SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS WITH
COHOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION ONE

arXiv:1705.01594v1 [] 3 May 2017

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR∗
Abstract. Let R denote a commutative Noetherian ring and let I be an ideal of R
such that HIi (R) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 2. In this paper we shall prove some results
concerning the homological properties of I.

1. Introduction
Let R denote a commutative Noetherian ring and let I be an ideal of R. In [11],
Hartshorne defined an R-module L to be I-cofinite, if Supp L ⊆ V (I) and ExtiR (R/I, L)
is a finitely generated module for all i. He posed the following question:
Whether the category C (R, I)cof of I-cofinite modules is an Abelian subcategory of the
category of all R-modules? That is, if f : M −→ N is an R-homomorphism of I-cofinite
modules, are ker f and cokerf I-cofinite?
Hartshorne gave a counterexample to show that this question has not an affirmative
answer in general, (see [11, §3]). On the positive side, Hartshorne proved that if I is
a prime ideal of dimension one in a complete regular local ring R, then the answer to
his question is yes. On the other hand, in [7], Delfino and Marley extended this result
to arbitrary complete local rings. Kawasaki in [18] generalized the Delfino and Marley’s
result for an arbitrary ideal I of dimension one in a local ring R. Finally, Melkersson in
[23] generalized the Kawasaki’s result for all ideals of dimension one of any arbitrary Noetherian ring R. More recently, in [5] as a generalization of Melkersson’s result it is shown
that for any ideals I in a commutative Noetherian ring R, the category of all I-cofinite
R-modules M with dim M ≤ 1 is an Abelian subcategory of the category of all R-modules.
Recall that, for an R-module M, the cohomological dimension of M with respect to I,
denoted by cd(I, M), is the smallest integer n ≥ 0 such that HIi (M) = 0 for all i > n.
The cohomological dimension have been studied by several authors; see, for example,
Faltings [9], Hartshorne [12], Huneke-Lyubeznik [16], Divaani-Aazar et al [8], Hellus [13],
Key words and phrases. Abelian category, cofinite modules, cohomological dimension, local cohomology, Noetherian ring.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 13D45, 14B15, 13E05.
∗
Corresponding author: e-mail:bahmanpour.k@gmail.com (Kamal Bahmanpour).
1

2

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

Hellus-Stückrad [14], Mehrvarz et al [22], and Ghasemi et al [10].
Recall that, for any proper ideal I of R, the arithmetic rank of I, denoted by ara(I),
is the least number of elements of I required to generate an ideal which has the same
radical as I.
Now, let I be an ideal of an arbitrary Noetherian ring R. Kawasaki in [17, Theorem
2.1] proved that if ara(I) = 1 then the category C (R, I)cof of I-cofinite modules is an
Abelian subcategory of the category of all R-modules.
It is well known that, for any proper ideal I of a Noetherian ring R we have
cd(I, R) ≤ ara(I). (See [6, Corollary 3.3.3]). In particular, for any ideal I with ara(I) = 1
we have cd(I, R) ≤ 1. So, as a generalization of Kawasaki’s interesting result, it is more
natural that we ask the following question:
Question 1: Let R be a Noetherian ring and I be an ideal of R with cd(I, R) ≤ 1.
Whether the category C (R, I)cof of I-cofinite modules is an Abelian subcategory of the
category of all R-modules?
In section 2 of this paper we present an affirmative answer to the Question 1, whenever
R is a local Noetherian ring. In section 3 we present some equivalent conditions for the
exactness of ideal transform functors. Using these results, for any ideal I generated by
two elements, we provide some necessary and sufficient conditions for the non-vanishing
of the local cohomology module HI2 (R). Finally, in section 4 we prepare some vanishing
conditions for the Bass and Betti numbers of some special local cohomology modules.
Also, we give a formula for the cohomological dimension of some special ideals in Noetherian domains.
Throughout this paper, R will always be a commutative Noetherian ring and I will be
an ideal of R. Also, for an R-module M, ΓI (M) denotes
of M consisting
S∞ the submodule
n
of all elements annihilated by some power of I, i.e., n=1 (0 :M I ). For every R-module
L, we denote by mAssR L the set of minimal elements of AssR L with respect to inclusion.
Also, for any ideal a of R, we denote {p ∈ Spec R : p ⊇ a} by V (a). Finally, for any ideal
b of R, the radical of b, denoted by Rad(b), is defined to be the set {x ∈ R : xn ∈ b for
some n ∈ N}. For any unexplained notation and terminology we refer the reader to [6]
and [21].
2. A category of modules which is Abelian
The following well known lemma plays a key role in the proof of Proposition 2.2.
Lemma 2.1. Let R be a Noetherian ring, I be an ideal of R and T be an R-module. Then
the following statements are equivalent:
(i) The R-module HIi (T ) is Artinian, for i ≥ 0.

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

3

(ii) The R-module ExtiR (R/I, T ) is Artinian, for i ≥ 0.
(iii) The R-module ExtiR (R/I, T ) is Artinian, for 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R).
Proof. See [24, Theorem 5.5] and [2, Theorem 2.9].



Proposition 2.2. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring, I be an ideal of R and M be an
R-module. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) The R-modules TorR
i (R/I, M) are finitely generated for all i ≥ 0.
(ii) The R-modules TorR
i (R/I, M) are finitely generated for all 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R).
Proof. (i)⇒(ii) Is clear.
(ii)⇒(i) Let T := D(M), where D(−) := HomR (−, E) denotes the Matlis dual functor
and E := ER (R/m) is the injective hull of the residue field R/m. Then by the adjointness
we have ExtiR (R/I, T ) ≃ D(TorR
i (R/I, M)), for all 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R). In particular, the
i
R-modules ExtR (R/I, T ) are Artinian for all 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R). So, it follows from Lemma
2.1 and adjointness, that the R-modules ExtiR (R/I, T ) ≃ D(TorR
i (R/I, M)) are Artinian
for all i ≥ 0. Now, it follows from [19, Lemma 1.15(a)] that, the R-modules TorR
i (R/I, M)
are finitely generated for all i ≥ 0, as required.

The following easy consequence of Proposition 2.2 plays a key role in the proof of
Theorem 2.4.
Corollary 2.3. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring, I be an ideal of R with cd(I, R) = n
and let M be an R-module with Supp M ⊆ V (I). Then the R-module M is I-cofinite, if
and only if, the R-modules TorR
i (R/I, M) are finitely generated for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Proof. The assertion follows from Proposition 2.2 and [24, Theorem 2.1].



The following result gives an affirmative answer to the Question 1, for the local case.
Theorem 2.4. Let I be an ideal of a Noetherian local ring (R, m) such that cd(I, R) ≤ 1.
Let C (R, I)cof denote the category of I-cofinite R-modules. Then C (R, I)cof is an Abelian
subcategory of the category of all R-modules.
Proof. Let M, N ∈ C (R, I)cof and let f : M −→ N be an R-homomorphism. It is enough
to show that the R-modules ker f and cokerf are I-cofinite.
To this end, the exact sequence
0 −→ ker f −→ M −→ imf −→ 0,
induces an exact sequence
R
TorR
0 (R/I, M) → Tor0 (R/I, imf ) → 0,

which using [24, Theorem 2.1], implies that the R-module TorR
0 (R/I, imf ) is finitely
generated. Now, the exact sequence
0 −→ imf −→ N −→ cokerf −→ 0.

4

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

induces an exact sequence
R
R
TorR
1 (R/I, N) → Tor1 (R/I, cokerf ) → Tor0 (R/I, imf )
R
→ TorR
0 (R/I, N) → Tor0 (R/I, cokerf ) → 0.
R
By [24, Theorem 2.1] the modules TorR
1 (R/I, N) and Tor0 (R/I, N) are finitely generated
R
R-modules, which implies that the R-modules TorR
0 (R/I, cokerf ) and Tor1 (R/I, cokerf )
are finitely generated. Therefore, it follows from Corollary 2.3, that the R-module cokerf
is I-cofinite. Now, the assertion follows from the following exact sequences

0 −→ imf −→ N −→ cokerf −→ 0,
and
0 −→ ker f −→ M −→ imf −→ 0.

Corollary 2.5. Let I be an ideal of a Noetherian local ring (R, m) such that cd(I, R) ≤ 1.
Let C (R, I)cof denote the category of I-cofinite modules over R. Let
fi

f i+1

X • : · · · −→ X i −→ X i+1 −→ X i+2 −→ · · · ,
be a complex such that X i ∈ C (R, I)cof for all i ∈ Z. Then for each i ∈ Z the ith
cohomology module H i (X • ) is in C (R, I)cof .
Proof. The assertion follows from Theorem 2.4.



Corollary 2.6. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring, I be an ideal of R with cd(I, R) ≤ 1
i
and let M be an I-cofinite R-module. Then, the R-modules TorR
i (N, M) and ExtR (N, M)
are I-cofinite, for all finitely generated R-modules N and all integers i ≥ 0.
Proof. Since N is finitely generated it follows that, N has a free resolution with finitely
generated free R-modules. Now the assertion follows using Corollary 2.5 and computing
i
the R-modules TorR

i (N, M) and ExtR (N, M), using this free resolution.
3. Vanishing of the extension and torsion functors
In this section we present some equivalent conditions for the exactness of ideal transform functors. Using these results, for any ideal I generated by two elements, we provide
some necessary and sufficient conditions for the non-vanishing of the local cohomology
module HI2 (R).
The following lemma is needed in the proof of Proposition 3.2.
Lemma 3.1. Let R be a Noetherian ring and I be an ideal of R. Let M be an R-module
such that TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Then HomR (R/I, M) = 0.

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

5

Proof. Let I = (x1 , . . . , xn ) and let
Cn
M
1

f0

K• (x, M) : 0 −→ M −→

Cn
M
2

f1

M −→

k=1

M −→ . . . −→

k=1

n−1
C
n
M

fn−1

M −→ M −→ 0,

k=1

be the Koszul complex of M with respect to x = x1 , . . . , xn .
We prove that Hi (x; M) = 0 for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n. By the definition we have
H0 (x; M) = coker fn−1 = M/IM ≃ R/I ⊗R M = 0.
So, we have im fn−1 = M. Therefore, using the hypothesis it follows that
TorR
i (R/I, im fn−1 ) = 0, for each i ≥ 0.
Hence, the exact sequence
0 −→ ker fn−1 −→

LCnn−1
k=1

M −→ im fn−1 −→ 0,

implies that TorR
i (R/I, ker fn−1 ) = 0, for each i ≥ 0. The exact sequence
0 −→ im fn−2 −→ ker fn−1 −→ H1 (x; M) −→ 0,

(3.1.1)

induces the exact sequence
R/I ⊗R ker fn−1 −→ R/I ⊗R H1 (x; M) −→ 0.

(3.1.2)

Now as R/I ⊗R ker fn−1 = 0, it follows from (3.1.2) that
R/I ⊗R H1 (x; M) = 0.
By the definition of the Koszul complex we have I H1 (x; M) = 0. Therefore, we have
H1 (x; M) ≃ R/I ⊗R H1 (x; M) = 0. Now it follows from the exact sequence (3.1.1) that
TorR
i (R/I, im fn−2 ) = 0, for each i ≥ 0. Moreover, the exact sequence
L nn−2
0 −→ ker fn−2 −→ C
k=1 M −→ im fn−2 −→ 0,
implies that TorR
i (R/I, ker fn−2 ) = 0, for each i ≥ 0. Proceeding in the same way we can
see Hi (x; M) = 0, for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Now, since Hi (x; M) ≃ Hn−i (x; M) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n, it follows that
HomR (R/I, M) ≃ (0 :M I) ≃ H0 (x; M) ≃ Hn (x; M) = 0.

The following proposition plays a key role in the proof of our main results.
Proposition 3.2. Let R be a Noetherian ring, I be an ideal of R and M be an R-module.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) TorR
n (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers n ≥ 0.
(ii) ExtnR (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers n ≥ 0.

6

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

Proof. (i)⇒(ii) We argue by induction on n. For n = 0, the assertion holds by Lemma
3.1. We therefore assume, inductively, that n > 0 and the result has been proved for
smaller values of n. Then there is an exact sequence
0 −→ M −→ ER (M) −→ ER (M)/M −→ 0.

(3.2.1)

Since, by the hypothesis we have (0 :M I) = 0 it follows that (0 :ER (M ) I) = 0 and hence
ΓI (ER (M)) = 0. By [21, Theorem 18.5] the R-module ER (M) is isomorph with a direct
sum of a family of indecomposable injective R-modules. Let p be a prime ideal of R
such that ER (R/ p) is a direct summand of ER (M). Then we have ΓI (ER (R/ p)) = 0.
Therefore, form the fact that AssR ER (R/ p) = {p} it follows that I 6⊆ p. So there exists
an element a ∈ I such that a 6∈ p. Then by [21, Theorem 18.4(iii)], multiplication by a
is an automorphism on ER (R/ p). Therefore, multiplication by a is an automorphism on
TorR
i (R/I, ER (R/ p)), for all i ≥ 0. But, since a ∈ I it follows that, multiplication by a on
R
TorR
i (R/I, ER (R/ p)) is the zero map, for all i ≥ 0. Thus, Tori (R/I, ER (R/ p)) = 0 for
R
all i ≥ 0. Since for each i ≥ 0, the torsion functor Tori (R/I, −) commutes with the direct
sums it follows that TorR
i (R/I, ER (M)) = 0, for all i ≥ 0. So, from the exact sequence
(3.2.1) it follows that TorR
i (R/I, ER (M)/M) = 0, for all i ≥ 0. Hence, by applying the
inductive hypothesis to the R-module ER (M)/M we have
i
Exti+1
R (R/I, M) ≃ ExtR (R/I, ER (M)/M) = 0 for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1.

So, we have ExtnR (R/I, M) = 0. This completes the inductive step.



(ii)⇒(i) Assume the opposite. Then there is an integer j ≥ 0 such that TorR
j (R/I, M) 6=
R
0. Let p ∈ Supp Torj (R/I, M). Then localizing at p, without loss of generality, we may
assume that (R, m) is a Noetherian local ring. Let T := D(M), where D(−) denotes the
Matlis dual functor. Then by the adjointness we have
i
TorR
i (R/I, T ) ≃ D(ExtR (R/I, M)) = 0,

for all i ≥ 0. Therefore, by the previous part of the proof we have ExtiR (R/I, T ) = 0, for
each i ≥ 0. So, by the adjointness we have
j
D(TorR
j (R/I, M)) ≃ ExtR (R/I, T ) = 0,

which implies that TorR
j (R/I, M) = 0. This is the desired contradiction.



Lemma 3.3. Let R be a Noetherian ring and I be an ideal of R. Let E be an injective
R-module and K be a submodule of E. Then
L
R
⊗R
= 0,
ΓI (L)
I

where L :=

E
.
K

Proof. In view of [6, Proposition 2.1.4] the R-module E1 := ΓI (E) is injective. Therefore,
there exists an injective submodule E2 of E such that E1 + E2 = E and E1 ∩ E2 = 0.
Since E1K+K is a submodule of ΓI (L) it follows that the R-module ΓIL(L) is a homomorphic
image of the R-module E2 . So, in order to prove the assertion it is enough to prove that

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

7

E2 ⊗R RI = 0. So, we must prove that E2 = IE2 . Since ΓI (R)E2 ⊆ ΓI (E2 ) = 0, it follows
that ΓI (R)E2 = 0. Therefore, we have
E2 = (0 :E2 ΓI (R)) ≃ HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ).
On the other hand, by [6, Lemma 2.1.1] there is an exact sequence
a

0 −→ R/ΓI (R) −→ R/ΓI (R),
for some element a ∈ I, which effecting the R-linear exact functor HomR (−, E2 ) induces
the exact sequence
a

HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ) −→ HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ) −→ 0.
Therefore, we have HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ) = a HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ). Hence, we have
E2 /aE2 ≃
≃
≃
≃

E2 ⊗R R/Ra
HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 ) ⊗R R/Ra
HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 )/a HomR (R/ΓI (R), E2 )
0.

So, we have E2 = aE2 and hence E2 = IE2 .



Lemma 3.4. Let R be a Noetherian ring and let I ⊆ J be two ideals of R. Let M be an
i
R-module and t ≥ 2 be an integer such that TorR
j (R/J, HI (M)) = 0 for all i > t and all
t
j ≥ 0. Then we have TorR
j (R/J, HI (M)) = 0 for j = 0, 1.
Proof. Let
ε

f0

f1

f2

0 −→ M −→ E0 −→ E1 −→ E2 −→ · · ·
be a minimal injective resolution for M. Set Ki := kerfi for i ≥ 0. By splitting this
minimal injective resolution to some short exact sequences we get the isomorphisms
HIt (M) ≃ HIt−1 (K1 ) ≃ HIt−2 (K2 ) ≃ · · · ≃ HI2 (Kt−2 ) ≃ HI1 (Kt−1 ) ≃ HI1 (Kt−1 /ΓI (Kt−1 )).
Set N := Kt−1 /ΓI (Kt−1 ). Then we have ΓI (N) = 0 and
Kt−1 = kerft−1 = imft−2 ≃ Et−2 /kerft−2 = Et−2 /Kt−2 .
So, there exists a submodule K of E := Et−2 such that N ≃ E/K. By [6, Remark 2.2.7]
there is an exact sequence
0 −→ N −→ DI (N) −→ HI1 (N) −→ 0. (3.4.1)
For each i ≥ 2 we have
HIi (N) ≃ HIi (Kt−1 ) ≃ HIt+i−1 (M).
Therefore, by the hypothesis we have
R
i
t+i−1
TorR
(M)) = 0
j (R/J, HI (N)) ≃ Torj (R/J, HI

8

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

for all i ≥ 2 and all j ≥ 0. Thus, by Proposition 3.2 we have ExtjR (R/J, HIi (N)) = 0 for
all i ≥ 2 and all j ≥ 0. The exact sequence (3.4.1) yields the isomorphisms
HIi (DI (N)) ≃ HIi (N),
for i ≥ 2. So, we have
ExtjR (R/J, HIi (DI (N))) ≃ ExtjR (R/J, HIi (N)) = 0
for all i ≥ 2 and all j ≥ 0. Also, by [6, Corollary 2.2.8] we have HIi (DI (N)) = 0,
for i = 0, 1. So ExtjR (R/J, HIi (DI (N))) = 0 for all i ≥ 0 and all j ≥ 0. Therefore,
by [10, Lemma 2.1] we have ExtjR (R/J, DI (N)) = 0, for all integers j ≥ 0. Thus by
Proposition 3.2 we have TorR
i (R/J, DI (N)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. On the other
hand, in view of Lemma 3.3 we have N ⊗R R/I = 0 and hence it follows from the
hypothesis I ⊆ J that N ⊗R R/J = 0. Hence, using the long exact sequence induced by
1
the exact sequence (3.4.1) it follows that TorR
j (R/J, HI (N)) = 0, for j = 0, 1. Therefore,
R
t
1
TorR

j (R/J, HI (M)) ≃ Torj (R/J, HI (N)) = 0, for j = 0, 1.
Corollary 3.5. Let R be a Noetherian ring and I ⊆ J be two ideals of R. Let K be an
t
R-module such that 2 ≤ cd(I, K) = t. Then TorR
i (R/J, HI (K)) = 0, for i = 0, 1.
Proof. The assertion follows from Lemma 3.4.



Proposition 3.6. Let R be a Noetherian ring, I be an ideal of R and M be an R-module.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0, for all i ≥ 0.
(ii) TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0, for all 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R).
Proof. (i)⇒(ii) Is clear.
(ii)⇒(i) Assume the opposite. Then there is an integer j > cd(I, R) such that
R
TorR
j (R/I, M) 6= 0. Let p ∈ Supp Torj (R/I, M). Then localizing at p, without loss of
generality, we may assume that (R, m) is a Noetherian local ring. Let T := D(M), where
D(−) denotes the Matlis dual functor. Then by the adjointness we have
ExtiR (R/I, T ) ≃ D(TorR
i (R/I, M)) = 0,
for all 0 ≤ i ≤ cd(I, R). Now, by [2, Theorem 2.9] we have HIi (T ) = 0, for all 0 ≤ i ≤
cd(I, R). Hence, HIi (T ) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. So, in view of [2, Theorem 2.9] we
have ExtiR (R/I, T ) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Consequently, by the adjointness, we have
i
D(TorR
i (R/I, M)) ≃ ExtR (R/I, T ) = 0,

for all i ≥ 0. Thus, TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0 for all i ≥ 0, which is a contradiction.



Theorem 3.7. Let R be a Noetherian ring and I be an ideal of R. Then the following
conditions are equivalent:

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

9

(i) cd(I, R) ≤ 1.
(ii) The ideal transform functor DI (−) is exact.
R
(iii) For every R-module M, if TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1, then Tori (R/I, M) = 0,
for all integers i ≥ 0.
(iv) For every R-module M, if ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1, then ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0,
for all integers i ≥ 0.
Proof. (i)⇔(ii) See [6, Lemma 6.3.1].
(i)⇒(iii) Follows from Proposition 3.6.
(iii)⇒(i) Assume the opposite. Then we have cd(I, R) ≥ 2. Let t = cd(I, R). Then
by Corollary 3.5 for the R-module M := HIt (R) we have TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1.
So, by the hypothesis we have TorR
(R/I,
M)
=
0,
for
all
integers i ≥ 0. Therei
i
fore, by Proposition 3.2 we have ExtR (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Therefore
(0 :HIt (R) I) ≃ HomR (R/I, HIt (R)) = 0. Hence HIt (R) = 0, which is a contradiction.
(i)⇒(iv) Let M be an R-module such that ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1. Then, by
[2, Theorem 2.9] we have HIi (M) = 0 for i = 0, 1. On the other hand by [6, Lemma 6.3.1]
we have HIi (M) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 2. Therefore, HIi (M) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0.
Hence, it follows from [2, Theorem 2.9] that ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0 for all integers i ≥ 0.
(iv)⇒(i) By [6, Corollary 2.2.8] we have HIi (DI (R)) = 0, for i = 0, 1. Hence,
ExtiR (R/I, DI (R)) = 0 for i = 0, 1 by [2, Theorem 2.9]. So, by the hypothesis we
have ExtiR (R/I, DI (R)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Hence, by Proposition 3.2 it follows
that R/I ⊗R DI (R) = 0 and so DI (R) = IDI (R). Now the assertion follows from [6,
Lemma 6.3.1 and Proposition 6.3.5].

Theorem 3.8. Let R be a Noetherian ring and let I = Ra1 + Ra2 be an ideal of R. Then
the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) cd(I, R) = 2.
(ii) There exists an R-module M, such that TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1 and
TorR
(R/I,
M)
=
6
0.
2
(iii) There exists an R-module M, such that ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1 and
Ext2R (R/I, M) 6= 0.
Proof. (i)⇒(ii) If cd(I, R) = 2, then for the R-module M := HI2 (R) by Corollary 3.5 we
R
have TorR
i (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1. Now, we claim that Tor2 (R/I, M) 6= 0. Assume the
R
opposite. Then, it follows from Proposition 3.6 that Tori (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers
i ≥ 0. Then it follows from Proposition 3.2 that ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0, for all integers
i ≥ 0. Therefore, HomR (R/I, HI2(R)) = 0, which implies that HI2 (R) = 0. This is a
contradiction.

10

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

(ii)⇒(i) Under the given hypothesis it follows from Theorem 3.7 that cd(I, R) ≥ 2. On
the other hand, by [6, Theorem 3.3.1] we have cd(I, R) ≤ 2. So, we have cd(I, R) = 2.
(i)⇒(iii) If cd(I, R) = 2, then for the R-module M := DI (R), by [6, Corollary 2.2.8]
we have HIi (M) = 0, for i = 0, 1. Hence, by [2, Theorem 2.9] we have ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0
for i = 0, 1. Moreover, by [6, Remark 2.2.7] there is an exact sequence
0 −→ R/ΓI (R) −→ DI (R) −→ HI1 (R) −→ 0,
which induces the isomorphisms
HI2 (M) ≃ HI2 (R/ΓI (R)) ≃ HI2 (R) 6= 0.
Now, if Ext2R (R/I, M) = 0, then ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0, for i = 0, 1, 2,. So, it follows
from [2, Theorem 2.9] that HIi (M) = 0 for i = 0, 1, 2, which is a contradiction, because
HI2 (M) 6= 0. So, for the R-module M := DI (R) we have ExtiR (R/I, M) = 0 for i = 0, 1
and Ext2R (R/I, M) 6= 0.
(iii)⇒(i) Under the given hypothesis it follows from Theorem 3.7 that cd(I, R) ≥ 2. On
the other hand, by [6, Theorem 3.3.1] we have cd(I, R) ≤ 2. So, we have cd(I, R) = 2. 
Remark 3.9. For a given proper ideal I of a Noetherian ring R, there are some other
well known equivalent conditions for cd(I, R) ≤ 1. For instance, see [6, Lemma 6.3.1 and
Proposition 6.3.5] and for more properties of such ideals see [4].
4. Vanishing of the Bass and Betti numbers of local cohomology
modules
In this section we prepare some vanishing conditions for some of the Bass and Betti
numbers of special local cohomology modules. Also, we give a formula for the cohomological dimension of special ideals over Noetherian domains.
Theorem 4.1. Let R be a Noetherian ring and let I ⊆ J be two ideals of R such that
cd(J, R) = 1. Then the following statements hold:
(i) For every R-module M we have ExtjR (R/J, HIi (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 2 and
j ≥ 0.
(ii) For every R-module M and every finitely generated R-module N with Supp N ⊆
V (J) we have ExtjR (N, HIi (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 2 and j ≥ 0.
(iii) For every R-module M and each prime ideal p ∈ V (J) we have µj (p, HIi (M)) = 0,
for all integers i ≥ 2 and j ≥ 0. (Here µj (p, HIi (M)) denotes the j-th Bass number
of the R-module HIi (M) with respect to p).
(iv) For every R-module M and each prime ideal p ∈ V (J) we have βj (p, HIi (M)) = 0,
for all integers i ≥ 2 and j ≥ 0. (Here βj (p, HIi (M)) denotes the j-th Betti number
of the R-module HIi (M) with respect to p).
Proof. (i) Let M be an arbitrary R-module. In order to prove the assertion we may
t
assume cd(I, M) = t ≥ 2. By Corollary 3.5 we have TorR
j (R/J, HI (M)) = 0 for j = 0, 1.

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

11

t
Now, it follows from Proposition 3.6 that TorR
i (R/J, HI (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0.
i
t
Therefore, by Proposition 3.2 we have ExtR (R/J, HI (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Now,
t−1
if t ≥ 3 then by Lemma 3.4 we have TorR
j (R/J, HI (M)) = 0 for j = 0, 1. So, it follows
t−1
from Proposition 3.6 that TorR
i (R/J, HI (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Therefore, by
i
t−1
Proposition 3.2 we have ExtR (R/J, HI (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 0. Proceeding in
the same way we see that ExtjR (R/J, HIi (M)) = 0, for all integers i ≥ 2 and j ≥ 0.

(ii) Using [1, Lemma 2.2] follows from (i).
(iii) Follows from (ii).
(iv) Follows from (ii) using Proposition 3.2.



Theorem 4.2. Let R be a Noetherian domain and let I and J be two non-zero proper
ideals of R such that cd(J, R) = 1 and J 6⊆ Rad(I). Then we have
cd(I ∩ J, R) = max{i ∈ Z : Supp HIi (R) 6⊆ V (J)}.
Proof. Since by the hypothesis we have J 6⊆ Rad(I) it follows that
\
J 6⊆
p,
p∈mAssR R/I

which implies that J 6⊆ q for some q ∈ mAssR R/I. Assume that k := height q. Then by
Grothendieck’s Non-vanishing Theorem we have
k
(Rq ) ≃ (HIk (R))q ,
0 6= HqkRq (Rq ) = HIR
q

which implies that q ∈ Supp HIk (R). Hence we have Supp HIk (R) 6⊆ V (J) and so we have
k ∈ {i ∈ Z : Supp HIi (R) 6⊆ V (J)}.
In particular, we have {i ∈ Z : Supp HIi (R) 6⊆ V (J)} =
6 ∅.
Now, set ℓ := max{i ∈ Z : Supp HIi (R) 6⊆ V (J)} and t := cd(I ∩ J, R). Then as by
[6, Corollary 3.3.3] we have ℓ ≤ ara(I) and t ≤ ara(I ∩ J) it follows that 0 ≤ ℓ < ∞ and
0 ≤ t < ∞. By the Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence for each integer i > t we have the
exact sequence
i
i
HI+J
(R) −→ HIi (R) ⊕ HJi (R) −→ HI∩J
(R),
which gives the exact sequence
i
HI+J
(R) −→ HIi (R) ⊕ HJi (R) −→ 0

and hence we have
i
Supp HIi (R) ⊆ Supp HI+J
(R) ⊆ V (I + J) ⊆ V (J).

So, it is clear that ℓ ≤ t. On the other hand, since by the hypothesis R is a domain and
I ∩ J 6= 0, it follows that ℓ ≥ 1 and t ≥ 1. Hence, if t = 1, then it is clear that ℓ = 1 = t.

12

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

Now, assume that t ≥ 2 and ℓ < t. Then, we have Supp HIt (R) ⊆ V (J). Also, by the
Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence we have the exact sequence
t+1
t
HIt (R) ⊕ HJt (R) −→ HI∩J
(R) −→ HI+J
(R),

which implies that
t
t+1
Supp HI∩J
(R) ⊆ [Supp HJt (R) ∪ Supp HIt (R) ∪ Supp HI+J
(R)] ⊆ V (J).
t
So, the non-zero R-module HI∩J
(R) is J-torsion and hence we have
t
HomR (R/J, HI∩J
(R)) 6= 0.

But, by Theorem 4.1 we have
t
HomR (R/J, HI∩J
(R)) = 0,

which is a contradiction. So, we have ℓ = t, whenever t ≥ 2.



Proposition 4.3. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring and let I and J be two proper
ideals of R such that cd(J, R) = 1. Let k ≥ 2 be an integer such that Supp HIk (R) 6⊆ V (J).
k
k
Then, the R-module HI∩J
(R) is not I ∩ J-cofinite. In particular, HI∩J
(R) 6= 0.
Proof. By the Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence we have the exact sequence
k
k
HI+J
(R) −→ HIk (R) ⊕ HJk (R) −→ HI∩J
(R),
k
which considering that fact that Supp HI+J
(R) ⊆ V (I + J) ⊆ V (J) implies that
k
Supp HI∩J (R) 6⊆ V (J). (Note that by the hypothesis we have Supp HIk (R) 6⊆ V (J).)
k
In particular, we have HI∩J
(R) 6= 0. In order to prove the assertion, assume the opposite
k
and assume that dim Supp HI∩J
(R) = d. Then, in view of [20, Theorem 2.9] we have
d
k
k
Hm (HI∩J (R)) 6= 0. On the other hand, by Theorem 4.1 we have ExtjR (R/ m, HI∩J
(R)) = 0,
j
k
for all integers j ≥ 0. Hence it follows from [2, Theorem 2.9] that Hm (HI∩J (R)) = 0, for
k
all integers j ≥ 0. Therefore, we have Hmd (HI∩J
(R)) = 0, which is a contradiction.


Remark 4.4. There are examples of Noetherian local rings (R, m) with proper ideals I,
for which cd(I, R) = 1 and ara(I) ≥ 2. For instance, the following example is given by
Hellus and Stückrad in [15].
Example 4.5. Let k be a field and let S = k[[x, y, z, w]], where x, y, z, w are independent
indeterminacies over k. Let f = xw − yz, g = y 3 − x2 z and h = z 3 − w 2 y. Let R = S/f S
and I = (f, g, h)S/f S. Then R is a Noetherian local ring of dimension 3 with maximal
ideal m = (x, y, z, w)S/f S. Also, for the ideal I of R, we have cd(I, R) = 1 and ara(I) =
2. (See [15, Remark 2.1(ii)]).
Acknowledgments
The authors are deeply grateful to the referee for a very careful reading of the manuscript and many valuable suggestions. Also, we would like to thank Professors Reza
Naghipour and Kamran Divaani-Aazar for their careful reading of the first draft and
many helpful suggestions.

SOME HOMOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF IDEALS

13

References
[1] N. Abazari, K. Bahmanpour, Extension functors of local cohomology modules and Serre categories
of modules, Taiwan. J. Math., 19 (2015), 211-220.
[2] M. Aghapournahr and L. Melkersson, Local cohomology and Serre subcategories, J. Algebra,
320(2008), 1275-1287.
[3] I. Bagheriyeh, K. Bahmanpour and J. A, zami, Cofiniteness and non-vanishing of local cohomology
modules, J. Commut. Algebra, 6 (2014), 305-321.
[4] K. Bahmanpour, Exactness of ideal transforms and annihilators of top local cohomology modules, J.
Korean Math. Soc., 52 (2015), 1253-1270.
[5] K. Bahmanpour, R. Naghipour and M. Sedghi, On the category of cofinite modules which is Abelian,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 142(2014), 1101-1107.
[6] M.P. Brodmann and R.Y. Sharp, Local cohomology; an algebraic introduction with geometric applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1998.
[7] D. Delfino and T. Marley, Cofinite modules and local cohomology, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra
121(1997), 45-52.
[8] K. Divaani-Aazar, R. Naghipour and M. Tousi, Cohomological dimension of certain algebraic varieties, Proc. Amar. Math. Soc., 130(2002), 3537-3544.
[9] G. Faltings, Über lokale Kohomologiegruppen höher Ordnung, J. Reine Angew. Math. 313(1980),
43-51.
[10] G. Ghasemi, K. Bahmanpour and J. A, zami, Upper bounds for the cohomological dimensions of
finitely generated modules over a commutative Noetherian ring, Colloq. Math., 137(2014), 263-270.
[11] R. Hartshorne, Affine duality and cofiniteness, Invent. Math. 9(1970), 145-164.
[12] R. Hartshorne, Cohomological dimension of algebraic varieties, Annals of Math. 88(1968), 403-450.
[13] M. Hellus, Matlis duals of top local cohomology modules and the arithmetic rank of an ideal, Comm.
Algebra 35 (2007), 1421-1432.
[14] M. Hellus and J. Stückrad, Matlis duals of top local cohomology modules, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
136 (2008), 489-498.
[15] M. Hellus and J. Stückrad, Local cohomology and Matlis duality, Universitat. Iagellonicae Acta
Math., 45 (2007), 63-70.
[16] C. Huneke and G. Lyubezink, On the vanishing of local cohomology modules, Invent. Math.
102(1990), 73-93.
[17] K.-I. Kawasaki, On a category of cofinite modules for principal ideals, Nihonkai Math. J., 22 (2011),
67-71.
[18] K.-I. Kawasaki, On a category of cofinite modules which is Abelian, Math. Z. 269(2011), 587-608.
[19] B. Kubik, M.J. Leamerb, S. Sather-Wagstaff, Homology of artinian and Matlis reflexive modules, J.
Pure and Appl. Algebra, 215(2011), 2486-2503.
[20] A. Mafi, Some results on local cohomology modules, Arch. Math., 87(2006), 211-216.
[21] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986.
[22] A.A. Mehrvarz, K. Bahmanpour and R. Naghipour, Arithmetic rank, cohomologal dimension and
filter regular sequences, J. Alg. Appl., 8(2009), 855-862.
[23] L. Melkersson, Cofiniteness with respect to ideals of dimension one, J. Algebra, 372(2012), 459-462.
[24] L. Melkersson, Modules cofinite with respect to an ideal, J. Algebra, 285(2005), 649-668.

Gholamreza Pirmohammadi; Payame Noor University, Po Box 19395-3697, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: pirmohammadi.reza@gmail.com

Khadijeh Ahmadi Amoli; Payame Noor University, Po Box 19395-3697, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: khahmadi@pnu.ac.ir

14

G. PIRMOHAMMADI, K. AHMADI AMOLI, AND K. BAHMANPOUR

Kamal Bahmanpour; Faculty of Sciences, Department of Mathematics, University of
Mohaghegh Ardabili, 56199-11367, Ardabil, Iran; and School of Mathematics, Institute
for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O. Box. 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: bahmanpour.k@gmail.com

