arXiv:1402.3663v1 [math.CO] 15 Feb 2014

Buchstaber numbers and classical invariants of simplicial complexes
Anton Ayzenberg
Abstract. Buchstaber invariant is a numerical characteristic of a simplicial complex,
arising from torus actions on moment-angle complexes. In the paper we study the relation
between Buchstaber invariants and classical invariants of simplicial complexes such as
bigraded Betti numbers and chromatic invariants. The following two statements are
proved. (1) There exists a simplicial complex U such that s(U ) 6= sR (U ). (2) There exist
two simplicial complexes with equal bigraded Betti numbers and chromatic numbers,
but different Buchstaber invariants. To prove the first theorem we define Buchstaber
number as a generalized chromatic invariant. This approach allows to guess the required
example. The task then reduces to a finite enumeration of possibilities which was done
using GAP computational system. To prove the second statement we use properties of
Taylor resolutions of face rings.

1. Introduction
Let K be a simplicial complex on a set of vertices [m] = {1, 2, . . . , m}. In toric topology
a special topological space, called moment-angle complex, is associated to K.
Definition 1.1 (Moment-angle complex [5, 6]).
(1) Let D2 ⊂ C be the unit disk and S 1 — its boundary circle. For any simplex I ∈ K
define the subset (D2 , S 1 )I ⊂ (D2 )m , (D2 , S 1 )I = (D2 )I × (S 1 )[m]\I . Here, in the product,
disks stand on the positions from I and circles stand on all other positions. The momentangle complex of K is the topological space
[
ZK =
(D2 , S 1 )I ⊆ (D2 )m .
I∈K

This subset is preserved by the coordinatewise action of the compact torus T m = (S 1 )m y (D2 )m ,
where each component S 1 acts on corresponding D2 ⊂ C by rotations. This defines the action
T m y ZK .
(2) Let D1 = [−1; 1] ⊂ R and S 0 = ∂D1 = {−1, 1}. For any simplex I ∈ K define the
subset (D1 , S 0 )I ⊂ (D1 )m , (D1 , S 0 )I = (D1 )I × (S 0 )[m]\I . The real moment-angle complex
of K is the topological space
[
(D1 , S 0 )I ⊆ (D1 )m .
RZ K =
I∈K
1 m
This subset is preserved by the coordinatewise action of the finite group Zm
2 y (D ) . Here
1
m
the group Z2 = Z/2Z acts on D ⊂ R by changing sign. This defines the action Z2 y R Z K .

The author is supported by the JSPS postdoctoral fellowship program.
1

2

ANTON AYZENBERG

Constructions in toric topology, in particular moment-angle complexes, give rise to interesting and nontrivial invariants of simplicial complexes. Note that the actions T m y ZK
and Zm
2 y R Z K are not free if K has at least one nonempty simplex. The main objects
of this paper are Buchstaber invariants measuring the degree of symmetry of moment-angle
complexes.
Definition 1.2 (Buchstaber invariant).
(1) The (ordinary) Buchstaber invariant s(K) of a simplicial complex K is the maximal
rank of toric subgroups G ⊂ T m for which the restricted action G y ZK is free.
(2) The real Buchstaber invariant sR (K) is the maximal rank of subgroups G ⊂ Zm
2 for
which the restricted action G y R Z K is free.
Here “rank of subgroup G ⊂ Zm
2 ” means the dimension of G as a vector subspace over
the field of two elements. This finite field will also be denoted by Z2 .
Several approaches to the study of Buchstaber invariants are developed up to date
[21, 22, 12, 13, 16]. We refer to [14] for the comprehensive review of this field. In this
paper we study the connection of Buchstaber invariants with each other and with other
invariants of simplicial complexes.
Generally, there is a bound
1 6 s(K) 6 sR (K) 6 m − dim K − 1

(1.1)

In toric topology the case s(K) = sR (K) = m − dim K − 1 is the most important; it appears
quite often. Still there are many examples of K for which 1 < sR (K) < m − dim K − 1 or
1 < s(K) < m − dim K − 1. It is always very difficult to compute s(K) for such examples
(Section 3 contains an example of such computation). The real invariant sR (K) is easier
because its calculation allows computer-aided analysis. Thus an important question is:
whether s(K) = sR (K) for any complex K? The answer is negative.
Theorem 1. There exists a simplicial complex U of dimension 3 such that s(U ) 6= sR (U ).
Remark 1.3. Theorem 1 was announced without a proof in [2]. The proof was published
later in [3], but unfortunately, that issue of the journal was not published in English. We
provide the proof here (Section 3).
The second block of questions asks about the relation between Buchstaber invariants
and other well-studied invariants. If A(·) is an invariant (possibly, a set of invariants) of a
simplicial complex, then the general question is:
Question 1.4. Does A(K) = A(L) imply s(K) = s(L) or sR (K) = sR (L)?
There are several natural candidates for A(·):
•
•
•
•

Chromatic number γ(K) or its generalizations;
f -vector (or, equivalently, h-vector) of K;
Topological characteristics of K, e.g. Betti numbers;
Topological characteristics of the moment-angle complex ZK .

Classical chromatic number γ(K) on itself is too weak invariant for rigidity question
1.4 to make sense. On the other hand, Buchstaber invariants can themselves be considered
as generalized chromatic invariants (see Section 2). N. Erokhovets [11, 12] proved that
Buchstaber invariants are not determined by the f -vector and the chromatic number. More
precisely, he constructed two simplicial polytopes, whose boundaries have equal f -vectors
and chromatic numbers, but Buchstaber invariants are different.

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

3

The cohomology ring of a moment-angle complex is the subject of intensive study during
last fifteen years. It is known [5, 15] that,
M
∗,∗
Tor−`,2j
(1.2)
H ∗ (ZK ; k) ∼
= Tork[m] (k[K], k) =
k[m] (k[K], k)
`,j

— the Tor-algebra of a Stanley–Reisner ring. The dimensions of graded components
(1.3)

β −`,2j (K) = dimk Tor−`,2j
k[m] (k[K], k).
def

are called bigraded Betti numbers of K. In general they depend on the ground field k. These
invariants represent a lot of information about K [26, 6]. In particular, from bigraded Betti
numbers it is possible to extract: the h-vector of K; the ordinary Betti numbers of K and
the ordinary Betti numbers of ZK by formulas:
X
1
h0 (K) + h1 (K)t + . . . + hn (K)tn =
β −`,2j (−1)` tj [6, Th.7.15];
m−n
(1 − t)
dim H̃ i (K; k) = β −(m−i−1),2m (K) (the part of Hochster’s formula [20],[6, Th.3.27]);
X
dim H i (ZK ; k) =
β −`,2j (K) (follows from (1.2)),
−`+2j=i

where n = dim K + 1. Note, that bigraded Betti numbers do not determine the dimension of
K. The cone over K always has the same bigraded Betti numbers as K but the dimension
is different.
So far, β −i,2j (K) (together with dim K) is a very strong set of invariants. The question 1.4 makes sense for this set of invariants. Still the answer is negative.
Theorem 2. There exist simplicial complexes K1 and K2 such that
(1) β −i,2j (K1 ) = β −i,2j (K2 ) for all i, j;
(2) dim K1 = dim K2 ;
(3) γ(K1 ) = γ(K2 );
(4) s(K1 ) 6= s(K2 ) and sR (K1 ) 6= sR (K2 ).
We also show that Tor-algebras of the constructed complexes K1 and K2 have trivial
multiplications. Thus not only bigraded Betti numbers but also multiplicative structure of
H ∗ (ZK ) does not determine Buchstaber invariant.
The paper consists of two essential parts which are independent from each other. Sections 2 and 3 form the first part. Theorem 1 is proved in Section 3. Section 2 clarifies
the combinatorial meaning of Buchstaber invariants and contains definitions and constructions necessary for understanding the proof. In the second part of the paper we explore the
connection between Buchstaber invariants and bigraded Betti numbers. This requires some
basic homological algebra and the construction of the Taylor resolution of a Stanley–Reisner
ring. Section 4 contains all necessary definitions and the proof of Theorem 2.
2. Combinatorial approach to Buchstaber invariants
2.1. Characteristic functions. A subgroup G ⊆ T m acts freely on a moment-angle
complex ZK if and only if G intersects stabilizers of the action T m y ZK trivially.
Lemma 2.1. Stabilizers of the action T m y ZK are coordinate subtori T I ⊆ T m ,
corresponding to simplices I ∈ K.
Proof. The subgroup T I preserves the point {0}I × {1}[m]\I ∈ (D2 , S 1 )I ⊆ ZK .



4

ANTON AYZENBERG

In this section we suppose for simplicity that K does not have ghost vertices. In other
words, {i} ∈ K for any i ∈ [m]. Let G ⊂ T m be a toric subgroup of rank s acting freely on
ZK . Consider the quotient map φ : T m → T m /G, and fix an arbitrary coordinate representation T m /G ∼
= T r , where r = m − s. We get a map φ : T m → T r such that the restriction
φ|T I to any stabilizer subgroup is injective. For each vertex i ∈ [m] consider an i-th coordinate subgroup T {i} ⊂ T m . Since {i} ∈ K, the subgroup φ(T {i} ) ⊂ T r is 1-dimensional,
1
2
r
therefore φ(T {i} ) = (tλi , tλi , . . . , tλi ), where t ∈ T 1 and (λ1i , λ2i , . . . , λri ) ∈ Zr . Define a
map: Λ : [m] → Zr , Λ(i) = (λ1i , λ2i , . . . , λri ), called characteristic map (corresponding to the
subgroup G ⊆ T m ). Since φ|T I is injective the characteristic map satisfies the condition:
If I = {i1 , . . . , ik } ∈ K,
then Λ(i1 ), . . . , Λ(ik ) form a part of a basis of the lattice Zr .

(∗)

Vice a versa any map Λ : [m] → Zr satisfying (∗) corresponds to some toric subgroup
G ⊂ T m of rank s = m − r acting freely on ZK .
The case of real moment-angle complexes is similar. Each subgroup G ⊂ Zm
2 of rank s
acting freely on R Z K determines a map ΛR : [m] → Zr2 with r = m − s. This map satisfies
the condition
If I = {i1 , . . . , ik } ∈ K,
then Λ(i1 ), . . . , Λ(ik ) are linearly independent in Zr2 .
These considerations prove the following statement.

(∗R )

Statement 2.2 (I.Izmestiev [22]). Let r(K) denote the minimal integer r for which
there exists a map [m] → Zr satisfying (∗). Let rR (K) denote the minimal integer r for
which there exists a map [m] → Zr2 satisfying (∗R ). Then s(K) = m − r(K) and sR (K) =
m − rR (K).
Remark 2.3. Note that actually there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between freely acting
subgroups and characteristic functions. The first reason is a choice of an isomorphism
T m /G ∼
= T r which was arbitrary. The second reason is that characteristic function was
defined only up to sign. Integral vectors (λ1i , λ2i , . . . , λri ) and −(λ1i , λ2i , . . . , λri ) determine the
same 1-dimensional toric subgroup.
2.2. Generalized chromatic invariants. Let K and L be simplicial complexes on
sets V (K) and V (L), possibly infinite. A map f : V (K) → V (L) is called a simplicial map
(or a map of simplicial complexes) if I ∈ K implies f (I) ∈ L. For a simplicial map we
write f : K → L. A map f : K → L is called non-degenerate if |f (I)| = |I| for each simplex
I ∈ K. The following general definition is due to R. Živaljević [28, def. 4.11].
Definition 2.4 (Generalized chromatic invariant). Let F = {Tα | α ∈ A} be a family
of “test” simplicial complexes and let wt : A → R be a real-valued function. A Tα -coloring of
K is just a non-degenerate simplicial map f : K → Tα and γ(F ,wt) , the (F, wt)-chromatic
number of K, is defined as the infimum of all weights over all Tα -colorings,
(2.1)

def

γ(F ,wt) (K) = inf{wt(α) | there exists a Tα -coloring of K}
def

If there are no colorings at all, set γ(F ,wt) (K) = +∞.
Example 2.5. Let F∆ = {∆[n] | n ∈ N} be the family of simplices weighted by numbers
def

of vertices wt∆ (n) = n. The F∆ -coloring is a non-degenerate simplicial map f : K → ∆[n] .
This is just a map f : V (K) → [n] such that f (i) 6= f (j) for {i, j} ∈ K. Thus, f is a coloring
in classical sense and γ(F∆ ,wt∆ ) (K) = γ(K) — the ordinary chromatic number.

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

5

(n)

Example 2.6. Consider the complex ∆∞ which has infinite countable set Ω of vertices
(n)
and simplices — all subsets I ⊂ Ω with |I| 6 n + 1. Consider the family Fd = {∆∞ | n ∈ N}
def
weighted by wtd (n) = n. Then, obviously, γ(Fd ,wtd ) (K) = dim(K).
Example 2.7. Many classical and new invariants in graph theory are generalized chromatic invariants. These include fractional and circular chromatic numbers [23], orthogonal
colorings [19], quantum chromatic number [8].
Example 2.8. An integral vector v ∈ Zn , v 6= 0 is called primitive if v is not divisible
by natural numbers other than 1. A collection of integral vectors I = {v1 , . . . , vk } ⊂ Zn
is called unimodular if I is a part of some basis of a lattice Zn . Clearly, any vector in a
unimodular collection is primitive. A subcollection of a unimodular collection is unimodular.
Consider the simplicial complex Un in which: (1) vertices are primitive vectors of Zn ;
(2) simplices are unimodular collections of vectors. Obviously, maximal simplices are bases
of the lattice Zn , so dim Un = n − 1. Define the test family FU = {Un | n ∈ N} weighted by
def
wtU (n) = n. Then an (FU , wtU )-coloring of a complex K is exactly the map Λ : [m] → Z n ,
which satisfies (∗)-condition. Therefore, the generalized chromatic invariant γ(FU ,wtU ) (K)
is exactly r(K) = m − s(K).
Similarly, define R U n as a simplicial complex on the set Zn2 \ {0} in which I is a simplex
if I is a set of binary vectors linearly independent over Z2 . Clearly, dim R U n = n − 1. Define
def
the test family FU R = {R U n | n ∈ N} weighted by wtU R (n) = n. Then γ(FU R ,wtU R ) (K) =
rR (K) = m − sR (K).
We can always assume that test families satisfy γ(F ,wt) (Tα ) = wt(Tα ) in Definition 2.4.
This holds for the families described above.
Generalized chromatic invariants share a common property. If there exists a nondegenerate map g : K → L, then γ(F ,wt) (K) 6 γ(F ,wt) (L). This fact follows easily from the
definition: if f : L → Fα is an Fα -coloring of L, then f ◦ g : K → L → Fα is an Fα -coloring
of K with the same weight. For Buchstaber invariants (Example 2.8) this observation gives
s(K) > s(L) − mL + mK ,

sR (K) > sR (L) − mL + mK ,

where mK , mL are the numbers of vertices of K and L. This fact was first pointed out by
N.Erokhovets in [11].
On the other hand, the aforementioned monotonicity property is in general not substantial due of the following “general nonsense” argument.
Claim 2.9. Let a(·) be an invariant of simplicial complexes taking values in R and such
that a(K) 6 a(L) if there exists a non-degenerate map g : K → L. Then a(·) is a generalized
chromatic invariant.
Proof. Just take the family of all simplicial complexes weighted by a(·) itself. Of
course, we suppose that all complexes under consideration belong to some “good universe”
to avoid set-theoretical problems.

Let us describe the relation between different generalized chromatic invariants. Let
(F1 , wt1 ) and (F2 , wt2 ) be weighted test families. We say that there is a morphism Ψ : (F1 , wt1 ) →
(F2 , wt2 ) if for each complex T ∈ F1 there exists a non-degenerate simplicial map from T
to some S ∈ F2 with wt2 (S) 6 wt1 (T ).
Lemma 2.10. If there is a morphism from (F1 , wt1 ) to (F2 , wt2 ) then γ(F2 ,wt2 ) (K) 6
γ(F1 ,wt1 ) (K) for any K.

6

ANTON AYZENBERG

The proof is immediate.
Lemma 2.11. There is a series of morphisms:
(F∆ , wt∆ ) → (FU , wtU ) → (FU R , wtU R ) → (Fd , wtd +1)
for the families defined in Examples 2.5,2.6 and 2.8
Proof. Indeed, for each n ∈ N we have the following. (1) A non-degenerate map
∆[n] → Un , sending [n] to a basis of the lattice Zn . (2) A non-degenerate map p : Un → R U n ,
which reduces each primitive vector (a vertex of Un ) modulo 2. The map p, obviously, sends
unimodular collections from Zn to linearly independent sets in Zn2 . (3) A non-degenerate
inclusion map R U n → ∆n−1

∞ .
From Lemmas 2.10 and 2.11 follows
dim K + 1 6 rR (K) 6 r(K) 6 γ(K),
for any K. Equivalently:
(2.2)

m − γ(K) 6 s(K) 6 sR (K) 6 m − dim K − 1.

The estimation of s(K) by ordinary chromatic number was first proved in [21]. The
inequality between real and ordinary Buchstaber invariant can be understood topologically
as well [16].
We call two test families equivalent, (F1 , wt1 ) ∼ (F2 , wt2 ), if there are morphisms
in both directions: Ψ : (F1 , wt1 ) → (F2 , wt2 ) and Φ : (F2 , wt2 ) → (F1 , wt1 ). Equivalent
families define equal generalized chromatic invariants by Lemma 2.10. Therefore to prove
that certain generalized chromatic invariants are different we need to prove that their test
families are not equivalent.
In particular, to prove that r(·) and rR (·) are different invariants, it is sufficient to show
that for some n ∈ N there is no non-degenerate map from R U n to Un . In other words, we
should prove that r(R U n ) > n = rR (R U n ) for some n ∈ N. This consideration is summarized
as follows:
Claim 2.12. If there exists a simplicial complex K such that s(K) 6= sR (K) then such
complex can be found among {R U n | n ∈ N}.
We start to check complexes R U n for small values of n. For a test family (F, wt) define
(F (`) , wt) as a family of `-skeletons of members of F.
Proposition 2.13. If dim K = 0, 1, 2, then s(K) = sR (K). In particular, s(R U n ) =
sR (R U n ) for i = 1, 2, 3.
Proof. For complexes K of dimension 0, 1, 2 a non-degenerate map from K to T is the
same as a non-degenerate map from K to T (2) . Therefore, γ(F ,wt) (K) = γ(F (2) ,wt) (K).
(2)

(2)

We prove that (FU , wtU ) ∼ (FU R , wtU R ). The proof exploits a trick invented in [12,
(2)
14]. The modulo 2 reduction map p : Un
→ R U (2)
n is already constructed. Let us
(2)
(2)
construct a non-degenerate map q : R U n → Un . The vertex v of R U n is a vector in
Zn2 \ {0}. It can be written as an array of 0 and 1. Consider q(v) ∈ Zn — the same array of
0 and 1 as an integral vector. It is easily shown that if I ⊂ Zn2 is a set of at most 3 linearly
independent vectors, then {q(v) | v ∈ I} is unimodular in Zn . Thus q is a non-degenerate
(2)
map from R U (2)
n to Un .
Finally, r(K) = γ(FU ,wtU ) (K) = γ(F (2) ,wtU ) (K) = γ(F (2) ,wtU R ) (K) = γ(FU R ,wtU R ) (K) =
U
UR
rR (K). The proposition now follows from Statement 2.2.


BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

7

More can be said in the case dim K 6 1.
Proposition 2.14. If dim K 6 1 then s(K) = sR (K) = m − [log2 γ(K)] − 1. Here m is
the number of vertices of K, γ(K) — chromatic number, and [ · ] denotes an integral part.
n
∼ (1)
Proof. Note that R U (1)
n = ∆[2n −1] , since both complexes are complete graphs on 2 − 1
(1)

(1)

vertices. Thus the family (FU R , wtU R ) is equivalent to ({∆[2n −1] }, wt∆ ) which is the sub(1)

family of (F∆ , wt∆ ). Formula rR (K) = [log2 γ(K)] + 1 follows easily.



Corollary 2.15. For finite 1-dimensional simplicial complexes (i.e. simple graphs) the
problem to decide, whether s(K) (or sR (K)) is equal to m − 2, is NP-complete.
Proof. By Proposition 2.14, sR (K) = m − 2 if and only if γ(K) = 2 or γ(K) = 3.
2-colorability of a graph K can be verified in polynomial time. 3-colorability of a graph K
is an NP-complete decision problem [18, A1,GT4 in Appendix].


3. Real and ordinary Buchstaber invariants are different
In this section we prove Theorem 1, by showing that s(R U 4 ) > 4 = sR (R U 4 ) for the
complex R U 4 defined in the previous section. In other words, we prove that there is no
non-degenerate simplicial map from R U 4 to U4 .
Let e denote the nonzero element of Z2 to avoid confusion with integral unit. Recall
the map p : U4 → R U 4 described in Lemma 2.11. This map sends (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) ∈ Z4 to
(x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) mod 2 ∈ Z42 .
Lemma 3.1. Let f : R U 4 → N be a non-degenerate map. Then f is an injective map of
vertices.
Proof. Vertices of R U 4 are pairwise connected. By non-degeneracy, |{f (v1 ), f (v2 )}| =
2, thus f (v1 ) 6= f (v2 ).

Remark 3.2. Every non-degenerate map f : R U 4 → N is injective on simplices as well.
Lemma 3.3. If there exists a non-degenerate map ν̃ : R U 4 → U4 , then there exists a
non-degenerate map ν : R U 4 → U4 such that
(3.1)

p ◦ ν = id : R U 4 → R U 4 .

Proof. Consider a map q = p ◦ ν̃ : R U 4 → R U 4 . The map q is a non-degenerate
simplicial map, therefore, by Lemma 3.1, it is injective on vertices of R U 4 . Thus q defines
a permutation on a finite set of vertices V (R U 4 ). Then q n = id for some n > 1. Take
ν = ν̃ ◦q n−1 : R U 4 → U4 . Then ν is a non-degenerate simplicial map, and p◦ν = q n = id. 
A non-degenerate map ν : R U 4 → U4 will be called a lift if it satisfies (3.1). To prove
the theorem it is sufficient to prove that lifts do not exist.
Suppose the contrary. Let Λ : R U 4 → U4 be a lift. Vertices of R U 4 are, by definition,
nonzero vectors of Z42 . We list them in (3.2). Vectors at the right hand side of (3.2) are the
values of Λ. Each vector at the right is a primitive vector in Z4 . Since Λ is a lift, numbers
ai are odd and bi are even.

8

ANTON AYZENBERG

v1 = (e, 0, 0, 0) 7−→ (a1 , b1 , b2 , b3 )
v2 = (0, e, 0, 0) 7−→ (b4 , a2 , b5 , b6 )
v3 = (0, 0, e, 0) 7−→ (b7 , b8 , a3 , b9 )
v4 = (0, 0, 0, e) 7−→ (b10 , b11 , b12 , a4 )
v5 = (e, e, 0, 0) 7−→ (a5 , a6 , b13 , b14 )
v6 = (e, 0, e, 0) 7−→ (a7 , b15 , a8 , b16 )
v7 = (e, 0, 0, e) 7−→ (a9 , b17 , b18 , a10 )
v8 = (0, e, e, 0) 7−→ (b19 , a11 , a12 , b20 )

(3.2)

v9 = (0, e, 0, e) 7−→ (b21 , a13 , b22 , a14 )
v10 = (0, 0, e, e) 7−→ (b23 , b24 , a15 , a16 )
v11 = (0, e, e, e) 7−→ (b25 , a17 , a18 , a19 )
v12 = (e, 0, e, e) 7−→ (a20 , b26 , a21 , a22 )
v13 = (e, e, 0, e) 7−→ (a23 , a24 , b27 , a25 )
v14 = (e, e, e, 0) 7−→ (a26 , a27 , a28 , b28 )
v15 = (e, e, e, e) 7−→ (a29 , a30 , a31 , a32 )
Values of Λ should satisfy (∗)-condition. It is reformulated for this particular case as
follows:
(∗)

If vi1 , vi2 , vi3 , vi4 ∈ Z42 satisfy det(vi1 , vi2 , vi3 , vi4 ) = e ∈ Z2 ,
then det(Λ(vi1 ), Λ(vi2 ), Λ(vi3 ), Λ(vi4 )) = ±1 ∈ Z.
Lemma 3.4. Condition (∗) is preserved under the change of sign of any Λ(vi ).
This is clear.

Lemma 3.5. Without loss of generality we may assume that Λ(v1 ) = (1, 0, 0, 0), Λ(v2 ) =
(0, 1, 0, 0), Λ(v3 ) = (0, 0, 1, 0), Λ(v4 ) = (0, 0, 0, 1).
Proof. Indeed, det(v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 ) = e, therefore, by (∗)-condition, Λ(vi )i=1,2,3,4 is a
basis of the lattice Z4 . Expand all vectors Λ(vi ) in this basis.

Lemma 3.6. In the notation of (3.2) ai = ±1 for each i = 1, . . . , 32.
Proof. Consider the matrix

e 0
0 e

A=
0 0
∗ ∗

A over Z2 :

0 0
0 0

e 0
∗ e


1
0

B=
0
∗

0
1
0
∗

0
0
1
∗


0
0

0
ai

Since det(A) = e, (∗)-condition and Lemma 3.5 imply det B = ±1. Therefore, ai = ±1 if ai
stands on the last position. Similar for other positions of ai .

In particular, Λ(v15 ) = Λ((e, e, e, e)) = (±1, ±1, ±1, ±1).
Lemma 3.7. Without loss of generality we may assume that Λ(v15 ) = (1, 1, 1, 1).

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

9

Proof. Let Λ(v15 ) = (ε1 , ε2 , ε3 , ε4 ). Consider a new basis of the lattice: e01 = ε1 e1 , e02 =
ε2 e2 , e03 = ε3 e3 , e04 = ε4 e4 . Vector Λ(v15 ) has coordinates (1, 1, 1, 1) in the basis {e01 , e02 , e03 , e04 }.
Vectors Λ(v1 ), Λ(v2 ), Λ(v3 ), Λ(v4 ) have coordinates (ε1 , 0, 0, 0), (0, ε2 , 0, 0), etc. We may
change their signs, if necessary, by Lemma 3.4 and get Λ(v1 ) = (1, 0, 0, 0), Λ(v2 ) = (0, 1, 0, 0),
etc. as before.

To summarize:
Claim 3.8. Without loss of generality, Λ(v1 ) = (1, 0, 0, 0), Λ(v2 ) = (0, 1, 0, 0), Λ(v3 ) =
(0, 0, 1, 0), Λ(v4 ) = (0, 0, 0, 1), Λ(v15 ) = (1, 1, 1, 1) and ai = ±1 for all i = 1, . . . , 32 in (3.2).
Now we investigate which bi occur in (3.2). A new portion of notation is needed. From
now on the bases of Z42 and Z4 are fixed. For v = (α1 , α2 , α3 , α4 ) ∈ Z42 the support is defined
def
as the set of positions with nonzero entries: supp(v) = {i | αi = e}. Consider the standard
def
Hamming norm kvk = | supp(v)|. By definition, kvi k = 2 for 5 6 i 6 10 and kvi k = 3 for
11 6 i 6 14 in the notation of (3.2).
Integral numbers standing in Λ(v) at positions from supp(v) are called odds of v, numbers, standing at other positions are called evens of v. Thus, for example, odds of v5 are
{a5 , a6 } and its evens are {b13 , b14 }. Odds are odd numbers and evens are even numbers as
was mentioned before. Moreover, all odds are ±1 by Lemma 3.6. By Lemma 3.4 we may
assume that the first odd of each vi ∈ Z42 \ {0} is 1. The vector vi ∈ Z42 \ {0} is called
alternated if Λ(vi ) contains both +1 and −1 as odds. If vi is not alternated, then all its
odds are +1.
Lemma 3.9. If vi ∈ Z42 is alternated, then all its evens are equal to 0. If vi ∈ Z42 is not
alternated, then its evens are equal to 0 or 2.
Proof. Consider the matrix:


e 0 0 0
0 e 0 0

A=
e e e e
∗ ∗ 0 e



1
0
B=
1
∗

0
1
1
∗

0
0
1
bj


0
0

1
ai

Since det(A) = e, (∗)-condition implies det B = ±1. Therefore, ai − bj = ±1. If ai = 1, then
bj is either 0 or 2 which proves the second part of the statement. If ai = −1, then bj = 0
or −2. If v is alternated, then each bj should be either 0 or 2, and, on the other hand, it
should be either 0 or −2 by the same reasons. Thus bj = 0 in the alternated case.

Lemma 3.9 reduces the task of finding characteristic function from R U 4 to Z4 to the
finite enumeration of possibilities. Each ai can be 1 or −1 and bi can be 0 or 2. But still
there are too many possibilities to use computer-aided search; we want to simplify the task
a bit more.
Lemma 3.10. Let vi , vj ∈ Z42 be two different alternated vectors and kvi k = kvj k = 2.
Then supp(vi ) ∩ supp(vj ) = ∅.
Proof. Suppose that supports intersect. Without loss of generality i = 5, j = 8. We
have Λ(v5 ) = (1, −1, 0, 0) and Λ(v8 ) = (0, 1, −1, 0) by Lemma 3.9. Then




e e 0 0
1 −1 0 0
0 e e 0
0 1 −1 0

 = 3,
det 
det 
e e e e = e
1 1
1 1
0 0 0 e
0 0
0 1
so the (∗)-condition is violated. The contradiction.



10

ANTON AYZENBERG

Now we use the following algorithm to show that a lift Λ, satisfying (∗) does not exist. Consider three possible cases depending on the number of alternated vectors among
v5 , . . . , v10 : (a) there are no alternated vectors; (b) there is exactly one alternated vector,
say v5 ; (c) there are two alternated vectors with nonintersecting supports, say v5 and v10 .
In each case do the following
(1) Find all values of (b13 , . . . , b24 ) ∈ {0, 2}12 for which (∗)-condition is satisfied on the set {v1 , . . . , v10 , v15 }.
(2) For each output of the previous step check all (b25 , . . . , b28 ) ∈ {0, 2}4 and
8
(ac
17 , a18 , . . . , ac
20 , . . . , ac
23 , . . . , ac
26 , . . . , a28 ) ∈ {1, −1} for which (∗)-condition
is satisfied on the whole set {v1 , . . . , v15 } = Z42 \ {0}.
The task is split into two steps to reduce the time of computation. GAP system [17]
was used to perform this calculation. The implementation of described algorithm shows that
there are no values of ai and bi for which (∗)-condition is satisfied. Thus r(R U 4 ) > 4 and
s(R U 4 ) < 11 = sR (R U 4 ),
which was to be proved.
4. Buchstaber number is not determined by bigraded Betti numbers
4.1. Technique of the proof. This section contains the proof of Theorem 2. To
construct simplicial complexes with desired properties the following ingredients are used:
• The characterization of the Buchstaber invariant in terms of minimal non-simplices,
found by N. Erokhovets.
• The Taylor resolution of a Stanley–Reisner module. We use this resolution to
construct different simplicial complexes with equal bigraded Betti numbers.
4.2. Erokhovets criterium. A subset I ⊆ [m] is called a minimal non-simplex (or a
missing face) of K if I ∈
/ K, but J ∈ K for any J ( I. The set of all minimal non-simplices
of K is denoted by N (K).
Statement 4.1 (N. Erokhovets [13, 14]). The following conditions are equivalent:
(1) s(K) > 2;
(2) sR (K) > 2;
(3) there exist J1 , J2 , J3 ∈ N (K) such that J1 ∩ J2 ∩ J3 = ∅. Sets Ji are allowed to
coincide.
The next example will be used in the proof of Theorem 2.

1

2

7
3

6
5

4
9

8

7

1

8

2
3

6
5

4
9

Figure 1. Collections C1 and C2 of subsets

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

11

def

Example 4.2. Let S9 = {1, 2, . . . , 9}. Consider two collections of subsets of S9 shown
on fig.1. In the first collection there are no A1 , A2 , A3 ∈ C1 such that A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = S9 .
On the other hand there exist A1 , A2 , A3 ∈ C2 such that A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 = S9 .
Now consider simplicial complexes L1 and L2 with N (Li ) = {I ⊂ S9 | S9 \ I ∈ Ci }
for i = 1, 2. Then condition (3) of Statement 4.1 does not hold for L1 , but holds for L2 .
Statement 4.1 implies s(L1 ) = 1 and s(L2 ) > 2 (and the same for sR ).
Remark 4.3. One can consider collections C1 and C2 as simplicial complexes. Then the
complexes Li are Alexander duals of Ci by the definition of combinatorial Alexander duality
(see e.g. [6, Ex.2.26]).
4.3. Bigraded Betti numbers and Taylor resolution. First, we review the basics
of commutative algebra needed to define bigraded Betti numbers.
Let k be a ground field and k[m] = k[v1 , . . . , vm ] — the polynomial algebra graded by
nm
) = (2n1 , . . . , 2nm ) ∈ Zm .
deg vi = 2. Also define the multigrading by mdeg(v1n1 · . . . · vm
+
Denote by k[m] the maximal graded ideal of k[m] — i.e. the ideal generated by monomials
of positive degrees.
The Stanley–Reisner algebra (otherwise called the face ring) of a simplicial complex K
on m vertices is the quotient algebra k[K] = k[m]/ISR (K), where ISR (K) is the square-free
ideal generated by monomials, corresponding to non-simplices of K:
ISR (K) = (vi1 · . . . · vik | {i1 , . . . , ik } ∈
/ K);
Both k and k[K] carry the structure of (multi)graded k[m]-modules via quotient epimor∗,∗
phisms k[m] → k[m]/k[m]+ ∼
= k and k[m] → k[K]. Then Tork[m] (k[K], k) is a Tor-functor of
(multi)graded modules k[K] and k. Recall its standard construction in homological algebra.
Construction 4.4. To describe Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K], k) do the following:
(1) Take any free resolution of the module k[K] by (multi)graded k[m]-modules:
d

d

d

d

... −
→ R−` −
→ R−`+1 −
→ . . . → R−1 → R0 −
→ k[K]

(R)

(2) apply the functor ⊗k[m] k;
(3) take cohomology of the resulting complex:
def

∼ ∗ ∗
Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K], k) = H (R ⊗k[m] k; d ⊗k[m] k)
The resulting vector space inherits inner (multi)grading from R. It also obtains an additional
−`,2j̄
∼L
grading −`. It is well known that Tor∗,∗
(`,j̄)∈Zm+1 Tork[m] (k[K], k) does not
k[m] (k[K], k) =
depend on the choice of a free (multi)graded resolution R. Define bigraded Betti numbers of
K as
def
β −`,2j (K) = dimk Tor−`,2j
k[m] (k[K], k).
Definition 4.5 (Minimal resolution). A resolution R is called minimal if im(d) ⊂
k[m]+ · R, or, equivalently, d ⊗k[m] k = 0.
For a minimal resolution R step (3) in Construction 4.4 is skipped. Therefore:
β −`,2j (K) = number of generators of the module R−` in degree 2j.
Several explicit constructions of free resolutions of k[K] are known. In our considerations
we use one of the most important and basic constructions — the Taylor resolution. In general,
Taylor resolution is defined for any monomial ideal (see [25] or [24]). Here we concentrate
only on the case of Stanley–Reisner rings, i.e. the case of square-free monomial ideals. The
work [27] is also concerned with this particular case.

12

ANTON AYZENBERG

In the sequel the following convention is used. Any subset B ⊆ [m] determines the
vector δB ∈ Zm with i-th coordinate equal to 1 if i ∈ B and 0 otherwise. We simply write
δ1
δm
B ∈ Zm meaning δB ∈ Zm . For a set B we denote the monomial v δB = v1B . . . vmB ∈ k[m]
simply by v B .
Construction 4.6 (Taylor resolution). Consider the set N (K) of minimal non-simplices.
Fix a linear order on N (K). For each J ∈ N (K) associate a formal variable wJ and construct
the free k[m]-module
def

RT−` = Λ` [{wJ }] ⊗ k[m]
Here Λ` [{wJ }] is the vector space over k, generated by formal expressions Wσ = wJ1 ∧. . .∧wJ`
for all subsets σ = {J1 , . . . , J` } ⊆ N (K), J1 < . . . < J` .
Define the multigrading
!
`
[
def
(4.1)
mdeg(wJ1 ∧ . . . ∧ wJ` ) = −`, 2
Ji ∈ Z × Zm ,
i=1

and the double grading
def

bideg(wJ1 ∧ . . . ∧ wJ` ) =

−`, 2

`
[

!
Ji

∈ Z2 .

i=1

The first component is called a homological grading.
Define the differential of k[m]-modules dT : RT−` → RT−`+1 on the generators Wσ =
wJ1 ∧ . . . ∧ wJ` by
(4.2)

def

dT (wJ1 ∧ . . . ∧ wJ` ) =

`
X
(−1)i+1 v Xσ,Ji · wJ1 ∧ . . . w
d
Ji . . . ∧ wJ` ,
i=1

where v Xσ,Ji ∈ k[m] is the monomial corresponding to the set


def
Xσ,Ji = Ji \ J1 ∪ . . . Jbi . . . ∪ J` ⊂ [m].
L
Define the multiplication on the k[m]-module RT = ` RT−` by describing the products
of generators. Let σ = {J1 < . . . < J` }, τ = {I1 < . . . < Ik } ⊆ N (K).
(
0, if σ ∩ τ 6= ∅;
def
(4.3)
Wσ · W τ =
sgn(σ, τ )v Yσ,τ Wσtτ , otherwise.
S
Yσ,τ
∈ k[m] is the monomial corresponding to the set of indices Yσ,τ = ( σ Ji ) ∩
Here
S v
( τ Ii ). The sign sgn(σ, τ ) is the sign of the permutation needed to sort the unordered set
(J1 , . . . , J` , I1 , . . . , Ik ).
Proposition 4.7 ([25],[24]).
L
(1) The vector space RT = ` RT−` is a differential Zm+1 -graded algebra over the ring
k[m] w.r.t. to the multigrading, the differential, and the multiplication described
above. This algebra is skew-commutative with respect to homological grading.
(2) H −` (RT , d) = 0 if ` > 0. H 0 (RT , d) ∼
= k[K] as k[m]-algebras.
Therefore, RT is a free multiplicative resolution of a Stanley–Reisner algebra k[K].
Example 4.8. Let om be a simplicial complex on a set [m] in which all vertices are
ghost. We have k[om ] ∼
= k and N (om ) = [m]. The Taylor resolution in this case is given by
RT−` = Λ` [u1 , . . . , um ] ⊗ k[m], where formal variables ui correspond to elements of N (om ) =

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

13

[m] and bideg ui = (−1, 2). By looking at general definitions of differential and product we
see that RT is isomorphic to Λ[u1 , . . . , um ] ⊗ k[m] with the standard Grassmann product,
and the differential given by dui = vi . In this example we get the multiplicative resolution
Λ[u1 , . . . , um ] ⊗ k[m] of the k[m]-module k. This resolution is widely known as Koszul
resolution.
Example 4.9. Let K be the boundary of a square. Its maximal simplices are {1, 2},
{2, 3}, {3, 4}, {1, 4}. In this case N (K) = {{1, 3}, {2, 4}}. The Taylor resolution has the
form
Λ(2) [w{1,3} , w{2,4} ] ⊗ k[4]

d2

W{{1,3},{2,4}} · k[4]

/ Λ(1) [w{1,3} , w{2,4} ] ⊗ k[4]

d1

/ k[4] · 1

/ / k[K]

w{1,3} · k[4] ⊕ w{2,4} · k[4]

with the multigrading
mdeg(w{1,3} ) = (−1; (2, 0, 2, 0)),
mdeg(w{2,4} ) = (−1; (0, 2, 0, 2)),
mdeg(W{{1,3},{2,4}} ) = (−2; (2, 2, 2, 2)),
the differentials
d1 (w{1,3} ) = v1 v3 · 1,
d1 (w{2,4} ) = v2 v4 · 1,
d2 (W{{1,3},{2,4}} ) = v1 v3 · w{2,4} − v2 v4 · w{1,3} ,
and the product w{1,3} × w{2,4} = W{{1,3},{2,4}} = −w{2,4} × w{1,3} . Clearly, im(d2 ) =
ker(d1 ) and im(d1 ) = ISR (K).
Example 4.10. Let ∆M denote a simplex on a set M 6= ∅. Consider K = ∂ ∆M1 ∗ . . . ∗ ∂ ∆Mk
— a simplicial sphere on a set M1 t . . . t Mn . Then N (K) = {M1 , . . . , Mn }. The Taylor
resolution of K is a differential algebra
Λ∗ [w1 , . . . , wn ] ⊗ k[M1 t . . . t Mn ]
with the standard Grassmann product, bideg(wi ) = (−1, 2|Mi |), and differential:
dT (wi1 ∧ . . . ∧ wi` ) =

`
X

(−1)k+1 v Mik wi1 ∧ . . . w
d
ik . . . ∧ wi` .

k=1

∼ ∗
The Taylor resolution is minimal, therefore Tor∗,∗
k[M1 t...tMn ] (k[K]; k) = Λ [w1 , . . . , wn ]. Both
previous examples are the particular cases of this one.
4.4. Multiplication in Tor.
Construction 4.11. There is a standard way to understand the structure of Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k)
∗,∗
∗,∗
∼
using Koszul resolution. At first, note that Tork[m] (k[K]; k) = Tork[m] (k; k[K]). By construction,
∗,∗
Tork[m]
(k; k[K]) ∼
= H ∗ (R ⊗k[m] k[K]; d ⊗k[m] k[K]),
where (R∗ , d) is any graded free resolution of k as a k[m]-module. Take for example Koszul
resolution R−` ∼
= Λ[u1 , . . . , um ]⊗k[m] with grading and differential as described in Example
4.8. Then
(4.4)
Tor∗,∗ (k; k[K]) ∼
= H ∗ (Λ[u1 , . . . , um ] ⊗ k[K]; d ⊗k[m] k[K]).
k[m]

14

ANTON AYZENBERG

The differential complex Λ[u1 , . . . , um ] ⊗ k[K] has the structure of a differential graded
algebra. Thus Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k; k[K]) has the structure of an algebra as well. The word “Toralgebra” usually refers to this definition of a multiplication.
Statement 4.12 ([5, 15]). The cohomology ring H ∗ (ZK ; k) is isomorphic as a graded
algebra to the Tor-algebra Tor∗,∗
2j − i.
k[m] (k[K]; k) with the total grading (−i, 2j)
Remark 4.13. According to Construction 4.4,
(4.5)

∗,∗
(k[K]; k) ∼
Tork[m]
= H ∗ (RT ⊗k[m] k; dT ⊗k[m] k),

where (RT , dT ) is the Taylor resolution of k[K]. The differential complex RT ⊗k[m] k obtains
the multiplication from the multiplication in the Taylor resolution. This, in turn, induces
the multiplication on H ∗ (RT ⊗k[m] k; dT ⊗k[m] k). A priori it is not clear, whether this multiplication on Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k) is the same as given by Construction 4.11 or not. Fortunately,
this multiplicative structures are indeed the same (see e.g. [1, Constr. 2.3.2]). So far the
cohomological product in H ∗ (ZK ; k) in some cases can be described in terms of the Taylor
resolution [27].
4.5. Taylor resolutions and minimality. When the Taylor resolution is minimal,
the benefits of both notions — Taylor resolution and minimality — can be used.
Lemma 4.14. Let K be a simplicial complex on [m] and N (K) — the set of minimal
non-simplices. The following conditions are equivalent:
(1) The Taylor resolution (RT , dT ) of k[K] is minimal.
(2) Any minimal simplex J ∈ N (K) is not a subset in the union of others:
[
(4.6)
J*
I.
I∈N (K),I6=J

Proof. By definition, RT is minimal if dT (RT−` ) ⊆ k[m]+ · RT−`+1 for each ` > 0. From
(4.2) follows that dT (RT−` ) ⊆ k[m]+ · RT−`+1 if and only if v Xσ,J ∈ k[m]+ for each σ ⊆ N(K)
S
and J ∈ σ. This is equivalent to Xσ,J 6= ∅. By definition, Xσ,J = J \
I∈σ,I6=J I . If
the Taylor resolution is minimal, then, in particular, XN (K),J 6= ∅, which is precisely the
condition (4.6) of the lemma. On the other hand, XN (K),J 6= ∅ implies Xσ,J 6= ∅ for any
σ ⊆ N (K).

Lemma 4.15. If the Taylor resolution of k[K] is minimal, then Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K], k) has the
following description:

(4.7)

• It is generated as a vector space over k by Wσ for σ ⊆ N (K);
• The multidegree is given by (4.1);
• The multiplication is given by
(
S
S
sgn(σ, τ )Wσtτ , if σ ∩ τ = ∅ and ( J∈σ J) ∩ ( I∈τ I) = ∅
Wσ · W τ =
0, otherwise.

The proof follows easily from the construction of Taylor resolution and the definition of
minimality.
For complexes with the minimal Taylor resolution bigraded Betti numbers are expressed
in combinatorial terms.

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

)

(
(4.8)

β

−`,2j

15

(K) = # σ ⊆ N (K) |σ| = `,

[

J =j

J∈σ

4.6. Proof of Theorem 2. At last, we have all necessary ingredients to prove Theorem 2. As a starting point take complexes L1 and L2 defined in Example 4.2. Our plan is
the following:
(1) To upgrade L1 and L2 to the new complexes K1 and K2 satisfying condition (4.6)
(Taylor resolution is minimal);
(2) To prove that β −`,2j (K1 ) = β −`,2j (K2 ) using formula (4.8);
(3) To prove that s(K1 ) = 1 and s(K2 ) > 2.
(4) Final technical remarks: dim(K1 ) = dim(K2 ), γ(K1 ) = γ(K2 ), and algebra isomorphism Tork[m] (k[K1 ], k) ∼
= Tork[m] (k[K2 ], k).
Step 1. Let L be any complex on a set [m] with the set of minimal non-simplices N (L).
e on the set V = [m] t {aJ |
For each J ∈ N (L) consider a symbol aJ . Define the complex L
J ∈ N (K)} with the set of minimal non-simplices given by
(4.9)

e ⇔ Je = J t {aJ } ⊂ V for J ∈ N (K)
Je ∈ N (L)

e is minimal. Indeed, any Je ∈ N (L)
e contains the
The Taylor resolution of the complex L
vertex aJ which does not belong to other minimal non-simplices. Therefore, condition (4.6)
e
holds for L.
Now we apply this construction to L1 and L2 . Recall that N (Li ) = {I ⊂ S9 | S9 \I ∈ Ci }
fi for i = 1, 2. Both
for i = 1, 2 and collections of subsets C1 , C2 shown on fig.1. Set Ki = L
K1 and K2 have 9 + 6 = 15 vertices.
Step 2. Apply (4.8) to Ki :

(4.10) β −`,2j (Ki ) = #




[

σ ⊆ N (Ki ) |σ| = `,



Je = j




=



e
J∈σ

(
# σ ⊆ N (Li ) |σ| = `,

)
[

Je = j

.

J∈σ

The last equality is the consequence of bijective correspondence between N (Li ) and N (Ki ),
sending J ∈ N (Li ) to Je ∈ N (Ki ). We have
!
[
J∈σ

Je =

[

[

(J t {aJ }) =

J∈σ

J

t {aJ | J ∈ σ},

J∈σ

therefore
[
J∈σ

Je =

[
J∈σ

J + |σ|.

16

ANTON AYZENBERG

Returning to (4.10),
)

(
(4.11) β

−`,2j

(Ki ) = # σ ⊆ N (Li ) |σ| = `,

[

Je = j

=

J∈σ

)

(
[

= # σ ⊆ N (Li ) |σ| = `,

J =j−`

=

J∈σ

)

(
= # σ ⊆ Ci |σ| = `,

\

A = 9 − (j − `) .

A∈σ

The last equality follows from the definition of Li , since N (Li ) consists of complements to
subsets of the collection Ci . By analyzing fig.1 we see that for each ` and j
)
)
(
(
\
\
A = 9 − (j − `) .
A = 9 − (j − `) = # σ ⊆ C2 |σ| = `,
# σ ⊆ C1 |σ| = `,
A∈σ

A∈σ

Indeed, in both C1 and C2 there are 3 subsets of cardinality 2, 3 subsets of cardinality 3,
6 pairwise intersections of cardinality 1, and all other intersections are empty. Therefore,
β −`,2j (K1 ) = β −`,2j (K2 ). The nonzero bigraded Betti numbers calculated by the described
method are presented in fig.2 (empty cells are filled with zeroes).

2j

-ℓ,2j

β

30
28
26
24
22
20

1
6
15
20
9
6
3
3

-ℓ

16
14

1 0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Figure 2. Bigraded Betti numbers of K1 and K2
Step 3. We use the following simple observation. Condition (3) of Statement 4.1 holds
e Indeed, J
f1 ∩ J
f2 ∩ J
f3 = (J1 t {aJ }) ∩ (J2 t
for the complex L whenever it holds for L.
1
{aJ2 }) ∩ (J3 t {aJ1 }) = J1 ∩ J2 ∩ J3 . As observed in Example 4.2 condition (3) of Statement
f2 and does not
4.1 holds for L2 and does not hold for L1 . Therefore it also holds for K2 = L
f1 . Thus s(K1 ) 6= s(K2 ) and sR (K1 ) 6= sR (K2 ).
hold for K1 = L
Step 4. Final remarks.

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

17

Remark 4.16. Let us prove that dim K1 = dim K2 = 12. Consider the complement to
the set {1, 4} in the set of vertices of K1 (see fig. 1):
S = {1, 2, . . . , 9, a1 , . . . , a6 } \ {1, 4}.
Suppose that S ∈
/ K1 . Then there exists Je ∈ N (K1 ) such that Je ⊆ S. Therefore, {1, 4} =
e By construction, S9 \ Je ∈ C1 . But {1, 4} is not contained in any A ∈ C1
S9 \ S ⊆ S9 \ J.
— the contradiction. Thus S ∈ K1 and dim K1 > |S| − 1 = 12. Similar reasoning shows
that there is no simplex in K1 of cardinality 14 (because any singleton lies in some A ∈ C1 ).
Therefore dim K1 is exactly 12. Same for K2 .
Remark 4.17. In both complexes K1 and K2 there are no minimal non-simplices of
cardinality 1 and 2. Therefore all pairs of vertices in K1 and K2 are connected by edges, so
(1)
(1)
1-skeletons K1 , K2 are complete graphs on 15 vertices. Thus chromatic numbers coincide
γ(K1 ) = γ(K2 ) = 15.
Remark 4.18. Tor-algebras of K1 and K2 are isomorphic as algebras. Actually, the
products in Tork[15] (k[K1 ], k) and Tork[15] (k[K2 ], k) are trivial by dimensional reasons (see
fig. 2): products of nonzero elements always hit zero cells. The triviality of multiplication can
be deduced also from Lemma 4.15 but this approach requires a complicated combinatorial
reasoning.
These remarks conclude the proof of Theorem 2.
4.7. Other invariants coming from ZK .
Remark 4.19. Question 1.4 is answered in the negative if A(·) is a collection of bigraded
Betti numbers. We may ask the same question for A(·) — the collection of all multigraded
def
Betti numbers β −i,2j (K) = dim Tor−i,2j
k[m] (k[K], k).
Eventually, this question does not make sense. Multigraded Betti numbers are too
strong invariants: β −1,2j (K) = β −1,2j (L) implies K = L. Indeed, for a subset A ⊆ [m]
the condition β −1,2A (K) 6= 0 is equivalent to A ∈ N (K) by the construction of the Taylor
resolution (also by Hochster’s formula [7, Th.3.2.9]). Therefore multigraded Betti numbers
encode all minimal non-simplices and determine the complex K uniquely.
Remark 4.20. Question 1.4 may be formulated for an equivariant cohomology ring
of ZK . This task is not interesting as well. Indeed, HT∗ m (ZK ; k) ∼
= k[K] (see [9] or [5]).
It is known, that the Stanley–Reisner algebra k[K] determines the combinatorics of K
uniquely [4]. Therefore multiplicative isomorphism HT∗ m (ZK1 ; k) ∼
= HT∗ m (ZK2 ; k) implies
K1 ∼
= K2 and, in particular, s(K1 ) = s(K2 ).
5. Conclusion and open questions
Constructions of Buchstaber invariants and bigraded Betti numbers are defined for any
simplicial complex. Nevertheless, in toric topology the most important are simplicial complexes arising from polytopes.
Let P be a simple polytope with m vertices. The polar dual polytope P ∗ is simplicial.
The complex KP = ∂P ∗ is a simplicial sphere with m vertices. It is known [5, 6] that ZKP is
a smooth compact manifold and the action of T m on ZKP is smooth. The algebraic version
of this fact is Avramov–Golod theorem [7, Th.3.4.4]. It states the following. The Tor-algebra
Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k) is a (multigraded) Poincare duality algebra if and only if the complex K
is Gorenstein*. Any simplicial sphere K is Gorenstein* [26, Th.5.1]. In particular, for any
simple polytope P the complex KP is Gorenstein*, thus Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[KP ]; k) is a Poincare

18

ANTON AYZENBERG

∼ ∗
duality algebra. This is not surprising since Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[KP ]; k) = H (ZKP ; k) and ZKP is a
manifold.
The problems solved in this paper can be posed for particular classes of simplicial complexes, for example boundaries of simplicial polytopes or simplicial spheres.
Problem 1. Does s(KP ) = sR (KP ) for any simple polytope P ?
The complex U = R U 4 constructed in the proof of Theorem 1 is not a boundary of a
polytope; it is not a simplicial sphere as well. Nevertheless, U is Cohen–Macaulay as proved
in [9, Th.2.2].
Another problem can also be formulated for the class of polytopes.
Problem 2. Does β −i,2j (KP ) = β −i,2j (KQ ) imply s(KP ) = s(KQ ) or sR (KP ) =
∼
sR (KQ ) for simple polytopes P and Q? If no, does an isomorphism of algebras Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[KP ]; k) =
∗,∗
Tork[m] (k[KQ ]; k) imply s(KP ) = s(KQ ) or sR (KP ) = sR (KQ )?
The complexes K1 and K2 constructed in Section 4 are not simplicial spheres as well.
One can deduce this from the table of bigraded Betti numbers (fig. 2): if the complexes
were spheres the distribution of bigraded Betti numbers would be symmetric according to
(bigraded) Poincare duality.
It is tempting to modify the construction of K1 and K2 of Section 4 to obtain polytopal
spheres in the output. Unfortunately, this attempt fails due to the following observation.
Proposition 5.1. Let K be a simplicial sphere. The Taylor resolution of k[K] is minimal if and only if K is a join of boundaries of simplices.
Remark 5.2. For such K it is easily shown that s(K) = sR (K) = m − dim K − 1. Thus
a counterexample to Problem 2 can not be constructed using minimal Taylor resolutions.
Proof of the proposition. The “if” part is Example 4.10. Let us prove the “only if”
part. Let [m] be the vertex set of K. Any vertex i ∈ [m] is contained in at least one minimal
non-simplex. Otherwise, K is a cone with the apex i, so K is not a sphere. Since the Taylor
resolution is minimal, we may apply Lemma 4.15. Complex K is a sphere, thus k[K] is
Gorenstein* and Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k) is a multigraded Poincare duality algebra. There should
be a graded component of Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k) of maximal total degree which plays the role of
the “fundamental cycle”. Obviously, this component is generated by WN (K) in the notation
of Lemma 4.15. This component has multidegree (−|N (K)|, (2, 2, . . . , 2)). Non-degenerate
pairing in Poincare duality algebra Tor∗,∗
k[m] (k[K]; k) yields that for each σ ⊆ N (K) exists
τ ⊆ N (K) such that Wσ · Wτ = αWN (K) with α 6= 0. Taking multigrading into account and
applying
Lemma
S
S 4.15 we get the following condition: for each σ ⊆ N (K) the vertex subsets
J∈σ J and
J∈N (K)\σ J are disjoint. In particular, any single non-simplex J ∈ N (K) is
disjoint from the union of others. Therefore, N (K) = {J1 , . . . , Jk } and [m] = J1 t . . . t Jk .
Thus K = (∂∆J1 ) ∗ . . . ∗ (∂∆Jk ) which was to be proved.


Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Nickolai Erokhovets for useful discussions and professor Xiangjun
Wang from whom I knew the construction of a Taylor resolution and its connection with
moment-angle complexes.

BUCHSTABER NUMBERS AND CLASSICAL INVARIANTS

19

References
[1] Luchezar L.Avramov, Infinite free resolutions, Six lectures on commutative algebra (Bellaterra, 1996),
Progr. Math. 166, Birkhauser, Basel, 1998; pp. 1–118.
[2] A. Ayzenberg, The problem of Buchstaber number and its combinatorial aspects, arXiv:1003.0637.
[3] A. Ayzenberg, Relation between the Buchstaber invariant and generalized chromatic numbers,
Dal’nevost.Mat. Zh., 11:2 (2011), 113–139.
[4] W. Bruns, J. Gubeladze, Combinatorial invariance of Stanley-Reisner rings, Georgian Mathematical
Journal, V.3, N.4, (1996), pp. 315–318.
[5] V. M. Bukhshtaber and T. E. Panov, Torus actions, combinatorial topology, and homological algebra,
Russian Mathematical Surveys(2000),55(5):825
[6] V. M. Buchstaber and T. E. Panov, Torus Actions and Their Applications in Topology and Combinatorics, Univ. Lecture Ser. 24 (2002).
[7] Victor Buchstaber, Taras Panov, Toric Topology, preprint arXiv:1210.2368
[8] On the quantum chromatic number of a graph, Peter J. Cameron, Michael W. Newman, Ashley Montanaro, Simone Severini, and Andreas Winter, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 14(1), 2007
[9] M. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz, Convex polytopes, Coxeter orbifolds and torus actions, Duke Math. J., 62:2
(1991), 417–451.
[10] Nickolai Erokhovets, Maximal torus actions on moment-angle manifolds, doctoral thesis, Moscow State
University, 2011 (in russian).
[11] Nikolai Yu. Erokhovets, Buchstaber invariant of simple polytopes, Russian Math. Surveys, 63:5 (2008),
962–964.
[12] Nickolai Erokhovets, Buchstaber Invariant of Simple Polytopes, preprint arXiv:0908.3407
[13] Nickolai Erokhovets, Criterion for the Buchstaber invariant of simplicial complexes to be equal to two,
preprint arXiv:1212.3970
[14] Nickolai Erokhovets, The theory of Buchstaber invariant of simplicial complexes and convex polytopes,
Trans. Moscow Math. Soc., in print.
[15] M. Franz, The integral cohomology of toric manifolds, Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics January 2006, Volume 252, Issue 1, pp. 53-62.
[16] Yukiko Fukukawa and Mikiya Masuda, Buchstaber invariants of skeleta of a simplex, Osaka J. Math.
48:2 (2011), 549–582 (preprint arXiv:0908.3448v2).
[17] The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.4.12 ; 2008,
(\protect\vrule width0pt\protect\href{http://www.gap-system.org}{http://www.gap-system.org}).
[18] Michael R. Garey, David S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness, W. H. Freeman & Co. New York.
[19] G. Haynes, C. Park, A. Schaeffer, J. Webster, L. H. Mitchell, Orthogonal Vector Coloring, The Electronic
Journal of Combinatorics 17 (2010), #R55.
[20] M. Hochster, Cohen-Macaulay rings, combinatorics, and simplicial complexes, in Ring theory, II (Proc.
Second Conf.,Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1975), Lect. Notes Pure Appl. Math., 26 (1977), 171–
223.
[21] I. V. Izmestiev, Three-Dimensional Manifolds Defined by Coloring a Simple Polytope, Math. Notes,
69:3-4 (2001), 340–346.
[22] I. V. Izmest’ev, Free torus action on the manifold ZP and the group of projectivities of a polytope P ,
Russian Math. Surveys, 56:3 (2001), 582–583.
[23] D.N.Kozlov, Chromatic numbers, morphism complexes, and Stiefel-Whitney characteristic classes,
“Geometric Combinatorics”, IAS/Park City Mathematics, Ser. 14, AMS
[24] Jeffrey Mermin, Three simplicial resolutions, Progress in Commutative Algebra 1 Combinatorics and
Homology (preprint arXiv:1102.5062).
[25] Ezra Miller and Bernd Sturmfels, Combinatorial Commutative Algebra, Graduate Texts in Math, Vol.
227.
[26] R. Stanley, Combinatorics and Commutative Algebra, Birkhauser (Progress in Mathematics, V.41).
[27] Qibing Zheng, Xiangjun Wang, The homology of simpicial complements and the cohomology of momentangle complexes, preprint arXiv:1109.6382
[28] Rade T. Živaljević. Combinatorial groupoids, cubical complexes, and the Lovász conjecture, Discrete
and Computational Geometry, V.41, N 1, pp. 135–161 (preprint arXiv:math/0510204v2).
Osaka City University
E-mail address: ayzenberga@gmail.com

