M ONOMIAL IDEALS VIA SQUARE - FREE MONOMIAL IDEALS

arXiv:math/0507238v2 [math.AC] 10 Mar 2017

Sara Faridi∗
2005

1 Introduction
In this paper we study monomial ideals using the operation “polarization” to first turn them into
square-free monomial ideals. Various forms of polarization appear throughout the literature and
have been used for different purposes in algebra and algebraic combinatorics (for example, Weyman [17], Fröberg [8], Schwartau [13], or Rota and Stein [11]). One of the most useful features
of polarization is that the chain of substitutions that turn a given monomial ideal into a square-free
one can be described in terms of a regular sequence (Fröberg [8]). This fact allows many properties of a monomial ideal to transfer to its polarization. Conversely, to study a given monomial
ideal, one could examine its polarization. The advantage of this latter approach is that there are
many combinatorial tools dealing with square-free monomial ideals. One of these tools is StanleyReisner theory: Schwartau’s thesis [13] and the book by Stückrad and Vogel [15] discuss how the
Stanley-Reisner theory of square-free monomial ideals produces results about general monomial
ideals using polarization. Another tool for studying square-free monomial ideals, which will be our
focus here, is facet ideal theory, developed by the author in [5], [6] and [7].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define polarization and introduce some
of its basic properties. In Section 3 we introduce facet ideals and its features that are relevant to
this paper. In particular, we introduce simplicial trees, which correspond to square-free monomial
ideals with exceptionally strong algebraic properties. Section 4 extends the results of facet ideal
theory to general monomial ideals. Here we study a monomial ideal I whose polarization is a
tree, and show that many of the properties of simplicial trees hold for such ideals. This includes
Cohen-Macaulayness of the Rees ring of I (Corollary 4.8), I being sequentially Cohen-Macaulay
(Corollary 4.12), and several inductive tools for studying such ideals, such as localization (see
Section 4.1).
Appendix A is an independent study of primary decomposition in a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay
module. We demonstrate how in a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay module M , every submodule
appearing in the filtration of M can be described in terms of the primary decomposition of the
0-submodule of M . This is used to prove Proposition 4.11.
∗

This research was supported by NSERC, and by Laboratoire de combinatoire et d’informatique mathématique at
UQÀM, Montreal.

1

2 Polarization
Definition 2.1. Let R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a polynomial ring over a field k. Suppose M =
x1 a1 . . . xn an is a monomial in R. Then we define the polarization of M to be the square-free
monomial
P(M ) = x1,1 x1,2 . . . x1,a1 x2,1 . . . x2,a2 . . . xn,1 . . . xn,an
in the polynomial ring S = k[xi,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ ai ].
If I is an ideal of R generated by monomials M1 , . . . , Mq , then the polarization of I is defined
as:

P(I) = P(M1 ), . . . , P(Mq )
which is a square-free monomial ideal in a polynomial ring S.
Here is an example of how polarization works.
Example 2.2. Let J = (x1 2 , x1 x2 , x2 3 ) ⊆ R = k[x1 , x2 ]. Then
P(J) = (x1,1 x1,2 , x1,1 x2,1 , x2,1 x2,2 x2,3 )
is the polarization of J in the polynomial ring
S = k[x1,1 , x1,2 , x2,1 , x2,2 , x2,3 ]
Note that by identifying each xi with xi,1 , one can consider S as a polynomial extension of R.
Exactly how many variables S has will always depend on what we polarize. Therefore, as long as
we are interested in the polarizations of finitely many monomials and ideals, S remains a finitely
generated algebra.
Below we describe some basic properties of polarization, some of which appear (without proof)
in [15]. Here we record the proofs where appropriate.
Proposition 2.3 (basic properties of polarization). Suppose that R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] is a polynomial
ring over a field k, and I and J are two monomial ideals of R.
1. P(I + J) = P(I) + P(J);
2. For two monomials M and N in R, M | N if and only if P(M ) | P(N );
3. P(I ∩ J) = P(I) ∩ P(J);
4. If p = (xi1 , . . . , xir ) is a (minimal) prime containing I, then P(p) is a (minimal) prime
containing P(I);
5. If p′ = (xi1 ,e1 , . . . , xir ,er ) is a prime over P(I), then p = (xi1 , . . . , xir ) is a prime over I.
Moreover, if p′ has minimal height (among all primes containing P(I)), then p must have
minimal height as well (among all primes containing I);
2

6. height I = height P(I);
1. Follows directly from Definition 2.1.

Proof.

2. Suppose that M = x1 b1 . . . xn bn and N = x1 c1 . . . xn cn , and suppose that
P(M ) = x1,1 . . . x1,b1 . . . xn,1 . . . xn,bn
and
P(N ) = x1,1 . . . x1,c1 . . . xn,1 . . . xn,cn .
If M | N , then bi ≤ ci for all i, which implies that P(M ) | P(N ). The converse is also clear
using the same argument.
3. Suppose that I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ) and J = (N1 , . . . , Ns ) where the generators are all monomials. If U = x1 b1 . . . xn bn is a monomial in I ∩ J, then for some generator Mi of I and
Nj and J, we have Mi | U and Nj | U , hence by part 2, P(Mi ) | P(U ) and P(Nj ) | P(U ),
which implies that P(U ) ∈ P(I) ∩ P(J).
Conversely, if U ′ is a monomial in P(I) ∩ P(J), then for some generator Mi = x1 b1 . . . xn bn
of I and Nj = x1 c1 . . . xn cn and J we have P(Mi ) | U ′ and P(Nj ) | U ′ . This means that
lcm(P(Mi ), P(Nj )) | U ′ . It is easy to see (by an argument similar to the one in part 2) that
lcm(P(Mi ), P(Nj )) = P(lcm(Mi , Nj )). Since lcm(Mi , Nj ) is one of the generators of
I ∩ J, it follows that P(lcm(Mi , Nj )) is a generator of P(I ∩ J) and hence U ′ ∈ P(I ∩ J).
4. If p = (xi1 , . . . , xir ) is a minimal prime over I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ), then for each of the xij
there is a Mt such that xij | Mt , and no other generator of p divides Mt . The same holds for the
polarization of the two ideals: P(p) = (xi1 ,1 , . . . , xir ,1 ) and P(I) = (P(M1 ), . . . , P(Mt )),
and so P(p) is minimal over P(I).
5. Suppose that p′ = (xi1 ,e1 , . . . , xir ,er ) is a prime lying over P(I). Then for every generator
Mt of I, there is a xij ,ej in p′ such that xij ,ej | P(Mt ). But this implies that xij | Mt , and
therefore I ⊆ p = (xi1 , . . . , xir ).
Now suppose that p′ has minimal height r over P(I), and there is a prime ideal q over I with
height q < r. This implies (from part 4) that P(q), which is a prime of height less than r,
contains P(I), which is a contradiction.
6. This follows from parts 4 and 5.
Example 2.4. It is not true that every minimal prime of P(I) comes from a minimal prime of I.
For example, let I = (x21 , x1 x22 ). Then
P(I) = (x1,1 x1,2 , x1,1 x2,1 x2,2 ).
The ideal (x1,2 , x2,1 ) is a minimal prime over P(I), but the corresponding prime (x1 , x2 ) is not a
minimal prime of I (however, if we had taken any minimal prime of minimal height of P(I), e.g.
(x1,1 ), then the corresponding prime over I would have been minimal; this is part 5 above).
3

For a monomial ideal I in a polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] as above, there is a unique
irredundant irreducible decomposition of the form
I = q1 ∩ . . . ∩ qm
where each qi is a primary ideal generated by powers of the variables x1 , . . . , xn (see [16, Theorem 5.1.17]).
Proposition 2.5 (polarization and primary decomposition). Let I be a monomial ideal in a polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ], and let P(I) be the polarization of I in S = k[xi,j ] as described in
Definition 2.1.
1. If I = (xi1 a1 , . . . , xir ar ) where the aj are positive integers, then
\
P(I) =
(xi1 ,c1 , . . . , xir ,cr )
1≤cj ≤aj
1≤j≤r

2. If I = (xi1 , . . . , xir )m , where 1 ≤ i1 , . . . , ir ≤ n and m is a positive integer, then P(I) has
the following irredundant irreducible primary decomposition:
\
P(I) =
(xi1 ,c1 , . . . , xir ,cr )
1≤cj ≤m
Σcj ≤m+r−1

3. Suppose that I = q1 ∩ . . . ∩ qm is the unique irredundant irreducible primary decomposition
of I, such that for each i = 1, . . . , m,
i

i

qi = (x1 a1 , . . . , xn an ),
i

where the aij are nonnegative integers, and if aij = 0 we assume that xj aj = 0.
Then P(I) has the following irreducible primary decomposition (some primes might be repeated).
\
\
(x1,c1 , . . . , xn,cn )
P(I) =
1≤i≤m 1≤cj ≤ai

j

1≤j≤n

where when aij = 0, we assume that cj = xj,0 = 0.
Proof.

1. We know that
P(I) = (xi1 ,1 . . . xi1 ,a1 , . . . , xi1 ,1 . . . xi1 ,ar ).
Clearly the minimal primes of P(I) are (xi1 ,c1 , . . . , xir ,cr ) for all cj ≤ aj . This settles the
claim.
4

2. Assume, without loss of generality, that I = (x1 , . . . , xr )m . So we can write

I = x1 b1 . . . xr br | 0 ≤ bi ≤ m, b1 + · · · + br = m
so that

P(I) = x1,1 . . . x1,b1 . . . xr,1 . . . xr,br | 0 ≤ bi ≤ m, b1 + · · · + br = m .
We first show that P(I) is contained in the intersection of the ideals of the form (x1,c1 , . . . , xr,cr )
described above. It is enough to show this for each generator of P(I). So we show that
U = x1,1 . . . x1,b1 . . . xr,1 . . . xr,br ∈ I = (x1,c1 , . . . , xr,cr )
where 0 ≤ bi ≤ m, b1 + · · · + br = m, 1 ≤ cj ≤ m and c1 + · · · + cr ≤ m + r − 1.
If for any i, bi ≥ ci , then it would be clear that U ∈ I.
Assume bi ≤ ci − 1 for i = 1, . . . , r − 1. It follows that
m − br = b1 + · · · + br−1
≤ c1 + · · · + cr−1 − (r − 1)
≤ m + r − 1 − cr − (r − 1)
= m − cr
which implies that br ≥ cr , hence U ∈ I.
So far we have shown one direction of the inclusion.
To show the opposite direction, take any monomial
\
U ∈ (x1,c1 , . . . , xr,cr )
where 1 ≤ cj ≤ m and c1 + · · · + cr ≤ m + r − 1.
Notice that for some i ≤ r, xi,1 | U ; this is because U ∈ (x1,1 , . . . , xr,1 ).
We write U as
U = x1,1 . . . x1,b1 . . . xr,1 . . . xr,br U ′
where U ′ is a monomial, and the bi are nonnegative integers such that for each j < bi , xi,j | U
(if xi,1 6 | U then set bi = 0). We need to show that it is possible to find such bi so that
b1 + · · · + br = m.
Suppose b1 + · · · + br ≤ m − 1, and xi,bi +1 6 | U for 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Then
b1 + · · · + br + r ≤ m + r − 1,
hence
U ∈ (x1,b1 +1 , . . . , xr,br +1 )
implying that xi,bi +1 | U for some i, which is a contradiction.
Therefore b1 , . . . , br can be picked so that they add up to m, and hence U ∈ P(I); this settles
the opposite inclusion.
5

3. This follows from part 1 and Proposition 2.3 part 3.
Corollary 2.6 (polarization and associated primes). Let I be a monomial ideal in a polynomial ring
R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ], and let P(I) be its polarization in S = k[xi,j ] as described in Definition 2.1.
Then (xi1 , . . . , xir ) ∈ AssR (R/I) if and only if (xi1 ,c1 , . . . , xir ,cr ) ∈ AssS (S/P(I)) for some
positive integers c1 , . . . , cr .
Example 2.7. Consider the primary decomposition of J = (x1 2 , x2 3 , x1 x2 ):
J = (x1 , x2 3 ) ∩ (x1 2 , x2 ).
By Proposition 2.5, P(J) = (x1,1 x1,2 , x2,1 x2,2 x2,3 , x1,1 x2,1 ) will have primary decomposition
P(J) = (x1,1 , x2,1 ) ∩ (x1,1 , x2,2 ) ∩ (x1,1 , x2,3 ) ∩ (x1,2 , x2,1 ).
A very useful property of polarization is that the final polarized ideal is related to the original
ideal via a regular sequence. The proposition below, which looks slightly different here than the
original statement in [8], states this fact.
Proposition 2.8 (Fröberg [8]). Let k be a field and
R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ]/(M1 , . . . , Mq ),
where M1 , . . . , Mq are monomials in the variables x1 , . . . , xn , and let
N1 = P(M1 ), . . . , Nq = P(Mq )
be a set of square-free monomials in the polynomial ring
S = k[xi,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ ai ]
such that for each i, the variable xi,ai appears in at least one of the monomials N1 , . . . , Nq . Then
the sequence of elements
xi,1 − xi,j where 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 < j ≤ ai
forms a regular sequence in the quotient ring
R′ = S/(N1 , . . . , Nq )
and if J is the ideal of R′ generated by the elements in (1), then
R = R′ /J.
Moreover, R is Cohen-Macaulay (Gorenstein) if and only if R′ is.
Example 2.9. Let J and R be as in Example 2.2. According to Proposition 2.8, the sequence
x1,1 − x1,2 , x2,1 − x2,2 , x2,1 − x2,3
is a regular sequence in S/P(J), and

R/J = S/ P(J) + (x1,1 − x1,2 , x2,1 − x2,2 , x2,1 − x2,3 ) .

6

(1)

3 Square-free monomial ideals as facet ideals
Now that we have introduced polarization as a method of transforming a monomial ideal into a
square-free one, we can focus on square-free monomial ideals. In particular, here we are interested
in properties of square-free monomial ideals that come as a result of them being considered as facet
ideals of simplicial complexes. Below we review the basic definitions and notations in facet ideal
theory, as well as some of the basic concepts of Stanley-Reisner theory. We refer the reader to [2],
[5], [6], [7], and [14] for more details and proofs in each of these topics.
Definition 3.1 (simplicial complex, facet, subcollection and more). A simplicial complex ∆ over a
set of vertices V = {v1 , . . . , vn } is a collection of subsets of V , with the property that {vi } ∈ ∆ for
all i, and if F ∈ ∆ then all subsets of F are also in ∆ (including the empty set). An element of ∆ is
called a face of ∆, and the dimension of a face F of ∆ is defined as |F |− 1, where |F | is the number
of vertices of F . The faces of dimensions 0 and 1 are called vertices and edges, respectively, and
dim ∅ = −1. The maximal faces of ∆ under inclusion are called facets of ∆. The dimension of the
simplicial complex ∆ is the maximal dimension of its facets.
We denote the simplicial complex ∆ with facets F1 , . . . , Fq by
∆ = hF1 , . . . , Fq i
and we call {F1 , . . . , Fq } the facet set of ∆. A simplicial complex with only one facet is called a
simplex. By a subcollection of ∆ we mean a simplicial complex whose facet set is a subset of the
facet set of ∆.
Definition 3.2 (connected simplicial complex). A simplicial complex ∆ = hF1 , . . . , Fq i is connected if for every pair i, j, 1 ≤ i < j ≤ q, there exists a sequence of facets Ft1 , . . . , Ftr of ∆ such
that Ft1 = Fi , Ftr = Fj and Fts ∩ Fts+1 6= ∅ for s = 1, . . . , r − 1.
Definition 3.3 (facet/non-face ideals and complexes). Consider a polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ]
over a field k and a set of indeterminates x1 , . . . , xn . Let I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ) be an ideal in R, where
M1 , . . . , Mq are square-free monomials that form a minimal set of generators for I.
• The facet complex of I, denoted by δF (I), is the simplicial complex over a set of vertices
v1 , . . . , vn with facets F1 , . . . , Fq , where for each i, Fi = {vj | xj |Mi , 1 ≤ j ≤ n}. The
non-face complex or the Stanley-Reisner complex of I, denoted by δN (I) is be the simplicial
complex over a set of vertices v1 , . . . , vn , where {vi1 , . . . , vis } is a face of δN (I) if and only
if xi1 . . . xis ∈
/ I.
• Conversely, if ∆ is a simplicial complex over n vertices labeled v1 , . . . , vn , we define the
facet ideal of ∆, denoted by F(∆), to be the ideal of R generated by square-free monomials xi1 . . . xis , where {vi1 , . . . , vis } is a facet of ∆. The non-face ideal or the StanleyReisner ideal of ∆, denoted by N (∆), is the ideal of R generated by square-free monomials
xi1 . . . xis , where {vi1 , . . . , vis } is not a face of ∆.
7

Throughout this paper we often use a letter x to denote both a vertex of ∆ and the corresponding
variable appearing in F(∆), and xi1 . . . xir to denote a facet of ∆ as well as a monomial generator
of F(∆).
Example 3.4. If ∆ is the simplicial complex hxyz, yu, uvwi drawn below,
y
x

u
z

w
v

then F(∆) = (xyz, yu, uvw) and N (∆) = (xu, xv, xw, yv, yw, zu, zv, zw) are its facet ideal and
nonface (Stanley-Reisner) ideal, respectively.
Facet ideals give a one-to-one correspondence between simplicial complexes and square-free
monomial ideals.
Next we define the notion of a vertex cover. The combinatorial idea here comes from graph
theory. In algebra, it corresponds to prime ideals lying over the facet ideal of a given simplicial
complex.
Definition 3.5 (vertex covering, independence, unmixed). Let ∆ be a simplicial complex with vertex set V . A vertex cover for ∆ is a subset A of V that intersects every facet of ∆. If A is a minimal
element (under inclusion) of the set of vertex covers of ∆, it is called a minimal vertex cover. The
smallest of the cardinalities of the vertex covers of ∆ is called the vertex covering number of ∆ and
is denoted by α(∆). A simplicial complex ∆ is unmixed if all of its minimal vertex covers have the
same cardinality.
A set {F1 , . . . , Fu } of facets of ∆ is called an independent set if Fi ∩ Fj = ∅ whenever i 6= j.
The maximum possible cardinality of an independent set of facets in ∆, denoted by β(∆), is called
the independence number of ∆. An independent set of facets which is not a proper subset of any
other independent set is called a maximal independent set of facets.
Example 3.6. If ∆ is the simplicial complex in Example 3.4, then the vertex covers of ∆ are:
{x, u}, {y, u}, {y, v}, {y, w}, {z, u}, {x, y, u}, {x, z, u}, {x, y, v}, . . . .
The first five vertex covers above (highlighted in bold), are the minimal vertex covers of ∆. It
follows that α(∆) = 2, and ∆ is unmixed. On the other hand, {xyz, uvw} is the largest maximal
independent set of facets that ∆ contains, and so β(∆) = 2.
Definition 3.7 (Alexander dual). Let I be a square-free monomial ideal in the polynomial ring k[V ]
with V = {x1 , . . . , xn }, and let ∆N be the non-face complex of I (i.e. ∆N = δN (I)). Then the
Alexander dual of ∆N is the simplicial complex
∆N ∨ = {F ⊂ V | F c ∈
/ ∆N }
where F c is the complement of the face F in V .
We call the nonface ideal of ∆N ∨ the Alexander dual of I and denote it by I ∨ .
8

3.1 Simplicial Trees
Considering simplicial complexes as higher dimensional graphs, one can define the notion of a tree
by extending the same concept from graph theory. Before we define a tree, we determine what
“removing a facet” from a simplicial complex means. We define this idea so that it corresponds to
dropping a generator from the facet ideal of the complex.
Definition 3.8 (facet removal). Suppose ∆ is a simplicial complex with facets F1 , . . . , Fq and
F(∆) = (M1 , . . . , Mq ) its facet ideal in R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ]. The simplicial complex obtained by
removing the facet Fi from ∆ is the simplicial complex
∆ \ hFi i = hF1 , . . . , F̂i , . . . , Fq i
and F(∆ \ hFi i) = (M1 , . . . , M̂i , . . . , Mq ).
The definition that we give below for a simplicial tree is one generalized from graph theory. See
[5] and [6] for more on this concept.
Definition 3.9 (leaf, joint). A facet F of a simplicial complex is called a leaf if either F is the only
facet of ∆, or for some facet G ∈ ∆ \ hF i we have
F ∩ (∆ \ hF i) ⊆ G.
If F ∩ G 6= ∅, the facet G above is called a joint of the leaf F .
Equivalently, a facet F is a leaf of ∆ if F ∩ (∆ \ hF i) is a face of ∆ \ hF i.
Example 3.10. Let I = (xyz, yzu, zuv). Then F = xyz is a leaf, but H = yzu is not, as one can
see in the picture below.
x

y

F ∩ (∆ \ hF i) =

y

∩

z
y

H ∩ (∆ \ hHi) =

z

z

∩

y

=

u

x
u

z

v

y

v
z

y

u

=

z

u

Definition 3.11 (tree, forest). A connected simplicial complex ∆ is a tree if every nonempty subcollection of ∆ has a leaf. If ∆ is not necessarily connected, but every subcollection has a leaf, then
∆ is called a forest.
Example 3.12. The simplicial complexes in examples 3.4 and 3.10 are both trees, but the one below
is not because it has no leaves. It is an easy exercise to see that a leaf must contain a free vertex,
where a vertex is free if it belongs to only one facet.

9

One of the most powerful properties of simplicial trees from the point of view of algebra is that
they behave well under localization. This property makes it easy to use induction on the number of
vertices of a tree for proving its various properties.
Lemma 3.13 (Localization of a tree is a forest). Let I ⊆ k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be the facet ideal of a
simplicial tree, where k is a field. Then for any prime ideal p of k[x1 , . . . , xn ], δF (Ip ) is a forest.
Proof. See [6, Lemma 4.5].

4 properties of monomial ideals via polarization
For the purpose of all discussions in this section, unless otherwise stated, let I be a monomial ideal
in the polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] over a field k, whose polarization is the square-free
monomial ideal P(I) in the polynomial ring
S = k[xi,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ ai ].
We assume that the polarizing sequence (as described in (1) in Proposition 2.8) is
ν = ν1 , . . . , νv
which is a regular sequence in S/P(I) and

R/I = S/ P(I) + (ν) .

4.1 Monomial ideals whose polarization is a simplicial tree
A natural question, and one that this paper is mainly concerned with, is what properties of facet
ideals of simplicial trees can be extended to general (non-square-free) monomial ideals using polarization? In other words, if for a monomial ideal I in a polynomial ring P(I) is the facet ideal of a
tree (Definition 3.11), then what properties of P(I) are inherited by I?
The strongest tool when dealing with square-free monomial ideals is induction– either on the
number of generators, or the number of variables in the ambient polynomial ring. This is particularly
the case when the facet complex of the ideal is a tree, or in some cases when it just has a leaf. In
this section we show that via polarization, one can extend these tools to monomial ideals in general.
For a given monomial ideal I, we show that if P(I) is the facet ideal of a tree, and p is a prime
ideal containing I, then P(Ip ) is the facet ideal of a forest (Theorem 4.1); this allows induction on
number of variables. Similarly, Theorem 4.3 provides us with a way to use induction on number of
generators of I.
Theorem 4.1 (localization and polarization). If P(I) is the facet ideal of a tree, and p is a prime
ideal of R containing I, then P(Ip ) is the facet ideal of a forest.
10

Proof. The first step is to show that it is enough to prove this for prime ideals of R generated by a
subset of {x1 , . . . , xn }. To see this, assume that p is a prime ideal of R containing I, and that p′
is another prime of R generated by all xi ∈ {x1 , . . . , xn } such that xi ∈ p (recall that the minimal
primes of I are generated by subsets of {x1 , . . . , xn }; see [16, Corollary 5.1.5]). So p′ ⊆ p. If
I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ), then
Ip′ = (M1 ′ , . . . , Mq ′ )
where for each i, Mi ′ is the image of Mi in Ip′ . In other words, Mi ′ is obtained by dividing
Mi = x1 a1 . . . xn an by the product of all the xj aj such that xj ∈
/ p′ . But xj ∈
/ p′ implies that
′
xj ∈
/ p, and so it follows that Mi ∈ Ip . Therefore Ip′ ⊆ Ip . On the other hand since p′ ⊆ p,
Ip ⊆ Ip′ , which implies that Ip′ = Ip (the equality and inclusions of the ideals here mean equality
and inclusion of their generating sets).
Now suppose I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ), and p = (x1 , . . . , xr ) is a prime containing I. Suppose that
for each i, we write Mi = Mi′ .Mi′′ , where
Mi′ ∈ k[x1 , . . . , xr ] and Mi′′ ∈ k[xr+1 , . . . , xn ]
so that
Ip = (M1′ , . . . , Mt′ ),
where without loss of generality M1′ , . . . , Mt′ is a minimal generating set for Ip .
We would like to show that the facet complex ∆ of P(Ip ) is a forest. Suppose that, again without
loss of generality,
I ′ = (P(M1′ ), . . . , P(Ms′ ))
is the facet ideal of a subcollection ∆′ of ∆. We need to show that ∆′ has a leaf.
If s = 1, then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, suppose that P(M1 ) represents a leaf of the
tree δF (P(I)), and P(M2 ) is a joint of P(M1 ). Then we have
P(M1 ) ∩ P(Mi ) ⊆ P(M2 ) f or all i ∈ {2, . . . , s}.
Now let xe,f be in P(M1′ ) ∩ P(Mi′ ) for some i ∈ {2, . . . , s}. This implies that
(i) xe,f ∈ P(M1 ) ∩ P(Mi ) ⊆ P(M2 ), and
(ii) e ∈ {1 . . . , r}
From (i) and (ii) we can conclude that xe,f ∈ P(M2′ ), which proves that P(M1′ ) is a leaf for ∆′ .
Remark 4.2. It is not true in general that if p is a (minimal) prime of I, then P(Ip ) = P(I)P(p) .
For example, if I = (x1 3 , x1 2 x2 ) and p = (x1 ), then Ip = (x1 2 ) so P(Ip ) = (x1,1 x1,2 ), but
P(I)P(p) = (x1,1 ).
Another feature of simplicial trees is that they satisfy a generalization of König’s theorem ([6,
Theorem 5.3]). Below we explain how this property, and another property of trees that is very useful
for induction, behave under polarization.

11

Recall that for a simplicial complex ∆, α(∆) and β(∆) are the vertex covering number and
the independence number of ∆, respectively (Definition 3.5). For simplicity of notation, if I =
(M1 , . . . , Mq ) is a monomial ideal, we let β(I) denote the maximum cardinality of a subset of
{M1 , . . . , Mq } consisting of pairwise coprime elements (so β(∆) = β(F(∆)) for any simplicial
complex ∆).
Theorem 4.3 (joint removal and polarization). Suppose M1 , . . . , Mq are monomials that form a
minimal generating set for I, and P(I) is the facet ideal of a simplicial complex ∆. Assume that ∆
has a leaf, whose joint corresponds to P(M1 ). Then, if we let I ′ = (M2 , . . . , Mq ), we have
height I = height I ′ .
Proof. If G is the joint of ∆ corresponding to P(M1 ), then P(I ′ ) = F(∆ \ hGi). From [6,
Lemma 5.1] it follows that α(∆) = α(∆ \ hGi), so that height P(I) = height P(I ′ ), and therefore
height I = height I ′ .
Theorem 4.4. Suppose M1 , . . . , Mq are monomials that form a minimal generating set for I, and
P(I) is the facet ideal of a simplicial tree ∆. Then height I = β(I).
Proof. We already know that height I = height P(I) = α(∆). It is also clear that β(I) =
β(P(I)), since the monomials in a subset {Mi1 , . . . , Mir } of the generating set of I are pairwise
coprime if and only if the monomials in {P(Mi1 ), . . . , P(Mir )} are pairwise coprime. On the other
hand, from [6, Theorem 5.3] we know that α(∆) = β(∆). Our claim follows immediately.
We demonstrate how to apply these theorems via an example.
Example 4.5. Suppose I = (x1 3 , x1 2 x2 x3 , x3 2 , x2 3 x3 ). Then
P(I) = (x1,1 x1,2 x1,3 , x1,1 x1,2 x2,1 x3,1 , x3,1 x3,2 , x2,1 x2,2 x2,3 x3,1 )
is the facet ideal of the following simplicial complex (tree) ∆.
x 3,1
x 3,2

x 1,3

x 2,3

x 1,1
x 1,2

x 2,1

x 2,2

Now α(∆) = height I = 2 because the prime of minimal height over I is (x1 , x3 ). From
Theorem 4.4 it follows that β(I) = 2. This means that you can find a set of two monomials in the
generating set of I that have no common variables: for example {x1 3 , x3 2 } is such a set.
Since the monomials x1 2 x2 x3 and x2 3 x3 polarize into joints of ∆, by Theorem 4.3 the ideals
I, (x1 3 , x3 2 , x2 3 x3 ), (x1 3 , x1 2 x2 x3 , x3 2 ), and (x1 3 , x3 2 )
all have the same height.
12

We now focus on the Cohen-Macaulay property. In [6] we showed that for a simplicial tree ∆,
F(∆) is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal if and only if ∆ is an unmixed simplicial complex. The condition
unmixed for ∆ is equivalent to all minimal primes of the ideal F(∆) (which in this case are all
the associated primes of F(∆)) having the same height. In general, an ideal all whose associated
primes have the same height (equal to the height of the ideal) is called an unmixed ideal.
It now follows that
Theorem 4.6 (Cohen-Macaulay criterion for trees). Let P(I) be the facet ideal of a simplicial tree
∆. Then R/I is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if I is unmixed.
Proof. From Proposition 2.8, R/I is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if S/P(I) is Cohen-Macaulay.
By [6, Corollary 8.3], this is happens if and only if P(I) is unmixed. Corollary 2.6 now proves the
claim.
If R is a ring and J is an ideal of R, then the Rees ring of R along J is defined as
R[Jt] = ⊕n∈N J n tn .
Rees rings come up in the algebraic process of “blowing up” ideals. One reason that trees were
defined as they are, is that their facet ideals produce normal and Cohen-Macaulay Rees rings ([5]).
Proposition 4.7. If S[P(I)t] is Cohen-Macaulay, then so is R[It]. Conversely, if we assume that R
and S are localized at their irrelevant maximal ideals, then R[It] being Cohen-Macaulay implies
that S[P(I)t] is Cohen-Macaulay.
Proof. Suppose that ν1 , . . . , νv is the polarizing sequence as described before. For i = 1, . . . , v − 1
let
Ri = S/(ν1 , . . . , νi ), Ii = P(I)/(ν1 , . . . , νi ), Rv = R and Iv = I.
Notice that S[P(I)t] and R[It] are both domains. Also note that for each i,
S[P(I)t]/(ν1 , . . . , νi ) = Ri [Ii t]
is the Rees ring of the monomial ideal Ii in the polynomial ring Ri , and is therefore also a domain.
Therefore νi+1 is a regular element in the ring S[P(I)t]/(ν1 , . . . , νi ), which means that ν1 , . . . , νv
is a regular sequence in S[P(I)t].
Similarly, we see that
R[It] = S[P(I)t]/(ν1 , . . . , νv ).
[2, Theorem 2.1.3] now implies that if S[P(I)t] is Cohen-Macaulay, then so is R[It]. The
converse follows from [2, Exercise 2.1.28].
Corollary 4.8 (Rees ring of a tree is Cohen-Macaulay). Suppose that P(I) is the facet ideal of a
simplicial tree. Then the Rees ring R[It] of I is Cohen-Macaulay.
Proof. This follows from the Proposition 4.7, and from [5, Corollary 4], which states that the Rees
ring of the facet ideal of a simplicial tree is Cohen-Macaulay.

13

4.2 Polarization of sequentially Cohen-Macaulay ideals
The main result of this section is that if the polarization of a monomial ideal I is the facet ideal of
a tree, then I is a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay ideal. The theorem that implies this fact (Proposition 4.11) is interesting in its own right. For a square-free monomial ideal J, Eagon and Reiner
[4] proved that J is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if its Alexander dual J ∨ has a linear resolution.
Herzog and Hibi [9] then defined componentwise linear ideals and generalized their result, so that a
square-free monomial ideal J is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if and only if J ∨ is componentwise
linear (see [9] or [7]). But even though Alexander duality has been generalized to all monomial
ideals from square-free ones, the criterion for sequential Cohen-Macaulayness does not generalize:
it is not true that if I is any monomial ideal, then I is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if and only
of I ∨ is a componentwise linear ideal; see Miller [10]. We show that the statement is true if I ∨ is
replaced by P(I)∨ .
Definition 4.9 ([14, Chapter III, Definition 2.9]). Let M be a finitely generated Z-graded module
over a finitely generated N-graded k-algebra, with R0 = k. We say that M is sequentially CohenMacaulay if there exists a finite filtration
0 = M0 ⊂ M1 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Mr = M
of M by graded submodules Mi satisfying the following two conditions.
(a) Each quotient Mi /Mi−1 is Cohen-Macaulay.
(b) dim (M1 /M0 ) < dim (M2 /M1 ) < . . . < dim (Mr /Mr−1 ), where dim denotes Krull
dimension.
We define a componentwise linear ideal in the square-free case using [9, Proposition 1.5].
Definition 4.10 (componentwise linear). Let I be a square-free monomial ideal in a polynomial
ring R. For a positive integer k, the k-th square-free homogeneous component of I, denoted by
I[k] is the ideal generated by all square-free monomials in I of degree k. The ideal I above is said
to be componentwise linear if for all k, the square-free homogeneous component I[k] has a linear
resolution.
For our monomial ideal I, let Q(I) denote the set of primary ideals appearing in a reduced
primary decomposition of I. Suppose that h = height I and s = max{height q | q ∈ Q(I)}, and
set
\
Ii =
q.
q∈Q(I)
height q≤s−i

So we have the following filtration for R/I (we assume that all inclusions in the filtration are
proper; if there is an equality anywhere, we just drop all but one of the equal ideals).
0 = I = I0 ⊂ I1 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Is−h ⊂ R/I.
14

(2)

If R/I is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay, then by Theorem A.4, (2) is the appropriate filtration
that satisfies Conditions (a) and (b) in Definition 4.9.
For the square-free monomial ideal J = P(I), we similarly define
\
Q(J) = {minimal primes over J} and Ji =
p
p∈Q(J)
height p≤s−i

where the numbers h and s are the same as for I because of Proposition 2.5. It follows from
Proposition 2.5 and Corollary 2.6 that for each i, P(Ii ) = Ji and the polarization sequence that
transforms Ii into Ji is a subsequence of ν = ν1 , . . . , νv .
What we have done so far is to translate, via polarization, the filtration (2) of the quotient ring
R/I into one of S/J:
0 = J = J0 ⊂ J1 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Js−h ⊂ S/J.

(3)

Now note that for a given i, the sequence ν is a Ji+1 /Ji -regular sequence in S, as ν is a regular
sequence in S/Ji , which contains Ji+1 /Ji . Also note that
R/Ii ≃ S/(Ji + ν).
It follows that Ji+1 /Ji is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if Ii+1 /Ii is (see [2, Exercise 2.1.27(c),
Exercise 2.1.28, and Theorem 2.1.3]).
Proposition 4.11. The monomial ideal I is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if and only if P(I) is
sequentially Cohen-Macaulay, or equivalently, P(I)∨ is a componentwise linear ideal.
Proof. By [7, Proposition 4.5], P(I)∨ is componentwise linear if and only if P(I) is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay, which by the discussion above is equivalent to I being sequentially CohenMacaulay.
Corollary 4.12 (Trees are sequentially Cohen-Macaulay). Let P(I) be the facet ideal of a simplicial
tree. Then I is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 4.11 and by [7, Corollary 5.5], which states that P(I)∨ is a
componentwise linear ideal.

5 Further examples and remarks
To use the main results of this paper for computations on a given monomial ideal, there are two
steps. One is to compute the polarization of the ideal, which as can be seen from the definition, is a
quick and simple procedure. This has already been implemented in Macaulay2. The second step is
to determine whether the polarization is the facet ideal of a tree, or has a leaf. Algorithms that serve
this purpose are under construction [3].
15

Remark 5.1. Let I = (M1 , . . . , Mq ) be a monomial ideal in a polynomial ring R. If P(I) is the
facet ideal of a tree, then by Corollary 4.8, R[It] is Cohen-Macaulay. But more is true: if you drop
any generator of I, for example if you consider I ′ = (M1 , . . . , M̂i , . . . , Mq ), then R[I ′ t] is still
Cohen-Macaulay. This is because P(I ′ ) corresponds to the facet ideal of a forest, so one can apply
the same result.
A natural question is whether one can say the same with the property “Cohen-Macaulay” replaced by “normal”. If I is square-free, this is indeed the case. But in general, polarization does not
preserve normality of ideals.
Example 5.2 (normality and polarization). A valid question is whether Proposition 4.7 holds if the
word “Cohen-Macaulay” is replaced with “normal”, given that simplicial trees have normal facet
ideals ([5])?
The answer is negative. Here is an example.
Let I = (x1 3 , x1 2 x2 , x2 3 ) be an ideal of k[x1 , x2 ]. Then I is not normal; this is because I is not
even integrally closed: x1 x2 2 ∈ I as (x1 x2 2 )3 − x1 3 x2 6 = 0, but x1 x2 2 6∈ I. Now
P(I) = (x1,1 x1,2 x1,3 , x1,1 x1,2 x2,1 , x2,1 x2,2 x2,3 )
is the facet ideal of the tree
x 1,3

x 1,2

x 1,1

x 2,2
x 2,1

x 2,3

which is normal by [5].
The reason that normality (or integral closure in general) does not pass through polarization is
much more basic: polarization does not respect multiplication of ideals, or monomials. Take, for
example, two monomials M and N and two monomial ideals I and J, such that M N ∈ IJ. It is
not necessarily true that P(M )P(N ) ∈ P(I)P(J).
Indeed, let I = J = (x1 x2 ) and M = x1 2 and N = x2 2 . Then M N = x1 2 x2 2 ∈ IJ. But
P(M ) = x1,1 x1,2 , P(N ) = x2,1 x2,2 , and P(I) = P(J) = (x1,1 x2,1 )
and clearly P(M )P(N ) ∈
/ P(I)P(J) = (x1,1 2 x2,1 2 ).
Remark 5.3. It is useful to think of polarization as a chain of substitutions. This way, as a monomial
ideal I gets polarized, the ambient ring extends one variable at a time. All the in-between ideals
before we hit the final square-free ideal P(I) have the same polarization.
For example let J = (x2 , xy, y 3 ) ⊆ k[x, y]. We use a diagram to demonstrate the process
described in the previous paragraph. Each linear form a − b stands for “replacing the variable b with
a”, or vice versa, depending on which direction we are going.
v−y

u−x

J = (x2 , xy, y 3 ) −→ J1 = (xu, uy, y 3 ) −→ J2 = (xu, uv, y 2 v)
16

w−y

−→ J3 = (xu, uv, yvw) .
This final square-free monomial ideal J3 is the polarization of J, and is isomorphic to P(J) as
we defined it in Definition 2.1. Note that all ideals J, J1 , J2 and J3 have the same (isomorphic)
polarization. We can classify monomial ideals according to their polarizations. An interesting
question is to see what properties do ideals in the same polarization class have. A more difficult
question is how far can one “depolarize” a square-free monomial ideal I, where by depolarizing I
we mean finding monomial ideals whose polarization is equal to I, or equivalently, traveling the
opposite direction on the above diagram.

A

Appendix: Primary decomposition in a sequentially
Cohen-Macaulay module

The purpose of this appendix is to study, using basic facts about primary decomposition of modules, the structure of the submodules appearing in the (unique) filtration of a sequentially CohenMacaulay module M . The main result (Theorem A.4) states that each submodule appearing in the
filtration of M is the intersection of all primary submodules whose associated primes have a certain height and appear in an irredundant primary decomposition of the 0-submodule of M . Similar
results, stated in a different language, appear in [12]; the author thanks Jürgen Herzog for pointing
this out.
We first record two basic lemmas that we shall use later (the second one is an exercise in Bourbaki [1]). Throughout the discussions below, we assume that R is a finitely generated algebra over
a field, and M is a finite module over R.
Lemma A.1. Let Q 1 , . . . , Q t , P all be primary submodules of an R-module M , such that Ass(M/Q i ) =
{qi } and Ass(M/P) = {p}. If Q 1 ∩ . . . ∩ Q t ⊆ P and Q i 6⊆ P for some i, then there is a j 6= i
such that qj ⊆ p.
m

Proof. Let x ∈ Q i \P. For each j not equal to i, pick the positive integer mj such that qj j x ⊆ Q j .
So we have that
m

m

m

m

m1
mt
mt
i+1
i−1
i+1
i−1
1
qm
1 . . . qi−1 qi+1 . . . qt x ⊆ Q 1 ∩ . . . ∩ Q t ⊆ P =⇒ q1 . . . qi−1 qi+1 . . . qt ⊆ p

where the second inclusion is because x ∈
/ P. Hence for some j 6= i, qj ⊆ p.
Lemma A.2. Let M be an R-module and N be a submodule of M . Then for every p ∈ Ass(M/N ),
if p 6⊇ Ann(N ), then p ∈ Ass(M ).
Proof. Since p ∈ Ass(M/N ), there exists x ∈ M \ N such that p = Ann(x); in other words
px ⊆ N. Suppose Ann(N ) 6⊆ p, and let y ∈ Ann(N ) \ p. Now ypx = 0, and so p ⊆ Ann(yx) in
M . On the other hand, if z ∈ Ann(yx), then zyx = 0 ⊆ N and so zy ∈ p. But y ∈
/ p, so z ∈ p.
Therefore p ∈ Ass(M ).

17

Suppose M is a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay module with filtration as in Definition 4.9. We
adopt the following notation. For a given integer j, we let
Ass(M )j = {p ∈ Ass(M ) | height p = j}.
Suppose that all the j where Ass(M )j 6= ∅ form the sequence of integers
0 ≤ h1 < . . . < hc ≤ dim R
so that Ass(M ) =

S

1≤j≤c Ass(M )hj .

Proposition A.3. For all i = 0, . . . , r − 1, we have
1. Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ∩ Ass(M ) 6= ∅;
2. Ass(M )hr−i ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) and c = r;
3. If p ∈ Ass(Mi+1 ), then height p ≥ hr−i ;
4. If p ∈ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ), then Ann(Mi ) 6⊆ p;
5. Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ⊆ Ass(M );
6. Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) = Ass(M )hr−i ;
7. Ass(M/Mi ) = Ass(M )≤hr−i ;
8. Ass(Mi+1 ) = Ass(M )≥hr−i .
Proof.

1. We use induction on the length r of the filtration of M . The case r = 1 is clear, as
we have a filtration 0 ⊂ M , and the assertion follows. Now suppose the statement holds for
sequentially Cohen-Macaulay modules with filtrations of length less than r. Notice that Mr−1
that appears in the filtration of M in Definition 4.9 is also sequentially Cohen-Macaulay, and
so by the induction hypothesis, we have
Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ∩ Ass(Mr−1 ) 6= ∅ for i = 0, . . . , r − 2
and since Ass(Mr−1 ) ⊆ Ass(M ) it follows that
Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ∩ Ass(M ) 6= ∅ for i = 0, . . . , r − 2.
It remains to show that Ass(M/Mr−1 ) ∩ Ass(M ) 6= ∅.
For each i, Mi−1 ⊂ Mi , so we have ([1] Chapter IV)
Ass(M1 ) ⊆ Ass(M2 ) ⊆ Ass(M1 ) ∪ Ass(M2 /M1 )
The inclusion M2 ⊆ M3 along with the inclusions in (4) imply that
Ass(M2 ) ⊆ Ass(M3 ) ⊆ Ass(M2 ) ∪ Ass(M3 /M2 )
⊆ Ass(M1 ) ∪ Ass(M2 /M1 ) ∪ Ass(M3 /M2 ).
18

(4)

If we continue this process inductively, at the i-th stage we have
Ass(Mi ) ⊆ Ass(Mi−1 ) ∪ Ass(Mi /Mi−1 )
⊆ Ass(M1 ) ∪ Ass(M2 /M1 ) ∪ Ass(M3 /M2 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Ass(Mi /Mi−1 )
and finally, when i = r it gives
Ass(M ) ⊆ Ass(M1 ) ∪ Ass(M2 /M1 ) ∪ . . . ∪ Ass(M/Mr−1 ).

(5)

Because of Condition (b) in Definition 4.9, and the fact that each Mi+1 /Mi is Cohen-Macaulay
(and hence all its associated primes have the same height; see [2] Chapter 2), if for every i we
pick pi ∈ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ), then
hc ≥ height p0 > height p1 > . . . > height pr−1 .
where the left-hand-side inequality comes from the fact that Ass(M1 ) ⊆ Ass(M ). By our
induction hypothesis, Ass(M ) intersects Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) for all i ≤ r − 2, and so because of
(5) we conclude that
height pi = hc−i , and Ass(M )hc−i ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) for 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 2.
And now Ass(M )h0 has no choice but to be included in Ass(M/Mr−1 ), which settles our
claim. It also follows that c = r.
2. See the proof for part 1.
3. We use induction. The case i = 0 is clear, since for every p ∈ Ass(M1 ) = Ass(M1 /M0 ) we
know from part 2 that height p = hr . Suppose the statement holds for all indices up to i − 1.
Consider the inclusion
Ass(Mi ) ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 ) ⊆ Ass(Mi ) ∪ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ).
From part 2 and the induction hypothesis it follows that if p ∈ Ass(Mi+1 ) then height p ≥
hr−i .
p
T
T
4. Suppose Ann(Mi ) ⊆ p. Since Ann(Mi ) = p′ ∈Ass(Mi ) p′ , it follows that p′ ∈Ass(Mi ) p′ ⊆
p, so there is a p′ ∈ Ass(Mi ) such that p′ ⊆ p. But from parts 2 and 3 above it follows that
height p′ ≥ hr−i+1 and height p = hr−i , which is a contradiction.
5. From part 4 and Lemma A.2, it follows that Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 ) ⊆ Ass(M ).
6. This follows from parts 2 and 5, and the fact that Mi+1 /Mi is Cohen-Macaulay, and hence
all associated primes have the same height.

19

7. We show this by induction on e = r − i. The case e = 1 (or i = r − 1) is clear, because by
part 6 we have Ass(M/Mr−1 ) = Ass(M )h1 = Ass(M )≤h1 .
Now suppose the equation holds for all integers up to e − 1 (namely i = r − e + 1), and we
would like to prove the statement for e (or i = r − e). Since Mi+1 /Mi ⊆ M/Mi , we have
Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ⊆ Ass(M/Mi ) ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) ∪ Ass(M/Mi+1 )

(6)

By the induction hypothesis and part 6 we know that
Ass(M/Mi+1 ) = Ass(M )≤hr−i−1 and Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ) = Ass(M )hr−i ,
which put together with (6) implies that
Ass(M )hr−i ⊆ Ass(M/Mi ) ⊆ Ass(M )≤hr−i
We still have to show that Ass(M/Mi ) ⊇ Ass(M )≤hr−i−1 .
Let
p ∈ Ass(M )≤hr−i−1 = Ass(M/Mi+1 ) = Ass((M/Mi )/(Mi+1 /Mi )).
If p ⊇ Ann(Mi+1 /Mi ), then (by part 6)
\
p⊇
q =⇒ p ⊇ q for some q ∈ Ass(M )hr−i
q∈Ass(M )hr−i

which is a contradiction, as height p ≤ hr−i−1 < height q. It follows from Lemma A.2 that
p ∈ Ass(M/Mi ).
8. The argument is based on induction, and exactly the same as the one in part 4, using more
information; from the inclusions
Ass(Mi ) ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 ) ⊆ Ass(Mi ) ∪ Ass(Mi+1 /Mi ),
the induction hypothesis, and part 6 we deduce that
Ass(M )≥hr−i+1 ⊆ Ass(Mi+1 ) ⊆ Ass(M )≥hr−i+1 ∪ Ass(M )hr−i ,
which put together with part 4, along with Lemma A.2 produces the equality.
Now suppose that as a submodule of M , M0 = 0 has an irredundant primary decomposition of
the form:
\
h
h
M0 = 0 =
Q 1j ∩ . . . ∩ Q sjj
(7)
1≤j≤r
h

h

h

where for a fixed j ≤ r and e ≤ sj , Q ej is a primary submodule of M with Ass(M/Q ej ) = {pe j }
h
h
and Ass(M )hj = {p1 j , . . . , psjj }.
20

Theorem A.4. Let M be a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay module with filtration as in Definition 4.9,
and suppose that M0 = 0 has a primary decomposition as in (7). Then for each i = 0, . . . , r − 1,
Mi has the following primary decomposition
\
h
h
Mi =
Q 1j ∩ . . . ∩ Q sjj .
(8)
1≤j≤r−i

Proof. We prove this by induction on r (length of the filtration). The case r = 1 is clear, as the
filtration is of the form 0 = M0 ⊂ M . Now consider M with filtration
0 = M0 ⊂ M1 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Mr = M.
Since Mr−1 is a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay module of length r − 1, it satisfies the statement of
the theorem. We first show that Mr−1 has a primary decomposition as described in (8). From part 7
of Proposition A.3 it follows that
Ass(M/Mr−1 ) = Ass(M )h1
and so for some phe 1 -primary submodules Peh1 of M (1 ≤ e ≤ sj ), we have
Mr−1 = P1h1 ∩ . . . ∩ Psh11 .

(9)

We would like to show that Qhe1 = Peh1 for e = 1, . . . , s1 .
Fix e = 1 and assume Qh11 6⊂ P1h1 . From the inclusion M0 ⊂ P1h1 and Lemma A.1 it follows
h
that for some e and j (with e 6= 1 if j = 1), we have pe j ⊆ ph1 1 . Because of the difference in heights
h
of these ideals the only conclusion is pe j = ph1 1 , which is not possible. With a similar argument we
deduce that Qhe1 ⊂ Peh1 , for e = 1, . . . , s1 .
h
Now fix j ∈ {1, . . . , r} and e ∈ {1, . . . , sj }. If Mr−1 = Q ej we are done. Otherwise, note that
h
h
for every j and pe j -primary submodule Q ej of M ,
h

Q ej ∩ Mr−1
h

h

is a pe j -primary submodule of Mr−1 (as ∅ =
6 Ass(Mr−1 /(Q ej ∩ Mr−1 )) = Ass((Mr−1 +
h
h
h
h
Q ej )/Q ej ) ⊆ Ass(M/Q ej ) = {pe j }). So M0 = 0 as a submodule of Mr−1 has a primary
decomposition
\
h
h
M0 ∩ Mr−1 = 0 =
(Q 1j ∩ Mr−1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ (Q sjj ∩ Mr−1 ).
1≤j≤r

From Proposition A.3 part 8 it follows that
Ass(Mr−1 ) = Ass(M )≥h2
so the components Qht1 ∩ Mr−1 are redundant for t = 1, . . . , s1 , so for each such t we have
\
h
(Q 1j ∩ Mr−1 ) ⊆ Qht1 ∩ Mr−1 .
Q

hj
h1
e 6=Q t

21

h

h

If Q ej ∩ Mr−1 6⊆ Qht1 ∩ Mr−1 for some e and j (with Q ej 6= Qht1 ), then by Lemma A.1 for some
h
such e and j we have pe j ⊆ pht 1 , which is a contradiction (because of the difference of heights).
h
Therefore, for each t (1 ≤ t ≤ s1 ), there exists indices e and j (with Q ej 6= Qht1 ) such that
h

Q ej ∩ Mr−1 ⊆ Qht1 ∩ Mr−1 .
It follows now, from the primary decomposition of Mr−1 in (9) that for a fixed t
h

P1h1 ∩ . . . ∩ Psh11 ∩ Q ej ⊆ Qht1 .
Assume Pth1 6⊆ Qht1 . Applying Lemma A.1 again, we deduce that
h

pe j ⊆ pht 1 , or there is t′ 6= t such that pht′1 ⊆ pht 1 .
Neither of these is possible, so Pth1 ⊆ Qht1 for all t.
We have therefore proved that
Mr−1 = Qh11 ∩ . . . ∩ Qhs11 .
By the induction hypothesis, for each i ≤ r − 2, Mi has the following primary decomposition
\
\
h
h
h
h
Mi =
(Q 1j ∩ Mr−1 ) ∩ . . . ∩ (Q sjj ∩ Mr−1 ) =
Q 1j ∩ . . . ∩ Q sjj
2≤j≤r−i

1≤j≤r−i

which proves the theorem.

References
[1]

N. Bourbaki, Commutative algebra, Chapters 1–7, Elements of Mathematics (Berlin),
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.

[2]

W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 39, revised edition, 1998.

[3]

M. Caboara, S. Faridi and P. Selinger, Simplicial tree computations, in preparation.

[4]

J.A. Eagon and V. Reiner, Resolution of Stanley-Reisner rings and Alexander duality, J.
Pure Appl. Algebra 130 (1998), 265–275.

[5]

S. Faridi, The facet ideal of a simplicial complex, manuscripta math. 109 (2002), 159–174.

[6]

S. Faridi, Cohen-Macaulay properties of square-free monomial ideals, preprint.

[7]

S. Faridi, Simplicial trees are sequentially Cohen-Macaulay, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 190
(2004), 121–136.
22

[8]

R. Fröberg, A study of graded extremal rings and of monomial rings, Math. Scand. 51
(1982), 22–34.

[9]

J. Herzog and T. Hibi, Componentwise linear ideals, Nagoya Math. J. 153 (1999), 141–153.

[10]

E. Miller, Alexander duality for monomial ideals and their resolutions, math.AG/9812095.

[11]

G. Rota and J. Stein, Standard basis in supersymplectic algebras, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 86 (1989), no. 8, 2521–2524.

[12]

P. Schenzel, On the dimension filtration and Cohen-Macaulay filtered modules, Commutative algebra and algebraic geometry (Ferrara), 245–264, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl.
Math., 206, Dekker, New York, 1999.

[13]

P. Schwartau, Liaison addition and monomial ideals, Ph.D. Thesis, Brandeis University,
1982.

[14]

R.P. Stanley, Combinatorics and commutative algebra, second edition, Progress in Mathematics 41, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1996.

[15]

J. Stückrad and W. Vogel, Buchsbaum rings and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1986.

[16]

R. Villarreal, Monomial algebras, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics 238, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2001.

[17]

J. Weyman, Ideals generated by monomials, Masters Thesis, N. Copernicus University,
Torun, Poland in 1977.

23

