arXiv:1609.07017v1 [] 22 Sep 2016

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS,
AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS
MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG
Abstract. This paper continues the investigation of quasilength, of content
of local cohomology with respect to generators of the support ideal, and of robust algebras begun in joint work of Hochster and Huneke. We settle several
questions raised by Hochster and Huneke. In particular, we give a family of
examples of top local cohomology modules both in equal characteristic 0 and
in positive prime characteristic that are nonzero but have content 0. We use
the notion of a robust forcing algebra (the condition turns out to be strictly
stronger than the notion of a solid forcing algebra in, for example, equal characteristic 0) to define a new closure operation on ideals. We prove that this
new notion of closure coincides with tight closure for ideals in complete local
domains of positive characteristic, which requires proving that forcing algebras
for instances of tight closure are robust, and study several related problems.
This gives, in effect, a new characterization of tight closure in complete local
domains of positive characteristic. As a byproduct, we also answer a question
of Lyubeznik in the negative.

1. Introduction
This paper continues the study of the notions of quasilength, content, and robustness initiated in [HH09] and resolves questions raised in that paper. We use
these ideas to give a new characterizaton of tight closure in equal characteristic
p > 0. The condition we use is similar to the characterization of tight closure in
[Hoc94] using solid closure, but the condition we impose on the forcing algebras
that arise is a priori stronger than being solid. The stronger condition, which is
that the forcing algebra be robust (defined briefly two paragraphs below, and with
more detail in Definition 5.9), nonetheless gives the usual notion of tight closure
for ideals in complete local domains.
There is great interest in extending the notion of tight closure to rings of mixed
characteristic. An example of Paul Roberts [Rob94] shows that solid closure is
not the right notion, in that, even in a regular local ring of dimension 3 in equal
characteristic 0, it is not true that every ideal is solidly closed. Roberts proves this
by showing that a certain forcing algebra is solid, when one hopes it should not be.
Specifically, let k be a field of characteristic 0, let A be the formal power series ring
P3
K[[x1 , x2 , x3 ]], and let R = A[z1 , z2 , z3 ]/(g) where g = x21 x22 x23 − i=1 zi x3i . R is
a generic forcing algebra over for the element x21 x22 x23 and the ideal (x31 , x32 , x33 )A.
3
(R) 6= 0, so that R is a solid A-algebra: see §5 and
Roberts shows that H(x
1 ,x2 ,x3 )
Definition 5.6 in particular. However, this algebra is not robust (cf. [HH09, Example 3.11] and Definition 5.9). It remains an intriguing open question to determine
M.H. is partially supported by the National Science Foundation through grant DMS#1401384
and W.Z. is partially supported by National Science Foundation through grant DMS #1606414.
1

2

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

3
the content c of H(x
(R) with respect to x1 , x2 , x3 . The fact that g vanishes
1 ,x2 ,x3 )
in R implies at once that c ≤ 26/27, but so far as the authors know, c might be 0.
In §2 we review the needed background concerning quasilength, content, and
robust algebras. In §3 we study quasilength and content for modules over a local
ring with respect to a system of parameters. We give some surprising examples of
the failure of additivity on direct sums. However, over an equicharacteristic local
domain of Krull dimension d, it is true that the content of the d th local cohomology
module of a module of torsion-free rank r with respect to a system of parameters
is r. Theorem 3.7 gives a more general statement.
A sequence of elements x1 , . . . , xd generating a proper ideal of a ring S is called
a Q-sequence if for every positive integer t, any finite filtration of S/(xt1 , . . . , xtd )
with factors that are quotients of S/(x1 , . . . , xd )S requires at least dt factors. An
algebra S over a local ring (R, m, K) of Krull dimension d to be robust if every
system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd of R is Q-sequence in S. That S be robust implies
d
d
that Hm
(S) 6= 0. The condition that Hm
(S) 6= 0 is equivalent to the condition that
S be solid if R is complete (cf. [Hoc94, Corollary 2.4]).
In §4 we show that there are non-zero local cohomology modules whose content
is 0 in all characteristics, at the same time answering a question raised in [HH09,
Example 3.14]. Specifically, let S = A[x, y, u, v] be a polynomial ring in 4 variables
over a Noetherian commutative ring A, and let R = A[xu, yv, xv + yu]. Then
3
(S) 6= 0 and hence S is a solid R-algebra. In [HH09], it was asked
H(xu,yv,xv+yu)
whether xu, yv, xv + yu is a Q-sequence. It is shown here that the content with
respect to xu, yv, xv + yu is 0 in all characteristics; if xu, yv, xv + yu were a
Q-sequence, the content would be 1.
§5 gives the definition of robust closure, and in §6 we prove that it agrees with
tight closure in complete local domains of characteristic p > 0. This is equivalent
to the following statement, which is one of our main results.

Theorem 1.1 (Theorem 6.1). Let R be a local ring of prime characteristic p > 0.
Suppose that I = (f1 , . . . , fh ) is an ideal of R, that g ∈ R, that g ∈ I ∗ , the tight
closure of I, and that
S = R[Z1 , . . . , Zh ]/(g −

h
X

fi Zi )

i=1

(which is a generic forcing algebra for (R, (f1 , . . . , fh ), g): see Definition 5.1).
Then S is a robust R-algebra.
§7 discusses the relationship between being a Q-sequence and superheight. In
a Noetherian ring R, whether x1 , . . . , xd is Q-sequence is related to whether the
height of (x1 , . . . , xd )S becomes d in some Noetherian R-algebra S. In equal characteristic, the latter condition is sufficient for x1 , . . . , xd to be a Q-sequence. We
show, however, that it is not necessary. The examples are subtle, and the proofs
depend on difficult theorems. Our examples also answer negatively a question of
Gennady Lyubeznik (page 144 in [Lyu02]) on the vanishing of local cohomology
modules, cf. Proposition 7.7.
§8 describes some conjectures and questions that are related to the results of this
paper.

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS

3

2. Preliminaries
In this section we collect some basic facts about content of local cohomology
from [HH09]. We begin with the definition of quasilength.
Definition 2.1 (Quasilength). Let R be a commutative ring (not necessarily Noetherian), I a finitely generated ideal of R, and M an R-module.
M is defined to have finite I-quasilength if there is a finite filtration of M in
which the factors are cyclic modules killed by I.
The I-quasilength of M , denoted by LI (M ), is defined to be the minimum number
of factors in such a filtration. If M does not have finite I-quasilength, then its Iquasilength is defined to be ∞.
One can check that M has finite I-quasilength if and only if M is finitely generated and is killed by a power of I, and LI (M ) is bounded below by the least
number of generators of M . (cf. Propostion 1.1(a) of [HH09].)
Assume R is a Noetherian commutative ring and M a finitely generated Rmodule. Let x1 , . . . , xd be elements of R and I = (x1 , . . . , xd ). We will use t
to denote the d-tuple of positive integers (t1 , . . . , td ), t + k to denote the d-tuple
(t1 + k, . . . , td + k) and It to denote (xt11 , . . . , xtdd ). One can define
(It M )lim =

∞
[

((It+k M ) :M (x1 · · · xd )k ).

k=0
d

If we set k = (k1 , . . . , kd ) ∈ N , then one also has that
[
(It M )lim =
((It+k M ) :M (xk11 · · · xkdd )).
k∈Nd

As we will see (It M )lim is closely related to the local cohomology module HId (M ).
It is well-known that HId (M ) = limt M/ItM where in the direct system the map
−→
M/ItM → M/It+k M is induced by multiplication by xk11 · · · xkdd on the numerators.
It follows that (It M )lim is the kernel of the canonical map M → M/It M → HId (M ).
Therefore
HId (M ) = lim M/(It M )lim
−→
t
in which all maps in the direct system are injective and each M/(It M )lim in this
direct system can be viewed as a submodule of HId (M ).
Now we are in position to introduce the h-content of HId (M ) with respect to x
([HH09, page 9]).
Definition 2.2. With t ≥ s for s ∈ N meaning that every tj ≥ s, we define
hdx (M ) = lim inf{
s→∞

LI (M/(It M )lim )
|t ≥ s}.
t1 · · · td

The existence of hdx (M ) is guaranteed by [HH09, Proposition 2.1].
LI (M/(It M ))
|t ≥ s}.
t1 · · · td
If hdx (R) = 1, then according to [HH09, Theorem 3.8] one also has hdx (R) = 1; in
hdx (M ) = lim inf{
s→∞

this case x is called a Q-sequence and HId (R) is called robust for x.

4

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

By [HH09, Theorem 5.1], if R is a local ring and x1 , . . . , xd is a system of parameters, then one has hdx (M ) = hdx (M ). This is the reason we will mainly work
with hdx (M ) in the next section where we are only concerned with parameters.
3. Content of local cohomology with respect to parameters
Proposition 3.1. Let x1 , . . . , xd be elements of a commutative ring R and let
0 → L → M → N → 0 be a short exact sequence of finite R-modules. Then
hdx (M ) ≤ hdx (L) + hdx (N ).

Proof. Let I = (x1 , . . . , xd ) and denote (xt1 , . . . , xtd ) by It for all integers t ≥ 1. It
is clear that one has the following short exact sequence
0 → L/L ∩ It M → M/It M → N/It N → 0.
Hence LI (M/It M ) ≤ LI (L/L ∩ It M ) + LI (N/It N ) by [HH09, Proposition 1.1(d)].
Since there is a natural surjection L/It L ։ L/L ∩ It M , one has LI (L/L ∩ It M ) ≤
LI (L/It L) by [HH09, Proposition 1.1(d)]. Therefore,
LI (M/It M ) ≤ LI (L/It L) + LI (N/It N ).

Dividing both sides by td and taking limit over t → ∞ give us the desired inequality.

Proposition 3.2. Let R be a d-dimensional equicharacteristic local ring and let
x1 , . . . , xd ∈ R be a system of parameters. Then
hdx (Rn ) = n

for all integers n ≥ 1.
Proof. It follows directly from [HH09, Proposition 3.4] that the condition that
hdx (Rn ) = n is equational, and hence reduction to characteristic p > 0 is applicable. Therefore, it suffices to prove hdx (Rn ) = n in characteristic p > 0.
Use induction on n. When n = 1, this is precisely [HH09, Theorem 4.7].
Assume that n ≥ 2. The short exact sequence 0 → R → Rn → Rn−1 → 0 and
Proposition 3.1 imply that hdx (Rn ) ≤ hdx (R) + hdx (Rn−1 ). By induction, hdx (Rn−1 ) =
n − 1, and hence hdx (Rn ) ≤ n.
Assume that hdx (Rn ) < n. Let I = (x1 , . . . , xd ) and denote (xt1 , . . . , xtd ) by It for
all integers t ≥ 1. By [HH09, Theorem 2.4] and [HH09, Remark 3.7], there exist an
integer q = pe and a filtration
0 ( M1 ( · · · ( Mh = Rn /Iq Rn

of Rn /Iq Rn with Mj+1 /Mj a homomorphic image of R/I and h < nq d . As a
consequence. one has
λ(Rn /Iq Rn ) ≤

h−1
X
j=0

λ(Mj+1 /Mj ) ≤ hλ(R/I).

Applying the e-th Frobenius functor to the above filtration, one has a filtration
(with a slight abuse of notation)
[q]

[q]

0 ( M1 ( · · · ( Mh = Rn /Iq2 Rn

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS

5

[q]

[q]

of Rn /Iq2 Rn with Mj+1 /Mj a homomorphic image of R/Iq . Consequently, one
2
2
has the following filtration of Rn /Iq2 Rn
2

2

0 ( F1 ( · · · ( Fh = Rn /Iq2 Rn
[q]

where Fj is the direct sum of n copies of Mj . It is clear that Fj+1 /Fj is a
homomorphic image of Rn /Iq Rn and hence
2

2

λ(Rn /Iq2 Rn ) ≤

h−1
X
j=0

λ(Fj+1 /Fj ) ≤ hλ(Rn /Iq Rn ) ≤ h2 λ(R/I).

Similarly, one can prove that
l

l

nl λ(R/Iql ) = λ(Rn /Iql Rn ) ≤ hl λ(R/I)

for all integers l ≥ 1. Dividing both sides by (nq d )l , one has
λ(R/Iql )
h
≤ ( d )l λ(R/I)
ld
q
nq

for all integers l ≥ 1. Since h < nq d , it follows that
λ(R/Iql )
lim
=0
l→∞
q ld
λ(R/I l )

which is absurd because liml→∞ qld q
with respect to Iq ) which is positive.
Therefore, one has hdx (Rn ) = n.

is exactly e(Iq , R) (the multiplicity of R


Corollary 3.3. Let R be an equicharacteristic local ring and let x1 , . . . , xs ∈ R be
part of a system of parameters of R. Then
hsx (Rn ) = n
for all integers n ≥ 1.
Proof. Use induction on n.
When n = 1, this follows from [HH09, Proposition 1.2(a)] that hsx (R) ≤ 1. Let
P be a prime ideal minimal over I = (x1 , . . . , xs ) with ht(P ) = s. According to
[HH09, Proposition 2.5], we have hsx (R) ≥ hsx (RP ). But hsx (RP ) = 1 by Proposition
3.2 since x1 , . . . , xs is a system of parameters of RP . Hence hsx (R) ≥ 1. Therefore,
hsx (R) = 1.

Assume that n ≥ 2 and hsx (Rn−1 ) = n − 1. It follows from Proposition 3.1 that
hsx (Rn ) ≤ n. According to [HH09, Proposition 2.5], we have hsx (Rn ) ≥ hsx (RPn ).
But hsx (RPn ) = n by Proposition 3.2 since x1 , . . . , xs is a system of parameters of
RP . Hence hsx (Rn ) ≥ n. Therefore,
hsx (Rn ) = n.


Corollary 3.4. Let R be a d-dimensional equicharacteristic local domain and let
x1 , . . . , xd ∈ R be a system of parameters. Then
hdx (M ) = rank(M )

for all finitely generated R-modules M .

6

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

In particular, under the same hypotheses, hdx is additive, i.e., given a short exact
sequence 0 → L → M → N → 0 of finitely generated R-modules, we have
hdx (M ) = hdx (L) + hdx (N ).
Proof. Let I = (x1 , . . . , xd ) and let T denote that torsion submodule of M . Then
dim(T ) < d and hence HId (T ) = 0. By [HH09, Proposition 2.2], one has hdx (T ) = 0.
The short exact sequence 0 → T → M → M/T → 0 and Proposition 3.1 imply
that
hdx (M/T ) ≤ hdx (M ) ≤ hdx (T ) + hdx (M/T ) = hdx (M/T ).
Hence, we may assume that M is torsion-free. Consequently, there is a short exact
sequence 0 → M → Rr → Rr /M → 0 where r = rank(M ) and dim(Rr /M ) < d
(hence hdx (Rr /M ) = 0). Thus, one has
rank(M ) = r = hdx (Rr ) ≤ hdx (M ) + hdx (Rr /M ) = hdx (M ).
Let g1 , . . . ,P
gr be elements in M whose images in (R\0)−1 M form a basis, and
r
′
let M ′ =
j=1 Rgj . Then one has a short exact sequence 0 → M → M →
′
−1
′
′
M/M → 0. Since (R\0) (M/M ) = 0, it follows that dim(M/M ) < d and hence
hdx (M/M ′ ) = 0. By Proposition 3.1, one has
hdx (M ) ≤ hdx (M ′ ) + hdx (M/M ′ ) = hdx (M ′ ).
It is clear that there is a surjection Rr → M ′ and hence hdx (M ′ ) ≤ hdx (Rr ) = r.
Therefore, hdx (M ) ≤ r. This finishes the proof.

From Corollary 3.4, one may expect quasi-length to be additive under the same
hypotheses as well. However, quasi-length does not respect direct sum even when
R is a DVR, as shown in the following example.
Example 3.5. Let R = k[[x]], let I = (x2 ), let M = (x)/(x4 ) and let N = (x)/(x2 ).
Then it is easy to see that LI (N ) = 1. Since M is not killed by I, one has
LI (M ) ≥ 2; on the other hand, one has an I-filtration
0 ( M1 = R · x3 ( M2 = R · x3 + R · x = M,
hence LI (M ) = 2.
We will prove that LI (M ⊕ N ) = 2 6= 3 by constructing a filtration of M ⊕ N
with only 2 factors that are homomorphic images of R/I (a priori, LI (M ⊕ N ) ≥
max{LI (M ), LI (N )} = 2).
Let L1 = R · (x2 , x) and L2 = R · (x2 , x) + R · (x, x). It is easy to check that
(1) IL1 = 0;
(2) IL2 ⊂ L1 and L2 /L1 is cyclic;
(3) L2 = M ⊕ N .

Therefore

0 ( L1 ( L2 = M ⊕ N
is the desired filtration.
When R is not a domain, we can’t expect hdx to be additive.

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS

7

Example 3.6. Let R = k[[u, v]]/(uv) where u and v are indeterminates over a field
k. Set x = u + v, then x is a system of parameter of R (dim(R) = 1). Since R is
reduced and has only two minimal prime ideals (u) and (v), we have a short exact
sequence
0 → R → R/(u) ⊕ R/(v) → R/(u, v) → 0.

It is clear that h1x (R/(u, v)) = 0. As a consequence of Proposition 3.1, we have
h1x (R/(u) ⊕ R/(v)) ≤ h1x (R) = 1. But, it is easy to check that
h1x (R/(u)) = h1x (R/(v)) = 1,

and hence
1 = h1x (R/(u) ⊕ R/(v)) 6= h1x (R/(u)) + h1x (R/(v)) = 2.
This example suggests that hdx (R) should not exceed hdx (R/P ) for all minimal
prime ideals P . The precise formula is given in the following theorem.
Theorem 3.7. Let R be a d-dimensional equicharacteristic local ring and suppose
that x1 , . . . , xd be a system of parameters of R. Let Mind (R) denote the set of
minimal prime ideals P of R with dim(R/P ) = d. Then for all finitely generated
R-modules M ,
hdx (M ) = max{rankR/P (M/P M )|P ∈ Mind (R)}.
d
Proof. If dim(M ) < d, then H(x)
(M ) = 0 and hence hdx (M ) = 0. It is clear
that rankR/P (M/P M ) = 0 for all P ∈ Min(R). Thus, the theorem is true when
dim(M ) < d.
Assume that dim(M ) = d. Let N be the largest submodule of M with dimension smaller than d. The short exact sequence 0 → N → M → M/N → 0 and
Proposition 3.1 imply that hdx (M ) = hdx (M/N ). Hence, we may assume that M is
of pure dimension d. Since M is naturally an R/ AnnR (M )-module, replacing R
by R/ AnnR (M ), we may assume that M is faithful (consequently R is also of pure
dimension d). Let P be a minimal prime ideal of R and let yi denote the image of
xi in R/P . Then by [HH09, Proposition 2.5], hdx (M ) ≥ hdy (M/P M ); the latter is
rankR/P (M/P M ) by Corollary 3.4. Therefore,

hdx (M ) ≥ max{rankR/P (M/P M )|P ∈ Mind (R)}.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that Mind (R) ⊂ Supp(M ). For each
P ∈ Mind (R), we have a filtration
0 ( L(P )1 ( · · · ( L(P )rankR/P (M/P M) = MP

with L(P )j+1 /L(P )j ∼
= RP /P RP (= ((R/P )\{0})−1R/P ). Set

h = max{rankR/P (M/P M )|P ∈ Mind (R)}
and extend the above filtration trivially (if necessary) as follows
0 ( L(P )1 ( · · · ( L(P )rankR/P (M/P M) = · · · = L(P )h = MP .
Let Lj = ⊕P ∈Mind (R) L(P )j , then we have a filtration
(3.7.1)

0 ( L1 ( · · · ( Lh = ⊕P ∈Mind (R) MP

with Lj+1 /Lj a homomorphic image of ⊕P ∈Mind (R) RP .

8

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

Let W = R\ ∪P ∈Mind (R) P . It is clear that W −1 R = ⊕P ∈Mind (R) RP and
W M = ⊕P ∈Mind (R) MP (since W −1 R is artinain). Thus, the filtration (3.7.1)
gives us a filtration of W −1 M with each factor a homomorphic image of W −1 R,
which in turn gives us a filtration of M
−1

0 ( M1 ( · · · ( Mh = M

such that there is a surjection W −1 R → W −1 (Mj+1 /Mj ) for each j.
Let g be an element of Mj+1 /Mj whose image in W −1 (Mj+1 /Mj ) generates
−1
W (Mj+1 /Mj ). Then we have a short exact sequence 0 → Rg → Mj+1 /Mj →
(Mj+1 /Mj )/Rg → 0. Since W −1 Rg = W −1 (Mj+1 /Mj ), we have
W −1 ((Mj+1 /Mj )/Rg) = 0.

Thus, dim((Mj+1 /Mj )/Rg) < d and hence hdx ((Mj+1 /Mj )/Rg) = 0. It follows
from Proposition 3.1 that
hdx (Mj+1 /Mj ) ≤ hdx (Rg) + hdx ((Mj+1 /Mj )/Rg) = hdx (Rg) ≤ 1.
Furthermore, as a consequence of Proposition 3.1, we have
hdx (M ) ≤

h−1
X
j=1

hdx (Mj+1 /Mj ) ≤ h = max{rankR/P (M/P M )|P ∈ Mind (R)}

which finishes the proof.



Recall that, if M is a finitely generated module over a local ring R, then a system
of parameters of M is a sequence of d = dim(M ) elements x1 , . . . , xd in R such that
dim(M/(x1 , . . . , xd )M ) = 0.
Corollary 3.8. Let R be an equicharacteristic local ring and let M be a finite Rmodule of dimension d. Let Mind (M ) denote the set of prime ideals P minimal
over AnnR (M ) with dim(R/P ) = dim(M ). Then for any system of parameters
x1 , . . . , xd of M ,
hdx (M ) = max{rankR/P (M/P M )|P ∈ Min(M )}.
Proof. It is clear that M is naturally an R/ AnnR (M )-module. By the remark on
page 11 in [HH09], we may replace R by R/ AnnR (M ) and assume that x1 , . . . , xd
is also a system of parameters of R. Then Theorem 3.7 finishes the proof.

4. A non-zero local cohomology module whose content is 0
Let R = A[x, y, u, v] where A is any Noetherian commutative ring. Let P =
(x, y), Q = (u, v), and I = (x1 , x2 , x3 ) where x1 = xu, x2 = yv, and x3 = xv − yu.
Then one can check that J = P ∩ Q is the radical of I. It is left open in [HH09,
Example 3.14] whether x1 , x2 , x3 forms a Q-sequence when A = k is a field. Our
goal of this section is to prove that
h3x (R) = h3x (R) = 0
no matter what A is, and consequently that x is not a Q-sequence for any choice
of A. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first example of a nonzero local
cohomology module whose content is 0.
We begin with an easy comparison between the ideals It = (xt1 , xt2 , xt3 ) and
′
It = (xt1 , xt2 , xt v t + y t ut ).

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS

9

Proposition 4.1. We have
(1) (xv)2 , (yu)2 ∈ I
(2) I4t ⊆ It′
′
(3) I12t
⊆ It
Proof. (1). It is clear that we have
(xv)2 = x23 − yux3 − x1 x2 ∈ I and (yu)2 = x23 − xvx3 − x1 x2 ∈ I.

′
2t
2t
(2). It suffices to show that x4t
∈ It′ .
3 ∈ It . It is wasy to see that (xv) , (yu)
4t
i
4t−i
Since x3 is a linear combination of (xv) (yu)
in which at least wither i ≥ 2t or
′
4t − i ≥ 2t, we have that x4t
∈
I
.
3
t
(3). It suffices to show that (xv)12t + (yu)12t ∈ It . First we note that I 3t ⊆ It
since I is generated by 3 elements. Consequently,

(xv)6t = ((xv)2 )3t ∈ I 3t ⊆ It .

And similarly, (yu)6t ∈ It . Now we have

(xv)12t + (yu)12t = (xv + yu)12t − (xv)6t α − (yu)6t β,

for some α, β ∈ R. Hence, (xv)12t + (yu)12t ∈ It .



Let T be a commutative Noetherian ring and let a = (a1 , . . . , at ) and b =
(b1 , . . . , bt ) be ideals of R. Let H i (a) (respectively, H i (b)) denote the (t − i)-th
homology of the Koszul complex associated to a1 , . . . , at (respectively, to b1 , . . . , bt ).
We recall the following result from [SV86].
Lemma 4.2 (Lemma 1.5 in [SV86]). Let T, a, b, H i (a), H i (b) as above. If a ⊆ b,
then we have t + 1 commutative diagrams:
H i (b)

/ H i (a)


Hbi (T )


/ Hai (T )

As a consequence of this lemma, one can see that the map R/ a → Hat (R) is
canonical in the sense that, if (a√1 , . . . , at ) = (αij )(b1 , . . . , bt ) for a matrix (αij ) with
√
αij ∈ T (i.e. a ⊆ b) and a = b, then we have a commutative diagram
(4.2.1)

R/ b

det(αij )
/ R/ a
●●
✇
●●
✇
●●
✇✇
●●
✇✇
✇
#
{✇
Hat (R)

Theorem 4.3. Let R, I, J, P, Q, x as above. Then h3x (R) = h3x (R) = 0.
Proof. It is clear that limt R/It = HI3 (R) = HJ3 (R), where the last equality holds
−→
since J is the radical of I. We also note that, by the Mayer-Vietoris sequence
3
4
· · · → 0 = HP3 (R) ⊕ HQ
(R) → HJ3 (R) → HP4 +Q (R) → HP4 (R) ⊕ HQ
(R) = 0 → · · · ,

4
we have HJ3 (R) = H(x,y,u,v)
(R). Let m = (x, y, u, v) and mt = (xt , y t , ut , v t ) for
t ∈ N.

10

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

4
Since every element of Hm
(R) is killed by mt for some suitable t, we know that
4
the image of R/(xu, yv, xv + yu) in HI3 (R) = Hj3 (R) = Hm
(R) is killed by mc for
some c ∈ N.
Let Ft : R → R be the endomorphism that sends x (y, u, v, respectively) to xt
t
(y , ut , v t , respectively) and is the identity on A. Applying Ft to the map
4
R/(xu, yv, xv + yu) → Hm
(R),

4
4
(R) = Hm
(R) is killed by mct .
we see that the image of R/It′ in Hm
t
Since we always have a surjection R/Pct → R/(Pct + Qct ) = R/ mct , we have
that
LJ (R/ mct ) ≤ LJ (R/Pct )).
Moreover we have that

LJ (R/Pct ) ≤ LP (R/Pct ) = c2 t2

since J ⊂ P . Therefore, we have that

LJ (R/ mct ) ≤ c2 t2 ,

and hence
′
Since I12t
Hence

4
LJ (Im(R/It′ → Hm
(R))) ≤ c2 t2 .
′
4
4
⊆ It , there is a surjection Im(R/I12t
→ Hm
(R)) → Im(R/It → Hm
(R)).
4
4
LI (Im(R/It → Hm
(R))) ≤ LJ (Im(R/It → Hm
(R)))

′
4
≤ LJ (Im(R/I12t
→ Hm
(R)))

≤ c2 (12t)2 = 144c2 t2 ,

where the first inequality holds since I ⊂ J.
4
As discussed in §2, Im(R/It → HI3 (R) = Hm
(R)) is isomorphic to R/(It )lim .
Therefore,
144c2t2
h3x (R) ≤ lim
= 0.
t→∞
t3
To finish the proof of our theorem, we will show that h3x (R) is also 01, i.e., we will
prove that
LI (R/It )
lim inf{
} = 0.
t→∞
t3
For any s ≥ t, we have that
((xu)t+s , (yv)t+s , xt+s v t+s + y t+s ut+s )

(xu)s
0
= ((xu)t , (yv)t , xt v t + y t ut )  0
(yv)s
0
0


−y s us−t v t
−xs ut v s−t 
xs v s + y s us

Hence by the commutative diagram (4.2.1), we have that Im(R/It′ → HI3 (R)) is
Ht , the cyclic module generated by the image of (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us ) in HI3 (R)
′
′
through R/Is+t
→ HI3 (R). For s ≫ 0, one has that Ht is isomorphic to Hs+t
, the
′
s
s s s
s s
submodule of R/Is+t generated by (xu) (yv) (x v + y u ). Therefore, we have
′
LJ (Hs+t
) = LJ (Ht ) = LJ (Im(R/It′ → HI3 (R))) ≤ c2 t2 .
1Note that h3 (R) = 0 already implies that x , x , x does not form a Q-sequence in R by
1
2
3
x

[HH09, Theorem 3.8].

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 11

Next we want to get a upper bound for the quasilength of
′
R/Is+t
′
.
R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us )) ∼
=
′
Hs+t

More precisely, we wish to show that
′
LI (R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us ))) ≤ (t + s)3 − t3 .

′
To this end we will construct an I-filtration of R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us ))
3
3
with (s + t) − t factors. First we linearly order the elements in

S := {(xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 v e3 + y e3 ue3 )|0 ≤ e1 , e2 , e3 ≤ t + s − 1}

as follows: we set

′

′

′

′

′

′

(xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 v e3 + y e3 ue3 )  (xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 v e3 + y e3 ue3 ),

if e1 + e2 > e′1 + e′2 , or e1 + e2 = e′1 + e′2 and e1 > e′1 , or e1 = e′1 and e2 = e′2
and e3 ≥ e′3 . Now we remove all elements (xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 v e3 + y e3 ue3 ) with
e1 , e2 , e3 ≥ s from S. Hence according to our order, the remaining (t + s)3 − t3
elements can be listed as
(4.3.1)

(xu)t+s−1 (yv)t+s−1 (xv + yu)s−1 , (xu)t+s−1 (yv)t+s−1 (xv + yu)s−2 , · · ·

′
Let Mh be the submodule of R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us )) generated by the
first h elements in (4.3.1). To see that the Mh give an I-filtration of
′
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us )),
R/(Is+t

it suffices to see that IMh ⊆ Mh−1 . It is clear that (xu, yv)Mh ⊆ Mh−1 . It remains
to prove that (xv + yu)Mh ⊆ Mh−1 . Let
g(e1 , e2 , e3 ) = (xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 v e3 + y e3 ue3 ).

Assume that g(e1 , e2 , e3 ) ∈ Mh \Mh−1 . If e3 = 0, then it is clear that
(xv + yu)g(e1 , e2 , 0) = g(e1 , e2 , 1) ∈ Mh−1 .

If 0 < e3 < s − 1, then

(xv + yu)g(e1 , e2 , e3 )

= (xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xe3 +1 v e3 +1 + y e3 +1 ue3 +1 ) + (xu)e1 (yv)e2 (xvy e3 ue3 + yuxe3 v e3 )
= g(e1 , e2 , e3 + 1) + (xu)e1 +1 (yv)e2 +1 (y e3 −1 ue3 −1 + xe3 −1 v e3 −1 ) ∈ Mh−1 .
When e3 = s − 1, a similar calculation shows that

(xv + yu)g(e1 , e2 , s − 1) = g(e1 , e2 , s) + (xu)e1 +1 (yv)e2 +1 (y s−2 us−2 + xs−2 v s−2 )
= g(e1 , e2 , s) + g(e1 + 1, e2 + 1, s − 2)

′
When e1 , e2 ≥ s, we know that g(e1 , e2 , s) = 0 in R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s +y s us ));
when one of e1 and e2 is less than s, we have that g(e1 , e2 , s) ∈ Mh−1 . And it is
clear that g(e1 + 1, e2 + 1, s − 2) ∈ Mh−1 . Hence (xv + yu)g(e1 , e2 , s − 1) ∈ Mh−1 .
′
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us ))) ≤ (t + s)3 − t3 .
This finishes the proof that LI (R/(Is+t
By the short exact sequence
′
′
′
0 → Hs+t
→ R/Is+t
→ R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s + y s us )) → 0,

we have that

′
′
′
LI (R/Is+t
) ≤ LI (Hs+t
)+LI (R/(Is+t
, (xu)s (yv)s (xs v s +y s us ))) ≤ c2 t2 +(s+t)3 −t3 .

12

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

Therefore, for n ≫ 0, we have LI (R/In′ ) < n3 . We may choose such an integer n
that is divisible by 12, i.e., n = 12n0 . We can write LI (R/In′ ) = ǫn3 with 0 ≤ ǫ < 1.
After applying Fn repeatedly, we have that LI (R/In′ l ) ≤ ǫl n3l . Now according to
Proposition 4.1(3), we have
′
′
l 3l
LI (R/I12l−1 nl0 ) ≤ LI (R/I12
l nl ) = LI (R/Inl ) ≤ ǫ n
0

and hence
h3x (R) ≤
for all l ≥ 1. Therefore,

LI (R/I12l−1 nl0 )
(12l−1 nl0 )3

≤

ǫl n3l
= 123 ǫl
(12l−1 nl0 )3

h3x (R) = 0.

5. Robust Closure

Definition 5.1. We beginning by recalling the definitions of forcing algebras and
generic forcing algebras for a triple (M, N, u) ([Hoc94, 4.3]) where N ⊆ M are
finitely generated modules over a Noetherian ring R and u is an element of M . An
R-algebra S is called a forcing algebra for the triple (M, N, u) if the image 1 ⊗ u
A

of u in S ⊗R M is in Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M ). Let Rβ −
→ Rα → M/N → 0
be a finite presentation of M/N , where A = (aij ) is an α × β matrix over R.
Let r = (r1 , . . . , rα ) ∈ Rα represent ū ∈ Rα / Im(A) ∼
= M/N . Let Z1 , . . . , Zβ be
indeterminates over R. Then
R[Z1 , . . . , Zβ ]
Pβ
(ri − j=1 aij Zj : 1 ≤ i ≤ α).

is called a generic forcing algebra for the triple (M, N, u) for the data A, r. It is clear
that the image 1 ⊗ u of u in S ⊗R M is contained in Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M ). Given
any other forcing algebra S ′ for the triple (M, N, u), there is a ring homomorphism
S → S ′ ; this justifies the word ‘generic.’
Remark 5.2. It is important to note that a forcing algebra (respectively, a generic
forcing algebra) for (M, N, u) is the same as a forcing algebra (respectively, a generic
forcing algebra) for (M/N, 0, u), where u is the image of u in M/N .
Note also that if S is a forcing algebra for (M, N, u) and S → T is an R-algebra
homomorphism, then T is also a forcing algebra for (M, N, u).
Furthermore, note that if N ⊆ N ′ ⊆ M ⊆ M ′ are finitely generated R-modules
and u ∈ M , then a forcing algebra for (M, N, u) is a forcing algebra for (M ′ , N ′ , u),
since we have an R-linear map M/N → M ′ /N ′ that sends the image of u in the
first module to the image of u in the second module. The case where M = M ′ and
the case where N = N ′ are of particular interest.
The following proposition ([Hoc94, Proposition 4.6]) will be useful to us.
Proposition 5.3. If R is a Noetherian ring, N ⊆ M are finitely generated Rmodules, u ∈ M , and S, T are two generic forcing algebras for (M, N, u) for possibly
different data, then there are finite sets of indeterminates Y, Z such that S[Y] =
T [Z] as R-algebras.

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 13

For any Noetherian ring R, following [Hoc94, 3.1], we refer to the R-algebra
obtained by completing R localized at a maximal ideal and then killing a minimal
prime as a complete local domain of R. Note that if R is local and p is a minimal
b is a minimal prime of (0) in R
b lying
prime of R, then every minimal prime of p R
over p. (If a ∈
/ p it is a nonzerodivisor on R/ p and, hence, of the flat (R/ p)-algebra
b p R.
b Thus q lies over p. Moreover, we can choose a ∈ R − p such that a pn = 0
R/
for some integer n ≥ 1. When we localize at q, p therefore becomes nilpotent,
b It follows that the set of complete local
and q becomes nilpotent modulo p R.)
domains D of the local ring R is the same as the set of complete local domains
b → D factors uniquely
of the R/ p for p a minimal prime of R: the map R → R
b
b
b
b and of (0)
R → R → R/ p R → R/ q = D where q is a minimal prime both of p R
b
in R.
Next we collect the definition and some basic facts of solid closure.
Definition 5.4 (Definition 1.1 in [Hoc94]). If R is a domain, we shall say that an
R-module M is solid if HomR (M, R) 6= 0. We shall say that an R-algebra S is solid
if it is solid as an R-module.
Remark 5.5. S is solid as an R-algebra if and only if there is an R-module map
θ : S → R such that θ(1) 6= 0. (If θ(s0 ) 6= 0, one may replace θ by θ′ where
θ′ (s) := θ(s0 s).) A module-finite extension S of a Noetherian domain R is always a
solid R-algebra ([Hoc94, Proposition 2.1(i)]). If (R, m) is a complete local domain
d
of Krull dimension d, then an R-module is solid if and only if Hm
(M ) 6= 0 ([Hoc94,
Corollary 2.4]).
Definition 5.6 (Definition 5.1 in [Hoc94]). Let R be a Noetherian ring, let N ⊆ M
be finitely generated R-modules, and let u ∈ M . If R is a complete local domain we
say that u is in the solid closure N ⋆ of N in M over R if there is a solid R-algebra
S such that the image 1 ⊗ u of u in S ⊗R M is in Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M ). In other
words, u ∈ N ⋆ if and only if (M, N, u) has a forcing algebra S that is solid as an
R-algebra. If there is as a solid forcing algebra, then the generic forcing algebra is
solid.
In the general case, we say that x is in the solid closure N ⋆ of N in M over
R is for every comlete local domain D of R, the image of x in D ⊗R M is in the
solid closure of Im(D ⊗R N → B ⊗R M ) in D ⊗R M over B. In other words, every
complete local domain D of R has a solid D-algebra S such that the image of x in
S ⊗R m is in Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M ).
The following facts about solid closure will be used in the sequel:
¯ Moreover
(1) Let R be a Noetherian ring and I an ideal of R. Then I ⋆ ⊆ I.
if I is principal then I ⋆ = I¯ ([Hoc94, Theorem 5.10]).
(2) If R is a Noetherian ring of positive characteristic and admits a completely
stable test element and N ⊆ M are finitely generated R-modules, then
⋆
∗
= NM
. In particular, this is true in positive characteristic if R is
NM
reduced and essentially of finite type over an excellent semilocal ring, and,
in particular, it is true in positive characteristic for every complete local
domain ([Hoc94, Theorem 8.6]).
Recall the following definition from [Bre03].

Definition 5.7 ([Bre03]). Let (A, m) be a d-dimensional Noetherian commutative
1
d
d
] ∈ Hm
(A) where
local ring. A paraclass in Hm
(A) is the cohomology class [ x1 ...x
d

14

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

d
x1 , . . . , xd is a system of parameters of A and we think of Hm
(A) as the quotient
Q
Pd
of Ax1 ···xd by i=1 Afi where fi = j6=i xj .
Let R be an A-algebra. R is called a parasolid A-algebra if the image of each
d
d
non-zero paraclass c ∈ Hm
(A) in Hm
R (R) does not vanish.
More generally, let A be a Noetherian commutative ring and let R be an Aalgebra. R is called a parasolid A-algebra if Rm is parasolid over Am for each
maximal ideal m of A.

Remark 5.8. It is clear that a parasolid algebra over a complete local domain
is always solid from the local cohomology characterization of being solid given in
Remark 5.5. Note also that if A → R is split or even pure as a map of A-modules,
then R is parasolid over A: the condition of being split or pure is preserved by
base change to a complete local domain of A. But when (A, m) is a complete local
d
d
domain the map of local cohomology Hm
(A) → Hm
(R) is injective.

Definition 5.9. Let R be a complete local domain. An R-algebra S is called robust
if the image of every system of parameters for R in S forms a Q-sequence in S.
In general, for any Noetherian ring R, an R-algebra S is called robust if D ⊗R A
is a robust D-algebra for every complete local domain D of R.

Note that a robust algebra S over a complete local domain (R, m) of dimension
d is solid, since even the fact that one system of parameters x = x1 , . . . , xd is
d
d
a Q-sequence on S implies that H(x)
(S) = Hm
(S) 6= 0. We make the following
conjecture:
Conjecture 5.10. Every system of parameters for every local ring is a Q-sequence.
Hence, every Noetherian ring is robust as an algebra over itself.
The issue for Noetherian rings of Krull dimension at most d reduces to the case
of complete local domains of Krull dimension at most d, where it is equivalent to
ask whether every system of parameters is a Q-sequence. One may pass to the
normalization of the complete local domain. The results of Hochster and Huneke
[HH09] show that this conjecture is true in equal characteristic ([HH09, Theorem
4.1]) and in dimension at most 2 (the normalized complete local domain is CohenMacaulay and one may apply [HH09, Proposition 1.2(c)]. Hence, by the results of
Hochster and Huneke we have:
Theorem 5.11. Let R be a Noetherian ring such that Rred contains a field or such
that R is of Krull dimension at most 2. Then R is robust.
The difficult result on the vanishing of content in §4 enables us to show that
parasolid algebras are not, in general, robust. In the example given in the result
below, A → R is actually split as a map of A-modules.

Theorem 5.12. Let R = C[[x, y, u, v]] and A = C[[xu, yv, xv + yu]]. Then R is a
parasolid A-algebra, in fact A → R splits as a map of A-modules, but R is not a
robust A-algebra.

Proof. Let B = C[[xu, xv, yu, yv]]. Then it is easy to see that B is Cohen-Macaulay
and xu, yv, xv + yu is a system of parameters of B. Therefore B is a free A-module
and hence the natural inclusion A ֒→ B splits (over A). On the other hand, B is
the invariant subring of R under the C∗ -action given by:
1
1
c ◦ x = cx, c ◦ y = cy, c ◦ u = u, c ◦ v = v
c
c

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 15

for each c ∈ C∗ . And hence B ֒→ R splits (over B). Therefore A ֒→ R splits (over
A), and consequently R is a parasolid A-algebra by Remark 5.8.
However, from §4 we know that R is not a robust A-algebra.

Definition 5.13. Let (R, m) be a complete local domain and N ⊆ M finitely
generated R-modules. Let N  (or N  M if M is not clear from context) denote
the submodule of M generated by N and all elements u ∈ M such that a generic
forcing S for the triple (M, N, u) is a robust R-algebra. (It is equivalent to say that
there exists a forcing algebra for (M, N, u) that is robust.) We refer to N  as the
j
0
immediate robust closure of N in M . Let N  be defined recursively by N  = N
S
j
j+1
j 
and N
= (N ) . The robust closure of N in M is defined to be j N  ,
j

denoted by N or N M . Note that since the sequence N  is clearly nondecreasing
j
as j increases and M is Noetherian, we have that N = N  for all j ≫ 0.
In general, for any Noetherian ring R and finitely generated R-modules N ⊆ M ,
we say an element u ∈ M is in the robust closure of N in M if 1 ⊗ u is contained
in Im(R′ ⊗ N → D ⊗R M ) D⊗R M for every complete local domain D of R.
Remark 5.14. In Definition 5.13, if we use a generic forcing algebra T for (M, N, u)
for possibly different data, then whether the generic forcing algebra obtained is
robust is not affected. To see this, note that by Proposition 5.3, it suffices to prove
that a system of parameters for R forms a Q-sequence in a generic forcing algebra
S for (M, N, u) if and only if it forms a Q-sequence in the polynomial ring S[Y]
over S. This is clear because we have S-algebra homomorphisms S → S[Y] → S
whose composition is the identity, and these are also R-algebra homomorphisms.
j
Moreover, in defining N  (and, hence, in defining all the N  ), we may take S
to be any forcing algebra rather than a generic forcing algebra. For then we may
choose a generic forcing algebra S0 such that R → S factors R → S0 → S, and the
fact that S is robust implies that S0 is robust.
There are technical difficulties in working with robust closure. One is that we do
not know that Noetherian rings are robust as algebras over themselves, which was
discussed above. Her are two others. We do not know whether the tensor product
of two robust algebras over a complete local domain R is robust, nor whether, if S
is robust over R and R → R′ is a local homomorphism of complete local domains,
R′ ⊗R S is robust over R′ . But the notion is well-behaved in many other ways.
Let R be a complete local domain. We will see later that in positive characteristic
both robust closure and solid closure agree with tight closure.
If regular sequences of length 2 are Q-sequences (this is an open in the nonNoetherian case for every length > 1), then this is also true for latent regular
sequences of length 2. Assuming this, then according to [Hoc94, Theorem 12.5], in
characteristic 0, when dim(R) = 2, robust closure coincides with solid closure. We
do not know whether this is true.
In dimension three robust closure can be strictly smaller than solid closure in
equal characteristic 0. For example, in R = C[[x1 , x2 , x3 ]], one has that x21 x22 x23 ∈
(x31 , x32 , x33 )⋆ , using the result of [Rob94]. See also the second paragraph of §1.
However, every ideal of R is its own robust closure by Theorem 5.24 below.
Proposition 5.15. If R is Noetherian and S is a robust R-algebra, then the contraction of IS to R is contained in I for all ideals I of R.

16

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

Proof. Let u ∈ R have image in IS. Let D be a complete local domain of R. Then
D ⊗R S is robust, and the image of u is in I(D ⊗R S), which the image of IS.

Hence, u is in I .
Proposition 5.16. If R is Noetherian and Rred contains a field, then every modulefinite extension S of R is robust. Hence, IS∩R ⊆ I for every ideal of R. Therefore,
if R is reduced and contains a field, I + ⊆ I .
Proof. If m is maximal in R and R1 denote the completion of Rm , then S1 = R1 ⊗ S
is a module-finite extension of R1 . Let P be a minimal prime of R1 and let Q be a
prime of S1 lying over P1 . Let D = R/P1 . We need to show that D ⊗ S1 = S1 /P S1
is robust over D. But S1 /P S1 maps to S/Q, and R/P = D → S/Q is injective and
module-finite. Hence, any system of parameters for R/P is a system of parameters
for the equicharacteristic complete local domain S/Q, and the result follows from
Theorem 5.11. The final statement is immediate from the fact that every integral
extension of R is a directed union of module-finite extensions.

Remark 5.17. There are results for finitely generated modules corresponding to
both Proposition 5.15 and Proposition 5.16. If N ⊆ M and we have a homomorphism R → S, we work with the inverse image in M of Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M )
under the map M → S ⊗R M (sending u 7→ 1 ⊗ u). That is, we think of the
contracted expansion of N as the set of u ∈ M such that 1 ⊗ u is in the image of
S ⊗R N in S ⊗R M .
Remark 5.18. Proposition 5.16 holds for module-finite extensions of Noetherian
rings that are robust as algebras over themselves. Thus, if Conjecture 5.10 is true,
Proposition 5.16 will hold for all Noetherian rings. Coupled with Theorem 5.24
below, this would prove the direct summand conjecture.
Proposition 5.19. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and let N ⊆ M and N ′ ⊆ M ′ be
Noetherian R-modules. Then:
(a) N ⊆ N M .
(b) If u ∈ M , then u ∈ N M iff u ∈ 0 M/N , where v denotes the image of
v ∈ M in M/N .
(c) If u ∈ M , u′ ∈ M ′ , and there is an R-linear map M/N → M/′ /N ′ such
that u 7→ u′ , then if u ∈ N M we have that u′ ∈ N ′ M ′ . In particular, if
N ⊆ N ′ ⊆ M then N M ⊆ N ′ M , and if N ⊆ M ⊆ M ′ then N M ⊆ N M ′ .
(d) (N M ) M = N M .
(e) If N ′ ⊆ M , then(N ∩ N ′ ) M ⊆ N M ∩ N ′ M .
(f) (N + N ′ ) M ⊆ (N M + N ′ M ) M .
L
L
Ni , and M = i Mi , then
(g) If Ni ⊆ Mi are Noetherian, 1 ≤ i ≤ n, N = i L
N M may be identified in the obvious way with i Ni Mi .
Proof. (a). This is clear from the definition.
(b) The submodules N ′ /N of M/N are in a bijective correspondence with the
submodules N ′ of M with N ⊆ N ′ , and, by Remark 5.2 for each element v ∈ M , a
forcing algebra for (M, N ′ , v) is the same as a forcing algebra for (M/N, N ′ /N, v).
Again by Remark 5.2, this remains true when we make a base change to a complete
local domain R′ of R, replacing M by R′ ⊗R M and N by the image of R′ ⊗R N in
R′ ⊗R M . We use the notation R, M , N for what we obtain after the base change.
j
j
It follows that 0 M/N = (N  M )/N , and the result follows.

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 17

(c) It suffices to prove the result when N = 0 and N ′ = 0 (we may replace M, M ′
by M/N, M ′ /N ′ ). The result then says that a linear map M → M ′ takes 0 M into
0 M ′ . It suffices to prove the result after base change to a complete local domain
of R, and so we may assume that R is a complete local domain. We then need only
j
j
show that the image 0
M maps into 0M ′ for all j. We use induction on j. Again, we
j
j
may replace M and M ′ by quotients, M/0 M and M ′ /0 M ′ , respectively. Thus,
we need only consider the case j = 1 to do the inductive step. But this follows from
the fact that by the third paragraph of Remark 5.2, a forcing algebra for (M, 0, u)
is a forcing algebra for (M ′ , 0, u′ ). The corollary statements in the second sentence
are obvious.
(d) Let u ∈ (N M ) M . We must show that u ∈ N M . It suffices to consider the
issue after base change to a complete local domain of R. After the base change, the
image of N is in the robust closure of the image of N . Therefore, using part (c), it
suffices to show that (N M ) M = N M in the case of a complete local domain R.
i
i
j
But then N M = N  M for i sufficiently large, and so (N M ) M = (N  M ) M =
i+j
N  M = N M , as required.
(e) and (f) are immediate from the second statement in part (c) (note that
N + N ′ ⊆ N M + N ′ M ).
(g) Since Ni Mi ⊆ N M is clear from part (c), it suffices to showQ
that if u =
u1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ un ∈ N M then ui ∈ Ni Mi for each i. Identify M with i Mi . The
needed fact also follows from the part (c), along with the fact that the product
projection M → Mi takes u to ui and N onto Ni .

Proposition 5.20. Let R be a Noetherian ring and let N ⊆ M be finitely generated
R-modules. Let S be a Noetherian R-algebra such that every maximal ideal M of S
lies over a maximal ideal m of R in such a way that that the contraction of every
bm → SbM is a minimal prime p of R
bm in such
minimal prime q of SbM under θ : R
b
b
a way that Rm / p → SM / q is
 an isomorphsim. If u ∈ N M , then 1⊗u ∈ S ⊗ M is
in Im(S ⊗R N → S ⊗R M ) S⊗R M .
In particular, the conclusion holds when S is the localization of R at one or at
finitely many maximal ideals, the completion of Rm for a maximal ideal m of R, or
when S is the quotient of R by a minimal prime.
Proof. The hypothesis at once implies that every complete local domain of S is a
complete local domain of R, which can be checked instead for the map Rm → SM
or for the induced map of completions. This immediately yields the first conclusion.
We next consider the statement of the second paragraph. In the case of localization at a finite set of maximal ideals, each localization SM is isomorphic to the
bm , the
corresponding Rm , from which the result is obvious. If we consider R → R
b
induced map of completions is the identity on Rm . Therefore we need only consider
the case where S = R/P for a minimal prime P of R. Then M = m /P for a
maximal ideal of m of R, and we can reduce to studying the local case, i.e., we may
b R,
b and it
assume that (R, m) is local and S = R/P for P minimal. Then Sb ∼
= R/P
b
b by
suffices to observe that every minimal prime q of P R is a minimal prime of R,
the discussion in the paragraph following Propopsition 5.3.

Proposition 5.21. Let R be a Noetherian ring, let N denote the radical of the
ideal (0) of R, i.e., the nilradical of R, let Rred = R/ N, and let N ⊆ M be finitely
generated R-modules.

18

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

p
(a) The robust closure of the ideal (0) ispthe nilradical (0) of R. The robust
0 in M is contained (0)M .
closure 0 M ofp
of the robust closure
(b) Let Rred = R/ (0). Then N M is the inverse image p
of Im(Rred ⊗R N → Rred ⊗R M ) in Rred ⊗R M = M/ (0)M .
(c) An element u ∈ M is in N M if and only if for every minimal prime p of R,
the image of u in M/ p M is in the robust closure of Im(N/ p N → M/ p M )
in M/ p M , computed over R/ p.
Proof. (a) First note that N maps to 0 in every complete local domain of R, which
shows that N ⊆ (0) . If r ∈ R is not nilpotent choose a minimal prime p of R that
does not contain r and a maximal ideal m of R that contains p. Then r ∈
/ p Rm
and so r is not nilpotent in Rm . It follows that the image of r is not nilpotent
in the completion of Rm , and so it is not in a minimal prime of the completion.
It therefore suffices to show that (0) is solidly closed in a complete local domain
R. This is clear because every nonzero element x in a complete local domain is
a parameter or a unit: the generic forcing algebra for (R, (0), x) is a polynomial
ring over R/xR, and R/xR is obviously not a robust R-algebra). Parts (b) and (c)
are clear from Proposition 5.20 and the fact that every map R → D, where D is a
complete local domain of R, factors Rred → D (respectively, R/ p → D) for some
minimal prime p of R in such a way that D is a complete local domain of Rred
(respectively, of R/ p).

Proposition 5.22. For all ideals I of a Noetherian ring R, I ⊆ I ⋆ ⊆ I.
Proof. The fact that I ⋆ ⊆ I is [Hoc94, Theorem 5.10]. Thus, we only need to
show that if u ∈ I then u ∈ I ⋆ , and it suffices to show this after base change to
j
a complete local domain of R, where the issue becomes showing that I  ⊆ I ⋆ .
By induction on j this reduces to the case where j = 1, where it follows from the
fact that a robust algebra over a complete local domain is solid: see the comment
following Definition 5.9.

Proposition 5.23. Let R be a Noetherian ring. If I is principal and every modulefinite extension of a complete local domain D of R is a robust D-algebra, then
I = I. In particular, if Rred contains a field or R has dimension at most 2 and I
is principal, then I = I.
Theorem 5.24. Let R be a regular Noetherian ring. Then for any two finitely
generated R-modules N ⊆ M , N M = N .
Proof. Suppose u ∈ M is such that u ∈ N M \N . Localize at a maximal ideal m of
R such that u ∈
/ Nm and complete. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality
that R is a complete regular local ring.
Choose N ′ ⊇ N maximal in M with respect to not containing u. Then by
Proposition 5.19(d) we still have u ∈ N ′ M . But then the image of u is in every
submodule of M/N ′ . We may replace M, N , and u by M/N ′ , 0 and the image of
u in M/N ′ . Hence, we may assume that M has finite length, N = 0, and that
u generates the socle. Let x1 , . . . , xd be a regular system of parameters for R.
Then the injective hull of R/ m over R is the directed union of modules of the form
R/It where I = (xt1 , . . . , xtd )R, and M is contained in R/It for t ≫ 0. Moreover,
up to a unit factor, u must be the socle generator (x1 · · · xd )t−1 for R/It . It will
therefore suffice to show that 0 = 0 R/It , and for this it will suffice to show that

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 19

0 = 0. This will follow if we can show that there is no forcing algebra that is
robust for the triple (R/It , 0, v) where v is a nonzero element of R/It . Note that
any such forcing algebra must also be a forcing algebra for (R/It , 0, u), since u is a
multiple of v in R/It . It therefore suffices to show that the generic forcing algebra
Pd
S = R[Z1 , . . . , Zd ]/(xt−1
· · · xt−1
− i=1 Zi xti ) is not robust over R. But this is
1
d
clear, S/(xt1 , · · · , xtd ) will have a filtration using ideals generated by monomials in
the xi of length td − 1, and so x1 , . . . , xd is not a Q-sequence in S.

Proposition 5.25. Let R → S be a homomorphism of Noetherian. Suppose that
(†) MaxSpec(S) → MaxSpec(R) is surjective and that for every minimal prime
p of R and maximal ideal m of R with p ⊆ m, ht(m S/ p S) ≥ht(m / p).
Let N ⊆ M be finitely generated R-modules. If u ∈ M is such that 1 ⊗ u is in the
robust closure of the image of S ⊗R N in S ⊗R N , then u ∈ N M . In particular,
for an ideal I ⊆ R, the contraction to R of (IS) , calculated over S, is contained
in I .
The hypothesis (†) holds if S is faithfully flat over R, or if R is universally
catenary and S is an integral extension of R, or if R → S is a local homomorphism,
R is equidimensional, and the image of one system of parameters of R is a system
of parameters in S.
Proof. It will suffice to show that for every complete local domain D of R there is
a complete local domain D′ of S such that R → S → D′ factors R → D → D′
and every system of parameters for D is part of a system of parameters for D′ . It
follows that every robust D′ -algebra is a robust D-algebra and we may apply Lemm
Assume that I = (g1 , . . . , gn ). Since ϕ(u) ∈ (IS) , each system of parameters of
S[Z
,...,Zn ]
P1n
S is a Q-sequence in (ϕ(u)−
. It is clear that ϕ : R → S induces a ring
i=1 ϕ(gi )Zi )
homomorphism
ϕ′ :

R[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]
S[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]
Pn
Pn
→
.
(u − i=1 gi Zi )
(ϕ(u) − i=1 ϕ(gi )Zi )

Since the image of each system of parameters of R becomes a (partial) system of
parameters of S, we know that each system of parameters is also a Q-sequence in
R[Z
P1 ,...,Zn ]

(u− n gi Zi ) . This proves that u ∈ I .
i=1

6. Comparison with tight closure in positive characteristic
In this section, we compare robust closure with tight closure in positive characteristic. In particular, we prove the following theorem.
Theorem 6.1. Let (R, m) be a d-dimensional complete local domain of characteristic p > 0. Let I be an ideal of R, u an element of R, and S a generic forcing
d
algebra for (R, I, u). Then Hm
(S) 6= 0 if and only if the image of each system of
parameters for R in S forms a Q-sequence in S.
Proof. The sufficiency is clear.
d
Assume that Hm
(S) 6= 0. From the local cohomology criterion for solid closure
([Hoc94]), we have that u ∈ I ⋆ . And by [Hoc94, Theorem 8.6(b)] I ⋆ = I ∗ under
our hypotheses, hence u is an element of I ∗ , i.e., for q ≫ 0, we have cuq ∈ I [q] =
(g1q , . . . , gnq ) where {g1 , . . . , gn } is a set of generators of I. We need to prove that the
R[Z
,...,Zn ]
P1n
image of a system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd in S = u−
Zl gl forms a Q-sequence
l=1

20

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

in S. Assume otherwise, then there would exist an integer q0 = pe0 and a short
S
with h < q0d factors. This short filtration would be given by
filtration of (xq0 ,...,x
q0
)
1

d

s̃1 , . . . , s̃h ∈ S (s̃h = 1) satisfying
(x1 , . . . , xd )s̃1 ⊆ (xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )

(x1 , . . . , xd )s̃i+1 ⊆ (s̃1 , . . . , s̃i ) + (xq10 , . . . , xqd0 ), 1 ≤ i ≤ h − 1
Pick and fix si a lifting of s̃i in R[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]. Then there would be the following
equations
(6.1.1)
n
d
i−1
X
X
X
q0
Zl gl ), αijk , βijk , γij ∈ R[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]
βijk xk + γij (u −
αijk sk +
xj si =
l=1

k=1

k=1

1

where α1jk = 0. Since cuq ∈ I [q] = (g1q , . . . , gnq ), we have c q u =
1
q

1

Pn

1
q

l=1 rl

1

gl in R q

for some ri ∈ R. After the substitution Zl = c− q rl in each equation appearing in
N
(6.1.1), we set N to be the least integer such that c q can clear all denominators
1
appearing in all equations in (6.1.1). Next we define ϕ : R[Z1 , . . . , Zn ] → R q by
1

1

Zl 7→ c− q rlq and r 7→ r for all r ∈ R. Set σi = ϕ(si )c
we have the following equations
(6.1.2)

xj σi = c

Set

1

(i−1)N
q

iN
q

1

∈ R q for 1 ≤ i ≤ h. Then

N

ϕ(αij1 )σ1 + · · · + c q ϕ(αij(i−1) )σi−1 + c

d
X

iN
q

ϕ(βijk )xqk0

k=1

 hN
q
, when i odd and i < 2h + 1

c σ i+1
2
τi = σ i , when i even

 2
1, when i = 2h + 1
1

1

and Mj = R q τ1 + · · · + R q τj + (xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q for j = 1, . . . , 2h + 1, then by
1

equations in (6.1.2) we have a filtration of

0 = M0 ⊆

M1
1

(xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q

⊆ ··· ⊆

Rq

q

q

as

1

(x10 ,...,xd0 )R q

1

M2h+1
1

(xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q

=

Rq

1

(xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q

hN

M

in which Mj+1
is killed by (c q , xq10 , . . . , xqd0 ) when j is even and it is killed by
j
(x1 , . . . , xd ) when j is odd. Consequently, we have
1

λ(

Rq

1

1 ) ≤ hλ(

(xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q

1

Rq

1

(x1 , . . . , xd )R a

) + λ(

Rq
(c

hn
q

1

xq10 , . . . , xqd0 )R q

)

which is equivalent to
R
hN

R
R
(c q )
λ( qq0
) ≤ hλ( q
q ) + (h + 1)λ(
qq0
0
0
)
(x1 , . . . , xqq
(x
,
.
.
.
,
x
)
(x1 , . . . , xqq
1
d
d
d )

)

R
hN
(c q

)

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 21

and hence

(6.1.3)

R
λ( (xqq0 ,...,x
qq0 )
)
1

d

(qq0 )d
Letting q → ∞, we have

≤h

R
λ( (xq ,...,x
q )
)
1

d

(qq0 )d

λ(
+ (h + 1)

R
hN
(c q )
qq
qq
(x1 0 ,...,xd 0 )

R
hN
(c q )

)

(qq0 )d

h
ex (R) + 0
q0d
a contradiction since h < q0d , where ex (R) denotes the multiplicity of R with respect
to the ideal (x1 , . . . , xd ) and the limit of the second summand in the right hand
R
side in (6.1.3) is 0 because dim( hN
) < dim(R). This completes the proof.

ex (R) ≤

(c

q

)

The following corollary follows immediately from Theorem 6.1
Corollary 6.2. Let R be a Noetherian ring of characteristic p > 0 and assume
that R has a completely stable test element c, then for all ideals I of R one has
Ij = I ∗ for all j ≥ 1, where Ij is as in Definition 5.13. In particular,
I = I∗

for all ideals I.
Let u be an lement of R, if one system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd for R forms a
R[Z
P1n,...,Zn ] where {g1 , . . . , gn } is a
Q-sequence in the generic forcing algebra S = (u−
l=1 Zl gl )
set of generators of I, so does every system of parameters for R.
7. Q-sequences, superheight and Lyubeznik’s question
In this section, we investigate the connections between Q-sequences and superheight. First we recall the definition of superheight.
Definition 7.1 (superheight). Let R be a Noetherian commutative ring and I an
ideal of R. The superheight of I, denote by supht(I), is defined as
sup{htS (IS)|for all Noetherian R−algebras S}.
Remark 7.2. It follows immediately from [HH09, Theorem 4.7] that, if R contains
a field and supht((x1 , . . . , xn )) = n, then x1 , . . . , xn form a Q-sequence.
Given Remark 7.2, it is natural to ask:
Question 7.3. Assume that R contains a field and x1 , . . . , xn is a Q-sequence. Is
it true that supht((x1 , . . . , xn )) = n?
As we will see from the examples in this section, the answer to Question 7.3 is
false. We will give two examples, one in positive characteristic and the other in
characteristic 0.
2 (t)[x,y,z]
Example 7.4 (Brenner-Monsky Example). Let A = (z4 +xyzF̄2 +x
3 z+y 3 z+tx2 y 2 ) . As
shown in [BM10, Remark 4.1], the element x3 y 3 is contained in the tight closure
of (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ), but not in the plus closure of (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ). Since the sequence x, y
is a system of parameters in A, it follows immediately from Theorem 6.1 that the
sequence x, y forms a Q-sequence in the forcing algebra

R=

F̄2 (t)[x, y, z, u, v, w]
.
(z 4 + xyz 2 + x3 z + y 3 z + tx2 y 2 , x3 y 3 − ux4 − vy 4 − wz 4 )

22

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

However, since x3 y 3 is not in the plus closure of (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ), we claim that the
superheight of (x, y) as an ideal in R is 1 and we reason as follows. Assume that
supht((x, y)) = 2. According to a theorem by Koh ([Koh88, Theorem 1]), since R is
a finite algebra over a field, the finite superheight of (x, y) is also 2, i.e., there exists
a module-finite R-algebra R′ such that ht((x, y)R′ ) = 2. After localizing R′ at a
height-2 minimal prime over (x, y)R′ , we may assume that the dimension of R′ is 2
and x, y is a system of parameters in R′ . Since x, y is also a system of parameters
in A, we see that R′ is a module-finite A-algebra. Since x3 y 3 ∈ (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ) in R
and R′ is an R-algebra, we have x3 y 3 ∈ (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ) in R′ . This implies that x3 y 3 is
in the plus closure of (x4 , y 4 , z 4 ) in A, a contradiction.
Proposition 7.5. Let R = C[[x, y, z, u, v]]/(x3 + y 3 + z 3 , z 2 − ux − vy). Then the
sequence x, y is a Q-sequence, but supht((x, y)) = 1.
Proof. It is clear that R is the forcing algebra of the ring A = (xC[[x,y,z]]
3 +y 3 +z 3 ) , the ideal
2
I = (x, y) in A and the element z in A. Now x, y is a Q-sequence in R follows
from the fact that in A the element z 2 belongs to the big equational tight closure
of I (cf. [Hoc94, Example 12.7]).
Assume that supht((x, y)) is 2 and we seek for a contradiction. Let S be a
Noetherian R-algebra in which the height of (x, y)S is 2. After localizing and
completing S at a height-2 prime ideal containing (x, y)S, we may assume that
S is a 2-dimensional complete local ring. Let T = C[[x, y]] be the subring of S
generated by x, y over C. Since x, y is a system of parameter of S, we know that
T is a regular local ring. Still denote the image of z in S by z. Let T ′ = T [z] ⊆ S.
Since z satisfies x3 + y 3 + z 3 = 0 in R, it still satisfies the equation in S. Hence
there is a surjection A ։ T ′ . Since A is a 2-dimensional domain and the dimension
of T ′ is also 2, we must have A ∼
= T ′ . Since A is normal, so is T ′ . Since in R we
2
have z = ux + vy, the same equation holds in S. This implies that the element
z 2 in T ′ is in (x, y)S ∩ T ′ . Since T ′ is normal, z 2 must be contained in (x, y) in
/ (x, y) in A, a contradiction.

T′ ∼
= A. However, this is impossible since z 2 ∈
It turns out that Proposition 7.5 can be used to give a negative answer to part
(2) of the following question raised by Gennady Lyubeznik in [Lyu02].
Question 7.6 (page 144 in [Lyu02]). Let (R, m) be a complete local domain with
a separably closed residue field.
(1) Find necessary and sufficient condition on I such that HIj (M ) = 0 for all
integers j ≥ dim(R) − 1 and all R-modules M .
(2) Let I be a prime ideal. Is it true that HIj (M ) = 0 for all integers j ≥
dim(R) − 1 and all R-modules M if and only if (P + I) is not primary to
the maximal ideal for any prime ideal P of height 1?
Proposition 7.7. Let R =

C[[x,y,z,u,v]]
(x3 +y 3 +z 3 ,z 2 −ux−vy)

and I = (x, y, z). Then

(1) (P + I) is not primary to the maximal ideal of R for any prime ideal P of
height 1; and
(2) HI2 (R) 6= 0.
In particular, the answer to Question 7.6(2) is negative.
Proof. Since we have proved that the superheight of (x, y) in the ring
R=

C[[x, y, z, u, v]]
(x3 + y 3 + z 3 , z 2 − ux − vy)

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 23

is 1, it is clear that (x, y, z) + P is not m-primary for any height-1 prime ideal P of
R (otherwise, in the ring R/P , the height of (x, y) would be 2). However, we claim
2
that H(x,y,z)
(R) 6= 0. One can either see this from the fact that in A the element
1
2
] is
z is contained in the solid closure of (x, y), or verify directly that the class [ xy
2
not 0 in H(x,y,z) (R).

Remark 7.8. Note that, in the ring RI , the ideal IRI is 2-generated; hence R
is not normal by Serre’s criterion (I is a height-1 prime). Or, by the Jacobian
criterion, one can see that the singular locus is actually defined by I and hence
R is not normal. To obtain a counterexample to Question 7.6(2) that is a normal
domain, we consider the normalization R′ of R.
2
2
It is straightforward to check that the fraction w = y +zv
= −x y−zu satisfies the
x
equation
w3 − xzu + 2yzv + y 3 − u3 + v 3 = 0
and hence w is integral over R. Also one can check that R′ = R[w], i.e., R′ =
C[[x, y, z, u, v, w]]/ P, where P is the ideal of C[[x, y, z, u, v, w]] generated by the
elements z 2 − xu − yv, yw + x2 + zu, xw − y 2 − zv, zw2 + xyz + yu2 + xv 2 , and
w3 − xzu + 2yzv + y 3 − u3 + v 3 . By an argument similar to the one above, we
see that, in R′ , we have that I + Q is not primary to the maximal ideal for each
height one prime Q. We claim that HI2 (R′ ) 6= 0 and we reason as follows. Since
t
z is contained in the radical of (x, y)R′ , we know that HIt (M ) = H(x,y)
(M ) for
′
all integers t and all R -modules M . It is clear that xw and yw are in R. Thus,
′
(x, y) RR = 0 since R′ = R[w]. This implies that R′ /R is (x, y)-torsion, therefore
t
1
2
H(x,y)
(R′ /R) = 0 for all t ≥ 1. In particular, H(x,y)
(R′ /R) = H(x,y)
(R′ /R) = 0.
Now the short exact sequence 0 → R → R′ → R′ /R → 0 induces an exact sequence
of local cohomology modules
1
2
2
2
· · · → H(x,y)
(R′ /R) → H(x,y)
(R) → H(x,y)
(R′ ) → H(x,y)
(R′ /R) → · · ·

2
2
Therefore, HI2 (R′ ) = H(x,y)
(R) = HI2 (R) 6= 0.
(R′ ) ∼
= H(x,y)

Remark 7.9. An immediate consequence of [HL90, Theorem 2.5] is the following
Let (R, m) be a d-dimensional equal-characteristic complete local domain with a
separably closed residue field. Let I be a prime ideal of R. Assume that embdim(R)−
mdim(R/I) < d − 1. Then
HId−1 (M ) = HId (M ) = 0

for all R-modules M .
In Proposition 7.7, R is a 3-dimensional complete intersection where embdim(R)−
mdim(R/I) = 2 = d − 1 and HI2 (R) 6= 0. This indicates that, without further assumptions on R and I, the bound embdim(R) − mdim(R/I) < d − 1 is sharp.
8. Questions, conjectures, and related problems
In this section we have collected some questions and conjectures related to the
behavior of quasilength and content.
Conjecture 8.1. In a complete local domain R of mixed characteristic, every system of parameters is a Q-sequence (equivalently, R is robust as an R-algebra).
The Conjecture above implies the direct summand conjecture at once (cf. [HH09,
Remark 4.8]).

24

MELVIN HOCHSTER AND WENLIANG ZHANG

Question 8.2. Let R be a complete local domain of mixed characteristic, and
z1 , . . . , xd a system
of parameters. Is it true that (x1 , . . . , xk )R :R xk+1 ⊆

(x1 , . . . , xk )R . That is, does robust closure have the colon-capturing property?
Question 8.3. If R → S is a local homomorphism of complete local domains and
r ∈ I , where I ⊆ R, is the image of r in S in (IS) ? An affirmative answer gives
a form of persistence for robust closure.
Affirmative answers to these questions would imply the following Conjecture,
whose statement does not refer to robust closure.
Conjecture 8.4. Let (R, m) be d-dimensional complete local domain of mixed characteristic p. Assume that p, x2 , . . . , xd is a system of parameters. Let R := R/pR.
Let J = (x2 , . . . , xd )R, and let Jn = (x2 , . . . , xd ) :R pn ⊆ R. Then for all n > 0,
Jn R ⊆ (JR)∗ .
The point is that Jn would be in J , and this would persist when we map to
R/pR. But in R/pR, robust closure coincides with tight closure. We prove below
that Conjecture 8.4 suffices to prove the direct summand conjecture. We also prove
that it holds in dimension at most 3. This argument in dimension 3 needs very
difficult results of Heitmann ([Hei05, Theorem 0.2]). However, which can be used
to prove the direct summand conjecture in several ways.
Theorem 8.5. Conjecture 8.4 implies the Monomial Conjecture (or equivalently
the Direct Summand Conjecture).
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that R is a complete local domain
of mixed characteristic. Assume the Monomial Conjecture does not hold in R, i.e.
there is a system of parameters p = x1 , . . . , xd of R such that (x1 , · · · xd )t−1 ∈
(xt1 , . . . , xtd ) for some integer t ≥ 2 (we may choose x1 = p by [Hoc83, page 539]).
This will imply that there are elements r1 , . . . , rd such that
xt−1
1 ((x2

t−1

· · · xd )

− r1 x1 ) =

d
X

ri xti .

i=2

Hence (x̄2 · · · x̄d )t−1 ∈ (x̄2 , . . . , x̄d )∗ in R̄ := R/x1 R = R/pR, where x̄i denotes
d−1
the image of xi in R̄. Then by [Hoc94, Theorem 8.6(b)], H(x
(S) 6= 0 where
2 ,...,xd )
R̄[Z2 ,...,Zd ]
P
t . However, since R̄ and hence S contain a
((x̄2 ···x̄d )t−1 − d
i=2 Zi x̄i )
d−1
1
1
pe
acteristic p, we have [ (x2 ···x
= 0 ∈ H(x
(S);
pe ] = [ (x ···x ) ]
2
2 ,...,xd )
d
d)
d−1
H(x2 ,...,xd ) (S) = 0, a contradiction.

S=

field of char-

consequently


Theorem 8.6. Conjecture 8.4 holds in dimension 3.
Proof. Let (R, m) be a 3-dimensional complete local domain of mixed characteristic.
Let p, x, y be a system of parameters of R and Jn = (x, y) :R pn . it suffices
to show that Jn R ⊆ (JR)∗ , where R = R/ p, for each minimal prime ideal p
of p. Assume that u ∈ Jn for some n, i.e. upn ∈ (x, y) for some n, then by
[Hei05, Theorem 0.2], for any nonzero element c ∈ m and every q = pe one has
c1/q u ∈ (x, y)R+ . This holds true after modding out p, and therefore we have in
+
R := R/ p that c̄1/q ū ∈ (x̄, ȳ)R . Then it follows from [HH91, Theorem 3.1] that
∗
∗

ū ∈ (x̄, ȳ) = (JR) . The finishes the proof.

CONTENT OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY, PARAMETER IDEALS, AND ROBUST ALGEBRAS 25

Question 8.7. Is it always true that hdx (R) = hdx (R)? This is true in positive
characteristic as shown in [HH09, Theorem 3.9]. We do not even know whether the
weaker statement that if hdx (R) = 0 then hdx (R) = 0 is true.
Question 8.8. Let R be regular of characteristic p > 0, let I be a prime ideal with
x1 , . . . , xn a minimal set of generators. If h < n , is it true that hnx (R) = 0?
Question 8.9. Assume that
S1 = R[Y1 , . . . , Yn ]/(u −

n
X
l=1

Yl gl ) and S2 = R[Z1 , . . . , Zn ]/(v −

n
X

Zl gl )

l=1

satisfy hdx (S1 ) = hdx (S2 ) = 1, then do we have
hdx (S1 ⊗R S2 ) = 1?
References
[Bre03] H. Brenner: How to rescue solid closure, J. Algebra 265 (2003), no. 2, 579–605. 1987018
(2004e:13007)

[BM10] H. Brenner and P. Monsky: Tight closure does not commute with localization, Ann.
of Math. (2) 171 (2010), no. 1, 571–588. 2630050 (2011d:13005)
[Hei05] R. C. Heitmann: Extended plus closure and colon-capturing, J. Algebra 293 (2005),
no. 2, 407–426. 2172347 (2007d:13005)
[Hoc83] M. Hochster: Canonical elements in local cohomology modules and the direct summand
conjecture, J. Algebra 84 (1983), no. 2, 503–553. 723406
[Hoc94] M. Hochster: Solid closure, Commutative algebra: syzygies, multiplicities, and birational algebra (South Hadley, MA, 1992), Contemp. Math., vol. 159, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 103–172. 1266182 (95a:13011)
[HH91] M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Tight closure and elements of small order in integral
extensions, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 71 (1991), no. 2-3, 233–247. 1117636 (92i:13002)
[HH09] M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Quasilength, latent regular sequences, and content of
local cohomology, J. Algebra 322 (2009), no. 9, 3170–3193. 2567415 (2011a:13036)
[HL90] C. Huneke and G. Lyubeznik: On the vanishing of local cohomology modules, Invent.
Math. 102 (1990), no. 1, 73–93. 1069240 (91i:13020)
[Koh88] J. Koh: Super height of an ideal in a Noetherian ring, J. Algebra 116 (1988), no. 1, 1–6.
944148 (89c:13021)

[Lyu02] G. Lyubeznik: A partial survey of local cohomology, Local cohomology and its applications (Guanajuato, 1999), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol. 226, Dekker,
New York, 2002, pp. 121–154. 1888197 (2003b:14006)
[Rob94] P. C. Roberts: A computation of local cohomology, Commutative algebra: syzygies,
multiplicities, and birational algebra (South Hadley, MA, 1992), Contemp. Math., vol.
159, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 351–356. 1266191 (95f:13022)
[SV86] J. Stückrad and W. Vogel: Buchsbaum rings and applications, Mathematische
Monographien [Mathematical Monographs], vol. 21, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1986, An interaction between algebra, geometry, and topology. 873945
(88h:13011b)

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
E-mail address: hochster@umich.edu
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of Illinois,
Chicago, IL 60607, USA
E-mail address: wlzhang@uic.edu

