arXiv:1608.05769v3 [] 14 Sep 2017

ON THE ASYMPTOTIC LINEARITY OF REDUCTION NUMBER
DANCHENG LU
Abstract. Let R be a standard graded algebra over an infinite field K and M
a finitely generated Z-graded R-module. Then for any graded ideal I ⊆ R+ of R,
we show that there exist integers ε1 ≥ ε2 such that r(I n M ) = ρI (M )n + ε1 and
D(I n M ) = ρI (M )n + ε2 for n ≫ 0. Here r(M ) and D(M ) denote the reduction
number of M and the maximal degree of minimal generators of M respectively,
and ρI (M ) is an integer determined by both M and I.

1. Introduction
L
Unless otherwise stated, we always assume that R =
n≥0 Rn is a standard
graded Noetherian algebra over an infinite field K, where “standard graded” means
that R0 = K and R = K[R1 ]. As usual, a nonzero element in R1 is called a linear
form of R. Let M be a finitely generated nonzero Z-graded R-module.
Definition 1.1. A graded ideal J of R is called an M-reduction if J is generated by
linear forms such that (JM)n = Mn for n ≫ 0; An M-reduction is called minimal if
it does not contain any other M-reduction. The reduction number of M with respect
to J is defined to be
rJ (M) := max{n ∈ Z : (JM)n 6= Mn }.
The reduction number of M is
r(M) := min{rJ (M) : J is a minimal M-reduction}.
Let I be a graded ideal of R. In this paper, we are interested in the following
natural problem : is r(I n M) a linear function of n for all n ≫ 0? This problem is
inspired by the asymptotic behaviour of the so-called Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity reg(I n M). It was first shown in [2] and [6] for the case R being a polynomial
ring over a field, and then in [9] for the general case (namely, when R is a standard
graded algebra over a Noetherian ring with unity) that reg(I n M) is a linear function
of n for all n ≫ 0. Since the reduction number r(I n M) is less than or equal to the
Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity reg(I n M) by [8, Proposition 3.2], it is bounded
above by a linear function of n.
One of the main obstacles to tackle this question lies in the fact that the reduction
number is not a homological invariant. Hence we can not detect any relations among
the reduction numbers of modules Mi from the short exact sequence 0 → M1 →
M2 → M3 → 0. However we find that if both M and N share the same dimension,
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D45; Secondary 13C99.
Key words and phrases. Reduction number, Asymptotic linearity, Generalized regularity
function.
1

then r(N) ≤ r(M) provided that N is a quotient module of M. It turns out that
this simple fact plays an important role.
To state our main result, we introduce some more notation. Again let M be
a finitely generated nonzero Z-graded R-module. We then use D(M) and d(M)
to denote the largest and least degrees of a minimal system of generators of M
respectively. In other words:
D(M) := max{n ∈ Z : (M/R+ M)n 6= 0} and d(M) := min{n ∈ Z : Mn 6= 0}.
Recall that a graded ideal J contained in I is an M-reduction of I if JI n M =
I M for some n > 0. Note that here we do not require that J is generated by
linear forms, hence this concept is different from the notion of M-reduction given in
n+1
n
Definition 1.1, even though one can show that JR+
M = R+
M for n ≫ 0 if and
only if (JM)n = Mn for n ≫ 0. The integer ρI (M) is defined to be:
n+1

ρI (M) := min{D(J) : J is an M-reduction of I}.
We answer our question in positivity by showing:
Theorem 1.2 (Main Theorem). There exist integers ε1 ≥ ε2 ≥ d(M) such that
r(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε1 and D(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε2 for n ≫ 0.
Combining this result with the main result in [9] we see that reg(I n M), r(I n M)
and D(I n M) are all linear functions of n with the same slope.
There is a local version of reduction number. Let I ⊆ m be an ideal of a Noetherian local ring (R, m). An ideal J ⊆ I is called a reduction of I if JI n = I n+1
for some n > 0. A reduction J of I is called a minimal reduction if it does not
contain properly a reduction of I. If J is a minimal reduction of I, the reduction number I with respect to J, denoted by rJ (I), is the least positive integer n
such that JI n = I n+1 . The reduction number of I is defined to be the integer
r(I) := min{rJ (I) : J is a minimal reduction of I}. In [5], it was proved:
Hoa’s Theorem: Let I ⊆ m be an ideal of a local ring (R, m). Then there is
an integer s such that for any n ≫ 0 and any minimal reduction J of I n , one has
rJ (I n ) = s. In particular, r(I n ) = s for all n ≫ 0.
Comparing Hoa’s Theorem with the result obtained in our paper, we see that the
graded and local notions of reduction number are very different, especially in their
asymptotic behaviour. Namely, one has the following statement:
In the local case, r(I n ) is constant for n ≫ 0; but in the graded case, r(I n ) is a
linear function with a nonzero slope for n ≫ 0.
In the last section, we introduce the notion of a generalized regularity function
(see Definition 3.1) for a standard graded algebra over a Noetherian ring with unity,
which is a generalization of a regularity function given in [?]. We prove:
Theorem 1.3. Assume that R is a standard graded algebra over a Noetherian ring
with unity. Let I be a graded ideal of R and M a finitely generated Z-graded Rmodule, and let Γ be a generalized regularity function for R. Then there exists an
integer e ≥ d(M) such that Γ(I n M) = ρI (M)n + e for n ≫ 0
2

2. Asymptotic linearity
In this section we will keep the assumptions and notation in the preceding section.
Recall that a linear form y1 ∈ R1 is filter regular on M if 0 :M y is a module of finite
length. A sequence y1 , . . . , yr with yi ∈ R1 is a filter regular sequence on M if yi is
filter regular on M/(y1 , . . . , yi−1 )M for all i = 1, . . . , r.
Let dim(M) denote the Krull dimension of M. We collect some basic properties
of a reduction number in the following two lemmas.
Lemma 2.1. Let J be an M-reduction. Then:
(a) rJ (M) ≥ D(M);
(b) rJ (M) = min{n ≥ D(M) : (JM)n+1 = Mn+1 };
(c) rJ (M(−p)) = rJ (M) + p for all p ∈ Z;
(d) if dim(M) > 0 and n ≥ rJ (M), then rJ (M≥n ) = n;
(e) if dim(M) > 0, then rJ (M) = min{n : rJ (M≥n ) = n}.
Proof. (a) Since JM ⊆ R+ M, we have (R+ M)n = Mn for all n ≥ rJ (M) + 1. Hence
D(M) ≤ rJ (M).
(b) Set r = min{n ≥ D(M) : (JM)n+1 = Mn+1 }. Since r ≥ D(M), we have
D(JM) ≤ r + 1, and so (JM)m+1 = Mm+1 for any m ≥ r. This implies rJ (M) ≤ r.
The inequality r ≤ rJ (M) follows from rJ (M) ∈ {n ≥ D(M) : (JM)n+1 = Mn+1 }.
(c) rJ (M(−p)) = max{n ∈ Z : (JM(−p))n 6= M(−p)n } =
max{n ∈ Z : (JM)n−p 6= Mn−p } = max{n + p ∈ Z : (JM)n 6= Mn } = rJ (M) + p.
For the proof of (d) and (e), we first notice that for any k ∈ Z, (JM)k = J1 Mk−1 +
J1 R1 Mk−2 + · · · = J1 Mk−1 . In particular, (JM)k+i = (JM≥k )k+i for all i ≥ 1.
(d) Since n ≥ D(M), the module M≥n is generated in degree n. In particular
Mn = (M≥n )n 6= 0 (for if Mn = 0 then M≥n = 0, so dim(M) = 0, a contradiction).
This implies rJ (M≥n ) ≥ n since (JM≥n )n = 0. For all i ≥ 1, we have (JM≥n )n+i =
(JM)n+i = Mn+i = (M≥n )n+i . Hence rJ (M≥n ) ≤ n.
(e) Set r = min{n : rJ (M≥n ) = n}. Then r ≤ rJ (M) by (d). Since rJ (M≥r ) = r,
we have (JM)r+i = (JM≥r )r+i = (M≥r )r+i = Mr+i for all i ≥ 1, so rJ (M) ≤ r.

Lemma 2.2. Assume that dim(M) = d and let J be an M-reduction. Then
(a) J is generated by at least d linear forms;
(b) if y1 , . . . , yd is a filter regular sequence on M, then Q = (y1 , . . . , yd ) is a minimal M-reduction. In particular, for a generic sequence of linear forms y1 , . . . , yd ,
the ideal Q = (y1 , . . . , yd ) is a minimal M-reduction.
Proof. (a) Note that dim(M/JM) = 0, one then uses e.g. [1, Proposition A.4].
(b) From the exact sequence 0 → 0M : y1 → M(−1) → M → M/y1 M → 0, we see
that dim(M/y1 M) = dim(M) − 1, by comparing the degrees of Hilbert polynomials
of M and M/y1 M. Hence dim(M/QM) = 0. It follows that Q is an M-reduction
and it is minimal by (a). The last statement follows from [3, Lemma 4.3.1], which
says a generic linear form is filter regular on M.

3

Next, we will show that r(M) is the reduction number of M with respect to any
generic minimal reduction, along a similar line as given in [7]. For this, we introduce
some notation and some basic facts. Let n ∈ Z. We use tn for the dimension of the
K-space Mn and let Ti be a K-basis of Mn . Let x1 , . . . , xm be a K-basis of R1 . Then
for any ideal J of R generated by d linear forms: y1 , . . . , yd, there exists a matrix
α = (αi,j ) ∈ K d×m , such that
m
X
yi =
αi,j xj
j=1

for i = 1, . . . , d. We call α the parameterized matrix of J.
For n ∈ Z, the vector space (JM)n = J1 Mn−1 is spanned by vectors yi g, with
g ∈ Tn−1 and 1 ≤ i ≤ d. Let Mn (α) denote the matrix of coefficients of those
elements written as linear combinations of elements in Tn . Then J is a minimal
M-reduction if and only if d = dim(M) and there exists n ≥ D(M) such that
rank Mn+1 (α) = tn+1 in view of Lemma 2.1(b). In this case:
rJ (M) = min{n ≥ D(M) : rank Mn+1 (α) = tn+1 }.
Proposition 2.3. Suppose that dim(M) = d. Then for a generic sequence of linear
forms y1 , . . . , yd of R, we have r(M) = r(y1 ,...,yd ) (M).
Proof. Step 1: Let U = (ui,j )d×m be a matrix of indeterminates, and set
RU = R ⊗K K(U) and MU = M ⊗K K(U).
Here K(U) is the fractional field of the polynomial ring K[U] = K[ui,j : 1 ≤ i ≤
d, 1 ≤ j ≤ m]. Then RU is a standard graded algebra over K(U) and MU is a
finitely generated Z-graded RU -module. Note that the K-basis Tn of Mn is also a
KU -basis of (MU )n for all n ∈ Z, and that the K-basis x1 , . . . , xm of R1 is also a
K(U)-basis P
of (RU )1 .
Set zi = m
j=1 uij xj ∈ (RU )1 for i = 1, . . . , d. We claim that z1 , . . . , zd is a filter
regular sequence on MU . In fact, let P be an associated prime ideal of MU with
P + (RU )+ . Since P = pRU for some associated prime ideal p of M, we see that if
z1 ∈ P , then xi ∈ p for i = 1, . . . , m, and so P ⊇ (RU )+ , a contradiction. Hence z1
is filter regular on MU . By induction, z1 , . . . , zd is a filter regular sequence on MU ,
as claimed. Therefore (z1 , . . . , zd ) is a minimal MU -reduction by Lemma 2.2(b).
Step 2: For n ∈ Z, we define the matrix Mn (U) similarly as Mn (α), that is, Mn (U)
is the matrix of coefficients of elements zi g with 1 ≤ i ≤ d and g ∈ Tn−1 written as
linear combinations of elements in Tn . It is not hard to see Mn (α) is a specialization
of Mn (U).
Step 3: We show that
r(M) = r(z1 ,...,zd ) MU = min{n ≥ D(MU )(= D(M)) : rank Mn+1 (U) = tn+1 }.
Put r = r(z1 ,...,zd ) MU . Then rank Mr+1 (U) = tr+1 . Since K is an infinite field,
there exists a matrix α ∈ K d×m such that rank Mn (α) = rank Mn (U). This implies
r(M) ≤ r. On the other hand, it is clear that rank Mn (U) ≥ rank Mn (α) for any
α ∈ K d×m . Hence r(M) = r. The second equality follows from the discussion before
this proposition.
4

Step 4: Let f (U) be a nonzero tr+1 -minor of Mr+1 (U). Then any α ∈ K d×m with
f (α) 6= 0 corresponds to a minimal reduction J such that rJ (M) = r(M).

The following corollary is crucial to the proof of our main result.
Corollary 2.4. Let Mi , i = 1, . . . , n be finitely generated nonzero Z-graded Rmodules with the same dimension d.
(a) If M1 ։ M2 is an epimorphism of graded modules, then r(M1 ) ≥ r(M2 );
(b) r(⊕ni=1 Mi ) = max{r(Mi ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ n};
(c) If 0 → M1 → M2 → M3 → 0 is a short exact sequence of graded modules,
then: r(M3 ) ≤ r(M2 ) ≤ max{r(M1 ), r(M3 )}.
Proof. (a) In view of Proposition 2.3, there exists a sequence of linear forms y1 , . . . , yd
such that the ideal Q := (y1 , . . . , yd ) is an Mi -reduction and r(Mi ) = rQ (Mi ) for
i = 1, 2. Since rQ (Mi ) = max{n ∈ Z : (Mi /QMi )n 6= 0}, the desired inequality
follows from the epimorphism:
M1 /QM1 → M2 /QM2 → 0,
which is obtained by tensoring the epimorphism M1 ։ M2 with R/Q.
The proofs of (b) and (c) are similar.

p
n
It
is
known
that
dim(M/I
M)
keeps
constant
as
n
grows
since
Ann(M/I n M)(=
p
I n + Ann(M)) is independent of n. But this is not the case for dim(I n M). For
instance, let R = K[x, y], M = R/(x2 ) and I = (x). Then dim(I 2 M) = 0 but
dim(IM) = 1. However we have:
Lemma 2.5. The function dim(I n M) is constant for n ≫ 0
Proof. This fact follows from dim(I n M) = dim(R/Ann(I n M)) and the sequence of
ideals Ann(I n M) is increasing and hence stationary for n ≫ 0.

We record [7, Lemma 3.1] in the following lemma for the later use. Note that in
this result we only require that R0 is a Noetherian ring with unity.
Lemma 2.6. D(I n M) ≥ ρI (M)n + d(M) for all n > 0.
We now in the position to prove the main result of this paper.
Theorem 2.7. There exist integers ε1 ≥ ε2 ≥ d(M) such that r(I n M) = ρI (M)n +
ε1 and D(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε2 for n ≫ 0.
L
n
n
Proof. Let U :=
n≥0 I M/R+ (I M) be the module over the Rees ring R(I) of
I. Then R(I) has a natural bigraded algebra structure and U is a bigraded R(I)module. It follows that reg(Un ) is a linear function for n ≫ 0 by [9, Theorem 2.2].
Since Un = I n M/R+ (I n M) has the finite length, it follows that D(I n M) = reg(Un )
and so it is a linear function for n ≫ 0 with
D(I n M) ≥ ρI (M)n + d(M), ∀n > 0.
On the other hand, we know that D(I n M) ≤ reg(I n M) and for n ≫ 0, one has
reg(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε,
5

where ε is a positive integer independent of n, see [9]. From these facts, it immediately follows that
D(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε2
with ε2 ≥ d(M) for n ≫ 0.
Next, we consider the function r(I n M). To this end, we set
Qn := r(I n M) − ρI (M)n.
Then Qn ≥ d(M) by Lemma 2.6 together with Lemma 2.1(a). Let J be an Mreduction of I such that D(J) = ρI (M), and let u1 , . . . , ut be a minimal generating
system of J. Then for n ≫ 0 we have the following epimorphism of graded Rmodules:
t
M
→
I n−1 M(−pj ) → I n M → 0,
j=1

where pi = deg ui for i = 1, . . . , t. In fact, if n is large enough, then I n M =
JI n−1 M = u1 I n−1 M + · · · + ut I n−1 M. Thus the desired map can be obtained by
compounding the homogeneous surjective maps: I n−1 M(−pj ) → uj I n−1 M, which
is defined by: a 7→ uj a.
From the epimorphism defined above, it follows that
r(I n M) ≤ max{r(I n−1 M) + pi : 1 ≤ i ≤ t}
by Lemmas 2.5 and 2.1(c) and Corollary 2.4. Since ρI (M) = max{pi : 1 ≤ i ≤ t},
it follows that
Qn ≤ Qn−1
for n ≫ 0 and so Qn is eventually constant with a value ε1 ≥ d(M). This proves
that r(I n M) = ρI (M)n + ε1 for n ≫ 0. Finally, the inequality ε1 ≥ ε2 follows from
Lemma 2.1(a).

We conclude this section with the following question:
Question: What do we can say about the function r(M/I n M)?
This function is non-decreasing from the beginning on by the epimorphism
M/I n+1 M → M/I n M → 0.
Since r(M/I n M) ≤ reg(M/I n M) ≤ max{reg(M), reg(I n M) + 1}, it is also bounded
above by a linear function. In some particular cases, for example when M = R
and I = R+ , it is a linear function asymptotically. However we do not know if it is
indeed asymptotically linear in general.
3. Generalized Regularity Functions
In the last section we will extend the epimorphism appeared in the proof of Theorem 2.7 to a long exact sequence and use it to prove the asymptotic linearity
of generalized regularity function. First we change our setting. From now on, let
R = ⊕n≥0 Rn be a standard graded Noetherian algebra over R0 = A, where A is a
Noetherian ring with unity. We denote by MR the category of finitely generated
graded R−modules.
6

Definition 3.1. A generalized regularity function for R is a function Γ which assigns
each M ∈ MR an integer Γ(M) such that for all M, N, P ∈ MR , one has:
(1) if M ∼
= N, then Γ(M) = Γ(N);
(2) Γ(M(−p)) = Γ(M) + p for all p ∈ Z;
(3) Γ(M) ≥ D(M);
(4) Γ(M ⊕ N) = max{Γ(M), Γ(N)},
(5) if 0 → M → N → P → 0 is a short exact sequence of graded modules, then
Γ(P ) ≤ max{Γ(N), Γ(M) − 1}.
This concept generalizes the notion of regularity function defined in [?] in two
hands. Firstly we do not require that R0 is field; Secondly, some requirements in
the definition of regularity function (see [?, Definition 1.1]) are dropped. Note that
the condition that Γ(M) ≥ D(M) in our definition does not appear in [?, Definition
1.1], but it can be deduced from that in view of [?, Proposition 1.2(a)]. We begin
with:
Lemma 3.2. Let 0 → Mt → Mt−1 → · · · → M1 → M0 → 0 be an exact sequence of
graded modules. Then Γ(M0 ) ≤ max{Γ(M1 ), Γ(M2 ) − 1, . . . , Γ(Mt ) − t + 1}.
Proof. Split the exact sequence into the (t − 1) short exact sequences and apply the
fifth condition of Definition 3.1 to those sequences.

In the following lemma we will present an useful exact sequence of graded modules,
which is an improvement of the exact sequence appeared in the proof of [1, Theorem
4.7.6]. Let [t] denote the set of integers {1, . . . , t}.
Lemma 3.3. Let J be an M-reduction of I and assume that J is minimally generated
by u1 , . . . , ut with deg ui = pi for i = 1, . . . , t. Then for all n ≫ 0, we have the
following exact sequence of graded modules:
0→I

n−t

M(−

t
X
i=1

pi ) → · · · →

M

I n−i M(−

T ⊆[t],|T |=i

X

pj ) → · · · → I n M → 0.

j∈T

Proof. Let K. = K.(u1 , . . . , ut ; M) be the Koszul complex and ∂ be its differential.
Since ∂(Ki+1 ) ⊆ IKi for each i, we have the following subcomplex of K. for all
integer n ≥ t:
K.(n) : 0 → I n−t Kt → I n−t+1 Kt−1 → · · · → I n−1 K1 → I n K0 → 0.
We will show that K.(n) is exact for n ≫ 0 (and thus our result follows.)
Fix m > 0 such that JI m M = I m+1 M. Then I n−i Ki = J n−i−m I m Ki and by
Artin-Rees Lemma it follows that
Zi (K.(n) ) = I n−i Ki ∩ Zi (K.) = J(J n−i−m−1 I m Ki ∩ Zi (K.))
for i = 0, . . . , t and for n ≫ 0.
Now given n large enough P
such that the equalities above hold simultaneously.
(n)
Let a ∈ Zi (K. ). Then a = tj=1 uj aj with aj ∈ J n−i−m−1 I m Kt−i ∩ Zi (K.). Let
e1 , . . . , et be a K- basis of K1 (u1 , . . . , ut; R) with ∂R (ej ) = uj for j = 1, . . . , t. Here
P
∂R denotes the differential of K1 (u1 , . . . , ut ; R). Then w = tj=1 ej aj ∈ I n−i−1 Ki+1
7

and ∂(w) = a −
exact.

Pt

j=1 ej ∂(ai )

= a by [1, Proposition 1.6.2]. Thus K.(n) is indeed


Remark 3.4. Artin-Rees Lemma says that if N is a submodule of M then there
exists an integer m > 0 such that I n M ∩ N = I n−m (I m M ∩ N) for all n > m.
However the assumption that N is a submodule of M is not essential. In fact, if N
is not a submodule of M then I n M ∩N = I n M ∩(N ∩M) = I n−m (I m M ∩(N ∩M)) =
I n−m (I m M ∩ N) for all n > m. Therefore Artin-Rees Lemma still holds. We use
Artin-Rees Lemma of this version in the proof of Lemma 3.3.
In the proof of our last result we will use the same strategy as in the proof of [6,
Theorem 5].
Theorem 3.5. Let I be a graded ideal of R and M ∈ MR , and let Γ be a generalized
regularity function for R. Then there exists an integer e ≥ d(M) such that Γ(I n M) =
ρI (M)n + e for n ≫ 0
Proof. Put P = ρI (M) and let Qn = Γ(I n M)−nP . Then Qn ≥ d(M) by Lemma 2.6
and the third condition in Definition 3.1. Let J be an M-reduction of I such
that D(J) = ρI (M). Apply Lemma 3.2 to the exact sequence in Lemma 3.3 (see
Remark 3.4(3)), we have: P n + Qn
≤ max{(n−1)P +Qn−1 +P, (n−2)P +Qn−2 +2P −1, . . . , (n−t)P +Qn−t +tP −t+1}.
It follows that Qn ≤ max{Qn−1 , Qn−2 − 1, . . . , Qn−t − t + 1} for n ≫ 0. Put
Tn = max{Qn−1 , Qn−2 , . . . , Qn−t }. Then Tn+1 ≤ Tn for n ≫ 0 and so Tn is eventually
constant with a value e ≥ d(M). Let m be an integer such that Tn = e for all n ≥ m.
We claim that Qn = e for all n ≥ m.
Assume on the contrary that Qm 6= e. Since Qn ≤ Tn , we have Qm < e. It follows
that Qm+1 ≤ max{Qm , Qm−1 −1, . . . , Qm−t+1 −t+1} ≤ max{Qm , Tm −1} < e. Thus
Qn < e for all n ≥ m by induction, a contradiction. Hence Qm = e and in the same
reason we have Qn = e for all n ≥ m, as claimed. This implies Γ(I n M) = P n + e
for all n ≫ 0.

Acknowledgement
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. In particular, we are
grateful for presenting us a much simpler proof for Lemma 2.5 and a more inspiring
proof for the asymptotic linearity of D(I n M).
References
[1] W. Bruns, J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridges Studies in Advanced Mathematics,
39, 1993.
[2] S.D. Cutkosky, J. Herzog, N.V. Trung, Asymptotic behaviour of the Castelnuovo-Mumford
regularity, Compositio Math. 118 (1999), 243-261.
[3] J. Herzog, T. Hibi, Monomial Ideals, Graduate Text in Mathematics, Springer, 2011.
[4] J. Herzog, L.T. Hoa, N.V. Trung, Asymptotic linear bounds of the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, Trans. A.M.S. 354 (2002), 1793-1809
bibitemHR J. Herzog, G. Resuccia, Regularity functions for homogeneous algebra, Arch. Math.
76 (2001), 100-108
8

[5] L.T. Hoa Reduction numbers and Rees algebras of powers of an ideals, Proc. A.M.S. 119 (1993)
415–422
[6] V. Kodiyalam, Asymptotic behaviour of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, Proc. A.M.S. 128
(2000), 407-411
[7] N.V. Trung, Constructive characterization of the reduction numbers, Compositio Math. 137
(2003), 99–113
[8] N.V. Trung, Reduction exponent and degree bound for the defining equations of graded rings,
Proc. A.M.S. 101 (1987) 229–236.
[9] N.V. Trung, Hsin-Ju Wang, On the asymptotic linearity of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity,
Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 201 (2005), 42–48
Dancheng Lu, Department of Mathematics, Soochow University, 215006 Suzhou,
P.R.China
E-mail address: ludancheng@suda.edu.cn

9

