UNIFORM HARBOURNE-HUNEKE BOUNDS VIA FLAT EXTENSIONS

arXiv:1608.02320v1 [] 8 Aug 2016

ROBERT M. WALKER

Abstract. Over an arbitrary field F, Harbourne and Huneke ([10]) conjectured in 2011 that
I (N(r−1)+1) ⊆ I r
for all r > 0 and all homogeneous ideals I in S = F[PN ] = F[x0 , . . . , xN ]. The conjecture has
been disproven for select values of N ≥ 2: first by Dumnicki, Szemberg, and Tutaj-Gasińska in
characteristic zero ([6]), and then by Harbourne and Seceleanu in positive characteristic ([11]).
However, the ideal containments above do hold when, for instance, I is a monomial ideal in S.
This manuscript is in part a sequel to preprint ([20]), and presents criteria for containments
of type I (N(r−1)+1) ⊆ I r for all r > 0 and certain classes of ideals I in a prodigious class of
normal rings (e.g., coordinate rings of simplicial toric varieties). Of particular interest is a result
for monomial primes in tensor products of affine semigroup rings. Indeed, we explain how to give
effective multipliers N in several cases including: the D-th Veronese subring of any polynomial ring
F[x1 , . . . , xn ] (n ≥ 1); and the extension ring F[x1 , . . . , xn , z]/(z D − x1 · · · xn ) of F[x1 , . . . , xn ].

Contents
1. Introduction and Conventions for the Paper

1

2. Symbolic Powers and Faithful Flatness; The Proof of Lemma 1.1

3

3. The Proof of Theorem 1.1: New Examples from Old

5

4. Proving Theorem 1.2 in a Refined Form

10

5. Lingering Questions related to Theorem 1.1

15

References

16

1. Introduction and Conventions for the Paper
Over an arbitrary field F, let S = F[PN ] = F[x0 , x1 , . . . , xN ] be the standard N-graded polynomial
algebra. The Ein-Lazarsfeld-Smith Theorem ([7, 15]), as extended by Hochster and Huneke, implies
that the symbolic power I (N r) ⊆ I r for all graded ideals 0 $ I $ S and all integers r > 0. Using
graded ideals of star configurations in PN , Bocci and Harbourne ([4]) showed that in securing these
containments one cannot replace N by some integer 0 < C < N . As part of an active area of
research into symbolic powers in S, ideal containment problems concern the determination of
when select families of ideal containments hold for a graded ideal 0 $ I $ S, e.g., those of the type
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 13H10, 14C20, 14M25.
Keywords: symbolic powers, divisor class group, rational singularity, toric variety.
1

I (m) ⊆ I r . Of particular interest in this paper, in 2011 Harbourne and Huneke ([10], Conjecture
4.1.1) proposed dropping the symbolic power from N r down to the Harbourne-Huneke bound
N r − (N − 1) = N (r − 1) + 1 when N ≥ 2 (that is, dropping it as much as possible without a
known counterexample at the time); thus they conjectured that for any graded ideal 0 $ I $ S
I (N (r−1)+1) ⊆ I r for all r > 0 and all N ≥ 2.

(1.0.1)

This conjecture started from the case N = r = 2: I (4) ⊆ I 2 holds for all graded ideals in F[P2 ] by
the Ein-Lazarsfeld-Smith Theorem; Huneke asked whether an improvement I (3) ⊆ I 2 holds for any
radical ideal I defining a finite set of points in P2 .
Along with ([10], subsection 4.1), a recent survey by Szemberg and Szpond ([19], Theorem 3.8)
summarizes scenarios in which a particular containment for a given r is known and even classes
of ideals for which this conjecture has been confirmed (e.g., over arbitrary fields, it holds for
ideals of star configurations and for monomials ideals). However, it has been known since the
counterexamples of Dumnicki, Szemberg, and Tutaj-Gasińska in characteristic zero ([6], 2013) that
the containment I (3) ⊆ I 2 can fail for the defining ideal I of a point configuration in P2 , whence
(1.0.1) above is not kismet. It has been known since the Harbourne-Seceleanu counterexamples in
odd positive characteristic ([11]) that (1.0.1) can fail for pairs (N, r) 6= (2, 2) and ideals I defining a
point configuration in PN . The recent note by Akesseh ([1]) shows how to use finite, flat morphisms
ϕ# : PN → PN to swiftly cook up many new counterexamples to (1.0.1) from previous ones.
Lately, there has been better sustained success in showing that a containment in (1.0.1) fails–and
perhaps, more fervor. However, we want to revisit the fact that in arbitrary characteristic (1.0.1)
holds for all monomial ideals in S. In particular, our investigation of Harbourne-Huneke bounds
improves upon the fact that P (N (r−1)+1) ⊆ P (r) = P r for all r > 0 and for all monomial prime ideals
P in S (i.e., monomial ideals generated by subsets of the variables x0 , . . . , xN ). Indeed, P (r) = P r
for all r whenever P is a complete intersection (CI) ideal in S, and since monomial primes are CI
ideals, the containments follow quickly upon noticing that for all r > 0, N (r−1)+1 ≥ (r−1)+1 = r.
The goal of this paper is to show that a variant of (1.0.1) holds for several familiar classes
of ideals (e.g., combinatorial ideals such as monomial primes) in certain non-regular rings–even
though it already fails for a large class of ideals defining point configurations in PN , and hence
can fail for arbitrary graded ideals in F[PN ]. More precisely, we work in the setting of rational
surface singularities and higher-dimensional normal toric rings. First, we demonstrate how one can
strengthen Lemmas 1.1 and 2.3 of ([20]) to a version involving a Harbourne-Huneke bound:
Lemma 1.1. Let R be a Noetherian normal domain of positive Krull dimension whose global divisor
class group Cl(R) := Cl(Spec(R)) is annihilated by an integer D > 0. Then
q(D(r−1)+s) = (q(D) )r−1 q(s) , and

q(D(r−1)+1) ⊆ qr

for all ideals q ⊆ R of pure height one, all r > 0, and all 0 ≤ s < D.
In particular, when D = 2 works, we have q(3) ⊆ q2 for all ideals q ⊆ R of pure height one. When
the domain R in this lemma is two-dimensional, P (r) = P r when the ideal P is zero or maximal,
and so we infer that P (D(r−1)+1) ⊆ P r for all prime ideals P in R and all r > 0, and that P (3) ⊆ P 2
for all primes when D = 2 works. As discussed in ([20]), the above lemma already applies to any
two-dimensional, local rational singularity (Lipman [16]) and the coordinate rings of simplicial toric
varieties; see Theorem (4.2) below. The intro to ([20]) gives Lipman’s definition of two-dimensional,
normal local rational singularities; section 3 therein gives remarks on class groups, both for these
2

singularities and for toric varieties. We prove a result for Veronese rings (Theorem (4.3) below)
from which one can infer that the ideal containment in the lemma can be tight.
However, it is the result to follow that inspires the chosen title for this paper. It allows us
to give first examples of the Harbourne-Huneke bound for all monomial primes in certain normal
algebras of dimension three or higher, subalgebras of a Laurent polynomial ring that are generated
by monomials. These domains are the coordinate rings of normal affine toric varieties, called toric
rings or affine semigroup rings. In this setting, we adduce a result (Proposition (2.1)) on ideal
containment preservation along faithfully flat ring extensions, as part of deducing the following
Theorem 1.1. Let R1 , . . . , Rn be normal affine semigroup rings over a field F. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
suppose there is an integer Di > 0 such that P (Di (r−1)+1) ⊆ P r for all r > 0 and all monomial
primes P ⊆ Ri . Set D := max{D1 , . . . , Dn }. Then Q(D(r−1)+1) ⊆ Qr for all r > 0 and any
monomial prime Q in the normal affine semigroup ring R = R1 ⊗F · · · ⊗F Rn .
All normal toric rings of dimension at most two have finite cyclic class group, and thus satisfy the
hypotheses on the Ri factors in the theorem; aside from these cases, the factors Ri may be taken
from the following classes of rings (including those of Krull dimension three or higher):
Theorem 1.2. Let S = F[x1 , . . . , xn ] (n ≥ 1) be a polynomial ring over an arbitrary field F and
consider the module-finite extensions of normal toric rings VD ⊆ S ⊆ HD , where
(1) VD ⊆ S is the D-th Veronese subring with its standard N-grading, and
(2) HD = F[z, x1 , . . . , xn ]/(z D − x1 · · · xn ) is a hypersurface ring.
Then P (D(r−1)+1) ⊆ P r for all r > 0 and all monomial prime ideals P in each ring.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section (2), we prove Lemma (1.1) and Proposition (2.1).
Section (3) reviews most of the relevant toric algebraic geometry, culminating in a proof of Theorem
(1.1). In Section (4), we prove Theorem (1.2), along with clarifying that theorem’s connection with
divisor class groups. Section (5) is succinct, closing the paper with some lingering questions.
Conventions: All our rings are Noetherian and commutative with identity. From section (3), our
rings will be affine F-algebras, that is, of finite type over a fixed field F of arbitrary characteristic.
By algebraic variety, we will mean an integral scheme of finite type over the field F.
Acknowledgements: I thank my thesis adviser, Karen E. Smith, for encouraging me to write
this manuscript, and for several fruitful discussions along the way. I also thank Daniel Hernández,
Jack Jeffries, Luis Núñez-Betancourt, and Felipe Pérez for each critiquing a draft of the paper.
I was supported by a NSF GRF under Grant Number PGF-031543, and this work was partially
supported by the NSF RTG grant 0943832.
2. Symbolic Powers and Faithful Flatness; The Proof of Lemma 1.1
Symbolic Powers and Faithful Flatness: If I is any proper ideal in a nonzero Noetherian ring
R, and AssR (R/I) is the set of associated primes of I, we define its a-th (a ∈ Z>0 ) symbolic
power ideal I (a) by the rule:


\
[
(R − P ).
P =
f ∈ I (a) ⇐⇒ sf ∈ I a for some s ∈ S := R − 
P ∈AssR (R/I)

3

P ∈AssR (R/I)

Per (Atiyah-Macdonald [3], Proposition 4.9), I (1) = I for any proper ideal I ⊆ R. In general,
I (a) ⊇ I a for all a > 1.
Consider a flat map φ : A → B of Noetherian rings. In what follows, the ideal JB := hφ(J)iB
for any ideal J in A, and J r B = (JB)r for all r ≥ 0 since the two ideals share a generating set.
For any A-module E, the proof of Theorem 23.2 (ii) in Matsumura ([17]) shows that
[
AssB (E ⊗A B) =
AssB (B/P B).
(2.0.2)
P ∈AssA (E)

We define a set I(A) = {proper ideals I ⊆ A : AssB (B/IB) = {P B : P ∈ AssA (A/I)}}. Setting
E = A/I in (2.0.2), we observe that I ∈ I(A) if and only if the extended ideal P B is prime for all
P ∈ AssA (A/I).
Proposition 2.1. Suppose φ : A → B is a faithfully flat map of Noetherian rings. Then for each
I ∈ I(A) and all integer pairs (N, r) ∈ (Z≥0 )2 , we have
I (N ) B = (IB)(N ) ,

(2.0.3)

and I (N ) ⊆ I r if and only if (IB)(N ) = I (N ) B ⊆ I r B = (IB)r .
Proof. First, I (N ) B ⊆ (IB)(N ) : indeed, if f ∈ I (N ) , then sf ∈ I N for some s ∈ A such that


[
[
[
(⋆)
s 6∈
P =
(P B ∩ A) = 
P B ∩ A
P ∈AssA (A/I)

P ∈AssA (A/I)

P ∈AssA (A/I)

S

S
where (⋆) holds by faithful flatness; it follows that s 6∈ P ∈AssA (A/I) P B = Q∈AssB (B/IB) Q, where
equality holds since I ∈ I(A) by hypothesis. We thus conclude that f ∈ (IB)(N ) .
By definition, (IB)(N ) BW = (IB)N BW = I N BW since all three ideals contract to (IB)(N ) ,
where BW is the localization of B at the multiplicative system




[
[
W =B−
Q = B − 
P B .
Q∈AssB (B/IB)

P ∈AssA (A/I)

Notice that since I (N ) B ⊆ (IB)(N ) , the right-hand containment holds in

I N BW ⊆ I (N ) BW = (I (N ) B)BW ⊆ (IB)(N ) BW = I N BW .
Thus I (N ) B and (IB)(N ) localize to the same ideal I N BW ; contracting back to B, we conclude
that (2.0.3) holds for all N ≥ 0. Finally, (2.0.3) gives both implications of the second part of the
proposition, adducing faithful flatness once more to contract an ideal containment to A.

We adapt Proposition (2.1) in the next section (cf., Proposition (3.4)) to prove Theorem (3.1).
The Proof of Lemma (1.1). For the remainder of this section, R will denote a Noetherian normal
domain, and P is the set of height-one primes in R. As noted in Matsumura’s chapter on Krull
rings ([17], Corollary of Theorem 12.3), when f ∈ R is a nonzero nonunit, and νP is the discrete
valuation on the DVR RP (for P ∈ P), we have a unique primary decomposition
\
(f )R =
P (NP ) , where NP := νP (f ) = 0 for all but finitely many P.
P ∈P

4

P
We define the Weil divisor of f to be div(f ) := P ∈P NP · P . Additionally, we define the trivial
effective Weil divisor div(h1iR) = div(R) = [R] := 0 of the unit ideal to have identically zero Zcoefficients. More generally, any ideal of pure height one (i.e., all associated primes have height
one) has a unique primary decomposition as above, so we can define a Weil divisor for any such
ideal (see below). The divisor class group Cl(R) = Cl(Spec(R)) of R is the free abelian group
on P modulo relations of the form
a1 P1 + . . . + ar Pr = 0
(a )
P1 1

(a )
Pr r

whenever the ideal
∩ ... ∩
is principal. According to Proposition 6.2 in ([12],Ch.II,§6),
Cl(R) = 0 if and only if R is a UFD (that is, every height-one prime ideal is principal). Note that
P (a) = P a for all height-one primes P in a UFD.
Proposition 2.2 (cf., Prop 2.2 of ([20])). Let R be a Noetherian normal domain of positive Krull
dimension, and q any ideal of pure height one with associated primes P1 , . . . , Pc . Then:
(a) There exist positive integers b1 , . . . , bc , uniquely determined by q, such that the symbolic
(Eb )
(Eb )
power q(E) = P1 1 ∩ . . . ∩ Pc c for all E ≥ 0.
(b) If either (1) D · Cl(R) = 0, or (2) the class [q] ∈ Cl(R) has finite order D, then for all
integers r ≥ 0, q(Dr) = (q(D) )r is principal and q(Dr) ⊆ qr .
Per part (a) of this proposition, we may define Weil divisors
div[q(E) ] := E · div[q] = Eb1 · P1 + · · · + Ebc · Pc for each E > 0.

div[q] := b1 · P1 + · · · + bc · Pc ,

In particular, div[q(A+B) ] = div[q(A) ] + div[q(B) ] for all pairs of nonnegative integers A, B.
Proof of Lemma (1.1). Our proof of the first claim replaces r − 1 with r ≥ 0. Per Proposition
(2.2)(b), suppose q(Dr) = (q(D) )r = (f r ) is principal for all r ≥ 0 and some nonzero f ∈ R. Now
set I = q(s) . Following the first proof in Hochster’s notes ([14]), we have a short exact sequence
0→

R
R
(f r )R
→ r → r
→0
r
(f )I
(f )I
(f )R

r )R
(f r )R
r
∼
and (f
(f r )I = R/I as R-modules via the R-linear map φ : R ։ (f r )I with φ(g) = gf . Thus per our
exact sequence, ∅ 6= AssR (R/(f r )I) ⊆ AssR (R/I) ∪ AssR (R/(f r )R) (cf., Thm 6.3 of Matsumura
[17]) and so AssR (R/(f r )I) contains only height one primes since the latter two sets do. Finally,
comparing Weil divisors of pure height one ideals

(∗)

div[(f r )I = (q(D) )r q(s) ] = div[(f r )R] + div[I] = div[q(Dr) ] + div[q(s) ] = div[q(Dr+s) ].
As Hochster notes, one can check identity (*) after first localizing at each height one prime Q; in this
case, the identity is obvious in a DVR. Per (*), the two pure height one ideals q(Dr+s) , (q(D) )r q(s)
have the exact same primary decomposition and hence are equal. To conclude: since q(D) ⊆ q(1) = q,
setting s = 1 yields q(D(r−1)+1) = (q(D) )r−1 q(1) ⊆ qr−1+1 = qr .

3. The Proof of Theorem 1.1: New Examples from Old
Toric Preliminaries: We cover enough commutative algebra and convex geometry under the
hood of toric geometry to set up a proof of the theorem. We work over an arbitrary field F. For
simplicity, we conduct our review with the standard lattice Zn in Rn . We follow: sections 1.2-3,
3.1-2, 4.1-2 of Cox-Little-Schenck ([5]); or alternatively, Chapters 1 and 3 of Fulton ([8]).
5

Any normal affine toric n-fold can be obtained from a strongly convex, rational polyhedral cone
σ in Rn ; we generally abbreviate this, saying only that σ is (SCR). First, a polyhedral cone in
Rn is a closed, convex set
)
(
X
av · v : each av ∈ R≥0 ⊆ Rn ,
σ = Cone(G) =
v∈G

generated by a finite set G (possibly empty) of nonzero vectors. The strong convexity (SC) condition is simply that in addition to being convex, σ contains no line through the origin. The
rationality (R) condition is simply that G ⊆ Zn . Note that the cone has dimension dim σ :=
dim(R-linear span of G) ≤ n; if dim σ = n, then σ is full and we say σ is (SCRF). In particular,
the zero(-dimensional) cone {0} = Cone(∅) consists only of the origin. Since σ = Cone(G) ⊆ Rn
is rational, its dual polyhedral cone
σ ∨ := {w ∈ Rn : hw, vi ≥ 0 for all v ∈ σ} = {w ∈ Rn : hw, vi ≥ 0 for all v ∈ G}
is also rational with respect to Zn , where h·, ·i is dot product; σ ∨ in turn yields
(1) A finitely-generated semigroup under addition
(Sσ , +) := σ ∨ ∩ Zn = Z≥0 [m1 , . . . , mr ] =

(

r
X
i=1

ai mi : each ai ∈ Z≥0

)

for some finite list of generators m1 , . . . , mr ∈ Zn . Note: strong convexity of σ is equivalent
to σ ∨ being full, and in this case, Sσ = Z≥0 [Hσ ] for a unique generating set Hσ (the Hilbert
basis of Sσ ) that is minimal with respect to inclusion among all generating sets of Sσ . In
practice, we use the Polyhedra package in Macaulay2 ([9]) to compute Hilbert bases and to
justify our F-algebra presentations of toric rings; see Section (4).
(2) A normal domain of finite type over F: namely, the semigroup ring R = F[Sσ ] generated as
an algebra by the characters χm with m ∈ Sσ . If Hσ = {m1 , . . . , mr }, then as an algebra
R = F[χm1 , . . . , χmr ]. In computations, we regard χa = ta11 · · · tann (a = (a1 , . . . , an )) as a
Laurent monomial in n variables, whence R is a subring of the domain F[S{0} ] = F[Zn ] ∼
=
±1
±1
F[t1 , . . . , tn ] of Laurent polynomials in n variables over F. Any domain so obtained is a
toric ring (or normal affine semigroup algebra) over F, and can be graded by Zn or Sσ
(deg(χmi ) = mi ) so that R0 = F (0 ∈ Zn ) and there is a unique homogeneous maximal
ideal. It follows from work of Hochster ([13]) that toric rings are Cohen-Macaulay.
(3) A normal toric n-fold, assuming σ is (SCR): define a normal affine variety Uσ = Spec(R);
by variety, we mean an integral scheme of finite type over a field. Strong convexity ensures
that the n-torus (F× )n = Spec(F[Zn ]) embeds as a dense open set in Uσ , whence
±1
F(Uσ ) = frac(R) = frac(F[t±1
1 , . . . , tn ]) = F(t1 , . . . , tn ) =⇒ dim(Uσ ) = dim(R) = n.

An (SCR) cone σ ⊆ Rn is simplicial if σ = Cone(G) for some G ⊆ Zn forming part of a R-basis for
Rn , and we call the corresponding toric ring and toric variety simplicial. Moreover, we may assume
G = {v1 , . . . , vdim(σ) } consists of primitive vectors, i.e., the coordinates of each vi have no common

prime integer factor. In the simplicial case, σ has dim(σ)
faces of dimension ℓ. Roughly, a face
ℓ
is a polyhedral subcone of σ obtained by intersecting σ with any appropriately-chosen supporting
hyperplane in Rn . We count σ as a face of itself. If σ is (SCR), then so are all if its (finitely-many)
faces.
6

3.0.1. Monomial Primes and Faces. We adjust a passage from Fulton ([8], p.53) to a form that
streamlines some computations. Take a face τ = Cone(T ) of an (SCR) cone σ = Cone(S) ⊆ Rn ,
where T ⊆ S, and where S consists of the primitive ray generators. By convention, we count σ
as a face of itself. To clarify, a rational ray ρ is an (SCR) cone of dimensional 1. The semigroup
ρ ∩ Zn has Hilbert basis consisting of a single primitive vector uρ , the (primitive) ray generator
of ρ. Any (SCR) cone can be expressed as a Minkowski sum σ = Cone(G) = ρ1 + · · · + ρr of rational
rays, where G = {uρ1 , . . . , uρr }. Say R = F[σ ∨ ∩ Zn ]; we consider R with its Zn -grading given by
deg(χmi ) = mi ∈ Zn . Setting τ ⊥ = {w ∈ Rn : hw, vi = 0 for all v ∈ τ }, there is a natural graded
surjection of Zn -graded affine domains over F:
(
χm if hm, vi = 0 for all v ∈ τ
φτ : R = F[σ ∨ ∩ Zn ] ։ F[σ ∨ ∩ τ ⊥ ∩ Zn ], φτ (χm ) =
0
if hm, vi > 0 for some v ∈ τ
(
χm if hm, vi = 0 for all v ∈ T
=
0
if hm, vi > 0 for some v ∈ T.
Suppose Sσ = Z≥0 [m1 , . . . , mr ] so that the characters χmi generate R = F[χm1 , . . . , χmr ] as an
F-algebra. The kernel of φτ is a graded monomial prime ideal called the prime ideal of τ :
Pτ := ker(φτ ) = ({χm : hm, vi > 0 for some v ∈ T })R = ({χmi : hmi , vi > 0 for some v ∈ T })R.
Its height (or codimension) equals the dimension of τ ; in particular, the graded primes in R of
height 1 correspond to the rational rays of σ. Conversely, any monomial prime of R corresponds
to a face of σ. Moreover, when τ = Cone(T ) = ρ1 + . . . + ρℓ as a Minkowski sum of rays,
Pτ =

ℓ
X

Pρj

(3.0.4)

j=1

as a sum of ideals. Indeed, setting T = {uρj : 1 ≤ j ≤ ℓ}, any v ∈ τ satisfies
v=

ℓ
X

aj uρj , for some a1 , . . . , aℓ ∈ R≥0 .

j=1

Recall that w ∈ σ ∨ if and only if hw, vi ≥ 0 for all v ∈ σ. In this case, for v ∈ τ as above
0 ≤ hw, vi =

ℓ
X

aj hw, uρj i, for some a1 , . . . , aℓ ∈ R≥0 ,

j=1

and so hw, vi is positive if and only if hw, uρj i > 0 for some 1 ≤ j ≤ ℓ. We infer from this that the
P
monomial ideals Pτ and ℓj=1 Pρj have a generating set in common, and hence are equal.

3.0.2. Finite Tensor Products of Normal Toric Rings. Fix two (SCR) cones σ ′ = Cone(S ′ ) ⊂ Rm
and σ ′′ = Cone(S ′′ ) ⊂ Rn , where S ′ , S ′′ consist of the ray generators. In terms of ray generators,
their product is the (SCR) cone generated as
σ = σ ′ × σ ′′ = (σ ′ × {0}) + ({0} × σ ′′ ) = Cone[(S ′ × {0}) ∪ ({0} × S ′′ )] ⊆ Rm+n .

Note that σ ∨ = (σ ′ × {0})∨ ∩ ({0} × σ ′′ )∨ , since a cone’s dual is the intersection of closed half-spaces
determined by its ray generators. Suppose R′ = F[(σ ′ )∨ ∩ Zm ], R′′ = F[(σ ′′ )∨ ∩ Zn ]. Then the
normal toric ring
R = F[σ ∨ ∩ Zm+n ] ∼
= R′ ⊗F R′′ ,
and every monomial prime Q in R decomposes as Q = P ′ R + P ′′ R where P ′ is a monomial prime in
R′ and P ′′ is a monomial prime in R′′ . Any monomial prime in R corresponds bijectively with a face
7

of σ. The faces of σ are of the form τ ′ × τ ′′ where τ ′ = Cone(T ′ ) is a face of σ ′ and τ ′′ = Cone(T ′′ )
is a face of σ ′′ ; here T ′ , T ′′ consist of the ray generators. Two handy properties of monomial primes
in R are: (1) Qτ ′ ×τ ′′ = Qτ ′ ×{0} + Q{0}×τ ′′ and (2) Qτ ′ ×{0} = Pτ ′ R, Q{0}×τ ′′ = Pτ ′′ R.
We adduce the Minkowski sum-ideal sum decomposition (3.0.4) for monomial primes in
normal toric rings proven above in verifying both properties: (1) is immediate from noticing
τ ′ × τ ′′ = (τ ′ × {0}) + ({0} × τ ′′ ) as a Minkowski sum of faces; for (2), (3.0.4) allows us to
reduce verification to the case where τ ′ and τ ′′ are rays. We’ll do so explicitly for Qρ′ ×{0} = Pρ′ R
where ρ′ is a ray of σ ′ . We will use χa , φb , ψ c notation for characters in R, R′ , R′′ respectively.
We express an arbitrary
w = (w1 , w2 ) ∈ Sσ = Zm+n ∩ σ ∨ = [Zm+n ∩ (σ ′ × {0})∨ ] ∩ [Zm+n ∩ ({0} × σ ′′ )∨ ] = Sσ′ ×{0} ∩ S{0}×σ′′ ,
where w1 ∈ Sσ′ ⊆ Zm and w2 ∈ Sσ′′ ⊆ Zn . Given any v = (v1 , v2 ) ∈ σ with v1 ∈ σ ′ and v2 ∈ σ ′′ ,
since w ∈ Sσ = Sσ′ ×{0} ∩ S{0}×σ′′ , all of the dot product terms below are nonnegative:
hw, vi = hw, (v1 , 0)i + hw, (0, v2 )i = h(w1 , 0), (v1 , 0)i + h(0, w2 ), (0, v2 )i = hw1 , v1 i + hw2 , v2 i
h(w1 , 0), vi = hw1 , v1 i ≥ 0,

h(0, w2 ), vi = hw2 , v2 i ≥ 0.

In particular, since v ∈ σ was arbitrary both (w1 , 0), (0, w2 ) ∈ Sσ . Thus for w ∈ Sσ as above, the
characters χw , χ(w1 ,0) = φw1 , χ(0,w2 ) = ψ w2 ∈ R.
Now suppose χw = χ(w1 ,0) χ(0,w2 ) = φw1 ψ w2 ∈ Qρ′ ×{0} , i.e., hw, vi > 0 for some vector v =
(v1 , v2 ) ∈ ρ′ × {0}. Since v2 = 0 here, equivalently hw, vi = hw1 , v1 i > 0 for some v1 ∈ ρ′ , i.e., the
character χ(w1 ,0) = φw1 ∈ Pρ′ R, and since χ(0,w2 ) = ψ w2 ∈ R, χw = φw1 ψ w2 ∈ Pρ′ R as well. Thus
Qρ′ ×{0} ⊆ Pρ′ R. For the other inclusion: the characters χ(w1 ,0) = φw1 as above generate Pρ′ R, and
each generator lies in Qρ′ ×{0} since we noted that χw ∈ Qρ′ ×{0} if and only if χ(w1 ,0) = φw1 ∈ Pρ′ R.
Our arguments can be adapted to any finite tensor product (⊗F ) of normal toric rings over F.
In particular, property (1) could be stated in a form involving a sum of n monomial primes if we
are tensoring n normal toric rings. We summarize this discussion with a
Lemma 3.1. For n ≥ 2, let R1 , . . . , Rn be normal toric rings over a field F. Consider the normal
toric P
ring R ∼
= R1 ⊗F · · · ⊗F Rn . Every monomial prime ideal Q in R can be expressed as a sum
n
Q = i=1 (Pi R) of extended ideals, where each ideal Pi ⊆ Ri is a monomial prime.
Theorem (1.1) is an immediate corollary, indeed a uniform bound analogue, of the following

Theorem 3.1. For n ≥ 2, let R1 , . . . , Rn be normal toric rings over a field F, Pi ⊆ Ri monomial
primes with 1 ≤ i ≤ n. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, suppose there is an integer Di > 0 such that
(D (r−1)+1)
Pi i
⊆ Pir for all r > 0. P
Set D = max{D1 , . . . , Dn }. Then Q(D(r−1)+1) ⊆ Qr for all r > 0,
where the monomial prime Q = ni=1 (Pi R) ⊆ R ∼
= R1 ⊗F · · · ⊗F Rn .
We will state two preliminary lemmas: in both statements S is a nonzero Noetherian ring.

Lemma 3.2. For any prime ideal P in S, and N ∈ Z≥0 ,
[
P (N ) = P N :S (s)∞ =
(P N :S (sj )) = P N :S (sT )
j≥0

for all T ≫ 0 and any s 6∈ P belonging to all embedded primes of P N .
Lemma 3.3. Given any proper ideal I in S, and E ∈ Z≥0 ,

(1) I (N ) ⊆ I ⌈N/E⌉ for all N ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ (2) I (E(r−1)+1) ⊆ I r for all r > 0.
8

Proof. The case N = 0 is trivial (the unit ideal is contained in itself), so we show equivalence when
N > 0. Given r > 0, setting N = E(r − 1) + 1 in (1) gives (2). That (2) implies (1) follows from
noticing that for any two positive integers N, r, we have r = ⌈N/E⌉ if and only if N = E(r − 1) + j
for some 1 ≤ j ≤ E, and I (m) ⊆ I (n) when m ≥ n.

Finally, we adapt Proposition (2.1) to a specialized form suited to the proof. The backdrop will
be as follows. Fix a field F. For n ≥ 2, fix nonzero F-algebras R1 , . . . , Rn . Since R2 ⊗F · · · ⊗F Rn 6= 0
is free and hence faithfully flat over F, the tensor product R = R1 ⊗F R2 ⊗F · · ·⊗F Rn is faithfully flat
over R1 ; indeed, R is faithfully flat over each Ri by permuting the tensor factor under consideration
(Cf., Exercise 9.11 in Altman-Kleiman [2]). Thus we can view the factors Ri as subrings of R.
Proposition 3.4. Given the rings Ri and R as above, suppose that R and each factor Ri is
Noetherian. Then for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, we have I (N ) R = (IR)(N ) for all integers N ≥ 0 where
I ∈ I(Ri ) = {proper ideals I ⊆ Ri : AssR (R/IR) = {P R : P ∈ AssRi (Ri /I)}}.
Moreover, given a pair (N, r) ∈ (Z≥0 )2 , I (N ) ⊆ I r if and only if (IR)(N ) ⊆ (IR)r .
Proof of Theorem (3.1). For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, let xi,1 , . . . , xi,ti be the monomial algebra generators
of Ri over F, so that per the isomorphism R ∼
= R1 ⊗F · · · ⊗F Rn , we identify
R = F[{xi,1 , . . . , xi,ti : 1 ≤ i ≤ n}]
Pn
as an F-algebra. We define S(N ) := {(A1 , . . . , An ) ∈ (Z≥0 )n :
i=1 Ai = N } for each N ≥ 0, so
!
N
n
n
Y
X
X
(Pi R)Ai .
=
(Pi R)
QN =
(A1 ,...,An )∈S(N ) i=1

i=1

We will in fact show that the monomial ideal
X
Q(N ) ⊆

n
Y
(Pi R)(Ai ) .

(3.0.5)

(A1 ,...,An )∈S(N ) i=1

Q
Take an arbitrary monomial g = ni=1 mi ∈ R where mi is a monomial in the xi,ℓ for 1 ≤ i ≤ n
and 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ ti . Re-indexing if necessary, we may assume thatQ
Pi R = (xi,1 , . . . , xi,si )R for 1 ≤ i ≤ n
where 1 ≤ si ≤ ti . Define a “complement” monomial M = ni=1 (xi,si +1 · · · xi,ti ) consisting of all
algebra generators not among the generators of the Pi R. Any embedded prime of a power of Q
is graded (read, monomial), so that Q(N ) = QN :R (M)∞ as a saturation per Lemma (3.2). If
g ∈ Q(N ) , then for all T ≫ 0, the monomial
n
Y
X
(Pi R)Ai ,
gMT ∈ QN =
(A1 ,...,An )∈S(N ) i=1

whence for some (A1 , . . . , An ) ∈ S(N ) and each 1 ≤ j ≤ n we have
T

gM =

n
Y
i=1

T

mi (xi,si +1 · · · xi,ti ) = mj

n
Y
i=1

1−δ
mi ij (xi,si +1 · · · xi,ti )T

∈

n
Y

(Pj R)Aj ,

j=1

where δij is the Kronecker delta. We can express (Pj R)(Aj ) = Pj RAj :R (N )∞ where N is any
“complement” monomial built from powers of all algebra generators not among the generators of
Q
1−δ
Pj R. Therefore, setting N = N (j) = ni=1 mi ij (xi,si +1 · · · xi,ti )T , we see mj ∈ (Pj R)(Aj ) for
Qn
Qn
each 1 ≤ j ≤ n. Thus g = j=1 mj ∈ j=1 (Pj R)(Aj ) . Since g ∈ Q(N ) was arbitrary, (3.0.5) is
immediate.
9

Finally, we show that Q(N ) ⊆ Q⌈N/D⌉ for all N ≥ 0 where D = max{D1 , . . . , Dn }. Using (3.0.5):
Q

(N )

(3.0.5)

⊆

X

n
Y
(1)
(Pi R)(Ai ) ⊆

(A1 ,...,An )∈S(N ) i=1

X

n
Y
(2)
(Pi R)⌈Ai /Di ⌉ ⊆ Q⌈N/D⌉ .

(A1 ,...,An )∈S(N ) i=1

(D (r−1)+1)

⊆ Pir for all r > 0, so
(1) follows from our key hypothesis: for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n, Pi i
(D
(r−1)+1)
r
(Pi R) i
⊆ (Pi R) for all r > 0 per Proposition (3.4) since Pi ∈ I(Ri ) per the earlier
discussion leading up to Lemma (3.1). Thus per Lemma (3.3), (Pi R)(Ai ) ⊆ (Pi R)⌈Ai /Di ⌉ for all
A ≥ 0 and all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. For (2) we show that for each (A1 , . . . , An ) ∈ S(N ), we have
Qin
(Pi R)⌈Ai /Di ⌉ P
⊆ Q⌈N/D⌉ : indeed, ⌈Ai /Di ⌉ ≥ ⌈Ai /D⌉ for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and the integer
Pi=1
n
n
i=1 ⌈Ai /D⌉ ≥ ⌈( i=1 Ai )/D⌉ = ⌈N/D⌉ for each (A1 , . . . , An ) ∈ S(N ). To finish the proof, since
Q(N ) ⊆ Q⌈N/D⌉ for all N ≥ 0, we simply invoke Lemma (3.3) again.

4. Proving Theorem 1.2 in a Refined Form
Theorem (1.2) is easy if n = 1 or D = 1: all rings in sight are polynomial rings and monomial
primes are complete intersections. Thus for the remainder of this section, we will assume that
n ≥ 2 and D ≥ 2. We will give presentations of our rings as subrings of the domain of Laurent
±1
±1
polynomials L = F[s±1
1 , . . . , sn−1 , u ] in n indeterminates over the field F. The proof will proceed
in cases, starting with the ring
F[x1 , . . . , xn , z]
HD = D
.
(z − x1 · · · xn )
4.0.3. The Hypersurface Case: We first observe that HD is a toric ring, up to isomorphism:
(n)

Lemma 4.1. Consider the full-dimensional strongly convex, rational polyhedral cone σD ⊆ Rn
whose ray generators are Dei + en for 1 ≤ i < n and en in terms of the standard basis vectors.
(n)

(1) The Hilbert basis of the semigroup (σD )∨ ∩ Zn consists of n + 1 vectors: the n standard
basis vectors e1 , . . . , en , together with the vector (−1, . . . , −1, D) ∈ Zn .
(n)
F[x ,...,xn ,z]
= HD .
(2) The toric ring F[(σD )∨ ∩ Zn ] ∼
= (z D1−x1 ···x
n)
Proof. The reader can use the hilbertBasis algorithm implemented in the Polyhedra package in
Macaulay2 ([9]) to check (1). For (2), recall from Section (3) that if σ ⊆ Rn is a (SC-R) cone, then
mn−1 mn
1
to each m = (m1 , . . . , mn−1 , mn ) ∈ σ ∨ ∩ Zn we assign a Laurent monomial χm = sm
1 · · · sn−1 u
in the semigroup ring F[σ ∨ ∩ Zn ]. Given (1), we have


uD
(n) ∨
n
±1
±1
F[(σD ) ∩ Z ] = F s1 , . . . , sn−1 ,
, u ⊆ F[s±1
1 , . . . , sn−1 , u ].
(s1 · · · sn−1 )

Given a polynomial ring R = F[x1 , . . . , xn−1 , xn , z] in n+1 variables, consider the surjective algebra
(n)
map φ : R = F[x1 , . . . , xn−1 , xn , z] ։ F[(σD )∨ ∩ Zn ] under which xi 7→ si for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1,
(n)
uD
, and z 7→ u. Since dim(R) = dim(F[(σD )∨ ∩ Zn ]) + 1, we conclude that the kernel
xn 7→ (s1 ···s
n−1 )
of φ is a height one prime in the UFD R, and hence is principal. Now F = z D − x1 · · · xn ∈ R is
irreducible and belongs to the kernel of φ, so ker φ = (F ), and the isomorphism claim follows. 
We now deduce the following refinement of Theorem (1.2) for HD :
10

Theorem 4.1. Take the ring HD = F[x1 , . . . , xn , z]/(z D − x1 · · · xn ), and P one of the monomial
prime ideals of HD (i.e., Zn -graded /torus-invariant); assume P is nonzero and nonmaximal. When
D ≤ ht(P ) (the height of P ), P (N ) = P N for all N > 0. If D ≥ ht(P ) and N ≡ 1 (mod D), then
P (N ) ⊆ P ht(P )(

N−1
D

)+1 .

In particular, P (Dr) ⊆ P (D(r−1)+1) ⊆ P ht(P )(r−1)+1 ⊆ P r for all r > 0.
Proof. To start, define the height j prime ideal Pj = (z, x1 , . . . , xj )HD for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1; under
(n)
the correspondence in subsection (3.0.1), Pj = Pτ for the j-dimensional face τ of σD generated by
Q
(N )
(N )
Dei + en for 1 ≤ i ≤ j. As a saturation, Pj = PjN :HD ( ni=j+1 xi )∞ . Since Pj
is monomial,
in chasing down inclusions below it suffices to discern which monomial classes
a

a

j+1
g = (z ℓ xa11 · · · xj j )(xj+1
· · · xann ) ∈ HD

Q
(N )
multiply a power of m = ni=j+1 xi into PjN . For g as above, by definition g ∈ Pj
if and only if
for all M ≫ 0,



!
!M ′  n
!
j
j
n
n
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
′
′

xiai −M
xiai +M −M 
xi
xiai +M 
PjN ∋ mM g = z ℓ 
xai i = z ℓ
i=j+1

=

i=1

i=j+1

i=1

i=1


! n
j
Y
Y
′
′
′
xiai −M 
xiai +M −M 
z D·M +ℓ
i=1

i=j+1

where M ′ = M ′ (M ) := min(a
 1 , . . . , aj ,′aj+1 + M, . . . , an + M ) = min(a1 , . . . , aj ) for all M ≫ 0.
′ +ℓ Qj
ai −M
D·M
∈ PjN , and infer the inequality
We conclude that z
i=1 xi
(D − j)M ′ +

j
X
i=1

ai

!

+ ℓ ≥ N.

(4.0.6)

′ ≥ 0, when D ≤ j so that the number (D − j)M ′ is
Before proceeding, notice that since
P M 
aj
j
ℓ a1
N
N
nonpositive, (4.0.6) implies that
i=1 ai + ℓ ≥ N , so (z x1 · · · xj ) ∈ Pj and hence g ∈ Pj
(N )

already. Thus Pj = PjN for all N > 0 when D ≤ j, since both are generated by monomial classes.
Thus in the remainder of the proof we will assume that D ≥ j = ht(Pj ) (i.e., D − j ≥ 0). In
1+j ( N−1
(N )
D )
this case, assuming N ≡ 1 (mod D), we now show that Pj ⊆ Pj
. Fix a monomial


!
j
n
Y
Y
(N )
ai 
ℓ
xai i  ∈ Pj
xi
g= z
i=j+1

i=1

P
and M ′ = min(a1 , . . . , aj ) exactly as before and set E := ℓ + ji=1 ai . The more involved case for
us is when (**) M ′ ≤ (N − 1)/D: otherwise E ≥ a1 + · · · + aj ≥ jM ′ ≥ j(N − 1)/D + 1, whence

j ( N−1 )+1
. Assuming (**), we now show that E ≥ j ND−1 + 1. Suppose
one easily infers that g ∈ Pj D

(N )
to the contrary that E ≤ j ND−1 . Since g ∈ Pj , inequality (4.0.6) above says
!
j
X
ai + ℓ ≥ N =⇒ E ≥ N − (D − j)M ′ .
(D − j)M ′ + E = (D − j)M ′ +
i=1

11

Then since N − 1 − DM ′ ≥ 0 by (**), and (D − j) ≥ 0, we see that


N −1
j (N − 1) = Dj
≥ DE ≥ DN − D(D − j)M ′
D
= D(N − 1) + D − D(D − j)M ′
= j(N − 1) + D + (D − j)(N − 1 − DM ′ )
≥ j(N − 1) + D + (D − j)(0)
= j(N − 1) + D
a contradiction. Thus E ≥ j
(D(r−1)+1)
Pj

N −1
D

1+j(r−1)
Pj
.



1+j ( N−1
D )

+1, so g ∈ Pj

. In particular, when N = D(r−1)+1, we

have
⊆
Finally, applying coordinate changes according to every permutation
of x[n] := {x1 , . . . , xn }, any (nonzero, nonmaximal) monomial prime ideal in HD can be obtained
from the Pj running through all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1, along with obtaining the desired containments. 
4.0.4. The Veronese Case: Let N = Z≥0 denote the set of nonnegative integers. To start,
(n)

Lemma 4.2. Consider the full-dimensional strongly convex, rational polyhedral cone ηD ⊆ Rn
whose ray generators are ei for 1 ≤ i < n and (−1, −1, . . . , −1, D) in terms of the standard basis
vectors.
(n)

(1) The Hilbert basis of the semigroup (ηD )∨ ∩ Zn is the set of vectors
)
(
n−1
X
n
ai ≤ D .
(a1 , . . . , an−1 , 1) ∈ N : 0 ≤
i=1

(n)
F[(ηD )∨

∼
(2) The toric ring
∩
= VD , the D-th Veronese subring of the polynomial ring
F[s1 , . . . , sn−1 , u] in the n indeterminates s1 , . . . , sn−1 , u.
Zn ]

Proof. The reader can use the hilbertBasis algorithm implemented in the Polyhedra package in
Macaulay2 ([9]) to check (1). Given (1), as an algebra over F, we have
#
"
n−1
X
(n)
an−1
ai ≤ D
F[(ηD )∨ ∩ Zn ] = F sa11 · · · sn−1
u : each ai ≥ 0, 0 ≤
i=1

Pn−1

F[x(a1 ,...,an−1 ) : each ai ≥ 0, 0 ≤ i=1 ai ≤ D]
∼
.
=
(xe xf − xg xh : e + f = g + h ∈ Nn−1 )

Within the polynomial ring F[s1 , . . . , sn−1 , u], applying the correspondence
a

a

n−1
n−1 D−a1 −···−an−1
sa11 · · · sn−1
u ←→ sa11 · · · sn−1
u

(n)

takes the generators in the presentation of F[(ηD )∨ ∩ Zn ] and recovers the usual presentation of
(n)
VD in terms of degree D monomials in n variables. Therefore, (2) holds: F[(ηD )∨ ∩ Zn ] ∼
= VD . 
We use the toric presentation of VD to deduce the following refinement of Theorem (1.2) for VD :
Theorem 4.3. Over an arbitrary field F, take the D-th Veronese subring VD ⊆ F[x1 , . . . , xn ] and
P one of the monomial prime ideals of VD . When P is nonzero and nonmaximal,
P (N ) ⊆ P r ⇐⇒ r ≤ ⌈N/D⌉;
in particular, P (Dr) ⊆ P (D(r−1)+1) ⊆ P r for all r > 0 and the right-hand containment is sharp.
12

Proof. For all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1, define height one primes
an−1
sa11 · · · sn−1
u:

Pj = Pej =

aj > 0, and 1 ≤

n−1
X

!

ab ≤ D VD .

b=1

Then by the Minkowski sum-ideal sum decomposition (3.0.4) Pj1 <···<jk := Pj1 + · · · + Pjk is
a prime of height 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1 for each size-k subset j1 < . . . < jk of [n − 1] = {1, . . . , n − 1}. In
particular, we focus on P1<···<k = (sā u : ā ∈ Tk )VD , where
(
)
k
n−1
X
X
n−1
Tk := ā = (a1 , . . . , an−1 ) ∈ N
:1≤
ab ≤
ab ≤ D .
b=1

Any monomial g in
some B ≥ 0) as

(N )
P1<···<k

g = uB

Y

b=1

⊆ P1<···<k ⊆ P1<···<n−1 belongs to P1<···<k and so decomposes (for

(sā u)iā =

Y

ā∈Tk

ā∈Tn−1



(sā u)iā uB

Y

ā∈Tn−1 −Tk



P

iā

(sā u)iā  ∈ P1<···<kk .
ā∈T

Note that this factorization of g into two monomial pieces (Tk versus Tn−1 − Tk ) is unique up
¯
to applying
relations sē u · sf u = sḡ u · sh̄ u (ē + f¯ = ḡ + h̄). Setting the monomial
Q the Veronese
an−1
m := u · ā∈Tn−1 −Tk sā u ∈ VD to be the product of the monomials sa11 · · · sn−1
u with aj = 0 for
(N )

(N )

N
:VD (m)∞ , and the monomial g is in P1<···<k
all 1 ≤ j ≤ k(≤ n − 1), we have P1<···<k = P1<···<k
precisely when for all M ≫ 0,


Y
Y
N
.
(sā u)iā +M ∈ P1<···<k
(sā u)iā 
g · mM = uB+M
ā∈Tn−1 −Tk

ā∈Tk

N
so it is a multiple of some N -fold product of
In particular, the monomial in parentheses is in P1<···<k
ā
generators of P1<···<k = (s u : ā ∈ Tk )VD . Thus we infer that two inequalities must hold, signifying
we have enough u’s and sj ’s (1 ≤ j ≤P
k) at our disposal, respectively, to feasibly form such a N -fold
product. These inequalities are (1) ā∈Tk iā + B + M ≥ N , and (2) the sum

X

iā (a1 + · · · + ak ) =

where ℓj :=

ā∈Tk,j iā ,

defining Tk,j := {ā ∈ Tk : the partition a1 + · · · + ak = j}. Indeed,


D
D
D
X
X
X
ℓj · j ≤ D 
ℓj ≥ ⌈N/D⌉,
ℓj  =⇒
N≤
j=1

so (2) implies that (3)
⌈N/D⌉

j=1

j=1

PD
1
j=1 ℓj ≥ ⌈N/D⌉. For
ā∈Tk iā =
⌈N/D⌉
(N )
P1<···<k ⊆ P1<···<k for all N > 0.

P

that g ∈ P1<···<k . Thus

ℓj · j ≥ N,

j=1

ā∈Tk

P

D
X

(N )

any monomial g ∈ P1<···<k , (3) implies

Additionally if we consider R with its standard N-grading, then the minimal degree of a
r
monomial (e.g., a monomial generator) in P1<···<k
is r. Noticing that for 1 ≤ j ≤ k, the degree
1Together, inequalities (1) and (3) are equivalent to

X
ā∈Tk

iā =

D
X

ℓj ≥ max{⌈N/D⌉, N − (B + M )} ≡ ⌈N/D⌉ for all M ≥ N.

j=1

13

(N )

⌈N/D⌉ ∈ P N
(N +1)−⌈N/D⌉ ) ⊆ P N
(N +1)−⌈N/D⌉ ) ⊆ P
⌈N/D⌉ monomial (sD
j u)
1<···<k : (u
1<···<k : (m
1<···<k ,
(N )

r
if and only if r ≤ ⌈N/D⌉.
we obtain the only-if part of: for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n, P1<···<k ⊆ P1<···<k

Setting N = Dr − (D − 1) = D(r − 1) + 1, we have ⌈N/D = (r − 1) + 1/D⌉ = r, so that
r
⊆ P1<···<k
for all r > 0 and this containment is sharp.

(Dr−(D−1))
P1<···<k

In review, our argument does not depend crucially on which size-k index subset j1 < . . . < jk of
[n] = {1, 2, . . . , n} we worked with; going with 1 < 2 < . . . < k merely simplifies notation. In other
words, in applying suitable permutations of the algebra generators for VD , one obtains the above
characterization of ideal containment for all of the monomial prime ideals in the ring having one
of the Pj as an ideal summand. To handle monomial primes having the height one prime
!
n−1
X
an−1
a1
ai ≤ D − 1
P(−1,...,−1,D) = s1 · · · sn−1 u : 0 ≤
i=1

as a summand, we use the F-algebra isomorphisms φj : VD → VD (1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1) under which a
Pn−1
a
an−1
monomial algebra generator g = sa11 · · · sj j · · · sn−1
u with 0 ≤ A := i=1
ai ≤ D is sent to
 a1
an−1
D−A
· · · sn−1
u if A ≤ D − 1 and aj = 0

s 1 · · · s j

sa1 · · · s0 · · · san−1 u
if A = D and aj > 0
j
1
n−1
φj (g) =

g
if
A ≤ D − 1 and aj > 0



g
if A = D and aj = 0.

We note that φ2j = φj ◦ φj is the identity, and the height one prime φj (P(−1,...,−1,D) ) = Pj : indeed,
a
an−1
when h = sa11 · · · sj j · · · sn−1
u is a generator of Pj , aj > 0; when A ≤ D − 1, h = φj (h), or else

P
an−1
> 0, and h = φj (g) where g = sa11 · · · s0j · · · sn−1
D − A = 0, aj = D −
u ∈
a
1≤i6=j≤n−1 i

P(−1,...,−1,D) . Moreover, we conclude that a (sharp) containment Q(m) ⊂ Qr for any monomial
prime Q with Pj as a summand translates under φj to a (sharp) containment (Q′ )(m) ⊂ (Q′ )r for a
monomial prime Q′ of the same height as Q, with P(−1,...,−1,D) replacing Pj as an ideal summand.
Having analyzed ideals with one of the Pj as a summand quite thoroughly, this final observation
completes the proof.

4.0.5. Connection to Divisor Class Groups. In this closing subsection only, and in keeping with our
main sources ([5, 8]), we will assume that F is algebraically closed. For a fixed (SCR) cone σ ⊆ Rn ,
and without being explicit, the faces τ of σ are in bijection with the following sets:
• {torus-invariant closed subvarieties of Uσ }, and
{torus-invariant(=Zn -graded/monomial) prime ideals of R = F[Uσ ]}
via τ 7→ V (τ ) = V(Pτ ) 7→ Pτ . We note that dim(V (τ )) = codim(τ ), and that the height/codimension
of Pτ equals codim(V (τ )) = dim(τ ). Going forward, we let Σ(1) denote the collection of rays (onedimensional faces). In particular, each ray ρ ∈ Σ(1) has a generator uρ ∈ ρ ∩ Zn that is primitive,
and yields a torus-invariant
prime divisor Dρ = V (ρ) on X = Uσ . Per Exercise 4.1.1 of ([5]), we
L
note that DivT (X) = ρ∈Σ(1) ZDρ is the free abelian group of torus-invariant Weil divisors
on X. We recap parts (2) and (3) of Theorem 3.1 in ([20]).
Theorem 4.2. Take a normal affine toric variety X = Uσ , Cl(X) its divisor class group. Then
14

(1) Cl(X) is finite abelian if and only if σ is simplicial. If so, then Weil divisors on X are
Q-Cartier of index bounded above by the order of Cl(X).
(2) If G = {uρ : ρ ∈ Σ(1)} spans Rn , then the following sequence of abelian groups is exact
φ

0 → Zn → DivT (X) → Cl(X) → 0,
P
where φ(m) = div(χm ) = ρ∈Σ(1) hm, uρ iDρ , and h·, ·i is dot product. In particular, when
σ ⊆ Rn is full (SCRF),
Z[{[Dρ ] : ρ ∈ Σ(1)}]
Cl(F[σ ∨ ∩ Zn ]) ∼
= P
h ρ∈Σ(1) hei , uρ i[Dρ ] = 0 : 1 ≤ i ≤ ni

where the ei ∈ Zn are the standard basis vectors.

Examples: We revisit the (SCRF) polyhedral cones in the proof of Theorem (1.2), showing that
Cl(HD ) ∼
= (Z/DZ)n−1 and Cl(VD ) ∼
= Z/DZ. Although these class group facts are well known in
certain circles and can be deduced by other means (see e.g., [18]), for completeness of exposition
we include some succinct computations using toric divisor theory.
(n)

(1) The cone σD ⊆ Rn has ray generators fi = Dei + en for 1 ≤ i < n and en , and
Z([Df1 ], . . . , [Dfn−1 ], [Den ])
hD[Df1 ] = 0, . . . , D[Dfn−1 ] = 0, [Den ] = −[Df1 ] − · · · − [Dfn−1 ]i
Z([Df1 ], . . . , [Dfn−1 ], −[Df1 ] − · · · − [Dfn−1 ])
∼
=
hD[Df1 ] = 0, . . . , D[Dfn−1 ] = 0i
Z([Df1 ], . . . , [Dfn−1 ])
∼
=
= (Z/DZ)n−1 .
hD[Df1 ] = 0, . . . , D[Dfn−1 ] = 0i

(n)
Cl(F[(σD )∨ ∩ Zn ]) ∼
=

(n)

(2) The cone ηD ⊆ Rn has ray generators ei for 1 ≤ i < n and fn = (−1, −1, . . . , −1, D), and
(n)

Cl(F[(ηD )∨ ∩ Zn ]) ∼
=

Z([De1 ], . . . , [Den−1 ], [Dfn ])
∼ Z([Dfn ]) ∼
=
= (Z/DZ).
h[Dei ] − [Dfn ] = 0 (1 ≤ i < n), D[Dfn ] = 0i
hD[Dfn ] = 0i

5. Lingering Questions related to Theorem 1.1
To summarize, we have deduced two existence criteria for uniform Harbourne-Huneke bounds.
Lemma (1.1) holds for ideals of pure height one in a Noetherian normal domain. And Theorem
(1.1) holds for monomial primes in finite tensor products of normal toric rings; we deduced
Theorem (1.2) to increase the range of examples that can be used as tensor factors. These criteria
cover a reasonably prodigious class of normal toric rings. We close with a few natural lines for
further investigation.
(1) Does the conclusion of Theorem (1.1) extend to monomial primes in any simplicial toric ring
built from a (SCRF) cone? Can we identify a candidate mechanism (e.g., group-theoretic)
to help explain and verify these Harbourne-Huneke bounds in height two or higher for a
larger class of ideals than monomial primes?
(2) Given the role of tensor products in our manuscript, do analogues of Theorems (1.1) and
(3.1) hold for other graded ring constructions in the toric setting, such as Segre products?
15

References
[1] S. Akesseh. Ideal Containments Under Flat Extensions. arXiv preprint
[2] A. Altman and S. Kleiman. A Term of Commutative Algebra. Worldwide Center of Mathematics LLC, Cambridge,
MA, 2014.
[3] M. Atiyah, I.G. Macdonald. Introduction to Commutative Algebra. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.
[4] C. Bocci, and B. Harbourne. Comparing powers and symbolic powers of ideals. J. Algebraic Geom. 19 (2010),
no.3, pp. 399-417. arXiv preprint
[5] D.A. Cox, J.B Little, and H.K. Schenck. Toric Varieties (2011), Graduate Studies in Mathematics 124.
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
[6] M. Dumnicki, T. Szemberg, and H. Tutaj-Gasińska. Counterexamples to the I (3) ⊆ I 2 containment.
J. Algebra 393 (2013) pp.24-29. arXiv preprint
[7] L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld, and K. Smith. Uniform bounds and symbolic powers on smooth varieties. Invent. Math. 144
(2001), pp. 241-252. arXiv preprint
[8] W. Fulton. Introduction to Toric Varieties (1993), Annals of Math. Studies 131. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
[9] D.R. Grayson and M.E. Stillman. Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. Available at
http://www.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[10] B. Harbourne and C. Huneke. Are symbolic powers highly evolved?. J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 28A (2013), pp.
247-266. arXiv preprint
[11] B. Harbourne and A. Seceleanu. Containment counterexamples for ideals of various configurations of points in
Pn . J. Pure Appl. Algebra 219 (2015), no.4, pp. 1062-1072. arXiv preprint
[12] R. Hartshorne. Algebraic Geometry. Graduate Texts in Math. 52, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.
[13] M. Hochster. Rings of invariants of tori, Cohen-Macaulay rings generated by monomials, and polytopes. Ann. of
Math (2) 96 (1972), pp. 318-337.
[14] M. Hochster. Math 615 Winter 2007 Lecture 4/6/07. Online link.
[15] M. Hochster and C. Huneke. Comparison of ordinary and symbolic powers of ideals. Invent. Math. 147 (2002),
pp. 349-369. arXiv preprint
[16] J. Lipman. Rational singularities, with applications to algebraic surfaces and unique factorization. Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1969), no. 36, pp. 195–279.
[17] H. Matsumura. Commutative Ring Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, (1989).
[18] A.K. Singh and S. Spiroff. Divisor class groups of graded hypersurfaces. Contemporary Mathematics 448 (2007)
237-243.
[19] T. Szemberg, J. Szpond. On the containment problem. arXiv preprint
[20] R.M. Walker. Rational Singularities and Uniform Symbolic Topologies. arXiv preprint
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109
E-mail address: robmarsw@umich.edu

16

