INCLICS, GALAXIES, STAR CONFIGURATIONS AND WALDSCHMIDT
CONSTANTS

arXiv:1304.2217v2 [] 16 Jun 2013

GIULIANA FATABBI, BRIAN HARBOURNE AND ANNA LORENZINI
Abstract. This paper introduces complexes of linear varieties, called inclics (for INductively Constructible LInear ComplexeS). As examples, we study galaxies (these are constructed starting with
a star configuration to which we add general points in a larger projective space). By assigning an
order of vanishing (i.e., a multiplicity) to each member of the complex, we obtain fat linear varieties
(fat points if all of the linear varieties are points). The scheme theoretic union of these fat linear
varieties gives an inclic scheme X. For such a scheme, we show there is an inductive procedure for
computing the Hilbert function of its defining ideal IX , regardless of the choice of multiplicities.
As an application, we show how our results allow the computation of the Hilbert functions of, for
example, symbolic powers (IX )(m) for arbitrary m of many new examples of radical ideals (IX ),
and we explicitly compute the Waldschmidt constants γ(IX ) for galactic inclics X.

1. Introduction
There is a long tradition of research on ideals of unions of linear varieties in projective spaces.
Such an ideal is the intersection of ideals generated by linear forms. Examples include square free
monomial ideals, ideals of star configurations [GHM] and ideals of finite sets of points. Research
started with the radical case (see [D, DS, GO, HH, HS, L] for example) but there is also a lot
of interest in ideals of schemes of linear varieties with assigned multiplicities, including but not
limited to fat points (see [CHT, Fa, FHL, FaL, FrL, Fr, FMN, V] for just a few examples). The
ideals in the uniform multiplicity case are symbolic power ideals; ideals in this special case are also
of interest and are receiving increasing attention (see [BH, BH2, GHM, GMS, GHV2, HaHu, M]
for example), but there are few cases where the Hilbert functions of arbitrary symbolic powers can
be determined.
In this paper we introduce inclic schemes. These are schemes whose components comprise a
complex of linear varieties called an inclic (for INductively Constructible LInear Complex). An inclic
scheme is obtained by arbitrarily assigning a multiplicity (i.e., an assigned order of vanishing) to
each component. Our main foundational result provides a recursive procedure for computing Hilbert
functions of ideals of inclic schemes (in a forthcoming paper we will study minimal free resolutions).
In certain cases this procedure can be applied to compute Hilbert functions of arbitrary symbolic
powers of radical ideals. This substantially extends the range of examples of ideals for which this
is possible. As an application, we define galactic schemes and explicitly compute the Waldschmidt
constants of certain galactic schemes built up from star configurations. (A Waldschmidt constant
is an asymptotic measure of the initial degrees of the symbolic powers of an ideal. These have
arisen in a range of previous research (such as [BH, Ch, DHST, GHV1, HaHu, M, W, W2]) and
Date: May 9, 2013.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 13F20, 14C20; Secondary: 13A02, 14N05.
Key words and phrases. star configurations, galaxies, inclic schemes, symbolic powers, fat points, projective space,
Hilbert functions.
The second author’s work on this project was sponsored by the National Security Agency under Grant/Cooperative
agreement “Advances on Fat Points and Symbolic Powers,” Number H98230-11-1-0139. The United States Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints notwithstanding any copyright notice. The second author
also thanks the University of Perugia and his coauthors for their generous hospitality during his visit in 2010 when
this work was initiated.
1

2

GIULIANA FATABBI, BRIAN HARBOURNE AND ANNA LORENZINI

are related to work on multiplier ideals (see [EV, HaHu] and [La, Proposition 10.1.1 and Example
10.1.3]).)
1.1. Inclics. To define inclics, let n > 0 be an integer. We work in the projective space Pn over
an arbitrary field K (some results will require the characteristic to be 0). An inclic
C = C(n, r, s; L0 , L1 , . . . , Lr , H0 , H1 , . . . , Hs )
is a collection of linear subvarieties L0 , L1 , . . . , Lr , H0 , H1 , . . . , Hs ( Pn such that the following
conditions hold:
(C1)
(C2)
(C3)
(C4)

H0 , H1 , . . . , Hs are distinct hyperplanes;
Li ⊆ H0 for i > 0 but L0 6⊆ H0 ;
if Li ⊆ Lj , then i = j; and
for all i ≥ 0 and j > 0 we have Li 6⊆ Hj .

If s = 0 and each Li is a point, then the inclic is just a choice of r points Li , 0 < i ≤ r, of the
hyperplane H0 and one point L0 not on H0 .
1.2. Galaxies. An interesting special case of an inclic comes from what we refer to as a galaxy.
For this, we start with a star configuration. We recall [GHM] that a star configuration in Pn is
defined by a set of u > n hyperplanes A1 , . . . , Au ⊂ Pn such that the intersection of any i of the
hyperplanes has dimension
at most n − i. The star configuration of codimension e ≤ n is the set

S(n, e, u) of the ue linear varieties arising as intersections of e arbitrary distinct choices Ai1 , . . . , Aie
of the hyperplanes. Let N ≥ 1 be an integer and regard Pn as a linear subvariety of Pn+N . The
galaxy G = G(n, N, e, u, h) = G(n, N, e, u, h; S(n, e, u), H) consists of S(n, e, u) and a choice of h
general points H = {P1 , . . . , Ph } ⊂ Pn+N . We refer to S(n, e, u) as the galactic center, to Pn as the
galactic (n-)plane, and to H as the galactic halo.
When h = N , this is an inclic C = C(n + N, r, 0; L0 ,L1 , . . . , Lr , H0 ) in which L0 = Ph , H0 is the
linear span of Pn and the points P1 , . . . , Ph−1 , r = ue + h − 1 and the linear varieties Li are the
points Pj , j < h and the e-wise intersections comprising the elements of S(n, e, u).
1.3. Hilbert functions, symbolic powers, Waldschmidt constants and resurgences. Let
R = K[Pn ] = K[x0 , . . . , xn ]. For any linear subvariety V ∈ Pn , the ideal IV ⊂ R is the ideal
generated by all forms vanishing
P on V . LetPli and hj be non-negative integers. An inclic scheme
is a scheme of the form X = i≥0 li Li + j>0 hj Hj , by which we mean the scheme defined by
T
h
the ideal IX = (∩i≥0 ILlii ) (∩j>0 IHjj ). We note that such ideals are homogeneous and saturated.
√
T
Moreover, if I = IX , then I = (∩i≥0 ILi ) (∩j>0 IHj ), and for any m ≥ 1, the symbolic power
I (m) is I (m) = IX in the case that li = hi = m for all i and j.
For any homogeneous ideal I ⊆ R, the Hilbert function of I is the function h(I) defined as
h(I, t) = dimK It , where It is the K-vector space span of all forms in I of degree t. If IX ( R
is the saturated ideal defining a subscheme
X ⊆ Pn , the Hilbert function of X is the function
t+n
h(X, t) = h(R, t) − h(IX , t) = n − h(IX , t). In all cases, we adopt the understanding that
Hilbert functions are 0 when t < 0.
An important value associated to any homogeneous ideal (0) 6= I ⊆ R is α(I), defined to be
the least degree t such that h(I, t) 6= 0. We then define the Waldschmidt constant (introduced by
Waldschmidt in [W] in case I is the ideal of a finite set of points) to be
α(I (m) )
.
m→∞
m

γ(I) = lim

This limit exists but in general is hard to compute and not many specific values are known.

FAT LINEAR SUBSPACES

3

Another asymptotic measure related to γ(I) which is also hard to compute is the resurgence
[BH, BH2, GHV1], defined for any homogeneous ideal (0) 6= I ( R = K[Pn ] as
nm
o
ρ(I) = sup
: I (m) 6⊆ I r .
r
In general it is difficult to determine for which m and r we have I (m) ⊆ I r . The interest of ρ(I)
is that it is the largest real c such that we always have I (m) ⊆ I r for m/r > c, but it is difficult
to compute. It is not a priori even clear that it exists. It is known and easy to see that 1 ≤ ρ(I).
Much deeper is the fact that I (m) ⊆ I r whenever m/r ≥ n [ELS, HoHu] from which it follows that
ρ(I) ≤ n and hence ρ(I) exists. This raised the issue of getting better bounds. One of the main
results for bounding and sometimes computing ρ(I) is that of [BH] which says that α(I)
γ(I) ≤ ρ(I), and,
if I defines a 0-dimensional subscheme of Pn , that ρ(I) ≤ reg(I)
γ(I) , where reg(I) is the CastelnuovoMumford regularity of I, but these bounds depend on γ(I) which has so far been computed in
relatively few cases.

1.4. An application. Our work here builds on the results of [FHL, FaL] concerning finding Hilbert
functions of fat points for points lying in a hyperplane, but now we allow linear spaces of higher
dimension, not all of which need to be contained in a hyperplane. As an application of our results
we compute galactic Waldschmidt constants. To state our result, let G = G(n, N, e, u, N ). Let
G ⊂ Pn+N be the reduced Galactic inclic scheme whose components are
the elements of G; i.e., G
u
is the reduced scheme theoretic union of the N points of G and the e e-wise intersections of the
associated star configuration S(n, e, u). Then we have:
Theorem 1.1. Let G be a reduced galactic inclic scheme as above.
(a) We have
2
≤ ρ(IG ).
γ(IG )
(b) If K has characteristic 0, then
γ(IG ) =
(c) If e = n, then

N (u − e) + u
.
N (u − e) + e

ρ(IG ) ≤

u−n+1
.
γ(IG )

In the case that h = N = 1, e = n and u = n + 1, we can, up to choice of coordinates, regard G
as the coordinate vertices in Pn+1 . In this case, u = n + 1 so the ideal IG can be chosen to be a
n+2
and ρ(IG ) = 2(n+1)
monomial ideal and we recover the known facts that γ(IG ) = n+1
n+2 . We note that
the bound γ(I2G ) ≤ ρ(IG ) is always better than the bound 1 ≤ ρ(IG ), and the bound ρ(IG ) ≤ s−n+1
γ(IG )
is often better than the bound ρ(IG ) ≤ n + N (such as if u is not too big, say u ≤ 2n + N ).
The foundation for these results is our work on inclics. In section 2 we prove a lemma we will
use later and we set up our technical notation. In section 3 we prove our main foundational results
for inclics. In section 4 we prove Theorem 1.1.
2. Preliminaries
Let X ⊂ Pn be a set of c points regarded as a reduced subscheme. It is well known that
reg(IX ) = τ + 1 where τ is the least degree t such that the points impose independent conditions
on forms of degree t (i.e., such that h(IX , t) = t+n
− c).
n

Lemma 2.1. Let H ⊂ Pn be a hyperplane and let X ⊂ Pn be a set of c + 1 points regarded as a
reduced subscheme, with exactly c of the points lying in H. Let X ′ = X∩H, then reg(IX ′ ) = reg(IX ).

4

GIULIANA FATABBI, BRIAN HARBOURNE AND ANNA LORENZINI

Proof. Choose coordinates such that IH = (x0 ), where K[Pn ] = K[x0 , . . . , xn ] and so K[H] =
K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. Let τ ′ = reg(IX ′ ) − 1 and let τ = reg(IX ) − 1. Thus the points of X ′ impose
independent conditions on forms of degree τ ′ in K[H], and hence also in K[x0 , . . . , xn ]. Let p be
the point of X not in H; up to choice of coordinates we can regard p as being general, hence it
imposes an additional independent condition. Thus τ ≤ τ ′ .
On the other hand, it follows from [FrL, Corollary 3.3] and from [DG, Proposition 2.1] that

τ ′ ≤ τ , hence τ = τ ′ , so reg(IX ′ ) = reg(IX ).
Hereafter we study fat inclic schemes for some fixed hyperplane H0 ⊂ Pn . Clearly, we may
choose coordinates such that IH0 = (x0 ), so R′ = K[Pn−1 ] = K[H0 ] = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and IL0 =
(xk+1 , . . . , xn ) ⊂ K[Pn ] = R. We fix such a choice of coordinates for the rest of this article. We
denote the linear forms defining Hj for j > 0 by ηj . We also take Y to be the fat subscheme
Y = l1 L1 + · · · + lr Lr of Pn . In addition we define Y ′ = Y ∩ H0 and Yi′ = Yi ∩ H0 for Yi =
l1 (i)L1 + · · · + lr (i)Lr , where lj (i) = max(0, lj − i). Thus Y0′ = Y ′ and IYi′ = IYi ∩ K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
S
Moreover, IYi = IY : (xi0 ). We set Z = l0 L0 , W = Y ∪ Z, X = W ∪j>0 hj Hj , L′0 = L0 ∩ H0 ,
Z ′ = Z ∩ H0 , W ′ = W ∩ H0 and X ′ = X ∩ H0 .
The following notation will be useful. If J ′ ⊆ R′ = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is a homogeneous ideal, set
′(k,t)
J
= J ′ ∩ (IL′ 0 )t . Thus (J ′(k,t) )i = (J ′ )i ∩ ((IL′ 0 )t )i . Note that in the special case that k = 0
(i.e., that L0 is the point p defined in Pn by (x1 , . . . , xn )), we have (J ′(0,t) )i = Ji′ for i ≥ t and
(J ′(0,t) )i = 0 for i < t; in short, if we know J ′ , then we immediately know J ′(0,t) for all t.
Note that R has a bi-grading; i.e., the direct sum R = ⊕ij Rij has the property that Rij Rst =
Ri+s,j+t, where Ri is the K-vector space span of the forms in R′ = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] of total degree
i, and Rij is the K-vector subspace xj0 Ri ⊂ R. We say an element F ∈ R is bi-homogeneous if
F ∈ Rij for some i and j, and we say an ideal I ⊆ R is bi-homogeneous if I = ⊕ij Iij , where
Iij = I ∩ Rij . As usual, I is bi-homogeneous if and only if I has bi-homogeneous generators, and
intersections, sums and products of bi-homogeneous ideals are bi-homogeneous.
3. Hilbert Functions
We can now state and prove our main theorem.
Theorem 3.1. Let Y ′ , Yi′ , Z, W and X be as above, let l′ = max(l1 , . . . , lr ). Then IX =
P
η1h1 · · · ηshs IW and h(IX , t) = h(IW , t − j>0 hj ), where
M ′
M
xl0 IZ ,
⊕j≥l′ xj0 IZ ′ = (⊕0≤j<l′ xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )
IW = ⊕j xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) = (⊕0≤j<l′ xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )
and h(IW , t) =
h(IZ , t − l′ ) =

Pλ

(k,l0 ) , t − j) + h(I , t − l′ ), where
Z
j=0 h((IYj′ )
 P
t−l′ −i+k  i+n−k−1
for t ≥ l′
− 0≤i<l0
k
n−k−1
n

t−l′ +n

h(IZ , t − l′ ) = 0 if t < l′ + l0 and

+ l0 .

P
Proof. It is obvious that IX = η1h1 · · · ηshs IW and h(IX , t) = h(IW , t − j>0 hj ), so now we consider IW and h(IW , t). To begin, note that the ideals ILi ⊂ R are bi-homogeneous (having bihomogeneous generators), so IY and IW = IY ∩ IZ are bi-homogeneous, hence IY = ⊕ij (IY )ij
and IW = ⊕ij ((IY )ij ∩ (IZ )ij ). But F ∈ (IY )ij if and only if F = xj0 G where G ∈ (IYj′ )i ; i.e.,
(IY )ij = xj0 (IYj′ )i . Thus IY = ⊕ij xj0 (IYj′ )i , and since (IZ )ij = xj0 (IZ ′ )i , we have

(*) IW = ⊕ij ((xj0 (IYj′ )i ) ∩ (IZ )ij ) = ⊕ij ((xj0 (IYj′ ∩ IZ ′ )i ) = ⊕ij (xj0 ((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )i ) = ⊕j xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) .
But for j ≥ l′ we have IYj′ = R′ and hence (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) = IZ ′ , so
M ′
M
xl0 IZ .
⊕j≥l′ xj0 IZ ′ = (⊕0≤j<l′ xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )
IW = ⊕j xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) = (⊕0≤j<l′ xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )

FAT LINEAR SUBSPACES

5

Pl′ −1
(k,l0 ) , t − j) + h(I , t − l′ ) is now immediate, keeping in
The fact that h(IW , t) =
Z
j=0 h((IYj′ )
mind that the Hilbert function is computed with respect to the singly graded structure of R; i.e.,
(IW )t = ⊕i+j=t (IW )ij . But the value of h(IZ , t − l′ ) is known; the formula given in the statement
of the theorem comes from [DHST, Lemma 2.1].

The case with k = 0 is particularly simple; in this case, if we know the Hilbert functions of Yj′
for all j, then we know the Hilbert functions of W and hence X.
Corollary 3.2. Under the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, let λ = min(l′ − 1, t − l0 ). If we also have
k = 0, then
t−l
λ
X0 t − j + n − 1
X
h(IYj′ , t − j) +
h(IW , t) =
,
n−1
j=0
j=l′
P
which is h(IW , t) = λj=0 h(IYj′ , t − j) for t < l′ + l0 and
h(IW , t) =

λ
X
j=0

for t ≥

l′

 

t − l′ + n
l0 + n − 1
h(IYj′ , t − j) +
−
n
n


+ l0 .

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 3.1, since (IZ ′ )i = Ri′ (so h(IZ ′ , t − j) =
and ((IYj′ )(0,l0 ) )t−j = (IYj′ )t−j for t − j ≥ l0 , that is, for j ≤ t − l0 ).

t−j+n−1
n−1





Remark 3.3. Examples for which we would know the Hilbert functions of Yj′ ⊂ H0 for all j can
be constructed inductively. For example, start with a flag of projective spaces V1 ⊂ V2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vn ,
each contained in the next as a linear subvariety, with Vi ≃ Pi . Let U1 ⊂ V1 be any finite set of
points u11 , . . . , u1s . Let U2 consist of a point u21 ∈ V2 \V1 together with any lines u22 , . . . , u2s2 ⊂ V2
not containing u21 or any component of U1 (i.e., not containing u1i for any i). Continue in this way,
so Ui consists of a point ui1 ∈ Vi \ Vi−1 and a finite set of hyperplanes uij ⊂ Vi not containing ui1
and not containing any of the components of Uj for j < i. Then U1 ∪· · ·∪Un defines
P an inclic and for
any multiplicities mij we can inductively compute h(IX , t) for any t, for X = ij mij uij . Indeed,
P
P
P
define X1 = j m1j u1j , and then X2 = X1 + j m2j u2j , and in general Xk = Xk−1 + j mkj ukj .
Since we know h((X1 )i , t) for all i and t, Theorem 3.1 gives us h((X2 )i , t) for all i and t, and
similarly h((Xk )i , t) for each k in turn for all i and t, and hence eventually h(Xn , t) for all t.
Our result also handles other constructions. For example, instead of starting with points in P1 ,
we could start with a star configuration of points in P2 (i.e., the points of pair-wise intersection of
a finite set of lines, no three of which meet at any single point, see [GHM]). Let S be the scheme
theoretic sum of the points of the star and consider the scheme iS. The Hilbert function of iS is
known for all i ([CHT]), so we can proceed as above to construct an Xn , as long as in this case
we assign the same multiplicity to each point of S (the Hilbert function is not always known if the
multiplicities of the points of S are allowed to vary).
Given a closed subscheme X ⊂ Pn with corresponding ideal IX , define α(X) = α(IX ) to be the
least degree t such that there is a non-trivial form F ∈ (IX )t .
Lemma 3.4. With the previous notation, there is a least j ≥ 0 such that α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 . Let
l′ = max(l1 , . . . , lr ) and let d be this least j. If, moreover, char(K) = 0, then
0 = α(IY ′′ ) < α(IY ′′
l

l −1

) < α(IY ′′ ) < . . . < α(IY0′ )
l −2

and
′
′
)(k,l0 ) ) < . . . < α((IY0′ )(k,l0 ) ).
)(k,l0 ) ) < α((IYd−2
l0 = α((IYd′ )(k,l0 ) ) < α((IYd−1

6

GIULIANA FATABBI, BRIAN HARBOURNE AND ANNA LORENZINI

Proof. By definition, (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ⊂ (xk+1 , . . . , xn )l0 so α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) ≥ l0 for all j. But for j ≥ l′

we have ((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = (xk+1 , . . . , xn )l0 so α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 . Thus there is a least j such that
α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 so d is defined.
Since Yl′′ = ∅, we have IY ′′ = (1), so α(IY ′′ ) = 0. Now assume char(K) = 0. Consider any
l
l
non-zero homogeneous element F ∈ IYj′ for j < l′ . By Euler’s identity, not all of the partials of F
′
are 0. However, they all belong to IYj+1
and the non-zero ones have degree deg(F ) − 1. Therefore
′
α(IYj+1
) ≤ α(IYj′ ) − 1, so we have
′
′
) < . . . < α(IY0′ )
) < α(IYd−2
0 = α(IY ′′ ) < α(IYd−1
l

as claimed.
The argument for the second claim is similar. Let j < d and consider any non-zero homogeneous
element F ∈ (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) ⊆ IYj′ , so deg(F ) > l0 , since also F ∈ (IL′ 0 )l0 . Again not all of the partials

′
of F are 0 but they all belong to IYj+1
. Since deg(F ) > l0 , they all also belong to (xk+1 , . . . , xn )l0
′
′
and hence to (IYj+1
)(k,l0 ) . Therefore α((IYj+1
)(k,l0 ) ) ≤ α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) − 1, so we have
′
′
l0 = α((IYd′ )(k,l0 ) ) < α((IYd−1
)(k,l0 ) ) < α((IYd−2
)(k,l0 ) ) < . . . < α((IY0′ )(k,l0 ) ).


Corollary 3.5. Let L0 , L1 , . . . , Lr , H0 , H1 , . . . , Hs ( Pn be an inclic, and let W = i≥0 li Li and
P
P
′
X =
j>0 hj Hj for non-negative integers li and hi . Let Yi be as above, and let
i≥0 li Li +
′
l = max(l1 , . . . , lr ) and h = h1 + · · · + hs . Then α(X) = h + α(W ) and max(l′ , l0 ) ≤ α(W ) ≤ l′ + l0 .
Moreover, there is a least j ≥ 0 such that α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 . Taking this least j to be d, we have
P

α(W ) ≤ l0 + d,
with α(W ) = l0 + d if char(K) = 0.
Proof. Since IX = η1h1 · · · ηshs IW , where ηi is the linear form defining Hi , we see that α(X) =
′
h+α(W ). Since l1 , . . . , lr , l0 ≤ α(W ), the lower bound max(l′ , l0 ) ≤ α(W ) holds. Since xl0 xln0 ∈ IW ,
the upper bound α(W ) ≤ h + l′ + l0 also holds.
To get more precise information, note by (∗ ) in the proof of Theorem 3.1 that
α(W ) = α(IW ) = min α(xj0 (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = min(j + α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) )).
j

j

By definition, (IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ⊂ (xk+1 , . . . , xn )l0 so α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) ≥ l0 for all j. But for j ≥ l′ we have

((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = (xk+1 , . . . , xn )l0 so α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 and hence α(IW ) ≤ l′ + l0 . Thus there is a least

j such that α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) = l0 so d is defined. Thus we have α(IW ) ≤ d + l0 , and in addition we

have d + l0 ≤ j + α((IYj′ )(k,l0 ) ) for all j ≥ d.
Now assume char(K) = 0. By Lemma 3.4 we have

′
′
)(k,l0 ) ) + (d − 2) ≤ . . . ≤ α((IY0′ )(k,l0 ) ) + (d − d),
)(k,l0 ) ) + (d − 1) ≤ α((IYd−2
l0 + d ≤ α((IYd−1

and hence α(IY ′ (k,l0 ) ) + j ≥ l0 + d for all j < d, and therefore α(W ) = l0 + d, as claimed.
j



4. Galaxies
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. In order to compute γ(IX ), we will determine α((IX )(j) )
for an unbounded sequence of values of j. Our inductive procedure requires information about star
configurations as a starting point. The following result is from [BH].

FAT LINEAR SUBSPACES

7

Theorem 4.1. Let 1 ≤ e ≤ n < u be integers. Let A ⊂ Pn be the reduced scheme theoretic union of
the linear varieties comprising the star configuration S(n, e, u). Then α(reA) = ru for any integer
r ≥ 1, α(A) = u − e + 1 and, if e = n, reg(IA ) = u − n + 1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let G = G(n, N, e, u, N ; S(n, e, u), H) and let the points of the galactic halo
H be P1 , . . . , PN . Let G0 = S(n, e, u) = A ⊂ Pn , G1 = A + P1 ⊂ Pn+1 , . . . , G = GN = A + P1 +
· · · + PN ⊂ Pn+N .
The bounds on ρ(IG ) come from α(IG )/γ(IG ) ≤ ρ(IG ) and, when e = n, ρ(IG ) ≤ reg(IG )/γ(IG )
[BH]. Since G spans Pn+N , we see 1 < α(IG ), but G is contained in the span of Pn and N points,
each of which is contained in a hyperplane in Pn+N , so α(IG ) ≤ 2; thus α(IG ) = 2. And by Lemma
2.1 with e = n, reg(IG ) = reg(IG0 ), but reg(IG0 ) = u − n + 1 by Theorem 4.1.
Now define the following sequence: a0 = re, a1 = ru, and for i ≥ 0, let ai+2 = 2ai+1 − ai . It’s
easy to check that ai = iru − (i − 1)re. In what comes below, for each i we regard IGi as an ideal in
K[Pn+i ]. We begin by noting that a1 = α(Ia0 G0 ). We will show by induction that ai+1 = α(Iai Gi ),
and hence that α(IaN GN ) = (N + 1)ru − N re, so γ(IGN ) = limr→∞ ((N + 1)ru − N re)/(N ru −
(N − 1)re) = ((N + 1)u − N e)/(N u − (N − 1)e), as claimed.
To show that ai+1 = α(Iai Gi ) we will apply Corollary 3.5. The W of Corollary 3.5 is Gi ; L0 = Pi
and the Lj , j > 0 are the components of A and the points P1 , . . . , Pi−1 ; H0 is the linear span of Pn
and P1 , . . . , Pi−1 ; Pn there is Pn+i here; and l′ = lj = ai for all j. Moreover, k in the corollary is
0, since L0 is a point. (Here there are no Hj for j > 0, and l0 = ai .) The result of the corollary is
that α(ai Gi ) = ai + d, where d is the least j such that what is there called Yj′ has α((IYj′ )(0,l0 ) = l0 .
But Yj′ = (ai − j)Gi−1 (as long as ai − j ≥ 0), and (IYj′ )(0,l0 ) is just the truncation of IYj′ at degree

l0 . Thus the least j such that α((IYj′ )(0,l0 ) ) = l0 is the least j such that α((ai − j)Gi−1 ) ≤ ai .
But α((ai − j)Gi−1 ) = ai for j = ai − ai−1 by induction, and α((ai−1 )Gi−1 ) < α((ai − j)Gi−1 ) for
j < ai − ai−1 by Lemma 3.4, so ai − ai−1 is the least j. Thus α(Iai Gi ) = ai + (ai − ai−1 ) = ai+1 , as
claimed.

References
[BH]

C. Bocci and B. Harbourne, Comparing powers and symbolic power of ideals, J. Algebraic Geom. 19 (2010),
399–417.
[BH2] C. Bocci and B. Harbourne, The resurgence of ideals of points and the containment problem,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), 1175–1190.
[Ch]
G. V. Chudnovsky. Singular points on complex hypersurfaces and multidimensional Schwarz Lemma,
Séminaire de Théorie des Nombres, Paris 1979–80, Séminaire Delange-Pisot-Poitou, Progress in Math vol.
12, M-J Bertin, editor, Birkhäuser, Boston-Basel-Stutgart (1981).
[CHT] S. Cooper, B. Harbourne and Z. Teitler. Combinatorial bounds on Hilbert functions of fat points in projective
space, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, Volume 215, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 2165–2179, arXiv:0912.1915.
[D]
H. Derksen. Hilbert series of subspace arrangements, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 209 (2007), no.1, 91-98.
[DG]
E. Davis, A.V. Geramita The Hilbert function of a special class of 1-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay graded
algebras, The Cur5ves Seminar at Queen’s, Vol. X, Queen’s Papers in pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol.67
(1984), 1H-29H.
[DS]
H. Derksen and J. Sidman. A sharp bound for the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of subspace arrangements,
Adv. Math. 172 (2002), no. 2, 151–157.
[DHST] M. Dumnicki, B. Harbourne, T. Szemberg and H. Tutaj-Gasińska. Linear subspaces, symbolic powers and
Nagata type conjectures, preprint 2012, 20 pp., arXiv:1207.1159.
[ELS] L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld, and K.E. Smith. Uniform behavior of symbolic powers of ideals, Invent. Math., 144
(2001), 241–252.
[EV]
Hd. Esnault and E. Viehweg. Sur une minoration du degré d’hypersurfaces s’annulant en certains points,
Math. Ann. 263 (1983), no. 1, 75–86.
[Fa]
G. Fatabbi. On the resolution of ideals of fat points, J. Algebra 242 (2001), 92–108.
[FHL] G. Fatabbi, B. Harbourne and A. Lorenzini. Resolutions of ideals of fat points with support in a hyperplane,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 134 (2006) 3475–3483.

8

GIULIANA FATABBI, BRIAN HARBOURNE AND ANNA LORENZINI

[FaL]
[FrL]
[Fr]
[FMN]
[GHM]
[GMS]
[GO]
[GHV1]
[GHV2]
[HaHu]
[HH]
[HS]
[HoHu]
[La]
[L]
[M]
[V]
[W]
[W2]

G. Fatabbi and A. Lorenzini. On the graded resolution of ideals of a few general fat points of Pn ,
J. Pure Appl. Algebra 198 (2005) 123–150.
S. Franceschini and A. Lorenzini. Fat points of P n whose support is contained in a linear proper subspace,
J. Pure Appl. Algebra 160 (2001), no. 2–3, 169–182.
C. A. Francisco. Resolution of small sets of fat points, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 203 (2005), 220–236
C. A. Francisco, J.C. Migliore and U. Nagel. On the componentwise linearity and the minimal free resolution
of a tetrahedral curve, J. Algebra 299 (2006), 535–569
A. Geramita, B. Harbourne and J. Migliore. Star configurations in Pn , J. Algebra 376 (2013) 279–299
(arXiv:1203.5685).
A. V. Geramita, J. Migliore and L. Sabourin. On the first infinitesimal neighborhood of a linear configuration
of points in P2 , J. Algebra 298 (2006), 563–611.
A. V. Geramita and F. Orecchia. On the Cohen-Macaulay type of s lines in An+1 , J. Algebra 70 (1981),
116–140.
E. Guardo, B. Harbourne and A. Van Tuyl. Asymptotic resurgences for ideals of positive dimensional subschemes of projective space, preprint 2012, 12pp., arXiv:1202.4370.
E. Guardo, B. Harbourne and A. Van Tuyl. Fat lines in P3 : powers versus symbolic powers, preprint 2012,
10 pp., arXiv:1208.5221.
B. Harbourne and C. Huneke. Are symbolic powers highly evolved?, To appear J. Ramanujan Math. Soc.
arXiv:1103.5809v1
R. Hartshorne and A. Hirschowitz. Droites en position générale dans l’espace projectif, volume 961 of Lecture
Notes in Mathematics (1982), 169–188.
A. Hirschowitz and C. Simpson. Minimal resolution of the ideal of a general arrangement of a large number
of points in Pn , Inv. Math. 126 (1996), 467–503.
M. Hochster and C. Huneke. Comparison of symbolic and ordinary powers of ideals, Invent. Math. 147
(2002), no. 2, 349–369.
R. Lazarsfeld. Positivity in Algebraic Geometry I.-II. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete,
Vols. 48-49, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
A. Lorenzini. The minimal resolution conjecture, J. Algebra 156 (1993), 5–35.
S. Mayes. The asymptotic behaviour of symbolic generic initial systems of points in general position, preprint
2012, 25 pp., arXiv:1210.1622.
G. Valla. Betti numbers of some monomial ideals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 133 (2005), 57-63.
M. Waldschmidt. Propriétés arithmétiques de fonctions de plusieurs variables II, In Séminaire P. Lelong
(Analyse), 1975–76, Lecture Notes Math. 578, Springer-Verlag, 1977, 108–135.
M. Waldschmidt. Nombres transcendants et groupes algébriques, Astérisque 69/70, Sociéte Mathématiqué de
France, 1979.

Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Perugia, via Vanvitelli 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy
E-mail address: fatabbi@dmi.unipg.it
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0130 USA
E-mail address: brianharbourne@unl.edu
Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Perugia, via Vanvitelli 1, 06123 Perugia, Italy
E-mail address: annalor@dmi.unipg.it

