . xM [x0 . . . xM ][xM+1 . . . x2M+1 ] = gA .
Thus we have shown that in both cases every generator
gA ∈

N
\

IN,n−1 (i).

i=0

It remains to check that the ideal generated by all gA is indeed the whole ideal IN,n . We leave this
to a motivated reader.

4

The non-containment result

In this section we prove our main result.
Theorem 4.1. For arbitrary N > 2 and n > 3 there is
(3)

2
.
IN,n 6⊂ IN,n

Proof. It is convenient to abbreviate I = IN,n . The polynomial f := fN,n = [x0 . . . x2M ] is
contained in I (3) by the Zariski-Nagata Theorem, see [5, Theorem 3.14] for prime ideals and [12,
Corollary 2.9] for radical ideals. Let G denote the set of generators of the ideal I.
The proof that it is not contained in I 2 depends on the parity of the dimension N of the ambient
space.
We handle first the case N = 2M . Assume to the contrary that f ∈ I 2 . Then there are
polynomials hg,g′ such that
X
f=
(10)
hg,g′ gg ′ .
g,g′ ∈G

Taking (10) modulo (x0 ) we have
fe =

X

g,g′ ∈G

hg
g · ge′ ,
g,g′ · e

(11)

where qe denotes the residue class of q ∈ C[x0 , . . . , xN ] modulo (x0 ). Then
fe = xn1 . . . xn2M [x1 . . . x2M ].

We focus now on the coefficient at the monomial

(2M−1)n

m = x2Mn
x2
1

n
. . . x2n
2M−1 x2M

on both sides of equation (11). This coefficient is 1 on the left hand side of (11). It is easy to see
that there is exactly one way to get this monomial expanding the product defining fe.
Let g ∈ G be a generator of I. By Proposition 3.2 g has the form
g = xi1 . . . xiM [xi1 . . . xiM ][xj0 . . . xjM ],
with all indices i1 , . . . , iM , j0 , . . . , jM mutually distinct. If 0 ∈ {i1 , . . . , iM }, then the residue class
of g is zero. If it is in the second group of indices, then the residue class, after possible renumbering
of indices, has the form
g = xi1 . . . xiM xnj1 . . . xnjM [xi1 . . . xiM ][xj1 . . . xjM ].
e

(12)

Note that we suppress the notation and write xi rather than xei .
We will now analyze how the monomial m appears on the right hand side of (11). To this end
we run the following procedure starting with the variables with least powers in m.

7
• The variable x2M has to be among the variables appearing with power 1 in the product
defining e
g and ge′ (variables indexed by the letter i) because its total power in m is restricted
by n and this is the only possibility to fulfill this condition.
• The variable x2M−1 cannot then appear with power 1 neither in ge nor in ge′ . If it would, then
it would appear with the variable x2M in the first bracket in the product defining e
g and ge′ ,
hence there would be a factor
x22M−1 (xn2M−1 − xn2M )2
in the product e
g · ge′ and then the power of x2M−1 would exceed 2n allowed in m. Hence the
variable x2M−1 appears in the second bracket in (12). Thus we have now
ge =
e
g′ =

x2M xn2M−1 . . . [. . . x2M ][. . . x2M−1 ]
x2M xn2M−1 . . . [. . . x2M ][. . . x2M−1 ]

(13)

• The variable x2M−2 in turn has to appear in the first brackets in (13). The argument is
slightly more involved. In any case there is the factor (xn2M−2 − xnL ) in e
g and ge′ with L either
n
equal to 2M or 2M − 1. From these brackets it has to be x2M−2 which contributes to m
(otherwise the power at xL would be too large). So, in any case x2M−2 appears with power
at least 2n in ge · ge′ . Since the total power is restricted by 3n, the only possibility is that
this variable appears with power 1 in the products in front of the brackets appearing in (13).
Hence we have
ge =
ge′ =

x2M xn2M−1 x2M−2 . . . [. . . x2M−2 x2M ][. . . x2M−1 ]
x2M xn2M−1 x2M−2 . . . [. . . x2M−2 x2M ][. . . x2M−1 ]

(14)

• Working down, variable by variable, in the same manner, we conclude finally that
ge = ge′ = x2 x4 . . . x2M xn1 xn3 . . . xn2M−1 [x2 x4 . . . x2M ][x1 x3 . . . x2M−1 ]

g
and the only way to get the monomial m from the product ge2 h
gg comes in fact from the
product
(2M−2)n+2 (2M−4)n+2
2(M−1)n
g
x2
x4
. . . x22M x2Mn
x3
. . . x2n
1
2M−1 · hgg .
This implies that g
hgg contains the monomial

n−2
p = x2n−2 x4n−2 . . . x2M

(15)

with coefficient 1. But this implies that the coefficient of this monomial in hgg is also 1 (taking
modulo (x0 ) has no influence on this coefficient).
The next step is to take (10) modulo (x2M−1 ). We will denote now the residue class of a polynomial
q by q. Thus (10) becomes
X
(16)
f=
g g ′ hgg′ .
g,g′ ∈G

Now we are interested in the monomial
(2N −1)n

n
m′ = x2N
x2
1

2n n
. . . x3n
2M−2 x0 x2N .

Since
f = −xn0 xn1 . . . xn2M−3 xn2M−2 xn2M [x0 x1 . . . x2M−3 x2M−2 x2M ]
and obviously the monomial m′ comes up in a unique way in the above product, its coefficient in f
is −1.
Running through an analogous procedure as in the reduction modulo (x0 ) step, we conclude
that the monomial m′ appears on the right hand side of (16) only in the square of the generator
g = x2 x4 . . . x2M xn0 xn1 xn3 . . . xn2M−3 [x2 x4 . . . x2M ][x0 x1 x3 . . . x2M−3 ]

8
multiplied by hgg . This shows that the coefficient of the monomial p defined in (15) in hgg is now
−1. This contradiction shows the assertion
f 6∈ I 2 .
Now, we study the case N = 2M + 1. Assume to the contrary that f ∈ I 2 . Then there are
polynomials hg,g′ such that
X
f=
hg,g′ gg ′ .
(17)
g,g′ ∈G

Taking (17) modulo (x0 ) we have
fe = −xn1 . . . xn2M+1 [x1 . . . x2M+1 ] =

X

g,g′ ∈G

e · ge′ ,
hg
g,g′ · g

(18)

Once again we focus on the coefficient at the monomial
(2M+1)n 2Mn
x2

m = x1

n
. . . x2n
2M x2M+1

on both sides of equation (18). This coefficient is −1 on the left hand side of (18). It is easy to see
that there is exactly one way to get this monomial expanding the product defining fe.
By Proposition 3.2 a generator g ∈ G has the form
g = xi0 . . . xiM [xi0 . . . xiM ][xj1 . . . xjM +1 ],
with all indices i0 , . . . , iM , j1 , . . . , jM+1 mutually distinct. If 0 ∈ {i0 , . . . , iM }, then the residue class
of g is zero. If 0 ∈ {j1 , . . . , jM+1 }, then the residue class, after possible renumbering of indices ge,
has the form
g = xi0 . . . xiM xnj1 . . . xnjM [xi0 . . . xiM ][xj1 . . . xjM ].
e
Similarly as in the case of N = 2M one can show that there is only one possibility to get the
monomial m in the right side of the equation (18).
This shows that the coefficient of
n−2
x1n−2 x3n−2 . . . x2M+1

in hg
g,g (and hence in hg,g ) is −1, where

g = x1 x3 . . . x2M+1 [x1 x3 . . . x2M+1 ][x0 x2 . . . x2M ].

(19)

Finally, we take equation (17) modulo (x2M ) and look for the coefficient of
(2M+1)n 2Mn
x2

m′ = x1

n
. . . x2n
0 x2M+1 .

Looking at the exponents in m′ , we see that there is only one way to obtain this monomial in f .
We present here a brief explanation how to produce such a monomial from f . We multiply the
following factors
xni [x0 xi ][xi xi+1 ] . . . [xi x2M+1 ]
and take the first element from every bracket except one bracket of the form [x0 xi ], for which we
take the second element. In other words, we proceed as follows
xni [x0 xi ][xi xi+1 ] . . . [xi x2M+1 ] = xni (−xni )[xi xi+1 ] . . . [xi x2M+1 ] + . . . =
xni (−xni )(xni )[xi xi+2 ] . . . [xi x2M+1 ] + . . . ,
and so on. We do it for all possible i ∈ {1, . . . , 2M − 1} and multiply the results by each other.
Finally we multiply all by −xn0 [x0 x2M+1 ]. More precisely we multiply the first element in the
bracket and we obtain the monomial m′ . Now we calculate the coefficient, which is (−1)2M−1 from
all [x0 xi ] brackets and one (−1) from −xn0 .
Summing up we obtain that the coefficient of the monomial
n−2
x1n−2 x3n−2 . . . x2M+1

in hg,g (and hence in hg,g ) where g is as in (19) is 1, which gives a contradiction.

9
5

Concluding remarks

During preparations of this manuscript we were informed that Ben Drabkin [2] found another proof
of the non-containment Theorem 4.1. Since his methods are completely different from ours we have
decided to include a full proof of Theorem 4.1 also because it reveals particular symmetries of the
ideals we handle here. We hope to expand this path of thoughts in our forthcoming paper [9].

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Tomasz Szemberg, Marcin Dumnicki and Janusz
Gwoździewicz for helpful suggestions. Research of Malara was partially supported by National
Science Centre, Poland, grant 2016/21/N/ST1/01491. Research of Szpond was partially supported
by National Science Centre, Poland, grant 2014/15/B/ST1/02197.

References
[1] Barthel, G., Hirzebruch, F., Höfer, T.: Geradenkonfigurationen und Algebraische Flächen,
Springer, 1987
[2] Drabkin, B.: Configurations of linear spaces of codimension two and the containment problem,
arXiv:1704.07870
[3] Dumnicki, M., Szemberg, T., Tutaj-Gasińska, H.: Counterexamples to the I (3) ⊂ I 2 containment, J. Algebra 393, 24–29 (2013)
[4] Ein, L., Lazarsfeld, R., Smith, K.: Uniform bounds and symbolic powers on smooth varieties.
Invent. Math. 144, 241–252 (2001)
[5] Eisenbud, D.: Commutative algebra. With a view toward algebraic geometry. Graduate Texts
in Mathematics, 150. Springer-Verlag, New York, (1995)
[6] Harbourne, B., Seceleanu, A.: Containment counterexamples for ideals of various configurations of points in PN , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 219, 1062–1072 (2015)
[7] Hochster, M., Huneke, C.: Comparison of symbolic and ordinary powers of ideals. Invent.
Math. 147, 349–369 (2002)
[8] Lampa-Baczyńska, M., Szpond, J.: From Pappus Theorem to parameter spaces of some
extremal line point configurations and applications, Geom. Dedicata 188, 103–121 (2017)
[9] Malara, G., Szemberg, T., Szpond, J.: On the hierarchy of Fermat ideals, work in progress
[10] Malara, G., Szpond, J.: Fermat-type configurations of lines in P3 and the containment problem, to appear in J. Pure Appl. Algebra, arXiv:1702.02160
[11] Nagel, U., Seceleanu, A.: Ordinary and symbolic Rees algebras for ideals of Fermat point
configurations. J. Algebra 468, 80–102 (2016)
[12] Sidman, J., Sullivant, S.: Prolongations and computational algebra. Canad. J. Math. 61,
930–949 (2009)
[13] Urzúa, G. A.: Arrangements of curves and algebraic surfaces. Thesis (Ph.D.) University of
Michigan. 166 pp. ISBN: 978-0549-82049-9, (2008)

Grzegorz Malara, Department of Mathematics, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Podchora̧żych
2, PL-30-084 Kraków, Poland
E-mail address: grzegorzmalara@gmail.com
Justyna Szpond, Department of Mathematics, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Podchora̧żych
2, PL-30-084 Kraków, Poland
E-mail address: szpond@up.krakow.pl

