COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

arXiv:1602.00429v2 [] 1 Mar 2016

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS
Abstract. Let M, N be ﬁnitely generated modules over a local complete intersection R. Assume that for
each i > 0, TorR
i (M, N ) = 0. We prove that the cohomological support of M ⊗R N (in the sense of AvramovBuchweitz) is equal to the geometric join of the cohomological supports of M, N . Such result gives a new
connection between two active areas or research, and immediately produces several surprising corollaries. Naturally, it also raises many intriguing new questions about the homological properties of modules over a complete
intersection, some of those are investigated in the second half of this note.

1. Introduction
Let (R, m, k) be a local complete intersection and M a finitely generated R-module. Inspired by the ideas of
Quillen in modular representations
context, Avramov and Buchweitz in [7] defined a geometric object attached
L
to the total Ext module
ExtiR (M, k). It was originally called the support variety, or cohomological support
of M , and denoted by V ∗ (M ) (see Section 2 for details). In this paper, we shall refer to this object as the
cohomological support of M . It is a closed subscheme of Pc−1
k , where c is the codimension of R.
The following is an immediate consequence of the theory of cohomological supports developed in [7]: if M, N
∗
∗
are Tor-independent, i.e. TorR
i (M, N ) = 0 for i > 0, then V (M ), V (N ) are disjoint and
dim V ∗ (M ⊗R N ) = dim V ∗ (M ) + dim V ∗ (N ) + 1.
One of our main results in this paper gives a geometric clarification of this formula, by proving that under the
above hypothesis, the cohomological support of M ⊗R N is actually the join of V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N ). Here, the join of
two closed subschemes is the closure of the union of all the lines joining two points, one from each subscheme.
Theorem 1.1. (Theorem 3.1) Let R be a local complete intersection, and nonzero M, N ∈ mod(R). If
Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
The condition that Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 may appear restrictive, but it is quite natural in this context. Namely,
for each pair of disjoint subschemes U, V , one can attach modules, in fact, whole categories of modules X, Y
such that V ∗ (M ) = U and V ∗ (N ) = V for each M ∈ X, N ∈ Y . Then the vanishing of all higher Tor modules
is automatic as long as depth M + depth N is big enough, which one can guarantee by taking syzygies.
Thus, our Theorem can be viewed as a “categorification" of the join operation. At any rate, it provides a link
between the theory of cohomological support to a very classical concept of algebraic geometry. Unsurprisingly,
this immediately leads to many corollaries and interesting questions, some of them we also address in this work.
The proof of the above result occupies Section 3. It combines homological and geometric techniques (the
preparatory materials are collected in Section 2). In Section 4 we give some quick corollaries, including a dual
version for Ext (Theorem 4.7). Section 5 is devoted to a study of the Tor-independent condition between two
modules M and N . Our main result here is a sufficient condition for two modules to be Tor-independent,
Theorem 5.1. The novelty here is that the condition involves dimension instead of depth. Motivated by this
result, in Section 6 we discuss some relationships between the Tor-independent property and the dimension of
the modules. These are inspired by the classical “homological conjectures" in commutative algebra, and certain
statements we study can be viewed as generalizations of them. Finally, Section 7 collects examples (sometimes
with the help of Macaulay 2) and open problems suggested by our results.
This work would not have been possible without the wonderful hospitality and stimulating environment of various institutions:
MSRI, CRM, Dalhousie University and the University of Kansas. We would also like to thank David Eisenbud and Srikanth Iyengar
for helpful comments and encouragements throughout this project.
1

2

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

2. Background
2.1. The ring of cohomological operators. The study of cohomological supports over complete intersection
rings was initiated by Avramov and Buchweitz in [7]. For the entirety of this section, (R, m, k) will be a
local complete intersection of codimension c such that R̂ = Q/(f1 , . . . , fc ) where Q is a regular local ring and
f = f1 , . . . , fc a regular sequence not contained in the square of the maximal ideal of Q. Let k̃ be the algebraic
closure of k. The cohomological support of a finitely generated R-module M is essentially the support of
ExtR̂ (M̂ , k) as a module over the polynomial ring S = k[χ1 , . . . , χc ].
Let X be a finitely generated R̂-module. We recall a construction from [18] which gives an action of S on
Ext(X, k). Let (F• , ∂) be a free resolution of X over R̂. Each Fn = R̂in and we may view ∂ as a sequence of
matrices with entries in R̂. Let F̃n = Qin and ∂˜ be the lift of ∂ to F̃• . Since ∂ 2 = 0, we know that ∂˜2 is a
sequence of matrices whose entries are in the ideal (f1 , . . . , fc ). Thus we may write
c
X
fi Φ̃i
∂˜2 =
i=1

where
L∞ Φ̃i is a sequence of matrices with entries in Q. Set Φi = Φ̃i ⊗ R̂. We may now define an action on
1 , . . . , χc ] where we set χi r = Φi (r) for every r ∈ Fn . This induces an action of R̂[χ1 , . . . , χc ]
n=0 Fn by R̂[χL
∞
on Ext(X, k) = i=0 Exti (X, k). It is shown in [18] that the operators χi commute turning Ext(X, k) into a
graded S-module, where each χi is degree 2. Furthermore, Eisenbud shows that this action is independent of
our choices of F• and Φ̃i . Also, Ext(X, k) is actually a finitely generated S-module. The ring S is known as
the ring of cohomological operators and has been the focus of much study including [3, 6, 8, 18, 27]. In fact,
there are several equivalent methods for constructing the action of S on Ext(X, k), the first of which was given
in [22]: see [10] for a detailed discussion.
The following result shows that the action is actually an invariant of the ideal generated by the regular
sequence.
Theorem 2.1 ([18, Proposition 1.7], cf. [10, (3.11)]). Let f1 , . . . , fc and f1′ , . . . , fc′ be two regular sequences of
a regular local ring Q which generate the same ideal. Write
c
X
fi =
qi,j fj′
j=1

with each qi,j ∈ Q. Letting χ1 , . . . , χc and
f1′ , . . . , fc′ respectively, we have

χ′1 , . . . , χ′c
χ′j =

be the cohomological operators associated to f1 , . . . , fc and
c
X

qi,j χi

i=1

Thus the matrix (qi,j ) acts as a change of basis matrix, changing the coordinates of Pck̃ . When k = k̃, any
change of coordinates of Pk̃c−1 corresponds to choosing a different regular sequence which generates the ideal
(f1 , . . . , fc ). This important fact is critical to several proofs in this document, thus we state it precisely.
Proposition 2.2. Assume that k is algebraically closed and set I = (f1 , . . . , fc ) where f1 , . . . , fc is a regular
sequence of a regular local ring Q. Let ϕ : Pc−1
→ Pc−1
be an automorphism, i.e. a change of coordinates. Then
k
k
′
′
there exists a regular sequence f1 , . . . , fc generating I such that ϕ∗ (χi ) = χ′i where χ1 , . . . , χc and χ′1 , . . . , χ′c are
the cohomological operators associated to f1 , . . . , fc and f1′ , . . . , fc′ respectively.
Proof. Set ψ = ϕ−1 , and let ϕ̃ and ψ̃ be the lifts of ϕ and ψ in Q such that φ̃ = ϕ̃−1 . We can regard ϕ̃ and and
ψ̃ as a matrices whose entries are qi,j ∈ Q and pi,j ∈ Q respectively. Set
fi′

=

c
X

pi,j fj .

i=1

By Nakayama’s lemma, f1′ , . . . , fc′ generates I, and since there are c elements, f1′ , . . . , fc′ is necessarily a regular
sequence. However since ϕ̃ψ̃ is the identity, we also have
c
X
qi,j fj′ .
fi =
j=1

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

It follows from Theorem 2.1 that
χ′j =

c
X

3

qi,j χi = ϕ∗ (χj .)

i=1


2.2. Cohomological supports. With the machinery of the cohomological operators in place, we may now
discuss cohomological supports. We define
V (Q, f ; X) = {ā ∈ Pck̃ | g(ā) = 0 ∀g ∈ annS Ext(X, k)}
where k̃ is the algebraic closure of k.
Definition 2.3. Let R be a complete intersection ring. Following [7], for a finitely generated R-module M , the
cohomological support, denoted V ∗ (M ), is the projectivization in Pk̃c−1 of the cone V (Q, f ; M̂ ). Occasionally,
VR∗ (M ) will be used to indicate which ring is used to compute the cohomological support.
Proposition 2.4 ([7, Theorem 5.3]). For any finitely generated R-module M , V ∗ (M ) is independent of the
choices of Q, and f up to a change of coordinates.
Remark 2.5. What we call the cohomological support is referred to as the support variety in [7] and other
works. In [9], the terminology cohomological support and cohomological variety are both used. Since geometers
generally require varieties to be irreducible closed subsets and since V ∗ (M ) is generally not irreducible, we have
decided to use the term cohomological support.
Remark 2.6. In [7] and in other works, the authors consider V ∗ (M ) as a cone in Ack̃ . To facilitate the statement
of certain results, we have found it easiest to work in projective space.
The following is a combination of the results [7, Theorem 5.6,Theorem 6.1].
Theorem 2.7. For finitely generated R-modules M and N , the following are equivalent.
(1) V ∗ (M ) ∩ V ∗ (N ) = ∅
(2) Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0
(3) Ext≫0 (M, N ) = 0
(4) Ext≫0 (N, M ) = 0
Hence cohomological supports encode homological information about a module. The following result gives
another description of cohomological supports.
Theorem 2.8 ([7, Theorem 5.2],[3, Corollary 3.11]). Suppose that the residue field k is algebraically closed.
For any module M ∈ mod(R), we have
V ∗ (M ) = {(a1 , . . . , ac ) ∈ Pkc−1 | pdQ/(ã1 f1 +···+ãc fc ) M̂ = ∞}
where ãi is a lift in Q of ai .
From this result and Lemma 2.17, we can easily deduce these corollaries.
Corollary 2.9. For a finitely generated R-module M , V ∗ (M ) = ∅ if and only if pd M < ∞. Also V ∗ (k) = Pk̃c−1 .
Corollary 2.10. Let f1 , . . . , fc be a regular sequence of a regular local ring Q, and let k[χ1 , . . . , χc ] be the ring
of cohomological operators for Q/(f1 , . . . , fc ). Take n such that 1 ≤ n ≤ c. Let H be the linear space defined by
χn+1 = · · · = χc = 0. For any module M over Q/(f1 , . . . , fc ),
∗
∗
(M ) ∩ H.
(M ) = VQ/(f
VQ/(f
1 ,...,fc )
1 ,...,fn )

Corollary 2.11. Suppose M ∈ mod(R) and x ∈ R is regular on M . Then V ∗ (M ) = V ∗ (M/xM ).
Proof. Let x̃ ∈ Q be a lift of x. Then x̃ is still regular on M and so M has finite projective dimension over Q/a
if and only if M/x̃M = M/xM does too. The result now follows from Theorem 2.8.

A generalization of Corollary 2.9 exists involving complexity.

4

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

Definition 2.12. For a sequence (an )n≥0 of nonnegative integers, we can define the complexity
cx(an )n≥0 = min{deg f | f ∈ Q[t] an ≤ f (n) ∀n ≫ 0} + 1.
For a module M , we set cx M = cx βn (M ).
A module has finite projective dimension if and only if cx M = 0. Since R is a complete intersection of
codimension c, cx k equals c.
Proposition 2.13 ( [7, Theorem 5.6]). For any R-module, we have dim V ∗ (M ) = cx M − 1
Remark 2.14. Note that the previous result considers V ∗ (M ) as a closed set of projective space instead of a
cone in affine space.
The following are useful results on cohomological supports.
Theorem 2.15 ([12, Corollary 2.3],[9, Theorem 7.8]). If k is algebraically closed, for each closed set V ⊆ Pc−1
k ,
there is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module M such that V ∗ (M ) = V .
When working with cohomological supports, it is important to be able to reduce to the case where R is
complete and k is algebraically closed. These two results which allow us to do this.
Lemma 2.16. For any R-module M , we have VR∗ (M ) = VR̂∗ (M̂ ).
Lemma 2.17 ( [7, Lemma 2.2],[13, App., Théorèm 1, Corollaire])). There exists a local complete intersection
ring (R̃, m̃, k̃) of codimension c such that R̃ is a flat extension of R, mR̃ = m̃, and the induced map k → k̃ is
the inclusion of k into its algebraic closure. Furthermore, we have VR∗ (M ) = VR̃∗ (M ⊗ R̃).
2.3. Thick subcategories. There is a deep connection between cohomological supports and the thick subcategories of mod(R). This connection begins with the following result.
Proposition 2.18 ([7, Theorem 5.6]). If
0 → X1 → X2 → X3 → 0
is exact, then
V ∗ (Xi ) ⊆ V ∗ (Xj ) ∪ V ∗ (Xl )
with {i, j, l} = {1, 2, 3}. In particular, V ∗ (M ) = V ∗ (Ω M ). Furthermore
V ∗ (X ⊕ Y ) = V ∗ (X) ∪ V ∗ (Y )
Definition 2.19. A subcategory C ⊆ mod(R) is thick if
(1) R ∈ C
(2) C is closed under direct summands, that is if X ⊕ Y ∈ C then X, Y ∈ C
(3) C has the two out of three property, that is if 0 → X1 → X2 → X3 → 0 and Xi , Xj ∈ C, then Xl ∈ C
with {i, j, l} = {1, 2, 3}.
Let Thick M denote the smallest thick category containing M .
The thick subcategories of R are in bijection with the thick subcategories of the triangulated category
MCM(R), the stable category of maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules. The category of modules of finite projective
dimension is thick. We can generalize this example: by Proposition 2.18, for any V ⊆ Pk̃c−1 , the category
{M ∈ mod(R) | V ∗ (M ) ⊆ V }
is thick. It turns out that we can use the cohomological supports to classify all the thick subcategories of
mod(R) in this manner.
Before proceeding, we will fix some notation which will prevent us from confusing the geometric subtleties
regarding cohomological supports. We will use the symbol Pk̃c−1 to denote the closed points of the scheme
Proj k̃[χ1 , . . . , χc ]. Since
V ∗ (M ) ⊆ Pk̃c−1 = maxspec Proj k̃[χ1 , . . . , χc ]
we may let V̄ ∗ (M ) be the closure of V ∗ (M ) in Proj k̃[χ1 , . . . , χc ]. The integral extension k[χ1 , . . . , χc ] ⊆
k̃[χ1 , · · · , χc ] induces the projection π : Proj k̃[χ1 , . . . , χc ] → Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ]. Set Ṽ ∗ (M ) = π(V̄ ∗ (M )). The
following result is from [31], and, in the zero dimensional case, from [14, Remark 5.12].

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

5

Theorem 2.20. If R is an isolated singularity and a complete intersection, we have a bijection
{Thick subcategories of mod(R)} ←→ {Specialization closed subsets of Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ]}
given by the maps
[

M 7−→

Ṽ ∗ (M )

M∈M

7
{M ∈ mod(R) | Ṽ ∗ (M ) ⊆ U }→−U
where M is a thick subcategory of mod(R) and U is a specialization closed subset of Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ]. Furthermore, the closed subsets of Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ] correspond to the cyclic thick subcategories, i.e. the thick
subcategories of the form Thick M for some M ∈ mod(R).
Remark 2.21. In [31], Stevenson actually classifies the thick subcategories over an arbitrary complete intersection ring in terms of the specialization closed subsets of a scheme Y = Sing Proj Q[y1 , . . . , yc ]/(f1 y1 + · · · + fc yc )
where yi are in determinants over Q and Sing denotes the singularities. He does this by assigning M ∈ mod(R)
a closed set in Y which we will denote by S(M ). On a set theoretic level, we have
a
Y =
Proj k(p)[χ1 , . . . , χc(p) ]
p∈Sing R

where c(p) is the codimension of Rp and k(p) is the residue field of Rp . Furthermore, we have
S(M ) ∩ Proj k(p)[χ1 , . . . , χc(p) ] = ṼR∗p (Mp ).
The next proposition follows immediately from these remarks.
Proposition 2.22. For two modules M, N ∈ mod(R), VR∗p (Mp ) ⊆ VR∗p (Np ) for every p ∈ Sing R if and only if
Thick M ⊆ Thick N .
The following example illustrates the different between working in Pk̃c−1 and Proj k̃[χ1 , . . . , χc ].
Example 2.23. Assume that k is algebraically closed and let M = {M ∈ mod(R) | cx M ≤ R}. It is easy
to check that M is thick. For each module M ∈ M, dim V ∗ (M ) is 0 or −1 and hence is a point or empty.
∗
Furthermore, for each point p ∈ Pc−1
k , there is module M such that V (M ) = p by Theorem 2.15. It follows
that M ∈ M. Also, we have
[
U :=
V ∗ (M ) = Pc−1
k
M∈M

∗

Now V (k) = U . But, unless R is a hypersurface, cx k > 1. We can see that it does not follow that k is in M.
Indeed, we have Ṽ ∗ (k), the support of k on the entire scheme, is all of Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ]. On the other hand,
he have
[
[
Ũ :=
Ṽ ∗ (M ) = Pc−1
V ∗ (M ) = maxspec Proj k[χ1 , . . . , χc ].
k
M∈M

M∈M

So the support of M on the entire scheme is the specialization closed set consisting of the closed points. Thus
when understanding thick subcategories, one needs to consider the entire scheme.
2.4. Geometric join. In this subsection we give attention to another construction central to this paper.
Definition 2.24. Let U, V ⊆ Pnk be Zariski closed sets. We define the join of two sets to be
[
line(u, v)
Join(U, V ) =
u∈U v∈V u6=v

where line(u, v) is the projective line containing u and v. Furthermore, in the case when U = V , we set
sec V = Join(V, V ) which, when V is a variety, we refer to as the secant variety of V .
Remark 2.25. When U and V are disjoint Zariski closed sets, we may simplify this definition to
[
Join(U, V ) =
line(u, v).
u∈U v∈V

and we still obtain a closed set, [23, Proposition 6.13,Example 6.14]. In most contexts in this paper, we will be
taking the join of disjoint sets.

6

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

Remark 2.26. There is some ambiguity with this definition when V is empty. To that end, we establish the
following convention:
Join(U, ∅) = U.
This is the convention followed in [1]. We justify this convention by working in affince space: the empty set
corresponds to the the zero point and the join of the cone and the zero point is simply the original cone.
The following in anopther interesting fact about joins.
Lemma 2.27 ( [23, Proposition 6.13,Example 6.14]). If U and V are irreducible closed sets, then Join(U, V )
is also irreducible.
To visualize the join, consider the following easy examples. The join of two distinct points is a projective
line, and the join of two skew lines is a three dimensional projective linear space. In fact, the join of any two
linear spaces is the smallest linear space containing both of them. In particular, the secant variety of any linear
space is itself.
Theorem 2.28 ([1, 1.1]). For two closed sets U, V ⊆ Pnk , we have
dim Join(U, V ) ≤ dim U + dim V + 1
and if U ∩ V = ∅, then
dim Join(U, V ) = dim U + dim V + 1.
The converse is not true, and, in fact, when it is not known in general when dim Join(U, V ) = dim U +dim V +1
in the case U ∩V 6= ∅ . In particular, an active topic of research is understanding when Join(V, V ) 6= 2 dim V +1.
3. Joins of cohomological supports
In this section, let (R, m, k) be a local complete intersection of codimension c. The goal of this section is to
prove the main result of this paper, namely the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1. Let R be a local complete intersection, and M, N ∈ mod(R) with M, N 6= 0. If Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0,
then V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
We prove Theorem 3.1 in a few steps. First we recall a critical fact.
Lemma 3.2 ([28, Proposition 2.1]). If Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then cx(M ⊗ N ) = cx M + cx N .
We now prove a special case of the main result.
Lemma 3.3. If R has codimension two and Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 with M, N 6= 0, then
V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
Proof. By Lemma 2.16 and Lemma 2.17, we may assume that R is complete and k is algebraically closed. If
pd M, pd N < ∞, then pd M ⊗ N < ∞ and the conclusion is clear.
Assume that pd M = pd N = ∞. Since V ∗ (M ) and V ∗ (N ) are disjoint, nonempty, and lie in P1k , we know that
dim V ∗ (M ) = dim V ∗ (N ) = 0. Therefore, the complexity of both M and N is one. Since Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0,
the complexity of M ⊗ N is two, and thus dim V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = 1. This means that V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = P1k =
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
We now assume that pd M < ∞ and pd N = ∞. Using the conventions in Remark 2.11, we may assume
that M 6= 0. We wish to show that V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = V ∗ (N ). Letting
0 → Rnt → · · · → Rn0 → M → 0
be a free resolution, the sequence
0 → N nt → · · · → N n0 → M ⊗ N → 0
is exact, implying V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ⊆ V ∗ (N ). By Lemma 3.2, we have
cx(M ⊗ N ) = cx M + cx N = cx N.
Therefore dim V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) is the same as dim V ∗ (N ). So if V ∗ (N ) is irreducible, we are done. In particular, if
dim V ∗ (N ) = 1, then V ∗ (N ) = P1k and we are done.

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

7

So suppose dim V ∗ (N ) = 0, that is V ∗ (N ) = {p1 , . . . , pn } where pi are points. The short exact sequence
0 → Ω N → Rm → N → 0 yields the short exact sequence
0 → M ⊗ Ω N → M m → M ⊗ N → 0.
But since V ∗ (M ) is empty, we have V ∗ (M ⊗ Ω N ) = V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) by Proposition 2.18. Thus, since V ∗ (N ) =
V ∗ (Ω N ) we may assume that N is maximal Cohen-Macaulay by replacing N with a sufficiently high syzygy.
Therefore, by Theorem 3.1 of [12], we may write N = N1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Nn with V ∗ (Ni ) = {pi }. Since each V ∗ (Ni ) is
irreducible, we have
V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = V ∗ (M ⊗ N1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ M ⊗ Nn )
= V ∗ (M ⊗ N1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ V ∗ (M ⊗ Nn ) = {p1 } ∪ · · · ∪ {pn } = V ∗ (N )
which completes the proof.

∗

∗

∗

Proposition 3.4. If Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 with M, N 6= 0, then Join(V (M ), V (N )) ⊆ V (M ⊗ N ).
Proof. By Lemma 2.16 and Lemma 2.17, we may assume that R is complete and k is algebraically closed. We
proceed by induction on the codimension of R, which we will denote by c. When c = 1, the cohomological
supports lie in P0k , a point. Thus the cohomological support of a module is either that point or empty, depending
on whether or not the module has finite projective dimension. Since Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, the result follows from
the equality cx M + cx N = cx M ⊗ N . If c = 2, the statement is true by Lemma 3.3.
Now suppose that c ≥ 2. It suffices to show that for any hyperplane H ⊆ Pkc−1 we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) ∩ H ⊆ V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∩ H
Since c ≥ 2, any hyperplane is a linear space with dimension at least one. Therefore, for any x ∈ V ∗ (M ) ∩ H
and y ∈ V ∗ (N ), the projective line between x and y is also in H. Because of this, we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) ∩ H = Join(V ∗ (M ) ∩ H, V ∗ (N ) ∩ H).
Thus we need to show that
Join(V ∗ (M ) ∩ H, V ∗ (N ) ∩ H) ⊆ V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∩ H.
To that end, we fix a hyperplane H. Now may write R = Q/(f1 , . . . , fc ) where Q is a regular local ring and
f1 , . . . , fc is a regular sequence. By Proposition 2.2, we may change our coordinate system and assume that
H = V (χ1 ) where k[χ1 , . . . , χc ] is the ring of cohomological operators. Set T = Q/(f2 , . . . , fc ) and f = f1 . Note
that T is a complete intersection with codim T = c − 1, f is regular on T , and R = T /(f ). For any module
X ∈ mod(R), VR∗ (X) ∩ H = VT∗ (X) by Corollary 2.10. Therefore we need to show that
Join(VT∗ (M ), VT∗ (N )) ⊆ VT∗ (M ⊗ N ).
T
T
Since TorR
>0 (M, N ) = 0, by [4, Lemma 9.3.8], we have Tor1 (M, N ) = M ⊗ N and Tor>1 (M, N ) = 0. It
T
follows that Tor>0 (M, ΩT N ) = 0. After tensoring 0 → ΩT N → T t → N → 0 with M , we get the exact
sequence
0 → M ⊗ N → M ⊗ ΩT N → M t → M ⊗ N → 0.
Thus, by induction, we have

Join(VT∗ (M ), VT∗ (N )) = Join(VT∗ (M ), VT∗ (ΩT N )) ⊆ VT∗ (M ⊗ ΩT N ) ⊆ VT∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∪ VT∗ (M ).
Note, that we can only choose ΩT N to not be zero. A similar argument using ΩT M gives us
Join(VT∗ (M ), VT∗ (N )) ⊆ VT∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∪ VT∗ (N ).
This implies that
Join(VT∗ (M ), VT∗ (N )) ⊆ VT∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∪ (VT∗ (M ) ∩ VT∗ (N )) = VT∗ (M ⊗ N )
proving the claim.

Lemma 3.5. Suppose that c = codim R ≥ 2, R is complete, and k is algebraically closed. Fix M ∈ mod(R)
c−1
distinct from q, there exists an L ∈ MCM
such that VR∗ (M ) = q for some point q ∈ Pc−1
k . For any p ∈ Pk
∗
∗
such that VR (L) = p and VR (M ⊗ L) = Join(p, q).

8

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

Proof. As R is complete, we write R = Q/(f1 , . . . , fc ) where Q is a regular local ring and f is a regular sequence.
After a change of coordinates, we may assume that p = (1, 0, 0, . . . , 0). Set T = Q/(f1 ), X = Ωd−1
k where
T
d = dim Q, and L = X/(f2 , . . . , fc )X. We prove that L is our desired module.
First, we show that V ∗ (L) = p. Since pdT L = ∞, it follows from Theorem 2.8 that p ∈ V ∗ (L). Take any
point p′ ∈ Pc−1
such that p′ 6= p. By Theorem 2.15, there exists a Y ∈ mod(R) such that p′ = V ∗ (Y ). It follows
k
T
∼
from Theorem 2.8 that pdT Y < ∞. Furthermore, we have TorR
i (Y, L) = Tori (Y, X) for all i > 0, and thus
R
∗
∗
′
∗
Tor≫0 (Y, L) = 0. Therefore V (Y ) ∩ V (L) = ∅ and so p ∈
/ V (L). We now have V ∗ (X) = {p} as claimed.
∗
Set l = Join(p, q). We now show that V (M ⊗ L) = l. By proposition 3.4, we have l ⊆ V ∗ (M ⊗ L). Take
any point r ∈
/ l. We claim that r is not in V ∗ (M ⊗ L). After changing coordinates, we may assume that
r = (0, 1, 0, . . . , 0). Set S = Q/(f1 , f2 ) and X ′ = X/f2 X. Let l′ be the projective line defined by p and r. Since
′
′
r∈
/ l, we have q ∈
/ l′ . Hence Corollary 2.10 implies that VS∗ (M ) = VR∗ (M )∩l′ = ∅. Therefore, TorR
≫0 (M, X ) = 0.
S
′
′
However, since X is maximal Cohen-Macaulay over S, Lemma 4.4 implies that Tor>0 (M, X ) = 0. Since
M ⊗L∼
= M ⊗ X ′ , and since codim S = 2, Lemma 3.3 implies that
VS∗ (M ⊗ L) = VS∗ (M ⊗ X ′ ) = Join(VS∗ (M ), VS∗ (X ′ )) = VS∗ (X ′ ).
By Corollary 2.10 and Corollary 2.11, we have VS∗ (X ′ ) = VS∗ (L) = VR∗ (L) ∩ l′ = p. Therefore, we have
p = VS∗ (M ⊗ L) = VR∗ (M ⊗ L) ∩ l′ by Corollary 2.10. Since r is in l′ , r is not in V ∗ (M ⊗ L), as desired.

We now proceed with the proof of the main result of this paper.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. By Lemma 2.16 and Lemma 2.17, we may assume that R is complete and k is algebraically closed. First, we note that we may assume that neither M nor N is zero since otherwise the statement
is trivial. Proposition 3.4 gives us one containment, which leaves us to show the reverse containment:
V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ⊆ Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
We will proceed by induction using induction on α(M, N ) = 2 depth R − depth M − depth N . Assume for the
moment that we have shown the base case, i. e. the theorem is true when when α(M, N ) = 0, which is precisely
the case when both M and N are maximal Cohen-Macaulay. Suppose that α(M, N ) > 0. Then one of the
modules, say M , is not maximal Cohen-Macaulay, and α(Ω M, N ) = α(M, N ) − 1. Tensoring the short exact
sequence 0 → Ω M → Rs → M → 0 with N yields
0 → Ω M ⊗ N → N s → M ⊗ N → 0.
By induction, we have the following
V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ⊆ V ∗ (N ) ∪ V ∗ (Ω M ⊗ N ) ⊆ V ∗ (N ) ∪ Join(V ∗ (Ω M ), V ∗ (N )) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N ))
which yields the desired inclusion.
We now prove the base case. Assume that α(M, N ) = 0 or, equivalently, that M and N are maximal
Cohen-Macaulay modules. First we show the theorem when V ∗ (M ) is simply a single point, say q. Take any
p∈
/ Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )). By Lemma 3.5, there exists maximal Cohen-Macaulay module L such that V ∗ (L) = p
and V ∗ (M ⊗ L) = Join(p, q) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (L)). However, since p ∈
/ Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )), there are no
∗
∗
lines containing p, q and a point in V (N ). Therefore V (M ⊗ L) = Join(p, q) and V ∗ (N ) are disjoint. Since
M, N, L are all maximal Cohen-Macaulay, this shows that Tor>0 (M, L) = 0 and also Tor>0 (M ⊗ L, N ) = 0.
Now let A• , B• , C• be free resolutions of L, M, N respectively. Then, (M ⊗ L) ⊗ C• is quasi-isomorphic to
Tot• (A• ⊗B• ⊗C• ) which is quasi-isomorphic to A• ⊗(M ⊗N ). Therefore Tori (L, M ⊗N ) ∼
= Tori (M ⊗L, N ) = 0
for all i ≫ 0. This implies that V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) does not contain p = V ∗ (L), yielding the desired containment.
Now we show the general case. Again, take a point p ∈
/ Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )). By Theorem 2.15 there exists an
∗
L ∈ mod(R) with V (L) = p. In the previous paragraph, we have shown that V ∗ (M ⊗L) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (L)).
Thus the argument in the previous paragraph still applies, completing the proof.

4. Corollaries of Theorem 3.1
We now state some interesting corollaries of Theorem 3.1. The following is immediate.
Corollary 4.1. If N is not zero and Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then V ∗ (M ) ⊆ V ∗ (M ⊗ N ).
From this we derive a plethora of other corollaries.

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

9

Corollary 4.2. If N 6= 0 and Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then the following hold.
(1) Ext≫0 (M ⊗ N, L) = 0 ⇒ Ext≫0 (M, L) = 0
(2) Ext≫0 (L, M ⊗ N ) = 0 ⇒ Ext≫0 (L, M ) = 0
(3) Tor≫0 (M ⊗ N, L) = 0 ⇒ Tor≫0 (M, L) = 0
Proof. The previous corollary shows that V ∗ (M ⊗ N, L) = ∅ implies that V ∗ (M, L) = ∅.

Corollary 4.3. Suppose Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0. If Sing R ⊆ supp N ∪(spec R\ supp M ), then M is in Thick M ⊗ N .
In particular, if R is an isolated singularity, then Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 implies that M, N ⊆ Thick M ⊗ N when
M, N 6= 0.
Proof. First note that Tor>0 (Mp , Np ) = 0 for every p ∈ spec R. Let p ∈ Sing R. Then either p ∈ supp N or
p∈
/ supp M . Then Corollary 4.1 implies that VR∗p (Mp ) ⊆ VR∗p ((M ⊗ N )p ) for all p ∈ Sing R. The result then
follows by Remark 2.21.

The next results use the following lemma.
Lemma 4.4. Suppose R is a complete intersection ring and either M or N is maximal Cohen-Macaualay. If
Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, then Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0.
Proof. If not, then for every n ∈ N, there exists a cosyzygy M ′ of M such that Torn (M ′ , N ) 6= 0 and
Tor≫0 (M ′ , N ) = 0. But this contradicts the fact that complete intersections are AB; see [25, Corollary 3.4].

We may also use Theorem 3.1 to construct modules with linear cohomological supports.
Corollary 4.5. Assume that k is algebraically closed and R is complete. Set pi = (0, . . . , 1, . . . , 0) ∈ Pc−1
be
k
the point that is one in the ith position and zeros elsewhere. Let L be the affine span of p1 , . . . , pn . Set
Xi =

Ωd−1
Q/(fi ) k
ˆ
(Ωd−1
Q/(fi ) k)(f1 , . . . , fi , . . . , fc )

where d = dim Q. Then X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn is maximal Cohen-Macaulay and L = V ∗ (X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn ).
Note that by Proposition 2.2, after changing coordinate any linear space of Pc−1
is of the form of L =
k
V ∗ (X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn ).
Proof. By Theorem 2.8, V ∗ (Xi ) = {pi }. We work by induction on n. When n = 1, we are done. So assume
the statement is true for n − 1. Let L′ be the affine span of p1 , . . . , pn−1 . The induction hypothesis implies that
V ∗ (Xn−1 ) = L′ . Since Xn is maximal Cohen-Macaulay , Tor>0 (X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn−1 , Xn ) = 0 by Lemma 4.4. Then
X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn is maximal Cohen-Macaulay and by Theorem 3.1, we have
V ∗ (X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn ) = Join(V ∗ (X1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Xn−1 ), V ∗ (Xn )) = Join(L′ , pn ) = L
proving the claim.

The main result of this paper also prevents certain tor modules from vanishing.
Corollary 4.6. Suppose M1 , . . . , Mc+1 are nonfree maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules. Then for some i ∈
{1, . . . , c},
Torn (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi , Mi+1 ) 6= 0
for infinitely many n.
Proof. Proceeding by contradiction, suppose that
Tor≫0 (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi , Mi+1 ) = 0
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ c. Inducting on i, we will show two statements: first that
V ∗ (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi ) = Join(V ∗ (M1 ), . . . , V ∗ (Mi ))

10

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

for each i in {1, . . . , c}, and second that V ∗ (M1 ⊗ . . . ⊗ Mi ) contains a linear space of dimension i − 1. When
i = 1, the statement is trivial. So suppose the statement is true for i. Since R is a complete intersection and
each Mi+1 is maximal Cohen-Macaulay, Lemma 4.4 implies that Tor>0 (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi , Mi+1 ) = 0. By Theorem
3.1, it follows that
V ∗ (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi ⊗ Mi+1 ) = Join((V ∗ (M1 ), . . . , V ∗ (Mi )), V ∗ (Mi+1 ))
= Join(V ∗ (M1 ), . . . , V ∗ (Mi+1 ))
Furthermore, let L be the dimension i linear space in V ∗ (M1 ⊗· · ·⊗Mi ) guaranteed by the induction hypothesis.
Take x ∈ V ∗ (Mi+1 ) which exists since Mi+1 is not free. Now x is not in L and so
Join(L, x) ⊆ V ∗ (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mi+1 ).
But Join(L, x) is a linear space of dimension i + 1, proving the claim.
Now the contradiction is clear, for there is a c-dimensional linear space contained in V ∗ (M1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Mc+1 )
which is a closed subset of Pc−1 .

It turns out that we can prove an analogue of Theorem 3.1 using Ext.
Theorem 4.7. Suppose R is a complete intersection ring and M, N ∈ mod(R). If Ext>0 (M, N ) = 0, then
V ∗ (Hom(M, N )) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
Proof. Since Ext>0 (M, N ) = 0, [2, Lemma 2.5] implies that M is maximal Cohen-Macaulay. By [24, Proposition
3.6] and [26, 2.1.1], we have the following exact sequence
Tor2 (Tr M, N ) → Hom(M, R) ⊗ N → Hom(M, N ) → Tor1 (Tr M, N ) → 0
where Tr M is the Auslander-Bridger transpose of M . However, since R is Gorenstein, Tr M is an inverse syzygy
of M , i.e. there exists an exact sequence
0 → M → F → G → Tr M → 0
with F, G free. So Tor≫0 (Tr M, N ) = 0. Since Tr M is again Cohen-Macaulay, it follows from Lemma 4.4
that Tor>0 (Tr M, N ) = 0. Therefore, the above short exact sequence gives us the isomorphism M ∗ ⊗ N ∼
=
Hom(M, N ).
Since V ∗ (M ) = V ∗ (M ∗ ), we know that Tor≫0 (M ∗ , N ) = 0. Since M is maximal Cohen-Macaulay, Lemma
4.4 implies Tor>0 (M ∗ , N ) = 0. Therefore, by Theorem 3.1 we have
V ∗ (Hom(M, N )) = V ∗ (M ∗ ⊗ N ) = Join(V ∗ (M ∗ ), V ∗ (N )) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).

This result provides an elementary proof of the following result.
Corollary 4.8. If Ext>0 (M, N ) = 0, then cx Hom(M, N ) = cx M + cx N .
Proof. It follows from the previous theorem, Theorem 2.28, and Proposition 2.13 that
cx Hom(M, N ) = dim Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) + 1 = dim V ∗ (M ) + dim V ∗ (N ) + 2 = cx M + cx N.

5. Vanishing of Tor
In this section, we prove the following theorem which gives sufficient conditions for the vanishing of Tor
modules. The novelty here is that these conditions involve dimension instead of depth. We then apply this
result to Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 5.1. Suppose (R, m, k) is an AB ring and M and N are Cohen-Macaulay (but not necessarily maximal
Cohen-Macaulay). Then if Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0 and
dim M ⊗ N + dim R ≤ dim M + dim N
then Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0.

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

11

Although we are primarily interested in complete intersection rings, we prove the theorem in terms of AB
rings for the sake of generality. Since complete intersection rings are AB, the result specializes to the desired
context. We refer the reader to [25] for the definition and basic facts about AB rings. The only fact about AB
rings we use is the following.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose R is AB. If Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, then we have Tor>dim R (M, N ) = 0.
The key to the proof of Theorem 5.1, is the following observation.
Lemma 5.3. Suppose (R, m, k) is local and M , N , and R are Cohen-Macaulay. If
dim M ⊗ N + dim R ≤ dim M + dim N
then there exists a sequence x1 , . . . , xn ∈ ann N which is regular on M and R such that N is maximal CohenMacaulay over R/(x1 , . . . , xn ).
Proof. We work by induction on r = dim R − dim N . When r = 0, the statement is trivial. So suppose
r > 0. We divide the proof into two cases. First, suppose there is an x ∈ ann N which is regular on R and
M . Since dim R/xR = dim R − 1 and dim M/xM = dim M − 1, we have dim(M/xM ) ⊗ N + dim R/xR ≤
dim M/xM + dim N . Thus by induction, there exists a regular sequence x2 , . . . , xn on M/xM and R/xR such
that N is maximal Cohen-Macaulay over R/(x, x2 , . . . , xn ). Thus x, x2 , . . . , xn is our desired regular sequence.
For the second case, suppose there is no x ∈ ann N which is regular on R and M . In other words, suppose
that

 

[
[
ann N ⊆ 
p ∪ 
q .
p∈Ass M

q∈Ass N

Then ann N ⊆ p with either p ∈ Ass R or p ∈ Ass M . If p ∈ Ass R = min R, then dim N = dim R, and the
empty regular sequence suffices. So suppose p ∈ Ass M . Then p is in supp M ∩ supp N = supp M ⊗ N , thus
dim M ⊗ N ≥ dim R − ht p. But since M is Cohen-Macaulay, dim M = dim R − ht p ≤ dim M ⊗ N . Since
dim M ⊗ N + dim R ≤ dim M + dim N , this means that dim R ≤ dim N , which implies that N is maximal
Cohen-Macaulay, proving the claim.

Proof of Theorem 5.1. By the previous lemma, we may let x1 , . . . , xn ∈ ann N be a regular sequence on M
and R such that N is maximal Cohen-Macaulay over R/(x1 , . . . , xn ). Set R̄ = R/(x1 , . . . , xn ). Since R̄ is
Gorenstein, there exists a long exact sequence of the form
∂0

∂1

∂2

0 → N → R̄m0 −→ R̄m1 −→ R̄m2 −→ · · ·
−i
Set N i = ΩR̄
N = ker ∂ i . Note that N 0 = N . Now TorR
>0 (M, R̄) = 0 since x1 , . . . , xn is regular on M . Thus,
considering the short exact sequence 0 → N i → R̄m → N i+1 → 0, we see that Torj (M, N i ) ∼
= Torj+1 (M, N i+1 ).
i
In particular, Tor≫0 (M, N i ) = 0 for all i. However, Lemma 5.2 implies that TorR
>dim R (M, N ) = 0 for all i.
Thus for all j > 0, we have
R
dim R+1
∼
)=0
TorR
j (M, N ) = Torj+dim R+1 (M, N
completing the proof.


Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 3.1 give this immediate corollary.
Corollary 5.4. Suppose R is a local complete intersection and M and N are Cohen-Macaulay (but not necessarily maximal Cohen-Macaulay). Then if V ∗ (M ) ∩ V ∗ (N ) = ∅ and dim M ⊗ N + dim R ≤ dim M + dim N ,
then V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
This corollary gives a relation between the actual support of a module and also the cohomological support.
Remark 5.5. Theorem 5.1 can actually be stated in more general terms using AB dimension, which is defined
by Araya in [2, Definition 2.2]. The application of Lemma 5.2 is the only place in the proof where the AB
assumption is used. However, if we assume that R is Cohen-Macaulay and AB-dim N < ∞, then arguments in
[25, Proposition 3.2, Theorem 3.3] show that the conclusion of Lemma 5.2 still holds. Therefore, Theorem 5.1
still holds if we only assume that R is Cohen-Macaulay and AB-dim N < ∞.

12

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

6. Homological Conjectures
6.1. Conjectures both new and old. In this section we introduce some new conjectures. The main motivation comes from Section 5 and some of the famous homological conjectures in commutative algebra.
Definition 6.1.
Strong DI The strong dimension inequality holds if Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0 implies
dim M + dim N ≤ dim R + dim M ⊗ N
DE The dimension formula holds, if Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 implies
dim M + dim N = dim R + dim M ⊗ N
Para The parameter conjecture holds if pd N < ∞ and p ∈ min R implies there exists a q ∈ min N such that
p ⊆ q. This is equivalent to saying that if x is a parameter element on N , then it is a parameter element
on R.
These statements seem to be unstudied. If N has no embedded primes, then Para follows from the zero
divisor conjecture. Serre’s intersection conjectures are related to Strong DI and DE. Let λ denote the length
function.
Conjecture 6.2. Suppose pd N < ∞ and λ(M ⊗ N ) < ∞ and set
X
χ(M, N ) =
(−1)i λ(Tori (M, N ))
i≥0

The following statements were conjectured by Serre.
DI
Non-negativity
Vanishing
Positivity

dim M + dim N ≤ dim R
χ(M, N ) ≥ 0
χ(M, N ) = 0 whenever dim M + dim N < dim R
χ(M, N ) > 0 whenever dim M + dim N = dim R

Serre proved each of these conjectures over unramified regular local rings and showed that DI holds for
all regular local rings. For arbitrary regular local rings, Non-negativity and vanishing were established
in [19] and [21, 30] respectively. However, Positivity is still open in the ramified case. For singular rings,
Non-negativity, Vanishing, and Positivity are false in general, see [17].
Obviously, DI is a special case of Strong DI. When Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then χ(M, N ) > 0. Thus when
pd N < ∞ and λ(M ⊗ N ) < ∞, then DE is implied by Serre’s intersection conjectures. Although Vanishing,
and Positivity are not true in general, no counterexamples to Strong DI and DE are known to the authors.
The following conjectures are also relevant.
Definition 6.3.
PS Peskine and Spiro conjectured in [29] that if pd N < ∞ and λ(M ⊗ N ) < ∞, then
dim M ≤ grade N
GC The grade conjecture asserts that grade N + dim N = dim R.
Small MAC The small Cohen-Macaulay conjecture asserts that every ring R has a finitely generated maximal CohenMacaulay module.
We now list the relations between these conjectures.
Proposition 6.4.
(1) PS implies DI.
(2) If GC holds, then DI implies PS.
(3) Equidimensional implies GC.
(4) Suppose holds Strong DI holds when pd N ≤ ∞. Then Para holds too.
(5) Suppose R is equidimensional and catenary. If PS holds at every localization of R, Para holds as well.

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

13

(6) Suppose Small MAC holds for all rings. If for every p ∈ spec R DE holds and Rp is equidimensional,
then we have Para.
When R is equidimensional and catenary, we summarize implications (1)-(5) with the following diagram.
Strong DI

PS ks


Strong DI
assuming pd N <∞
◆◆◆◆
♥♥
♥
♥♥
◆◆◆◆
♥
♥
♥♥
◆◆ "*
♥
♥
rz ♥
+3 DI
Para
4<
ck ❖❖
qqq
❖❖❖❖
q
q
q
q
❖❖❖❖
qq
❖❖
qqq
PS
DI
+3 at every
at every ks
localization
localization

The authors would like to thank Melvin Hochster for bringing (5) to their attention.
Proof. Statement (1) follows from the inequality grade(N ) + dim N ≤ dim R. Furthermore, GC asserts this
inequality is an equality, yielding (2). Statement (3) is [11, Theorem 3.6].
We now show (4). Let p ∈ min R. Take q ∈ min N/pN such that dim R/q = dim N/pN . Since pd N < ∞,
then Strong Dimeq implies
dim N + dim R/p ≤ dim R + dim N/pN = dim R + dim R/q.
Since dim R = dim R/p, this inequality implies dim N ≤ dim R/q. However, since q contains ann N , this implies
that dim N = dim R/q. It follows that q is a minimal prime of N .
To show (5), assume that pd N < ∞ and let p ∈ min R. Let q be minimal over p + ann N . Now λ(Nq ⊗
(R/p)q ) < ∞, and so if PS holds at every localization then dim(R/p)q ≤ grade Nq . Since R is catenary and
equidimensional then dim(R/p)q = dim Rq . Therefore, dim Rq ≤ grade Rq , and so Rq is Cohen-Macaulay and
ann N is qRq -primary. Therefore, q ∈ min N as desired.
It remains to prove (6). Let p ∈ min R. Let q be minimal over p + ann N . By assumption, there exists a small
maximal Cohen-Macaulay module M over (R/p)q . Now since R is equidimensional at every localization, M is
R
also maximal Cohen-Macaulay over Rq . Since pd Nq < ∞, it is not difficult to show that Tor>0q (M, Nq ) = 0.
Hence, DE implies
dim M + dim Nq = dim Rq + dim M ⊗ Nq = dim Rq
and so we have λ(Nq ) < ∞. This implies that q is in min N .

6.2. Examples. We now list some cases where these conjectures hold.
Proposition 6.5. When R is a regular local ring, R satisfies Strong DI. When R is an unramified regular
local ring, R satisfies DE.
Proof. Take p ∈ min M and q ∈ min N such that dim M = dim R/p and dim N = dim R/q. Furthermore, choose
a π ∈ spec R that is minimal over p + q. Suppose that π = m. Then since R is regular and dim R/p ⊗ R/q = 0,
we have
dim M + dim N = dim R/p + dim R/q ≤ dim R ≤ dim R + dim M ⊗ N.
So assume that π 6= m. Since p, q ⊆ π, we have dim Mπ + dim R/π = dim M and likewise for N . By induction,
we have the desired inequality:
dim M + dim N = dim Mπ + dim Nπ − 2 dim R/π ≤ dim Rπ + dim(M ⊗ N )π − 2 dim R/π ≤ dim R + dim M ⊗ N.
Now we prove the second statement. Suppose that Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 and R is unramified. By Strong DI, it
suffices to show that dim R + dim M ⊗ N ≤ dim M + dim N . Take q ∈ spec R such that dim R/q = dim M ⊗ N .
Then dim(M ⊗ N )q = 0 and χ(Mq , Nq ) = λ(M ⊗ N )q > 0. Therefore Serre’s intersection conjectures tell us
that dim Rq = dim Mq + dim Nq . Localizing at q yields
dim R + dim M ⊗ N = dim Rq + 2 dim R/q = dim Mq + dim Nq + 2 dim R/q ≤ dim M + dim N

14

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

which yields the desired result.

Proposition 6.6. Suppose R is a standard graded k-algebra with k a field. Then Strong DI and DE hold
over graded modules.
Proof. Let M and N be graded modules. Set
χ(M, N )(t) =

X

(−1)i HTori (M,N ) (t)

i≥0

where HTori (M,N ) (t) is the Hilbert series of Tori (M, N ). We know from [5, Lemma 7] that χ(M, N )(t)HR (t) =
HM (t)HN (t). When Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, χ(M, N )(t) is a rational function, and so we let d denote the degree of its
denominator. It follows that d+dim R = dim M +dim N . When Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0, then χ(M, N )(t) = HM⊗N (t)
and so d = dim M ⊗ N . This gives us DE. When Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, we have d ≤ maxi dim Tori (M, N ) ≤
dim M ⊗ N where the second inequality comes from the inclusion supp Tori (M, N ) ⊆ supp M ⊗ N . This yields
Strong DI.

In the situation of the previous proposition, whenever Torodd (M, N ) = 0 and Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, we have
dim M +dim
LN = dim R+dim M ⊗N . Indeed in this circumstance, the degree of the denominator of χ(M, N )(t)
is just dim i Tori (M, N ) = dim M ⊗ N , and then proof of of the proposition still applies.

6.3. Applications. These conjectures have some interesting consequences.

Proposition 6.7. Suppose Para holds. If p ∈ spec R and there exists an R-module N such that pd N < ∞
and supp N = V (p), then p contains every minimal prime of R.
Proof. Since min N = {p}, the result is immediate.

Proposition 6.8. Let S be an R-algebra which is finitely generated as an R module. Suppose DE holds for
S
both R and S. If TorR
>0 (M, N ) = 0 and Tor>0 (M, N ) = 0 for S-modules M and N , then dim R = dim S.
Proof. The result follows from comparing dim M + dim N = dim R + dim M ⊗ N and dim M + dim N =
dim S + dim M ⊗ N .

The New Intersection Theorem states that if pd N < ∞ then dim M ≤ pd N + dim M ⊗ N . We can use
Strong DI to give a similar inequality for Cohen-Macaulay rings. However, before proceeding we need a
definition.
Definition 6.9. When R is Cohen-Macaulay, set CM- dim N = depth R − dim N .
Actually, CM- dim is a well studied homological dimension which can be defined even for non-Cohen-Macaulay
rings. Since our attention is restricted to the Cohen-Macaulay case, we do not give the full definition, but refer
the reader to [20].
Proposition 6.10. Suppose R is Cohen-Macaulay and satisfies Strong DI. Then if Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0, we
have dim M ≤ CM- dim N + dim M ⊗ N .
Proof. The assumptions imply
depth N + dim M ≤ dim N + dim M ≤ dim R + dim M ⊗ N = depth R + dim M ⊗ N
which tells us that
dim M ≤ depth R − depth N + dim M ⊗ N = CM- dim N + dim M ⊗ N.

Recall that Sn is the collection of modules such that depth Mp ≥ min{n, ht p}.
Proposition 6.11. Suppose (R, m) is a local Cohen-Macaulay and the depth formula holds at every localization.
Furthermore, suppose that either
(1) Strong DI holds when one of the modules has finite projective dimension

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

15

(2) DI holds at every localization
Assume N 6= 0 and that there exists a module L such that pd L ≤ ∞ and supp L = N . Then if M ⊗ N satisfies
Sn , we have {p ∈ supp M | ht p < n} ⊆ supp N .
Remark 6.12. When pd N ≤ ∞, [15, Theorem 3.1] states that M satisfies Sn too. When supp M ⊆ supp N ,
this result is trivial by the depth formula. Hence, [15, Theorem 3.1] is actually a statement about the behaviour
of depth Mp for p in supp M \ supp N . In this respect, our results are similar. In fact, the arguments are similar
too.
Proof. Take p ∈ supp M with ht p < n. Choose a q ∈ min L ⊗ R/p such that dim R/q = dim L ⊗ R/p. Note
that p ∈ supp N = supp L. We claim that dim Nq + dim(R/p)q ≤ dim Rq . Suppose DI holds for Rq . Then since
dim Lq ⊗ (R/p)q = 0, we have
dim Nq + dim(R/p)q = dim Lp + dim(R/p)q ≤ dim Rq .
Now suppose DI holds when one of the modules has finite projective dimension. Then we have the following
dim Nq + dim(R/p)q ≤ dim N + dim R/p − 2 dim R/q
= dim L + dim R/p − 2 dim R/q ≤ dim R + dim L ⊗ R/p − 2 dim R/q = dim Rq
which establishes the claim.
We now make the following computation. The first inequality is [16, A.6.2].
ht p ≥ depth Mp
≥ depth Mq − dim(R/p)q
≥ depth Mq + dim Nq − dim Rq
≥ depth Mq + depth Nq − depth Rq
= depth(N ⊗ M )q
≥ min{n, ht q}
Since ht p < n by assumption, we have ht p ≥ ht q which forces p = q. Therefore, p ∈ supp N as desired.

7. Questions and examples
What happens to Theorem 3.1 if we remove the assumption that all the Tor modules vanish? The following
two examples show that in general neither containment holds.
Example 7.1. Let k be a field and set R = k[x, y]/(xy). Now the modules M = R/(x + y) and N = R/(x − y)
have finite projective dimension. However, we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) = ∅ + V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) = P0k̃
showing that V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) is not always contained in Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N ), even if the Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0.
Example 7.2. Set R = Q[a, b, c]/(a2 − b2 , b3 − c3 ) and
 2 2
8ab c + 4abc3 + 6b2 c3 + 8ac4 + 6bc4 + c5
M = coker
4ab2 c2 + 6abc3 + 9b2 c3 + ac4 + 9bc4 + 4c5
N=

3ab + 4b2 + 7ac + 7bc + 4c2
4ab + 5b2 + 3ac + 5bc + 5c2



R
.
(8ab2 c + 8b2 c2 + 6ac3 + 5bc3 + c4 , 3ab + 2b2 + 3ac + 2bc + 9c2 )

An easy computation in Macaulay2 shows that
cx M = 0

cx N = 2

cx M ⊗ N = 1.

This shows that Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) = V ∗ (N ) * V ∗ (M ⊗ N ).
We now give an example where none of the modules involved have finite projective dimension.

16

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

Example 7.3. Set R = Q[a, b, c, d]/(a2 − b2 , b2 − c2 , d2 ) and define the ideal


8
5
1
3
a + b + c, 2a + b + 3c, d .
I=
5
7
2
2
A simple computation in Macaulay2 shows that
V ∗ (I) = V (3740x1 + 477x2 )
V ∗ (I ⊗ I) = V (0) = P2Q̃
Were Q̃[x1 , x2 , x3 ] is the ring of cohomological operators over the algebraic closure of Q. Since V ∗ (I) is linear,
we have
Join(V ∗ (I), V ∗ (I)) = V ∗ (I) + V ∗ (I ⊗ I).
Example 7.4. Let R = Q[a, b, c]/(a2 , b2 , c2 ) and I = (b) and J = (ab). An easy computation yields V ∗ (R/I) =
V (x1 , x3 ) and V ∗ (R/J) = V (x1 ) where Q̃[x1 , x2 , x3 ] is the ring of cohomological operators over the algebraic
closure of Q. Now because V ∗ (R/J) is a linear space containing V ∗ (R/I), we have
Join(V ∗ (R/I), V ∗ (R/J)) = V ∗ (R/J) * V ∗ (R/J ⊗ R/I) = V ∗ (R/(I + J)) = V ∗ (I).
The authors wondered if there was a relation between the stable behavior of V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) and Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )).
Investigations using Macaulay2 compelled them to ask the following questions.
Question 1. Does

n
[

V ∗ (Tori (M, N ))

i=0

stabilize as n tends to infinity?
Question 2. For any modules M and N , do we have the following?
∞
[
V ∗ (Tori (M, N ))
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) ⊆
i=0

Proposition 7.5. Questions 1 and 2 are true when Tor≫0 (M, N ) = 0.
Proof. The first question is trivially true in this case. We prove that the second question is true using induction
on the minimal n such that Tor>n (M, N ) = 0. When n = 0, the the statement follows from Theorem 3.1. So
suppose n > 0. Then we have Tor>n−1 (Ω M, N ) = 0 and so by induction, we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) = Join(V ∗ (Ω M ), V ∗ (N ))
⊆

∞
[

∗

V (Tori (Ω M, N )) =

∞
[

V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) ∪ V ∗ (Ω M ⊗ N ).

i=2

i=0

Note that M is not free and so Ω M is not zero. The short exact sequence
0 → Ω M → Rm → M → 0
yields
0 → Tor1 (M, N ) → Ω M ⊗ N → N m → M ⊗ N → 0.
It follows that V ∗ (Ω M ⊗ N ) ⊆ V ∗ (N ) ∪ V ∗ (M ⊗ N ) ∪ V ∗ (Tor1 (M, N )) and hence
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) ⊆

∞
[

V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) ∪ V ∗ (N ).

∞
[

V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) ∪ V ∗ (M )

i=0

Similarly, we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) ⊆

i=0

but since V ∗ (M ) ∩ V ∗ (N ) = ∅, this shows the desired result.

Question 1 is also true when R is a hypersurface, because over such rings Tori (M, N ) is eventually periodic.
The following example shows that even over a hypersurface V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) does not necessarily stabilize.

COHOMOLOGICAL SUPPORT AND THE GEOMETRIC JOIN

17

Example 7.6. Let k be a field and set R = k[x, y]/(xy). It is easy to show that Torodd (R/(x), R/(y)) = 0
and Toreven (R/(x), R/(y)) ∼
= k. The projective dimension of the former is obviously finite, and the projective
dimension of the latter is infinite. Thus V ∗ (Tori (R/(x), R/(y))) cannot stabilize.
Note that Example 7.3 shows that we cannot hope to replace the containment in Question 2 with equality.
We now show some potential applications.
Proposition 7.7. Suppose Question 1 is true for a pair of modules M and N . If we have
Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) =

∞
[

V ∗ (Tori (M, N ))

i=0

then we have the inequality
max{cx Tori (M, N )} ≤ cx M + cx N ≤ cx{an =
i

X

βj (Tori (M, N ))}.

i+j=n

Proof. If we assume that Question 1 holds, then the assumptions imply
dim Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N )) = max{dim V ∗ (Tori (M, N ))}.
This yields the inequality
max{cx Tori (M, N )} − 1 = max{dim V ∗ (Tori (M, N ))} ≤ dim V ∗ (M ) + V ∗ (N ) + 1 = cx M + cx N − 1
It suffices to show the second inequality. By [28], we have
X
βi (M )βj (N ) = cx M + cx N,
cx
i+j=n

hence the second inequality follows from the next lemma, Lemma 7.8.

Lemma 7.8. We have the inequality
X

βi (M )βj (N ) ≤

i+j=n

X

βj (Tori (M, N )).

i+j=n

Proof. Let F• and G• be minimal free resolutions of M and N and P• a free resolution of k. Let T• be the
total complex F• ⊗ G• . Let E 0 be the double complex T ⊗ P• . Computing the spectral sequence using the
1
1
= 0 for j 6= 0. Since F• and G• are minimal, the differential of T
= Ti ⊗ k and Ei,j
vertical filtration gives Ei,0
is given by matrices whose entries lie in m. Therefore the differential of E 1 is zero, and so the spectral sequence
1
collapses. Computing the spectral sequence using the horizontal filtration gives Ei,j
= Tori (M, N ) ⊗ Pj and
2
Ei,j = Torj (Tori (M, N ), k). We thus have
M
k βj (Tori (M,N )) =⇒
k βi′ (M)βj′ (N ) .
i′ +j ′ =i+j

follows since En∞
βj (Tori (M,N ))

The desired inequality
L
a subspace of i+j=n k

is a graded vector space whose associated graded space is a quotient of

.



For closed sets U, V ∈ Pnk , it is known that dim Join(U, V ) ≤ dim U + dim V + 1. It is not known when
precisely this equality is strict. This question is particularly interesting when U = V and has been the subject
of much research. As the following shows, Question 1 and Question 2 are actually related to this topic.
Proposition 7.9. Suppose Question 1 and Question 2 have positive answers. Then for any modules M and N
over a complete intersection ring,
dim Join(V ∗ (M ), V ∗ (N ) ≤ max cx Tori (M, N ) − 1.
i∈N

Proof. The result is obvious after recalling that dim V ∗ (Tori (M, N )) = cx Tori (M, N ) − 1.


18

HAILONG DAO AND WILLIAM SANDERS

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

30.
31.

Bjørn Ådlandsvik, Joins and higher secant varieties, Math. Scand. 61 (1987), no. 2, 213–222. MR 947474 (89j:14030)
Tokuji Araya, A homological dimension related to AB rings, (2012), arxiv:1204.4513v1.
L. L. Avramov, Modules of finite virtual projective dimension, Invent. Math. 96 (1989), no. 1, 71–101. MR 981738 (90g:13027)
Luchezar L. Avramov, Infinite free resolutions [mr1648664], Six lectures on commutative algebra, Mod. Birkhäuser Class.,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010, pp. 1–118. MR 2641236
Luchezar L. Avramov and Ragnar-Olaf Buchweitz, Lower bounds for Betti numbers, Compositio Math. 86 (1993), no. 2,
147–158. MR 1214454 (94a:13011)
, Homological algebra modulo a regular sequence with special attention to codimension two, J. Algebra 230 (2000), no. 1,
24–67. MR 1774757 (2001g:13032)
, Support varieties and cohomology over complete intersections, Invent. Math. 142 (2000), no. 2, 285–318. MR 1794064
(2001j:13017)
Luchezar L. Avramov, Vesselin N. Gasharov, and Irena V. Peeva, Complete intersection dimension, Inst. Hautes Études Sci.
Publ. Math. (1997), no. 86, 67–114 (1998). MR 1608565 (99c:13033)
Luchezar L. Avramov and Srikanth B. Iyengar, Constructing modules with prescribed cohomological support, Illinois J. Math.
51 (2007), no. 1, 1–20. MR 2346182 (2008j:13036)
Luchezar L. Avramov and Li-Chuan Sun, Cohomology operators defined by a deformation, J. Algebra 204 (1998), no. 2,
684–710. MR 1624432 (2000e:13021)
Jesse Beder, The grade conjecture and asymptotic intersection multiplicity, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 12, 4065–
4077. MR 3266978
Petter Andreas Bergh, On support varieties for modules over complete intersections, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007),
no. 12, 3795–3803 (electronic). MR 2341929 (2008g:13022)
Nicolas Bourbaki, Éléments de mathématique, Masson, Paris, 1983, Algèbre commutative. Chapitre 8. Dimension. Chapitre 9.
Anneaux locaux noethériens complets. [Commutative algebra. Chapter 8. Dimension. Chapter 9. Complete Noetherian local
rings]. MR 722608 (86j:13001)
Jon Carlson and Srikanth B. Iyengar, Thick subcategories of the bounded derived category of a finite group, (2012),
arXiv:1201.6536v1.
Olgur Celikbas and Greg Piepmeyer, Syzygies and tensor product of modules, Math. Z. 276 (2014), no. 1-2, 457–468.
MR 3150213
Lars Winther Christensen, Gorenstein dimensions, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1747, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
MR 1799866 (2002e:13032)
Sankar P. Dutta, M. Hochster, and J. E. McLaughlin, Modules of finite projective dimension with negative intersection multiplicities, Invent. Math. 79 (1985), no. 2, 253–291. MR 778127 (86h:13023)
David Eisenbud, Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group representations, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 260 (1980), no. 1, 35–64. MR 570778 (82d:13013)
Ofer Gabber, Non-negativity of Serre’s intersection multiplicities, Ex-pośe à L’IHES (Décember 1995).
A. A. Gerko, On homological dimensions, Mat. Sb. 192 (2001), no. 8, 79–94. MR 1862245 (2002h:13024)
Henri Gillet and Christophe Soulé, K-théorie et nullité des multiplicités d’intersection, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 300
(1985), no. 3, 71–74. MR 777736 (86k:13027)
Tor H. Gulliksen, A change of ring theorem with applications to Poincaré series and intersection multiplicity, Math. Scand.
34 (1974), 167–183. MR 0364232 (51 #487)
Joe Harris, Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 133, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995, A ﬁrst course,
Corrected reprint of the 1992 original. MR 1416564 (97e:14001)
Robin Hartshorne, Coherent functors, Adv.in Math. 140 (1998), 44–94.
Craig Huneke and David A. Jorgensen, Symmetry in the vanishing of Ext over Gorenstein rings, Math. Scand. 93 (2003),
no. 2, 161–184. MR 2009580 (2004k:13039)
David Jorgensen, Finite projective dimension and the vanishing of Extr (m, m), Comm. Alg. 36 (2008), no. 12, 4461–4471.
Vikram Bhagvandas Mehta, Endomorphisms of complexes and modules over gorenstein rings, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI,
1976, Thesis (Ph.D.)–University of California, Berkeley. MR 2626509
Claudia Miller, Complexity of tensor products of modules and a theorem of Huneke-Wiegand, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126
(1998), no. 1, 53–60. MR 1415354 (98c:13022)
C. Peskine and L. Szpiro, Dimension projective finie et cohomologie locale. Applications à la démonstration de conjectures de
M. Auslander, H. Bass et A. Grothendieck, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1973), no. 42, 47–119. MR 0374130 (51
#10330)
Paul Roberts, The vanishing of intersection multiplicities of perfect complexes, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 13 (1985), no. 2,
127–130. MR 799793 (87c:13030)
Greg Stevenson, Subcategories of singularity categories via tensor actions, (2012), arXiv:1105.4698v3.
Department of Mathematics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, USA
E-mail address: hdao@ku.edu

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim,
Norway
E-mail address: william.sanders@math.ntnu.no

