FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE
PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

arXiv:1412.4266v2 [math.AC] 8 Sep 2015

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT
Abstract. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring, and let M be an R-module of finite length. We
study asymptotic invariants, βiF (M, R), defined by twisting with Frobenius the free resolution of M . This family of invariants includes the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity (eHK (m, R) =
β0F (K, R)). We discuss several properties of these numbers that resemble the behavior of the
Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity. Furthermore, we study when the vanishing of βiF (M, R) implies
that M has finite projective dimension. In particular, we give a complete characterization
of the vanishing of βiF (M, R) for one-dimensional rings. As a consequence of our methods,
we give conditions for the non-existence of syzygies of finite length.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Notation and terminology
3. Definition and properties of βiF (M, N) and µFi (M, N)
4. Relations with projective dimension
5. Syzygies of finite length
Acknowledgments
References

1
3
5
10
18
23
23

1. Introduction
Let (R, m, K) denote an F -finite local ring of dimension d and characteristic p > 0, and
let α = logp [K : K p ]. Given an R-module M and an integer e > 0, e M denotes the R-module
e
structure on M given by r ∗ m = r p m for every m ∈ eM and r ∈ R. In addition, λR (M),
or simply λ(M) when the ring is clear from the context, denotes the length of M as an
R-module.
Let q = pe be a power of p. For an ideal I ⊆ R, let I [q] = (iq | i ∈ I) be the ideal generated
by the q-th powers of elements in I. If I is m-primary, the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity of I in
R is defined by
λ(R/I [q] )
.
eHK (I, R) = lim
e→∞
qd
The existence of the previous limit was proven by Monsky [Mon83]. Under mild conditions,
eHK (m, R) = 1 if and only if R is a regular ring [WY00]. The Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity can
be interpreted as a measure of singularity: the smaller it is, the nicer the ring is. For instance,
Aberbach and Enescu proved rings with small Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity are Gorenstein and
F -regular [AE08] (see also [BE04]). We have that
e
λ(R/I [q] ) = q α λ(R/I ⊗R e R) = q α λ(TorR
0 (R/I, R))

1

2

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

This gives rise to the following extension of the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity for higher Tor
functors. Let N be a finitely generated R-module. For an integer i > 0 define
e
λ(TorR
i (M, N))
.
e→∞
q (d+α)

βiF (M, N) = lim

We denote βiF (K, R) by βiF (R) and call it the i-th Frobenius Betti number of R.
These higher invariants also detect regularity. Namely, Aberbach and Li [AL08] show that
R is a regular ring if and only if βiF (R) = 0 for some i > 1. Note that R is regular if and only
if K has finite projective dimension as R-module. In this manuscript, we seek an answer to
the following question.
Question 1.1. Let M be an R-module of finite length. What vanishing conditions on
βiF (M, R) imply that M has finite projective dimension?
Miller [Mil00] showed if R is a complete intersection and M is an R-module of finite length,
then the vanishing of βiF (M, R) for some i > 1 implies that M has finite projective dimension.
We refer to [DS13] for related results for Gorenstein rings. In Section 4, we answer this
question for rings that have small regular algebras, and for rings that have F -contributors.
Later, we focus on one-dimensional rings and give the following characterization for the
vanishing of βiF (M, R).
Theorem. (see Theorem 4.7) Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring of positive
characteristic p, and let M be an R-module of finite length. Let (Gj , ϕj )j>0 be a minimal
free resolution of M. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆ Hm0 (Gi ).
e
(ii) TorR
i (M, (R/p)) = 0 for all e > 0, for all p ∈ Min(R).
R
e
(iii) Tori (M, (R/p)) = 0 for all e ≫ 0, for all p ∈ Min(R).
(iv) βiF (M, R) = 0.
Assume in addition that R is complete and K is algebraically closed. If V denotes the
integral closure of R in its ring of fractions, then the conditions above are equivalent to
(v) TorR
i (M, V ) = 0.
As a consequence of this theorem, we show that if R is a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay
local ring and λ(M) < ∞, then βiF (M, R) = 0 for any i > 1 implies that M has finite projective dimension (see Corollary 4.8). Furthermore, we prove that the vanishing of two consecutive βiF (M, R) implies that M has finite projective dimension in every one-dimensional
local ring (see Corollary 4.9).
From the theorem above we have that βiF (M, R) = 0 if and only the (i + 1)-syzygy has
finite length. On the other hand, there are modules of infinite projective dimension over onedimensional rings which have second syzygies of finite length (see Example 5.1). Motivated
by Iyengar’s question about the eventual stability of dimensions of syzygies and by our results
regarding βiF (M, R), we ask the following question.
Question 1.2. Let R be a d-dimensional local ring, and let M be a finitely generated Rmodule such that pdR (M) = ∞ and λ(M) < ∞. If i > d + 1, then must the length of the
i-th syzygy be infinite?
In Section 5, we study this question, mainly for one-dimensional rings. In particular, we
show that the answer to Question 1.2 is positive for one-dimensional Buchsbaum rings (see

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

3

Proposition 5.3). We also obtain a partial answer for modules whose Betti numbers are
eventually non-decreasing (see Proposition 5.7). Furthermore, we show that the first and
third syzygies of M are either zero or have infinite length for every finite length module M
over a one-dimensional ring (see Corollary 5.10). The assumption of M having finite length
is necessary, as shown in Example 5.11. Aside from the study of projective dimension, we
study basic properties of the higher invariants that resemble the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity
in other aspects.
2. Notation and terminology
Throughout this article, (R, m, K) will denote a local ring of Krull dimension dim(R) =
d. For a finitely generated R-module M, we define dim(M) = dim(R/(0 :R M)), where
0 :R M = {x ∈ R | xM = 0}. When M = 0, we set dim(M) = −1. An element x ∈ R
such that dim(R/(x)) = d − 1 will be called a parameter of R. Given a finitely generated
R-module M, a minimal free resolution (G• , ϕ• ) of M is an exact sequence
...
//

Gi+1

ϕi+1

//

Gi

ϕi

//

......
//

G1

ϕ1

//

G0
//

M
//

0

such that Gi ∼
= Rβi (M ) are free R-modules and Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆ mGi . The integers βi (M) =
rk(Gi ) = λ(TorR
j (M, K)) are called the Betti numbers of M. If βi (M) = 0 for some i, we
say that M has finite projective dimension, and that it is equal to pdR (M) = max{i ∈
N | βi (M) 6= 0}. We adopt the convention that pdR (M) = −∞, when M = 0. For all
i > 0 we set Ωi (M) = Coker(ϕi ), and we call it the i-th syzygy of the module M. Note that
Ω0 (M) = M. When no confusion may arise, we will denote Ωi (M) simply by Ωi .
Throughout the manuscript we often make use of local cohomology tools. For every k ∈ N,
the quotient map R/mk+1 → R/mk induces maps of functors
ExtiR (R/mk , −) → ExtiR (R/mk+1 , −).

For an R-module M, we define the i-th local cohomology of M with support on m by
Hmi (M) = lim ExtiR (R/mk , M).
S

k→∞

In particular, Hm0 (M) = k∈N 0 :M mk = {v ∈ M | mk v = 0 for some k ∈ N}. For a
non-zero finitely generated R-module M, depth(M) denotes the smallest integer j such that
Hmj (R) 6= 0. When depth(M) = dim(M), the module is called Cohen-Macaulay, and M is
called maximal Cohen-Macaulay if depth(M) = dim(R).
We now review some basic facts about integral closures. For an ideal I ⊆ R and an element
x ∈ R we say that x is integral over I if it satisfies an equation of the form xn + r1 xn−1 + . . .+
rn = 0, where rj ∈ I j for all j = 1, . . . , n. The set of elements integral over I forms an ideal,
which is called the integral closure of I, and denoted I. For an ideal J ⊆ I, we say that J
is a reduction of I if J = I. We say that J is a minimal reduction of I if it is a reduction
of I which minimal with respect to containment. We refer the reader to [SH06, Chapter 8]
for more details about reductions. For a domain R, let V be the integral closure of R in its
field of fractions L. We define the conductor of R as the set of all elements z ∈ L such that
zV ⊆ R, and we denote it by C. When V is finite over R, one can show that C is the largest
ideal which is common to R and V , and that C contains a non-zero divisor for R [SH06,
Exercise 2.11]. In particular, if (R, m, K) is an excellent one dimensional local domain, the
conductor is m-primary. See [SH06, Chapter 12] for more results about conductors.

4

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

We also need the notion of dualizing complex. We refer to [Rob80, P. 51] or to [Har66,
Chapter V] for more details.
Definition 2.1. Let (S, n, L) be a local ring of dimension d. We say that a complex D • is
a dualizing complex of S if
L
(1) D i = dim S/p=d−i ES (S/p).
(2) The cohomology H i (D • ) is finitely generated.
Remark 2.2. If (S, n, L) is a complete ring, then S has a dualizing complex, DS• [Har66,
P. 299]. If p is a prime ideal such that dim S/p = dim S, we have that Sp is Artinian,
hence complete. In addition, DS• p := DS• ⊗ Sp is a dualizing complex for Sp . Furthermore,
H j (DS• p ) = H j (DS• ) ⊗ Sp = 0 for j > 0 and ωSp ∼
= H 0(DS• p ) = ESp (Sp /pSp ), because Sp is
Artinian, and so, Cohen-Macaulay.
We now introduce Buchsbaum rings, which we study Question 1.2 in Section 5.
Definition 2.3. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of dimension d. We say that R is a Buchsbaum
ring if, for any system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd , we have
(x1 , . . . , xi−1 ) : xi = (x1 , . . . , xi−1 ) : m
for every i = 1, . . . , d. When i = 1, the ideal (x1 , . . . , xi−1 ) is simply the zero ideal.
There are several equivalent ways to define Buchsbaum rings, but the one above is the
most convenient for our purposes.
Remark 2.4. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring. Suppose that R is not CohenMacaulay, so that Hm0 (R) 6= 0. Then there exists a parameter x of R such that Hm0 (R) =
0 :R x. In fact, fix an integer n ∈ N such that mn Hm0 (R), using that Hm0 (R) ⊆ R is an
ideal, hence it is finitely generated. Take any parameter y ∈ m, and set x = y n . With this
choice, one has xHm0 (R) ⊆ mn Hm0 (R) = 0, so that Hm0 (R) ⊆ 0 :R x. On the other hand, there
exists k ∈ N such that mk ⊆ (x). Therefore, if r ∈ 0 :R x, we get rmk ⊆ r(x) = 0, so that
r ∈ Hm0 (R). We conclude that Hm0 (R) = 0 :R x.
Remark 2.5. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional Buchsbaum ring. By Remark 2.4, there
exists a parameter x ∈ R such that 0 :R x = Hm0 (R). By definition of Buchsbaum ring, we
have that
Hm0 (R) = 0 :R x = 0 :R m.
Lt
K is a finite dimensional K-vector space.
In particular, mH 0 (R) = 0, that is, H 0 (R) ∼
=
m

m

j=1

For the rest of the section, we assume that (R, m, K) is a local ring of characteristic
p > 0. For an integer e > 1, we consider the e-th iteration of the Frobenius endomorphism
e
F e : R → R, F e (r) = r p for all r ∈ R. For an R-module M, one can consider M with
the action induced by restriction of scalars, via F e . We denote this module by eM. More
e
explicitly, for r ∈ R and m ∈ eM, we have r ∗ m = r p m.
Definition 2.6. We say that R is F -finite if 1 R is a finitely generated R-module.
Note that R is F -finite if and only if eR is a finitely generated R-module for any > 1 or,
equivalently, for all e > 1. Furthermore, F -finite rings are excellent [Kun76, Theorem 2.5].
When R is F -finite, we have that [K : K p ] < ∞. In this case, we set α = logp [K : K p ].

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

5

3. Definition and properties of βiF (M, N) and µFi (M, N)
We start by defining the Frobenius Betti numbers and showing basic properties that
resemble the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity.
Definition 3.1 (see also [Li08]). Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, let M
be an R-module of finite length and let N be a finitely generated R-module. Define
e
λ(TorR
i (M, N))
.
e→∞
q (d+α)

F
βi,R
(M, N) = lim

F
F
We denote βi,R
(K, R) by βi,R
(R) and call it the i-th Frobenius Betti number of R. If the ring
is clear from the context, we only write βiF (M, N). The above limit exists by the main result
in [Sei89].

We point out that Li [Li08] focused on βiF (R/I, R), which he denoted by ti (I, R).
Example 3.2. Suppose that R = S/f S, where S is an F -finite regular local ring of characteristic p > 0, and f ∈ S. We can write eR ∼
= Rae ⊕ Me , where Me has no free summands.
ae
exists [Tuc12, Theorem 4.9], and it is called the F -signature of
The limit s(R) := lim q(d+α)
e→∞

R, which is an important invariant related to strong F -regularity [AL03, Theorem 0.2]. We
consider the minimal free resolution of eR:
...
//

e

Rβi ( R)
//

e

Rβi−1 ( R)
//

...
//

e

Rβ0 ( R)
//

e

R
//

0.

We note that β0 (eR) = ae + β0 (Me ) and βi (eR) = βi (Me ) for i > 0. Since Me is a maximal
Cohen-Macaulay module with no free summands, we have that βi (Me ) = β0 (Me ) for i > 0
[Eis80, Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 6.1]. Then,
β0 (eR)
ae
β0 (Me )
β0 (Me )
= lim (d+α) + lim (d+α) = s(R) + lim (d+α) .
(d+α)
e→∞ q
e→∞ q
e→∞ q
e→∞ q

β0F (R) = eHK (m, R) = lim
Hence,
βiF (R)

βi (eR)
βi (Me )
β0 (Me )
= lim (d+α) = lim (d+α) = lim (d+α) = eHK (m, R) − s(R)
e→∞ q
e→∞ q
e→∞ q

for i > 0.
As for the Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity, the Frobenius Betti numbers also increase after taking
the quotient by a nonzero divisor.
Proposition 3.3. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, M be an R-module
of finite length, and x ∈ ann(M) be a nonzero divisor on R. Then
R/(x)

e
λ(TorR
λ(Tori
(M, e (R/(x))))
i (M, R))
F
= lim
6
β
(N,
R/(x))
=
lim
,
i,R/(x)
e→∞
e→∞
q (d+α)
q (d−1+α)
where the subscripts indicate over which ring we are computing the Frobenius Betti numbers.
F
F
In particular, βi,R
(R) 6 βi,R/(x)
(R/(x)).
F
βi,R
(M, R)

Proof. Let G• → e R be a minimal free resolution of e R. Let R denote R/xR. We have that
G• = G• ⊗R R is a free resolution for e R ⊗R R as an R-module. Furthermore, we have that
e
H0 (G• ) = e R ⊗R R. This is a consequence of the fact that Hi (G• ) = TorR
i ( R, R) = 0 for
e
i > 0 because x is a nonzero divisor on R and R.

6

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Since x ∈ ann(M), we have that

R
e
e
TorR
i (M, R) = Hi (M ⊗R G• ) = Hi (M ⊗R R ⊗R G• ) = Hi (M ⊗R G• ) = Tori (M, R ⊗R R).

Since x is a nonzero divisor on R, there is a filtration

0 = L0 ⊆ L1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Lqα = e R ⊗R R

R
e
e
α
such that Lr+1 /Lr = e (R). As a consequence, λ(TorR
i (M, R ⊗R R)) 6 q λ(Tori (M, R))
Then
e
e
λ(TorR
λ(TorR
i (M, R))
i (M, R))
6
lim
lim
e→∞
e→∞
q (d+α)
q (d−1+α)


We now introduce µFi (M, N), a dual version of βiF (M, N), which is defined in terms of
Ext. In Proposition 3.11, we establish a relation between these asymptotic invariants.
Definition 3.4. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, let M be an R-module
of finite length, and let N be a finitely generated R-module. We define
µFi (M, N)

λ(ExtiR (M, e N))
= lim
,
e→∞
q (d+α)

Next, we prove that the numbers µFi (M, N) are well defined. The proof is essentially the
same as the one for βiF (M, N), as it uses the main result in [Sei89]. Nonetheless, we include
it here for completeness.
Proposition 3.5. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, let M be an Rλ(ExtiR (N,e M ))
module of finite length, and let N be a finely generated R-module. Then, lim
q (d+α)
e→∞
exists. Moreover, if 0 → N1 → N2 → N3 → 0 is a short exact sequence, then
λ(ExtiR (M, e N2 ))
λ(ExtiR (M, e N1 ))
λ(ExtiR (M, e N3 ))
=
lim
+
lim
.
e→∞
e→∞
e→∞
q (d+α)
q (d+α)
q (d+α)
lim

Proof. Let G• → M be a minimal free resolution of M and define
ge (N) = λ(H i (HomR (G• ), eN)).

Let 0 → N1 → N2 → N3 → 0 be a short exact sequence of finitely generated R-modules.
We have that ge (N2 ) 6 ge (N1 ) + ge (N3 ) and equality holds if the sequence splits. Then,
ge (N)
λ(ExtiR (M, eN))
=
lim
e→∞ q (d+α)
e→∞
q (d+α)
exists, and it is additive in short exact sequences [Sei89].
lim



Proposition 3.6. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, M be an R-module
of finite length, and N be a finitely generated R-module. Let Λ be the set of all prime ideals
p such that dim R/p = dim R. We have that
X
βiF (M, N) =
βiF (M, R/p)λRp (Np )
p∈Λ

and

µFi (M, N) =

X
p∈Λ

µFi (M, R/p)λRp (Np ).

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

7

Proof. We only prove the first statement, since the proof of the second is completely analogous. Let 0 = N0 ⊆ N1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Nh = N be a filtration for N such that Nj /Nj−1 ∼
= R/pj ,
where pj ⊆ R is a prime ideal. Thus, we have short exact sequences 0 → Nj−1 → Nj →
P
R/pj → 0. We deduce that βiF (M, N) = hj=1 βiF (M, R/pj ) [Sei89, Proposition 1(b)]. In
addition, we have that βiF (M, R/pj ) = 0 whenever dim(R/pj ) < dim(R) [Sei89, Proposition
1(a)]. To prove the result, we need to count the number of times that a prime p such that
dim R/p = dim R appears in the prime filtration. This number is obtained by localizing the
above filtration at p, and counting the length of the resulting chain. Since the localized chain
is a composition series of the module Np , we obtain that the number of times p appears in
the prime filtration above is given by λRp (Np ). Then
βiF (M, N)

=

h
X

βiF (R/pj ) =

j=1
pj ∈ Λ

X

βiF (M, R/p)λRp (Np ).

p∈Λ


Remark 3.7. It follows from Proposition 3.6 that, if βiF (M, R) = 0 for some i ∈ N, we have
that βiF (N, R/p) = 0 for every minimal prime of R such that dim(R/p) = d. Therefore,
if this is the case, βiF (M, N) = 0 for every finitely generated R-module N, using again
Proposition 3.6. A similar statement holds for µFi (M, R).
The following theorem is related to results of Chang [Cha97, Lemma 1.20 and Corollary
2.4], and in some cases it follows from them. We present a different proof that does not use
spectral sequences.
Theorem 3.8. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, M be an R-module of
finite length, and N be a finitely generated R-module. Then
λ(ExtiR (M, e N))
=0
lim
e→∞
q (i+1+α)
for i < d. In particular, µFi (M, N) = 0 for i < d.
Proof. Our proof will be by induction on n = dim(N).
If n = 0, we have that h = λ(N) is finite. There is a filtration
0 = N0 ⊆ N1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Nh = N

such that Nj /Nj−1 ∼
= K. From the short exact sequences 0 → Nj−1 → Nj → K → 0, we
have that
λ(ExtiR (M, e Nj ))) 6 λ(ExtiR (K, e Nj−1 )) + λ(ExtiR (K, e K)).
Since
λ(ExtiR (M, e K))
q α λ(ExtiR (M, K))
λ(ExtiR (M, K))
lim
= lim
= lim
= 0,
e→∞
e→∞
e→∞
q (i+1+α)
q (i+1+α)
q (i+1)
we have that

λ(ExtiR (M, e N))
=0
e→∞
q (i+1+α)
lim

by an inductive argument.

8

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Suppose that our claim is true for modules of dimension less or equal to n − 1. There is a
filtration
0 = N0 ⊆ N1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Nh = N
such that Nj /Nj−1 ∼
= R/pj , where pj ⊂ R is a prime ideal. From the short exact sequences
0 → Nj−1 → Nj → R/pj → 0 we have that
λ(ExtiR (M, e Nj )) 6 λ(ExtiR (M, e Nj−1 )) + λ(ExtiR (M, e (R/pj ))).

It suffices to show that
λ(ExtiR (M, e (R/pj )))
lim
=0
e→∞
q (i+1+α)

(3.0.1)

for primes pj such that dimR (R/pj ) = n = dimR N. Let T = R/pj . Let x ∈ AnnR M \ pj ,
which exists because dimR T = dimR N > 0 = dimR M. We have a short exact sequence
0
//

e

x

T

//

e

T
//

e

T /x(e T )
//

0,

which induces a long exact sequence
(3.0.2)

...
//

ExtiR (M, e T )

0

//

ExtiR (M, e T )
//

ExtiR (M, e T /x(e T ))
//

....

Then, for every i,
e
e
λ(ExtiR (M, e T )) 6 λ(Exti−1
R (M, T /x( T ))).

We have a filtration
0 = L0 ⊆ L1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Lqα = e T /x(e T )

such that Lr+1 /Lr = e (T /xT ) because x is not a zero divisor of T. From the induced long
exact sequence by ExtiR (M, −), we have that
λ(ExtiR (M, e T /x(e T ))) 6 q α λ(ExtiR (M, e (T /xT )))).

Therefore
e
e
λ(Exti−1
λ(ExtiR (M, e T ))
R (M, T /x( T )))
6
lim
e→∞
e→∞
q (i+1+α)
q (i+1+α)
e
q α λ(Exti−1
R (M, (T /xT )))
6 lim
e→∞
q (i+1+α)
e
λ(Exti−1
R (K, (T /xT ))))
= lim
e→∞
q (i+α)
= 0 because dim T /xT = n − 1.

lim


Corollary 3.9. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0. Let N be a finitely
generated R-module, and let C be an R-module such that, for all e ≫ 0, C θe is a direct
θe
summand of e N for some θe ∈ N. Assume that θ = lim supe→∞ q(d+α)
> 0. Then, for all
R-modules M of finite length, and all integers i, we have
µFi (M, N) > θ · λ(ExtiR (M, C)).
In particular, C is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module.

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

9

Proof. We have
λ(ExtiR (M, e N))
θe · λ(ExtiR (M, C))
>
lim
sup
= θ · λ(ExtiR (M, C)).
(d+α)
(d+α)
e→∞
q
q
e→∞

µFi (M, N) = lim

Using M = K in Theorem 3.8, we obtain that µFi (K, N) = 0 for all i < d. It follows from
the inequality that ExtiR (K, C) = 0 for all i < d, and then C is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay
module.

Remark 3.10. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, and N be a finitely
generated R-module. We say that an R-module C is an F -contributor of N if C θe is a direct
θe
summand of eN for e ≫ 0, and lim supe→∞ q(d+α)
> 0 [Yao05]. Corollary 3.9 shows that
every F -contributor is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module. This was already noted by Yao
[Yao05, Lemma 2.2] when N has finite F -representation type.
The following proposition shows that taking limits with respect to Tor or Ext give the
same invariants up to a shift in the homological degrees.
Proposition 3.11. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, and M be an
R-module of finite length. Then
βiF (M, R) = µFd+i (M, R)
for every i ∈ N.
Proof. Since βiF (M, R) and µFd+i (M, R) are not affected by completion at m, we may assume
•
that R is a complete local ring. In this case, R has a dualizing complex DR
by Remark 2.2.
We have that
•
βiF (M, R) = µFd+i (M, H 0(DR
))
by [Cha97, Proposition 2.3(2)]. Let Λ be the set of all prime ideals of R such that dim R/p =
•
•
) = ωRp by Remark 2.2. We have that
dim R. Let p ∈ Λ. We have that (H 0(DR
))p = H 0(DR
p
ωRp = HomRp (Rp , ERp (Rp /pRp )) and λRp (ωRp ) = λRp (Rp ). Finally, by Proposition 3.6
X
•
•
))
µFd+i (M, H 0 (DR
)) =
µFd+i (M, R/p)λRp (H 0 (DR
p
p∈Λ

=

X

µFd+i (M, R/p)λRp (ωRp )

p∈Λ

=

X

µFd+i (M, R/p)λRp (Rp )

p∈Λ

= µFd+i (M, R).

Remark 3.12. If R itself has an F -contributor C, then we get a relation involving the βiF ’s.
In fact, by Proposition 3.11, we have βiF (M, R) = µFd+i (M, R) for all i ∈ N. Thus, in the
notation of Corollary 3.9, we have βiF (M, R) > θ · λ(Extd+i
R (M, C)).
We end this section with a proposition that shows how βiF (M, N) behaves under some flat
ring extensions. First, we need a different way to compute βiF (M, N).

10

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Remark 3.13. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, let M be an R-module
of finite length, and let N be a finitely generated R-module. Let G• = (Gj , ϕj )j>0 denote a
[q]
[q]
[q]
minimal free resolution of M. Let G• be the complex (Gj , ϕj )j>0, where the matrix of ϕj
has as entries the q-th powers of the entries in the matrix of ϕj . We have that
e
α
[q]
λ(TorR
i (M, N)) = q λ(Hi (G• ⊗R N)).

Hence,

[q]

βiF (M, N)

λ(Hi (G• ⊗R N))
= lim
.
q→∞
qd

Proposition 3.14. Let (R, m, K) → (S, n, L) be a flat extension of two F -finite local rings
of characteristic p > 0. Let M be a finite length R-module. Let α = logp [K : K p ] and
θ = logp [L : Lp ]. Suppose that mS = n. Then,
e
λ(TorR
λ(TorSi (M ⊗R S, e S))
i (M, R))
F
=
lim
= βi,S
(M ⊗R S, S).
e→∞
e→∞
pe(d+α)
pe(d+θ)

F
βi,R
(M, R) = lim

F
c R).
b
In particular, we have that βi,R
(M, R) = βi,FRb (M,

Proof. Let q = pe . We have that

e
λR (TorR
i (M, R))
= λR (Hi (G[q]
• )) by Remark 3.13.
qα
= λS (Hi (G[q]
• ⊗R S)) because S is flat and mS = n.

= λS (Hi ((G• ⊗R S)[q] )) because G• is free.
=

λS (TorSi (M ⊗R S, e S)
by Remark 3.13 and because S is flat.
qθ

After dividing by q d and taking limits, we have that
F
F
βi,R
(M, R) = βi,S
(M ⊗R S, S).


4. Relations with projective dimension
Let (R, m, K) be a local F -finite ring of characteristic p > 0, and let M be an R-module of
finite length. In this section we investigate when the vanishing of βiF (M, R) detects whether
M has finite projective dimension.
We first recall known results in this direction. We have that R is a regular ring if and
only if βiF (R) = βiF (K, R) = 0 for some i > 1 [AL08, Corollary 3.2]. Let M be a finitely
e
generated R-module. If M has finite projective dimension, then TorR
i (M, R) = 0 for all
R
e
i > 0 and all e > 0 [PS73, Théorème 1.7]. Conversely, if Tori (M, R) = 0 for infinitely many
e and all i > 0, then M has finite projective dimension [Her74, Theorem 3.1]. In fact, even
e
more is true: if TorR
i (M, R) = 0 for depth(R) + 1 consecutive values of i and some e ≫ 0,
then M has finite projective dimension [KL98, Proposition 2.6] (see also [Mil03, Theorem
2.2.8]). Now, suppose that R is a complete intersection. If βiF (M, R) = 0 for some i > 0,
then M has finite projective dimension by [Mil00, Corollary 2.5] (see also [DS13, Corollary
4.11]).

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

11

Proposition 4.1. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0, and let M be an
R-module of finite length. Suppose that there is a regular local ring (A, n, L) and a map of
local rings φ : R → A such that A is finitely generated as an R-module, and dim A = d. If
F
F
βjF (M, R) = βj+1
(M, R) = . . . = βj+d
(M, R) = 0,

then M has finite projective dimension.
Proof. We note that logp [L : Lp ] = logp [K : K p ] = α < ∞, and so, A is F -finite. Since A is
Lq(d+α)
A. Let x1 , . . . , xd ∈ A be a set of generators for n, and let
regular and local, e A ∼
=
Ir := (x1 , . . . , xr )A. By induction on r we will show that
R
TorR
j+r (M, A/Ir ) = . . . = Torj+d (M, A/Ir ) = 0

(4.0.3)

e
q
for every r. If r = 0, we have that TorR
i (M, A) = ⊕
R
R
e
(d+α)
λ(Tori (M, A)) = q
λ(Tori (M, A)), and thus

(d+α)

TorR
i (M, A) for every i ∈ N. Then,

βiF (M, A) = λ(TorR
i (M, A)).
Since A is finitely generated, and since βiF (M, R) = 0 for i = j, . . . , j + d by assumption, we
F
have that βjF (M, A) = . . . = βj+d
(M, A) = 0 by Remark 3.7. Hence, TorR
j (M, A) = . . . =
R
Torj+d (M, A) = 0. We suppose that (4.0.3) holds for r − 1 and prove it for r. We have a
short exact sequence
0

A/Ir−1
//

xr

//

A/Ir−1
//

A/Ir
//

0.

This induces a long exact sequence
...
//

TorR
i (M, A/Ir−1 )

xr

//

TorR
i (M, A/Ir−1 )
//

TorR
i (M, A/Ir )
//

TorR
i−1 (M, A/Ir−1 )
//

....

R
R
Since TorR
j+r−1 (M, A/Ir−1 ) = . . . = Torj+d (M, A/Ir−1 ) = 0, we have that Torj+r (M, A/Ir ) =
R
. . . = TorR
j+d (M, A/Ir ) = 0, proving the claim. In particular, we get Torj+d (M, A/Id ) = 0.
Since L = A/Id is a finite field extension of K, we have
R
0 = λ(TorR
j+d (M, A/Id )) = [L : K] · λ(Torj+d (M, K)).

Therefore, TorR
j+d (M, K) = 0 and M has finite projective dimension.



Lemma 4.2. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of characteristic p > 0. Suppose that there is
an R-module N of dimension d that has an F -contributor C. Let M be an R-module of
e
finite length. If βiF (M, N) = 0, then TorR
i (M, C) = 0 for every e > 0. In particular, if R is
strongly F -regular of positive dimension d, and βiF (M, R) = 0 for d consecutive values of i,
then M has finite projective dimension.
′

′

Proof. For e′ ≫ 0 and q ′ = pe , we have that C θe′ is a direct summand of e N, for some
′
θe′
> 0. We note that (eC)θe′ is a direct summand of e+e N for
θe′ ∈ N such that lim sup q′(d+α)
all e > 0. Then


e
e+e′
λ(TorR
λ(TorR
N))
θe′
i (M, C))
i (M,
6 lim
= βiF (M, N) = 0.
lim sup ′(d+α)
(d+α)
′(d+α)
′
e
→∞
′
q
q
qq
e →∞

e
It follows that TorR
i (M, C) = 0. If R is strongly F -regular, then R is an F -contributor of
itself. In addition, R is Cohen-Macaulay, and if Tori (M, e R) = 0 for d consecutive values of
i and for e ≫ 0, we have that M has finite projective dimension [KL98, Proposition 2.6] (see
also [Mil03, Theorem 2.2.11]).


12

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Proposition 4.3. [CHKV06, Corollary 3.3] Let (R, m, K) be a local ring, let I be an integrally closed m-primary ideal, and let N be a finitely generated R-module. Then pdR (N) < i
if and only if TorR
i (N, R/I) = 0.
e
In particular, Proposition 4.3 shows that, if TorR
i (R/I, R) = 0 for some e > 1, then R is
regular [Kun69, Theorem 2.1]. We now present a similar result for Frobenius Betti numbers.

Proposition 4.4. Let (R, m, K) be a reduced local ring of characteristic p > 0. Suppose
that there exists an R-module N of dimension d that has an F -contributor C. If I is an
integrally closed m-primary ideal such that βiF (R/I, N) = 0 for some i > 0, then R is regular.
Proof. By Lemma 4.2, we have that Tori (R/I, e C) = 0 for every e > 0, and thus e C has finite
projective dimension by [CHKV06, Corollary 3.3]. Since e C is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay
e
(see Remark 3.10),L
we have that
module [Yao05, Lemma 2.2]L
L 1 C is a free module for every
1
2
1
∼
∼
e > 0. In particular, C = α R and C = ( α R) = α R is free as well. Therefore,
1
R is free and R is regular [Kun69, Theorem 2.1].

We now focus on one-dimensional rings. In this case, we can find a characterization of the
vanishing of βiF (M, R). We first prove two lemmas.
Lemma 4.5. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional complete local domain of characteristic
p > 0, with K algebraically closed. Then there exists a parameter x ∈ R such that (xq ) = m[q]
e
for all q = pL
≫ 0. Furthermore, if V denotes the integral closure of R in its field of fractions,
e ∼
V for all e ≫ 0 (as R-modules).
then R =

Proof. Since R is a complete domain, we have that (V, mV , K) is a one dimensional, integrally
closed, local domain. Hence, V is a DVR. Let x ∈ R be a minimal reduction of m, and let
v denote the order valuation on V . Let x, y1 , . . . , yn be a minimal generating set of the
maximal ideal. We claim that we can choose the elements yi ’s such that v(x) < v(yi ) for all
i = 1, . . . , n. We have v(x) 6 v(yi ) for all i because x is a minimal reduction of m [SH06,
Proposition 6.8.1]. If equality holds, say for i = 1, we have that y1 /x = α ∈ KV = K since
K is algebraically closed. Fix a lifting u ∈ R of α. If we replace y1 for y1′ := y1 − ux we have
that x, y1′ , . . . , yn is still a minimal generating set of m. Now v(x) < v(y1′ ), since y1′ /x ∈ mV .
Similarly, if necessary, we may replace each yi to obtain our claim. Since the conductor C
[q]
is mV -primary, for all e ≫ 0 and all i = 1, . . . , n, we have that (yi /x)q = ri ∈ mV ⊆ C ⊆ R.
q
Thus yi = ri xq ∈ (x)q . This shows the first part of the lemma.
We now focus on the second part of the lemma. Since K is algebraically closed, R and K
have the same residue field. It then follows that R ⊆ V = R + mV . Since R is a domain, we
can identify eR with R1/q , the ring of q-th roots of R. For w ∈ V , we can write w = u + v,
[q]
for some u ∈ R and v ∈ mV . Therefore, we have that mV ⊆ C ⊆ R for e ≫ 0, because C is
mV primary. This shows that w q = uq + v q ∈ R, that is w ∈ R1/q . Thus, for e ≫ 0, we have
R ⊆ V ⊆ eR. Hence, eR is a V -module. Since V is a DVR, eR decomposes into a V -free part
e
and a V -torsion
L part. Therefore R is torsion free as a eV -module because R is a domain.
e
∼
Thus, R = q V . Finally, the V -module structure on R is compatible with the inclusion
L
V is also an isomorphism of R-modules.

R ⊆ V ; therefore, eR ∼
=
Lemma 4.6. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring of characteristic p > 0. Let
(Gj , ϕj )j>0 be a minimal free resolution of a finite length R-module M. Suppose there exists

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

13

i > 0 such that Im(ϕi+1 ) 6⊆ pGi for some p ∈ Min(R). Then
e
λ(TorR
i (M, R))
> 0.
e→∞
qα

βiF (M, R) = lim

b = KJx1 , . . . , xn K/I for some n ∈ N
Proof. By the Cohen Structure Theorem, we have that R
and some ideal I ⊆ KJx1 , . . . , xn K. Let S = LJ1, . . . , xn K/I ′ , where L is the algebraic closure
of K and I ′ = I LJ1, . . . , xn K. Every inclusion K → L gives a flat extension R → S such
that mS is the maximal ideal of S. If Im(ϕi+1 ⊗R 1S ) = Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊗R S is contained in in
a minimal prime of S, then Im(ϕi+1 ) must be contained in the contraction of such minimal
prime to R. Then, we can assume that R is complete and that K is algebraically closed by
Proposition 3.14.
Let R denote R/p, x the class of the element x modulo p, and V the integral closure of
R. Since R/p is a one-dimensional complete local domain, by Lemma 4.5 we can choose
0 6= x ∈ R a minimal reduction of m := m/p and q0 = pe0 such that m[q] = (xq ) for q > q0 .
We may also choose q0 large enough so that xq V ∩ R ⊆ xR, by using the Artin-Rees Lemma
and the fact that the conductor from R to V is primary to the maximal ideal. In particular,
/ xR, where mV is the maximal ideal of V ,
(xq V :V r) ⊆ mV for every r ∈ R such that r ∈
which is a DVR.
[q]
[q]
Fix q > q0 and consider the matrix associated to ϕi+1 := ϕi+1 ⊗ 1R . Since q > q0 ,
[q]
Im(ϕi+1 ⊗ 1R ) ⊆ m[q] Gi = (xq )Gi . Because Im(ϕi+1 ) 6⊆ pGi , by changing the basis for Gi+1
if needed, we can assume that the matrix

[q]

ϕi+1



r1 ∗ . . .

r2 ∗ . . .
= xq+j 
 ... ...
rn ∗ . . .

∗
∗
..
.
∗




,


where we have factored out the biggest possible power of x, so that r 1 ∈
/ (x). Here n = rk(Gi ).
[qq ′ ]
′
e′
Let q = p , and consider the matrix associated to ϕi+1 :

(4.0.4)




′ 
[qq ′ ]
ϕi+1 = x(q+j)q 


′

rq1 ∗ . . .
′
rq2 ∗ . . .
.. ..
. .
′
rqn ∗ . . .

∗
∗
..
.
∗





.




′
′
′
[qq ′ ]
. In fact, we have that
We claim that [r q1 , rq2 , . . . , r qn ]T ∈ Ker ϕi



′
′ 
xqq +jq 


′

r1 q
′
r2 q
..
.
rn q

′









[qq ′ ]
[qq ′ ]
;
 ∈ Im ϕi+1 ⊆ Ker ϕi


14

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

therefore,
[qq ′ ]

ϕi

′

′







 qq′ +jq′ 
·
x





′

r1 q
′
r2 q
..
.
rn q



′

r1q
′
r2q
..
.



′
′

[qq ′ ] 
 = xqq +jq · ϕi 



′

rn q

′

Since xqq +jq is a nonzero divisor in R, we have


′
r1q
 q′ 

[qq ′ ]  r 2
ϕi  ..  = 0,
 . 
′
rn q
which proves the claim. Thus





 = 0.




[qq ′ ]
q′
q′ T
R[r
,
.
.
.
,
r
]
+
Im
ϕ
1
n
i+1
e+e′



λ(TorR
(R/p))) > λ 
i (M,
′
[qq ]
Im ϕi+1


′

> λ

(rq1 ) + (xqq )
′
(xqq )
′

!

,



′
[qq ′ ]
[qq ′ ]
because Im ϕi+1 ⊆ (xqq )Gi . This comes from the expression of ϕi+1 in (4.0.4). We
also have projected onto the first component of Gi . We now have a cyclic module which is
′
′
isomorphic to the quotient of R by the ideal (xqq : r q1 ).
We claim that there exists an integer q1 = pe1 such that for all q ′ ,
′

(xqq : r q1 ) ⊆ (xq /q1 ).
′

′

Assuming the claim and lifting back to R, we get

′

λ(TorR
i (M,

e+e′

R)) > λ

>λ

(rq1 ) + (xqq )
′
(xqq )


′

R
(xq /q1 )
′



!

.

Dividing by qq ′ and taking the limit as e′ → ∞, we get

e+e
λ(TorR
(R)))
i (M,
= lim
′
e′ →∞
qq
′
1
λ(R/(xq /q1 ))
> lim
=
eHK (x, R) > 0.
′
′
e →∞
qq
qq1
′

βiF (M, R)

Since dim(R/q) = dim(R) for q ∈ Spec(R) if and only if q ∈ Min(R), we have
X

βiF (M, R) =
βiF (M, R/q)λ(Rq ) > βiF (M, R/p) > 0.
q∈Min(R)

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

15

by Proposition 3.6.
′
′
′
′
It remains to prove the claim. Suppose that u ∈ (xqq : rq1 ). Then u ∈ (xqq : r q1 )V ∩ R =
′
′
(xq V :V r 1 )[q ] ∩ R ⊆ mqV ∩ R by the choice of q. Since the conductor of R is primary to the
′
′
maximal ideal it follows that there exists a q1 = pe1 such that mqV ∩ R ⊆ (xq /q1 ) as claimed.

Theorem 4.7. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring of characteristic p > 0, and
M be an R-module of finite length. Let (Gj , ϕj )j>0 denote a minimal free resolution of M.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆ Hm0 (Gi ).
e
TorR
i (M, (R/p)) = 0 for all e > 0, for all p ∈ Min(R).
e
TorR
i (M, (R/p)) = 0 for all e ≫ 0, for all p ∈ Min(R).
F
βi (M, R) = 0.

Assume in addition that R is complete and K is algebraically closed. If V denotes the
integral closure of R in its ring of fractions, then the conditions above are equivalent to
(v) TorR
i (M, V ) = 0.
Proof. We will show that (i) ⇒ (ii) ⇒ (iii) ⇒ (iv) ⇒ (i). We assume (i). Let p ∈ Min(R).
Since M has finite length we have Mp = 0, and thus
R

p
e
e
TorR
j (M, (R/p))p = Torj (Mp , (R/p)p ) = 0

for all j > 0. In particular, the complex
[q]

e

(G• ⊗ (R))p : . . .
//

(Gi+1 )p

(ϕi+1 )p

[q]

//

(Gi )p

(ϕi )p

//

(Gi−1 )p
//

...
//

(G0 )p
//

0

is split exact. All the entries in a matrix associated to ϕi+1 are in Hm0 (R), and in particular
[q]
they are nilpotent. We choose q0 = pe0 such that Im(ϕi+1 ) = 0 for all q > q0 . For such q, we
[q]
[q]
have (ϕi+1 )p ≡ 0; therefore, (Gi )p splits inside (Gi−1 )p via (ϕi )p . This means that
(4.0.5)

[q]

bi := rk((Gi )p ) = rk(Gi ) = rk((ϕi )p )

[q]

Ibi (ϕi ) 6⊆ p,

and

where Ir (ψ) denotes the Fitting ideal of an homomorphism ψ : G → H of rank r between two
free modules G and H. Note that localizing and taking powers only decreases the rank of ϕi ,
[q]
and bi is already the maximal possible rank. Thus bi = rk(ϕi ) for all q > 1. Furthermore,
[q]
if Ibi (ϕi ) was contained in p, then so would be Ibi (ϕi ). Hence (4.0.5) holds in fact for all
q = pe . Consider the following complex
[q]

0
//

Gi ⊗ R/p

ϕi ⊗1R/p

//

Gi−1 ⊗ R/p
//

Cq
//

0,

where Cq is the cokernel. By Buchsbaum-Eisenbud Theorem [BE73], the two conditions
(4.0.5) ensure that it is acyclic for all q. Then,
R
e
TorR
i (M, (R/p)) = Tor1 (Cq , R/p) = 0.

for all e > 0. This holds for all p ∈ Min(R), proving (ii).

16

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Clearly (ii) implies (iii). We now show (iii) ⇒ (iv). Since for all p ∈ Min(R), we have
e
F
TorR
i (M, (R/p)) = 0 for e ≫ 0, in particular βi (M, R/p) = 0. Hence
X 

βiF (M, R) =
βiF (M, R/p)λRp (Rp ) = 0.
p∈Min(R)

We now prove (iv) ⇒ (i). Now suppose that βiF (M, R) = 0. By Lemma 4.6, we have
\
√
Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆
pGi = 0Gi .
p∈Min(R)

Since the image is nilpotent, as noticed above in (4.0.5) taking q = 1, we have
bi = rk(Gi ) = rk(ϕi )

and

Ibi (ϕi ) 6⊆ p

for all p ∈ Min(R). Localizing the resolution at any p ∈ Min(R) gives a split exact complex
(G• )p : 0
//

(Gi )p

(ϕi )p

//

......
//

(G0 )p
//

0.

In particular, Im((ϕi+1 )p ) = (Im(ϕi+1 ))p = 0. This holds for all minimal primes p of R,
proving that Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆ Hm0 (Gi ).
Finally, assume that R is complete and K is algebraically closed, and let V be integral closure of R in its ring of fractions. Let p ∈ Min(R) and let V (p) be
L the integral
e
∼
closure of R/p, which is a DVR. By Lemma 4.5, we have
V (p) for all
L thatR (R/p) =
e
∼
e ≫ 0. Condition (iii) implies that TorR
Tor
(M,
V
(p))
=
0, therefore
(M,
(R/p))
=
i
i
L
R
∼
Tori (M, V (p)) = 0 for all p ∈ Min(R). Since V = p∈Min(R) V (p), we see that (iii) implies
R
(v). Conversely, if TorR
i (M, V ) = 0, by the same argument, we get that Tori (M, V (p)) = 0
R
implies Tori (M, e(R/p)) = 0 for all e ≫ 0 and for all p ∈ Min(R). Then, (v) implies (iii). 
Corollary 4.8. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay local ring of characteristic p > 0, and M be an R-module of finite length. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) βiF (M, R) = 0 for all i > 1.
(ii) βiF (M, R) = 0 for some i > 1.
(iii) pdR (M) < ∞.
Proof. Clearly (i) implies (ii). Now assume (ii), we want to show that (iii) holds. By
assumption, there exists an integer i > 1 such that βiF (M, R) = 0. Then, Theorem 4.7 implies
that Im(ϕi+1 ) ⊆ Hm0 (Gi ), where (Gj , ϕj )j>0 is a minimal free resolution of M. However, R
has positive depth and hence
Im(ϕi+1 ) = Hm0 (Im(ϕi+1 )) ⊆ Hm0 (Gi ) = 0,
since Gi is a free module. Thus Im(ϕi+1 ) = 0 and pdR (M) < ∞. Finally, if (iii) holds,
e
we have TorR
i (M, R) = 0 for all i > 1 and e > 0 [PS73, Théorème 1.7]. In particular,
βiF (M, eR) = 0 for all i > 1.

Corollary 4.9. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring of characteristic p > 0, and
F
let M be a finite length R-module. If βiF (M, R) = βi+1
(M, R) = 0 for some i > 1, then
pdR (M) < ∞. In particular, for any parameter x, if β2F (R/(x), R) = 0 then R is CohenMacaulay.

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

17

Proof. Let (Gj , ϕj )j>0 be a minimal free resolution of M. Since βiF (M, R) = 0, we have that
[q]
Im(ϕi+1 ) has finite length, and it is nilpotent. Take q = pe ≫ 0 so that Im(ϕi+1 ) = 0. For
such q we have Ker(ϕi+1 ) = Gi+1 . Since the resolution is minimal, we get
!


G
R
i+1
R
e
α
α
λ(Tori+1 (M, R)) = q λ
,
>q λ
[q]
m[q]
Im(ϕi+2 )
where the last inequality comes from projecting onto one of the components of Gi+1 . Dividing
by q and taking limits, we get
e
λ(TorR
λ(R/m[q] )
i+1 (M, R))
>
lim
= eHK (m, R) > 0,
e→∞
e→∞
q (1+α)
q
which is a contradiction.
The last claim follows from the fact that for any parameter x, we have
F
βi+1
(M, R) = lim

λ(H1 (xq ; R))
6 lim
= 0,
e→∞
q
where H1 denotes the first Koszul homology (see [Rob87] and [HH93, Theorem 6.2]).
β1F (R/(x), R)



Lemma 4.10. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of positive characteristic p > 0, and p ∈ Spec(R).
If pdR (p) < ∞, then R is a domain.
Proof. Since p has finite projective dimension, given a minimal free resolution
0
//

Lt

ψt

//

...
//

L0
//

R/p
//

0

of R/p over R, we have that
[q]

0
//

Lt

ψt

//

...
//

L0
//

R/p[q]
//

0

is a minimal free resolution of R/p[q] over R [PS73, Exemples 1.3 d)]. Then AssR (R/p[q] ) =
{p}, and so, p[q] is p-primary for all q = pe . Let x ∈
/ p and assume xy = 0 for y ∈ R. This
[q]
implies that for any q, we have xy ∈ p . We conclude that y ∈ p[q] since x ∈
/ p. Thus
\
y∈
p[q] = (0).
q>1

In particular, the localization map R → Rp is injective. We have that pdR (R/p) < ∞ implies
pdRp (k(p)) < ∞. Then, Rp is a regular local ring; in particular, a domain. Therefore, R is
a domain.

Proposition 4.11. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring of characteristic p > 0,
and I be an m-primary integrally closed ideal. If βiF (R/I, R) = 0 for some i > 0, then R is
regular.

Proof. Let p be a minimal prime of R. Since βiF (R/I, R) = 0, by Theorem 4.7 we have
that TorR
i (R/I, R/p) = 0. By Proposition 4.3, it follows that pdR (R/p) < ∞, and thus R
is a domain by Lemma 4.10. Since one-dimensional local domains are Cohen-Macaulay, by
Corollary 4.8 we have that pdR (R/I) < ∞. In particular TorR
j (R/I, K) = 0 for j ≫ 0. We
conclude that pdR (K) < ∞ because R/I tests finite projective dimension [Bur68, Theorem
5(ii)]. Hence, R is regular.


18

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

5. Syzygies of finite length
We now present several characteristic-free results. In particular, we do not always assume
that the rings have positive characteristic. We focus on Question 1.2. Specifically, we give
support to the claim that a finite length R-module M of infinite projective dimension cannot
have a finite length syzygy Ωi for i > dim(R) + 1. As a consequence of our methods, we
describe, in some cases, the dimension of the syzygies.
It follows from Theorem 4.7 that if dim(R) = 1 and R has positive characteristic, then a
positive answer to Question 1.2 is equivalent to the statement: for every M of finite length,
βiF (M, R) = 0 for some i > 1 implies pdR (M) < ∞.
We now provide an example that shows that the requirement of i > dim(R)+1 in Question
1.2 is necessary to have a positive answer.
Example 5.1. Let R = Fp Jx, yK/(x2 , xy) and M = R/(x). Then dim(R) = 1. In addition,
0
(R) = (x) has
pdR (M) = ∞ because R is not Cohen-Macaulay. We have that Ω2 ∼
= H(x,y)
finite length.
Lemma 5.2. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring and let M be a finite length R-module that has
a finite length syzygy Ωi+1 , for some fixed i > 0. Then,

0
TorR
i M, R/Hm (R) = 0.
If R has positive characteristic p, then for all e > 0

e
0
TorR
i M, R/Hm (R)



= 0.

Proof. Set H := Hm0 (R). Let (G• , ϕ• ) be a minimal free resolution of M:
G• : . . .
//

ϕi+1

Gi+1

//

ϕi

Gi

//

ϕi−1

Gi−1

//

Gi−2
//

...
//

G0
//

M
//

0.

Tensor G• with R/H and denote by G• its residue class modulo H:
Gi+1

ϕi+1

//

ϕi

Gi

//

Gi−1

Since Im(ϕi+1 ) = Ωi+1 has finite length by assumption, we have ϕi+1 = 0. We want to show
that Ker(ϕi ) = 0 as well. For any p ∈ Spec(R) r {m}, the complex (G• )p is split exact:
0
//

(Gi )p

(ϕi )p

//

(Gi−1 )p

(ϕi−1 )p

//

(Gi−2 )p
//

...
//

(G0 )p
//

0,

because M and Ωi+1 have finite length. We have that rk((ϕi )p ) is maximal, because rk(Gi ) 6
rk(Gi−1 ) as the localized complex is split exact, and localizing only decreases the rank of a
map. Thus, r := rk(Gi ) = rk((ϕi )p ) = rk(ϕi ). Furthermore, Ir (ϕi ) 6⊆ p, by split exactness.
Since this holds for all p ∈ Spec(R) r {m}; in particular, we have depth(Ir (ϕi )) > 1. By the
Buchsbaum-Eisenbud Criterion, we have that
0
//

Gi

ϕi

//

Gi−1
//

Ωi−1 = Ωi−1 /HΩi−1
//

0.

is an exact complex. Therefore Ker(ϕi ) = 0, and hence TorR
i (M, R/H) = 0. For the second
part of the Lemma, when R has positive characteristic, the argument is the same: just
notice that the complex e(G• )p is again split exact for all primes p 6= m and apply the same
[q]
argument as above to the map ϕi .


FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

19

We now give results that support an affirmative answer to Question 1.2 for one-dimensional
rings. Over Buchsbaum rings, the modules Hmi (R) are K-vector spaces for i < dim(R).
Because of this fact, we can prove the following proposition using Lemma 5.2.
Proposition 5.3. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional Buchsbaum ring. Then the answer
to Question 1.2 is positive.
Proof. Assume that there exists a finite length R-module M such that Ωi+1 (M) has finite
length for some i > 2. By Lemma 5.2, we have


0
R
0
∼
0 = TorR
i M, R/Hm (R) = Tori−1 M, Hm (R) ,
Lt
where i − 1 > 1 for dimension shifting. By Remark 2.5, we have that Hm0 (R) ∼
= j=1 K.
Therefore,
t
 M
0
0 = TorR
M,
H
(R)
=
TorR
i−1
m
i−1 (M, K) ,
j=1

TorR
i−1 (M, K)

which implies

= 0. Hence, pdR (M) 6 i − 2.



We now present two results about the dimension of syzygies of a finite-length module.
These results will be used in Proposition 5.7 to give a case in which a finite-length module
cannot have infinitely many syzygies of finite length.
Proposition 5.4. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of dimension d and let M be a finite length
R-module. Let i > 1 and let Ωi be the i-th syzygy of M. Then either dim(Ωi ) = d or Ωi has
finite length.
Proof. By way of contradiction, we suppose dim(Ωi ) = k with 0 < k < d. Let G• → M → 0
be a minimal free resolution of M. By our assumption on dim(Ωi ), we can choose p ∈
Min(ann(Ωi )) r ({m} ∪ Min(R)) and localize G• at p. The resulting complex is split exact,
because Mp = 0. In particular, (Ωi )p is a free Rp -module. By our choice of p, we have that
(Ωi )p has finite length, and dim(Rp ) > 0, a contradiction.

Proposition 5.5. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring of positive dimension. Suppose there exists
an R-module M of infinite projective dimension and finite length which has a finite length
syzygy Ωi+1 , for some fixed i > 0. If βi (M) > βi−1 (M), then Ωi−1 has finite length as well
and R is one-dimensional.
Proof. Let (G• , ϕ• ) be a minimal free resolution of M:
ϕi+1

G• : Gi+1

◗◗◗
◗◗(( ((

Ωi+1

// Rβi (M )
▼▼▼
♦77
♦
▼▼▼&&
♦
* ♦♦
&&

ϕi

Ωi

// Rβi−1 (M )
PPP
♦♦77
PPP((
♦
((
* ♦♦♦

ϕi−1

Ωi−1

// G
88 i−2
q
q
+ qq
//

...
//

G0
//

M
//

0.

Let p ∈ Spec(R) r {m}. We localize G• at p. Since both M and Ωi+1 have finite length, we
have a split exact sequence
G• : 0
//

β (M )

Rp i

◆◆◆
◆
∼ ''
=

(Ωi )p

// Rpβi−1 (M )
◗◗◗
♥77
◗(( ((
) ♥♥♥♥

//

(Gi−2 )p
//

...
//

(G0 )p
//

0

(Ωi−1 )p .

In particular, this implies βi (M) 6 βi−1 (M). Since the opposite inequality holds by or
assumption, we have equality. Set β = βi (M) = βi−1 (M). From the split exact sequence

20

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

above, we also get that Rpβ ∼
= (Ωi )p ; therefore, (Ωi−1 )p = 0. Since p is an arbitrary prime
in Spec(R) r {m}, we have that Ωi−1 has finite length. Thus, we have a free complex
0 → F1 = Rβ → F0 = Rβ → 0 with finite length homology. We conclude that R has
dimension one by the New Intersection Theorem [Rob87].

Remark 5.6. If in Proposition 5.5 one assumes that the sequence of Betti numbers {βi (M)}
is non-decreasing, then one can repeat the argument above to show that i is necessarily odd,
and βi (M) = βi−1 (M), βi−2 (M) = βi−3 (M), . . ., β1 (M) = β0 (M). In addition, Ωj (M) has
finite length for all j even, 0 6 j 6 i + 1. In particular, the typical situation to study would
be (R, m, K) a one-dimensional ring and a resolution
0
//

Ω4
//

Rβ
//

Rβ ❏❏

❏❏
$$

Ω2

// Rα
::
t
ttt
//

Rα
//

M
//

0

with Ω4 and Ω2 of finite length.
As a consequence of these results, we give a partial answer to Question 1.2 in the case
where M has eventually non-decreasing Betti numbers. It is a conjecture of Avramov that
every finitely generated module over a local ring has eventually non-decreasing Betti numbers
[Avr84]. The conjecture is know to be true in several cases [Eis80, Les90, Cho90, Sun94,
AGP97, Sun98], in particular, for Golod rings [Les90, Corollaire 6.5].
Proposition 5.7. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring and let M be a finite length R-module of
infinite projective dimension with eventually non-decreasing Betti numbers. Then, for all
i ≫ 0, there exists p ∈ Min(R) such that dim(Ωi ) = dim(R/p). In particular, M cannot
have arbitrarily high syzygies of finite length.
Proof. If Supp(Ωi ) ∩ Min(R) 6= ∅ for all i ≫ 0 then we are done. By way of contradiction,
assume that there exist infinitely many syzygies Ωi of M such that Supp(Ωi ) ∩ Min(R) = ∅.
Notice that, by Proposition 5.4, such syzygies must have finite length. By replacing M with
a high enough syzygy, we can then assume that M is a module of finite length with nondecreasing Betti numbers, and with infinitely many syzygies of finite length. We have that
R is one-dimensional by Proposition 5.5. Furthermore, by Remark 5.6, we have β2i = β2i+1
for all i > 0. For i > 0 consider the short exact sequence
0
//

Ω2i+2
//

Rβ

ϕ

//

Rβ
//

Ω2i
//

0,

where β := β2i = β2i+1 . Let S := R[ϕ]. Then Rβ becomes an S-module. The exact sequence
above shows that Ω2i ∼
= (0 :Rβ ϕ). Then, by [SH06, Proposition
= Rβ ⊗S S/(ϕ) and Ω2i+2 ∼
11.1.9 (2)],
λ(Ω2i ) − λ(Ω2i+2 ) = e(ϕ; Rβ ),
where e(ϕ; −) denotes the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity with respect to the ideal (ϕ) in S.
Since such multiplicity is always positive, we have that λ(Ω2i+2 ) < λ(Ω2i ), for all i > 0.
Since there cannot be an infinite strictly decreasing sequence of such lengths, we obtain a
contradiction.

Remark 5.8. Proposition 5.7 also follows from [BL13, Theorem 8], and it gives another proof
of the fact that, when M is a module of finite length with eventually non-decreasing Betti
numbers and R is equidimensional, then the sequence of integers {dim(Ωi )}∞
i=0 is constant
for i ≫ 0 (see [BL13, Corollary 2]).

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

21

Proposition 5.9. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional local ring. Suppose that there exists
a finite length module M of infinite projective dimension that has a finite length syzygy
Ωi+1 , for some fixed i > 2. Then
λ(Ωi+1 ) =

i
X

(−1)i−j+1 λ(TorR
j (M, R/(x))),

j=0

where x is a suitable parameter.

Proof. Consider a minimal free resolution of M:
G• :

...
//

Gi+1 ◆
◆◆◆
''

// G
r99 i ■■■
■$$
rrr

Ωi+1

Ωi

// Gi−1
r99
r
r
r

...
//

G1 ■
■■■
$$
//

// G0
✉::
✉
✉
✉

Ω1

//

M
//

0.

For all j = 1, . . . , i + 1, we break it into short exact sequences:
0
//

Ωj
//

Gj−1
//

Ωj−1
//

0,

where Ω0 := M. These give two exact sequences:
0

Ωi+1
//

Hm0 (Gi )
//

//

Hm0 (Ωi )
//

0

and
0
//

Hm0 (Ωj )
//

Hm0 (Gj−1 )
//

Hm0 (Ωj−1 ).

The first short exact sequence comes from the fact that Ωi+1 has finite length, and so,
Hm1 (Ωi+1 ) = 0. Furthermore, the cokernel of the rightmost map in the second exact sequence,
which can be proved to be the kernel of the leftmost map in
Ωj ⊗R Hm1 (R)
//

Gj−1 ⊗R Hm1 (R)
//

Ωj−1 ⊗R Hm1 (R)
//

0

1
0
0
is then TorR
1 (Ωj−1 , Hm (R)). For simplicity, we denote ωj := λ(Hm (Ωj )), gj := λ(Hm (Gj ))
1
and αj := λ(TorR
1 (Ωj , H (R))). Then, we have relations

ωi+1 = gi − ωi
ωi
= gi−1 − ωi−1 + αi−1
..
.
ω2
ω1

= g 1 − ω 1 + α1
= g0 − λ(M) + λ(Tor1 (M, Hm1 (R))).

After localizing the resolution G• at any minimal prime p, since (Ωi+1 )p = 0, we obtain that
Pi
Pi
j
j
0
j=0 (−1) βj (M) = 0. Then,
j=0 (−1) gj = 0 because gj = βj (M) · λ(Hm (R)). Therefore,
ωi+1 = λ(Ωi+1 ) =

i−1
X

(−1)i−j αj + (−1)i λ(Tor1 (M, H 1 (R))) + (−1)i−1 λ(M).

j=1

Choose a parameter x such that Hm0 (R) = 0 :R x, as in Remark 2.4. By similar considerations we can also assume that xM = 0. From this choice, we have that xHm0 (Ωj ) = 0 for
all j = 0, . . . , i + 1, because Ωj ⊆ Gj−1 is a free R-module. Since the Tor modules can be
computed using flat resolutions, we have an exact sequence
0
//

Hm0 (R)
//

R
//

Rx
//

Hm1 (R)
//

0.

22

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

We complete on the left to get a flat resolution of Hm1 (R):
...
//

0

Rµ(Hm (R))
//

R ❖❖❖

//
♦77 Rx
♦
♦
♦♦

❖❖❖
''

//

Hm1 (R)
//

0

R/Hm0 (R)

By our choice of x, we have that a free resolution of R/x starts as
...
//

0

Rµ(Hm (R))

R
//

//

R
//

R/(x)

0.
//

For all j = 1, . . . , i − 1, we obtain

R
R
1
∼
∼
TorR
1 (Ωj , Hm (R)) = Tor1 (Ωj , R/(x)) = Torj+1 (M, R/(x)),

where the last isomorphism comes from dimension shifting. In addition,
TorR (M, H 1 (R)) ∼
= TorR (M, R/(x)).
1

Finally, since

xHm0 (Ω0 )

1

m

= xM = 0, we get
M∼
= TorR
= M/xM ∼
0 (M, R/(x)),

and the proposition then follows.



Corollary 5.10. Let (R, m, K) be a one-dimensional ring, and let M be a finite length
module of infinite projective dimension. Then λ(Ω1 ) = λ(Ω3 ) = ∞.
Proof. Note that λ(Ω1 ) = ∞ ; otherwise, we would have a short exact sequence
0
//

Ω1

G0
//

//

M
//

0

in which both Ω1 and M have finite length. This cannot happen because G0 6= 0 is free and
dim(R) = 1. Now let us assume by way of contradiction that λ(Ω3 ) < ∞. Let (G• , ϕ• ) be a
minimal free resolution of M:
0
//

Ω3
//

G2

ϕ2

//

ϕ1

G1

//

G0
//

M
//

0

Let x ∈ R be a parameter such that xM = xHm0 (R) = 0. Consider the short exact sequence
0
//

(x)
//

R
//

R/(x)
//

0.

By our choice of x we have 0 :R x = Hm0 (R), hence (x) ∼
= R/Hm0 (R). After tensoring the
sequence with M, we obtain that
0
//

TorR
1 (M, R/(x))
//

M/Hm0 (R)M
//

M
//

M/xM
//

0.

Since xM = 0, we obtain
0
λ(TorR
1 (M, R/(x))) = λ(M/Hm (R)M).

Then, by Proposition 5.9 we have
R
λ(Ω3 ) = −λ(TorR
2 (M, R/(x))) + λ(Tor1 (M, R/(x))) − λ(M)

6 λ(TorR
1 (M, R/(x))) − λ(M)

= λ(M/Hm0 (R)M) − λ(M) 6 0,

which gives a contradiction since Ω3 6= 0, because M has infinite projective dimension.



FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

23

The following example is due to the second author, and it is taken from [BL13]. It shows
the assumption that M has finite length is needed in Corollary 5.10.
Example 5.11. Let S = Q[x, y, z, u, v] and let I ⊆ S be the ideal

I = (x2 , xz, z 2 , xu, zv, u2 , v 2 , zu + xv + uv, yu, yv, yx − zu, yz − xv).

Let R = S/I, which is a one-dimensional ring of depth 0. In this case y is a parameter,
0 :R y = (u, v, z 2 ) and (y) = 0 :R (0 :R y). Let M be the cokernel of the rightmost map in
the following exact complex

u
 v 
z2


R

3

[u

v z2 ]

y

R3 .
Then M is a one-dimensional module with first and third syzygies Ω1 ∼
=
= R/(y) and Ω3 ∼
0 :R y. These are both modules of finite length since y is a parameter.
...

//

//

R

//

R

//

Acknowledgments
The second author thanks the National Science Foundation for support through Grant
DMS-1259142. The third author thanks the National Council of Science and Technology of
Mexico (CONACYT) for support through Grant #207063. We thank the referee for helpful
comments and suggestions.
References
[AE08]

Ian M. Aberbach and Florian Enescu. Lower bounds for Hilbert-Kunz multiplicities in local
rings of fixed dimension. Michigan Math. J., 57:1–16, 2008. Special volume in honor of Melvin
Hochster. 1
[AGP97] Luchezar L. Avramov, Vesselin N. Gasharov, and Irena V. Peeva. Complete intersection dimension. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (86):67–114 (1998), 1997. 20
[AL03]
Ian M. Aberbach and Graham J. Leuschke. The F -signature and strong F -regularity. Math. Res.
Lett., 10(1):51–56, 2003. 5
[AL08]
Ian M. Aberbach and Jinjia Li. Asymptotic vanishing conditions which force regularity in local
rings of prime characteristic. Math. Res. Lett., 15(4):815–820, 2008. 2, 10
[Avr84]
Luchezar L. Avramov. Local algebra and rational homotopy. In Algebraic homotopy and local
algebra (Luminy, 1982), volume 113 of Astérisque, pages 15–43. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1984.
20
[BE73]
David A. Buchsbaum and David Eisenbud. What makes a complex exact? J. Algebra, 25:259–268,
1973. 15
[BE04]
Manuel Blickle and Florian Enescu. On rings with small Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc., 132(9):2505–2509 (electronic), 2004. 1
[BL13]
Kristen A. Beck and Micah J. Leamer. Asymptotic behavior of dimensions of syzygies. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., 141(7):2245–2252, 2013. 20, 23
[Bur68]
Lindsay Burch. On ideals of finite homological dimension in local rings. Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc., 64:941–948, 1968. 17
[Cha97]
Shou-Te Chang. Hilbert-Kunz functions and Frobenius functors. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
349(3):1091–1119, 1997. 7, 9
[CHKV06] Alberto Corso, Craig Huneke, Daniel Katz, and Wolmer V. Vasconcelos. Integral closure of
ideals and annihilators of homology. In Commutative algebra, volume 244 of Lect. Notes Pure
Appl. Math., pages 33–48. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2006. 12
[Cho90]
Sangki Choi. Betti numbers and the integral closure of ideals. Math. Scand., 66(2):173–184, 1990.
20

24

[DS13]
[Eis80]
[Har66]

[Her74]
[HH93]
[KL98]
[Kun69]
[Kun76]
[Les90]
[Li08]
[Mil00]
[Mil03]

[Mon83]
[PS73]

[Rob80]

[Rob87]
[Sei89]
[SH06]

[Sun94]
[Sun98]
[Tuc12]
[WY00]
[Yao05]

ALESSANDRO DE STEFANI, CRAIG HUNEKE, AND LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT

Hailong Dao and Ilya Smirnov. On generalized hilbert-kunz function and multiplicity. Preprint,
arXiv:1305.1833 [math.AC]., 2013. 2, 10
David Eisenbud. Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group
representations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 260(1):35–64, 1980. 5, 20
Robin Hartshorne. Residues and duality. Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A.
Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64. With an appendix by P. Deligne. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, No. 20. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1966. 4
Jürgen Herzog. Ringe der Charakteristik p und Frobeniusfunktoren. Math. Z., 140:67–78, 1974.
10
Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke. Phantom homology. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.,
103(490):vi+91, 1993. 17
Jee Koh and Kisuk Lee. Some restrictions on the maps in minimal resolutions. J. Algebra,
202(2):671–689, 1998. 10, 11
Ernst Kunz. Characterizations of regular local rings for characteristic p. Amer. J. Math., 91:772–
784, 1969. 12
Ernst Kunz. On Noetherian rings of characteristic p. Amer. J. Math., 98(4):999–1013, 1976. 4
Jack Lescot. Séries de Poincaré et modules inertes. J. Algebra, 132(1):22–49, 1990. 20
Jinjia Li. Characterizations of regular local rings in positive characteristics. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc., 136(5):1553–1558, 2008. 5
Claudia Miller. A Frobenius characterization of finite projective dimension over complete intersections. Math. Z., 233(1):127–136, 2000. 2, 10
Claudia Miller. The Frobenius endomorphism and homological dimensions. In Commutative algebra (Grenoble/Lyon, 2001), volume 331 of Contemp. Math., pages 207–234. Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 2003. 10, 11
P. Monsky. The Hilbert-Kunz function. Math. Ann., 263(1):43–49, 1983. 1
C. Peskine and L. Szpiro. Dimension projective finie et cohomologie locale. Applications à la
démonstration de conjectures de M. Auslander, H. Bass et A. Grothendieck. Inst. Hautes Études
Sci. Publ. Math., (42):47–119, 1973. 10, 16, 17
Paul Roberts. Homological invariants of modules over commutative rings, volume 72 of Séminaire
de Mathématiques Supérieures [Seminar on Higher Mathematics]. Presses de l’Université de
Montréal, Montreal, Que., 1980. 4
Paul Roberts. Le théorème d’intersection. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math., 304(7):177–180,
1987. 17, 20
Gerhard Seibert. Complexes with homology of finite length and Frobenius functors. J. Algebra,
125(2):278–287, 1989. 5, 6, 7
Irena Swanson and Craig Huneke. Integral closure of ideals, rings, and modules, volume 336
of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2006. 3, 12, 20
Li-Chuan Sun. Growth of Betti numbers of modules over local rings of small embedding codimension or small linkage number. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 96(1):57–71, 1994. 20
Li-Chuan Sun. Growth of Betti numbers of modules over generalized Golod rings. J. Algebra,
199(1):88–93, 1998. 20
Kevin Tucker. F -signature exists. Invent. Math., 190(3):743–765, 2012. 5
Kei-ichi Watanabe and Ken-ichi Yoshida. Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and an inequality between
multiplicity and colength. J. Algebra, 230(1):295–317, 2000. 1
Yongwei Yao. Modules with finite F -representation type. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 72(1):53–72,
2005. 9, 12

Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Email address: ad9fa@virginia.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Email address: huneke@virginia.edu

FROBENIUS BETTI NUMBERS AND MODULES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

Department of Mathematics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Email address: lcn8m@virginia.edu

25

