arXiv:1307.0593v1 [] 2 Jul 2013

Saturations of powers of certain determinantal ideals
Kosuke Fukumuro, Taro Inagawa and Koji Nishida∗
Graduate School of Science, Chiba University,
1-33 Yayoi-Cho, Inage-Ku, Chiba-Shi, 263-8522, JAPAN

Abstract
Let R be a Noetherian local ring and m a positive integer. Let I be the ideal of
R generated by the maximal minors of an m × (m + 1) matrix M with entries in
R . Assuming that the grade of the ideal generated by the k-minors of M is at least
m − k + 2 for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m , we will study the associated primes of I n for ∀n > 0 .
Moreover, we compute the saturation of I n for 1 ≤ ∀n ≤ m in the case where R is
a Cohen-Macaulay ring and the entries of M are powers of elements that form an
sop for R .

1

Introduction

Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring and I an ideal of R such that dim R/I > 0 . Let n
be a positive integer. We set
[
(I n )sat =
(I n :R mi )
i>0

and call it the saturation of I n . As (I n )sat /I n ∼
= H0m (R/I n ) , where H0m ( · ) denotes the 0-th
local cohomology functor, we have (I n )sat = I n if and only if depth R/I n > 0 . Moreover,
if J is an m-primary ideal such that depth R/(I n :R J) > 0 , we have (I n )sat = I n :R J .
On the other hand, the n-th symbolic power of I is defined by
\
I (n) =
(I n Rp ∩ R) .
p ∈ MinR R/I

In order to compare (I n )sat and I (n) , let us take a minimal primary decomposition of I n ;
\
In =
Q(p) ,
p ∈ AssR R/I n

where Q(p) denotes the p-primary component. It is obvious that
\
\
(I n )sat =
Q(p) and I (n) =
m 6= p ∈ AssR R/I n

∗

p ∈ MinR R/I

The last author is supported by KAKENHI (23540042)

1

Q(p) .

Hence we have (I n )sat ⊆ I (n) and the equality holds if and only if AssR R/I n is a subset
of { m } ∪ MinR R/I . Therefore (I n )sat = I (n) if dim R/I = 1 . However, if dim R/I ≥ 2 ,
usually it is not easy to decide whether (I n )sat = I (n) or not. Furthermore, describing a
system of generators for (I n )sat /I n precisely is often very hard. In this paper, assuming
that R is an (m + 1)-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay local ring and I is an ideal generated
by the maximal minors of the following m × (m + 1) matrix;


x1
x2 x3 · · · xm xm+1
 x2
x3 x4 · · · xm+1 x1 


,
M =
x
x
x
·
·
·
x
x
3
4
5
1
2


 ............................... 
xm xm+1 x1 · · · xm−2 xm−1
where x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 is an sop for R , we aim to prove
• (I n )sat ( I (n) if n > m ≥ 3 ,
• (I n )sat = I n if 1 ≤ n < m ,
• (I m )sat = I m :R (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 )R ,
• (I m )sat /I m ∼
= R/(x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 )R if m ≥ 2 .
Moreover, we describe a generator of (I m )sat /I m using the determinant of a certain matrix
induced from M . The proofs of the assertions stated above are given in Section 3 and 4
taking more general matrices as M .
Throughout this paper R is a commutative ring, and we often assume that R is a
Noetherian local ring with the maximal ideal m . For positive integers m, n and an ideal
a of R , we denote by Mat(m, n ; a) the set of m × n matrices with entries in a . For any
M ∈ Mat(m, n ; R) and any k ∈ Z we denote by Ik (M) the ideal generated by the k-minors
of M . In particular, Ik (M) is defined to be R (resp. (0)) for k ≤ 0 (resp. k > min{m, n}).
If M, N ∈ Mat(m, n ; R) and the (i, j) entries of M and N are congruent modulo a fixed
ideal a for ∀(i, j) , we write M ≡ N mod a .

2

Preliminaries

In this section, we assume that R is just a commutative ring. Let m, n be positive integers
with m ≤ n and M = ( xij ) ∈ Mat(m, n ; R) . Let us recall the following rather well-known
fact.
Lemma 2.1 Suppose Im (M) ⊆ p ∈ Spec R and put ℓ = max{ 0 ≤ k ∈ Z | Ik (M) 6⊆ p } .
Then ℓ < m and there exists N ∈ Mat(m − ℓ, n − ℓ ; pRp ) such that Ik (M)p = Ik−ℓ (N) for
any k ∈ Z .
Proof. We prove by induction on ℓ . The assertion is obvious if ℓ = 0 . So, let us consider
the case where ℓ > 0 . Then I1 (M) 6⊆ p , and so some entry of M is a unit in Rp . Hence,

2

applying elementary operations to M in Mat(m, n ; Rp ) , we get a matrix of the form


1 0 ··· 0

0


,
 ..
′

.
M
0

where M ′ ∈ Mat(m − 1, n − 1 ; Rp ) . It is easy to see that Ik (M)p = Ik−1 (M ′ ) for any
k ∈ Z . Hence ℓ − 1 = max{ 0 ≤ k ≤ m − 1 | Ik (M ′ ) 6⊆ pRp } . By the hypothesis of
induction, there exists
N ∈ Mat( (m − 1) − (ℓ − 1) , (n − 1) − (ℓ − 1) ; pRp ) = Mat(m − ℓ, n − ℓ ; pRp )
such that It (M ′ ) = It−(ℓ−1) (N) for any t ∈ Z . Then we have Ik (M)p = Ik−ℓ (N) for any
k ∈ Z.
In the rest of this section, we assume n = m + 1 . For 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 , Mj denotes
the m × m submatrix of M determined by removing the j-th column. We set aj =
(−1)j−1 · det Mj and I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , am+1 )R = Im (M) . Let us take an indeterminate t
over R and consider the Rees algebra of I ;
R(I) := R[a1 t, a2 t, . . . , am+1 t] ⊆ R[ t ] ,
which is a graded ring such that deg aj t = 1 for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 . On the other hand, let
S = R[T1 , T2 , . . . , Tm+1 ] be a polynomial ring over R with m + 1 variables. We regard S
as a graded ring by setting deg Tj = 1 for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 . Let π : S −→ R(I) be the
homomorphism of R-algebras such that π(Tj ) = aj t for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 . Then π is a
surjective graded homomorphism. Now we set
fi =

m+1
X

xij Tj ∈ S1

j=1

for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m . It is easy to see (f1 , f2 , . . . , fm )S ⊆ Ker π . For our purpose, the following
result due to Avramov [1] is very important (Another elementary proof is given in [3]).
Theorem 2.2 Suppose that R is a Noetherian ring. If grade Ik (M) ≥ m − k + 2 for
1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m , then Ker π = (f1 , f2 , . . . , fm )S and grade (f1 , f2 , . . . , fm )S = m .
As the last preliminary result, we describe a technique using determinants of matrices.
Suppose that y1 , y2 , . . . , ym+1 are elements of R such that

  
y1
0
 y2   0 

  
M . = . .
 ..   .. 
ym+1

0

We put y = y1 + y2 + · · · + ym+1 .

3

Lemma 2.3 If y, yk form a regular sequence for some k with 1 ≤ k ≤ m + 1 , then there
exists δ ∈ R such that yj · δ = aj for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 .
Proof. We put a = a1 + a2 + · · · + am+1 . Then the following assertion holds:
Claim y · aj = yj · a for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 .
In order to prove the claim above, let us consider the following (m + 1) × (m + 1) matrix:


1 1 ··· 1


.
N =


M

Expanding det N along the first row, we get det N = a . We fix j with 1 ≤ j ≤ m + 1 .
Multiplying the j-th column of N by yj , we get
j



 1
 x11
N′ = 
 .
 ..

xm1

···
···

`
yj
x1j yj
..
.

···
···

1
x1,m+1
..
.

···

xmj yj

···

xm,m+1





.



Then det N ′ = yj · det N = yj · a . Next, for 1 ≤ ∀ℓ ≤ m + 1 with ℓ 6= j , we add the ℓ-th
column of N ′ multiplied by yℓ to the j-th column, and get
j



 1
 x11
N ′′ = 
 .
 ..

xm1

···
···

`
y ···
0 ···
..
.

1
x1,m+1
..
.

···

0

xm,m+1

···

since our assumption means





,



xi1 y1 + · · · + xij yj + · · · + xi,m+1 ym+1 = 0
for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m . Then det N ′′ = det N ′ = yj · a . Finally, replacing the first j columns of
N ′′ , we get


y 1 ··· 1
0



N ′′′ =  .
.
 ..

M
j

0

Then y · aj = y · (−1)j−1 · det Mj = (−1)j−1 · det N ′′′ = det N ′′ = yj · a . Thus we get the
equalities of the claim.
Now we take k with 1 ≤ k ≤ m + 1 so that y, yk form a regular sequence. Because
y ·ak = yk ·a , there exists δ ∈ R such that a = yδ . Then y ·aj = yj ·yδ for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m+1 .
As y is an R-NZD, we get aj = yj · δ for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 , and the proof is complete.
4

Lemma 2.4 If R is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring and y1 , y2 , . . . , ym+1 is an ssop for R ,
then y, yk form a regular sequence for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 .
Proof. It is enough to show for k = 1 . Because (y1 , y2 , . . . , ym+1 )R = (y, y1, . . . , ym)R , it
follows that y, y1, . . . , ym is an ssop for R , too. Hence y, y1 is R-regular.
Lemma 2.5 Suppose that a is an ideal of R and xij ∈ a for ∀i, ∀j . We put Q =
(y1 , y2 , . . . , ym+1 )R . Then δ of 2.3 is an element of am :R Q .
Proof. We get this assertion since aj ∈ am for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 .

3

Associated primes of R/I n

Let R be a Noetherian ring and M = (xij ) ∈ Mat(m, m + 1 ; R) , where 1 ≤ m ∈
Z . Let I = Im (M) . Throughout this section, we assume that I is a proper ideal and
grade Ik (M) ≥ m − k + 2 for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m . Let us keep the notations of Section 2.
Let K• be the Koszul complex of f1 , f2 , . . . , fm , which is a complex of graded free
S-modules. We denote its boundary map by ∂• . Let e1 , e2 , . . . , em be an S-free basis of
K1 consisting of homogeneous elements of degree 1 such that ∂1 (ei ) = fi for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m .
Then, for 1 ≤ ∀r ≤ m ,
{ ei1 ∧ ei2 ∧ · · · ∧ eir | 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < · · · < ir ≤ m }
is an S-free basis of Kr consisting of homogeneous elements of degree r, and we have
∂r (ei1 ∧ ei2 ∧ · · · ∧ eir ) =

r
X
p=1

(−1)p−1 · fip · ei1 ∧ · · · ∧ ec
ip ∧ · · · ∧ eir .

Let 1 ≤ n ∈ Z . Taking the homogeneous part of degree n of K• , we get a complex
∂

∂

m
1
[K• ]n : 0 −→ [Km ]n −→
[Km−1 ]n −→ · · · −→ [K1 ]n −→
[K0 ]n −→ 0

of finitely generated free R-modules. It is obvious that [Kr ]n = 0 if n < r . On the other
hand, if n ≥ r , then


0 ≤ α1 , α2 , . . . , αm+1 ∈ Z ,


αm+1
T1α1 T2α2 · · · Tm+1
· ei1 ∧ ei2 ∧ · · · ∧ eir
α1 + α2 + · · · + αm+1 = n − r ,


1 ≤ i1 < i2 < · · · < ir ≤ m
is an R-free basis of [Kr ]n .

Proposition 3.1 If (R, m) is a local ring and M ∈ Mat(m, m + 1 ; m) , we have
(
n + 1 if n < m ,
proj. dimR R/I n =
m + 1 if n ≥ m .
5

Proof. By 2.2 and [2, 1.6.17], we see that
∂

∂

π

m
1
0 −→ Km −→
Km−1 −→ · · · −→ K1 −→
K0 −→ R(I) −→ 0

is a graded S-free resolution of R(I) . Hence, for 0 ≤ ∀n ∈ Z ,
∂

∂

π

m
1
0 −→ [Km ]n −→
[Km−1 ]n −→ · · · −→ [K1 ]n −→
[K0 ]n −→ I n tn −→ 0

is an R-free resolution of the R-module I n tn . Let us notice I n tn ∼
= I n as R-modules.
Suppose 1 ≤ r ≤ m and n ≥ r . Then, for any non-negative integers α1 , α2 , . . . , αm+1
with α1 + α2 + · · · + αm+1 = n − r and positive integers i1 , i2 , . . . , ir with 1 ≤ i1 < i2 <
· · · < ir ≤ m , we have
α

m+1
∂r (T1α1 T2α2 · · · Tm+1
· ei1 ∧ ei2 ∧ · · · ∧ eir )
m+1
r
X
X
αm+1
α1 α2
p−1
xip ,j Tj ) · ei1 ∧ · · · ∧ ec
= T1 T2 · · · Tm+1 ·
(−1)
·(
ip ∧ · · · ∧ eir

p=1

=

r m+1
X
X

j=1

1+αj

(−1)p−1 xip ,j · T1α1 · · · Tj

p=1 j=1

∈ m · [Kr−1 ]n .

α

m+1
· · · Tm+1
· ei1 ∧ · · · ∧ ec
ip ∧ · · · ∧ eir

Hence [K• ]n gives a minimal R-free resolution of I n . If n < m , we have [Kn ]n 6= 0 and
[Kr ]n = 0 for any r > n , and so proj. dimR I n = n . On the other hand, if n ≥ m , we
have [Km ]n 6= 0 and [Kr ]n = 0 for any r > m , and so proj. dimR I n = m . Thus we get
the required equality as proj. domR R/I n = proj. dimR I n + 1 .
By Auslander-Buchsbaum formula (cf. [2, 1.3.3]), we get the following.
Corollary 3.2 If (R, m) is local and M ∈ Mat(m, m + 1 ; m), we have
(
depth R − n − 1 if n < m ,
depth R/I n =
depth R − m − 1 if n ≥ m .
Here we remark that depth R ≥ grade I1 (M) ≥ m + 1 by our assumption of this section.
As a consequence of 3.2, we see that the next assertion holds.
Corollary 3.3 Suppose that (R, m) is a local ring and M ∈ Mat(m, m + 1 ; m) . Then we
have m ∈ AssR R/I n if and only if n ≥ m and depth R = m + 1 .
The next result is a generalization of 3.3 .
Theorem 3.4 Let I ⊆ p ∈ Spec R and 1 ≤ n ∈ Z . We put ℓ = max{ 0 ≤ k < m |
Ik (M) 6⊆ p } . Then the following conditions are equivalent.
(1) p ∈ AssR R/I n .
(2) n ≥ m − ℓ and depth Rp = m − ℓ + 1 .
6

When this is the case, grade Iℓ+1 (M) = m − ℓ + 1 .
Proof. By 2.1, there exists N ∈ Mat(m − ℓ, m − ℓ + 1 ; pRp ) such that Ik (N) = Ik+ℓ (M)p
for any k ∈ Z . Hence, for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m − ℓ , we have
grade Ik (N) = grade Ik+ℓ (M)p ≥ m − (k + ℓ) + 2 = (m − ℓ) − k + 2 .
Therefore, by 3.3, we see that pRp ∈ AssRp Rp /Im−ℓ (N)n if and only if n ≥ m − ℓ and
depth Rp = m − ℓ + 1 . Let us notice Im−ℓ (N) = Ip . Because p ∈ AssR R/I n if and
only if pRp ∈ AssRp Rp /Ip n , we see (1) ⇔ (2) . Furthermore, as Iℓ+1 (M) ⊆ p , we have
grade Iℓ+1 (M) ≤ depth Rp , and so we get grade Iℓ+1 (M) = m − ℓ + 1 if the condition (2)
is satisfied.
For 1 ≤ ∀n ∈ Z , let ΛnM be the set of integers i such that max{1, m − n + 1} ≤ i ≤ m
and grade Ii (M) = m − i + 2 . Then the following assertion holds.
Theorem 3.5 Let R be a Cohen-Macaulay ring. Then, for 1 ≤ ∀n ∈ Z , we have
[
AsshR R/Ii (M) .
AssR R/I n =
i∈Λn
M

Proof. Let us take any p ∈ AssR R/I n and put ℓ = max{0 ≤ k < m | Ik (M) 6⊆ p} .
Then Iℓ+1 (M) ⊆ p . Moreover, by 3.4 we have n ≥ m − ℓ , depth Rp = m − ℓ + 1 and
grade Iℓ+1 (M) = m − ℓ + 1 . Hence ℓ + 1 ∈ ΛnM . Let us notice that ht p = depth Rp and
ht Iℓ+1 (M) = grade Iℓ+1 (M) as R is Cohen-Macaulay. Therefore ht p = ht Iℓ+1 (M) , which
means p ∈ AsshR R/Iℓ+1 (M) .
Conversely, let us take any i ∈ ΛnM and q ∈ AsshR R/Ii (M) . Then ht q = ht Ii (M) =
grade Ii (M) = m−i+2 . As our assumption implies ht Ii−1 (M) ≥ m−i+3 , it follows that
i−1 = max{0 ≤ k < m | Ik (M) 6⊆ q} . Let us notice n ≥ m−(i−1) as m−n+1 ≤ i , which
is one of the conditions for i ∈ ΛnM . Moreover, we have depth Rq = ht q = m − (i − 1) + 1 .
Thus we get q ∈ AssR R/I n by 3.4, and the proof is complete.
Example 3.6 Let 1 ≤ m ∈ Z and let R be an (m + 1)-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay
local ring with the maximal ideal m . We take an sop x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 for R and a family
{αij }1≤i≤m,1≤j≤m+1 of positive integers. For 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m and 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 , we set
 αij
 xi+j−1
if i + j ≤ m + 2 ,
xij =
 x αij
i+j−m−2 if i + j > m + 2 .
Let us consider the following matrix;
 α11
α1,m+1 
α1m
xm+1
x1
x2α12 x3α13 · · · xm
α
α2m
 x2α21 x3α22 x4α23 · · · xm+1
x1 2,m+1 

 α
α
31
x4α32 x5α33 · · · x1α3m x2 3,m+1 
M = (xij ) = 
.
 x3
 ...................................... 
αm,m+1
αm2
αmm
αm1
xm−1
x1αm3 · · · xm−2
xm
xm+1

If αij = 1 for ∀i and ∀j , then M is the matrix stated in Introduction. We put I = Im (M) .
Then the following assertions hold.
7

(1) ht Ik (M) ≥ m − k + 2 for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m .

 n + 1 if n < m ,
(2) proj. dimR R/I n =
 m + 1 if n ≥ m .

 m − n if n < m ,
n
(3) depth R/I =
 0
if n ≥ m .

Furthermore, if αij = 1 for ∀i and ∀j , the following assertions hold.
(4) If m ≥ 2 , then ht I2 (M) = m and AsshR R/I2 (M) ⊆ AssR R/I n for any n ≥ m − 1 .
(5) If m is an odd integer with m ≥ 3 , then ht I3 (M) = m − 1 and AsshR R/I3 (M) ⊆
AssR R/I n for any n ≥ m − 2 .
(6) If m ≥ 3 , then (I n )sat ( I (n) for any n ≥ m − 1 .
Proof. (1) We aim to prove the following.
Claim Jk−1 + Ik (M) is m-primary for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , where Jk−1 = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xk−1 )R .
If this is true, we have dim R/Ik (M) ≤ k−1 , and so ht Ik (M) ≥ dim R−(k−1) = m−k+2 ,
which is the required inequality.
In order to prove Claim, we take any p ∈ Spec R containing Jk−1 + Ik (M) . It is
enough to show Jm+1 = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 )R ⊆ p . For that purpose, we prove Jℓ ⊆ p for
k − 1 ≤ ∀ℓ ≤ m + 1 by induction on ℓ . As we obviously have Jk−1 ⊆ p , let us assume
k ≤ ℓ ≤ m + 1 and Jℓ−1 ⊆ p . Because the k-minor of M with respect to the first k rows
and the columns ℓ − k + 1, . . . , ℓ − 1, ℓ is congruent with


α
xℓ 1,ℓ
α


xℓ 2,ℓ−1


det 

.
.


.

0

∗

α
xℓ k,ℓ−k+1

mod Jℓ−1 , it follows that Jℓ−1 + Ik (M) includes some power of xℓ . Hence xℓ ∈ p , and so
we get Jℓ ⊆ p .
(2) and (3) follow from 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
In the rest of this proof, we assume αij = 1 for any ∀i and ∀j .
(4) Let q = (x1 −x2 , x2 −x3 , . . . , xm −xm+1 )R . Then x1 ≡ xi mod q for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m+1 .
Hence, any 2-minor of M is congruent with


x1 x1
det
=0
x1 x1

mod q . This means I2 (M) ⊆ q , and so ht I2 (M) ≤ µR (q) = m . On the other hand,
ht I2 (M) ≥ m by (1). Thus we get ht I2 (M) = m . Then, for any n ≥ m − 1 , we have
2 ∈ ΛnM , and so AsshR R/I2 (M) ⊆ AssR R/I n by 3.5.
8

(5) Let p be the ideal of R generated by {xi − xi+2 } , where i runs all odd integers
with 2 ≤ i ≤ m − 2 . Similarly, we set q to be the ideal of R generated by {xj − xj+2 } ,
where j runs all even integers with 2 ≤ j ≤ m − 1 . Let M ′ be the submatrix of M with
the rows i1 , i2 , i3 and the columns j1 , j2 , j3 , where 1 ≤ i1 < i2 < i3 ≤ m and 1 ≤ j1 <
j2 < j3 ≤ m + 1 . We can choose p, q with 1 ≤ p < q ≤ 3 so that ip ≡ iq mod 2 . Then, for
1 ≤ ∀r ≤ 3 , we have ip + jr ≡ iq + jr mod 2 , and so, if ip + jr is odd (resp. even), it follows
that xip ,jr ≡ xiq ,jr mod p (resp. q). Hence, we see that the p-th row of M ′ is congruent with
the q-th row of M ′ mod p + q , which means det M ′ ≡ 0 mod p + q . As a consequence, we
get I3 (M) ⊆ p + q . Therefore ht I3 (M) ≤ µR (p) + µR (q) = (m−1)/2 + (m−1)/2 = m−1 .
(6) Let us take any p ∈ AsshR R/I2 (M) and n ≥ m − 1 . Then, by (4) we have
ht p = m ≥ 3 and p ∈ AssR R/I n . Hence AssR R/I n is not a subset of { m } ∪ MinR R/I .
Therefore, by the observation stated in Introduction, we get (I n )sat ( I (n) and the proof
is complete.

4

Computing (I m)sat

In this section, we assume that R is an (m + 1)-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay local ring
with the maximal ideal m and x1 , x2 , . . . , xm+1 is an sop for R , where 2 ≤ m ∈ Z . Let M
be the matrix stated in 3.6. We put I = Im (M) . Then, by (3) of 3.6, we have (I n )sat = I n
for 1 ≤ ∀n < m . The purpose of this section is to study (I m )sat .
For 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 , we set aj = (−1)j−1 · det Mj , where Mj is the submatrix of M
determined by removing the j-th column. Then I = (a1 , a2 , . . . , am+1 )R . Furthermore,
for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we denote by βk the minimum of the exponents of xk that appear in
the entries of M . Let us notice that M’s entries which are powers of xk appear as follows:


α
xk 1,k
α


xk 2,k−1




.
.


.
 α

 x k,1

 k


αk+1,m+1 


xk


αk+2,m


xk




.
.


.
α

xk m,k+2

if 1 ≤ k < m , and






..

α

xmm,1

.

α

α

xm2,m−1

xm1,m







or







α

α

..

.

1,m+1
xm+1

2,m
xm+1

α

m,2
xm+1

if k = m or m + 1 , respectively. So, we set

 min {αi,k−i+1}1≤i≤k ∪ {αi,k−i+m+2}k<i≤m if 1 ≤ k < m ,
βk =
 min {α
i,k−i+1 }1≤i≤m if k = m or m + 1 .
9







Then, for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we can choose ik with 1 ≤ ik ≤ m so that one of the following
conditions is satisfied:
(i) 1 ≤ ik ≤ k and βk = αik ,k−ik +1

or

(ii) k < ik ≤ m and βk = αik ,k−ik +m+2 .

Now, for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m and 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we set
 α
−β
 xk i,k−i+1 k
if i ≤ k ,
′
xik =
 αi,k−i+m+2 −βk
if i > k .
xk

Then x′ik ,k = 1 for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 . The next assertion can be verified easily.
Lemma 4.1 Suppose 1 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ m + 1 .
(1) If i + j ≤ m + 2 , setting k = i + j − 1 , we have 1 ≤ k ≤ m + 1 , i ≤ k and
xij = xβk k · x′ik .
(2) If i + j > m + 2 , setting k = i + j − m − 2 , we have 1 ≤ k < m , i > k and
xij = xβk k · x′ik .
β

m+1
Let Q be the ideal of R generated by xβ1 1 , xβ2 2 , . . . , xm+1
. Then M ∈ Mat(m, m+ 1 ; Q)
by 4.1. The first main result of this section is the following:

Theorem 4.2 (I m )sat = I m :R Q and (I m )sat /I m ∼
= R/Q .
Proof. Let S be the polynomial ring over R with variables T1 , T2 , . . . , Tm+1 . We regard
S as a graded ring by setting deg Tj = 1 for 1 ≤ ∀j ≤ m + 1 . Let
fi =

m+1
X

xij Tj ∈ S1

j=1

for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m and let K• be the Koszul complex of f1 , f2 , . . . , fm . Then K• is a graded
complex. Let ∂• be the boundary map of K• and let e1 , e2 , . . . , em be an S-free basis of
K1 consisting of homogeneous elements of degree 1 such that ∂1 (ei ) = fi for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m .
As is stated in the proof of 3.1,
∂

∂

ǫ

m
0 → [Km ]m →
[Km−1 ]m → · · · → [K1 ]m →1 [K0 ]m → R → 0
k
Sm

is an acyclic complex, where ǫ is the R-linear map such that
α

α

m+1
m+1
) = a1α1 aα2 2 · · · am+1
ǫ(T1α1 T2α2 · · · Tm+1

for any 0 ≤ α1 , α2 , . . . , αm+1 ∈ Z with α1 + α2 + · · · + αm+1 = m . We obviously have
Im ǫ = I m . We set e = e1 ∧ e2 ∧ · · · ∧ em and ěi = e1 ∧ · · · ∧ ebi ∧ · · · ∧ em for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m + 1 .
10

Let us take { e } and {Tj ěi | 1 ≤ i ≤ m , 1 ≤ j ≤ m + 1} as R-free basis of [Km ]m and
[Km−1 ]m , respectively. Because
(♯)

∂m (e) =

m
X

(−1)i−1 fi · ěi =

i=1

m m+1
X
X
(−1)i−1 xij · Tj ěi ,
i=1 j=1

we have ∂m ([Km ]m ) ⊆ Q · [Km−1 ]m . Hence, by [5, 3.1] we get
(I m :R Q)/I m ∼
= [Km ]m /Q[Km ]m ∼
= R/Q .
Here, for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m and 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we set

 Tk−i+1
if i ≤ k ,
Tik =
 T
k−i+m+2 if i > k .
Then the following assertion holds:

Claim 1 Suppose 1 ≤ k, ℓ ≤ m + 1 and k 6= ℓ , then Tik 6= Tiℓ .
In order to prove the claim above, we may assume k < ℓ . Then the following three cases
can happen: (i) i ≤ k < ℓ , (ii) k < i ≤ ℓ or (iii) k < ℓ < i . Because k−i+1 < ℓ−i+1
and k − i + m + 2 < ℓ − i + m + 2 , we get Tik 6= Tiℓ in the cases of (i) and (ii). Furthermore,
as m + 1 > ℓ − k , we get k − i + m + 2 > ℓ − i + 1 , and so Tik 6= Tiℓ holds also in the case
of (ii). Thus we have seen Claim 1.
Now, for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we set
v(k,e) =

m
X

(−1)i−1 x′ik · Tik ěi .

i=1

Then the following equality holds:
Claim 2 ∂m (e) =

m+1
X

xβk k · v(k,e) .

k=1

In fact, by (♯) and 4.1 we have
m m−i+2
X
X
∂m (e) =
(
(−1)i−1 xij · Tj ěi +
i=1

=
=

j=1

m m+1
X
X

(

(−1)i−1 xβk k x′ik

m+1
X

j=m−i+3

· Tk−i+1ěi +

i=1 k=1
m m+1
X
X

(−1)i−1 xij · Tj ěi )
i−1
X
k=1

(−1)i−1 xβk k x′ik · Tik ěi ,

i=1 k=1

and so the equality of Claim 2 follows.
11

(−1)i−1 xβk k x′ik · Tk−i+m+2 ěi )

Finally, we need the following:
Claim 3 {v(k,e) }1≤k≤m is a part of an R-free basis of [Km−1 ]m .
If this is true, by [5, 3.4] (See [4, 3.4] for the case where m = 2) we get depth R/(I m :R
Q) > 0 , which means (I m )sat = I m :R Q . So, let us prove Claim 3. By Claim 1, we see
that Ti1 ,1 ěi1 , Ti2 ,2 ěi2 , . . . , Tim ,m ěim are different to each other. We set
U = { Tj ěi | 1 ≤ i ≤ m , 1 ≤ j ≤ m + 1} \ {Tik ,k ěik | 1 ≤ k ≤ m}
and aim to prove that U ∪ {v(k,e) }1≤k≤m is an R-free basis of [Km−1 ]m . By [5, 3.3], it is
enough to show that the submodule of [Km−1 ]m generated by U ∪ {v(k,e) }1≤k≤m includes
Tik ,k ěik for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m . This can be easily seen since
X
(−1)i−1 x′ik · Tik ěi
v(k,e) = (−1)k−1 · Tik ,k ěik +
i6=ik

and Tik ěi ∈ U if i 6= ik , which follows from Claim 1. Thus the assertion of Claim 3 follows,
and the proof of 4.2 is complete.
If we assume a suitable condition on {αij } , we can describe a generator of (I m )sat /I m .
For 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m and 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we set
( ′
if i ≤ k ,
xik ak−i+1
aik =
x′ik ak−i+m+2 if i > k ,
and A = (aik ) ∈ Mat(m, m + 1 ; I) . Then the next equality holds:

Lemma 4.3





A


xβ1 1
xβ2 2
..
.
β

m+1
xm+1





 
 
=
 

0
0
..
.
0





.


Proof. For 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m , we have
m+1
X

xij aj = 0 .

j=1

Let us divide the left side of this equality as follows:
m−i+2
X
j=1

xij aj +

m+1
X

xij aj = 0 .

j=m−i+3

If 1 ≤ j ≤ m − i + 2 , setting k = i + j − 1 , we have i ≤ k ≤ m + 1 and
xij aj = xβk k x′ik · ak−i+1 = xβk k · aik .

12

On the other hand, if m − i + 3 ≤ j ≤ m + 1 , setting k = i + j − m − 2 , we have 1 ≤ k < i
and
xij aj = xβk k x′ik · ak−i+m+2 = xβk k · aik .
Thus we get
m+1
X

aik · xβk k = 0

k=1

for 1 ≤ ∀i ≤ m , which means the required equality.
For 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 , we denote by Ak the submatrix of A determined by removing
the k-th column. We set bk = det Ak .
Example 4.4 Suppose βk = αk,1 for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m (For example, this holds if αk,1 = 1 for
1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m). Then, there exists δ ∈ R such that xβk k · δ = bk for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 and
(I m )sat = I m + (δ) .
Proof. The existence of δ such that xβk k · δ = bk for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m + 1 follows from 2.3 and
4.3. Then δ ∈ I m :R Q ⊆ (I m )sat . We put Q′ = (x1β1 , xβ2 2 , . . . , xβmm )R . Then

α1,m+1 
xm+1
α2,m


xm+1


M1 ≡ 
 mod Q′ ,
.
.


.
αm,2
xm+1

0

0

and so a1 ≡ ±xαm+1 mod Q′ , where α := α1,m+1 + α2,m + · · · + αm,2 . Furthermore,
if 2 ≤ k ≤ m + 1 , we have ak ∈ Q′ since the entries of the first column of Mk are
xβ1 1 , x2β2 , . . . , xβmm . Hence Q′ + I = Q′ + (xαm+1 ) . On the other hand, the assumption of 4.4
implies that, for 1 ≤ ∀k ≤ m, we can take k itself as ik , and then x′kk = 1 . Hence


x′13 a3 · · · x′1m am x′1,m+1 am+1
a1
x′12 a2
 x′21 am+1
a1
x′23 a2 · · · x′2m am−1 x′2,m+1 am 

 ′
′
′
′
,
x
a
x
a
a
·
·
·
x
a
x
a
A=
m
m+1
1
m−2
m−1
31
32
3m
3,m+1


 ..................................................... 
x′m1 a3
x′m2 a4 x′m3 a5 · · ·
a1
x′m,m+1 a2

and so

Am+1





≡


±xαm+1

±xαm+1

0

..

0
.
±xαm+1

′
which means bm+1 ≡ ±xmα
m+1 mod Q . Thus we get





 mod Q′ ,


β

m+1
′
xm+1
· δ ≡ xmα
m+1 mod Q .

β

m+1
Here we notice βm+1 ≤ α1,m+1 < α . Because xβ1 1 , xβ2 2 , . . . , xm+1
is an R-regular sequence,
it follows that
mα−β
δ ≡ ±xm+1 m+1 mod Q′ ,

13

and so

mα−βm+1

Q′ + (δ) = Q′ + (xm+1

′
m
) ⊇ Q′ + (xmα
m+1 ) = Q + I .

Now we consider the R-linear map
mα−β

f : R −→

Q′ + (xm+1 m+1 )
Q′ + (δ)
=
Q′ + (xmα
Q′ + I m
m+1 )

mα−βm+1

such that f (1) is the class of xm+1

. Then we have the following:

Claim Ker f = Q .
If this is true, then R/Q ∼
= (Q′ + (δ))/(Q′ + I m ) , and so
ℓR ( R/Q ) = ℓR (

Q′ + (δ)
).
Q′ + I m

Because (Q′ + (δ))/(Q′ + I m ) is a homomorphic image of (I m + (δ))/I m and I m + (δ) ⊆
(I m )sat , we have
ℓR (

Q′ + (δ)
I m + (δ)
)
≤
ℓ
(
) ≤ ℓR ( (I m )sat /I m ) = ℓR ( R/Q ) ,
R
Q′ + I m
Im

where the last equality follows from 4.2 . Thus we see
ℓR (

I m + (δ)
) = ℓR ( (I m )sat /I m ) ,
Im

and so I m + (δ) = (I m )sat holds.
Proof of Claim. Let us take any r ∈ Ker f . Then, there exists s ∈ R such that
mα−βm+1

r · xm+1
This congruence implies

mα−βm+1

xm+1

′
≡ s · xmα
m+1 mod Q .

β

m+1
(r − s · xm+1
) ∈ Q′ .

mα−β

β

m+1
Because xβ1 1 , . . . , xβmm , xm+1 m+1 is an R-regular sequence, we have r −s·xm+1
∈ Q′ , which
means r ∈ Q . Hence Ker f ⊆ Q . As the converse inclusion is obvious, we get the equality
of the claim, and the proof of 4.4 is complete.

References
[1] L. Avramov, Complete intersections and symmetric algebras, J. Algebra, 73 (1981),
248–263.
[2] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math. 39,
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
14

[3] K. Fukumuro, On the symmetric and Rees algebras of certain determinantal ideals,
Preprint (2013), arXiv:1306.0993.
[4] K. Fukumuro, T. Inagawa and K. Nishida, On a transform of an acyclic complex of
length 3, J. Algebra, 384 (2013), 84–109.
[5] T. Inagawa, ∗-transforms of acyclic complexes, Preprint (2013).

15

