THE LEFSCHETZ QUESTION FOR IDEALS GENERATED BY POWERS
OF LINEAR FORMS IN FEW VARIABLES

arXiv:1703.07456v2 [] 7 Aug 2017

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL
Abstract. The Lefschetz question asks if multiplication by a power of a general linear
form, L, on a graded algebra has maximal rank (in every degree). We consider a quotient
by an ideal that is generated by powers of linear forms. Then the Lefschetz question is, for
example, related to the problem whether a set of fat points imposes the expected number
of conditions on a linear system of hypersurfaces of fixed degree. Our starting point is a
result that relates Lefschetz properties in different rings. It suggests to use induction on
the number of variables, n. If n = 3, then it is known that multiplication by L always has
maximal rank. We show that the same is true for multiplication by L2 if all linear forms
are general. Furthermore, we give a complete description of when multiplication by L3
has maximal rank (and its failure when it does not). As a consequence, for such ideals that
contain a quadratic or cubic generator, we establish results on the so-called Strong Lefschetz
Property for ideals in n = 3 variables, and the Weak Lefschetz Property for ideals in n = 4
variables.

1. Introduction
The Lefschetz questions in commutative algebra refer to the study of the rank of the
homomorphism induced by multiplication by powers Lk of a general linear form L on components of some graded artinian quotient, R/I, of a polynomial ring R = K[x1 , . . . , xr ] over
an infinite field K. In particular, when k = 1, if this homomorphism always has maximal
rank (regardless of the component chosen as the domain of the homomorphism) then we say
that R/I has the Weak Lefschetz Property (WLP) and if it always has maximal rank also for
all choices of the exponent k then R/I is said to have the Strong Lefschetz Property (SLP).
Different families of ideals exhibit very different kinds of behavior. For monomial complete intersections in characteristic zero, it was shown by Stanley [S1] and later by Watanabe
[W] that the SLP always holds. Stanley [S2] used the WLP of certain toric ideals to prove
one direction of the celebrated g-theorem. These results generated many natural questions,
and many at least partial answers. For instance, one can ask if all complete intersections
share some Lefschetz property (in characteristic zero), ideally SLP. There is no known counterexample, but the best result to date [HMNW] is that all complete intersections in three
variables have the WLP. More generally, it is known that not all Gorenstein quotients of R
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D40; 13E10; 14N05.
Acknowledgements: Migliore was partially supported by Simons Foundation grant #309556. Nagel
was partially supported by Simons Foundation grant #317096.
This paper originated from work done during a visit of Migliore to the University of Kentucky (see [MN]),
and he thanks the Department of Mathematics for their kind hospitality. The authors are greatly indebted to
Craig Huneke for fruitful discussions and for allowing us to include their outcomes here. These discussions
took place at a workshop in Oaxaca, and the authors thank its organizers, Chris Francisco, Tai Ha and
Adam van Tuyl, for bringing us together and for the stimulating atmosphere. Both authors also thank Brian
Harbourne for useful comments.
1

2

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

have the WLP, but it is open whether in three variables they all have the SLP, or even the
WLP [BMMNZ2].
The Stanley-Watanabe result also led to a careful study of which monomial ideals have
the WLP (especially), including a careful analysis of the role of the characteristic in these
questions [BMMNZ1], [BK], [CMNZ], [CN1], [CN2], [KV], [LZ], [MMN1]. However, in this
paper we always assume that the base field K has characteristic zero.
Finally, the Stanley-Watanabe result led to the natural question of what can be said for
an ideal generated by powers of more than r linear forms, and by now a number of papers
have contributed to a growing understanding of this situation. In [SS], the authors made
the striking observation that in three variables (i.e. r = 3), any such ideal has the WLP. It
was shown in [DIV] and [CHMN] that for multiplication by L2 , the same is not true even in
three variables, by making a careful choice of the linear forms. Thus several papers studied
these questions for ideals generated by powers of general linear forms, both in K[x, y, z]
and in rings with more variables. These include [SS], [MMN1], [HSS], [MMN2], [M], [MM].
More often than not, the result was that not even WLP holds, but it is fascinating to see
situations where maximal rank does hold. In fact, this is related to failure of a fat point
scheme to impose the expected number of conditions on hypersurfaces of some degree (see,
e.g., [MMN2, DIV, CHMN]).
Complementing the above-mentioned results of [SS] on the one hand and [DIV] and
[CHMN] on the other, in [MM] the authors began the study of multiplication by low-degree
powers of a general linear form. It was shown that if I = (Lt1 , . . . , Lts ) ⊂ K[x, y, z] is generated by uniform t-th powers of general linear forms, then ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j has
maximal rank, for all j. It was also shown there that for ideals generated by four uniform t-th
powers of general linear forms, ×L3 has maximal rank two-thirds of the time (see Theorem
6.1 below for the precise statement), ×L4 has maximal rank one-third of the time, and ×L5
fails maximal rank in exactly one degree for all t ≥ 4. It was also shown in [MMN2] that
if I = (La11 , . . . , La44 ) ⊂ K[x, y, z] then ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j has maximal rank for all j,
regardless of the values of a1 , . . . , a4 .
The starting point of this paper is a general exchange result that relates Lefschetz properties of different rings (see Proposition 3.1). It suggests an inductive approach based on
the number of variables and/or the number of minimal generators. In fact, a special case
of Proposition 3.1 (b) combined with the fact that every artinian ideal in a polynomial ring
of at most two variables has the SLP and every complete intersection in three variables has
the WLP (both from [HMNW]) implies the mentioned WLP of ideals generated by powers
of linear forms in three variables (see also [MMN2]).
The WLP says that multiplication by a general linear form L on the quotient ring has
maximal rank in every degree. Continuing in the direction begun in [MMN2] and especially
in [MM], here we establish a complete description of the maximal rank property of ×L2 and
×L3 for ideals generated by arbitrary many powers of general linear forms. To this end we
give a new approach to part of the argument, which significantly simplifies the computations.
Our main result in this regard (from Theorems 5.3, 6.2 and 6.3) is the following.
Theorem 1.1. In R = K[x, y, z] consider the ideal I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ), where the Li are
general linear forms, s ≥ 3,Pand a1 , . . . , as are positive integers. Let L be a general linear
form, and set p = max{j |
ai ≤j (j + 1 − ai ) ≤ j}.
(a) For every j, the homomorphism ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j has maximal rank.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

3

(b) The homomorphism ×L3 : [R/I]j−3 → [R/I]j fails to have maximal rank in all
degrees j if and only if
X
#{ai ≤ p + 1} = p + 2 −
(p + 1 − ai ) ≥ 4,
ai ≤p

this number is even, and none of the ai equals p + 2. Moreover, in this case multiplication fails maximal rank in exactly one degree, namely when j = p + 2. Here we
have dim[R/I]p−1 = dim[R/I]p+2 , but the cokernel has dimension 1.

As a special case of part (b) of the above result, we give in Corollary 6.5 the result when
all the ai are equal. This explains part of the computational evidence provided in Remark
6.2 of [MM]. Theorem 1.1 also gives as corollaries statements on the SLP for ideals in three
variables having the form (La00 , La11 , . . . , Las s ) when a0 = 2 (Theorem 7.1), and when a0 = 3
and the ai are all equal for i ≥ 1 (Corollary 7.6).
We also investigate the WLP of ideals in four variables. Examples show that statements
analogous to Theorem 1.1, but in rings with more variables, are not necessarily true (see
Remark 7.4). However, combining the above result and the mentioned exchange property,
we obtain results about the WLP for ideals in four variables. In particular, we show (see
Corollaries 7.3 and 7.9).
Theorem 1.2. Let I = (La00 , La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ], with s ≥ 3, where the Li
are general linear forms. Then one has:
(a) If one of the powers ai is at most two, then R/I has the WLP.
(b) If a0 = 3 and a1 = · · · = as = t ≥ 3, then R/I has the WLP if and only if one of the
following conditions holds:
(i) s is odd;
(ii) s is even and t is not a multiple of s − 1.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some background results for ideals
in three variables. The exchange property is discussed in Section 3. Previous approaches to
the problems discussed here rely on involved computations. We avoid most of these by using
the techniques presented in Section 4. Multiplication by L2 and L3 is discussed in Sections
5 and 6, respectively. Applications to the SLP and WLP are described in Section 7.
2. Background
We assume throughout that K is a field of characteristic zero. We will consider ideals
I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R = K[x, y, z] where the Li are general linear forms, and for convenience
we will assume a1 ≤ · · · ≤ as .
The following result was a launching point for [MM] and for the current paper, which
study what can be said when we consider multiplication by higher powers of a general linear
form. Notice that unlike all results obtained in this paper, in the following the linear forms
are not assumed to be general.
Theorem 2.1 ([SS]). If I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R = K[x, y, z] where the Li are arbitrary
linear forms then R/I has the WLP.
Remark 2.2. In [DIV] and [CHMN] it was shown that the result of Schenck and Seceleanu
does not extend even to multiplication by the square of a general linear form. For this reason
from now on we assume that the linear forms are general.

4

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Theorem 2.3 ([EI]). Let hLa11 , . . . , Las s i ⊂ R be an ideal generated by powers of s linear
forms with positive integers a1 , . . . , an . Let ℘1 , . . . , ℘n be the ideals of the s points in P2 that
are dual to the linear forms. Then one has, for each integer j,
"
#
\ j−a +1
dim [R/hLa11 , . . . , Lann i]j = dim
℘i i
.
ai ≤j

j

Following [MMN2] and [MM], from now on, we will denote by
L2 (j; b1 , b2 , · · · , bn )
the linear system [℘b11 ∩ · · · ∩ ℘bnn ]j ⊂ [R]j . Note that we view it as a vector space, not a
projective space, when we compute dimensions. If necessary, in order to simplify notation, we
use superscripts to indicate repeated entries. For example, L2 (j; 52, 23 ) = L2 (j; 5, 5, 2, 2, 2).
Notice that, for every linear system L2 (j; b1 , . . . , bn ), one has
( 
)
 X
n 
bi + 1
j+2
,
−
dimK L2 (j; b1 , . . . , bn ) ≥ max 0,
2
2
i=1

where the right-hand side is called the expected dimension of the linear system. If the
inequality is strict, then the linear system L2 (j; b1 , . . . , bn ) is called special. It is a difficult
problem to classify the special linear systems.
Using Cremona transformations, one can relate two different linear systems (see [N], [LU],
or [D], Theorem 3), which we state only in the form we will need even though the cited
results are more general.
Lemma 2.4. Let n > 2 and let j, b1 , . . . , bn be non-negative integers, with b1 ≥ · · · ≥ bn . Set
m = j − (b1 + b2 + b3 ). If bi + m ≥ 0 for all i = 1, 2, 3, then
dimK L2 (j; b1 , . . . , bn ) = dimK L2 (j + m; b1 + m, b2 + m, b3 + m, b4 , . . . , bn ).
The analogous linear systems have also been studied for points in Pr . Following [DL], the
linear system Lr (j; b1 , . . . , bn ) is said to be in standard form if
(r − 1)j ≥ b1 + · · · + br+1

and b1 ≥ · · · ≥ bn ≥ 0.

In particular, for r = 2, they show that every linear system in standard form is non-special.
(This is no longer true if r ≥ 3. For example, L3 (6; 39 ) is in standard form and special.)
Notice again that we always use the vector space dimension of the linear system rather
than the dimension of its
 projectivization. Furthermore, we always use the convention that
a binomial coefficient ar is zero if a < r.

Remark 2.5. Bézout’s theorem also provides a useful simplification. Again, we only state
the result we need in this paper. Assume the points P1 , . . . , Pn are general. If j < b1 + b2
then
dim L2 (j; b1 , . . . , bn ) = dim L2 (j − 1; b1 − 1, b2 − 1, b3 , . . . , bn ).

Remark 2.6. In section 6 we will use Cremona transformations to complete some calculations. We observe here that if the linear system L2 (d; a1 , . . . , as ) is transformed to
the linear system L(e; b1 , . . . , bs ) by a Cremona transformation, then the fat point scheme
a1 P1 + · · · + as Ps imposes independent conditions on curves of degree d if and only if
b1 P1 + · · · + bs Ps imposes independent conditions on curves of degree e. Indeed, this can
be shown by a tedious computation involving binomial coefficients, and Brian Harbourne

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

5

has shown us a more elegant argument using the blow-up surface associated to the points
P1 , . . . , Ps .
We need the following special case of a theorem by Alexander and Hirschowitz on double
points in any projective space [AH].
Theorem 2.7. For a set of general double
points in P2 , a linear system L(d; 2m) has the

expected dimension, namely max{0, d+2
− 3m}, unless (d, m) ∈ {(4, 5), (2, 2)}. In these
2
two cases the expected dimension is zero, but the actual dimension is one.

Remark 2.8. If 0 6= L ∈ R is a linear form and k > 0, then
have for R̄ = R/Lk R that
 we 

j+2
. In particular, for k = 3
dim[R̄]j = kj + 1 − k−1
if j ≥ k. If j ≤ k − 1, dim[R̄]j =
2
2
we have dim[R̄]j = 3j for j ≥ 1 but not for j = 0. On the other hand, for k = 2 we have
dim[R̄]j = 2j + 1 for all j ≥ 0.
  

  

k
k+3
k
k+2
=
−
= 2k+1 and
−
Remark 2.9. For any integer k ≥ 0, we have
2
2
2
2
3k + 3.
3. An exchange property
We begin with a useful result relating the SLP for certain algebras to WLP for others.
This idea has been studied in difference settings, e.g. [MMN2, Proposition 2.1], but we
formalize it here.
Proposition 3.1. Let A be a standard graded artinian K-algebra over an infinite field K.
Consider general elements ℓ, L ∈ [A]1 . Fix positve integers b and k. Then one has:
(a) Assume A has the WLP and b ≥ k. If multiplication by ℓk on both A and A/Lb A
has maximal rank (in each degree), then multiplication by Lb has maximal rank on
A/ℓk A (in each degree).
(b) If multiplication by ℓk on A/Lb A has maximal rank (in each degree) and multiplication
by Lb on A has maximal rank (in each degree), then multiplication by Lb has maximal
rank on A/ℓk A (in each degree).
Proof. (a) For any integer j consider the commutative diagram

(3.1)

[A]j−k

 b
yL

[A]j−k+b


y

ℓk

−−−→

ℓk

−−−→

ℓk =γ

[A]j
−−−→

 b
yL =ψ

[A]j+b


y

−−−→

[A/ℓk ]j

 b
yL =ϕ

[A/ℓk ]j+b


y

−−−→ 0

−−−→ 0

[A/Lb A]j−k+b −−−→ [A/Lb A]j+b −−−→ [A/(ℓk , Lb )A]j+b −−−→ 0






y
y
y

0
0
0.
We want to show that the rightmost vertical multiplication map, call it ϕ, has maximal rank.
This is clear if any of the modules in the vertical sequence on the right is zero. Assume none

6

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

of these modules is trivial. Since the three horizontal multiplication maps have maximal
rank by assumption it follows that they are injective. Thus, the Snake Lemma shows that
injectivity of the map ϕ follows, once we know that the vertical multiplication in the middle,
call it ψ, is injective.
Since A has the WLP its Hilbert function is unimodal. Let q be the largest integer such
that dim[A]q−1 ≤ dim[A]q . The fact that the map ×ℓk : [A]j−k+b → [A]j+b is injective forces
j − k + d < q. Thus, the Hilbert function of A is non-decreasing on the closed interval from
zero to j − k + d. The WLP of A now gives that ×Lb−k : [A]j → [A]j−k+b is a composition
of b − k injective multiplications by L. Injectivity of the middle multiplication by ℓk implies
that ×Lk : [A]j−k+b → [A]j+b is injective as well. Hence, as composition of injective maps,
ψ is injective, as desired.
(b) This is easier and similar to the proof of [MMN2, Proposition 2.1]. Again we may
assume that each of the modules in the vertical sequence on the right is not zero. Since the
bottom multiplication by ℓk , call it γ, has maximal rank by assumption it must be injective.
Furthermore, we assumed that ψ has maximal rank. If it is surjective, then so is ϕ. If ψ is
injective, then the Snake Lemma yields that ϕ also is injective.

Corollary 3.2. If both A and A/ℓ2 have the WLP and multiplication by ℓ2 has maximal
rank on both A and A/Lb A for every b ≥ 2, then A/ℓ2 A has the SLP.
4. Some calculations
Before presenting the main results in the coming sections, we give some preparatory calculations that will simplify the later arguments.
Remark 4.1. Let R = K[x, y, z] and I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ) where s ≥ 3. Let h = (hi )0≤i≤d be
the Hilbert function of R/I, where d is the last degree where R/I is not zero. Since R/I
has the weak Lefschetz property by Theorem 2.1, it follows (see [HMNW]) that there is a
unique integer p such that
hp−1 < hp ≥ hp+1 .
Moreover, we get, for a general linear form L, that the multiplication map ×L : [R/I]j−1 →
[R/I]j is injective for j ≤ p and surjective for j ≥ p + 1. We will use this to narrow down
our study of the multiplication maps ×L2 and ×L3 .
First we consider ×L2 . The above observations imply that ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j is
injective if j ≤ p and surjective if j ≥ p + 2. Thus, for studying whether ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 →
[R/I]j has maximal rank for all j, it remains to consider the map ×L2 : [R/I]p−1 → [R/I]p+1 .
Similarly, if we are studying whether ×L3 : [R/I]j−3 → [R/I]j has maximal rank for all j,
then we know that this is true if j ≤ p or j ≥ p + 3. Thus, it remains to consider the map if
j = p + 1 or j = p + 2.
The following result will simplify many of the calculations in the rest of the paper.
Proposition 4.2. Let R = K[x, y, z] and let I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R, where the Li are
linear forms and 2 ≤ a1 ≤ · · · ≤ as . Let L be a general linear form and let k ≥ 1 and
j ≥ max{k, as } be positive integers. If







X 
X  j − ai + 2 
k−1
k−1
dim[R/(I, L )]j = jk + 1 −
−
k(j − ai ) + 1 −
−
2
2
2
k

ai ≤j−k

ai >j−k

then ×Lk : [R/I]j−k → [R/I]j is injective. Furthermore, I is minimally generated by the
given s powers.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

7

Proof. Consider the syzygy module E of I, defined by the exact sequence
0→E→

s
M

φ

R(−ai ) −→ R → R/I → 0

i=1

where φ is the matrix [La11 . . . Las s ]. This fits in the following commutative diagram, where
R̄ = R/(Lk ).

(4.1)

0
↓
Ls
0 → E(−k) →
i=1 R(−ai − k) →
k
Ls ↓ ×L
→
0 →
E
→
i=1 R(−ai )
↓
Ls
0 →
A
→
→
i=1 R̄(−ai )
↓
0

0
↓
R(−k) → R/I(−k) → 0
↓ ×Lk
R
→
R/I
→ 0
↓
R̄
→
B
→ 0
↓
0

where for now A and B are just the kernel and cokernel of the map given by the restriction
of φ to R̄. The Snake Lemma gives the long exact sequence
(4.2)

×Lk

×Lk

0 → E(−k) −→ E → A → R/I(−k) −→ R/I → B → 0.

(The fact that B is both the cokernel of ×Lk and of the bottom horizontal sequence in
the commutative diagram was noted in [DI], Theorem 2.11.) Now using Remark 2.8, the
bottom sequence in the commutative diagram gives that [A]j = 0, so the result follows from

(4.2).
For the proof of Theorem 5.3 we do not actually need to know the precise value of p as in
Remark 4.1. However, the following characterization of p will be useful.
Proposition 4.3. Let I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ). Let A = R/I and let L be a general linear form.
Then
(
)
X
p = reg(A/LA) = max j |
(j + 1 − ai ) ≤ j
ai ≤j

In the above statement, it is understood that for j < min{ai } the sum is zero so such a j
satisfies the inequality. It may even be the maximum. For example, if s = 6 and ai = 5 for
all i, we get p = 4 < ai .
Proof. The first equality follows because A has the WLP [SS], so we only prove the second
one. We note that K[x, y, z]/L ∼
= K[x, y]. Thus we have
dim[A/LA]j = dim L1 (j; j + 1 − a1 , . . . , j + 1 − as )
(

= max 0, j + 1 −
from which the result follows.

X

j≥ai

(j + 1 − ai )

)


8

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Corollary 4.4. Assume that ai = t for all i. Then
k
(j
s(t−1)
if s ≤ t
s−1
p=
t−1
if s ≥ t + 1.
Proof. It follows from Proposition 4.3 after a standard computation.



We now write the formula for p in a more convenient way.
Notation 4.5. For an s-tuple N = (a1 , . . . , as ) ∈ Ns0 of non-negative integers, define
nj := nj (N) = #{ai ∈ N | ai ≤ j}
and
(

p(N) := max j |
as above. If A =

R/(La11 , . . . , Las s )

X

(j + 1 − ai ) ≤ j

ai ≤j

)

and N = {a1 , . . . , as } we also write p(A) for p(N).

Lemma 4.6. For every integer j, one has
X
(j + 1 − ai ) = nj + nj−1 + · · · + n0 .
ai ≤j

Proof. Defining n−1 := 0, we compute
X

(j + 1 − ai ) =

j
X
X

(j + 1 − k)

k=0 ai =k

ai ≤j

=

j
X

(j + 1 − k)(nk − nk−1 )

k=1

= nj + nj−1 + · · · + n0 .

It follows that p = p(N) is defined by
(4.3)

n0 + · · · + np ≤ p and n0 + · · · + np + np+1 ≥ p + 2.

In particular, np+1 must be positive.
For simplicity of notation, we write N + b for the (s + 1)-tuple (a1 , . . . , as , b), where b ≥ 0
is an integer. We now record the following observation.
Lemma 4.7. For every integer b ≥ 0, one has:
(a) p(N + b) ≤ p(N).
(b) Suppose p = p(N) ≥ 2. If np−1 = 0 and np ≤ 1, then p(N + b) = p for every integer
b ≥ 2.
Proof. This is clear if b ≥ p + 2. Set n′j := nj (N + b). Then the definition of p gives
n′2 + · · · + n′p + n′p+1 ≥ p + 2. This implies claim (a).
Moreover, if the assumptions of (b) are satisfied, we get for every b ≥ 2 that n′2 +· · ·+n′p ≤
1 + · · · 1 + 1 + np ≤ p, which implies p(N + b) = p.


POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

9

5. Multiplication by L2
We will generalize the following theorems (changing the notation for consistency with our
work here).
Proposition 5.1 ([MMN2], Proposition 4.7). Let L1 , . . . , L4 , L be general linear forms in
K[x, y, z]. Let I = (La11 , . . . , La44 ). Then for each j, the homomorphism ×L2 : [R/I]j−2 →
[R/I]j has maximal rank.
Theorem 5.2 ([MM], Theorem 4.4). Let L1 , . . . , Ls , L be general linear forms in K[x, y, z],
where s ≥ 4. Let I = (Lt1 , . . . , Lts ) for t ≥ 2. Then for each j, the homomorphism ×L2 :
[R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j has maximal rank.
In this section we will give a simpler proof of a more general result, using the methods in
the last section. It confirms a conjecture made in [MM]. After the first version of this paper
was completed, R.M. Miró-Roig kindly informed us that A. Andrade and C. Almeida [AA]
also proved the following result.
Theorem 5.3. Let R = K[x, y, z] and let I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ), where the Li are general linear
forms, and s ≥ 3. Let L be a general linear form. Then for any j, the homomorphism
×L2 : [R/I]j−2 → [R/I]j has maximal rank.
Proof. Without loss of generality we can (and will) assume that ai ≤ p + 1 for all i (by
Remark 4.1, by removing generators of larger degree). Our goal is to show that for each j,
either the kernel or the cokernel of the homomorphism is zero, and we know by Remark 4.1
that it is enough to show it for j = p + 1. What we will show is a bit stronger, namely that
either [A]p+1 = 0 or [B]p+1 = 0, where A and B are given in the commutative diagram (4.1)
and p is the integer defined in Remark 4.1. This will prove what we need.
We now make a formal computation. At several steps the validity of the assertion needs
to be explained, and will be addressed afterwards; essentially whenever the step is not valid,
it willPturn out that this means that we are done with what we want to show. We set
D = si=1 ai . By Theorem 2.3 we have
dim[B]p+1 = dim[R/(La11 , . . . , Las s , L2 )]p+1

= dim L(p + 1; p − a1 + 2, . . . , p − as + 2, p)
s
s
X
X
s
= dim L2 (p + 1 −
(p − ai + 1); 1 , p −
(p − ai + 1))
= dim L2 (p + 1 −

i=1
s
X

i=1

(p − ai + 1); p −

i=1

s
X

(p − ai + 1)) − s

i=1

P
P

 

p + 1 − si=1 (p − ai + 1)
p + 3 − si=1 (p − ai + 1)
−s
−
=
2
2
"
#
s
X
=2 p+1−
(p − ai + 1) + 1 − s
i=1

= 2 [p + 1 − s(p + 1) + D] + 1 − s

= 2(p + 1) + 1 − s − 2s(p + 1) + 2D.
We now comment on key steps in the above formal computation.

10

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Line 2: Notice that by our assumption that ai ≤ p + 1 (Remark 4.1), we have p − ai + 2 ≥ 1
for all i.
Line 3: The goal is to reduce all of the multiplicities to 1 except for the last one, using
Bezout’s theorem (Remark 2.5), splitting off lines joining the point with (original)
multiplicity p to each of the other points, one at a time. Since the last multiplicity is
always one less than the degree of the curves, this can be done as long as the degree
of the curves is positive and the other multiplicity is > 1. Thus if the degree remains
positive throughout, line 3 is valid. If it ever happens that the degree reduces to zero,
this dimension is zero. But this means that ×L2 is surjective in the desired degree,
which is what we wanted to show. So we can assume that line 3 is valid.
Line 4: Since all the linear forms are general, the dual points are general. But t general simple
points impose up to t independent conditions on any non-empty linear system. If we
reach a point where the linear system is empty, again the dimension is zero and we
are done. So again, we can assume that line 4 is valid.
Line 5: Given a complete linear system of plane curves of degreed, the requirement that the
curves have multiplicity m at any point P imposes m+1
independent conditions.
2
Line 6: This uses Remark 2.9.
Now we compute the right-hand side of the equation in Proposition 4.2.
s
X
2(p + 1) + 1 −
[2(p + 1 − ai ) + 1] = (2p + 3) − 2s(p + 1) + 2D − s.
i=1

Comparing with the computation that we have previously completed, we are done by using

Proposition 4.2. Thus ×L2 has maximal rank.
6. Multiplication by L3
We recall the following theorem.
Theorem 6.1 ([MM] Theorem 5.1). Let L1 , . . . , L4 , L be general linear forms in K[x, y, z].
Let I = (Lt1 , . . . , Lt4 ) for t ≥ 3.
(i) If t ≡ 0 (mod 3), set t = 3t0 . Then for δ = 4t0 we have dim[R/I]δ−3 = dim[R/I]δ ,
and ×L3 fails by exactly one to be an isomorphism between these components. In all
other degrees, ×L3 has maximal rank.
(ii) If t 6≡ 0 (mod 3) then ×L3 has maximal rank in all degrees.
We note that for the integer p defined in Remark 4.1, Corollary 4.4 gives for Theorem 6.1
that in case (i) we have δ = p + 2. Our two main results in this section extend this result in
two ways: by increasing the number of linear forms and by allowing mixed powers. We begin
with the latter. We continue to use the invariant p defined in Remark 4.1 and discussed in
Proposition 4.3. We have seen that to show that ×L3 : [R/I]j−3 → [R/I]j has maximal rank
for all j, it is enough to show it for j = p + 1 and j = p + 2. First we show that the former
is always true.
s
Theorem 6.2. Let R = K[x, y,nz] and let I = (La11 , . . . , Laso
), where the Li are general linear
P
forms and s ≥ 3. Set p = max j |
ai ≤j (j + 1 − ai ) ≤ j . Let L be a general linear form.

Then the homomorphism ×L3 : [R/I]p−2 → [R/I]p+1 has maximal rank.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

11

Proof. Let m = #{ai ≤ p} and n = #{ai = p + 1} and put A = R/I. We may assume
p ≥ 3.
Again we make a formal calculation followed by comments of justification. By Theorem 2.3
we have
dim[A/L3 A]p+1 = dim[R/(La11 , . . . , Las s , L3 )]p+1
= dim L2 (p + 1; p − 1, p + 2 − ai | ai ≤ p + 1)
= dim L2 (p + 1; p − 1, 1n , p + 2 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ m)
m
m
X
X
= dim L2 (p + 1 −
(p − ai ); p − 1 −
(p − ai ), 2m , 1n )
i=1

i=1

= dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m ) − n,

P
where d = p − 1 − m
i=1 (p − ai ).
We now comment on key steps in the above formal computation.
Line 3: This uses the definition of the numbers m and n. We note that it is possible that
m = 0 and all relevant generators have degree p + 1. In this case line 3 is
  

p
p+3
n
− n = 3p + 3 − n,
−
dim L2 (p + 1; p − 1, 1 ) =
2
2

and one easily checks that this is equal to the right-hand side of the condition in
Proposition 4.2. Hence ×L3 : [R/I]p−2 → [R/I]p+1 is injective. We thus can assume
from now on that m ≥ 1.
Line 4: The goal is to reduce all of the multiplicities to either 1 or 2 except for the first
one, using Bezout’s theorem (Remark 2.5), splitting off lines joining the point with
(original) multiplicity p − 1 to each of the other points, one at a time. Since the first
multiplicity is always two less than the degree of the curves, this can be done as long
as at least one of the m multiplicities corresponding to some
P ai ≤ p is greater than 2.
Notice that d ≥ 0. Indeed, the definition of p gives p ≥ ai ≤p (p + 1 − ai ). It follows
that
m
X
(p − ai ) ≤ p − m,
(6.1)
i=1

which implies d ≥ m − 1 ≥ 0 as claimed.
Line 5: Since all the linear forms are general, the dual points are general. But n general
simple points impose n independent conditions on any non-empty linear system. If
we reach a point where the linear system is empty, again the dimension is zero and
we are done. So again, we can assume that line 5 is valid.
We now rewrite the system L2 (d + 2; d, 2m) using Cremona transformations in order to
show that it has the expected dimension.
Case 1 : Suppose d ≥ m. Write m = 2k + δ with integers k ≥ 0 and δ ∈ {0, 1}. Using k
Cremona transformations we get
dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m ) = dim L2 (d + 2 − 2k; d − 2k, 2δ ).
The linear system on the right-hand side has the expected dimension, and thus so does
L2 (d + 2; d, 2m) by Remark 2.6.

12

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Case 2 : Since d ≥ m − 1 by Inequality (6.1), we are left with the case where d = m − 1.
Writing d = 2k + δ with integers k and δ ∈ {0, 1} and using k Cremona transformations we
get
dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m ) = dim L2 (δ + 2; δ, 21+δ ).
Hence both systems have expected dimension.
The above discussion shows that
m
X


3
(p − ai ) − m − n.
dim[A/L A]p+1 = 3d + 6 − 3m − n = 3 p + 1 −
i=1

Comparing with Proposition 4.2, we conclude that ×L3 : [A]p−2 → [A]p+1 is injective.



As noted in Theorem 6.1, it is not always true that ×L3 has maximal rank, although
Theorem 6.2 shows that it can only fail for the map ×L3 : [R/I]p−1 → [R/I]p+2 . From now
on we use Notation 4.5 and Lemma 4.6.
Theorem 6.3. Let R = K[x, y, z] and let I = (La11 , . . . , Las s ), where the Li are general linear
forms, and s and the ai’s are non-negative integers. Set
(
)
X
p = max j |
(j + 1 − ai ) ≤ j = max {j | n0 + n1 + · · · + nj ≤ j}
ai ≤j

Let L be a general linear form. Then the homomorphism ×L3 : [R/I]j−3 → [R/I]j fails to
have maximal rank in all degrees j if and only if
X
np+1 = p + 2 −
(p + 1 − ai ) ≥ 4,
ai ≤p

this number is even, and none of the ai equals p+2. Moreover, in this case multiplication fails
maximal rank in exactly one degree, namely when j = p + 2. Here we have dim[R/I]p−1 =
dim[R/I]p+2, but the cokernel has dimension 1.
Proof. We may assume that each ai ≥ 2 because otherwise A = R/I has the strong Lefschetz
property by [HMNW]. If s ≤ 2 then the maps are injective, and if s = 3 then after a change
of variables we can assume that I is a monomial complete intersection, so the result of [S1]
and of [W] applies, and R/I has the strong Lefschetz property. Thus we can assume that
s ≥ 4. By Proposition 4.3, we know that p = reg (A/LA). Hence, Remark 4.1 shows that
the multiplication map ×L3 : [A]j−3 → [A]j has maximal rank if j ∈
/ {p + 1, p + 2}. By
Theorem 6.2, the maximal rank property is also true if j = p + 1. Hence it remains to
consider ×L3 : [A]p−1 → [A]p+2 , where p ≥ 2.
Let m = np = #{ai ≤ p}, n = #{ai = p + 1}, and q = #{ai = p + 2}. Again we make a
formal calculation followed by comments of justification. By Theorem 2.3 we have
dim[A/L3 A]p+2 = dim[R/(La11 , . . . , Las s , L3 )]p+2
= dim L2 (p + 2; p, p + 3 − ai | ai ≤ p + 2)
= dim L2 (p + 2; p, 2n , 1q , p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ m)
m
m
X
X
= dim L2 (p + 2 −
(p + 1 − ai ); p −
(p + 1 − ai ), 2m+n , 1q )
i=1

= max{0, dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2

i=1

m+n

) − q},

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

13

P
where d = p − m
i=1 (p + 1 − ai ).
We now comment on the steps in this formal computation.

Line 3: This uses the definition of the numbers m, n, and q. We note that it is possible that
m = 0, i.e. that the smallest generator has degree p + 1. In this case line 3 indicates
that we have to compute dim L2 (p + 2; p, 2n , 1q ). This does not necessarily have the
expected dimension; e.g. if p = 2, n = 4 and q = 0, we know that this dimension is 1
rather than 0, and this is an exception allowed in the statement of the theorem. But
the argument below goes through also in this situation.
Line 4: The goal is to reduce all of the multiplicities, other than the first one, that are at
least 3 to 2. This can be done by using Bezout’s theorem (Remark 2.5), splitting
off lines joining the point with (original) multiplicity p to each of the other points,
one at a time. Since the first multiplicity is always two less than the degree of the
curves, this can be done as long as at least one of the m multiplicities corresponding
to some P
ai + 2 − p is at least 3. (Again, if m = 0 there is nothing to do.) Notice that
d=p− m
i=1 (p + 1 − ai ) is not negative by the definition of p.

Line 5: As before, this uses that the q points with multiplicity one are general.

Our next goal is to determine when the linear system L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n ) has the expected
dimension by using Cremona transformations. This is clearly true if d ≤ 1, and not hard to
check if m + n ≤ 1, so we can assume without loss of generality that d ≥ 2 and m + n ≥ 2.
Then such a transformation takes L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n ) to L2 (d; d − 2, 2m+n−2 ). We consider
two cases.
Case 1 : Suppose d > m + n. Write m + n = 2k + δ with integers k and δ ∈ {0, 1}. Using
k Cremona transformations we get
dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n) = dim L2 (d + 2 − 2k; d − 2k, 2δ ).
The linear system on the right-hand side has the expected dimension, and thus so does
L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n ) by Remark 2.6.

Case 2 : Suppose d ≤ m + n. This time write d = 2k + δ with integers k and δ ∈ {0, 1}.
Again using k Cremona transformations we get
dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n) = dim L2 (δ + 2; δ, 2m+n−d+δ ).
Theorem 2.7 shows that the linear system on the right-hand side has the expected dimension,
unless δ = 0 and m + n − d = 2, which is equivalent to the condition
(6.2)

m+n=p+2−

m
X

(p + 1 − ai ) is even.

i=1

In the exceptional case we have dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n ) = 1. This concludes Case 2.
The above discussion of cases shows that if Condition (6.2) is not satisfied, then L2 (d +
2; d, 2m+n ) has the expected dimension. This gives
dim[A/L3 A]p+2 = max{0, 3d + 6 − 3(m + n) − q}
m
X


= max{0, 3 p + 2 −
(p + 1 − ai ) − m − n − q}.
i=1

14

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

If the right-hand side is zero, then ×L3 : [A]p−1 → [A]p+2 is surjective, and we are done.
Otherwise, we get
3

dim[A/L A]p+2

m
X


=3 p+2−
(p + 1 − ai ) − m − n − q}
i=1

"

#

X p + 2 − ai + 2
.
=3 p+2−
(p + 2 − ai ) −
(p + 2 − ai ) −
2
a =p+1
a =p+2
a ≤p
X

X

i

i

i

3

Comparing with Proposition 4.2, we conclude that ×L : [A]p−1 → [A]p+2 is injective.
It remains to consider the case where Condition (6.2) is satisfied. Since in this case
dim L2 (d + 2; d, 2m+n ) = 1, we have
dim[A/L3 A]p+2 = max{0, 1 − q}.
Thus, if q ≥ 1 the map ×L3 : [A]p−1 → [A]p+2 is surjective, as desired.
Finally, suppose q = 0 in addition to Condition (6.2). Then dim[A/L3 A]p+2 = 1. If
m + n = 2, then I has exactly two generators with a degree that is at most p + 2. By
generality they form a regular sequence, so ×L3 : [A]p−1 → [A]p+2 has maximal rank.
Thus, for the remainder of the proof we may also assume that m + n ≥ 4. Notice that
#{ai ≤ p + 1} = m + n. Therefore the argument is complete, once we have shown that
[A]p+2 and [A]p−1 have the same dimension.
In order to check this, consider first [A]p−1 . Theorem 2.3 gives
dim[A]p−1 = dim L2 (p − 1; p − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ m).
P
We have seen above that p − 1 ≥ m
i=1 (p − ai ). Thus, the linear system on the right-hand
side is in standard form and has the expected dimension. It follows that

 X

m 
p + 1 − ai
p+1
.
−
dim[A]p−1 =
2
2
i=1
We now consider [A]p+2 . Using q = 0, Theorem 2.3 gives

dim[A]p+2 = dim L2 (p + 2; 2n , p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ m).
We
Pmclaim that the system on the right-hand side has the expected dimension. Since p + 2 =
i=1 (p + 2 − ai ) + n by Condition (6.2), this is certainly true if m ≥ 3 and n ≥ 3 because
then
3
3
m
X
X
X
(p + 3 − ai )
(p + 2 − ai ) + 3 =
(p + 2 − ai ) + n ≥
p+2=
i=1

i=1

i=1

and the system is in standard form.
If m = 3 then it remains to consider the case where n = 1. Now Condition (6.2) shows
that we can apply a Cremona transformation to obtain
dim L2 (p + 2; 2, p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 3) = dim L2 (p; 2, p + 1 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 3).

The new system is in standard form by the definition of p, and thus also L2 (p + 2; 2, p + 3 −
ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 3) has the expected dimension.
P
Suppose m = 2. Then Condition (6.2) gives p + 2 − 2i=1 (p + 3 − ai ) − 2 = n − 4. Hence,
L2 (p + 2; 2n , p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 2) is in standard form if n ≥ 4. Otherwise, n = 2 and a

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

15

Cremona transformation gives
dim L2 (p + 2; 22 , p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 2) = dim L2 (p; 2, p + 1 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ 2).
Again the new system is in standard form, and thus the original system has the expected
dimension by Remark 2.6.
If m = 1, then n ≥ 3 and the linear system L2 (p + 2; 2n , p + 3 − a1 ) is in standard form if
n ≥ 5. If n = 3 a Cremona transformation shows that the system has the expected dimension
as well.
If m = 0, then Condition (6.2) gives p + 2 = n. Since we must have n ≥ 4, the system
L2 (n; 2n ) has the expected dimension by Theorem 2.7.
The above discussion shows that L2 (p + 2; 2n , p + 3 − ai | 1 ≤ i ≤ m) always has the
expected dimension. Thus, we get

 X

m 
p + 4 − ai
p+4
− 3n.
−
dim[A]p+2 =
2
2
i=1
Using Condition (6.2) again, it follows that

 
 X
 

m 
p + 1 − ai
p + 4 − ai
p+1
p+4
− 3n
−
−
−
dim[A]p+2 − dim[A]p−1 =
2
2
2
2
i=1
= 3p + 6 −

m
X

i=1

"

=3 m+n+
= 0,


3(p − ai ) + 6 − 3n

m
X

(p + 1 − ai ) −

i=1

m
X

#

(p − ai + 2) − n

i=1

as desired. Now the argument is complete.



It will be convenient to rewrite Theorem 6.3 in the following way (also using Lemma 4.6).
Theorem 6.4. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal generated by powers of general linear forms such that
A = R/I is artinian. Write p = p(A) and nj = nj (A). Let ℓ ∈ R be a general linear form.
Then there is at least one degree j where the homomorphism ×ℓ3 : [A]j−3 → [A]j fails to
have maximal rank if and only if
np+1 = p + 2 − (np + np−1 + · · · + n0 ) ≥ 4,
this number is even, and np+2 = np+1 . Moreover, in this case multiplication fails maximal
rank in exactly one degree, namely if j = p + 2. Here we have dim[A]p−1 = dim[A]p+2 , but
the cokernel has dimension 1.
For comparison with Theorem 6.1 and with [MM] Remark 6.2 we specialize Theorem 6.3
to the case of uniform powers.
Corollary 6.5. Let R = K[x, y, z] and let I = (Lt1 , . . . , Lts ), where the Li are general linear
forms and t ≥ 1. Let L be a general linear form. Then the homomorphism ×L3 : [R/I]j−3 →
[R/I]j fails to have maximal rank in all degrees if and only if s−1 divides t and s ≥ 4 is even.
t
Moreover, multiplication fails maximal rank in exactly one degree, namely when j = s s−1
.
Here we have dim[R/I]j−3 = dim[R/I]j , but the cokernel has dimension 1.

16

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Proof. We can assume that s ≥ 4 throughout since otherwise I can be assumed to be a
monomial complete intersection, so the theorem of [S1] and of [W] gives that R/I has the
SLP. We know from Corollary 4.4 that
k
(j
s(t−1)
if s ≤ t
s−1
p=
t−1
if s ≥ t + 1.
We consider the latter possibility first. Since p = t − 1, we get from Theorem 6.3 that ×L3
fails to have maximal rank in all degrees if and only if s = t + 1 is even; since s ≥ t + 1,
this is equivalent to s − 1 divides t and s is even. In this case multiplication fails to have
maximal rank exactly when j = p + 2 = t + 1 = s.
We now assume that s ≤ t. Then

 

s(t − 1)
t−s
p=
= t+
.
s−1
s−1

In particular, p ≥ t so t ≤ p ≤ p + 1 and we obtain from Theorem 6.3 that ×L3 fails to have
maximal rank in all degrees j if and only if
s = p + 2 − s(p + 1 − t) ≥ 4
is even. The above equality is equivalent to

st
.
s−1
If ×L3 fails to have maximal rank in all degrees then s − 1 divides t, since p is an integer
and s − 1 has no nontrivial factors in common with s.
Conversely, assume that s − 1 divides t and s is even. Then from the above formula for p
we get
 


st
st
1
st − s
=
=
−1−
−2
p=
s−1
s−1
s−1
s−1
so ×L3 fails to have maximal rank in all degrees.

p = −2 +

7. Applications to WLP and SLP
We will establish results on the Strong Lefschetz Property for certain ideals in three
variables and on the Weak Lefschetz Property in four variables.
We first use our Theorem 5.3 as a key ingredient for proving the following result.
Theorem 7.1. Let I = (L20 , La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R = K[x1 , x2 , x3 ], with s ≥ 2, where the Li are
general linear forms. Let L be a general linear form. Then ×Ld : [R/I]j−d → [R/I]j has
maximal rank, for all d and j. That is, such an algebra has the Strong Lefschetz Property.
Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 5.3 and Corollary 3.2.



Using Theorem 7.1 and Proposition 3.1 we will generalize the following result.
Theorem 7.2 ([MMN2] Theorem 4.6). Let I = (L20 , La11 , La22 , La33 , La44 ) ⊂ R = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ],
where the Li are general linear forms. Then R/I has the WLP.
Corollary 7.3. Let I = (L20 , La11 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ R = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ], with s ≥ 3, where the Li
are general linear forms. Then R/I has the WLP.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

17

Proof. This is a consequence of from Theorem 5.3 and Proposition 3.1 (b), taking A =
k[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]/(La11 , . . . , Las s ), b = 1 and k = 2.

Remark 7.4. In view of Theorem 7.1 and Corollary 7.3, one can ask if results along the
same lines hold in more variables. This is not the case.
(i) In a polynomial ring in four variables, for the ideal (L20 , L41 , L42 , L43 , L44 ), multiplication
by L3 fails (by 1) to have maximal rank. Similarly, for the ideal (L20 , L61 , L62 , L63 , L64 ), multiplication by L2 fails (by 1) to have maximal rank. To justify these, one can check the
first example using Cremona transformations. For the second, Brian Harbourne showed us
a nice geometric argument to show that maximal rank fails. Given six general points in
P3 , one has to produce an octic surface that has multiplicities 7, 7, 3, 3, 3, 3 respectively at
those points. First one notes that the octic must have four linear components. Stripping
these away, one needs a quartic surface with multiplicities 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 respectively at those
points. Now a Cremona transformation shows that the linear system of such quartics has
the same dimension as the linear system of quadrics that have multiplicities 2, 2, 1, 1 at four
general points. It follows that these systems have dimension one. As Harbourne showed us,
the unique quartic surface with multiplicities 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 can in fact be realized as a union
of two singular quadric surfaces, although we do not need this fact here.
(ii) The ideal (L20 , L21 , L62 , L63 , L64 , L65 ) in a polynomial ring in 5 variables does not have the
WLP. The argument is similar to the argument sketched in (i) above.
Note that the definition of p (see (4.3)) gives that we always have
np+1 ≥ p + 2 − (np + np−1 + · · · + n0 ).
Thus, if this inequality is strict and p does not change when adding a new generator to I,
multiplication by a cube on the new algebra will still have maximal rank.
Theorem 7.5. Let A = R/I be an artinian algebra, where I is an ideal generated by powers
of general linear forms. Let ℓ, L ∈ R be two general linear forms. Then the following
conditions are equivalent:
(a) A/ℓ3 A has the SLP.
(b) Multiplication by ℓ3 has maximal rank on A/Lb A (in each degree) whenever 3 ≤ b ≤
p(A).
(c) Multiplication ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank whenever 3 ≤ b ≤
p(A) and j = p(A/Lb A).
Proof. The equivalence of conditions (b) and (c) is a consequence of Theorem 6.4.
Assume that condition (b) is satisfied. In order to show (a) fix some integer b ≥ 1 and
consider the map ×Lb : [A/ℓ3 A]j+2−b → [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 , where j is any integer. We have to show
it has maximal rank.
This is true if b ∈ {1, 2} because A/ℓ3 A has the WLP by Theorem 2.1, and multiplication
by L2 on A/ℓ3 A has maximal rank in each degree by Theorem 5.3 or [AA].
Let b ≥ 3. Thus, we may assume j ≥ 0. Since the class of Lj is not zero in [A/ℓ3 A]j
whenever [A/ℓ3 A]j 6= 0, it follows that the map ×Lb : [A/ℓ3 A]j+2−b → [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 has
maximal rank if its domain or codomain is one-dimensional. Thus, we may assume that
this is not true, and then Theorem 6.4 gives that both maps ×ℓ3 : [A]j−1−b → [A]j+2−b and
×ℓ3 : [A]j−1 → [A]j+2 have maximal rank. Combined with assumption (b), Proposition 3.1

18

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

shows that ×Lb : [A/ℓ3 A]j+2−b → [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 has the desired maximal rank property if
b ≤ p = p(A).
Let b > p. As above our claim follows if we know that ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2
has maximal rank. By Theorem 6.4, this is true if j 6= p(A/Lb A). It remains to consider
the case, where j = p(A/Lb A). Notice that b > p implies p(A) = p(A/Lb A). Thus, we
get j = p(A/Lb A) = p. If b ≥ p + 2, then ni (A/Lb A) = ni (A) for all i ≤ p + 1. Hence
Theorem 6.4 yields that ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank if and only if the
map ×ℓ3 : [A]j−1 → [A]j+2 does. Since we have seen that we may assume the truth of the
latter statement we are done if b ≥ p + 2.
If b = p + 1 we argue similarly. By definition of p = p(A) we know np+1 (A) ≥ p + 2 −
(np (A) + np−1 (A) + · · · + n0 (A)). It follows that np+1 (A/Lb A) > p + 2 − (np (A/Lb A) +
np−1 A/Lb A) + · · · + n0 (A/Lb A)). Since j = p(A/Lb A) = p Theorem 6.4 shows that ×ℓ3 :
[A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank, as desired.
Assume now A/ℓ3 A has the SLP. Fix some integer b with 3 ≤ b ≤ p(A). We have to show
that the map ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank, where j = p(A/Lb A). This
is clear, if any of its domain, codomain, or cokernel are zero. Assume that this is not the
case. Then it follows that [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 is not trivial. We now consider two cases.
First, assume that ×ℓ3 : [A]j−1 → [A]j+2 fails to have maximal rank. Then we must have
(see Theorem 6.4) that j = p(A) = p and that np+1 (A) = p+2−(np (A)+np−1 (A)+· · ·+n0 (A))
is even. Since b ≤ p we conclude that np+1 (A/Lb A) = np+1 (A) + 1 is odd. Using Theorem
6.4 again we get that ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank because j =
p(A/Lb A) = p, as desired.
Second, assume that the map ×ℓ3 : [A]j−1 → [A]j+2 has maximal rank. Thus, it is
injective because we saw above that we may assume [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 6= 0. If b > j + 2, then
[A]j−1 = [A/Lb A]j−1 and [A]j+2 = [A/Lb A]j+2 , and so ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 is
injective. If b ≤ j + 2, then [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 6= 0 implies [A/ℓ3 A]j+2−b 6= 0. Using b ≥ 3 and
Lemma 4.7(a), we obtain j − b < j = p(A/Lb A) ≤ p(A). Hence Theorem 6.4 gives that
×ℓ3 : [A]j−1−b → [A]j+2−b has maximal rank. Since its cokernel is non-trivial it must be
injective. Now Diagram (3.1) shows that ×ℓ3 : [A/Lb A]j−1 → [A/Lb A]j+2 has maximal rank
because the vertical map on the right ×Lb : [A/ℓ3 A]j+2−b → [A/ℓ3 A]j+2 has this property
by assumption. This completes the argument.

Corollary 7.6. Consider A = R/I, where I is an ideal generated by s ≥ 2 t-th powers of
general linear forms, and let ℓ ∈ R be another general linear form. Then A/ℓ3 A fails to have
the SLP if and only if s is odd and t ≥ s.
Proof. Set p = p(A) and nj = nj (A). In order to apply Theorem 6.4 consider an integer b
with 3 ≤ b ≤ p, and set q = p(A/Lb A), and n′j = nj (A/Lb A). By Lemma 4.7(a), we know
q ≤ p. Let L be a general linear form. We consider several cases.
First, assume t < s. Then p = t − 1 because n0 + · · · + nt−1 = 0 ≤ t − 1 and n0 + · · · +
nt−1 + nt = s ≥ t + 1, by assumption. Since b ≤ p we get n′0 + · · · + n′t−1 = t − b ≤ t − 1,
which shows that q = p = t − 1. Hence, Theorem 6.4 gives that multiplication by ℓ3 on
A/Lb A has maximal rank, and so A/ℓ3 A has the SLP by Theorem 7.5.
Second, assume s is even. Since n′q+1 must be positive, we have n′q+1 ∈ {1, s + 1}. In particular, n′q+1 is odd, and so multiplication by ℓ3 on A/Lb A has maximal rank by Theorem 6.4,
which implies that A/ℓ3 A has the SLP.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

19

Third, assume t ≥ s and s is odd. We will show that multiplication by ℓ3 on A/Lb A fails
to have maximal rank for b = s.
The fact that n0 + · · · + nt = s implies that p ≥ t. Thus, we get 3 ≤ s = b ≤ t ≤ p, and
so s is in the range of integers b considered in Theorem 7.5.
We now claim that q = t − 1. Indeed, we have n′0 + · · · + n′t−1 = t − s ≤ t − 1 and
n′0 + · · · + n′t−1 + n′t = (t − s) + n′t = (t − s) + (s + 1) = t + 1,
which proves the claim, and s+1 = n′q+1 = q +2−(n′0 +· · ·+n′q ). Hence, multiplication by ℓ3
on A/Ls A fails to have maximal rank, and so A/ℓ3 A does not have the SLP by Theorem 7.5.
In fact, this failure occurs by one (failure of surjectivity) in exactly one degree, namely
j = q + 2 = t + 1.

For A as in Corollary 7.6, it is also interesting to understand the set of b for which ×ℓb
fails to have maximal rank on A/ℓ3 A. Recall that for a graded artinian algebra B, the
Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity reg (B) is the degree of the last non-zero component of B.
Corollary 7.7. Let A = R/I, where I is an ideal generated by s ≥ 2 t-th powers of general
linear forms, and let ℓ, L ∈ R be general linear forms. Assume that s is odd and that t ≥ s.
Assume also that b ≤ t. Then there is at least one degree in which ×Lb fails to have maximal
rank on A/ℓ3 A if and only if s divides b and b < reg (A/ℓ3 A). Moreover, in this situation
there is exactly one such degree, and multiplication by Lb fails both injectivity and surjectivity
by one there.
Proof. The condition on the regularity index is because if b ≥ reg(A/ℓ3 A) then ×Lb necessarily has maximal rank in all degrees for general L. From now on we assume that this
condition holds.
By Corollary 7.6, A/ℓ3 A does not have the SLP. It follows from the commutative diagram
(3.1) (taking k = 3) that ×ℓ3 is surjective on A/Lb A from degree j to degree j + b if and only
if ×Lb is surjective on A/ℓ3 A in the same degree. Furthermore, when surjectivity fails, the
cokernels are the same. It follows from Proposition 3.1 (b) that if ×ℓ3 is injective on A/Lb A
in any degree then then ×Lb is injective on A/ℓ3 A in the same degree. Note also that the
failure of maximal rank in Theorem 6.4 is a failure of both injectivity and surjectivity by
one, and that there is exactly one degree in which it occurs.
For this proof we deviate slightly from the notation of Corollary 7.6 and we set p =
p(A/Lb A). We have already seen the result when b = s.
Note that
n0 = · · · = nb−1 = 0 and nt = nt+1 = · · · = s + 1.
Furthermore,
if b < t then nb = · · · = nt−1 = 1.
We obtain
n0 + · · · + nt−1 = t − b
and
n0 + · · · + nt+j = t − b + (j + 1)(s + 1)
for j ≥ 0. To find p we need the largest j so that
t − b + (j + 1)(s + 1) ≤ t + j,
i.e. such that
(j + 1)s ≤ b − 1.

20

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Thus
p = t + α − 1,

where α = max{j | js ≤ b − 1}

and
n0 + · · · + np = t − b + α(s + 1).
Note that in any case we have α ≥ 0, so p ≥ t − 1. We compute
(7.1)

p + 2 − (n0 + · · · + np ) = t + α + 1 − (t − b + α(s + 1) = b − αs + 1.

We consider two cases. If b = ks for some k ≥ 1 then α = k − 1 and
p + 2 − (n0 + · · · + np ) = ks − (k − 1)s + 1 = s + 1 = np+1 .
Since the other conditions of Theorem 6.4 are clearly satisfied, we conclude that there is
exactly one degree in which ×Lb fails to have maximal rank on A/ℓ3 A, and the dimensions
of the kernel and of the cokernel are both 1.
On the other hand, assume b 6= ks for any positive integer k. Then from (7.1) we see that
p + 2 − (n0 + · · · + np ) will not equal s + 1 = np+1 , so ×ℓ3 has maximal rank on A/Lb A in
each degree. In particular, whenever ×ℓ3 is surjective on A/Lb A, we get ×Lb is surjective on
A/ℓ3 A in the same degree. Suppose instead that ×ℓ3 is injective on A/Lb A from some degree
j − 3 + b to degree j + b, with a positive dimensional cokernel (see (3.1)). If furthermore ×ℓ3
has maximal rank on A in all degrees then we are done by Proposition 3.1. If instead there
is some degree in which ×ℓ3 fails to have maximal rank on A, this degree is unique and the
cokernel is one-dimensional. Then as observed in Theorem 7.5, ×Lb has maximal rank on
A/ℓ3 A in all degrees.

Note that Corollary 7.7 is not exhaustive because of the condition that b ≤ t, and we
believe that the assertion holds without this condition. For example, one can check that if
s = 5 and t = 14, then the failure of maximal rank for ×Lb (in each case failing by one
to be an isomorphism) occurs only for b = 5, 10 and 15. In particular, for b = 15 one has
reg (A/ℓ3 A) = 17 and the failure comes between degrees 2 and 17.
Conjecture 7.8. Corollary 7.7 holds without the assumption that b ≤ t.
It was shown in Corollary 7.3 above that if I = (L20 , La12 , . . . , Las s ) ⊂ k[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ], where
the Li are general linear forms, then R/I has the WLP. We use the results of this section to
give a partial extension of this result to the case where the ideal has a cube rather than a
square, and all the ai are equal.
Corollary 7.9. Let R = k[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ], and L a general linear form. Let s ≥ 4 and t ≥ 3
be positive integers. Let L0 , . . . , Ls be general linear forms in R. Let I = (L30 , Lt1 , . . . , Lts ).
Then R/I has the WLP if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
(i) s is odd;
(ii) s is even and t is not a multiple of s − 1.
When R/I fails WLP, it does so as a failure of surjectivity by one, in exactly one degree,
st
.
namely s−1
Proof. In this proof, if deg f = b, we will use the term f has maximal rank in degree j
to mean that the map defined by f from degree j − b to degree j has maximal rank. Let

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

21

A = R/(L30 , Lt1 , . . . , Lts−1 ). Consider the commutative diagram
φ1 =Lt

(7.2)

s
[A]j−1 −−−→ [A/Lts A]j−1
[A]j−t−1 −−−−→



ψ =L
ψ =L
ψ =L
y 1
y 2
y 3

[A]j−t


y

φ2 =Lt

s
−−−−→

φ3 =L̄t

[A]j


y

−−−→

[A/Lts A]j


y

−−−→ 0

−−−→ 0

s
[A/LA]j−t −−−−→
[A/LA]j −−−→ [A/(L, Lts )A]j −−−→ 0






y
y
y

0
0
0.
∼
Writing S = R/(L) = k[x1 , x2 , x3 ], we have A/LA is isomorphic to a quotient of S modulo
the ideal generated by the restrictions L̄30 , L̄t1 , . . . , L̄ts−1 .
Our focus is to determine when ψ3 has maximal rank. Part of our argument will be to
study φ3 . We note that in this case, in the notation of Corollary 7.7, we have b = t so
Corollary 7.7 applies.
If s = 4 then (L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 ) is a complete intersection, so φ1 , φ2 , ψ1 and ψ2 all have
maximal rank. The only non-trivial situation is when all four of these maps are injective,
so assume that this is the case. In this situation, maximal rank of ψ2 is equivalent to
that of φ3 (for instance by applying the Snake Lemma using the first two rows and using
the first two columns). Thus by Corollary 7.6 and Corollary 7.7, in this situation ψ3 fails
maximal rank if and only if t is a multiple of 3, and the failure is by one for φ3 to be
an isomorphism. In terms of the degree, we know that ψ3 has the same cokernel as φ3 =
×Lt4 : [S/(L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 )]j−t → [S/(L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 )]j , which in turn has the same cokernel
as ×L30 : [S/(Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 , Lt4 )]j−3 → [S/(Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 , Lt4 )]j . By Corollary 6.5 , this is onedimensional when j = 4t3 .
As a consequence, we have:
For s = 4, R/(L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 , Lt4 ) has the WLP if and only if t is not a multiple
of 3. If t is a multiple of 3 then there is exactly one degree where ψ3 fails
maximal rank, namely 4t3 , and it is a failure by one of surjectivity.
For s ≥ 5, we can no longer expect φ1 and φ2 to have maximal rank in all degrees.
Let s = 5. Then s − 1 = 4 and φ3 has maximal rank in all degrees, by Corollary 7.6.
When φ3 is surjective then so is ψ3 , so we will assume that φ3 is injective and not surjective.
If t is not a multiple of 3 then ψ1 and ψ2 have maximal rank in all degrees, by the last
case. Then by Proposition 3.1 (b) (taking b = 1), ψ3 has maximal rank.
Now assume that t is a multiple of 3. If ψ1 is surjective then so is ψ2 (since it is multiplication on a standard graded algebra), hence also ψ3 . If ψ2 is surjective then so is ψ3 . So
we will assume that neither ψ1 nor ψ2 is surjective. Both ψ1 and ψ2 have the property that
each has maximal rank in all but one degree (hence they do not fail in the same degree). If
neither j nor j −t is equal to this degree, the same argument holds as before, giving maximal
rank for ψ3 . If ψ1 fails maximal rank (surjectivity) by one then ψ2 is surjective, hence so is
ψ3 . It remains to check the case where ψ2 fails surjectivity by one.
So assume that ψ2 fails to have maximal rank, and let j the the unique degree where
this failure occurs. We are assuming that φ3 is injective but not surjective, so the bottom

22

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

row of (7.2) is a short exact sequence. By the case s = 4, dim[S/(L̄30 , L̄t1 , . . . , L̄t4 )]j = 1.
This forces dim[S/(L̄30 , L̄t1 , . . . , L̄t4 )]j−t > 0 since the quotient is a standard graded algebra,
so by injectivity the dimension must be 1 and hence φ3 is also surjective, and we have a
contradiction.
We conclude:
For s = 5, R/(L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 , Lt4 , Lt5 ) has the WLP for all t.
Since the case s = 4 was special, we also consider the case s = 6. Now we can assume
that ψ1 and ψ2 have maximal rank in all degrees thanks to the just-completed case s = 5.
We know from Corollary 7.7 that φ3 has maximal rank except when t is a multiple of 5.
Furthermore, reasoning analogously to the case s = 4, failure of maximal rank occurs only
when j = 6t5 . In this latter case the kernel and cokernel of φ3 are both one-dimensional.
If t is not a multiple of 5, or if t is a multiple of 5 but j 6= 6t5 , then φ3 has maximal
rank, and so by the argument of Proposition 3.1 (b), ψ3 has maximal rank. So it remains to
consider the case that t is a multiple of 5 and j = 6t5 . We can further assume without loss of
generality that ψ1 and ψ2 are injective, since as before surjectivity trivially gives the desired
surjectivity for ψ3 .
In the commutative diagram (7.2), our assumptions give us short exact sequences in the
first two columns. Then from the Snake Lemma we have a long exact sequence
ψ3

0 → ker φ1 → ker φ2 → ker φ3 → [R/(L30 , Lt1 , . . . , Lts )]j−1 −→ [R/(L30 , Lt1 , . . . , Lts )]j
→ [R/(L30 , Lt1 , . . . , Lts , L)]j−1 → 0
(where s = 6). Since ψ2 is injective, we have that multiplication by L is injective in all degrees
up to j = 6t5 , so the compositions φ1 and φ2 are injective for j = 6t5 . Then ker ψ3 ∼
= ker φ3
is one-dimensional, and the cokernel is also one-dimensional in degree 6t5 as claimed. We
conclude:
For s = 6, R/(L30 , Lt1 , Lt2 , Lt3 , Lt4 , Lt5 , Lt6 ) has the WLP if and only if t is not a
multiple of 5. If t is a multiple of 5 then there is exactly one degree where ψ3
fails maximal rank, namely 6t5 , and it is a failure by one of surjectivity.
The proof now goes by induction on s. When s is odd, the argument mimics that for
s = 5, and when s is even it mimics the argument for s = 6.

References
[AH]

J. Alexander and A. Hirschowitz, Polynomial interpolation in several variables, J. Algebraic
Geom. 4 (1995), 201–222.
[AA]
C. Almeida and A. Andrade, Lefschetz property and powers of linear forms in K[x, y, z], Preprint
2017.
[BMMNZ1] M. Boij, J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig, U. Nagel and F. Zanello, On the shape of a pure O-sequence
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 218 (2012), no. 1024, viii+78 pp.
[BMMNZ2] M. Boij, J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig, U. Nagel and F. Zanello, On the Weak Lefschetz Property
for artinian Gorenstein algebras of codimension three, J. Algebra 403 (2014), 48–68.
[BK]
H. Brenner and A. Kaid, A note on the weak Lefschetz property of monomial complete intersections in positive characteristic, Collect. Math. 62 (2011), 85–93.
[CoCoA] CoCoA: a system for doing Computations in Commutative Algebra, Available at
http://cocoa.dima.unige.it.
[CHMN] D. Cook II., B. Harbourne, J. Migliore and U. Nagel, Line arrangements and configurations of
points with an unusual geometric property, Preprint 2017.

POWERS OF LINEAR FORMS

[CMNZ]
[CN1]
[CN2]
[DL]
[DI]
[DIV]
[D]
[EI]
[GS]
[M2]
[HSS]
[HMNW]
[KV]
[LU]
[LZ]
[MM]
[MMN1]
[MMN2]
[MN]
[M]
[N]
[SS]
[S1]
[S2]
[W]

23

D. Cook II, J. Migliore, U. Nagel and F. Zanello, An algebraic approach to finite projective planes,
J. Algebraic Combin. 43 (2016), 495–519.
D. Cook II and U. Nagel, The weak Lefschetz property, monomial ideals, and lozenges, Illinois J.
Math. 55 (2011), 377–395 (2012).
D. Cook II and U. Nagel, The weak Lefschetz property for monomial ideals of small type, J.
Algebra 462 (2016), 285–319.
C. De Volder and A. Laface, On linear systems of P3 through multiple points, J. Algebra 310
(2007), 207–217.
R. Di Gennaro and G. Ilardi, More on “singular hypersurfaces characterizing the Lefschetz properties”, Preprint, 2016.
R. Di Gennaro, G. Ilardi and J. Vallès, Singular hypersurfaces characterizing the Lefschetz properties, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 89 (2014), 194–212.
M. Dumnicki, An algorithm to bound the regularity and nonemptiness of linear systems in Pn ,
J. Symbolic Comput. 44 (2009), 1448–1462.
J. Emsalem and A. Iarrobino, Inverse system of a symbolic power I, J. Algebra 174 (1995),
1080–1090.
A.V. Geramita and H. Schenck, Fat points, inverse systems, and piecewise polynomial functions,
J. Algebra 204 (1998), 116–128.
D. R. Grayson and M. E. Stillman, Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic
geometry, Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
B. Harbourne, H. Schenck and A. Seceleanu, Inverse systems, Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns and the
weak Lefschetz property, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 84 (2011), 712–730.
T. Harima J. Migliore, U. Nagel and J. Watanabe: The Weak and Strong Lefschetz properties
for Artinian K-Algebras, J. Algebra 262 (2003), 99-126.
A. Kustin and A. Vraciu, The weak Lefschetz property for monomial complete intersection in
positive characteristic, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 366 (2014), 4571–4601.
A. Laface and U. Ugaglia, On a class of special linear systems of P3 , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
358 (2006), 5485–5500.
J. Li and F. Zanello, Monomial complete intersections, the weak Lefschetz property and plane
partitions, Discrete Math. 310 (2010), 3558–3570.
J. Migliore and R.M. Miró-Roig, On the strong Lefschetz question for uniform powers of general
linear forms in k[x, y, z], to appear in Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig and U. Nagel, Monomial ideals, almost complete intersections and
the weak Lefschetz property, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363 (2011), 229–257.
J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig and U. Nagel, On the weak Lefschetz property for powers of linear
forms, Algebra Number Theory 6 (2012), 487–526.
J. Migliore and U. Nagel, The Lefschetz question for ideals generated by powers of arbitrarily
many linear forms in K[x, y, z], Preprint, 2017.
R. Miró-Roig, Harbourne, Schenck and Seceleanu’s conjecture, J. Algebra 462 (2016), 54–66.
M. Nagata, On the fourteenth problem of Hilbert, In: Proc. Internat. Congress Math. 1958, pp.
459–462, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1960.
H. Schenck and A. Seceleanu, The weak Lefschetz property and powers of linear forms in k[x, y, z],
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), 2335–2339.
R. Stanley, Weyl groups, the hard Lefschetz theorem, and the Sperner property, SIAM J. Algebraic
Discrete Methods 1 (1980), 168–184.
R. Stanley, The number of faces of a simplicial convex polytope, Adv. Math. 35 (1980), 236–238.
J. Watanabe, The Dilworth number of Artinian rings and finite posets with rank function, Commutative Algebra and Combinatorics, Advanced Studies in Pure Math., Vol. 11, North Holland,
Amsterdam (1987), 303–312.

24

J. MIGLIORE AND U. NAGEL

Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA
E-mail address: migliore.1@nd.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, 715 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506-0027 USA
E-mail address: uwe.nagel@uky.edu

