arXiv:1702.03292v4 [] 19 Oct 2017

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES
ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI
Abstract. In this paper we recall the object sectional matrix
which encodes the Hilbert functions of successive hyperplane sections of a homogeneous ideal. We translate and/or reprove recent
results in this language. Moreover, some new results are shown
about their maximal growth, in particular a new generalization
of Gotzmann’s Persistence Theorem, the presence of a GCD for a
truncation of the ideal, and applications to saturated ideals.

1. Introduction
Let K be a field of characteristic 0 and let P be the polynomial
ring K[x1 , . . . , xn ] with n indeterminates and the standard grading.
Given a finitely generated Z-graded P -module M = ⊕d∈N Md , the Md ’s
are finite-dimensional K-vector spaces. The Hilbert function of M,
HM : Z → N with HM (d) := dimK (Md ), is a very frequent and
powerful tool of investigation in Commutative Algebra.
From Macaulay [12], it is well known that the computation of the
Hilbert function of M may be reduced to the computation of the Hilbert
function of some K-algebras of type P/J, where J is a monomial ideal.
In particular, if I is a homogeneous ideal in P , then HP/I = HP/LT(I) .
Another very common practice consists of studying generic hyperplane sections which, in algebraic terms, means reducing modulo by a
generic linear form. The combination of Hilbert functions and hyperplane sections lead to the result by Green [10] (1988).
The sectional matrix of a homogenous ideal I was introduced by Bigatti and Robbiano in [6] (1997) unifying the concepts of the Hilbert
function of a homogeneous ideal I (along the rows) and of its hyperplane sections (along the columns). Sectional matrices did not receive
much attention, and in this paper we want to revive them. We extend
some results in this language, confirming the merit of this tool and
Date: October 20, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D40, 05E40, Secondary
13P99 .
Key words and phrases. Sectional Matrix, Hilbert Function, Hyperplane Section,
Generic Initial Ideal, Reduction Number, Extremal Behaviour.
1

2

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

suggesting that further investigation might cast a new light on many
aspects of Commutative Algebra.
In Section 2 we set our notation and recall the definition of sectional
matrix. In Sections 3 we recall its main properties converting the results
from [6] into terms of the quotient P/I (instead of the ideal I). In
particular, Theorem 3.11 shows Macaulay’s and Green’s inequalities. In
Section 4, we recall Gotzmann’s Persistence Theorem and the sectional
matrix analogue from [6]. Moreover, we generalize it into a sectional
version (Theorem 4.6).
In Section 5, we describe how to deduce information on the dimension and the degree of a homogeneous ideal in terms of the entries of its
sectional matrix. In Section 6, we show how the extremal behaviour implies the presence of a GCD for the truncation of homogeneous ideals.
In Section 7, we apply these results to the class of saturated ideals.
Finally, in Section 8, we present several examples comparing the information given by the sectional matrix, the generic initial ideal, and the
resolution of a homogeneous ideals.
The examples in this paper have been computed with CoCoA ([1],
[2], SectionalMatrix, PrintSectionalMatrix).
2. Definitions and notation
Let K be a field of characteristic 0 and P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be the
polynomial ring with n indeterminates with the standard grading. Let
I ⊆ P be a homogeneous ideal in P and A = P/I. Then A is a graded
P -module ⊕d∈N Ad , where Ad = Pd /Id .
The definition of the Hilbert function was extended in [6] to the
bivariate function encoding the Hilbert functions of successive generic
hyperplane sections: the sectional matrix of a homogeneous ideal
I in P . In this paper, we define, in the obvious way, the sectional
matrix for the quotient algebra P/I, and then we show how to adapt
the results given in [6] to the use of P/I.
Definition 2.1. Given a homogeneous ideal I in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ],
we define the sectional matrix of I and of P/I to be the functions
{1, . . . , n} × N −→ N
MI (i, d) = dimK ((I + (L1 , . . . , Ln−i ))/(L1 , . . . , Ln−i ))d ,
MP/I (i, d) = dimK (Pd /(I + (L1 , . . . , Ln−i ))d ),
where L1 , . . . , Ln−i are generic linear forms. Notice that MP/I (n, d) =

HP/I (d) and MP/I (i, d) = d+i−1
− MI (i, d).
i−1

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

3

Remark 2.2. A generic linear form is a polynomial L = a1 x1 + · · · +
an xn in K(a1 , . . . , an )[x1 , ..., xn ]. In this paper we restrict our attention
to a field K of characteristic 0, so the equalities of the Definition 2.1
hold for any L′ = α1 x1 + · · · + αn xn with (α1 , . . . , αn ) in a non-empty
Zariski-open set in PnK . Therefore in this case it is common practice
to talk about “generic linear forms in K[x1 , . . . , xn ]” instead of dealing
with the explicit extension of K.
This small example will be used as a running example throughout
the paper.
Example 2.3. Let P = Q[x, y, z] and I = (x4 − y 2 z 2 , xy 2 − yz 2 − z 3 )
an ideal of P . Then the sectional matrix of P/I is
...
HP/(I+hL1 ,L2 i) (d) = MP/I (1, d) : 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . .
HP/(I+hL1 i) (d) = MP/I (2, d) : 1 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 . . .
HP/I (d) = MP/I (3, d) : 1 3 6 9 11 12 12 12 . . .
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

where the continuations of the lines are obvious in this example. The
general theory about truncation and continuation of the lines will be
described in Theorem 4.1 and Remark 4.3.

3. Background results on sectional matrices
In this section we recall the main properties of sectional matrices
from [6] translating them in terms of the quotient P/I. In particular,
we describe the persistence theorem and the connection with rgin.
Let σ be a term-ordering on P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. The leading term
ideal or initial ideal of an ideal I ⊆ P is the ideal, denoted LTσ (I),
generated by {LTσ (f ) | f ∈ I\{0} }. For any homogenous ideal I it is
well known that HP/I = HP/LTσ (I) . This nice property does not extend
to MP/I , but only one inequality holds, as Conca proved in [7]: we
write his result in sectional matrix notation.
Theorem 3.1 (Conca, 2003). Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P =
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and σ a term-ordering. Then, for all i = 1, . . . , n and
d ∈ N, MP/I (i, d) ≤ MP/LTσ (I) (i, d)
Example 3.2. Recall I from Example 2.3. For σ =DegRevLex compare MP/I with MP/LTσ (I) : the σ-Gröbner basis of I is {xy 2 −yz 2 −z 3 ,
x4 −y 2 z 2 , x3 yz 2 −y 4 z 2 +x3 z 3 , y 5 z 2 −y 4 z 3 +x3 z 4 −x2 yz 4 −x2 z 5 }, thus we

4

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

have LTσ (I) = (xy 2, x4 , x3 yz 2 , y 5z 2 ).
...
0 1 2 3
4
5
6
7
MP/LTσ (I) (1, d) : 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . .
MP/LTσ (I) (2, d) : 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 0 . . .
MP/LTσ (I) (3, d) : 1 3 6 9 11 12 12 12 . . .
Then we observe that MP/I (2, 6) = 0 < 1 = MP/LTσ (I) (2, 6). Notice
that the third lines are equal for all term-orderings because the Hilbert
functions are the same: HP/I = HP/LTσ (I) .
In this paper we compare some of our results with the ones from
[4]. In order to make the comparison clearer to the reader we need to
introduce the notion of s-reduction number and to describe how it is
stated in terms of the sectional matrix. The definition of s-reduction
number has several equivalent formulations and we recall here the one
given in [4].
Definition 3.3. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
The s-reduction number, rs (P/I), is max{d | HP/(I+(L1 ,...,Ls )) (d)6=0},
where L1 , . . . , Ls are generic linear forms in P . In our language
rs (P/I) = max{d | MP/I (n−s, d)6=0}.
The reduction number r(P/I) is rdim(P/I) (P/I).
Notice that, for their definitions, the reduction number and the sectional matrix, use “complementary” indices s and n − s.
Example 3.4. In Example 2.3 and Example 3.2 we see that I and
LTσ (I) have the same 2-reduction number, r2 (P/I) = r2 (P/LTσ (I)) =
2, and different 1-reduction number: r1 (P/I) = 5 and r1 (P/LTσ (I)) =
6. From the equalities dim(P/I) = dim(P/LTσ (I)) = 1 it follows that
r(P/I)=5 and r(P/LTσ (I))=6.
Remark 3.5. Using Theorem 3.1 Conca in [7] proved the inequality
for the reduction numbers: r(P/I) ≤ r(P/LTσ (I)).
Going back to the problem of finding a monomial ideal with the same
sectional matrix as P/I, we recall the definitions of strongly stable ideal
and of gin. A monomial ideal J is said to be strongly stable if for
every power-product t ∈ J and every i, j such that i < j and xj |t, the
power-product xi ·t/xj is in J.
In [8] Galligo proved that, given a homogeneous ideal I in the polynomial ring K[x1 , . . . , xn ], with K a field of characteristic 0 and σ a
term-ordering such that x1 >σ x2 >σ · · · >σ xn , then there exists a nonempty Zariski-open set U ⊆ GL(n) and a strongly stable ideal J such
that for each g ∈ U, LTσ (g(I)) = J. This ideal is called the generic

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

5

initial ideal of I with respect to σ and it is denoted by ginσ (I).
In particular, when σ =DegRevLex, it is denoted by rgin(I).
Example 3.6. Consider the ideal I = (x4 − y 2 z 2 , xy 2 − yz 2 − z 3 ) from
Example 2.3. Then rgin(I) = (x3 , x2 y 2 , xy 4, y 6 ). See [3] for details
about the computation of gin in CoCoA.
Remark 3.7. Let I be a homogeneous ideal. If I has a minimal generator of degree d (then so does g(I)), then also rgin(I) has a minimal generator of degree d. The converse is not true in general: consider for example the ideal I = (z 5 , xyz 3 ) in Q[x, y, z], then rgin(I) =
(x5 , x4 y, x3 y 3) has a minimal generator of degree 6, and I doesn’t. In
particular, this shows that the highest degree of a minimal generating
set of rgin(I) may be strictly greater than that of I.
The following result represents the sectional matrix analogue of Macaulay’s
Theorem for Hilbert functions (HP/I = HP/LT(I) ): it reduces the study
of the sectional matrix of a homogeneous ideal to the combinatorial
behaviour of a monomial ideal.
Lemma 3.8. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. Then
MP/I (i, d) = MP/rgin(I) (i, d) = dimK (Pd /(rgin(I) + (xi+1 , . . . , xn ))d ).
Proof. See Lemma 5.5 in [6]. ⊓
⊔
Remark 3.9. Lemma 3.8 shows that when we have a strongly stable
ideal J in P (and in particular rgin(I) is strongly stable) the sectional
matrix of P/J is particularly easy to compute because sectioning J
by n−i generic linear forms is the same as sectioning J by the smallest n−i indeterminates, xi+1 , . . . , xn .
Using this combinatorial view, Bigatti and Robbiano in [6] proved
a combination of Macaulay’s and Green’s inequalities ([12], [10]) and
then an analogue of Gotzmann’s Persistence Theorem ([9]) for sectional
matrices.
We recall the definition of binomial expansion following the notation
of [6]. If I is a homogeneous ideal then the (n − 1)-binomial expansion
of HI (d) corresponds to a “description” of a lex-segment ideal L in degree d, and similarly the d-binomial expansion of HP/I (d) corresponds
to P/L. See for example [11, Proposition 5.5.13].
Definition 3.10. For h and i, two positive
integers,
we define


 the
h(i)
h(i−1)
h(j)
i-binomial expansion of h as h = i + i−1 + · · · + j with
h(i) > h(i − 1) > · · · > h(j) ≥ j ≥ 1. Such expression exists and is
unique.

6

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

Moreover we define a family of functions related
to the expansion
in


h(i)+s
h(i−1)+s
h(j)+s
s
the following way: (hi )t := i+t + i−1+t + · · · + j+t .
1
−
For short, we will write (hi )+
instead
+ instead of (hi )1 , and (hi )
−1
of (hi )0 .
Here is Theorem 5.6 of [6] and again we convert the statement in
terms of the quotient P/I using the properties of the functions derived
from the binomial expansion.
Theorem 3.11 (Sectional matrices, 1997). Let I be a homogeneous
ideal in the polynomial ring P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and M := MP/I . Then
i
P
(a) M(i, d + 1) ≤
M(j, d) for all i = 1, . . . , n and d ∈ N.
j=1

(b) (Macaulay) M(i, d+1) ≤ (M(i, d)d )+
+ for all i = 1, . . . , n and d ∈ N.
(c) M(i − 1, d) − M(i − 2, d) ≤ ((M(i, d) − M(i − 1, d))d)− for all i =
3, . . . , n and d ∈ N.
(d) (Green) M(i − 1, d) ≤ (M(i, d)d )− for all i = 2, . . . , n and d ∈ N.
Proof. This is Theorem 5.6 of [6], using the conversions
(HI (d)n−1 )+ = (HP/I (d)d )+
+

and

−
(HI (d)n−1 )−
− = (HP/I (d)d )

(see for example [11] Proposition 5.5.16 and Proposition 5.5.18). ⊔
⊓
For the extremal case of Bigatti, Geramita and Migliore in [5], Macaulay’s
inequality defined the maximal growth of the Hilbert function. We
analogously define maximal growth of the sectional matrix following
the extremal case in Theorem 3.11.a.
Definition 3.12. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
• The Hilbert function HP/I has maximal growth in degree d
if “Macaulay’s equality” holds: HP/I (d + 1) = (HP/I (d)d )+
+.
• The sectional matrix MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree d if “Bigatti-Robbiano’s equality” holds: MP/I (i, d + 1) =
i
P
MP/I (j, d).
j=1

Remark 3.13. For a homogeneous ideal I in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] if
MP/I has n-maximal growth in degree d then I, and rgin(I), have no
minimal generators of degree d+1.
More precisely, for any i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, Corollary 2.7 of [6] implies that
MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree d if and only if rgin(I) has no
minimal generators of degree d+1 in x1 , . . . , xi . (This is a generalization
of Lemma 2.17 in [4].)

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

7

4. Sectional Persistence Theorem
Gotzmann’s Persistence Theorem [9] says that, if the generators of
an ideal I have degree ≤ δ and the Hilbert function of P/I has maximal
growth in degree δ, then it has maximal growth for all higher degrees.
This is also true for sectional matrices. Here we recall the Persistence
Theorem 5.8 of [6], and in Theorem 4.6 we will generalize it for imaximal growth, for i ≤ n.
Theorem 4.1 (Persistence Theorem, 1997).
Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. If MP/I has
n-maximal growth in degree δ and I has no generators of degree >δ
then it has i-maximal growth for all i = 1, . . . , n and for all degrees
>δ.
Moreover, MP/I has n-maximal growth for all degrees ≥ reg(I).
Example 4.2. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z, t] and the
ideal I = (x4 − x2 yz, x5 + xy 3 z) of P . Then
0

MP/I

1
= 1
1
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 1 1 0 0 0 0
2 3 4 4 3 2 1
3 6 10 14 17 19 20
4 10 20 34 51 70 90

8

0
1
21
111

...
...
...
...
...

Therefore MP/I has 4-maximal growth starting from degree 7, whereas
a direct computation shows that HP/I has maximal growth starting
from degree 49.
Remark 4.3. In particular, the regularity is used by CoCoA for truncating the size of the sectional matrix, displaying the rows up to degree
reg(I)+1, so that the last column shows the persisting equalities. In
Example 2.3, we have rgin(I) = (x3 , x2 y 2 , xy 4, y 6 ), thus reg(I) = 6,
and in degree 7 we read the persisting equalities.
Remark 4.4. We emphasize that the regularity of a homogeneous
ideal I, the highest degree of the generators of rgin(I), is usually a
much lower number than the highest degree of the generators of the
lex-segment ideal with the same Hilbert function of I, as shown in
Example 4.2. This fact makes the persistence in Theorem 4.1 more
“practical” than Gotzmann’s.
With the next lemma we show that if MP/I has i-maximal growth
in degree δ for some i < n, this persists in higher degrees, even if it
does not have n-maximal growth.

8

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

Lemma 4.5. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated in degree ≤ δ + 1. If there exists i ≤ n such that rgin(I) has no
minimal generators of degree δ + 1 in P(i) = K[x1 , . . . , xi ], then rgin(I)
has no minimal generators of any degree > δ in P(i) .
Proof. Let σ be DegRevLex and g a generic change of coordinates.
Suppose that the σ-Gröbner basis of g(I) has a polynomial f2 of degree
δ + 2. Then f2 comes from a minimal syzygy of rgin(I) = LTσ (g(I))
and hence this syzygy is linear (see Lemma 5.7 in [6]). This means
that there exists a minimal generator t1 of rgin(I) of degree δ + 1, and,
by the hypothesis, all minimal generators of rgin(I) must be in the
ideal (xi+1 , . . . , xn ). Let f1 be the Gröbner basis polynomial such that
t1 = LTσ (f1 ). Because we are using the reverse lexicographic termordering, this fact implies that f1 ∈ (xi+1 , . . . , xn ). As a consequence
any s-polynomial constructed with f1 is a difference of polynomials in
(xi+1 , . . . , xn ), so f2 ∈ (xi+1 , . . . , xn ). Thus any Gröbner basis element
of degree δ +2 is in (xi+1 , . . . , xn ), and therefore rgin(I) has no minimal
generators of degree δ + 2 in K[x1 , . . . , xi ]. Iterating this reasoning, we
can conclude that rgin(I) has no minimal generators of degree > δ in
K[x1 , . . . , xi ]. ⊓
⊔
Using Lemma 4.5, we can now extend Theorem 4.1.
Theorem 4.6 (Sectional Persistence Theorem).
Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated in degree ≤ δ+1. If there exists i ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that MP/I has i-maximal
growth in degree δ then it has j-maximal growth for all j ∈ {1, . . . , i}
and for all degrees ≥ δ.
P
Proof. From MP/I (i, δ + 1) = ij=1 MP/I (j, δ) we have that rgin(I)
has no generators of degree δ + 1 in K[x1 , . . . , xi ] (see Remark 3.13).
Then, applying Lemma 4.5, we know that rgin(I) has no generators
of degree > δ in K[x1 , . . . , xi ]. Hence we can apply Theorem 4.1
to J(i) = rgin(I) ∩ K[x1 , . . . , xi ] and for all d > δ and j = 1, . . . , i
Pj
we get MP/rgin(I) (i, d+1) = MP/J(i) (j, d+1) =
k=1 MP/J(i) (k, d) =
Pj
⊓
k=1 MP/rgin(I) (k, d). The conclusion now follows from Lemma 3.8. ⊔
The Sectional Persistence Theorem says that, whereas the persistence of the n-th row starts at the regularity of the ideal, the persistence in the first rows may be detected in degree lower than the highest
degree of the generators.

Example 4.7. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z, w] and the
ideal I = (x2 , xy, xz(z + w), x(z 2 + w 2 )) of P . Then rgin(I) =

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

9

(x2 , xy, xz 2 , xzw, xw 3 ). Notice that I is generated in degree ≤ 3, and
its regularity is 4, so from Theorem 4.1 it follows that MP/I has imaximal growth in degree 4 for i = 1, . . . , 4.

MP/I

0

1

2

1
= 1
1
1

1
2
3
4

0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
4 4 5 6
8 11 15 21

3

4

5

...
...
...
...
...

We see that MP/I has 2-maximal growth in degree 2 and 3-maximal
growth in degree 3:
MP/I (2, 3) = 1 = MP/I (1, 2) + MP/I (2, 2)
MP/I (3, 4) = 5 = MP/I (1, 3) + MP/I (2, 3) + MP/I (3, 3).
Hence from Theorem 4.6 it follows that MP/I has 2-maximal growth
for all degrees ≥ 2 and it has 3-maximal growth for all degrees ≥ 3.
5. Hilbert Polynomial, Hilbert Series, dimension,
multiplicity
In this section, we show how to read some algebraic invariants for a
homogeneous ideal I from its sectional matrix MP/I truncated at some
degree δ.
Lemma 5.1. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated in degree ≤ δ + 1. If MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ,
then for all d ∈ N>0 we have

P
MP/I (i, δ+d) = ij=1 i−j+d−1
· MP/I (j, δ)
i−j

Proof. We prove the statement by induction on d. From Theorem 4.6
it follows that MP/I has k-maximal growth in degree δ, for all k =
P
1, . . . , i, thus for d = 1 MP/I (k, δ+1) = kj=1 MP/I (j, δ).
Let d>1 and suppose the stated equality holds for MP/I (k, δ + d)
for all k = 1, . . . , i. Then by the i-maximal growth from Theorem 4.6,

i X
i
k 
X
X
k − j+d−1
MP/I (k, δ+d) =
MP/I (i, δ+d+1) =
·MP/I (j, δ)
k
−
j
j=1
k=1

k=1

then we swap the sums varying j in {1, . . . , i} and t = k − j with
k ∈ {j, . 
. . , i}:

Pi
Pi−j t+d−1
P
· MP/I (j, δ) = ij=1 i−j+d−1
· MP/I (j, δ)
j=1
t=0
t
i−j
and this concludes the proof. ⊓
⊔
Proposition 5.2. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
generated in degree ≤ δ + 1, and let L1 , . . . , Ln be generic linear forms

10

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

in P . If MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ, then the Hilbert
polynomial of P/(I + (L1 , . . . , Ln−i )) is

i 
X
i−j+x−δ−1
· MP/I (j, δ)
pi (x) =
i−j
j=1
In particular, if pi 6= 0 let k = min{j ∈ {1, . . . , i} | MP/I (j, δ) 6= 0},
then
pi (x) =

MP/I (k, δ) i−k
x + ... terms of lower degree .
(i − k)!

Proof. The first part of the corollary
trivial from Lemma 5.1: for
Pis
i
x > δ we have pi (x) = MP/I (i, x) = j=1 i−j+(x−δ)−1
· MP/I (j, δ).
 i−j
(x−δ+i−k−1)...(x−δ+1)(x−δ)
i−k+x−δ−1
We conclude by observing that
=
(i−k)!
i−k
1
i−k
and therefore equal to (i−k)! x + (terms of lower degree). ⊔
⊓
Proposition 5.3. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
generated in degree ≤ δ + 1, and let L1 , . . . , Ln be generic linear forms
in P . If MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ, then the Hilbert series
of Ri = P/(I + (L1 , .., Ln−i )) is
X

i
δ
X
MP/I (j, δ) δ+1
d
MP/I (i, d)t +
HSRi (t) =
t .
i−j+1
(1
−
t)
j=1
d=0
P
d
Proof. By definition HSRi (t) = ∞
d=0 MP/I (i, d)t . By Lemma 5.1, we
have that

i 
∞
∞ X

X
X
i − j+d − δ − 1
d
· MP/I (j, δ) td
MP/I (i, d)t =
i
−
j
j=1
d=δ+1
d=δ+1
swapping the sums and letting k = d − δ − 1 it becomes

Pi  P∞ i−j+k k 
Pi MP /I (j,δ) δ+1
δ+1
= j=1
.
=
t · MP/I (j, δ) · t
k=0
j=1 (1−t)i−j+1 t
i−j

Therefore,
we can conclude by adding the first part of the series,
Pδ
d
⊔
d=0 MP/I (i, d)t . ⊓

The following theorem shows that we can easily read the dimension
and the multiplicity of P/I from its sectional matrix. In particular,
this information may be found in the δ-th column with δ < reg(I) (see
Example 5.6).
Theorem 5.4. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] generated in degree ≤ δ+1 such that Iδ 6=Pδ and let i = min{j | MP/I (j, δ)6=0}.

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

11

If MP/I (i, δ) = MP/I (i, δ + 1), then
dim(P/I) = n−i+1 and

deg(P/I) = MP/I (i, δ).

Proof. The hypothesis implies that MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ, so, by Theorem 4.6, has j-maximal growth in degree d, for all
d > δ and j = 1, . . . , i; this means that i = minj {MP/I (j, d) 6= 0}
for all d > δ and MP/I (i, d) = MP/I (i, δ) for all d ≥ δ. Now, let
δ ′ ≥ δ such that MP/I has n-maximal growth in degree δ ′ , for example
δ ′ = max{δ, reg(I)}. Applying Proposition 5.3, and setting the highest
power, (1 − t)n−i+1 , as common denominator, it follows that
MP/I (i, δ ′ ) + f (t)(1 − t)
HSP/I (t) =
(1 − t)n−i+1
for some polynomial f (t) ∈ K[t] and the fraction above is reduced.
Therefore, the degree of its denominator, n−i+1, is dim(P/I), and the
evaluation of the numerator in 1, MP/I (i, δ), is deg(P/I). ⊔
⊓
Remark 5.5. The hypothesis of Theorem 5.4 is equivalent to the
existence of an integer i such that MP/I (i, δ) = MP/I (i, δ + 1) for
δ > rn−i+1 (P/I): this kind of formulation should look more familiar to
the readers of [5] and [4].
Example 5.6. Following Example 4.7 we consider i = 2, δ = 2 and
then MP/I (1, 2) = 0 and MP/I (2, 2) = MP/I (2, 3) = 1 6= 0. We
then conclude dim(P/I) = n−i+1 = 4 − 2 + 1 = 3 and deg(P/I) =
MP/I (i, δ) = MP/I (2, 2) = 1.
Note that we deduced this information from the sectional matrix in
degree 2, strictly smaller than reg(I) = 4 and also smaller than 3, the
maximal degree of the generators of I.
Remark 5.7. For any homogeneous ideal I in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ],
MP/I has i-maximal growth for all degrees ≥ reg(I) and for all i ∈
{1, . . . , n}. Therefore all the results in this section hold replacing their
hypotheses with “δ ≥ reg(I)”.
Example 5.8. In Example 2.3, with reg(I) = 6, we have i = 3 so
dim(P/I) = 3 − 3 + 1 = 1 and deg(P/I) = MP/I (3, 6) = 12,
6. Maximal Growth and Greatest Common Divisor
Now we make a subtle change: we consider the same scenario in
degree δ for an arbitrary homogeneous ideal I and see that the same
conclusion hold on the truncation hI≤δ i.

12

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

Proposition 6.1. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
If there exists δ such that Iδ 6=Pδ and MP/I (i, δ) = MP/I (i, δ+1), for
i = min{j>1 | MP/I (j, δ) 6= 0}, then we have
dim(P/hI≤δ i) = dim(P/hI≤δ+1 i) = n−i+1,
deg(P/hI≤δ i) = deg(P/hI≤δ+1 i) = MP/I (i, δ).
Proof. By construction MP/I (j, δ) = MP/hI≤δ i (j, δ) and MP/I (j, δ+1) =
MP/hI≤δ+1 i (j, δ+1) for all j = 1, . . . , n. From Remark 3.13 it follows
that rgin(I) has no minimal generators in degree δ+1 in x1 , . . . , xi , and
therefore nor does rgin(hI≤δ i) ⊆ rgin(I). It then follows that
MP/I (j, δ+1) = MP/hI≤δ i (j, δ+1)
for all j = 1, . . . , i. This implies that
MP/hI≤δ i (i, δ+1) = MP/hI≤δ i (i, δ) 6= 0,
MP/hI≤δ+1 i (i, δ+1) = MP/hI≤δ+1 i (i, δ) 6= 0,
and i = min{j | MP/hI≤δ i (j, δ) 6= 0} = min{j | MP/hI≤δ+1 i (j, δ) 6= 0}.
Now we can apply Theorem 5.4 and get the conclusions. ⊔
⊓
Corollary 6.2. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
If there exists δ such that Iδ 6=Pδ and MP/I has n-maximal growth in
degree δ, let i = min{j>1 | MP/I (j, δ)6=0}, then hI≤δ i = hI≤δ+1 i,
dim(P/hI≤δ i) = n−i+1, and deg(P/hI≤δ i) = MP/I (i, δ).
Proof. By hypothesis MP/I has n-maximal growth in degree δ, hence
by Remark 3.13 it follows that I has no minimal generators in degree δ+1, and therefore hI≤δ i = hI≤δ+1 i. Moreover, from Theorem 4.1
it has i-maximalP
growth in degree δ. Hence we have the equality
i
MP/I (i, δ+1) =
j=1 MP/I (j, δ) = MP/I (i, δ) 6= 0 and the conclusion follows from Proposition 6.1. ⊓
⊔
Example 6.3. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z, t] and the
ideal I = (x3 , x2 y, xy 2, xyz 2 , xyzt3 ) of P . Then
0

1

1
MP/I = 1
1
1

1
2
3
4

0

MP/I≤3

1
= 1
1
1

1

2

3

...
1 0 0 0 0 0 ...
3 1 1 1 1 1 ...
6 7 7 8 9 10 . . .
10 17 24 32 40 50 . . .
2

4

1 1 0 0
2 3 1 1
3 6 7 8
4 10 17 25

3

4

5

6

7

...
0 1
2
3
4
5
1 1 1 0 0 0
...
. . . MP/I≤4 = 1 2 3 1 1 1
1 3 6 7 7 8
...
1 4 10 17 24 32
...

...
...
...
...
...

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

13

We see that MP/I has i = 2-maximal growth in degree δ = 3. Then
by Proposition 6.1, we have that dim(P/hI≤3 i) = dim(P/hI≤4 i) = 3,
and deg(P/hI≤3i) = deg(P/hI≤4 i) = 1, regardless what happens in
MP/I (j, δ) for j > i = 2.
The following proposition is the generalization of Proposition 1.6 of
[5].
Proposition 6.4. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
If MP/I has n-maximal growth in degree δ, then reg(hI≤δ i) ≤ δ.
Proof. Let I = hI≤δ i. By construction MP/I (j, d) = MP/I (j, d) for
all j = 1, . . . , n and 0 ≤ d ≤ δ. By Remark 3.13, I has no minimal
generators in degree δ+1, and hence MP/I (j, δ+1) = MP/I (j, δ+1) for
all j = 1, . . . , n. This implies that MP/I has n-maximal growth in
degree δ, and then, by the Persistence Theorem 4.1, it has n-maximal
growth in all degrees > δ. By Lemma 3.8, MP/I = MP/rgin(I) and
hence by Lemma 4.5, rgin(I) has no minimal generators of degree > δ,
and then reg(I) ≤ δ. ⊓
⊔
In the rest of this section, we generalize some results of [5] and [4]
about the existence a common factor when there is a certain kind of
maximal growth.
Corollary 6.5. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
If there exists δ such that Iδ 6= {0} and MP/I (2, δ) = MP/I (2, δ+1)
(i.e. has 2-maximal growth in degree δ) then hI≤δ i has a GCD of degree
MP/I (2, δ). Furthermore, hI≤δ+1 i shares the same GCD.
Proof. From Iδ 6={0} it follows that xδ1 ∈ rgin(I), and then MP/I (1, δ) =
0. If MP/I (2, δ) = 0 then Iδ = Pδ has GCD = 1 of degree 0. Otherwise, by Proposition 6.1 dim(P/hI≤δ i) = dim(P/hI≤δ +1 i) = n−1 and
deg(P/hI≤δ i) = deg(P/hI≤δ+1 i) = k = MP/I (2, δ). This means that
hI≤δ i defines a hypersurface of degree k, i.e. hI≤δ i = (F ) ∩ J with
dim(J) < n−1 and deg(F ) = k. Therefore hI≤δ i ⊆ (F ) as claimed.
Similarly for hI≤δ+1 i. ⊓
⊔
Following the statement of Corollary 6.5, and along the line of ideas
in [5], we give a new definition for the potential GCD, based on the
sectional matrix instead of the Hilbert function.
Definition 6.6. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
such that Iδ 6= {0}. The M-potential degree of the GCD of Iδ is
k = MP/I (2, δ).
The following corollary is the generalization of Proposition 2.7 of [5]
and of Corollary 5.2 of [4].

14

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

Corollary 6.7. Let I be a homogeneous ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
and let δ be such that Iδ 6= {0}. Let k be the M-potential degree of the
GCD of Iδ . If MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ for some i ≥ 2,
then hI≤δ i and hI≤δ+1 i share the same GCD, F , of degree k.
Proof. By Theorem 4.6, if MP/I has i-maximal growth in degree δ,
then it has 2-maximal growth in degree δ. Therefore we conclude by
Corollary 6.5. ⊓
⊔
Let us see this result in action on an example.
Example 6.8. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z] and the
ideal I = (x3 + y 3 , x2 + 3xy + 2y 2 − xz − yz, x4 + x3 y, xy 4 − 16xyz 3 ,
y 5 − 3xy 3 z − 4y 4 z + 12xyz 3 − 25y 3z 2 + 100yz 4 ) of P . Then
...
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
=
1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ...
1 3 5 6 6 4 3 2 1 1 ...
0

MP/I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

We see that MP/I has 2-maximal growth in degree 3 and indeed both
I3 and I4 have a GCD of degree k = MP/I (2, 3) = MP/I (2, 4) = 1.
Indeed, a direct computation shows that the GCD is x + y.
7. Saturated ideals
A homogeneous ideal I in P =K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is saturated if the irrelevant maximal ideal m=(x1 , . . . , xn ) is not an associated prime ideal, i.e.
(I : m) = I. For any homogeneous ideal I of P , the saturation of I, denoted I sat , is defined by I sat := {f ∈ P | f mℓ ⊆ I for some integer ℓ}.
In this section we apply the results obtained previously to the case
of saturated ideals.
Remark 7.1. It is well known that for any homogeneous ideal J there
exists ℓ ∈ N such that J sat = J : mℓ and therefore Jd = (J sat )d for all
d ≫ 0.
Remark 7.2. (Bayer-Stillman) Let I be a homogeneous ideal of P .
Then rgin(I sat ) = rgin(I)xn →0 . This shows that if I is saturated, then
rgin(I) has no minimal generators involving xn .
Lemma 7.3. Let I be a saturated ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. Then
MP/I has n-maximal growth in degree δ if and only if it has (n−1)maximal growth in degree δ.
Proof. By Theorem 3.11.(a) n-maximal growth implies (n−1)-maximal
growth.

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

15

Suppose now MP/I has (n−1)-maximal growth. By Remark 3.9 this
implies that rgin(I) has no minimal generators in x1 , . . . , xn−1 in degree
δ+1. Moreover, since rgin(I) is saturated, from Remark 7.2 there are
no minimal generators divisible by xn . With no minimal generators in
degree δ+1 MP/rgin(I) , and therefore MP/I , has also n-maximal growth.
⊔
⊓
In general the truncation of a saturated ideal is not saturated, as
the following example shows. To guarantee that also the truncation is
saturated we need some additional hypothesis, see Lemma 7.5.
Example 7.4. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z, t] and the
ideal I = (yz − xt, z 3 − yt2 , xz 2 − y 2 t, y 3 − x2 z, x3 , x2 y 2). This ideal
is saturated, however, a direct computation shows that the truncation
I≤3 is not saturated.
The following lemma is the generalization of Lemma 1.4 of [5].
Lemma 7.5. Let I be a saturated ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. If MP/I
has (n−1)-maximal growth in degree δ then the ideal hI≤δ i is saturated.
Proof. From Lemma 7.3 it follows that MP/I has n-maximal growth
in degree δ.
sat
Let I = hI≤δ i and Ie = I . Notice that we have that I d ⊆ Ied for
all d ∈ N. We want to prove that our hypotheses imply I d = Ied for all
d ∈ N.
By Remark 7.1 we have that I d = Ied for all d ≫ 0.
Let f ∈ Ied be an element with d ≤ δ. Then f mℓ ⊆ I for some
integer ℓ. Since I ⊆ I, we have f mℓ ⊆ I, and, by hypothesis, I is
saturated, therefore f ∈ I. Now, I and I coincide in degree ≤ δ, hence
f ∈ I. This shows I d = Ied for all d ≤ δ.
By Lemma 4.5, I has no minimal generators in degree δ+1, and
hence Id = I d = Ied also for d = δ+1.
By contradiction, let d > δ+1 be the biggest integer such that I d (
e
Id . This means that in degree d+1
MP/I (n, d+1) = MP/Ie(n, d+1)

and in degree d
MP/I (n, d) > MP/Ie(n, d)
and MP/I (j, d) ≥ MP/Ie(j, d), for j = 1, . . . , n−1.

16

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

By definition I is generated in degree δ < d, hence, by Theorem 4.1,
we have that
n
X
MP/I (n, d+1) =
MP/I (j, d).
j=1

Now, using the equalities and inequalities above, we get
MP/Ie(n, d+1) = MP/I (n, d+1) =

n
X
j=1

MP/I (j, d) >

n
X

MP/Ie(j, d).

j=1

This is impossible by the inequalities in Theorem 3.11.(a). ⊔
⊓
Extending Corollary 6.2 to the case of saturated ideals, we can generalize Theorem 3.6 of [4] and Theorem 3.6 of [5].
Corollary 7.6. Let I be a saturated ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. If there
exists δ such that Iδ 6=Pδ and MP/I has (n−1)-maximal or n-maximal
growth in degree δ, let i = min{j>1 | MP/I (j, δ)6=0}, then hI≤δ i is
a saturated ideal of dimension n−i, of degree MP/I (i, δ) and it is δregular. Moreover, dim(P/I) ≤ n−i.
Proof. By Lemma 7.3, since I is saturated, having (n−1)-maximal or nmaximal growth is equivalent. By Lemma 7.5, hI≤δ i is a saturated ideal.
The conclusions then follows from Corollary 6.2 and Proposition 6.4.
⊔
⊓
Now we can generalize Corollary 5.2 of [4] and Corollary 2.9 of [5].
Corollary 7.7. Let I be a saturated ideal in P = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. If
MP/I has (n−1)-maximal growth in degree δ and potential degree of
the GCD = k ≥ 1. Then hI≤δ i = hI≤δ+1 i is saturated and it has a
GCD of degree k.
Proof. From Lemma 7.3 it follows that MP/I has n-maximal growth
in degree δ. Hence Corollary 6.7 and Lemma 7.5 apply. ⊔
⊓
Similarly to Corollary 7.6, we might be tempted to extend Proposition 6.1 to the case of saturated ideals, or, equivalently, Corollary 7.6
to the case of 2-maximal growth. The example below shows that this
is not possible.
Example 7.8. As in [4], under the assumption of Proposition 6.1,
if I is saturated we can not conclude that hI≤δ i is saturated. For
this example, we consider a first set of 98 points on the conic Q with
equation (z − 3t)(z + 3t) = 0 in P3 and a second set of 16 points

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

17

outside Q. In this way we obtain a saturated homogeneous ideal I in
P = Q[x, y, z, t] and MP/I is
0

1

1
1
1
1

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
2 3 4 5 2 2 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
3 6 10 15 17 13 13 11 9
7
5
3
1
0
4 10 20 35 52 65 78 89 98 105 110 113 114 114

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

...
...
...
...
...

From MP/I we can read that hI≤5 i has a GCD of degree 2 (Corollary 6.5), however MP/I does not have 3-maximal growth in degree 5
(so Corollary 7.7 does not apply), indeed a direct computation shows
that I≤5 is not saturated.
Example 7.9. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z, t, h] and
the strongly stable ideal
I = (x5 , x4 y, x3 y 2 , x2 y 3 , xy 4, x4 z, x3 yz, x2 y 2z, x4 t, xy 3 z 3 ).
The ideal I is saturated and

MP/I

0

1

1
1
=
1
1
1

1
2
3
4
5

...
1 1 1
0
0
0
0 ...
3 4 5
1
1
1
1 ...
6 10 15 13 14 14 15 . . .
10 20 35 47 61 75 90 . . .
15 35 70 117 178 253 343 . . .
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

We can now apply Corollary 7.7 and see that hI≤5 i and hI≤6 i are saturated and have GCD of degree 1 (we can check that the GCD is x).
For this example the result in [4, Corollary 5.2], for detecting a GCD,
do not apply.
8. Sectional matrices, GIN, and resolutions
In this section, we will present some examples in order to compare
the sectional matrix with other algebraic invariants, such as the Hilbert
function H, the generic initial ideal and the minimal resolution.
We start from two homogeneous ideals with same Hilbert function
but different rgin, sectional matrix and Betti numbers.
Example 8.1. Consider P = Q[x, y, z] and let
I = (x2 , xy, xz, y 3 , y 2z, yz 2 , z 3 )

and

J = (x2 , xy, y 2, xz 2 , yz 2 , z 3 )

be two ideals in P . Both ideals are strongly stable and hence, they
coincide with their own rgin. These two ideals clearly have distinct
rgin, but they have the same Hilbert function (the last row in the

18

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

sectional matrices). They have different sectional matrix and different
graded Betti numbers.
...
1 1 0 0 0 ...
=
1 2 1 0 0 ...
1 3 3 0 0 ...
0

MP/I

1

2

3

...
1 1 0 0 0 ...
=
1 2 0 0 0 ...
1 3 3 0 0 ...
0

4

MP/J

1

2

3

4

The resolutions of P/I and P/J are respectively
0 → P (−4)⊕P (−5)3 → P (−3)3 ⊕P (−4)7 → P (−2)3 ⊕P (−3)4 → P → P/I → 0.
0 → P (−5)3 → P (−3)2 ⊕P (−4)6 → P (−2)3 ⊕P (−3)3 → P → P/J → 0.
In the following example, we show two ideals with the same sectional
matrix and same Betti numbers, but different generic initial ideal.
Example 8.2. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z] and the
ideals
I = (x5 , x4 y, x3y 2 , x2 y 3 , xy 4 , x4 z, x3 yz, x2 y 2 z, x3 z 2 , x2 yz 2 )
J = (x5 , x4 y, x3 y 2, x2 y 3, xy 4 , x4 z, x3 yz, x2 y 2 z, x3 z 2 , xy 3 z).
Both the ideals are strongly stable and hence, they coincide with their
own rgin. These two ideals clearly have distinct rgin, but they have the
same Hilbert function, the same sectional matrix and the same Betti
numbers.
...
0 1 2
3
4
5
6
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ...
MP/I = MP/J =
1 2 3 4 5 1 1 ...
1 3 6 10 15 11 12 . . .
The resolution of P/I and P/J is
0 → P (−7)5 → P (−6)14 → P (−5)10 → P.
In the following example we show two ideals with the same sectional
matrix, but different generic initial ideal and different Betti numbers.
Example 8.3. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z] and the
ideals
I = (x5 , x4 y, x3 y 2 , x2 y 3 , xy 4, x4 z, x2 y 2 z, x3 z 2 , x2 yz 2 )
J = (x5 , x4 y, x3y 2 , x2 y 3 , xy 4 , x4 z, x2 y 2z, x3 z 2 , xy 3z).
We have that
rgin(I) = (x5 , x4 y, x3 y 2, x2 y 3, xy 4 , x4 z, x3 yz, x2 y 2 z, x3 z 2 , x2 yz 3 ),
rgin(J) = (x5 , x4 y, x3y 2 , x2 y 3, xy 4 , x4 z, x3 yz, x2 y 2 z, xy 3 z, x3 z 3 ).

EXTREMAL BEHAVIOUR IN SECTIONAL MATRICES

...
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 ...
=
1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 ...
1 3 6 10 15 12 12 13 . . .
0

MP/I = MP/J

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The resolution of P/I is
0 → P (−7)2 ⊕ P (−8) → P (−6)11 → P (−5)9 → P → P/I → 0.
The resolution of P/J is
0 → P (−7)3 ⊕P (−8) → P (−6)11 ⊕P (−7) → P (−5)9 → P → P/J → 0.
In the following example we show two ideals with the same rgin,
therefore the same sectional matrix and Hilbert function, but different
Betti numbers.
Example 8.4. Consider the polynomial ring P = Q[x, y, z], and the
ideals of P
I = (x4 , y 4, z 4 , xy 2 z 3 , x3 yz 2 , x2 y 3 z)

and

J = rgin(I).

These two ideals clearly have the same rgin, therefore the same sectional
matrix. However, J has more minimal generators than I, so they have
different resolutions.
0 1 2
3
4
5
6 7 8 ...
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ...
MP/I = MP/J =
1 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 ...
1 3 6 10 12 12 7 0 0 . . .
The resolution of P/I is
0 → P (−9)7 → P (−7)3 ⊕P (−8)9 → P (−4)3 ⊕P (−6)3 → P → P/I → 0.
The resolution of P/J is
0 → P (−8)5 ⊕ P (−9)7 → P (−5)2 ⊕ P (−6)2 ⊕ P (−7)10 ⊕ P (−8)14 →
→ P (−4)3 ⊕ P (−5)2 ⊕ P (−6)5 ⊕ P (−7)7 → P → P/J → 0.
In summary:
Example rgin Sec. Mat. Betti n.
8.1
6=
6=
6
=
8.2
6=
=
=
8.3
6=
=
6=
8.4
=
=
6=

20

ANNA BIGATTI, ELISA PALEZZATO, AND MICHELE TORIELLI

Acknowledgements. The authors thank Professor L. Robbiano for
the valuable discussions and for suggesting us Example 7.4.
During the preparation of this paper the third author was supported
by the MEXT grant for Tenure Tracking system.
References
[1] J. Abbott, A. M. Bigatti, and G. Lagorio. CoCoA-5:
a system for doing Computations in Commutative Algebra. Available at
http://cocoa.dima.unige.it, 2017.
[2] J. Abbott and A.M. Bigatti. CoCoALib:
a C++ library for
doing
Computations
in
Commutative
Algebra.
Available
at
http://cocoa.dima.unige.it/cocoalib, 2017.
[3] John Abbott and Anna Maria Bigatti. Gröbner bases for everyone with
CoCoA-5 and CoCoALib. arXiv:1611.07306, to appear in the Proc. of the
MSJ SI 2015, 2016.
[4] J. Ahn and J. C. Migliore. Some geometric results arising from the Borel fixed
property. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 209(2):337–360, 2007.
[5] A. M. Bigatti, A. V. Geramita, and J. C. Migliore. Geometric consequences
of extremal behavior in a theorem of Macaulay. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
346(1):203–235, 1994.
[6] A. M. Bigatti and L. Robbiano. Borel sets and sectional matrices. Ann. Comb.,
1(1):197–213, 1997.
[7] A. Conca. Reduction numbers and initial ideals. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
131(4):1015–1020, 2003.
[8] A. Galligo. A propos du théoreme de préparation de Weierstrass. In Fonctions
de plusieurs variables complexes, pages 543–579. Springer, 1974.
[9] G. Gotzmann. Eine Bedingung für die Flachheit und das Hilbertpolynom eines
graduierten Ringes. Math. Z., 158:61–70, 1978.
[10] M. Green. Restriction of linear series to hyperplanes, and some results of
Macaulay and Gotzmann, algebraic curves and projective geometry. In Proceedings, Trento, number 1389 in Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer,
1988.
[11] Martin Kreuzer and Lorenzo Robbiano. Computational commutative algebra
2. Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.
[12] F. S. Macaulay. Some properties of enumeration in the theory of modular
systems. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 26:531–555, 1927.
Department of Mathematics, Genoa University, Via Dodecaneso 35,
16146 Genoa, Italy.
E-mail address: bigatti@dima.unige.it
Department of Mathematics, Genoa University, Via Dodecaneso 35,
16146 Genoa, Italy.
E-mail address: palezzato@dima.unige.it
Department of Mathematics, Hokkaido University, Kita 10, Nishi 8,
Kita-Ku, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan.
E-mail address: torielli@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp

