CONTINUITY OF HILBERT-KUNZ MULTIPLICITY AND F-SIGNATURE

arXiv:1707.04366v2 [] 17 Aug 2017

THOMAS POLSTRA AND ILYA SMIRNOV
Abstract. We establish the continuity of Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and F-signature as
functions from a Cohen-Macaulay local ring (R, m, k) of prime characteristic to the real
numbers at reduced parameter elements with respect to the m-adic topology.

1. Introduction
In this paper we consider the problem of determining when two rings have similar singularities. As a motivating example let R = k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] be the power series ring in n
variables over a field k and f ∈ R. If we add a term of sufficiently high order to f , will the
new singularity be similar to that of f ?
The origin of the above question can be traced at least as far back as 1956. Samuel
([Sam56]) proved if the Jacobian ideal J(f ) of f is m-primary and if f −g ∈ (x1 , . . . , xn )J(f )2 ,
then there is an automorphism ϕ : R → R such that ϕ(f ) = g. In particular, Samuel’s result
asserts that if f has an isolated singularity and g is sufficiently close to f , then the rings
R/(f ) and R/(g) are isomorphic. Samuel’s result was furthered by Hironaka ([Hir65]): if
R/I is a reduced and equidimensional isolated singularity, then there is an integer e > 0
such that for any ideal J that also defines a reduced and equidimensional singularity of same
dimension and if I ≡ J mod (x1 , . . . , xn )e then R/I ∼
= R/J.
More recently, Cutkosky and Srinivasan have extended Samuel’s result to include all complete intersection prime ideals and Hironaka’s theorem to to all reduced equidimensional
ideals. See ([CS93]) for precise statements.
However, when f ∈ k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] does not have an isolated singularity, the results of
Samuel, Hironaka, and Cutkosky and Srinivasan do not allow us to relate the singularities
of R/(f ) with the singularities of R/(g). To compare the singularity of R/(f ) with the
singularity of R/(g) we first require a formal notion of “closeness” of singularities. For
example, one could require the Hilbert-Samuel functions of R/(f ) and R/(g) to coincide.
Srinivas and Trivedi ([ST97]) have shown if I = (f1 , . . . , fh ) is a complete intersection, or
more generally if I is a parameter ideal in a generalized Cohen-Macaulay ring, then the
associated graded rings of I and an ideal J = (f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fh + ǫh ) will be isomorphic,
provided ǫ1 , . . . ǫh are in a sufficiently large power of the maximal ideal.
We now turn our attention to numerical invariants in positive characteristic. In particular,
we introduce and explore the behavior of F-pure threshold, Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity, and
F-signature with respect to m-adic topologies. In what follows, let (R, m) be a local ring of
prime characteristic p. Let F : R → R denote the Frobenius endomorphism. Given ideal
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D40, 13A35, 13H15, 14B05.
Key words and phrases. Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity, F-signature, F-pure threshold.
Polstra was supported in part by NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship DMS #1703856.
1

e

e

I ⊆ R and e ∈ N let I [p ] = (ip | i ∈ I) be the expansion of I along F e . We shall always
assume R is F-finite, meaning that F is a finite map.
The study of F-pure thresholds was initiated by Takagi and Watanabe ([TW04]). If
(R, m, k) is regular then the F-pure threshold of an element f ∈ R can be defined as the
e
limit fpt(f ) = lim νep(fe ) where νe (f ) = max{t ∈ N | f t 6∈ m[p ] }. Two elementary observations
e→∞

concerning F-pure thresholds are that if f, g ∈ R then fpt(f + g) 6 fpt(f ) + fpt(g) and that
e
if f ∈ m[p 0 ] then fpt(f ) 6 p1e0 . From these observations it follows that the F-pure threshold
function is continuous as a function from R → R: specifically, if f ∈ R and δ > 0 then there
exists N ∈ N such that for all g ∈ R such that f − g ∈ mN , | fpt(f ) − fpt(g)| < δ. Continuity
of the F-pure threshold function motivates studying continuity properties of Hilbert-Kunz
multiplicity and F-signature and sheds light onto the problem of relating the singularities of
R/(f ) with R/(g) when f and g are suitably close.
In 1983, Paul Monsky, building on the earlier work of Ernst Kunz ([Kun69, Kun76]),
defined a new invariant, the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of R, as the limit
e

λ(R/m[p ] )
.
eHK (R) = lim
e→∞
ped
Monsky ([Mon83]) showed that this limit always exists. Values of eHK (R) dictate the severity
of the singularities of R. Most notable is that under mild hypotheses eHK (R) > 1 with
equality if and only if R is regular ([WY00]). It has also been shown in ([BE04, AE08]) that
small enough values of eHK (R) imply R is Gorenstein and strongly F-regular. To be able to
relate the singularities of R/(f ) and R/(g) when f and g are suitably close it is natural to
investigate the following question, which was originally asked to the second author by Luis
Núñez-Betancourt:
Question 1.1. Let (R, m, k) be a regular local ring of prime characteristic. Is the HilbertKunz multiplicity function defined by f 7→ eHK (R/(f )) a continuous function in the m-adic
topology? Namely, if f ∈ R is an element and we are given δ > 0, can we find an integer N
such that for all g ∈ R such that f − g ∈ mN ,
|eHK (R/(f )) − eHK (R/(g))| < δ?
We now turn our attention to F-signature. Given finitely generated R-module M we let
frk(M) denote the largest rank of a free R-module F for which there is a surjection M → F .
The F-signature of (R, m, k) was defined by Huneke and Leuschke ([HL02]) as the limit
e

frk(R1/p )
e .
e→∞ rank(R1/p )

s(R) = lim
e

The number frk(R1/p ) will be denoted by ae (R) and refered to as the eth Frobenius
splitting number of R. Tucker ([Tuc12]) showed existence of the above limit for all local
rings.1 F-signature is a measurement of singularities: in particular, s(R) 6 1 with equality
if and only if R is regular by ([HL02]) and s(R) > 0 if and only if R is strongly F-regular by
([AL03]). As with Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity, it is natural to relate the singularities of R/(f )
with R/(g) by investigating continuity properties of F-signature with respect to the m-adic
topology.
1The

existence of the above limit has been recently established without the local hypothesis in ([DPY16]).
2

Question 1.2. Let (R, m, k) be a regular local ring of prime characteristic. Is the F-signature
function defined by f 7→ s(R/(f )) a continuous function with respect to the m-adic topology?
Namely, if f ∈ R is an element and we are given δ > 0, can we find an integer N such that
for all g ∈ R such that f − g ∈ mN
|s(R/(f )) − s(R/(g))| < δ?
We are able to answer Question 1.1 and Question 1.2, provided that f has no multiple
factors, i.e., R/(f ) is reduced. Our main contribution is the following theorem:
Theorem 1.3. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay F-finite ring of prime characteristic p > 0. If (f1 , . . . , fc ) is a parameter ideal such that R/(f1 , . . . , fc ) is reduced then for
any δ > 0 there exists an integer N > 0 such that for any ǫ1 , . . . , ǫc ∈ mN :
(1) (Corollary 3.7) | eHK (R/(f1 , . . . , fc )) − eHK (R/(f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc ))| < δ, and
(2) (Theorem 3.12) | s(R/(f1 , . . . , fc )) − s(R/(f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc ))| < δ.
We show that Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and F-signature functions are the uniform limit of
functions which are locally constant with respect to the m-adic topology. Naively, one might
also expect the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and F-signature functions are locally constant with
respect to the m-adic topology: eHK (R/(f )) = eHK (R/(g)) and s(R/(f )) = s(R/(g)) can be
forced by making f − g is sufficiently small. We point that this cannot hold for Hilbert-Kunz
multiplicity in Example 4.1 and for F-signature in Example 4.2.
Similar to a number of recent developments in the study of invariants in prime characteristic rings, the proof of Theorem 1.3 comes by showing uniform convergence of continuous
functions. We get our uniform convergence result by using the methods of Polstra and Tucker
([PT16]), where it was shown that suitable Noether normalizations provide a kind of “canonical” convergence estimate. The essential reason is that when R is a module-finite generically
d
separable extension of a regular local ring A, then R[A1/p ] ∼
= R⊕p . The “canonicity” in our
construction comes from discriminants, and we show that the discriminant of R/(f ) does
not “change” much when f changes slightly (Lemma 3.3). This allows us to show that one
can control the convergence rate of Hilbert-Kunz function uniformly, independent of a small
perturbation (Theorem 3.5).
2. Preliminary Results
Definition 2.1. Let A be a ring and R a finite A-algebra which is free as an A-module. Let
e1 , . . . , en be a basis of R as an A-module. The discriminant of R is


Tr(e21 ) Tr(e1 e2 ) · · · Tr(e1 en )
 Tr(e2 e1 ) Tr(e22 ) · · · Tr(e2 en )
.
DA (R) = det 
..
..
..


.
.
···
.
Tr(en e1 ) Tr(en e2 ) · · ·

Tr(e2n )

Up to multiplication by a unit of A, the discriminant is independent of choice of basis.

If A is a regular local ring and R is a finite Cohen-Macaulay extension of A, then R is
necessarily a free A-module by the Auslander-Buchsbaum formula, and thus the discriminant of R over A is well-defined. We begin by recording some well-known and useful facts
concerning discriminants.
3

Proposition 2.2. Let A be a ring and R a finitely generated A-algebra which is free as an
A-module.
(1) If A is a normal domain, then DA (R) ∈ A.
(2) If I is an ideal of A then the image of DA (R) in R/IR is DA/I (R/IR).
(3) If A is a domain then the ring R is generically separable over A if and only if DA (R) 6=
0.
Proof. We refer the reader to [Hoca, Page 200] for a proof of (1). For (2), if e1 , ..., en ∈ R form
a basis of R as an A-module then the images of e1 , ..., en form a basis of R/IR as an A/IAmodule. Moreover, if x ∈ R and x denotes the image of x in R/IR, then Tr(x) = Tr(x).
Hence the image of DA (R) in R/IR is indeed DA/I (R/IR).
For (3), as a first step, let L be the fraction field of
P A. We observe that DA (R) =
DL (R ⊗A L), since the decomposition
of an element a = ai ei over A can be considered as
P
a decomposition of a ⊗ 1 =
ai ei ⊗ 1 of an element a ⊗ 1 over L and ei ⊗ 1 still form a
basis of R ⊗A L over L. Thus we can replace R by R ⊗A L and assume A = L is a field. It is
well-known that DL (R) 6= 0 if R is a finite separable field extension of L. By linearity this
can be extended to the product and show one direction.
For the other direction, we first show that R is reduced. Let N be the nilradical of R and
k be the largest integer such that N k 6= 0. Since N k is an ideal, it is a vector space over L
and we can extend a basis of it to a basis of R. Let x ∈ N k be an element of a such basis.
Now observe that Tr(xe) = 0 for any element e ∈ R, since x2 e = 0 and this gives a zero row
in the trace matrix. This shows that Tr gives a degenerate bilinear form and DL (R) = 0.
Since R is reduced and finite over L, it is a direct sum of fields. Again, by linearity we can
see that each of these fields must be separable over L.

Let (R, m, k) be a complete local ring of positive characteristic p > 0 with the residue
field k. Cohen’s structure theorem shows that there is an injection φ : k → R such that the
induced map to R/m is an isomorphism. We call φ(k) a coefficient field. Moreover, Cohen’s
structure theorem asserts that for any system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd the k-subalgebra
of R generated by the system of parameters, k[x1 , . . . , xn ], is isomorphic to a polynomial
ring. Since R is complete, it therefore contains the completion A = k[[x1 , . . . , xd ]] and, since
x1 , . . . , xd form a system of parameters, R is module-finite over A. Of course, there is a
lot of freedom in choosing a system of parameters; the Cohen-Gabber Theorem asserts that
x1 , . . . , xd can be chosen so that R is generically separable over k[[x1 , . . . , xd ]].
Theorem 2.3 ([GO08]2). Let (R, m, k) be a reduced complete local ring of equidimension
d and of prime characteristic p. There exists a system of parameters x1 , ..., xd of R and
coefficient field k ⊆ R such that R is finite and generically separable over the power series
ring k[[x1 , . . . , xd ]].
It is useful to keep in mind that that generic separability is equivalent to generic étaleness.
3. Main Theorem and its applications
We say that a sequence f1 , . . . , fc ∈ m is a parameter sequence if dim R/(f1 , . . . , fi+1 ) <
dim R/(f1 , . . . , fi ) for all i. We use f to denote a sequence of elements f1 , . . . , fc . If I is an
ideal, we say f ∈ (I)⊕c if each element is in I. We add sequences component-wise, so f + g
2We

refer the reader to ([KS15]) for an elementary proof of Theorem 2.3.
4

is the sequence f1 + g1 , · · · , fc + gc . We will use λ(M) to denote the length of a module, and
µ(M) to denote the minimal number of generators.
We borrow the following property observed in [ST97, Lemma 1].
Lemma 3.1. Let (R, m, k) be a local ring and f ∈ (m)⊕c be a parameter sequence. Then for
any ideal I such that λ(R/(I, f )) is finite, there exists N > 0 such that for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
(I, f ) = (I, f + ǫ).
In particular, λ(R/(I, f )) = λ(R/(I, f + ǫ) for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c .
Proof. Take N such that mN ⊆ (I, f ). Then (I, f ) = (I, f + ǫ) for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c .



As observed in [ST97, Lemma 2], a small enough perturbation of a system of parameters
remains a system of parameters.
Corollary 3.2. Let (R, m, k) be a local ring. Suppose f ∈ (m)⊕c is a part of a system of
parameters. Then there exists N ∈ N such that for each ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c , f + ǫ is a part of a
system of parameters.
Proof. Let d be the dimension of the ring. We may complete f to a full system of parameters
f , y1, . . . , yd−c . Setting I = (y1 , . . . , yd−c ) in the previous lemma we obtain N such that for
any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
(f1 , . . . , fc , y1, . . . , yd−c ) = (f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc , y1 , . . . , yd−c ).
In particular f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc , y1 , . . . , yd−c are d elements that generate an m-primary ideal,
so they form a system of parameters.

Lemma 3.3. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay local ring with coefficient field k ⊆
R and let f1 , . . . , fc , x1 , . . . xd−c be a system of parameters for R. Let A = k[[T1 , . . . , Td−c ]]
be the power series ring in d − c variables over the field k. There exists C > 0 such that for
all n > 1 and all ǫ ∈ (mCn )⊕c ,
f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc , x1 , . . . , xd−c
is a system of parameters and
DA (R/(f )) ≡ DA (R/(f + ǫ))

(mod mnA ),

where R/(f ) and R/(f + ǫ) are A-algebras by mapping Ti 7→ xi and identifying the coefficient
field of A with the induced coefficient fields of R/(f ) and R/(f + ǫ).
Proof. We can choose C as in Lemma 3.1, so for all ǫ ∈ (mC )⊕c (f + ǫ, x1 , . . . , xd−c ) =
(f , x1 , . . . , xd−c ) and thus f + ǫ, x1 , . . . , xd−c is a system of parameters. Hence R/(f ) and
R/(f +ǫ) are free A-modules of the same rank λA (R/(f , x1 , . . . , xd−c )). Moreover, if r1 , ..., rn ∈
R are chosen so that their images in R/(f ) serve as a basis for R/(f ) as an A-module, then
for each ǫ ∈ (mC )⊕c the images of r1 , ..., rn in R/(f + ǫ) form a basis for R/(f + ǫ) as an
A-module.
5

Observe that for each n > 1, mCn ⊆ (x1 , . . . , xd−c )n + (f ). Thus for each ǫ ∈ (mCn )⊕c ,
R/(f , mnA ) = R/(f + ǫ, mnA ) as A/mnA -algebras. Then by part (2) of Lemma 2.2
DA (R/(f )) mod mnA R/(f ) = DA/mnA (R/(f , mnA ))
= DA/mnA (R/(f + ǫ, mnA ))
= DA (R/(f + ǫ))

mod mnA R/(f + ǫ),

where the middle equality holds since we have a common basis r1 , ..., rn ∈ R for R/(f + ǫ)
and R/(f ) as A-modules.

Suppose (R, m, k) satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 3.3. The following corollary shows
that if f ∈ m is a parameter element and R/(f ) is generically separable over a regular ring
A, then R/(g) is generically separable over the same regular local ring A, provided g is a
small enough perturbation of f .
Corollary 3.4. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay local ring with coefficient field
k ⊆ R. Let f1 , . . . , fc , x1 , . . . , xd−c be a system of parameters for R. Let A = k[[T1 , . . . , Td−c ]]
be the power series ring in d − c variables over the field k and consider R/(f ) is an A-algebra
by mapping Ti 7→ xi and identifying the coefficient field of A with the induced coefficient field
of R/(f ). Suppose that A ⊆ R/(f ) is generically separable. Then there exists N > 1 such
that for any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c , A ⊆ R/(f + ǫ) is generically separable as an A-algebra given by
mapping Ti 7→ xi and identifying the coefficient field of A with the induced coefficient field
of R/(f + ǫ).
Proof. The assumption R/(f ) is generically separable over A is equivalent to DA (R/(f )) 6= 0
by Part (1) of Lemma 2.2. Let C > 0 as given by Lemma 3.3. By Krull’s intersection
theorem we can choose n > 1 so that DA (R/(f )) 6≡ 0 mod mnA . Then for any ǫ ∈ (mCn )⊕c ,

DA (R/(f + ǫ)) ≡ DA (R/(f )) mod mnA 6= 0, so DA (R/(f + ǫ)) 6= 0.
3.1. Continuity of Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity. It is time to set up the uniform convergence machinery. We closely follow [PT16, Lemma 2.3, Theorem 3.2].
Let (R, m, k) be an F-finite local ring and I be an m-primary ideal. Then F∗e R ⊗R R/I ∼
=
e
[pe ]
F∗ R/I
and we may compute
λR (F∗ R ⊗R R/I) = [k : k p ] λR (R/I [p] ).
Theorem 3.5. Let (R, m, k) be an F-finite Cohen-Macaulay local ring of prime characteristic
p and of dimension d + c. If f = f1 , . . . , fc is a parameter sequence such that R̂/(f )R̂ is
reduced, then there exists a constant C > 0 and an integer N > 1 such that for any e > 1
and ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c


e 
[pe+1 ]
) − pd λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) 6 Cpe(d−1) .
λ R/(f + ǫ, m
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume R is complete. Because R is CohenMacaulay, R/(f ) is equidimensional and reduced. By Theorem 2.3 there exists coefficient
field k ⊆ R/(f ) and parameters x1 , ..., xd ∈ R such that x1 , ..., xd is a system of parameters
for R/(f ) and R/(f ) is module finite and generically separable over the regular local ring
A := k[[x1 , . . . , xd ]].
6

We observe that the coefficient field can be lifted from R/(f ) to R. Essentially, the proof
of [Mat86, Theorem 28.3] shows that a coefficient field is determined by the lifts of a p-basis
of k (see also [Hocb, Theorem, page 12]). Thus we may just lift the p-basis to R.
By Lemma 6.5 of [HH90] (the proof still holds if we replace R∞ by R1/p ), we have an exact
sequence
0 → R/(f )[A1/p ] → (R/(f ))1/p → M → 0
where 0 6= c = DA (R/(f )) annihilates M.
By Lemma 3.3 and Corollary 3.4, we can find N such that A ⊆ R/(f +ǫ) is still generically
separable. Therefore we have an exact sequence
0 → R/(f + ǫ)[A1/p ] → (R/(f + ǫ))1/p → Mǫ → 0
where cǫ = DA (R/(f + ǫ)) annihilates Mǫ and cǫ − c ∈ mN
A.
1/p
p d
By [Kun69] A is a free A-module of rank [k : k ]p , so tensoring the above sequence
e
with m[p ] we get that



e+1
e 
e
[k : k p ] λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) − [k : k p ]pd λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) 6 λ Mǫ /m[p ] Mǫ .
Since Mǫ is a R/(f + ǫ, cǫ )-module and a quotient of (R/(f + ǫ))1/p ,


e
e 
λ Mǫ /m[p ] Mǫ 6 λ R/(f + ǫ, cǫ , m[p ] ) µ (R/(f + ǫ))1/p .
Furthermore, it easily follows from the inclusion (x1 , . . . , xd ) ⊆ m that


µ (R/(f + ǫ))1/p 6 λ (R/(xp1 , . . . , xpd , f + ǫ))1/p ,

thus




µ (R/(f + ǫ))1/p 6 [k : k p ] λ R/(xp1 , . . . , xpd , f + ǫ) 6 [k : k p ]pd λ R/(x1 , . . . , xd , f ) ,

where the last inequality follows by filtration.
Now, we can complete 0 6= c to a system of parameters c, t1 , . . . , td−1 in A and, after
increasing N if necessarily, by Lemma 3.3 we can assume that cǫ , t1 , . . . , td−1 is still a system
of parameters and that (f + ǫ, cǫ , t1 , . . . , td−1 ) = (f , c, t1 , . . . , td−1 ). Therefore



e
e
e 
λ R/(f + ǫ, cǫ , m[p ] ) 6 λ R/(f + ǫ, cǫ , tp1 , . . . , tpd−1 ) 6 pe(d−1) λ R/(f , c, t1 , . . . , td−1 ) .

Let

C = pd λ(R/(f , c, t1 , . . . , td−1 )) λ(R/(x1 , . . . , xd , f ))
and observe that we found one of the two required inequalities:


e 
[pe+1 ]
λ R/(f + ǫ, m
) − pd λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) 6 Cpe(d−1) .
For the other inequality, we can repeat the proof for the exact sequence
c

→ R/(f )[A1/p ] → L → 0
0 → (R/(f ))1/p −
where the map is multiplication by c = DA (R/(f )). Again the cokernel is annihilated by c,
because R/(f )[A1/p ] ⊆ (R/(f ))1/p . Moreover, we get for each ǫ a short exact sequence
cǫ

→ R/(f + ǫ)[A1/p ] → Lǫ → 0.
0 → (R/(f + ǫ))1/p −
7

Most of the proof carries through as above, except that now we estimate


e
e 
e 
λ Lǫ /m[p ] Lǫ 6 µ R/(f )[A1/p ] λ R/(f + ǫ, cǫ , m[p ] ) = [k : k p ]pd λ R/(f + ǫ, cǫ , m[p ] )

and from there obtain



e 
e+1
pd λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) − λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) 6 pd [k : k p ] λ(R/(f , c, t1 , . . . , td−1 )) pe(d−1) .



Following the proof of [Tuc12, Theorem 3.6], we obtain the following corollary:
Corollary 3.6. Let (R, m, k) be an F-finite Cohen-Macaulay local ring of prime characteristic p and of dimension d + c. If f is a parameter sequence of length c and such that R̂/(f )R̂
is reduced, then there exists a constant C > 0 and an integer N > 1 such that for any e > 1
and ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
e 
eHK (R/(f + ǫ)) − p−ed λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) 6 Cp−e .
Continuity of Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity follows from Corollary 3.6.

Corollary 3.7. Let (R, m, k) be a Cohen-Macaulay F-finite local ring of prime characteristic
p and dimension d + c. If f is a parameter sequence of length c and such that R̂/(f )R̂ is
reduced, then for any δ > 0 there exists an integer N > 0 such that for any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
eHK (R/(f )) − eHK (R/(f + ǫ)) < δ.
Proof. By Lemma 3.1, for any given e there exists N such that
e 
e 
λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) = λ R/(f , m[p ] )

for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c . By Corollary 3.6, we may further assume that for some constant C > 0
1
e 
eHK (R/(f + ǫ)) − ed λ R/(f + ǫ, m[p ] ) < Cp−e .
p
Thus
| eHK (R/(f + ǫ)) − eHK (R/(f ))| < 2Cp−e
and the claim follows.

3.2. Continuity of F-signature. To establish continuity of F-signature we will need an
effective way of comparing the eth Frobenius splitting numbers of rings which are the homomorphic image of a common ring. We begin by recalling an effective method which allows
us to measure Frobenius splitting numbers in rings which are approximately Gorenstein
([Hoc77]).
Lemma 3.8. Let (R, m, k) be an F-finite approximately Gorenstein ring, that is there exists
a descending chain of m-primary ideals {It } cofinal with {mt }. Let ut generate the socle
modulo It .
e
e
[pe ]
(1) Then for each e there exists te such that ae (R) = [k : k p ] λ(R/(It :R upt )) for all
t > te .
(2) If R is Cohen-Macaulay and J ⊆ R is an ideal of R isomorphic to the canonical modt
t
ule of R and x1 ∈ J is not a zerodivisor, then It can be taken to be (xt−1
1 J, x2 , . . . , xd )
where x2 , . . . , xd is a system of parameters for R/J. Moreover, u generates the socle
mod (J, x2 , . . . , xd ) then ut := (x1 · · · xd )t−1 generates the socle mod It .
8

(3) Under the assumptions and notation of (2), there exists te such that
e

e

e

ae (R) = [k : k p ] λ(R/(J, xt2 , . . . , xtd )[p ] :R (x2 · · · xd )tp )
for all t > te .
We refer the reader to ([PT16, Lemma 6.2]) and the proof of ([PT16, Corollary 6.6]) for
details.
Lemma 3.9. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay domain of dimension at least
c + 1, not necessarily of prime characteristic. Let f be a regular sequence of length c and
such that R/(f ) is generically Gorenstein. Then there exists a canonical ideal J ⊆ R such
that the ideal J + (f ) of R/(f ) is the canonical module of R/(f ). Moreover, there exists
N ∈ N such that for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c , the ideal (f + ǫ, J)/(f ) of R/(f + ǫ) is the canonical
module of R/(f + ǫ).
Proof. Recall that R has a canonical ideal ω if and only if it is generically Gorenstein ([BH93,
Proposition 3.3.18]). We also recall that R is generically Gorenstein if and only if RPi is
Gorenstein for any minimal prime Pi of R.
Let S = R\∪Pi where Pi are the minimal primes of (f ). Then S −1 ω ⊆ S −1 R is a canonical
module of S −1 R and, since S −1 R is Gorenstein, S −1 ω = (u) is a principal ideal, and we may
assume that u ∈ ω. This means that there exists s ∈ S such that for some ideal J in R,
sω = uJ ⊆ uR.
Since R is a domain, ω ∼
= J. Furthermore, we claim that J 6⊆ ∪Pi . Namely, if J ⊆ Pi for
some i, then sω = uJ ⊆ uPi ⊆ ωPi . But then localizing at Pi we obtain that ωRPi ⊆ Pi ωRPi ,
which contradicts Nakayama’s lemma.
We verify that J satisfies the assertions of the theorem. Since J is not contained in any
minimal prime of (f ), ht(J, f ) > c + 1. Moreover, J has height 1 and R is Cohen-Macaulay,
so ht(f , J)R/J > c and f must be a parameter sequence in R/J. Since R/J is Gorenstein
([BH93, Proposition 3.3.18]), the images of f form a regular sequence. Hence
J + (f )
J
J
=
=
= JR/(f )
(f )
(f ) ∩ J
(f )J
is a canonical module of R/(f ). By Corollary 3.2 we can choose a neighborhood mN such
that the images of f + ǫ are still a part of a system of parameters in the Gorenstein ring
R/J for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c and the statement follows.

Corollary 3.10. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay F-finite domain of prime characteristic p. Let f be a regular sequence of length c such that R/(f ) is generically Gorenstein.
Then for any integer e there exists an integer N such that ae (R/(f )) = ae (R/(f + ǫ)) for
any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c .
In particular, if R is also normal, then the functions ae : R → R, f 7→ ae (R/f ), are locally
constant at parameter elements with respect to the m-adic topology.
Proof. If dim(R) = c, then R/(f ) is artinian and, thus, has a splitting if an only if it is a
field. If we take ǫ ∈ (m2 )⊕c , then (f ) = m if and only if (f + ǫ) = m. So the Frobenius
e
splitting numbers of R/(f ) and R/(f + ǫ) will be the same, either 0 or [k : k p ], the latter of
which occurs if and only if (f ) = m.
9

Suppose dim(R) = d+c > c and choose J and N as in Lemma 3.9. If J = R replace J by a
principal ideal (g) such that f , g is a regular sequence. Let x2 , ..., xd be a system of parameters
e
for R/(f , J). If necessary, increase N so that mN ⊆ m[p ] and mN ⊆ (f , J, x2 , ..., xd ). In
particular, we have for each ǫ ∈ mN that x2 , .., xd is a system of parameters for R/(f + ǫ, J).
For each ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c , (f + ǫ, J)/(f ) is the canonical module of R/(f + ǫ) by Lemma 3.9,
hence
J + (f + ǫ, x2 , ..., xd ) = J + (f , x2 , ..., xd )
is an irreducible m-primary ideal ([BH93, Proposition 3.3.18]). Let u ∈ R generate the
socle mod (f , J, x2 , ..., xd ) = (f + ǫ, J, x2 , ..., xd ). For each t ∈ N let It = (J, xt2 , ..., xtd ) and
ut = (x2 · · · xd )t−1 u. By Lemma 3.8 there is for each ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c a tǫ such that
!
R
e
ae (R/(f + ǫ)) = [k : k p ] λ
e
[pe ]
(f + ǫ, (Itǫ :R uptǫ ))
and
pe

ae (R/(f )) = [k : k ] λ
[pe ]

R
[pe ]

e

(f , (Itǫ :R uptǫ ))

!

.

e

Moreover, we have m[p ] ⊆ (f + ǫ, (Itǫ :R uptǫ )). Since N was chosen so that mN ⊆ m[p ] , we
have
e
e
[pe ]
[pe ]
(f , (Itǫ :R uptǫ )) = (f + ǫ, (Itǫ :R uptǫ )).
e

e

Therefore for each ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c , ae (R/(f )) = ae (R/(f + ǫ)).



We need less assumptions for an inequality.
Lemma 3.11. Let (R, m, k) be a complete F-finite ring of positive characteristic p > 0. Then
for any parameter sequence f of length c and a fixed positive integer e there exists integer N
such that for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
ae (R/(f + ǫ)) 6 ae (R/(f )).
Proof. Since R is complete, we can represent it as a quotient of a regular local ring (S, m),
R = S/I. Then by [EY11, Proposition 3.1]
!
[pe ]
[pe ]
)
:
(I,
f
)
+
m
(I,
f
e
S
ae (R/(f )) = [k : k p ] λS
.
m[pe ]
Let ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c for an arbitrary N. Then


e
e
(I, f + ǫ)[p ] :S (I, f + ǫ) ⊆ (I, f )[p ] + mN :S (I, f + ǫ).

Since ǫi are in mN ,



e
e
(I, f )[p ] + mN :S (I, f + ǫ) = (I, f )[p ] + mN :S (I, f ).

By Krull’s intersection theorem
∞
\

e
e 
(I, f )[p ] + mn :S (I, f ) = (I, f )[p ] :S (I, f ),
n=1

10

so by Chevalley’s lemma we could have chosen N so that

e
e 
e
(I, f )[p ] + mN :S (I, f ) ⊆ (I, f )[p ] :S (I, f ) + m[p ] .

In which case ae (R/(f + ǫ)) 6 ae (R/(f )).



Theorem 3.12. Let (R, m, k) be a Cohen-Macaulay F-finite ring of prime characteristic p
and dimension d + c. If f is a parameter sequence of length c such that R̂/(f )R̂ is reduced
then for any δ > 0 there exists an integer N > 0 such that for any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
| s(R/(f )) − s(R/(f + ǫ))| < δ.
Proof. We may assume R is complete. By Theorem 2.3 we may choose parameters x1 , . . . , xd ∈
R such that x1 , . . . , xd is a system of parameters for R/(f ) and R/(f ) is module finite and
generically separable over the regular local ring A := k[[x1 , . . . , xd ]]. In which case we have
short exact sequence
0 → R/(f )[A1/p ] → (R/(f ))1/p → M → 0
and 0 6= c = DA (R/(f )) annihilates M.
Let M and Mǫ be as in the proof of Theorem 3.5. In which case, there are isomorphisms
d
p
R/(f + ǫ)[A1/p ] ∼
= ⊕p [k:k ] (R/(f + ǫ)) and short exact sequences
0 → R/(f + ǫ)[A1/p ] → (R/(f + ǫ))1/p → Mǫ → 0.
e

Apply the exact functor (−)1/p to the above to get exact sequence
pd [k:k p ]

0→

M

e 
e+1
e
(R/(f + ǫ)1/p ) → (R/(f + ǫ))1/p → Mǫ1/p → 0.

By ([PT16, Lemma 2.1])


e+1
e
e
6 pd [k : k p ] frk (R/(f + ǫ))1/p + µ((Mǫ )1/p ),
frk (R/(f + ǫ))1/p
or, equivalently,

e

ae+1 (R/(f + ǫ)) 6 pd [k : k p ]ae (R/(f + ǫ)) + µ((Mǫ )1/p ).
Techniques used in the proof of Theorem 3.5 give the existence of a constant C such that
for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
e
e
µ((Nǫ )1/p ) = λ(Nǫ /m[p ] Nǫ ) 6 Cpe(d−1) .
Let L and Lǫ be as in the proof Theorem 3.5. Similarly, we can also bound


e
e+1
e
6 λ(Lǫ /m[p ] Lǫ )
pd [k : k p ] frk (R/(f + ǫ))1/p − frk (R/(f + ǫ))1/p

and can once again obtain constant C independent of ǫ so that

|ae+1 (R/(f + ǫ)) − pd [k : k p ]ae (R/(f + ǫ))| < Cpe(d−1) .
e

e

Since rank R1/p = ped [k : k p ] ([Kun76, Proposition 2.3]), as explained in Corollary 3.7, this
gives us a uniform convergence statement: there exist D, N > 0 such that for all ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c
s(R/(f + ǫ)) −

1
D
.
e ae (R/(f + ǫ)) <
1/p
rank R
pe
11

Now, if s(R/(f )) = 0, for any given δ > 0 we can find e such that ae (R/(f )) < δ/2 and
D/pe < δ/2. By Lemma 3.11, we can find N such that for any ǫ ∈ (mN )⊕c ,
ae (R/(f + ǫ)) 6 ae (R/(f )) < δ/2.
Thus, in this case the claim follows from the bound
1
D
< δ.
s(R/(f + ǫ)) 6
e ae (R/(f + ǫ)) +
1/p
rank R
pe
If s(R/(f )) > 0, then R/(f ) is strongly F -regular and, in particular, is a domain ([AL03,
Main Result]). Thus (f ) is a prime ideal, so R/(f ) is then generically Gorenstein. The
statement now follows by employing Corollary 3.10 and using the methods of the proof of
Corollary 3.7.

4. Examples and questions
In this section we want to present examples relevant to the results in Section 3. The first
example shows that we cannot expect Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity to be locally constant at
reduced parameter elements.
Example 4.1. Consider an element f = xy in R = k[[x, y, t]]. An easy computation shows
that eHK (R/(xy)) = 2, while we will show that eHK (R/(xy + tn )) = 2 − 2/n for n > 2. Thus
(1) there is no neighborhood of xy such that eHK is constant.
(2) Of course, e(R/(xy + tn )) = 2 = e(R/(xy)) for all n > 2.
(3) Moreover, we have Gr(x,y,t) (R/(xy + tn )) = k[x, y, t]/(xy) = Gr(x,y,t) (R/(xy)) for all
n > 3.
In order to compute the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity we will compute the length of
e

e

k[[x, y, t]]/(xy − tn , xp , y p )
by counting monomials. It is easy to see that a basis is given by monomials of the form
xa tn , y a tb where a < pe − ⌊b/n⌋ and b < pe . Thus when e → ∞ the number of such
monomials is


pe −1
X
pe (pe − 1)
2
e
2e
(p − ⌊b/n⌋) ≈ 2p − 2
2
p2e .
≈ 2−
n
n
b=0

Example 4.2. Essentially the same example works for F-signature. Clearly, k[[x, y, t]]/(x2 +
y 2 ) is not normal, so the F-signature is 0. On the other hand, k[[x, y, t]]/(x2 + y 2 + tn ) is the
An−1 singularity, its F-signature is known to be 1/n ([HL02, Example 18]).
By comparison, it is not that hard to see that Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity is locally constant at parameter elements in regular local ring. In fact, Srinivas and Trivedi ([ST97,
Corollary 5]) showed that the entire Hilbert function is locally constant.
4.1. Cohen-Macaulayness. The Cohen-Macaulay assumption of our main results may not
be completely necessary. For a possible extension, one could recall that Srinivas and Trivedi
([ST97, Corollary 5]) show continuity of the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity if R is generalized
Cohen-Macaulay, i.e., λ(Him (R)) < ∞ for all i < dim R.
We also want to give two examples that show that one cannot relax Cohen-Macaulayness
too much. The first example comes from [ST97, Example 1].
12

Example 4.3. Let R be the localization at m = (x, y, z) of k[x, y, z]/(xy, xz). Because
dim R/(y) = 1, the two multiplicities coincide and we easily see that
eHK (R/(y)) = e(R/(y)) = e(k[x, z]m /(xz)) = 2.
On the other hand, R is equidimensional and R/(y + xN ) = k[x, z]m /(xN +1 , xz) has an
embedded prime, (x, z) for all N. Hence, by the associativity formula,
eHK (R/(y + xN )) = e(R/(y + xN )) = e(R/(x)) λ(R(x) ) = 1.
Proposition 4.4. Let R be the subring k[[x3 , x2 y, y 3, y 2z, z 3 , z 2 x]] ⊆ k[[x, y]]. Observe that
x3 , y 3, z 3 form a system of parameters and consider a family of ideals Jk = (x3 , y 3 + z 3k ).
Then:
(1) eHK (R/(x3 , y 3 )) = e(R/(x3 , y 3)) = 11,
(2) eHK (R/Jk ) = e(R/Jk ) 6= 11 for all k 6= 1 (mod 3).
Proof. First, we observe that dim R/(x3 , y 3) = dim R/Jk = 1, so multiplicity equals to
Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity.
We compute e(R/(x3 , y 3)) by using the associativity formula. Observe that
p
P = (x3 , x2 y, y 3, y 2z, z 2 x) = (x3 , y 3)

is prime. Thus the associativity formula gives that eHK (R/(x3 , y 3)) = eHK (R/P ) λ(RP /(x3 , y 3 )).
The quotient R/P ∼
= k[z 3 ] is regular, so eHK (R/P ) = 1. Now,
cP /(x3 , y 3) ∼
R
= k(z 3 )[[x3 , y 3, x2 y, y 2/z 2 , x/z]]/(x3 , y 3)

and it is easy to compute the basis of this ring over k(z 3 ):

1, x/z, y 2 /z 2 , x2 /z 2 , x2 y, xy 2, x2 y 2 /z, x3 y/z, y 4/z, xy 4 /z 2 , x4 y/z 2 .
Therefore, e(R/(x3 , y 3)) = 11.
The computation for Jk is similar but a bit more complicated. First of all, if k 6= 1
(mod 3) (so 2k + 1 is not divisible by 3), then
p
Q = (x3 , x2 y, z 2 x, y 3 − z 3k ) = Jk
is prime as can be seen by taking the presentation
k[[a, b]]/(a3 − b2k+1 ) → R/Q ∼
= k[[y 2 z, z 3 ]]/(y 3 − z 3k ).

In this case, e(R/Q) = 3, so e(R/Jk ) is divisible by 3 and we already know that it cannot
be equal to 11.

Thus even Hibert-Samuel multiplicity does not behave well in this example. Observe that
xy 2 = x3 y 3 /x2 y and xyz = y 3 z 2 x/y 2 z, so the normalization of R is the Veronese subring
V = k[[x3 , x2 y, xy 2, y 3, y 2z, yz 2 , z 3 , z 2 x, zx2 ]].
Because xy 2 · y 3n ∈
/ R for all n, the quotient S/R does not have finite length. On the other
3 3
hand, x y V ⊆ R, so dim S/R must equal to 1.
Therefore since depth V = 2, from the exact sequence of local cohomology we have
0 → H0m (S/R) → H1m (R) → 0 → H1m (S/R) → H2m (R) → 0 = H2m (S).
Therefore, λ(H1m (R)) < ∞, but λ(H2m (R)) = ∞. This example shows that the assumptions
of Srinivas and Trivedi are close to being necessary.
13

4.2. Questions. The techniques used to prove the main theorems of the paper, which are
summarized in Theorem 1.3, relies on the assumption that the parameter sequence f1 , . . . , fh
forms a reduced ideal.
Question 4.5. Let (R, m, k) be a complete Cohen-Macaulay F-finite ring of prime characteristic p. If (f1 , . . . , fc ) is a parameter ideal, but R/(f1 , . . . , fc ) is not necessarily reduced,
then given δ > 0 does there exits an integer N > 0 such that for any ǫ1 , . . . , ǫh ∈ mN
(1) | eHK (R/(f1 , . . . , fc )) − eHK (R/(f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc ))| < δ, and
(2) | s(R/(f1 , . . . , fc )) − s(R/(f1 + ǫ1 , . . . , fc + ǫc ))| < δ?
Originally, the second author hoped to approach Question 1.1, by passing to the associated
graded ring. Namely, Srinivas and Trivedi ([ST97, Theorem 3]) show Grm (R/(f )) is a locally
constant function of f in m-adic topology, which immediately implies that Hilbert-Samuel
multiplicity is locally constant.
However the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicities of a local ring and its associated graded ring need
not be equal ([WY00, p. 302] and also Example 4.1). Moreover, Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity is
not an invariant of the associated graded ring, i.e., as we see in Example 4.1, it may happen
that eHK (R) 6= eHK (S) even though GrmR (R) ∼
= GrmS (S). Investigation of the following
question could yield an explanation.
Question 4.6. Does the convergence rate of the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity come from the
associated graded ring? Namely, is there a constant C that depends only on the associated
graded ring of S such that
1
C
e 
eHK (S) − ed λ S/(m)[p ] < e
p
p

for all e?

This question can be stated even more explicitly: consider the family of ideals in Grm (R)
M m[pe ] ∩ mn + mn+1
.
Je =
mn+1
n>0
[p]

e

By the definition, λ(R/m[p ] ) = λ(Grm (R))/Je ). Because Je ⊆ Je+1 , we can show existence
of eHK (R) directly in Grm (R) ([PT16, Theorem 4.3]). However, in order to get the convergence rate, the current techniques ([PT16, Corollary 4.5]) require us to find a p−1 -linear map
ψ on Grm (R) such that ψ(Je+1 ) ⊆ Je for all e.
e
Because for a fixed e the individual Hilbert-Kunz function R/(f, m[p ] ) is clearly continuous
(Lemma 3.1), we can employ the uniform convergence machinery to show that a positive
answer to Question 4.6 gives a positive answer to Question 1.1. However, we currently do
not see how to approach Question 4.6, so we had to search for other methods.
We also want to offer two questions motivated by intuitive understanding of singularities:
we expect that singularity will not get worse after a sufficiently small perturbation.
Question 4.7. Let (R, m, k) be a local ring of prime characteristic p. Does there N such
that for all ǫ ∈ mN eHK (R/(f )) > eHK (R/(f + ǫ))?
Question 4.8. Let (R, m, k) be a local ring of prime characteristic p. Does there N such
that for all ǫ ∈ mN s(R/(f )) 6 s(R/(f + ǫ))?
14

We remark that Srinivas and Trivedi ([ST97, Corollary 2]) showed that the analogue of
Question 4.7 holds for Hilbert-Samuel multiplcity. They prove that if (R, m, k) is local then
one can always find a small neighborhood mN such that e(R/(f )) > e(R/(f + ǫ)) for all
ǫ ∈ mN .
4.3. More on F-pure thresholds. A conjecture related to the results of this paper is the
ACC conjecture for F-pure thresholds. The ACC conjecture states that if (R, m, k) is a
regular local ring and f1 , f2 , f3 , . . . elements of R such that
fpt(f1 ) 6 fpt(f2 ) 6 fpt(f3 ) 6 · · ·
then fpt(fn ) = fpt(fn+1 ) for all n ≫ 0. This conjecture is largely open and was modeled by
Shokurov’s ACC conjecture for log canonical thresholds ([Sho92]), which was very recently
resolved ([dFEM10, HMX14]). As the F-pure threshold function is continuous with respect
to the m-adic topology, it follows that if the ACC conjecture holds then for each f ∈ R
there exists N ∈ N such that for each ǫ ∈ mN , fpt(f + ǫ) > fpt(f ). Hernández, NúñezBetancourt, and Witt ([HNnW17]) recently investigated this particular implication of the
ACC conjecture. Their techniques establish that if the Jacobian ideal of an element f ∈ R is
m-primary, then fpt(f ) = fpt(g) for all g sufficiently close to f . Their result is also recovered
by Samuel’s theorem from ([Sam56]) mentioned in the introduction.
A natural analogue to the ACC conjecture for Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity would be a descending chain condition. That is given a sequence of elements f1 , f2 , f3 , . . . in a regular local
ring (R, m, k) such that eHK (R/(f1 )) > eHK (R/(f2 )) > eHK (R/(f3 )) > · · · is it necessarily
the case that eHK (R/(fn )) = eHK (R/(fn+1 )) for all n ≫ 0? Work of Monsky ([Mon98]) shows
the natural analogue of the ACC conjecture for Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity does not hold.
Example 4.9. In [Mon98] Monsky computed the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of a family of
hypersurfaces of the form Rα = k[[x, y, z]]/(z 4 + xyz 2 + (x3 + y 3 )z + αx2 y 2 ) where α ∈ k, an
algebraically closed field of characteristic 2. His computations show that there is a sequence
αn such that eHK (Rαn ) = 3 + 4−n , which gives an infinite decreasing sequence.
We suspect there is a family of hyperplanes, similar to that of Example 4.9, whose Fsignatures form an infinite increasing sequence.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Ian Aberbach, Bhargav Bhatt, Dale Cutkosky, and Mel Hochster for
discussion of this work. In particular, Bhargav Bhatt has helped shape Lemma 3.3 and
Proposition 4.4 was suggested by Mel Hochster. This project started while the first named
author was visiting University of Michigan, we thank Mel Hochster and University of Michigan for making that trip possible.
We are grateful to Linquan Ma for pointing an inaccuracy in an earlier draft of this paper.
References
[AE08]

[AL03]

Ian M. Aberbach and Florian Enescu. Lower bounds for Hilbert-Kunz multiplicities in local
rings of ﬁxed dimension. Michigan Math. J., 57:1–16, 2008. Special volume in honor of Melvin
Hochster. 2
Ian M. Aberbach and Graham J. Leuschke. The F -signature and strong F -regularity. Math. Res.
Lett., 10(1):51–56, 2003. 2, 12
15

[BE04]

Manuel Blickle and Florian Enescu. On rings with small Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc., 132(9):2505–2509 (electronic), 2004. 2
[BH93]
Winfried Bruns and Jürgen Herzog. Cohen-Macaulay rings, volume 39 of Cambridge Studies in
Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. 9, 10
[CS93]
Steven Dale Cutkosky and Hema Srinivasan. An intrinsic criterion for isomorphism of singularities. Amer. J. Math., 115(4):789–821, 1993. 1
[dFEM10] Tommaso de Fernex, Lawrence Ein, and Mircea Mustaţă. Shokurov’s ACC conjecture for log
canonical thresholds on smooth varieties. Duke Math. J., 152(1):93–114, 2010. 15
[DPY16] A. De Stefani, T. Polstra, and Y. Yao. Globalizing F-invariants. ArXiv e-prints, August 2016. 2
[EY11]
Florian Enescu and Yongwei Yao. The lower semicontinuity of the Frobenius splitting numbers.
Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 150(1):35–46, 2011. 10
[GO08]
O. Gabber and F. Orgogozo. Sur la p-dimension des corps. Invent. Math., 174(1):47–80, 2008. 4
[HH90]
Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke. Tight closure, invariant theory, and the Briançon-Skoda
theorem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 3(1):31–116, 1990. 7
[Hir65]
Heisuke Hironaka. On the equivalence of singularities. I. In Arithmetical Algebraic Geometry
(Proc. Conf. Purdue Univ., 1963), pages 153–200. Harper & Row, New York, 1965. 1
[HL02]
Craig Huneke and Graham J. Leuschke. Two theorems about maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules.
Math. Ann., 324(2):391–404, 2002. 2, 12
[HMX14] Christopher D. Hacon, James McKernan, and Chenyang Xu. ACC for log canonical thresholds.
Ann. of Math. (2), 180(2):523–571, 2014. 15
[HNnW17] Daniel J. Hernández, Luis Núñez-Betancourt, and Emily E. Witt. Local m-adic constancy of
F-pure thresholds and test ideals. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc, (1):1–11, 2017. 15
[Hoca]
Melvin Hochster. Foundations of tight closure. Lecture notes available at
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~hochster/mse.html. 4
[Hocb]
Melvin Hochster. The structure theory of complete local rings. Supplementary notes to Math 615
Winter 2017, available at http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~hochster/615W17/615.html. 7
[Hoc77]
Melvin Hochster. Cyclic purity versus purity in excellent Noetherian rings. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc., 231(2):463–488, 1977. 8
[KS15]
K. Kurano and K. Shimomoto. An elementary proof of Cohen-Gabber theorem in the equal
characteristic p > 0 case. ArXiv e-prints, October 2015. 4
[Kun69]
Ernst Kunz. Characterizations of regular local rings of characteristic p. Amer. J. Math., 91:772–
784, 1969. 2, 7
[Kun76]
Ernst Kunz. On Noetherian rings of characteristic p. Amer. J. Math., 98(4):999–1013, 1976. 2,
11
[Mat86]
Hideyuki Matsumura. Commutative ring theory, volume 8 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced
Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986. Translated from the Japanese by
M. Reid. 7
[Mon83]
Paul Monsky. The Hilbert-Kunz function. Math. Ann., 263(1):43–49, 1983. 2
[Mon98]
Paul Monsky. Hilbert-Kunz functions in a family: point-S4 quartics. J. Algebra, 208(1):343–358,
1998. 15
[PT16]
T. Polstra and K. Tucker. F-signature and Hilbert-Kunz Multipicity: a combined approach and
comparison. ArXiv e-prints, August 2016. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14
[Sam56]
Pierre Samuel. Algébricité de certains points singuliers algébroïdes. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9),
35:1–6, 1956. 1, 15
[Sho92]
V. V. Shokurov. Three-dimensional log perestroikas. Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat., 56(1):105–
203, 1992. 15
[ST97]
V. Srinivas and V. Trivedi. On the Hilbert function of a Cohen-Macaulay local ring. J. Algebraic
Geom., 6(4):733–751, 1997. 1, 5, 12, 14, 15
[Tuc12]
Kevin Tucker. F -signature exists. Invent. Math., 190(3):743–765, 2012. 2, 8
[TW04]
Shunsuke Takagi and Kei-ichi Watanabe. On F-pure thresholds. J. Algebra, 282(1):278–297, 2004.
2
[WY00]
Kei-ichi Watanabe and Ken-ichi Yoshida. Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and an inequality between
multiplicity and colength. J. Algebra, 230(1):295–317, 2000. 2, 14
16

Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
E-mail address: polstra@math.utah.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
E-mail address: ismirnov@umich.edu

17

