arXiv:1308.3205v2 [] 4 Mar 2014

HOW TO COMPUTE THE HILBERT DEPTH OF A GRADED
IDEAL
RI-XIANG CHEN
Abstract. We give two algorithms for computing the Hilbert depth of a
graded ideal in the polynomial ring. These algorithms work efficiently for
(squarefree) lex ideals. As a consequence, we construct counterexamples to
some conjectures made by Shen in [Sh2].

1. Introduction
Let S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be the polynomial ring over a field K with the standard
Zn -grading. Let I be a Zn -graded ideal in S, then I is a monomial ideal. A Stanley
decomposition of I is a direct sum
m
M
mi K[Zi ]
D:I=
i=1

as K-vector spaces, where mi ∈ I is a monomial and Zi ⊂ {x1 , . . . , xn }. We define
the Stanley depth of D as
sdepth(D) := min{|Zi | | 1 ≤ i ≤ m},

and the Stanley depth of I as
sdepth(I) := max{sdepth(D) | D is a Stanley decomposition of I}.
Stanley’s Conjecture [St] says that sdepth(I) ≥ depth(I). Except some special
cases, this conjecture remains open.(For details, see the introduction in [Sh2].)
In general, it is hard to compute sdepth(I). A breakthrough was made by Herzog,
Vladoiu and Zheng in [HVZ], where the computation of sdepth(I) was converted
to the problem of patitions of the poset PIg into intervals.(see [HVZ] section 2 for
details.) With this method, many results were obtained. For example, Biró et al.
[BHK] showed
n
sdepth(m) = ⌈ ⌉,
2
where m = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ⊂ S; Keller et al. [KSS] showed
n−d
⌋ for 1 ≤ d ≤ n < 5d + 4,
d+1
where In,d is the squarefree Veronese ideal generated by all degree d squarefree
monomials in S. Since the poset PIg often contains many elements, the partitions
of PIg into intervals can be very complicated. Because of this, we still do not know
if sdepth(In,d ) = d + ⌊ n−d
d+1 ⌋ holds for all d ≤ n.
sdepth(In,d ) = d + ⌊

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D40; Secondary 13C13, 13D02.
Key words and phrases. Hilbert depth, Stanley depth, (squarefree) lex ideals.
1

2

Closely related to Stanley depth is the concept of Hilbert depth, which was
introduced by Bruns et al. in [BKU1]. Now suppose that S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is
Z-graded with deg(xi ) = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Let I be a Z-graded ideal in S. A Hilbert
decomposition of I is an isomorphism
H:I∼
=

(†)

m
M

K[Zi ](−si )

i=1

as K-vector spaces, where si ∈ Z≥0 and Zi ⊂ {x1 , . . . , xn }. We define the Hilbert
depth of H as
hdepth(H) := min{|Zi | | 1 ≤ i ≤ m},
and the Hilbert depth of I as
hdepth(I) := max{hdepth(H) | H is a Hilbert decomposition of I}.
Note that for simplicity, hdepth(I) in this paper is the same as Hdepth1 (I) in
[BKU1] and hdepth1 (I) in [Sh2]. Also, in the rest of this paper, by a graded ideal,
we mean a Z-graded ideal.
For a monomial ideal I in S, since a Stanley decomposition
D:I=

m
M

mi K[Zi ]

i=1

induces a Hilbert decomposition
H:I∼
=

m
M

K[Zi ](− deg(mi )),

i=1

it follows that sdepth(I) ≤ hdepth(I). In other words, Hilbert decomposition
is weaker than Stanley decompostion and hdepth(I) gives an upper bound for
sdepth(I).
In general, hdepth(I) is easier to compute than sdepth(I), because hdepth(I)
depends only on the Hilbert series of I. A Hilbert decomposition (†) is equivalent
to a decomposition of the Hilbert series HI (t):
HI (t) =

m
X
i=1

tsi
.
(1 − t)|Zi |

Actually, we have the following key theorem about hdepth(I):
Theorem 1.1 (Uliczka [Ul]). Let I be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring S =
K[x1 , . . . , xn ], then hdepth(I) is the same as:
(1) the maximal p such that all the coefficients in the power series (1 − t)p HI (t)
are non-negative;
(2) the maximal p such that HI (t) can be written as
n
X
Qi (t)
,
HI (t) =
(1
− t)i
i=p

where Qi (t) ∈ Z≥0 [t].
With this tool, Bruns et al. [BKU2] showed
hdepth(md ) = ⌈

n
⌉,
d+1

3

where m = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ⊂ S and d ≥ 1; Ge et al. [GLW] showed
hdepth(In,d ) = d + ⌊

n−d
⌋,
d+1

where In,d is the squarefree Veronese ideal. As pointed out in section 4 of [Sh2],
these two results are equivalent, since Hmd (t) = (1 − t)d−1 HIn+d−1,d (t). By comn
⌉
paring Hilbert depth and Stanley depth, it is natural to ask if sdepth(md ) = ⌈ d+1
holds for d ≥ 2. Little is known about this.
Hilbert depth can help us understand Stanley depth. Conversely, results about
Stanley depth can shed some light on Hilbert depth too. Section 2 in this paper
is actually inspired by section 2 in [HVZ]. Theorem 2.1 here about Hilbert depth
is analogous to Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.4 in [HVZ], which are about Stanley depth. By Theorem 2.1, we will develop two algorithms (Algorithm 2.10 and
Algorithm 2.16) for computing the Hilbert depth of a graded ideal. And many
interesting examples are computed in section 2.
In [Sh2], some conjectures were made about the Hilbert depth and Stanley depth
of a lex ideal generated by monomials of the same degree. In Section 3 of this paper
we will give some counterexamples to these conjectures. And Algorithm 2.16 will
be used in the computations of these counterexamples.
The algorithms in this paper work only for graded ideals in the polynomial ring.
They are different form the algorithm given by Popescu in [Po] and the algorithm
given by Bruns et al. in [BMU]. Their algorithms work for all modules over the
polynomial ring. The differences among these algorithms will be illustrated in
Examples 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20 and Remark 2.21.
The author was originally interested in finding some counterexamples to the
conjectures in [Sh2] and in using the Hilbert depth to help study the Stanley depth
of squarefree Veronese ideals. After computing many examples, Algorithm 2.16 was
first developed. In order to give the algorithm a proof, Theorem 2.1 and Algorithm
2.10 were then found. It turns out that these algorithms are useful, especially for
computing the Hilbert depth of (squarefree) lex ideals.
2. Algorithms for Computing the Hilbert Depth
This section is inspired by section 2 in [HVZ]. In the following theorem, f (t) is
analogous to PIg ; a decomposition of f (t) as in (††) is analogous to a partition
of PIg into intervals; part (2) is analogous to Theorem 2.1 in [HVZ]; part (3) is
analogous to Theorem 2.4 in [HVZ].
Theorem 2.1. Let I be a proper squarefree monomial ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
Let I be minimally generated by monomials u1 , . . . , us with 1 ≤ d = deg(u1 ) ≤
· · · ≤ deg(us ). For all d ≤ i ≤ n, let ai be the number of squarefree monomials of
degree i in I. Set
n
X
f (t) := ad td + · · · + an tn =
a i ti .
i=d

Then

(1) HI (t) =

ad td
(1−t)d

+ ···+

an tn
(1−t)n

=

n
X
i=d

a i ti
and hdepth(I) ≥ d;
(1 − t)i

4

(2) if
(††)

f (t) =

X

bj tαj (1 + t)βj , with bj ∈ Z>0 , αj ≥ d, βj ∈ Z≥0 ,

j

then
HI (t) =

X
j

bj tαj
and hdepth(I) ≥ min{αj + βj };
j
(1 − t)αj +βj

(3) if hdepth(I) ≥ p with d ≤ p ≤ n, then there exist unique bd , . . . , bp ∈ Z≥0
such that
!
p
X
i
p−i
f (t) =
bi t (1 + t)
+ ap+1 tp+1 + · · · + an tn ,
i=d

and then by part (2),
HI (t) =

ap+1 tp+1
a n tn
bd td + bd+1 td+1 + · · · + bp tp
+
+ ··· +
.
p
p+1
(1 − t)
(1 − t)
(1 − t)n

Proof. (1)Let g = (1, . . . , 1), then by the method of [HVZ], the trivial partition of
PIg ,
[
[u, u],
PIg =
u∈PIg

induces a Stanley decomposition of I. Suppose deg(u) = l and u = xi1 · · · xil , then
M
I=
uK[xi1 , . . . , xil ].
u∈PIg

Thus, the multigraded Hilbert series of I is
HI (T1 , . . . , Tn ) =

X

u∈PIg

Ti1 · · · Til
.
(1 − Ti1 ) · · · (1 − Til )

So, the Hilbert series of I is
n

HI (t) =

X

u∈PIg

X a i ti
tdeg(u)
.
=
(1 − t)i
(1 − t)deg(u)
i=d

(2)From the proof of part (1), we see that a ti in f (t) corresponds to a squarefree
ti
monomial of degree i in I, which gives rise to a term (1−t)
i in HI (t). Thus,
tαi (1 + t)βi =

 
 
 
βj αj +βj
βj αj +1
βj αj
t
t
+ ···+
t +
βj
1
0

gives rise to
 
 
 
tαj
βj
tαj +1
tαj +βj
βj
βj
+
+
·
·
·
+
0 (1 − t)αj
1 (1 − t)αj +1
βj (1 − t)αj +βj

5

in HI (t). The latter is equal to


βj αj
βj
+ β1j tαj +1 (1 − t)βj −1 + · · · +
0 t (1 − t)
tαj
=




βj
βj
+
0 (1 − t)

βj
βj

(1 − t)αj +βj

βj 1
βj −1
+ ··· +
1 t (1 − t)
(1 − t)αj +βj

 α +β
t j j (1 − t)0

βj
βj


β
t j (1 − t)0

βj

tαj (t + (1 − t))
(1 − t)αj +βj
tαj
=
.
(1 − t)αj +βj
=

Therefore, if
f (t) =

X

bj tαj (1 + t)βj ,

j

then

HI (t) =

X
j

And by Theorem 1.1, we have

bj tαj
.
(1 − t)αj +βj

hdepth(I) ≥ min{αj + βj }.
j

(3)Note that


(1 − t)p HI (t) = (1 − t)hdepth(I) HI (t) ·

1
.
hdepth
(I)−p
(1 − t)

By Theorem 1.1, all the coefficients in the power series (1 − t)hdepth(I) HI (t) are
non-negative. By the assumption, hdepth(I) ≥ p, it follows that all the coefficients
1
in the power series
are non-negative. Thus, all the coefficients in
(1−t)hdepth(I)−p
p
the power series (1 − t) HI (t) are non-negative.
By part (1), we have
(1 − t)p HI (t)


a d td
ad+1 td+1
a n tn
p
= (1 − t)
+
+ ···+
(1 − t)d
(1 − t)d+1
(1 − t)n

= ad td (1 − t)p−d + ad+1 td+1 (1 − t)p−d−1 + · · · + ap−1 tp−1 (1 − t)1 + ap tp
+

ap+1 tp+1
a n tn
+
·
·
·
+
.
(1 − t)p+1
(1 − t)n

Since in the above expression all the terms in the first p − d + 1 parts are of degree
≤ p and all the terms in the last n − p parts are of degree ≥ p + 1, it follows that
all the coefficients in the degree p polynomail
ad td (1 − t)p−d + ad+1 td+1 (1 − t)p−d−1 + · · · + ap−1 tp−1 (1 − t)1 + ap tp
are non-negative. ∀ d ≤ i ≤ p, the coefficient of ti in the above polynomial is






p − (i − 1)
p − (i − 2)
i−d p − d
ad .
ai −
ai−1 +
ai−2 − · · · + (−1)
i−d
1
2

6

∀ d ≤ i ≤ p, set






p − (i − 1)
p − (i − 2)
i−d p − d
(*) bi := ai −
ai−1 +
ad ,
ai−2 − · · · + (−1)
1
i−d
2
then bd , . . . , bp ∈ Z≥0 .
Claim: with bd , . . . , bp defined as above, the following identity holds:

(**) bd td (1+t)p−d +bd+1 td+1 (1+t)p−d−1 +· · ·+bp tp = ad td +ad+1 td+1 +· · ·+ap tp .
Indeed, suppose
bd td (1 + t)p−d + bd+1 td+1 (1 + t)p−d−1 + · · · + bp tp = cd td + cd+1 td+1 + · · · + cp tp .
Let





A=








B=




p−d
0 
p−d
1 
p−d
2

0 
p−d−1
0 
p−d−1

p−d

p−d−1
p−d−1



0
···
0  ···
p−d−2
···
0
..
..
.
. 
p−d−2
···
p−d−2

1

..
. 
p−d

..
.



p−d
0 
− p−d
1
p−d
2



−

..
.

(−1)p−d

Then we have

0 
p−d−1
0

p−d−1
..
.


p−d




1



0

..
.


p−d−1

p−d−1



(−1)p−d−2

p−d−2
p−d−2




ad
cd+1 
bd+1 
ad+1 






cd+2 
bd+2 



 = A
 = AB ad+2  .
 .. 
 .. 
 .. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
cd

bd

···
···
···
..
.

0
0 
p−d−2

1

(−1)p−d−1

p−d


0
0


0 ,
.. 

.



···


0
0


0 .
.. 

.

1

cp
bp
ap
Let 1 ≤ j < i ≤ p − d + 1, then the i-th row of the matrix A is


 p−d−1

p−d
p−d−i+1
·
·
·
0
·
·
·
0
,
i−1
i−2
0

and the transpose of the j-th column of the matrix B is



0 · · · 0 p−d−j+1
− p−d−j+1
· · · (−1)p−d−j+1
0
1

Their inner product is

p−d−j+1
p−d−j+1



.

p−d−j+1
i−j p−d−j+1
)
( i−j )(p−d−i+1
)(p−d−j−1
)(p−d−j
)−(p−d−j+1
)(p−d−j+1
(p−d−j+1
0
i−j−2 )−···+(−1)
2
i−j−1 )+(
1
i−j
0


1
1
1
1
i−j
= (p−d−j+1)!
(p−d−i+1)! 0!(i−j)! − 1!(i−j−1)! + 2!(i−j−2)! − · · · + (−1)
(i−j)!0!


(p−d−j+1)!
(i−j)!
(i−j)!
(i−j)!
i−j (i−j)!
= (p−d−i+1)!(i−j)!
0!(i−j)! − 1!(i−j−1)! + 2!(i−j−2)! − · · · + (−1)
(i−j)!0!





(p−d−j+1)!
i−j
i−j
i−j
i−j i−j
−
+
−
·
·
·
+
(−1)
= (p−d−i+1)!(i−j)!
0
1
2
i−j

=

(p−d−j+1)!
(p−d−i+1)!(i−j)! (1

= 0.

− 1)i−j

7

Since AB is also a lower triangular matrix with diagonal elements equal to 1, it
follows that AB is the identity matrix. Therefore, cd = ad , . . . , cp = ap and the
claim is proved.
So we have found bd , . . . , bp ∈ Z≥0 such that
!
p
X
i
p−i
+ ap+1 tp+1 + · · · + an tn .
f (t) =
bi t (1 + t)
i=d

From the proof of the claim, we see that bd , . . . , bp are uniquely determined by
ad , . . . , ap because the matrix B is invertible.

Note that the identity (**) in the above proof holds even if ad , . . . , ap , bd , . . . , bp
are real numbers. Instead of using the formula (∗), we can easily compute bd , . . . , bp
form ad , . . . , ap by the following simple algorithm.
Algorithm 2.2. Let g(t) = ad td +· · ·+ap tp be a polynomial in t with ad , . . . , ap ∈ R.
Input: g(t) = ad td + · · · + ap tp .
Step 1: Let bd = ad and let g1 (t) = g(t) − bd td (1 + t)p−d . Simplify g1 (t) to get
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
g1 (t) = ad+1 td+1 + · · · + ap tp with ad+1 , . . . , ap ∈ R.
(1)

Step 2: Let bd+1 = ad+1 and let g2 (t) = g1 (t) − bd+1 td+1 (1 + t)p−d−1 . Simplify g2 (t)
(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

to get g2 (t) = ad+2 td+2 + · · · + ap tp with ad+2 , . . . , ap ∈ R.
.........
(p−d−1)
Step (p − d): Let bp−1 = ap−1
and let gp−d (t) = gp−d−1 (t) − bp−1 tp−1 (1 + t).
(p−d) p

Simplify gp−d (t) to get gp−d (t) = ap
(p−d)
Step (p − d + 1): Let bp = ap
.
Output: bd , . . . , bp ∈ R.

(p−d)

t with ap

∈ R.

By Theorem 2.1, we immediately have the following corollary, which follows the
style of Theorem 1.1.
Corollary 2.3. Let I be a proper squarefree monomial ideal in S. With the notations as in Theorem 2.1, we have that hdepth(I) is equal to the maximal p such
that
!
p
X
f (t) =
bi ti (1 + t)p−i + ap+1 tp+1 + · · · + an tn ,
i=d

with bd , . . . , bp ∈ Z≥0 . In particular, hdepth(I) can be calculated in a finite number
of steps.
By the above results, when I is a squarefree monomial ideal, we have the following
algorithm to compute hdepth(I).
Algorithm 2.4. Let I be a proper squarefree monomial ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
Let I be minimallly generated by monomials u1 , . . . , us with 1 ≤ d = deg(u1 ) ≤
· · · ≤ deg(us ).
Input: I.
Step 1: ∀ d ≤ i ≤ n, count the number of squarefree monomials of degree i in I and
denote it by ai . Set
ad+1
f (t) := ad td + · · · + an tn , and j := min{⌊
⌋, n − d}.
ad

8

Step 2: Let g(t) := ad td + · · · + ad+j td+j . Run algorithm 2.2 for g(t) to get
bd , . . . , bd+j . If bd , . . . , bd+j ∈ Z≥0 then put hdepth(I) = d + j and stop; otherwise, set j := j − 1 and run step 2 again.
Output: hdepth(I).
Remark 2.5. Since hdepth(I) ≤ n, in step 1 we choose the initial j ≤ n − d. Also,
a
⌋ + 1 then in step 2 we will have bd+1 < 0, so that we choose the initial
if j ≥ ⌊ ad+1
d
j ≤ ⌊ aad+1
⌋.
Finally, it is easy to see that step 2 stops in a finite number of steps.
d
Next we turn our attention to graded ideals in the polynomial ring. As to Hilbert
functions, we have the classical Macaulay’s Theorem.
Theorem 2.6 (Macaulay [Ma]). Let I be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring
S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], then there exists a lex ideal L in S such that HL (t) = HI (t).
Since Hilbert depth depends only on the Hilbert series, it follows that
hdepth(I) = hdepth(L).
Due to [AHH], a lex ideal L can be related to a squarefree strongly stable monomial ideal Lσ , where the so-called squarefree operator σ was introduced by Gil
Kalai. Let u = xi1 xi2 · · · xid ∈ S with i1 ≤ i2 ≤ · · · ≤ id . We define m(u) := id
and uσ := xi1 xi2 +1 · · · xid +d−1 , which is squarefree. If I is a monomial ideal
in S minimally generated by monomials u1 , . . . , us , then we define I σ to be the
squarefree monomial ideal generated by uσ1 , . . . , uσs in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , xm ], where
m = max{m(ui ) + deg(ui ) − 1 | 1 ≤ i ≤ s}.
Lemma 2.7 ([AHH] 1.2). Let I be a strongly stable monomial ideal in S =
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] minimally generated by u1 , . . . , us , then I σ is a squarefree strongly
stable monomial ideal in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , xm ] minimally generated by uσ1 , . . . , uσs
with m = max{m(ui ) + deg(ui ) − 1 | 1 ≤ i ≤ s}.
Remark 2.8. Lemma 1.8 in [AHH] says that if L is a lex ideal in S then Lσ is a
squarefree lex ideal in S ′ . In general, this is not true as we will see in Example 2.11.
However, if L is a lex ideal generated by monomials in the same degree, then Lσ
is squarefree lex, because there is an order-preserving bijection between the set of
degree d monomials in K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and the set of degree d squarefree monomials
in K[x1 , . . . , xn+d−1 ]. Anyway, when L is a lex ideal, by the above lemma, we can
conclude that Lσ is a squarefree strongly stable monomial ideal.
Remark 2.9. By Lemma 2.2 in [AHH], if L is a lex ideal then L and Lσ have the
S
S′
same graded Betti numbers, that is, βi,j
(L) = βi,j
(Lσ ). Since
P
i S
j
i,j (−1) βi,j (L)t
HL (t) =
(1 − t)n
and
H
it follows that

Lσ

(t) =

P

i S′
σ j
i,j (−1) βi,j (L )t
(1 − t)m

,

1
.
(1 − t)m−n
So, by Theorem 1.1, if hdepth(Lσ ) = p then hdepth(L) = p − (m − n).
HLσ (t) = HL (t)

9

By the above results, we have the following algorithm for computing the Hilbert
depth of a graded ideal.
Algorithm 2.10. Let I be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
Input: I
Step 1: Use Grobner basis theory to get the initial ideal in<lex (I). Let L be the lex
ideal in S with the same Hilbert function as in<lex (I). Find the minimal generators
of L and denote them by u1 , . . . , us .
Step 2: Let m = max{m(ui ) + deg(ui ) − 1 | 1 ≤ i ≤ s}. Let Lσ = (uσ1 , . . . , uσs ) ⊂
S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , xm ]. Use Algorithm 2.4 to compute hdepth(Lσ ).
Output: hdepth(L) = hdepth(Lσ ) − (m − n).
Example 2.11. Let I = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x22 , x23 ) ⊂ S = K[x1 , x2 , x3 ], then
L = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x22 , x2 x3 , x33 )
is the lex ideal in S with the same Hilbert function as I, and
Lσ = (x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 , x3 x4 x5 ) ⊂ S ′ = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ].
Note that Lσ is a squarefree strongly stable monomial ideal in S ′ , but Lσ is not
squarefree lex, because x1 x5 >lex x2 x3 and x1 x5 ∈
/ Lσ .
σ
In L , the squarefree monomials of degree 2 are x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 ;
the squarefree monomials of degree 3 are x1 x2 x3 , x1 x2 x4 , x1 x2 x5 , x1 x3 x4 , x1 x3 x5 ,
x1 x4 x5 , x2 x3 x4 , x2 x3 x5 , x2 x4 x5 , x3 x4 x5 ; the squarefree monomials of degree 4 are
x1 x2 x3 x4 , x1 x2 x3 x5 , x1 x2 x4 x5 , x1 x3 x4 x5 , x2 x3 x4 x5 ; the squarefree monomials of
degree 5 is x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 . Thus,
f (t) = 5t2 + 10t3 + 5t4 + t5 .
2
2
5
σ
Let j = ⌊ 10
5 ⌋ = 2 then f (t) = 5t (1 + t) + t . So, hdepth(L ) = 2 + 2 = 4 and
then hepth(I) = hepth(L) = 4 − (5 − 3) = 2.

Remark 2.12. By the method of [HVZ] we see that sdepth(Lσ ) = 3 < hdepth(Lσ ).
(1,1,1,1,1)
Indeed, we can think of the poset PLσ
as the set of all squarefree monomials
σ
in L , then x3 x4 x5 can not be divided by any of x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 and
there are only 9 degree-3 squarefree monomials left for these 5 degree-2 squarefree
monomials. This is an example of a squarefree strongly stable monomial ideal with
its Stanley depth less than its Hilbert depth. In Counterexamples 3.3 and 3.4, we
will see that even if a (squarefree) lex ideal is generated by monomials of the same
degree, its Stanley depth can still be less than its Hilbert depth.
Let I = (x21 , . . . , x210 ) ⊂ S = K[x1 , . . . , x10 ], then L = (x21 , . . . , x1 x10 , x32 , . . . ,
x2 x210 , . . . , x11
10 ) will be the lex ideal in S with the same Hilbert function as I and
Lσ ⊂ S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , x20 ]. There are many generators in Lσ and there are 20
variables, so the computation will be very heavy. On the other hand, the Hilbert
series HI (t) can be obtained easily from the resolution of I over S. Therefore,
it would be handy to have an algorithm which computes hdepth(I) directly from
HI (t). Next, we will develop such an algorithm (Algorithm 2.16) and we will use
it to compute hdepth(x21 , . . . , x210 ) in Example 2.22.
Let I be a proper squarefree monomial ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. With the
notations as in Theorem 2.1, if hdepth(I) ≥ p then by part (3) of Theorem 2.1,

10

there exist bd , . . . , bn ∈ Z≥0 such that
HI (t)
bp+1 tp+1
b n tn
b d td + · · · + b p tp
+
+ ···+
p
p+1
(1 − t)
(1 − t)
(1 − t)n
bd td (1 − t)n−p + · · · + bp tp (1 − t)n−p + bp+1 tp+1 (1 − t)n−p−1 + · · · + bn tn
.
=
(1 − t)n
=

Hence,
HI (t) =

c d td + · · · + c n tn
for some cd , . . . , cn ∈ Z,
(1 − t)n

and
c d td + · · · + c n tn
= bd td (1 − t)n−p + · · · + bp tp (1 − t)n−p + bp+1 tp+1 (1 − t)n−p−1 + · · · + bn tn .
So we have the following corollary similar to Corollary 2.3.
Corollary 2.13. Let I be a proper squarefree monomial ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
With the notations as in Theorem 2.1, we have that
(1) there exist cd , . . . , cn ∈ Z such that
HI (t) =

c d td + · · · + c n tn
;
(1 − t)n

(2) hdepth(I) is equal to the maximal n − q such that
c d td + · · · + c n tn
= bd td (1 − t)q + · · · + bn−q tn−q (1 − t)q + bn−q+1 tn−q+1 (1 − t)q−1 + · · · + bn tn .
with bd , . . . , bn ∈ Z≥0 .
Remark 2.14. In part (1) of the above theorem, it is easy to see that cd is
the number of monomial generators of I of degree d. However, cn can be 0.
For example, let L = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x32 ) be a lex ideal in K[x1 , x2 , x3 ], then
Lσ = (x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x2 x3 x4 ) is a squarefree lex ideal in K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]. The
resolution of Lσ is given by the Eliahou-Kervarie resolution [EK], which says: x1 x2
gives rise to a basis element (x1 x2 ; ∅) in homological degree 0; x1 x3 gives rise to
a basis element (x1 x3 ; ∅) in homological degree 0 and a basis element (x1 x3 ; 2) in
homological degree 1; x1 x4 gives rise to a basis element (x1 x4 ; ∅) in homological
degree 0, two basis elements (x1 x4 ; 2) (x1 x4 ; 3) in homological degree 1 and a basis
element (x1 x4 ; 2, 3) in homological degree 2; x2 x3 x4 gives rise to a basis element
(x2 x3 x4 ; ∅) in homological degree 0 and a basis element (x2 x3 x4 ; 1) in homological
degree 1. So the multigraded Hilbert series of Lσ is
HLσ (T1 , T2 , T3 , T4 ) =

T1 T2 + T1 T3 (1 − T2 ) + T1 T4 (1 − T2 )(1 − T3 ) + T2 T3 T4 (1 − T1 )
,
(1 − T1 )(1 − T2 )(1 − T3 )(1 − T4 )

and the Hilbert series of Lσ is
HLσ (t) =

t2 + t2 (1 − t) + t2 (1 − t)2 + t3 (1 − t)
3t2 − 2t3
=
.
(1 − t)4
(1 − t)4

11

It is easy to see that given any 0 ≤ q ≤ n − d, bd , . . . , bn can be uniquely
determined by cd , . . . , cn such that the identity in part (2) of the above theorem
holds. Indeed, we have the following algorithm. Algorithm 2.15 looks long, but
later in the examples, we will use simple diagrams to represent the computations
in this algorithm.
Algorithm 2.15. Let h(t) = cd td + · · ·+ cn tn be a polynomial in t with cd , . . . , cn ∈
Z. Let 0 ≤ q ≤ n − d.
Input: h(t) = cd td + · · · + cn tn and q.
Step 1: Let bd = cd and let
h1 (t) = h(t) − bd td (1 − t)q .
Simplify h1 (t) to get
(1)

n
h1 (t) = cd+1 td+1 + · · · + c(1)
n t
(1)

(1)

with cd+1 , . . . , cn ∈ Z.
(1)

Step 2: Let bd+1 = cd+1 and let
h2 (t) = h1 (t) − bd+1 td+1 (1 − t)q .
Simplify h2 (t) to get
(2)

n
h2 (t) = cd+2 td+2 + · · · + c(2)
n t
(2)

(2)

with cd+2 , . . . , cn ∈ Z.
.........
(n−q−d)
Step (n − q − d + 1): Let bn−q = cn−q
and let
hn−q−d+1 (t) = hn−q−d (t) − bn−q tn−q (1 − t)q .
Simplify hn−q−d+1 (t) to get
(n−q−d+1) n−q+1

hn−q−d+1 (t) = cn−q+1
(n−q−d+1)

with cn−q+1

(n−q−d+1)

, . . . , cn

t

+ · · · + cn(n−q−d+1) tn

∈ Z.
(n−q−d+1)

Step (n − q − d + 2): Let bn−q+1 = cn−q+1

and let

hn−q−d+2 (t) = hn−q−d+1 (t) − bn−q+1 tn−q+1 (1 − t)q−1 .
Simplify hn−q−d+2 (t) to get
(n−q−d+2) n−q+2

hn−q−d+2 (t) = cn−q+2
(n−q−d+2)

with cn−q+2

(n−q−d+2)

, . . . , cn

t

+ · · · + cn(n−q−d+2) tn

∈ Z.
(n−q−d+2)

Step (n − q − d + 3): Let bn−q+2 = cn−q+2

and let

hn−q−d+3 (t) = hn−q−d+2 (t) − bn−q+2 tn−q+2 (1 − t)q−2 .
Simplify hn−q−d+3 (t) to get
(n−q−d+3) n−q+3

hn−q−d+3 (t) = cn−q+3
(n−q−d+3)

(n−q−d+3)

∈ Z.
with cn−q+3
, . . . , cn
.........
(n−d)
.
Step (n − d + 1): Let bn = cn
Output: bd , . . . , bn ∈ Z.

t

+ · · · + cn(n−q−d+3) tn

12

Now let I, L ∈ S and Lσ ∈ S ′ be as in Algorithm 2.10. By Remark 2.9 we see
that if
c d td + · · · + c m tm
,
HLσ (t) =
(1 − t)m
then
c d td + · · · + c m tm
HI (t) =
.
(1 − t)n
Hence, for a given 0 ≤ q ≤ m − d, if by Algorithm 2.15 we get bd , . . . , bm such that
bi < 0 for some d ≤ i ≤ m, then by part (3) of Theorem 2.1 we have hdepth(Lσ ) <
m − q, so that
hdepth(I) = hdepth(Lσ ) − (m − n) < n − q.
On the other hand, if there exists bd , . . . , bm ∈ Z≥0 and βd , . . . , βm ∈ Z≥0 such that
c d td + · · · + c m tm =

m
X

bi ti (1 − t)βi ,

i=d

then hdepth(I) ≥ n − q where q = max{βi | d ≤ i ≤ m}. By these observations, we
have the following algorithm for computing the Hilbert depth of a graded ideal.
Algorithm 2.16. Let I be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
Input: I
Step 1: Let L be the lex ideal in S with the same Hilbert function as I. Find the
minimal generators of L and denote them by u1 , . . . , us . Let m = max{m(ui ) +
deg(ui ) − 1 | 1 ≤ i ≤ s}.
Step 2: Find the Hilbert series of I:
HI (t) =

c d td + · · · + c r tr
.
(1 − t)n

(Note that r ≤ m and in Remark 2.14 we have an example with r < m.) Set
Q(t) := cd td + · · · + cm tm , where cr+1 = · · · = cm = 0 if r < m. Set q := 0.
Step 3: Apply algorithm 2.15 to Q(t) and q, and we get bd , . . . , bm . If bd , . . . , bm ∈
Z≥0 then put hdepth(I) = n − q and stop; otherwise, set q := q + 1 and run step 3
again.
Output: hdepth(I).
In the following examples, we will compute the Hilbert depth of some graded
ideals by using Algorithm 2.16, and we will compare Algorithm 2.16 with the algorithms in [Po] and [BMU].
Example 2.17. Let I = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x22 , x23 ) ⊂ S = K[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be as in
Example 2.11, where we have computed hdepth(I) = 2 by Algorithm 2.10. Now
we will use Algorithm 2.16 to compute hdepth(I). Let L be the lex ideal in S with
the same Hilbert function as I, then
L = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x22 , x2 x3 , x33 ) and m = 5.
The resolution of L is given by the Eliahou-Kervarie resolution [EK], which says:
x21 gives rise to a basis element (x21 ; ∅) in homological degree 0; x1 x2 gives rise to
a basis element (x1 x2 ; ∅) in homological degree 0 and a basis element (x1 x2 ; 1) in
homological degree 1; x1 x3 gives rise to a basis element (x1 x3 ; ∅) in homological
degree 0, two basis elements (x1 x3 ; 1) (x1 x3 ; 2) in homological degree 1 and a basis
element (x1 x3 ; 1, 2) in homological degree 2; x22 gives rise to a basis element (x22 ; ∅) in

13

homological degree 0 and a basis element (x22 ; 1) in homological degree 1; x2 x3 gives
rise to a basis element (x2 x3 ; ∅) in homological degree 0, two basis elements (x2 x3 ; 1)
(x2 x3 ; 2) in homological degree 1 and a basis element (x2 x3 ; 1, 2) in homological
degree 2; x33 gives rise to a basis element (x33 ; ∅) in homological degree 0, two basis
elements (x33 ; 1) (x33 ; 2) in homological degree 1 and a basis element (x33 ; 1, 2) in
homological degree 2. So the multigraded Hilbert series of L is
HL (T1 , T2 , T3 )
=

T12 +T1 T2 (1−T1 )+T1 T3 (1−T1 )(1−T2 )+T22 (1−T1 )+T2 T3 (1−T1 )(1−T2 )+T33 (1−T1 )(1−T2 )
,
(1−T1 )(1−T2 )(1−T3 )

and the Hilbert series of I is
t2 + t2 (1 − t) + t2 (1 − t)2 + t2 (1 − t) + t2 (1 − t)2 + t3 (1 − t)2
(1 − t)3
2
3
5
5t − 5t + t
=
.
(1 − t)3

HI (t) = HL (t) =

Run Algorithm 2.16. q = 0 does not work because b3 = −5 < 0. Then we try
q = 1, and the computation of b2 , b3 , b4 , b5 by Algorithm 2.15 is shown in the
following diagram::
5
5

−5 0 1
−5
1

we see that b2 = 5, b3 = b4 = 0, b5 = 1. So q = 1 works and hdepth(I) = 3 − 1 = 2
as expected.
By the algorithm in [Po], we compute
5t2 − 5t3 + t5
= 5t2 + 0t3 + 0t4 + t5 + · · ·
1−t

(1)

and then hdepth(I) = 3 − 1 = 2.
To use the algorithm in [BMU], we set Q(t) = 5t2 − 5t3 + t5 . Then Q̃(t) =
1 − 5t3 + 5t4 − t5 , δ3 (Q̃) = 0 and e = max{0, 6} = 6. Therefore, by the computation
in (1) we have hdepth(I) = 3 − 1 = 2.
Example 2.18. Let m = (x1 , . . . , x5 ) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , x5 ]. By [BKU2], we know
hdepth(m) = ⌈ 25 ⌉ = 3. Now we use Algorithm 2.16 to compute hdepth(m). First,
we have
Hm (t) =

5t − 10t2 + 10t3 − 5t4 + t5
1
−
1
=
and m = 5.
(1 − t)5
(1 − t)5

Obviously, q = 0 does not work. If q = 1, then by the following diagram
5
5

−10 10 −5 1
−5
−5 10 −5 1

14

we see that b2 = −5 < 0. Hence, q = 1 does not work. Next we try q = 2 and
Algorithm 2.15 is represented by the following diagram:
−10 10 −5
1
−10 5
5 −5
1
5 −10 5
5
−4
5
−5
1

5
5

Hence, b1 = 5, b2 = 0, b3 = 5, b4 = 5, b5 = 1, so that q = 2 works and hdepth(m) =
5 − 2 = 3 as expected.
Note that there is an easier way to show that q = 2 works, that is, we have the
following diagram:
5
5

−10 10 −5 1
−10 5
5 −5 1
5 −5
1

Hence, we have 5t − 10t2 + 10t3 − 5t4 + t5 = 5t(1 − t)2 + 5t3 (1 − t) + t5 , which also
implies that q = 2 works.
By the algorithm in [Po], we compute

(2)

5t − 10t2 + 10t3 − 5t4 + t5
= 5t − 5t2 + 5t3 + 0t4 + t5 + · · ·
1−t
5t − 10t2 + 10t3 − 5t4 + t5
= 5t + 0t2 + 5t3 + 5t4 + 6t5 + · · ·
(1 − t)2

and then hdepth(I) = 5 − 2 = 3.
To use the algorithm in [BMU], we set Q(t) = 5t − 10t2 + 10t3 − 5t4 + t5 . Then
Q̃(t) = 1 − t5 , δ5 (Q̃) = 0 and e = max{0, 6} = 6. Therefore, by the computation in
(2) we have hdepth(I) = 5 − 2 = 3.
Algorithm 2.16 depends not only on the Hilbert series HI (t) but also on the
number m. However, after computing many examples the author was unable to
find an example where the number m really matters. Just like the above two
examples, most of the time m and r are the same, so the calculation depends only
on HI (t). In the rare cases when r < m, the following two examples suggest that
we could still ignore m.
Example 2.19. Let L = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x32 ) ⊂ K[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be as in Remark 2.14,
then we have
HL (t) =

3t2 − 2t3
, and r = 3 < m = 4.
(1 − t)3

15

Run Algorithm 2.16. q = 0 does not work because b3 = −2 < 0. Then we try q = 1.
The computation of b2 , b3 , b4 by Algorithm 2.15 is shown in the following diagram:
3
3

−2 0
−3
1
0
1 −1
1

Then b2 = 3, b3 = 1, b4 = 1, so that q = 1 works and hdepth(L) = 3 − 1 = 2.
However, even if we do not know m = 4, we can still see that q = 0 does not work
and for q = 1, from the following diagram,
3 −2
3 −3
1
we see that 3t2 − 2t3 = 3t2 (1 − t) + t3 , which implies q = 1 works. So, hdepth(L) =
3 − 1 = 2.
By the algorithm in [Po], we compute
3t2 − 2t3
= 3t2 + t3 + · · ·
1−t

(3)

and then hdepth(I) = 3 − 1 = 2.
To use the algorithm in [BMU], we set Q(t) = 3t2 −2t3 . Then Q̃(t) = 1−3t2 +2t3 ,
δ3 (Q̃) = 2 and e = max{2, 4} = 4. Therefore, by the computation in (3) we have
hdepth(I) = 3 − 1 = 2.
Example 2.20. In the previous example r = m − 1. The simplest example one
can find with r = m − 2 is the following. Let L be the lex ideal in K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]
minimally generated by x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x22 , x2 x3 , x2 x24 , x43 , then we have
HL (t) =

6t2 − 8t3 + 3t4
, and r = 4 < m = 6.
(1 − t)4

Run Algorithm 2.16. q = 0 does not work because b3 = −8 < 0. q = 1 does not
work because b3 = −2 < 0.Then we try q = 2. By the following diagram:
6
6

−8
3
−12 6
4
−3
4
−4
1

we see that 6t2 − 8t3 + 3t4 = 6t2 (1 − t)2 + 4t3 (1 − t) + t4 . Hence, q = 2 works and
hdepth(L) = 4 − 2 = 2. Note that the computation works even if we do not know
m = 6. And we have a decomposition of HL (t):
HL (t) =

4t3
t4
6t2
+
+
.
(1 − t)2
(1 − t)3
(1 − t)4

16

By the algorithm in [Po], we compute

(4)

6t2 − 8t3 + 3t4
= 6t2 − 2t3 + t4 + · · ·
1−t
6t2 − 8t3 + 3t4
= 6t2 + 4t3 + 5t4 + · · ·
(1 − t)2

and then hdepth(L) = 4 − 2 = 2.
To use the algorithm in [BMU], we set Q(t) = 6t2 − 8t3 + 3t4 . Then Q̃(t) =
1−4t3 +3t4 , and we can calculate that δ4 (Q̃) = 4 and e = max{4, 5} = 5. Therefore,
by the computation in (4) we have hdepth(L) = 4 − 2 = 2. And by the method of
[BMU], we get a decomposition of HL (t):
HL (t) =

5t5
t5
6t2 + 4t3 + 5t4
+
+
,
2
3
(1 − t)
(1 − t)
(1 − t)4

which is different from the decomposition previously obtained by Algorithm 2.16.
Remark 2.21. From the above four examples, we can see that Algorithm 2.16
is different from the algorithms in [Po] and [BMU]. Also, the author feels that
in general, m is not needed when applying Algorithm 2.16 to graded ideals. For
general modules over the polynomial ring, it is a different story and the following
example is interesting.
L 3
Let M = K
x1 K[x1 , x2 , x3 ] be a module over K[x1 , x2 , x3 ], then
HM (t) =

1 − 3t + 3t2
.
(1 − t)3

If we calculate hdepth(M ) by a method similar to Algorithm 2.16, we have the
following diagram:
1 −3
1 −3

3 0
3 −1
1

which imples that 1 − 3t+ 3t2 = (1 − t)3 + t3 and then hdepth(M ) = 3 − 3 = 0. Note
that in the above diagram, 0 must be added to the end of the first row; otherwise,
one can not proceed the calculation. However, it is easy to see that HM (t) can not
be the Hilbert series of a graded ideal in a polynomial ring.
To use the algorithm in [Po], we compute
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 − 2t + t2 + t3 + · · ·
1−t
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 − t + 0t2 + t3 + · · ·
(1 − t)2
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 + 0t + 0t2 + t3 + · · ·
(1 − t)3
and then hdepth(M ) = 3 − 3 = 0.
To use the algorithm in [BMU], we set Q(t) = 1−3t+3t2. Then Q̃(t) = 1−3t+3t2.
We can calculate that δ3 (Q̃) = 3 and e = max{3, 3} = 3. Hence, by the following

17

computation:
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 − 2t + t2 + · · ·
1−t
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 − t + 0t2 + · · ·
(1 − t)2
1 − 3t + 3t2
= 1 + 0t + 0t2 + · · ·
(1 − t)3
we have hdepth(M ) = 3 − 3 = 0.
When applying the algorithm in [Po], one needs to decide the number of terms to
be calculated in each formal power series, which may increase during the computation; when applying the algorithm in [BMU], the number of terms to be calculated
in each formal power series is given by the fixed number e = max{δd (Q̃), deg(Q)+1}.
By the previous examples and some other examples we have computed, we wonder if δd (Q̃) ≤ deg(Q) + 1 holds for all graded ideals in the polynomial ring. This is
a question in some sense similar to the one about the necessity of m in Algorithm
2.16.
Example 2.22. Let I = (x21 , . . . , x210 ) ⊂ S = K[x1 , . . . , x10 ]. As explained after
Remark 2.12, it is not easy to compute hdepth(I) by Algorithm 2.10. However,
since I is a complete intersection monomial ideal, it is easy to see that
HI (t)
10 2
10 4
10 6
10 8
10 10
10 14
10 16
10 18
10 20
12
−(10
6 )t +( 7 )t −( 8 )t +( 9 )t −(10)t
= ( 1 )t −( 2 )t +( 3 )t −( 4 )t +( 5 )t (1−t)
10

=

10t2 −45t4 +120t6 −210t8 +252t10 −210t12 +120t14 −45t16 +10t18 −t20
.
(1−t)10

By [Ci] or [Sh1], we know that the Stanley depth of I is
10
⌉ = 5.
2
One may wonder if hdepth(I) = sdepth(I) = 5. Next we will use Algorithm 2.16
to compute hdepth(I).
First, q = 0 does not work because b4 = −45 < 0. If q = 1, then by the following
diagram,
10
0
−45 · · ·
10 −10
10 −45 · · ·
10 −10
−35 · · ·
sdepth(x21 , . . . , x210 ) = sdepth(x1 , . . . , x10 ) = ⌈

we have b4 = −35 < 0 which does not work. If q = 2, then by the following diagram,
10
0
−45
0
10 −20 10
20 −35
0
20 −40 20
5
−20
5
−10
−10

···
···
···
5
···

18

we have b5 = −10 < 0 which does not work. If q = 3, then by the following diagram,
10
0
−45
0
···
10 −30 30 −10
30 −75 10 · · ·
30 −90 90 30
15 −80 · · ·
15 −45 45
−35 · · ·
we have b5 = −35 < 0 which does not work. If q = 4 then we have that
10t2 − 45t4 + 120t6 − 210t8 + 252t10 − 210t12 + 120t14 − 45t16 + 10t18 − t20
= (10t2 + 40t3 + 55t4 + 115t8 + 100t9 )(1 − t)4
+ (20t5 + 120t7 + 82t10 + 106t11 + 147t12 + 105t13 + 100t14 )(1 − t)3
+ (132t15 + 24t16 )(1 − t)2 + (16t17 + 2t18 + 2t19 )(1 − t) + t20 .
Hence, q = 4 works. So we have that
hdepth(x21 , . . . , x210 ) = 10 − 4 = 6 > sdepth(x21 , . . . , x210 ) = 5.
Note that from either algebraic or combinatorial point of view, I is a nice and
simple monomial ideal, but even in this case its Stanley depth and Hilbert depth
are not equal to each other.
From the above examples, we see that Algorithm 2.10 and Algorithm 2.16 are
useful tools for computing the Hilbert depth of a graded ideal, especially when the
ideal is a (squarefree) lex ideal, or when the Hilbert series of the ideal can be easily
obtained. More importantly, without Algorithm 2.16, it would be impossible for
the author to find the counterexamples in the next section.
3. Some Counterexamples
In [Sh2], Shen made some conjectures related to the Hilbert depth of a (squarefree) lex ideal which is generated by monomials of the same degree. In this section
we will give some counterexamples to these conjectures, and Algorithm 2.16 will be
used in some of the computations.
Conjecture 3.5 in [Sh2] says that if I is a stable ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
generated by monomials of degree d and HI (t) = ad td + ad+1 td+1 + · · · , then
a
⌋.
hdepth(I) = ⌊ ad+1
d
By Theorem 1.1 part (1), we can see easily that for a graded ideal I, if HI (t) =
a
⌋. The equal sign is
ad td + ad+1 td+1 + · · · with ad 6= 0, then hdepth(I) ≤ ⌊ ad+1
d
d
obtained in the case of powers of maximal ideals m (by [BKU2]) and the case
of squarefree Veronese ideals In,d (by [GLW]). But in general, the equal sign can
not be obtained. For example, let I = (x21 , . . . , x210 ) be as in Example 2.22, then
HI (t) = 10t2 + 100t3 + · · · , but hdepth(I) = 6 6= 10. How about stable ideals?
In the next counterexample, we will see that the identity may not hold even for a
(squarefree) lex ideal generated by monomials of the same degree.
Counterexample 3.1. Let L = (x21 , x1 x2 , . . . , x1 x100 , x22 , x2 x3 , . . . , x2 x13 ) ⊂ S =
K[x1 , x2 , . . . , x100 ]. Then L is a lex ideal in S generated by some monomials of degree 2. Similar to the analysis in Example 2.17, by the Eiliahou-Kervaire resolution

19

of L, we have that
HL (t)
=
=
=
=

t2 1 + (1 − t) + · · · + (1 − t)99 + (1 − t) + (1 − t)2 + · · · + (1 − t)12
(1 − t)100


2
100
t
1 − (1 − t)
1 − (1 − t)13
+
−1
(1 − t)100
1 − (1 − t)
1 − (1 − t)

t2
112 − 5028t + 161986t2 − 3921940t3 + · · · − t99
100
(1 − t)
112t2 − 5028t3 + 161986t4 − 3921940t5 + · · · − t101
(1 − t)100



= 112t2 + 6172t3 + · · · .
Assume that hdepth(L) = ⌊ 6172
112 ⌋ = 55, then by the analysis before Corollary 2.13
we conclude that q = 100 − 55 = 45 would work in step 3 of Algorithm 2.16.
However, the following diagram
112
−5028
161986 
−3921940
112 −112 × 45 112 × 45
−112
× 45
2
3
12
51106
−2332660

12
−12 × 45
12 × 45
2
51646
−2344540
51646
−51646 × 45
−20470

···
···
···
···
···
···
···

tells us that b5 = −20470 < 0, so that q = 45 does not work, which is a contradiction. Therefore, hdepth(L) 6= ⌊ 6172
112 ⌋ and hdepth(L) ≤ 54.
Note that Lσ = (x1 x2 , x1 x3 , . . . , x1 x101 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 , . . . , x2 x14 ) is a squarefree lex
ideal in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , x101 ] generated by some squarefree monomials of degree 2,
and
1
1−t
= (112t2 + 6172t3 + · · · )(1 + t + · · · )

HLσ (t) = HL (t)

= 112t2 + 6284t3 + · · · .
So, hdepth(Lσ ) = hdepth(L)+1 ≤ 54+1 = 55 and then hdepth(Lσ ) 6= ⌊ 6284
112 ⌋ = 56.
Conjecture 5.5 in [Sh2] says that if L1 and L2 are lex ideals in S both generated
by monomials of degree d and L1 ⊂ L2 , then hdepth(L1 ) ≥ hdepth(L2 ). The
following is a counterexample to this conjecture.
Counterexample 3.2. In the polynomial ring S = K[x1 , x2 , . . . , x10 ], let
L1 = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x1 x5 , x1 x6 , x1 x7 , x1 x8 , x1 x9 , x1 x10 , x22 )
L2 = (x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x1 x5 , x1 x6 , x1 x7 , x1 x8 , x1 x9 , x1 x10 , x22 , x2 x3 )

20

be two lex ideals generated by monomials of degree 2 such that L1 ⊂ L2 . Similar
to the analysis in Example 2.17, by the Eiliahou-Kervaire resolution, we have that
HL1 (t)

t2 1 + (1 − t) + · · · + (1 − t)9 + (1 − t)
=
(1 − t)10


1 − (1 − t)10
t2
+
(1
−
t)
=
(1 − t)10
1 − (1 − t)
2
3
11t − 46t + 120t4 − 210t5 + 252t6 − 210t7 + 120t8 − 45t9 + 10t10 − t11
=
,
(1 − t)10
HL2 (t)

t2 1 + (1 − t) + · · · + (1 − t)9 + (1 − t) + (1 − t)2
=
(1 − t)10


2
1 − (1 − t)10
t
2
+ (1 − t) + (1 − t)
=
(1 − t)10
1 − (1 − t)
12t2 − 48t3 + 121t4 − 210t5 + 252t6 − 210t7 + 120t8 − 45t9 + 10t10 − t11
=
.
(1 − t)10
Apply Algorithm 2.16 to L1 . It is easy to see that if q ≤ 4 then b3 < 0, so that
q ≤ 4 does not work. On the other hand, we have that
11t2 − 46t3 + 120t4 − 210t5 + 252t6 − 210t7 + 120t8 − 45t9 + 10t10 − t11
= (11t2 + 9t3 )(1 − t)5 + (55t4 + 30t5 )(1 − t)4 + 77t6 (1 − t)3
+ (27t7 + 17t8 )(1 − t)2 + (9t9 + 2t10 )(1 − t) + t11 ,
which implies that q = 5 works. Therefore, hdepth(L1 ) = 10 − 5 = 5.
Apply Algorithm 2.16 to L2 . It is easy to see that if q ≤ 3 then b3 < 0, so that
q ≤ 3 does not work. On the other hand, we have that
12t2 − 48t3 + 121t4 − 210t5 + 252t6 − 210t7 + 120t8 − 45t9 + 10t10 − t11
= (12t2 + 49t4 + 34t5 )(1 − t)4 + 82t6 (1 − t)3
+ (28t7 + 17t8 )(1 − t)2 + (9t9 + 2t10 )(1 − t) + t11 ,
which implies that q = 4 works. Therefore, hdepth(L2 ) = 10 − 4 = 6.
So we have found lex ideals L1 and L2 of degree 2 such that L1 ⊂ L2 but
hdepth(L1 ) < hdepth(L2 ).
Note that Lσ1 and Lσ2 are squarefree lex ideals in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , x11 ]. Both are
generated by some monomials of degree 2, and Lσ1 ⊂ Lσ2 . Since hdepth(Lσ1 ) =
hdepth(L1 ) + 1 = 6 and hdepth(Lσ2 ) = hdepth(L2 ) + 1 = 7, it follows that
hdepth(Lσ1 ) < hdepth(Lσ2 ).
Conjecture 4.3 in [Sh2] says that if I is a strongly stable monomial ideal in
S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated by monomials of the same degree and I σ is a squarefree
strongly stable monomial ideal in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , xm ], then we have that
sdepth(I) = hdepth(I),
sdepth(I σ ) = hdepth(I σ ),
sdepth(I) = sdepth(I σ ) − (m − n).

21

In the following two counterexamples, we will see that the first two identities do
not hold.
Counterexample 3.3. Let L2 = (x21 , x1 x2 , . . . , x1 x10 , x22 , x2 x3 ) be the lex ideal in
S = K[x1 , . . . , x10 ]. From Counterexample 3.2,We already know that hdepth(L2 ) =
6.
To compute sdepth(L2 ), we use the method of [HVZ] and let g = (2, 2, 1, . . . , 1).
Instead of thinking of PLg2 as a subset of N10 , we will equivalently view PLg2 as the
set of all monomials which divides x21 x22 x3 · · · x10 and can be divided by one of the
generators of L2 .
All the degree 2 monomials in PLg2 are
x21 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x1 x5 , x1 x6 , x1 x7 , x1 x8 , x1 x9 , x1 x10 , x22 , x2 x3 .
All the degree 3 monomials in PLg2 are
x21 x2
x21 x10
x1 x2 x9
x1 x3 x10
x1 x5 x7
x1 x7 x8
x22 x3
x2 x3 x4

x21 x3
x1 x22
x1 x2 x10
x1 x4 x5
x1 x5 x8
x1 x7 x9
x22 x4
x2 x3 x5

x21 x4
x1 x2 x3
x1 x3 x4
x1 x4 x6
x1 x5 x9
x1 x7 x10
x22 x5
x2 x3 x6

x21 x5
x1 x2 x4
x1 x3 x5
x1 x4 x7
x1 x5 x10
x1 x8 x9
x22 x6
x2 x3 x7

x21 x6
x1 x2 x5
x1 x3 x6
x1 x4 x8
x1 x6 x7
x1 x8 x10
x22 x7
x2 x3 x8

x21 x7
x1 x2 x6
x1 x3 x7
x1 x4 x9
x1 x6 x8
x1 x9 x10
x22 x8
x2 x3 x9

x21 x8
x1 x2 x7
x1 x3 x8
x1 x4 x10
x1 x6 x9

x21 x9
x1 x2 x8
x1 x3 x9
x1 x5 x6
x1 x6 x10

x22 x9
x2 x3 x10

x22 x10
.

There are 12 degree-2 monomials and 61 degree-3 monomials in PLg2 .
Assume that sdepth(L2 ) = 6. Then there exists a partition P of PLg2 such that
the Stanley decomposition induced by P has Stanley depth 6. Suppose that in
the partition P we have intervals [x21 , x21 m1 ], [x1 x2 , x1 x2 m2 ], [x1 x3 , x1 x3 m3 ], . . .,
[x1 x10 , x1 x10 m10 ]. Next we will show that each of these 10 intervals has at least 5
degree-3 monomials.
(1) [x21 , x21 m1 ]: since sdepth(L2 ) = 6, there exist 2 ≤ i1 < · · · < i5 and m′1 such
that m1 = xi1 · · · xi5 m′1 . Thus, x21 xi1 , . . . , x21 xi5 are 5 degree-3 monomials
in this interval.
(2) [x1 x2 , x1 x2 m2 ]: if x1 , x2 both can not divide m2 , then there exist 3 ≤ i1 <
· · · < i6 and m′2 such that m2 = xi1 · · · xi6 m′2 , so that x1 x2 xi1 , . . . , x1 x2 xi6
are 6 degree-3 monomials in this interval; if x1 divides m2 and x2 can
not divide m2 , then there exist 3 ≤ i1 < · · · < i5 and m′2 such that
m2 = x1 xi1 · · · xi5 m′2 , so that x21 x2 , x1 x2 xi1 , . . . , x1 x2 xi5 are 6 degree-3
monomials in this interval; if x1 can not divide m2 and x2 divides m2 , then
there exist 3 ≤ i1 < · · · < i5 and m′2 such that m2 = x2 xi1 · · · xi5 m′2 , so
that x1 x22 , x1 x2 xi1 , . . . , x1 x2 xi5 are 6 degree-3 monomials in this interval;
if x1 , x2 both divides m2 , then there exist 3 ≤ i1 < · · · < i4 and m′2 such
that m2 = x1 x2 xi1 · · · xi4 m′2 , so that x21 x2 , x1 x22 , x1 x2 xi1 , . . . , x1 x2 xi4 are 6
degree-3 monomials in this interval;
(3) [x1 xj , x1 xj mj ] with 3 ≤ j ≤ 10: we will look at [x1 x3 , x1 x3 m3 ] and the
other cases are similar. If x1 , x22 both can not divide m3 , then there
exist 4 ≤ i1 < · · · < i5 and m′3 such that m3 = xi1 · · · xi5 m′3 , so that
x1 x3 xi1 , . . . , x1 x3 xi5 are 5 degree-3 monomials in this interval; if x1 divides
m3 and x22 can not divide m3 , then there exist 4 ≤ i1 < · · · < i4 and m′3 such
that m3 = x1 xi1 · · · xi4 m′3 , so that x21 x3 , x1 x3 xi1 , . . . , x1 x3 xi4 are 5 degree-3

22

monomials in this interval; if x1 can not divide m3 and x22 divides m3 , then
there exist 4 ≤ i1 < · · · < i4 and m′3 such that m3 = x22 xi1 · · · xi4 m′3 , so
that x1 x22 , x1 x3 xi1 , . . . , x1 x3 xi4 are 5 degree-3 monomials in this interval; if
x1 , x22 both divides m3 , then there exist 4 ≤ i1 < i2 < i3 and m′3 such that
m3 = x1 x22 xi1 xi2 xi3 m′3 , so that x21 x2 , x1 x22 , x1 x3 xi1 , x1 x3 xi2 , x1 x3 xi3 are 5
degree-3 monomials in this interval;
Therefore, all these 10 disjoint intervals will have at leat 50 degree-3 monomials in
total. However, the last 15 monomials of degree 3 in PLg2 are x22 x3 , . . . , x2 x3 x10 ,
which can not belong to these 10 intervals, so that there are only 46 degree-3
monomials left for these 10 intervals. 46 < 50, and we have a contradiction. So,
the assumption sdepth(L2 ) = 6 is not true, and then sdepth(L2 ) ≤ 5.
Let L3 = (x21 , x1 x2 , . . . , x1 x10 ) ⊂ S then L2 = L3 + (x22 , x2 x3 ). It is esay to see
that sdepth(L3 ) = sdepth(x1 , x2 , . . . , x10 ) = ⌈ 10
2 ⌉ = 5. Hence, L3 has a Stanley
decomposition D1 such that sdepth(D1 ) = 5. Let
M
M
D2 = D1
x22 K[x2 , x3 , . . . , x10 ]
x2 x3 K[x3 , x4 , . . . , x10 ].
We can check that D2 is a Stanley decomposition of L2 , so that sdepth(L2 ) ≥
sdepth(D2 ) = 5. Therefore, sdepth(L2 ) = 5 < hdepth(L2 ) = 6.

Counterexample 3.4. Consider Lσ2 = (x1 x2 , x1 x3 , . . . , x1 x11 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 ). It is a
squarefree lex ideal in S ′ = K[x1 , . . . , x11 ]. From Counterexample 3.2,We already
know that hdepth(Lσ2 ) = 7.
To compute sdepth(Lσ2 ), we use the method of [HVZ] and let g ′ = (1, 1, . . . , 1).
′
′
Instead of thinking of PLgσ as a subset of N11 , we will equivalently view PLgσ as the
2
2
set of all monomials which divides x1 x2 · · · x11 and can be divided by one of the
generators of Lσ2 .
′
All the degree 2 monomials in PLgσ are
2

x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x1 x5 , x1 x6 , x1 x7 , x1 x8 , x1 x9 , x1 x10 , x1 x11 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 .
′

All the degree 3 monomials in PLgσ are
2

x1 x2 x3
x1 x2 x11
x1 x3 x11
x1 x5 x6
x1 x6 x9
x1 x8 x10
x2 x3 x4
x2 x4 x5

x1 x2 x4
x1 x3 x4
x1 x4 x5
x1 x5 x7
x1 x6 x10
x1 x8 x11
x2 x3 x5
x2 x4 x6

x1 x2 x5
x1 x3 x5
x1 x4 x6
x1 x5 x8
x1 x6 x11
x1 x9 x10
x2 x3 x6
x2 x4 x7

x1 x2 x6
x1 x3 x6
x1 x4 x7
x1 x5 x9
x1 x7 x8
x1 x9 x11
x2 x3 x7
x2 x4 x8

x1 x2 x7
x1 x3 x7
x1 x4 x8
x1 x5 x10
x1 x7 x9
x1 x10 x11
x2 x3 x8
x2 x4 x9

x1 x2 x8
x1 x3 x8
x1 x4 x9
x1 x5 x11
x1 x7 x10

x1 x2 x9
x1 x3 x9
x1 x4 x10
x1 x6 x7
x1 x7 x11

x1 x2 x10
x1 x3 x10
x1 x4 x11
x1 x6 x8
x1 x8 x9

x2 x3 x9
x2 x4 x10

x2 x3 x10
x2 x4 x11

x2 x3 x11
.

′

There are 12 degree-2 monomials and 60 degree-3 monomials in PLgσ .
2

′

Assume that sdepth(Lσ2 ) = 7. Then there exists a partition P of PLgσ such that
2
the Stanley decomposition induced by P has Stanley depth 7. Suppose that in the
partition P we have intervals [x1 x2 , x1 x2 m2 ], [x1 x3 , x1 x3 m3 ], . . ., [x1 x11 , x1 x11 m11 ].
It is easy to see that each of these 10 intervals has at least 5 degree-3 monomials. Indeed, for the interval [x1 x2 , x1 x2 m2 ], since sdepth(Lσ2 ) = 7, it follows that
there exist 3 ≤ i1 < . . . < i5 and m′2 such that m2 = xi1 · · · xi5 m′2 , so that
x1 x2 xi1 , . . . , x1 x2 xi5 are 5 degree-3 monomials in this interval; for the other 9 intervals, the argument is similar.

23

Therefore, all these 10 disjoint intervals will have at leat 50 degree-3 monomials in
′
total. However, the last 15 monomials of degree 3 in PLgσ are x2 x3 x4 , . . . , x2 x4 x11 ,
2
which can not belong to these 10 intervals, so that there are only 45 degree-3
monomials left for these 10 intervals. 45 < 50, and we have a contradiction. So,
the assumption sdepth(Lσ2 ) = 7 is not true, and then sdepth(Lσ2 ) ≤ 6.
Let L4 = (x1 x2 , x1 x3 , . . . , x1 x11 ) ∈ S ′ then Lσ2 = L4 + (x2 x3 , x2 x4 ). It is esay to
see that sdepth(L4 ) = sdepth(x2 , x3 , . . . , x11 ) = 11 − ⌊ 10
2 ⌋ = 6, where the second
identity is by the result of [Sh1]. Hence, L4 has a Stanley decomposition D3 such
that sdepth(D3 ) = 6. Let
M
M
D4 = D3
x2 x3 K[x2 , x3 , x4 , . . . , x11 ]
x2 x4 K[x2 , x4 , x5 . . . , x11 ].
We can check that D4 is a Stanley decomposition of Lσ2 , so that sdepth(Lσ2 ) ≥
sdepth(D4 ) = 6. Therefore, sdepth(Lσ2 ) = 6 < hdepth(Lσ2 ) = 7.

Remark 3.5. From the above two counterexamples, we see that sdepth(L2 ) and
sdepth(Lσ2 ) satisfies the identity sdepth(I) = sdepth(I σ ) − (m − n), where I is a
strongly stable monomial ideal generated by monomials of the same degree. As
mentioned in [Sh2], this identity was first suggested by Herzog. If we can prove
this identity for lex ideals generated by monomials of the same degree, then we can
reduce the study of sdepth(md ) to the study of sdepth(In+d−1,d ), which would be
a big progress in the study of Stanley depth.
From Counterexample 3.4, the author feels that sdepth(In,d ) = d + ⌊ n−d
d+1 ⌋ probably does not hold for all n ≥ 5d + 4. The simplest case is I14,2 . We know
hdepth(I14,2 ) = 2 + ⌊ 12
3 ⌋ = 6, and we can use Algorithm 2.4 to find a Hilbert
decomposition of I14,2 whose Hilbert depth is 6. It would be interesting to figure
out if there exists a Stanley decomposition of I14,2 whose Stanley depth is 6.
References
[AHH]

A. Aramova, J. Herzog, T. Hibi: Shifting operations and graded Betti numbers, J.
Algebraic Combin. 12 (2000), 207–222.
[BHK] C. Biró, D.M. Howard, M.T. Keller, W.T. Trotter, S.J. Young: Interval partitions and
Stanley depth, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 117 (2010), 475–482.
[BKU1] W. Bruns, C. Krattenthaler, J. Uliczka: Stanley decompositions and Hilbert depth in
the Koszul complex, J. Commut. Algebra 2 (2010), 327–357.
[BKU2] W. Bruns, C. Krattenthaler, J. Uliczka: Hilbert depth of powers of the maximal ideal,
Commutative algebra and its connections to geometry, (2011), pp. 1–12.
[BMU] W. Bruns, J. J. Moyano-Fernández, J. Uliczka: Hilbert regularity of Z-graded modules
over polynomial rings, Preprint, arXiv:1308.2917v1 (2013).
[Ci]
M. Cimpoeas: Stanley depth of complete intersection monomial ideals, Bull. Math. Soc.
Sci. Math. Roumanie (N.S.) 51(99) (2008), 205–211.
[EK]
S. Eliahou, M. Kervaire: Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals, J. Algebra 129,
(1990), 1–25.
[GLW] M. Ge, J. Lin, Y. Wang: Hilbert series and Hilbert depth of squarefree Veronese ideals,
J. Algebra 344 (2011), 260–267.
[HVZ] J. Herzog, M. Vladoiu, X. Zheng: How to compute the Stanley depth of a monomial
ideal, J. Algebra 322 (2009), 3151–3169.
[KSS]
M.T. Keller, Y.-H. Shen, N. Streib, S.J. Young: On the Stanley depth of squarefree
Veronese ideals, J. Algebraic Combin. 33 (2011), 313–324.
[Ma]
F. Macaulay: Some properties of enumeration in the theory of modular systems, Proc.
London Math. Soc. 26 (1927), 531–555.
[Po]
A. Popescu: An algorithm to compute the Hilbert depth, Preprint, arXiv:1307.6084v2
(2013).

24

[Sh1]
[Sh2]
[St]
[Ul]

Y.-H. Shen: Stanley depth of complete intersection monomial ideals and upper-discrete
partitions, J. Algebra 321 (2009), 1285–1292.
Y.-H. Shen: Lexsegment ideals of Hilbert depth 1, Preprint, arXiv:1208.1822 (2012).
R.P. Stanley: Linear Diophantine equations and local cohomology, Invent. Math. 68
(1982), 175–193.
J. Uliczka: Remarks on Hilbert series of graded modules over polynomial rings,
Manuscripta Math. 132 (2010), 159–168.

Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210094, P.R.China
E-mail address: rc429@cornell.edu

