arXiv:1111.1294v5 [math.AC] 23 Jan 2013

When the associated graded ring of a
semigroup ring is Complete Intersection
M. D’Anna∗

V. Micale

A. Sammartano

Abstract
Let (R, m) be the semigroup ring associated to a numerical semigroup
S. In this paper we study the property of its associated graded ring
grm (R) to be Complete Intersection. In particular, we introduce and
characterize β-rectangular and γ-rectangular Apéry sets, which will be
the fundamental concepts of the paper and will provide, respectively,
a sufficient condition and a characterization for grm (R) to be Complete Intersection. Then we use these notions to give four equivalent
conditions for grm (R) in order to be Complete Intersection.
MSC: 13A30; 13H10.

Introduction
Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring with |R/m| = ∞ and let grm (R) =
⊕i≥0 mi /mi+1 be the associated graded ring of R with respect to m. The study
of the properties of grm (R) is a classical subject in local algebra, not only in
the general d-dimensional case, but also under particular hypotheses (that
allow to obtain more precise results). One main problem in this context is to
estimate the depth of grm (R) and to understand when this ring is a CohenMacaulay ring (see, e.g., [17], [18] and [21]). In connection to this problem,
it is natural to investigate if grm (R) is a Buchsbaum ring (see [11], [12]), a
Gorenstein ring or if it is Complete Intersection (see [13]).
In this paper we are interested in the properties of grm (R), when R is a numerical semigroup ring. The study of numerical semigroup rings is motivated
∗

email mdanna@dmi.unict.it

1

by their connection to singularities of monomial curves and by the possibility
of translating algebraic properties into numerical properties. However, even
in this particular case, many pathologies occur, hence these rings are also a
great source of interesting examples.
In the numerical semigroup case, the Cohen-Macaulayness of grm (R) has
been extensively studied (see, e.g., [10], [15] and [20]); recently, different
authors studied the Buchsbaumness and the Gorensteinness of grm (R) (see
[3], [5], [6] and [19]).
In this paper we investigate when grm (R) is Complete Intersection. About
this problem not much is known (see [1]). When the embedding dimension
of R is small, it is possible to list the generators of the defining ideals of
R and of grm (R) (as it is done in [14] and [20] when the embedding dimension is 2 or 3), but, as soon as the number of generators of m increases, the
computations become too huge. On the other hand, a useful tool to study
the general case (when m is n-generated) is the so called Apéry set of the
semigroup. The properties of the Apéry set reveal much information on the
Cohen-Macaulayness, the Buchsbaumness and the Gorensteinness of grm (R).
In this paper, using the Apéry set, we are able to characterize when grm (R)
is Complete Intersection.
The structure of the paper is the following. In Section 1 we fix the
notation and give some preliminaries about numerical semigroups, semigroup
rings associated to a numerical semigroup and their associated graded ring.
In particular, we qualitatively discuss the form of the elements in the defining
ideals of R, of its quotient R modulo an element of minimal value and of their
associated graded rings (cf. Discussion 1.5).
In Section 2 we define two sets of integers βi and γi , that yield to the
definition and the characterization of two classes of numerical semigroups:
semigroups with β-rectangular and γ-rectangular Apéry set (cf. Definition
2.9, Theorem 2.16 and Theorem 2.22). These notions will provide, respectively, a sufficient condition and a characterization for grm (R) to be Complete
Intersection. These classes are strictly connected and it is useful to study
both of them together. The idea in these definitions is to use the “shape” of
the Apéry set of the semigroup in order to find integers that give information
on the degree and on the nature of the generators of the defining ideals of R,
of its quotient R modulo an element of minimal value and of their associated
graded rings.
In Section 3 we prove the main theorem of the paper (cf. Theorem 3.6),
2

that is the characterization of those numerical semigroup rings whose associated graded ring is Complete Intersection. More precisely, we give four
equivalent conditions for grm (R) in order to be Complete Intersection. To
obtain this result we need to deepen carefully the nature of the elements of
the defining ideals of R, of its quotient R modulo an element of minimal value
and of their associated graded rings, using the integers βi and γi introduced
in the previous section (cf. Discussion 3.2 and Lemma 3.4). Finally, we give
an alternative proof of a sufficient condition for grm (R) being Complete Intersection presented in [2] (cf. Corollary 3.13) and we briefly study the case
of embedding dimension 3 (cf. Theorem 3.14).
The computations made for this paper are performed by using the GAP
system [9] and, in particular, the NumericalSgps package [7].

1

Preliminaries

Let N denote the set of natural numbers, including 0. A numerical semigroup
is a submonoid S of the monoid (N, +) with finite complement in it. Each
numerical semigroup S has a natural partial ordering  where, for every s
and t in S, s  t if there is an element u ∈ S such that t = s + u. The set
{gi } of the minimal elements in the poset (S \ {0}, ) is called minimal set of
generators for S; indeed all the elements in S are linear combinations, with
coefficients in N, of minimal elements. Note that the set {gi } is finite since for
any s ∈ S, s 6= 0, we have gi 6≡ gj (mod s) if i 6= j. A numerical semigroup
minimally generated by g1 < g2 < . . . < gν is denoted by hg1 , g2 , . . . , gν i; the
condition |N \ S| < ∞ is equivalent to gcd(g1 , . . . , gν ) = 1.
There are several invariants associated to a numerical semigroup S. The
integer m = g1 = min{s ∈ S, s > 0} is called multiplicity, while the minimal
number of generators ν is called embedding dimension; it is well known that
ν ≤ m. Finally, the integer f = max{z ∈ Z, z ∈
/ S} is called Frobenius
number of S.
Following the notation in [2], we denote by Ap(S) = {ω0 , . . . , ωm−1 } the
Apéry set of S with respect to m, that is, the set of the smallest elements
in S in each congruence class modulo m. More precisely, ω0 = 0 and ωi =
min{s ∈ S | s ≡ i (mod m)}. The largest element in the Apéry set is always
f + m.
Very often we will use the following result.
3

Proposition 1.1 ([8], Lemma 6). Let t ∈ Ap(S) and u  t, then u ∈ Ap(S).
A numerical semigroup S is called symmetric if f − x ∈
/ S implies that
x ∈ S for every integer x (notice that the converse is true for every numerical
semigroup S).
Proposition 1.2 ([16], Corollary 4.12). S is symmetric if and only if f + m
is the unique maximal element in (Ap(S), ).
An ideal of a semigroup S is a nonempty subset H of S such that
H + S ⊆ H. The ideal M = {s ∈ S | s 6= 0} is called maximal ideal
of S. It is straightforward to see that, if H and L are ideals of S, then
H + L = {h + l| h ∈ H, l ∈ L} and kH(= H + · · · + H, k summands, for
k ≥ 1) are also ideals of S.
Let k be an infinite field; the rings R = k[[tS ]] = k[[tg1 , . . . , tgν ]] and
R = k[tS ]m are called the numerical semigroup rings associated to S. The ring
R is a one-dimensional local domain, with maximal ideal m = (tg1 , . . . , tgν )
and quotient field k((t)) and k(t), respectively. In both cases the associated
graded ring of R with respect to m, grm (R) = ⊕i≥0 mi /mi+1 , is the same.
From now on, we will assume that R = k[[tS ]], but the other case is perfectly
analogous.
Let (A, n) be the local ring of formal power series k[[x1 , . . . , xν ]] and let
ϕ : A −→ R be the map defined by ϕ(xi ) = tgi . Clearly R = A/I and
m = n/I, with I = ker ϕ. Notice that I is a binomial ideal generated by all
the elements of the form
(∗)

xj11 · · · · · xjνν − xh1 1 · · · · · xhν ν ,

with j1 g1 + · · · + jν gν = h1 g1 + · · · + hν gν .
It is well known that this presentation induces a presentation of the corresponding associated graded rings:
ψ : grn (A) −→ grm (R),
where the kernel is the initial ideal of I, i.e. the ideal I ∗ generated by the initial forms of the elements of I; hence grm (R) ∼
= grn (A)/I ∗ ∼
= k[x1 , . . . , xν ]/I ∗
canonically.
Notice that I ∗ is an homogenous ideal generated by all the monomials of
the form xj11 · · · · · xjνν coming from a binomial (∗) for which j1 + · · · + jν <
h1 +· · ·+hν and by all the binomials (∗) such that j1 +· · ·+jν = h1 +· · ·+hν .
4

We denote by µ(·) the minimal number of generators of an ideal. The
ring R is Complete Intersection if µ(I) = ν − 1 and the associated graded
ring grm (R) is Complete Intersection if µ(I ∗ ) = ν − 1. It is well known that,
if grm (R) is Complete Intersection, then also R is Complete Intersection.
Numerical semigroups for which R is Complete Intersection are well known
(and they are called Complete Intersection numerical semigroups; for the definition see, e.g., [16]). We are interested in studying when grm (R) is Complete Intersection. Let R = R/(tm ) and G = grm (R), where m is the maximal
ideal of R.
Remark 1.3. In our hypotheses, it is clear that grm (R) is Complete Intersection if and only if G is Complete Intersection and grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay
(i.e., as it is proved in [10], (tm )∗ ∈ m/m2 is not a zero-divisor in grm (R)). In
fact, in case grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay, from the isomorphism R/(tm ) ∼
=R
we get the isomorphism grm (R)/((tm )∗ ) ∼
= G. We notice also that, in general, there is a surjective homomorphism of graded rings grm (R) → G, whose
kernel is the initial ideal of (tm ) in grm (R).
Remark 1.4. We note that R = htωi | ωi ∈ Ap(S)ik , since
ts = 0 in R ⇐⇒ ts ∈ (tm ) ⇐⇒ s − m ∈ S.
We also have G = R as k-vector spaces (but not as rings) since a nonzero
monomial in R is still nonzero in G.
Discussion 1.5. Recalling the isomorphism R ∼
= k[[x1 , x2 , . . . , xν ]]/I, where xi
corresponds to tgi (hence x1 corresponds to tm ), we have the isomorphism R ∼
=
k[[x2 , x3 , . . . , xν ]]/H. More precisely H is the kernel of the homomorphism
defined by xi 7→ tgi and it is generated by all the binomials of the form
(∗∗)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν − xh2 2 · · · · · xhν ν ,

with j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν = h2 g2 + · · · + hν gν ∈ Ap(S), and by all the monomials
of the form
(∗ ∗ ∗)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν ,

where j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν ∈
/ Ap(S).
It follows that G = grm (R) ∼
= k[x2 , x3 , . . . , xν ]/J, where J is the kernel
of the homomorphism defined by xi 7→ tgi (where now tgi is viewed as an
5

element of G) and it is the initial ideal of H. Hence J is a binomial ideal
generated by all the the binomials of the form
(+)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν − xh2 2 · · · · · xhν ν ,

with j2 g2 +· · ·+jν gν = h2 g2 +· · ·+hν gν ∈ Ap(S) and j1 +· · ·+jν = h1 +· · ·+hν ,
and by all the monomials of the form
(++)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν ,

where either j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν ∈
/ Ap(S) or j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν ∈ Ap(S) and there
exist h2 , . . . , hν ∈ N, such that j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν = h2 g2 + · · · + hν gν and
j2 + · · · + jν < h2 + · · · + hν .
In particular, let j = j2 + · · · + jν ; then a binomial of the form (+) is not
necessary as generator of J, if xj22 · · · · · xjνν ∈ (x2 , . . . , xν )j+1. Furthermore,
the monomial xj22 · · · · · xjνν ∈ (x2 , . . . , xν )j \ (x2 , . . . , xν )j+1, such that j2 g2 +
· · · + jν gν ∈ Ap(S), does not belong to J.
Finally, since the Krull dimension of G is 0, we must have µ(J) ≥ ν − 1.
Hence G is Complete Intersection if and only if µ(J) = ν − 1.
From the previous remarks and discussion, it is clear why, to study the
Complete Intersection property for grm (R) it is necessary to study the Apéry
set of S. When G is Complete Intersection, its Hilbert function is completely
determined by the degree of the generators of J and its dimension as k-vector
space is the product of these degrees. Hence we will have to determine
these degrees using numerical conditions; moreover, since monomials in G
correspond bijectively to elements of the Apery set, we will have to determine
the “shape” of Ap(S) corresponding to G Complete Intersection.

2

β- and γ-rectangular Apéry Sets

Within this section we introduce two sets of integers and two corresponding
classes of numerical semigroups, defined via the shape of the Apéry set. The
first class will provide a sufficient condition for G to be complete intersection,
while the second one will give a characterization.
Given a numerical semigroup S = hg1 , g2 , . . . , gν i and s, t ∈ S, we recall
that s  t if there exists u ∈ S such that s + u = t. Now we want to define
another partial ordering on S as in [3]. If s ∈ S and M = S \ {0} then
6

there exists a unique h ∈ N such that s ∈ hM \ (h + 1)M; this integer is
defined as the order of s and we will write ord(s) = h. Given s, t ∈ S, we
say that s M t if there exists u ∈ S such that s + u = t (hence s  t) and
ord(s) + ord(u) = ord(t). The partial order M is particularly helpful in the
study of the associated graded ring.
The sets of maximal elements of Ap(S) with respect to  and M are
denoted with maxAp(S) and maxApM (S), respectively.
Remark 2.1. We note that maxAp(S) ⊆ maxApM (S) and the inclusion can
be strict. For example, let S = h8, 9, 15i. The only maximal element in
Ap(S) with respect to  is 45. Anyway maxApM (S) = {30, 45}. Note that
ord(45) = 5 > 3 = ord(30) + ord(15).
A numerical semigroup S is called M-pure if every element in maxApM (S)
has the same order. M-pure symmetric semigroups are characterized in a
similar way to symmetric semigroups:
Proposition 2.2 ([3], Proposition 3.7). A semigroup S is M-pure symmetric
if and only if ω M f + m, for every ω ∈ Ap(S).
Every element s ∈ S can be written, not necessarily in a unique way,
as s = λ1 g1 + · · · + λν gν ; we call this combination of the generators a representation of s. Throughout the paper, we call “representation” both the
expression s = λ1 g1 + · · · + λν gν and the tuple (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λν ). We say that
an element s ∈ S has a unique representation if it can be written in a unique
way as a linear combination of g1 , g2 , . . . , gν . Notice that, by definition of
Apéry set, an element ω ∈ Ap(S) can have only representations where g1
does not appear.
A representation of an element s ∈ S as s = λ1 g1 + λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν is
called maximal if λ1 + λ2 + · · · + λν = ord(s). This kind of representations
and, in particular, the number of maximal representations of elements of S
have been studied in [4]. We say that Ap(S) is of unique maximal expression
if every ω ∈ Ap(S) has a unique maximal representation.
Let us define now the following integers, for every i = 2 . . . , ν:
βi = max{h ∈ N | hgi ∈ Ap(S) and ord(hgi ) = h};
γi = max{h ∈ N | hgi ∈ Ap(S), ord(hgi ) = h and
hgi has a unique maximal representation}.
7

Notice that, in the second definition, from ord(hgi ) = h it follows that hgi
must be the unique maximal representation. The following proposition is
straightforward:
Proposition 2.3. For each index i = 2, . . . , ν, we have γi ≤ βi .
Examples 2.4. Let S = h8, 10, 15i; so Ap(S) = {0, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45}.
Since 30, 45 ∈ Ap(S) and 40, 60 ∈
/ Ap(S) then β2 , β3 ≤ 3. We have the
double representation 30 = 3 · 10 = 2 · 15, implying that ord(2 · 15) = 3 > 2;
hence β2 = 3 and β3 = 1. It is easy to check that every element in Ap(S)
has a unique maximal representation, thus γ2 = β2 = 3 and γ3 = β3 = 1.
Let S = h7, 9, 10, 11, 12i; we have Ap(S) = {0, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 22}. Analogously to the previous example, we have β2 = 1, β3 = 2, β4 = 2, β5 = 1.
The only double representations in Ap(S) are 20 = 9 + 11 = 10 + 10 and
22 = 10 + 12 = 11 + 11, and they are all maximal. In particular, it follows
γ2 = γ3 = γ4 = γ5 = 1.
In correspondence to the two families of numbers introduced above, we
can define the following two sets:
B =

ν
nX

o
λi gi | 0 ≤ λi ≤ βi ;

Γ =

ν
nX

o
λi g i | 0 ≤ λi ≤ γ i .

i=2

i=2

The sets B, Γ, consist of the elements of S representable via a tuple (λ2 , . . . , λν )
belonging to the hyper-rectangle of Nν−1 whose vertices are respectively given
by βi and γi . By Proposition 2.3, it follows that Γ ⊆ B. Notice also that, as
can be easily seen by the previous examples,
Γ can
Qand
Qν since elements in B
ν
have more than one representation, |B| ≤ i=2 (βi +1) and |Γ| ≤ i=2 (γi +1).
It is natural to ask how the sets B and Γ, are related to the Apéry set.
The inclusion Ap(S) ⊆ B is always true, as we can deduce from the next
lemma:
P
Lemma 2.5. Let ω ∈ Ap(S) and let ω = νi=2 λi gi be a maximal representation. Then λi ≤ βi for each i.

8

Proof. By Lemma 1.1 we have λi gi ∈ Ap(S). If there is a index i such
thatP
βi < λi , then
Pνord(λi gi ) > λi , by definitions of βi . It follows that
ord( νi=2 λi gi ) >
i=2 λi and thus it is not a maximal representation of
ω; contradiction.
Notice also that an integer in B could have more different maximal representations, as can be seen in the same example as above S = h7, 9, 10, 11, 12i.
We want to show that actually the stronger inclusion Ap(S) ⊆ Γ holds;
this is a consequence of the following useful result, which is somehow analogous to Lemma 2.5. In what follows, we denote with lex and grlex respectively
the usual lexicographic order and graded lexicographic order in Nν−1 .
Lemma 2.6. Let ω ∈ Ap(S) and set
ν
ν
o
n
X
X
λi = ord(ω)
R = (λ2 , . . . , λν ) ∈ Nν−1
λi gi = ω and
i=2

i=2

i.e. the set of maximal representations of w. Let (µ2 , . . . , µν ) be the maximum
in R with respect to lex, then we have µi ≤ γi for each i.
Proof. By Lemma 2.5 we have µi ≤ βi . Let us suppose that there exists an
index i such that γi < µi ≤ βi , and take the minimum i with this property.
By definitions of βi , γi , the fact that γi < βi implies a double maximal
representation of (γi +1)gi ; moreover, since γi +1 is the least integer with this
property, the other maximal representation does not involve gi . Explicitly,
we have the relation
X
X
ηj .
ηj gj ,
γi + 1 =
(2.1)
(γi + 1)gi =
j6=i

j6=i

Let us substitute the relation just found in (µ2 , . . . , µν ), i.e. consider the
tuple (µ′2 , . . . , µ′ν ) where
µ′i = µi − γi − 1,

µ′j = µj + ηj

for j 6= i

in particular by (2.1) (µ′2 , . . . , µ′ν ) ∈ R. Now, if there is a index j < i such
that ηj 6= 0, then (µ2 , . . . , µν ) < (µ′2 , . . . , µ′ν ) with respect to lex, yielding a
contradiction to the choice of (µ2 , . . . , µν ). Hence ηj = 0 for each j <
Pi. But
this is a contradiction to (2.1), since gi < gj for i < j and γi + 1 = j>i ηj .
The lemma is proved.
9

Corollary 2.7. Let S be a numerical semigroup, then Ap(S) ⊆ Γ.
Remark 2.8. It is straightforward to check that, under the notation of Lemma
2.6, (µ2 , . . . , µν ) is also the maximum with respect to grlex in the set of (not
necessarily maximal) representations of ω.
We are interested in numerical semigroups for which the inclusions shown
so far turn out to be equalities.
Definition 2.9. Let S be a numerical semigroup:
1. the semigroup S has β-rectangular Apéry set if Ap(S) = B;
2. the semigroup S has γ-rectangular Apéry set if Ap(S) = Γ.
Corollary 2.10. We have the following implication:
Ap(S) is β-rectangular ⇒ Ap(S) is γ-rectangular.
Proof. It follows immediately by the inclusions Ap(S) ⊆ Γ ⊆ B
Remark 2.11. It would be natural to introduce also another set of integers:
αi = max{h ∈ N | hgi ∈ Ap(S)}; it is clear that αi ≥ βi . These integers,
as for the βi ’s and the γi ’s, yield to another class of semigroups (that we
could call semigroups with α-rectangular Apéry set) interesting to discuss
and somehow similar to the two classes just defined. However, this class
would provide a too strong condition with respect to the property of G to be
Complete Intersection, hence, for brevity, we will omit its study.
Examples 2.12. (1) Let S = h8, 10, 15i; we have seen in Examples 2.4 that
Ap(S) = {0, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45} and β2 = 3, β3 = 1. Hence we obtain
that Ap(S) is β-rectangular.
(2) Let S = h8, 10, 11, 12i; we have Ap(S) = {0, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 33}.
Since 20, 44, 24 ∈
/ Ap(S) and ord(10) = 1, ord(33) = 3, ord(12) = 1 we have
β2 = 1, β4 = 3, β4 = 1. It is clear that γ2 = γ4 = 1; since 22 = 11 + 11 =
10 + 12 has two maximal representation, we find γ3 = 1. Thus Ap(S) is
γ-rectangular but Ap(S) is not β-rectangular.
(3) Let S = h5, 6, 9i; we have Ap(S) = {0, 6, 9, 12, 18} and the only double
representation is 18 = 3 · 6 = 2 · 9. In this case γ2 = 3, as 18 = 3 · 6 is the
unique maximal representation, while γ3 = 1 because ord(2 · 18) = 3 > 2. It
follows that Ap(S) is not γ-rectangular, since λ2 · 6 + λ3 · 9 ∈
/ Ap(S) as soon
as both λ2 > 0 and λ3 > 0.
10

Our main purpose is to characterize these kinds of numerical semigroups
in terms of some of their invariants, namely the Frobenius number and the
multiplicity. This will allow simpler tests for those properties. We also want
to study the relations between these classes of semigroups and the properties
of unique maximal expression of Ap(S) and of the partial orders  and M .
The next lemmas concern maximal representations and are necessary to
establish a characterization of semigroups with β-rectangular Ap(S).
Lemma 2.13. If s M t and t has a unique maximal representation, then s
has a unique maximal representation.
Proof. We have that s + u = t for some u ∈ S and ord(s) + ord(u) =
ord(t). If s had two maximal representations, the same should be true for t;
contradiction.
Lemma 2.14. Let S be a numerical semigroup with β-rectangular Apéry set
and let ω ∈ Ap(S). Then any representation ω = λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν , with
λi ≤ βi for each i = 2, . . . , ν, is maximal.
Proof. Assume that the representation ω = λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν is not maximal.
Let ω = µ2 g2 + · · · + µν gν be a maximal representation of ω; since ω ∈
Ap(S), by Lemma 2.5,
have µP
i ≤ βi for every i = 2, . . . , ν. Moreover, by
Pwe
ν
maximality, we have i=2 λi < νi=2 µi , hence there exists an index i such
that λi < µi . On the other hand, since λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν = µ2 g2 + · · · + µν gν ,
there exists another index j such that λj > µj . Subtracting from both sides
of the previous equality the common summands, we get the equality
X
X
ηi gi
ηi gi =
(2.2)
i∈T2

i∈T1

where T1 , T2 are two non-empty
disjoint
P
P subsets of {2, . . . ν}, 0 ≤ ηi ≤ βi ,
for each i = 2, . . . , ν, and i∈T1 ηi < i∈T2 ηi .
P
Since S has β-rectangular Apéry set, the element t = νi=2 βi gi belongs
to Ap(S). Let us substitute the relation (2.2) in this representation of t, that
is to say consider the tuple (ξ2 , . . . , ξν ) where
ξi = βi − ηi if i ∈ T1 ,

ξi = βi + ηi if i ∈ T2 ,
ξi = βi otherwise.
Pν
Pν
This is another representation of t and i=2 βi < i=2 ξi by (2.2). It follows
that (β2 , . . . , βν ) is not a maximal representation and, therefore, t has a
maximal representation with some coefficient bigger than βi ; contradiction
to Lemma 2.5.
11

Remark 2.15. Combining the last lemma and Lemma 2.5, we have that the
maximality of a representation (λ2 , . . . , λν ) of an element of Ap(S) is equivalent to have λi ≤ βi for each i, under the assumption of β-rectangular Apéry
set.
We are ready to give some characterizations of semigroups with β-rectangular Apéry set.
Theorem 2.16. The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) Ap(S) is β-rectangular;
(ii) Ap(S) has a unique maximal element with respect to M and this element has unique maximal representation;
(iii) S is M-pure, symmetric and Ap(S) is of unique maximal expression;
P
(iv) f + m = νi=2 βi gi ;
Q
(v) m = νi=2 (βi + 1).
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Since Ap(S) is β-rectangular, we immediately get that
P
ν
i=2 βi gi is the unique maximal element in (Ap(S), ) and hence it is f + m.
Moreover, by Lemma 2.14, any element ω ∈ Ap(S) is maximally
P represented
by a tuple (λ2 , . . . , λν ) with λi ≤ βi ; in particular ord(ω) = νi=2 λi and we
can deduce that ω M f + m,
Pfor each ω ∈ Ap(S).
Finally, by Remark 2.15, νi=2 βi gi is the unique maximal representation
of f + m.
(ii) ⇒ (iii) By Proposition 2.2, S is M-pure symmetric; by Lemma 2.13,
every ω ∈ Ap(S) has a unique maximal representation.
(iii) ⇒ (iv) The unique maximal element in (Ap(S), M ) is necessarily
P
f + m. Its unique maximal representation is of the form f + m = νi=2 λi gi
with λi ≤ βi by Lemma 2.5.
Since S is M-pure symmetric βi gi M f + m for each i = 2, . . . , ν.
Hence f + m − β2 g2 ∈ Ap(S) and,
Pν by Lemma 2.13, it has unique maximal
representation f + m − β2 g2 = i=2 εi gi ; moreover εP
i ≤ βi , by maximality
of the representation. It follows that f + m = β2 g2 + νi=2 εi gi is a maximal
representation, hence ε2 = 0 (again by Lemma 2.5). Moreover, since f + m
has a unique maximal representation, λ2 = β2 ; arguing recursively, the thesis
follows.
12

(iv) ⇒ (i) It is a consequence of Proposition 1.1.
(i) ⇒ (v) It follows by m = |Ap(S)|, the fact that Ap(S) is of unique
maximal expression and Remark 2.15.
Q
(v) ⇒ (i) We already noticed that Ap(S) ⊆ B and since m = νi=2 (βi +
1) = |Ap(S)|, we must have an equality.
Example 2.17. We may apply the last theorem to show that the Apéry set of
S = h12, 14, 16, 23i is β-rectangular, without even computing the whole set
Ap(S). We need to determine the βi ’s:
2 · 14
2 · 16
3 · 16
2 · 23

=
=
=
=

12 + 16 ∈ 12 + S
32 ∈ 2M \ 3M and 32 − 12 ∈
/S
4 · 12 ∈ 12 + S
2 · 16 + 14 ∈ 3M
Q
and so β2 = 1, β3 = 2, β4 = 1 and m = 12 = 2 · 3 · 2 = νi=2 (βi + 1).
We have seen (cf. Corollary 2.10) that the following implication holds:
Ap(S) is β-rectangular ⇒ Ap(S) is γ-rectangular.
But a priori we still might have βi > γi when Ap(S) is β-rectangular, for
some i. We show that this is not the case, using the theorem just proved.
Corollary 2.18. Let S be a numerical semigroup. If Ap(S) is β-rectangular,
then βi = γi , for every i = 2, . . . , ν.
Proof. If there is an index i such that γi < βi , then, by definition of βi
and of γi , βi gi is in the Apéry set and it has more maximal representations.
Contradiction to Theorem 2.16, (ii).
We now turn to the study of semigroups with γ-rectangular Apéry set,
starting with a result that is analogous to Lemma 2.14.
Lemma 2.19. Let S be a semigroup with γ-rectangular Apéry set and let
ω ∈ Ap(S). Then any representation ω = λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν , with λi ≤ γi
(for every i = 2 . . . , ν), is maximal.

13

Proof. Assume, by absurd,
that there exists ω ∈ Ap(S) with a non-maximal
Pν
representation ω = i=2 λi gi , where λi ≤ γi (for every i = 2 . . . , ν). Notice
that, as we
Pνhave already seen for the case Ap(S) = B, if Ap(S) = Γ, then
up to substituting the non-maximal repref + m = i=2 γi gi . In particular,
P
sentation of ω in f + m = νi=2 γi gi , we may assume ω = f + m and hence
λi = γi , for each i.
If we take a maximal representation (µ2 , . . . , µν ) of f + m, then we have
the strict inequality
(2.3)

(γ2 , . . . , γν ) < (µ2 , . . . , µν )

with respect to grlex (since the sums of the respective coefficients are different). In particular (2.3) holds if we choose (µ2 , . . . , µν ) to be the maximum
in the set of all the representations of f +m with respect to grlex. By Remark
2.8 we have
(γ2 , . . . , γν ) < (µ2 , . . . , µν ) ≤ (γ2 , . . . , γν )
with respect to grlex, and thus we reach a contradiction.
Lemma 2.20. Let S be a semigroup with γ-rectangular Apéry set. Then each
ω ∈ Ap(S) has a unique representation of the form ω = λ2 g2 + · · · + λν gν ,
with λi ≤ γi , for every i = 2, . . . ν.
Proof. Assume, by absurd, that there are two distinct representations of
ω ∈ Ap(S)
ν
ν
X
X
ω=
λi g i =
µi gi , with λi , µi ≤ γi .
i=2

i=2

By
PνLemma 2.19 both representations are maximal, and in particular
i=2 µi ; since they are distinct we have, for instance,

Pν

i=2

λi =

(λ2 , . . . , λν ) < (µ2 , . . . , µν )
with respect to lex. By adding the tuple (γ2 − λ2 , . . . , γν − λν ) to both sides
of the last equality we have two maximal representations of f + m:
(γ2 , . . . , γν ) < (µ2 + γ2 − λ2 , . . . , µν + γν − λν )
with respect to lex. We reach an absurd by Lemma 2.6.
Corollary 2.21. If S has γ-rectangular Apéry set, then it is M-pure symmetric.
14

Pν
Proof. Let ω ∈ Ap(S). By Lemma 2.6, ω =
i=2 λi gi , with λi ≤ γi ,
and,
Pν by Lemma 2.19, this representation is maximal; therefore ord(ω) =
i . Since this is valid for an arbitrary ω ∈ Ap(S), we easily have
i=2 λP
ω M νi=2 γi gi = f + m and the thesis follows by Proposition 2.2.
We are ready to characterize semigroups with γ-rectangular Apéry set.
Theorem 2.22. The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular;
P
(ii) f + m = νi=2 γi gi ;
Q
(iii) m = νi=2 (γi + 1).
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Clear, as f + m is the biggest element in Ap(S).
(ii) ⇒ (i) It follows by Lemma 1.1.
(i) ⇒ (iii) It follows by Lemma 2.20.
Q
(iii) ⇒ (i) Since Ap(S) ⊆ Γ and |Ap(S)| = m = νi=2 (γi + 1) ≥ |Γ|, the
inclusion must be an equality.
Notice that we do not obtain a full analogous result of Theorem 2.16; more
precisely, we cannot recover conditions (ii) and (iii). The closest analogous
to those conditions is actually expressed by Lemma 2.20. If we look at
the second semigroup in Examples 2.12, S = h8, 10, 11, 12i (with Ap(S) =
{0, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 33} and γi = 1, for each i = 2, 3, 4), we notice that
both 22 and 33 have two maximal representations, but only one in Γ.

3

The Main Theorem

In this section, we apply the results contained in the previous section in order
to give a characterization of the numerical semigroup rings whose associated
graded ring is Complete Intersection.
We recall that in the first section we defined R = R/(tm ) and G = grm (R),
where m is the maximal ideal of R.
We also need to introduce two more invariants associated to R. The ideal
Q = (tm ) is a principal reduction of the maximal ideal m, that is a principal
ideal Q ⊆ m such that Qmh = mh+1 for some non-negative integer h. The reduction number is the integer r = rQ (m) = min{h ∈ N, Qmh = mh+1 }, while
15

the index of nilpotency is defined as s = sQ (m) = min{h ∈ N, mh+1 ⊆ Q}.
In the case of numerical semigroup rings we have r = min{h ∈ N, m + hM =
(h + 1)M} and s = max{ord(ωi ) | ωi ∈ Ap(S)}; from the last two equalities
it is easy to see that s ≤ r.
We will also need the following result of Bryant.
Theorem 3.1 ([3],Theorem 3.14). Under the above notation, we have:
(1) S is M-pure symmetric if and only if G is Gorenstein;
(2) if grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay, then s = r. The converse holds if S is
M-pure;
(3) grm (R) is Gorenstein if and only if S is M-pure symmetric and s = r.
To prove the main result of the paper we have to be more precise about
the generators of the ideal J defined in Discussion 1.5.
Discussion 3.2. Using the terminology introduced in the previous section, in
Discussion 1.5 we have shown that J is generated by all the the binomials of
the form
(+)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν − xh2 2 · · · · · xhν ν ,

where j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν = h2 g2 + · · · + hν gν ∈ Ap(S) are two maximal representations, and by all the monomials of the form
(++)

xj22 · · · · · xjνν ,

/ Ap(S) or j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν ∈ Ap(S) and it is
where either j2 g2 + · · · + jν gν ∈
not a maximal representation.
By definition of βi it follows that xβi i +1 ∈ J. In fact, if ord(βi + 1)gi >
βi + 1, then (tgi )βi +1 ∈ mβi +2 and therefore (tgi )βi +1 = 0 in grm (R) and hence
in G. On the other hand, if (βi + 1)gi ∈
/ Ap(S), then (tgi )βi +1 = 0 in R and
hence in G. Moreover, by definition of βi and by Discussion 1.5 it is clear
that xβi i ∈
/ J for every index i.
On the other hand, by definition of γi we have that, γi < βi if and only if
(γi + 1)gi ∈ Ap(S) is a maximal representation, but it is not unique. Hence
P
P
Q
λ
(γi +1)gi = j6=i λj gj and γi +1 = j6=i λj ; equivalently xiγi +1 − j6=i xj j ∈ J.
Notice that, for some h ≤ βi (hence, also for some h ≤ γi ), it could
P
P
Q
λ
happen that hgi = j6=i λj gj and h > j6=i λj ; in this case, j6=i xj j ∈ J.
16

Hence the smallest pure power of xi appearing in a monomial or a binomial
of J is xiγi +1 .
Finally, it is clear that, if a binomial (+) is in J, then we can cancel all
the common factors: in fact, by Proposition 1.1, if ω ∈ Ap(S) and u ∈ S is
such that u  ω, then u ∈ Ap(S).
In the next corollary we summarize the results of Discussions 1.5 and 3.2,
that we will need in the rest of the paper.
Corollary 3.3. For every i = 2, . . . , ν, we have:
(i) xβi i +1 ∈ J and xβi i ∈
/ J;
(ii) γi < βi ⇐⇒ (γi + 1)gi =
Q
λ
xiγi +1 − j6=i xj j ∈ J;

P

j6=i

λj gj and γi + 1 =

P

j6=i

λj

⇐⇒

(iii) the smallest pure power of xi appearing in a monomial or a binomial
of J is xiγi +1 .
Pν
Pν
(iv) xλ2 2 · · · ·· xλν ν ∈
/ J ⇐⇒
j=2 λj gj is a maximal
j=2 λj gj ∈ Ap(S) and
representation.
The next result is a key step in order to prove the main theorem.
Lemma 3.4. The ring G is Complete Intersection if and only if the defining
ideal J is of the following form
Y λ
xj j : i = 2 . . . , ν),
J = (xγi i +1 − ρi
j6=i

where
ρi = 0, if βi = γP
i and 1 otherwise; as soon as ρi = 1, (γi + 1)gi =
P
λ
g
and
γ
+
1
=
i
j6=i j j
j6=i λj .
Proof. We have that G ∼
= k[x2 , x3 , . . . , xν ]/J; hence, if J is of the form
described in the statement, µ(J) = ν − 1 and G is Complete Intersection.
Conversely, assume that G is Complete Intersection, that is µ(J) = ν − 1.
By Corollary 3.3 (i), we know that (xβ2 2 +1 , . . . , xβν ν +1 ) ⊆ J and that xβi i ∈
/J
for every index i.
Hence, if J ) (xβ2 2 +1 , . . . , xβν ν +1 ), for every index i such that xβi i +1 is not a
Q
h
minimal generator, there exists a unique binomial of the form xhi − j6=i xj j ,
which is a minimal generator. By Corollary 3.3 (ii) and (iii), we have that
17

Q
P
λ
γi < βi and the generator is xiγi +1 − j6=i xi j with γi + 1 = j6=i λj , since
there is not any binomial in J involving a pure power of xi with exponent
smaller than γi + 1.
Q
λ
Remarks 3.5. (1) Let J˜ = (xiγi +1 − ρi j6=i xj j : i = 2 . . . , ν) (with the same
notation of the previous lemma); by Corollary 3.3, it is clear that we always
˜
have the inclusion J ⊇ J.
(2) We can assume that in the binomials appearing as generators of J˜ every
exponent λj is less than or equal to γj : choose the biggest (ν − 2)-tuple
(λ2 , . . . λi−1 , λi+1 , . . . λν ) with respect to lex, among all the possible (ν − 2)tuples corresponding to the maximal representations of (γi + 1)gi and then
argue in a similar way as in Lemma 2.6.
(3) Since g2 < g3 < · · · < gν , necessarily ρ2 = ρν = 0, that is xγ22 +1 and xγνν +1
˜
are minimal generators of J.
Theorem 3.6. The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) grm (R) is Complete Intersection;
(ii) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular and grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay;
(iii) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular and r = s;
(iv) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular and grm (R) is Buchsbaum;
(v) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular and grm (R) is Gorenstein.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) Clearly grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay. By Remark 1.3 we know
that G is Complete Intersection. Using the previous lemma, we know that J
is generated by ν − 1 forms of degree γi + 1, for every
Qν i = 2, . . . , ν.
∼
Since G = k[x2 , . . . , xν ]/J, we have dimk (G) = i=2 (γi + 1), hence every
monomial xλ2 2 . . . xλν ν , with λi ≤ γi , does not belong to J and their images are
pairwise different in G. By Corollary 3.3 (iv), the corresponding elements
λ2 g2 +· · ·+λν gν of S belong to Ap(S) (and all of these are maximal representations). Hence we obtain Γ = {λ2 g2 + λ3 g3 + · · · + λν gν | λi = 0, . . . , γi , i =
2, . . . , ν} = Ap(S), that is Ap(S) is γ-rectangular.
(ii) ⇒ (i) grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay and, by [10, Theorem 7], (tm )∗ is
regular. Hence, by Remark 1.3, G is Complete Intersection if and only if G
is Complete Intersection.

18

We know that, as k-vector space, G = htωi | ωi ∈ Ap(S)ik . Moreover, by
˜ hence
Remarks 3.5 (1), it is clear that J ⊇ J,
˜ =
m = |Ap(S)| = dimk (G) ≤ dimk (k[x2 , . . . , xν ]/J)

ν
Y

(γi + 1) .

i=2

Qν

Since Ap(S) is γ-rectangular, by Theorem 2.22, m = i=2 (γi + 1); thus in
˜ that is G is
the above chain we have all equalities and, therefore, J = J,
Complete Intersection.
(ii) ⇔ (iii) By Corollary 2.21, S is M-pure; under this hypothesis G is
Cohen-Macaulay if and only if r = s (Theorem 3.1).
(ii) ⇔ (iv) By [6, Proposition 5.5].
(iv) ⇔ (v) By [6, Corollary 5.6].
Remark 3.7. Using the last theorem, in order to know if grm (R) is Complete Intersection we have to check if Ap(S) is γ-rectangular and if grm (R)
is Cohen-Macaulay (or Buchsbaum, or Gorenstein). In [2, Theorem 2.6]
there is a characterization of the Cohen-Macaulayness of grm (R) that has
been strengthened in [6, Proposition 5.1]; in particular, in case Ap(S) is γrectangular, one has to compute the integers ai and bi defined in these characterizations, only for ωi = f + m, which is the only element in maxApM (S).
Notice also that, in this case, to check the Buchsbaumness of grm (R) it is not
easier than to check the Cohen-Macaulayness (cf. [6, Proposition 3.6]).
Examples 3.8. Let us consider the semigroups (2) and (3) of the Examples
2.12.
(2) S = h8, 10, 11, 12i: here Ap(S) is γ-rectangular (and not β-rectangular)
and grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay, since r = 3 = ord(33). Hence grm (R) is Complete Intersection. Computing the defining ideals we get: I = (x22 −x1 x4 , x23 −
x2 x4 , x31 − x24 ), I ∗ = (x22 − x1 x4 , x23 − x2 x4 , x24 ) and J = (x22 , x23 − x2 x4 , x24 ).
(3) S = h5, 6, 9i: here Ap(S) is not γ-rectangular and grm (R) is CohenMacaulay (as can be checked using [6, Proposition 5.1]); S is symmetric,
but not M-pure (since 9 6M 18). Therefore, grm (R) is not Complete Intersection (nor Gorenstein). Computing he defining ideals we obtain: I =
(x31 − x2 x3 , x32 − x23 ), I ∗ = (x2 x3 , x23 , x42 − x31 x3 ) and J = (x23 , x2 x3 , x42 ).
Remark 3.9. The proof of equivalence (i) ⇔ (ii) of Theorem 3.6 shows that
G = grm (R) is Complete Intersection if and only if Ap(S) is γ-rectangular.

19

If we want to extend the result to grm (R) the hypothesis of the CohenMacaulayness is indispensable, that is
Ap(S) is γ − rectangular 6⇒ grm (R) is Complete Intersection.
Indeed, let S = h6, 7, 15i. Here Ap(S) is β-rectangular (hence γ-rectangular),
since f = 23, β2 = 2, β3 = 1 and f + m = β2 g2 + β3 g3 . It follows that G
is Complete Intersection and J = (x23 , x32 ). However, in this case, G is not
Complete Intersection, since grm (R) is not Cohen-Macaulay, because s = 3
and r = 6. It is not difficult to compute that I = (x23 − x51 , x32 − x1 x3 ) (S
is symmetric, hence R is Gorenstein that, if the embedding dimension is 3,
implies Complete Intersection) and that I ∗ = (x23 , x1 x3 , x62 ).
Remark 3.10. We note that:
grm (R) is Gorenstein and R is Complete Intersection 6⇒
grm (R) is Complete Intersection.
In fact, let S = h16, 18, 21, 27i; we have Ap(S) = {0, 18, 21, 27, 36, 39, 42, 45,
54, 57, 60, 63, 72, 78, 81, 99}. Let us compute the integer γ3 : 2 · 21 = 42 ∈
Ap(S) and it has a unique representation, while 3 · 21 = 2 · 18 + 27 are two
maximal representations of 63; hence γ3 = 2. The multiplicity of S is m = 16
and γ3 + 1 = 3 does not divide m; therefore, by Theorem 2.22, Ap(S) is not
γ-rectangular (hence grm (R) is not Complete Intersection).
On the other hand, it is not difficult to check that S is symmetric, M-pure
and that ord(99) = 5 = r; hence, by Theorem 3.1 (3), grm (R) is Gorenstein.
Finally, R is Complete Intersection, since I = (x31 − x3 x4 , x32 − x24 , x22 x4 − x33 ).
Remark 3.11. If we substitute the condition “γ-rectangular Apéry set” with
the condition “β-rectangular Apéry set” in the previous Theorem 3.6 we
obtain not only that grm (R) is Complete Intersection, but also that J is
monomial. However this fact does not implies that the defining ideal I ∗
of grm (R) is monomial. For example, let us consider the semigroup of the
Example 2.17: S = h12, 14, 16, 23i; its Apéry set is β-rectangular and r =
s = 4, hence grm (R) is Complete Intersection. In this case the defining ideals
are the following: I = (x22 − x1 x3 , x24 − x2 x23 , x33 − x41 ), I ∗ = (x22 − x1 x3 , x24 , x33 )
and J = (x22 , x33 , x24 ).
As a corollary to Theorem 3.6, we get the following corollary, that can
be also obtained easily by Bézout’s theorem applied to the algebraic variety
defined by G. Given a positive integer x, we call ℓ(x) the length of its unique
factorization i.e. the number of (possibly equal) prime factors of x.
20

Corollary 3.12. Let grm (R) be Complete Intersection, then we have:
(1) ν ≤ ℓ(m) + 1;
(2) if m is a prime number then ν = 2.
Proof. (1) Q
By Theorem 3.6, Ap(S) is γ-rectangular. Thus we have m =
|Ap(S)| = νi=2 (γi + 1) and the thesis follows as γi ≥ 1.
(2) If m is prime, we get ν ≤ ℓ(m) + 1 = 2 by (1); but ν > 1, otherwise
m = 1.
Using our method, we also obtain an alternative proof of a result from
[2]:
Corollary 3.13.
Q Let nν < · · · < n1 be pairwise relatively prime positive
integers, N = νi=1 ni . Let gi = nNi and S = hg1 , g2, . . . , gν i. Then grm (R) is
Complete Intersection.
Proof. As proved in [2, Proposition 3.6], grm (R) is Cohen-Macaulay; we only
need toQprove that Ap(S)
Qνis γ-rectangular. We easily have γi ≤ ni − 1 and
ν
hence
= g1 = m. Since m = |Ap(S)| ≤ |Γ| ≤
i=2 (γi + 1) ≤
i=2 ni Q
Qν
ν
i=2 (γi + 1) holds and, by Theorem 2.22, we
i=2 (γi + 1), the equality m =
get the thesis.
We finish the paper studying the case ν(S) = 3. By Remarks 3.5 (3),
it follows immediately that Ap(S) is γ-rectangular if and only if it is βrectangular. However, we can prove something more.
Theorem 3.14. Let S = hg1 , g2, g3 i be a three-generated semigroup (with
g1 < g2 < g3 ). The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) Ap(S) is β-rectangular;
(ii) Ap(S) is γ-rectangular;
(iii) S is M-pure symmetric.
Proof. By Corollary 2.10 and Corollary 2.21 we only need to show the implication (iii) ⇒ (i). Assume that S is M-pure symmetric, that is ω M f + m
for each ω ∈ Ap(S). If we have two maximal representations of f + m:
f + m = λ2 g 2 + λ3 g 3 = µ 2 g 2 + µ 3 g 3 ,
21

with λ2 + λ3 = µ2 + µ3

then it follows that
(λ2 − µ2 )g2 = (µ3 − λ3 )g3 ,

with λ2 − µ2 = µ3 − λ3

and, since g2 < g3 , λ2 − µ2 = λ3 − µ3 = 0. Thus f + m has a unique maximal
representation and the thesis follows by Theorem 2.16 (iii).
As a consequence of the last result, we get the well known fact that
Goresteinness and Complete Intersection are equivalent in codimension two
(i.e., in our hypotheses, in embedding dimension three).
Corollary 3.15. Let R be a numerical semigroup ring with ν(R) = 3. If
grm (R) is Gorenstein, then it is Complete Intersection (and the ideal J is
monomial).
Proof. Apply Theorems 3.1, 3.14 and 3.6.
Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to Yi Huang Shen for
some helpful remarks on a preliminary version of the paper that allowed to
define properly the γ-rectangularity and to the referee for several suggestions
and comments that improved the paper.

References
[1] V. Barucci, M. D’Anna, R. Fröberg, On plane algebroid curves, Commutative Ring Theory and Applications, Dekker L.N. in Pure and Applied
Mathematics, Vol. 231, (2003), 37-50.
[2] V. Barucci, R. Fröberg, Associated graded rings of one dimensional analytically irreducible rings, J. Algebra 304 (2006) n.1, 349-358.
[3] L. Bryant, Goto Numbers of a Numerical Semigroup Ring and the
Gorensteiness of Associated Graded Rings, Comm. Alg. 38 n.6 (2010),
2092 - 2128.
[4] L. Bryant, J. Hamblin, L. Jones Maximal Denumerant of a Numerical
Semigroup with Embedding Dimension Less Than Four, to appear in
Journal of Commutative Algebra.

22

[5] M. D’Anna, M. Mezzasalma, V. Micale, On the Buchsbaumness of the
associated graded ring of a one-dimensional local ring, Comm. Alg. 37
n.5 (2009), 1594 - 1603.
[6] M. D’Anna, V. Micale, A. Sammartano, On the Associated Graded Ring
of a Semigroup Ring, Journal of Commutative Algebra 3 n.2 (2011), 147
- 168.
[7] M. Delgado, P. A. Garcia-Sanchez, J. Morais, NumericalSgps - a GAP
package, 0.96 (2005).
[8] R. Fröberg, C. Gottlieb, R. Häggkvist, On Numerical Semigroups, Semigroup Forum, 35 (1987), 63-83.
[9] The GAP Group, GAP - Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.4.10 (2007).
[10] A. Garcia, Cohen-Macaulayness of the Associated Graded Ring of a
Semigroup Ring, Comm. Algebra 10 (1982), 393-415.
[11] S. Goto, Buchsbaum rings of maximal embedding dimension, J. Algebra
76 (1982), 383-399.
[12] S. Goto, Noetherian local rings with Buchsbaum associated graded rings,
J. Algebra 86 (1984), 336-384.
[13] W. Heinzer, M. Kim, B. Ulrich, The Gorenstein and complete intersection properties Of associated graded rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 201
(2005), 264 - 283.
[14] J. Herzog, Generators and relations of abelian semigroup rings,
Manuscripta Math. 3 (1970), 748-751.
[15] S. Molinelli, D. P. Patil, G. Tamone On the Cohen-Macaulayness of the
Associated Graded Ring of Certain Monomial Curves, Contributions to
Algebra and Geometry 39 (1998), 433-446.
[16] J. C. Rosales, P. A. Garcı́a Sanchez, Numerical Semigroups, Springer
(2009).
[17] L. Robbiano, G. Valla, On the equations defining tangent cones,
Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 88 (1980), 281-297.
23

[18] J. D. Sally, On the associated graded ring of a local Cohen-Macaulay
ring, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 17 n.1 (1977), 19-21.
[19] V. A. Sapko, Associated graded rings of numerical semigroup rings,
Comm. Algebra 29 n.10 (2001), 4759-4773.
[20] Y. H. Shen, Tangent cone of numerical semigroup rings with small embedding dimension, Comm. Algebra 39 n.5 (2011), 1922-1940.
[21] P. Valabrega, G. Valla, Form Rings and Regular Sequences,
Nagoya Math. J. 72 (1978), 93-101.

24

