arXiv:1701.06849v1 [math.AC] 24 Jan 2017

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE
AR-QUIVER
TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL
Abstract. Let (A, m) be a commutative complete equicharacteristic Gorenstein isolated singularity of dimension d with k = A/m algebraically closed.
Let Γ(A) be the AR (Auslander-Reiten) quiver of A. Let P be a property
of maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. We show that some naturally defined properties P define a union of connected components of Γ(A). So in this
case if there is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module satisfying P and if A is
not of finite representation type then there exists a family {Mn }n≥1 of maximal Cohen-Macaulay indecomposable modules satisfying P with multiplicity
e(Mn ) > n. Let Γ(A) be the stable quiver. We show that there are many
symmetries in Γ(A). Furthermore Γ(A) is isomorphic to its reverse graph. As
an application we show that if (A, m) is a two dimensional Gorenstein isolated singularity with multiplicity e(A) ≥ 3 then for all n ≥ 1 there exists an
indecomposable self-dual maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module of rank n.

1. introduction
Let us recall that a commutative Noetherian local ring (A, m) is called an isolated
singularity if AP is a regular local ring for all prime ideals P 6= m. We note
that with this definition if A is Artinian then it is an isolated singularity. This is
not a usual practice, nevertheless in this paper Artin rings will be considered as
isolated singularities. Also recall that if a local Noetherian ring (B, n) is Henselian
then it satisfies Krull-Schmidt property, i.e., every finitely generated B-module is
uniquely a direct sum of indecomposable B-modules. Now assume that B is CohenMacaulay. Then we say B is of finite (Cohen-Macaulay) representation type if B
has only finitely many indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay B-modules. In a
remarkable paper Auslander proved that in this case B is an isolated singularity,
for instance see [23, Theorem 4.22].
To study (not necessarily commutative) Artin algebra’s Auslander and Reiten introduced the theory of almost-split sequences. These are now called AR-sequences.
The AR-sequences are organized to form the AR-quiver. Later Auslander and Reiten extended the theory of AR-sequences to the case of commutative Henselian
isolated singularities.
If (A, m) is a Henselian Cohen-Macaulay isolated singularity then we denote its
AR-quiver by Γ(A). A good reference for this topic is [23]. The motivation for
this paper comes from the following crucial fact about AR quivers (under some
conditions on A), see [23, 6.2]:
Date: January 25, 2017.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13 C14, Secondary 13H10, 14B05.
Key words and phrases. Artin-Reiten Quiver, Hensel rings, indecomposable modules, Ulrich
modules, periodic modules, Non-periodic modules with bounded betti numbers.
1

2

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

If C is a non-empty connected component of Γ(A) and if A is not of finite
representation type then there exist a family {Mn }n≥1 of maximal Cohen-Macaulay
indecomposable modules in C with multiplicity e(Mn ) > n.
Let P be a property of maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. We show that
some naturally defined properties P define a union of connected components of the
AR quiver of A. Thus the above mentioned observation still holds. Therefore if
there is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module satisfying P then there exists a family
{Mn }n≥1 of maximal Cohen-Macaulay indecomposable modules satisfying P with
multiplicity e(Mn ) > n.
1.1. For the rest of the paper let us assume that (A, m) is a complete equicharacteristic Gorenstein isolated singularity of dimension d. Assume k = A/m is
algebraically closed. Some of our results are applicable more generally. However
for simplicity we will make this hypothesis throughout this paper. We will also
assume that A does not have finite representation type. This is automatic if A is
not a hypersurface, see [23, 8.15]. Furthermore if A is a hypersurface ring with
dim A ≥ 2 and e(A) ≥ 3 then also A is not of finite representation type.
Now we describe our results. We first describe our results on
Connected Components of the AR-quiver:
I: Modules with periodic resolution:
Let M be a maximal Cohen-Macaulay non-free A-module. Let Syzn (M ) be the
nth -syzygy module of M . We say M has periodic resolution if there exists a nonnegative integer n and a positive integer p with Syzn+p (M ) ∼
= Syzn (M ). The
smallest p for which this holds is called the period of the resolution. We say M has
property P if it has a periodic resolution.
If A is a hypersurface ring then any non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module
has periodic resolution with period ≤ 2 and in fact Syz3 (M ) ∼
= Syz1 (M ). There
exits maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules with periodic resolutions if A is a complete
intersection of any codimension c ≥ 1. Again it can be shown that in this case the
period is ≤ 2 and in fact Syz3 (M ) ∼
= Syz1 (M ).
For general Gorenstein local rings there is no convenient criterion to determine
when A has a module with perodic resolution (however see [11, 5.8] for a criterion).
It was conjectured by Eisenbud that if a module M has a periodic resolution then
the period is ≤ 2, see [13, p. 37]. This was disproved by Gasharov and Peeva, see
[14, Theorem 1.3].
Our first result is
Theorem 1.2. (with hypotheses as in 1.1.) If A is not a hypersurface ring then P
defines a union of connected components of Γ(A).
We now give more refined versions of Theorem 1.2:
1.3. Assume A = Q/(f ) where (Q, n) is a Gorenstein local ring and f ∈ n2 is a
Q-regular element.
Let M be a maximal Cohen-Macaulay non-free A-module. We say M has property PQ if projdimQ M finite. In this case it is easy to prove that M has a periodicresolution over A with period ≤ 2. There is essentially a unique method to construct
non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over A having finite projective dimension over Q. This is essentially due to Buchweitz et al, see [10, 2.3]. Also see the
paper [17, 1.2] by Herzog et al. Our next result is:

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

3

Theorem 1.4. [ with hypotheses as in 1.3.] If Q is not regular then PQ defines a
union of connected components of Γ(A).
Again our results implies existence of indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-modules with arbitrarily high multiplicity and satisfying property PQ . However
our method does not give a way to construct these modules.
1.5. Eisenbud’s conjecture (as stated above) is valid if M has the so-called finite
CI-dimension [3, 7.3]. We say M has property PO if M has finite CI-dimension
over A and has a periodic resolution over A. We say M has property PE if M has
periodic resolution over A but it has infinite CI dimension over A. Our next result
is
Theorem 1.6. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] Assume A is not a hypersurface.
(1) PO defines a union of connected components of Γ(A).
(2) PE defines a union of connected components of Γ(A).
We note that in [14, 3.1] a family Aα of an Artininian Gorenstein local ring
is constructed with each having a single module Mα having periodic resolution
of period > 2 is given. As the period of Mα is greater than two it cannot have
finite CI-dimension over Aα . Thus our result implies existence of indecomposable
modules with arbitrary length, having a periodic resolution and having infinite CI
dimension over Aα .
Note that till now our results does not give any information regarding period’s.
In dimension two we can say something, see Theorem 1.15.
1.7. Now assume that A is a complete intersection of codimension c ≥ 2. There
is a theory of support varieties for modules over A. Essentially for every finitely
generated module E over A an algebraic set V (E) in the projective space Pc−1 is
attached, see [4, 6.2]. Conversely it is known that if V is an algebraic set in Pc−1
then there exists a finitely generated module E with V (E) = V , see [7, 2.3]. It is
known that V (Syzn (E)) = V (E) for any n ≥ 0. Thus we can assume E is maximal
Cohen-Macaulay. If E has periodic resolution over A then V (E) is a finite set of
points. The converse is also true. If further E is indecomposable then V (E) is
a singleton set, see [7, 3.2]. Let a ∈ Pc−1 . We say a maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-module M satisfies property Pa if V (M ) = {a}. We prove:
Theorem 1.8. [ with hypotheses as in 1.7.] Let a ∈ Pc−1 . Then Pa defines a
union of connected components of Γ(A). Conversely if C is a non-empty connected
component of Γ(A) containing a periodic module M then for any [N ] ∈ C we have
V (N ) = V (M )(= {p}). In particular Γ(A) has at least |k| connected components.
II Modules with bounded betti-numbers but not having a periodic resolution:
For a long time it was believed that if a module M has a bounded resolution (i.e.,
there exists c with βi (M ) ≤ c for all i ≥ 0) then it is periodic. If A is a complete
intersection then modules having bounded resolutions are periodic [13, 4.1]. In [14,
3.2] there are examples of modules M having a bounded resolution but M is not
periodic.
If M is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module having a bounded resolution but
M is not periodic then we say that M has property BN P . We prove
Theorem 1.9. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] BN P defines a union of connected
components of Γ(A).

4

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

We note that if M has bounded resolution but not periodic then there exists c
with e(Syzn (M )) ≤ c for all n ≥ 0. Our result implies the existence of modules
with bounded but not periodic resolution of arbitrary multiplicity.
III: Ulrich modules:
Let M be a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. It is well-known that e(M ) ≥
µ(M ) (here µ(M ) denotes the cardinality of a minimal generating set of M ) A maximal Cohen-Macaulay module M is said to be an Ulrich module if its multiplicity
e(M ) = µ(M ). In this case we say M has property U.
If dim A = 1 then A has a Ulrich module. It is known that if A is a strict
complete intersection of any dimension d then it has a Ulrich module, see [17,
2.5]. In particular if A is a hypersurface ring then it has a Ulrich module. There
are some broad class of examples of Gorenstein normal domain (but not complete
intersections) of dimension two that admit an Ulrich module see [8, 4.8]. However
there are no examples of Gorenstein local rings R ( but not complete intersections)
with dim R ≥ 3 such that R admits an Ulrich module (note we are not even insisting
that R is reduced).
Even if A is a hypersurface there is essentially a unique way to construct an
Ulrich modules. We show
Theorem 1.10. [ with hypotheses as in 1.1.] Further assume that either A is a
hypersurface ring of even dimension d ≥ 2 and multiplicity e(A) ≥ 3 OR A is
Gorenstein of dimension two. Then U defines a union of connected components of
Γ(A).
The reason we cannot say anything about Ulrich modules over hypersurface rings
of odd dimension is due to a peculiar nature of AR-sequences, see remark 8.2. Also
note that if e(A) = 2 then any non-free MCM A-module is an Ulrich module.
We now describe our result on:
Symmetries of AR-quiver:
Let Γ0 (A) be the connected component of Γ(A) containing the vertex [A]. Set
e
Γ(A)
= Γ(A) \ Γ0 (A). Let Γ(A) denote the stable AR-quiver of A, i.e., we delete
the vertex [A] from Γ(A) and all arrows connecting to [A]. Also set Γ0 (A) to be
the stable part of Γ0 (A).
Our starting point is the observation that for Klienian singularities Γ(A) is trivially isomorphic to its reverse graph (see [23, p. 95]). Recall if G is a directed graph
then it’s reverse graph Grev is a graph with the same vertices as G and there is an
arrow from vertex u to v in Grev if and only if there is an arrow from vertex v to
u in G. In fact we construct
Theorem 1.11. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] There exists isomorphisms
D, λ : Γ(A) → Γ(A)rev as graphs. If A is not a hypersurface ring then
(1) D 6= λ.
(2) There exists indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules M, N with
λ(M ) 6= M and D(N ) 6= N .
The first isomorphism D is just the dual functor. The next map λ arises in the
theory of horizontal linkage defined by Martsinkovsky and Strooker, see [20, p. 592].
We note that the assumption A not a hypersurface is essential for the later part of
Theorem 1.11, for in the case of Klienian singularities it is known that λ(M ) = M
for each non-free indecomposable M , see [20, Theorem 3].

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

5

1.12. For n ≥ 0 let Syzn be the nth syzygy functor. As A is Gorenstein we can
also define for integers n ≤ −1 the nth cosyzygy functor which we again denote
with Syzn . By the definition of horizontal linkage we have Syz−1 ◦D = λ. Thus
Syz−1 = λ ◦ D−1 and Syz1 = D ◦ λ−1 . So under the assumptions as in 1.1 we get
that Syzn : Γ(A) → Γ(A) is an isomorphism for all n ∈ Z. We prove:
Theorem 1.13. [ with hypotheses as in 1.1] Let C be a connected component of
Γ(A). For [M ] ∈ C, set I(M ) = {n | [Syzn (M )] ∈ C}. Then
(1) I(M ) is an ideal in Z (possibly zero).
(2) I(N ) = I(M ) for all [N ] ∈ C.
If A is not of finite representation type then there is practically no information on
connected components of Γ(A). The only case known is when A is a hypersurface
e
there is information on connected components of Γ(A),
see [12, Theorem I]. It is
easy to show that Γ0 (A) has only finitely many components. As an application of
Theorem 1.13 we show:
Corollary 1.14. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] Assume further that A is not a
hypersurface ring. Let D be a connected component of Γ0 (A). Then
(1) D has infinitely many vertices.
(2) The function [M ] → e(M ) is unbounded on D.
Structure of the AR-quiver:
If A is of finite representation type then the structure of the AR-quiver is known,
see [23]. For hypersurface rings which are not of finite representation type there is
some information regarding connected components of A not containing the vertex
[A]. For two dimensional Gorenstein rings we show:
Theorem 1.15. [with hypothesis as in 1.1.] Assume dim A = 2 and e(A) ≥ 3. Let
C be a non-empty component of Γ(A). Then C is of the form
M1 ⇆ M2 ⇆ M3 ⇆ M4 ⇆ · · · ⇆ Mn ⇆ · · ·
where e(Mn ) = ne(M1 ) for all n ≥ 1. Furthermore
(1) If C = Γ0 (A) then M1 = A. Furthermore Mn∗ ∼
= Mn for all n ≥ 1.
(2) Assume now that A is not a hypersurface ring. Then
(a) If Mj is periodic with period c for some j then Mn is periodic with period
c for all n ≥ 1.
(b) Let C denote the stable part of C. Let [Mi ] ∈ C. If the Poincare series of
Mi is rational then the Poincare series of M is rational for all [M ] ∈ C.
Furthermore all of them share a common denominator.
In the Theorem above the Poincare series PM (z) of a module M is
A
n
n≥0 dimk Torn (M, k)z . We also note that the structure of all components of
Γ(A) \ Γ0 (A) is already known, see [6, 4.16.2].
We have several interesting consequences of Theorem 1.15. A direct consequence
of this theorem is that if dim A = 2 and e(A) ≥ 3 then for all n ≥ 1 there exist’s an
indecomosable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module Mn of rank n with Mn∗ ∼
= Mn .
I do not know whether such a result holds for higher dimensional rings.
A simple consequence of Theorem’s 1.15 and 1.13 is the following:
P

Corollary 1.16. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] Assume A is not a hypersurface ring.
Also assume dim A = 2. Then Syzn (Γ0 (A)) are distinct for all n ∈ Z, n 6= 0.

6

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

We now describe in brief the contents of this paper. In section two we discuss
some preliminary results that we need. In section three we discuss lifts of irreducible
maps. In the next section we dicuss non-free indecomosable summands of maximal
Cohen-Macaulay approximation of the maximal ideal. In section five we give proof’s
of Theorem’s 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6. In the next section we give a proof of Theorem 1.8. In
section seven we discuss our notion of quasi AR-sequences and in the next section
we give a proof of Theorem 1.10. In section nine we prove Theorem 1.11. In
the next section we give a few obstructions to existence of quasi-AR sequences.
In section 11 we describe the describe Γ0 (A) when A is a two dimensional with
e(A) ≥ 3. In section twelve we give a proof of Theorem 1.15 and Corollary 1.16. In
the last section we discuss curvature and complexity of MCM modules and as an
application give a proof of Theorem 1.9
Remark 1.17. Srikanth Iyengar informed me about the excellent paper [15] where
the authors considered AR-quiver of self-injective Artin algebra’s. Note that commutative Artin Gorenstein rings is an extremely special case of self-injective Artin
Algebra’s. So our results in this case is sharper than that of [15]. I do not beleive
that the results of this paper when A is commutative Artin Gorenstein ring will
hold for the more general case of self-injective Artin algebra’s. I also thank Dan
Zacharia and Lucho Avramov for some useful discussions.
2. Some Preliminaries
In this paper all rings will be Noetherian local. All modules considered are finitely
generated. Let (A, m) be a local ring and let k = A/m be its residue field. If M is
an A-module then µ(M ) = dimk M/mM is the number of a minimal generating set
of M . Also let ℓ(M ) denote its length. In this section we discuss a few preliminary
results that we need.
th
2.1. Let M be an A-module.
βi (M ) = dimk TorA
i (M, k) be its i
P For i ≥ 0 let
n
betti-number. Let PM (z) = n≥0 βn (M )z , the Poincare series of M . Set

cx(M ) = inf{d | lim sup

βn (M )
< ∞}
nd−1

and

1

curv M = lim sup(βn (M )) n .
It is possible that cx(M ) = ∞, see [5, 4.2.2]. However curv(M ) is finite for any
module M [5, 4.1.5]. It can be shown that if cx(M ) < ∞ then curv(M ) ≤ 1.
2.2. It can be shown that for any A-module M we have
cx(M ) ≤ cx(k)

and

curv(M ) ≤ curv(k).

see [5, 4.2.4].
2.3. If A is a complete intersection of co-dimension c then for any A-module M
we have cx(M ) ≤ c. Furthermore for each i = 0, . . . , c there exists an A-module
Mi with cx(Mi ) = i. Also note that cx(k) = c. [5, 8.1.1(2)]. If A is a complete
intersection and M is a module with cx(M ) = cx(k) then we say M is extremal.
2.4. If A is not a complete intersection then curv(k) > 1. [5, 8.2.2]. In this case
we say a module M is extremal if curv(M ) = curv(k).

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

7

2.5. Let M, N be A-modules and let f : M → N be A-linear. Let FM be a minimal
resolution of M and let FN be a minimal resolution of N . Then f induces a lift
fe: FM → FN . This map fe is unique up to homotopy. The chain map fe induces an
A-linear map fn : Syzn (M ) → Syzn (N ) for all n ≥ 1.
2.6. Denote by β(M, N ) the set of A-homomorphisms of M to N which pass
through a free module. That is, an A-linear map f : M → N lies in β(M, N ) if and
only if it factors as
M❇
❇❇
❇❇f
u
❇❇
❇

/N
F
v

where F ∼
= A for some n ≥ 1.
n

Remark 2.7. If f : M → N is A-linear and if f1 , f1′ : Syz1 (M ) → Syz1 (N ) are two
lifts of f then it is well known and easily verified that f1 −f1′ ∈ β(Syz1 (M ), Syz1 (N )).
Recall that an A-module M is called stable if M has no free summands. We
need the following:
Proposition 2.8. Let (A, m) be a Noetherian local ring and let M, N be A-modules.
Set Λ = EndA (M ) and r = rad Λ. Let f ∈ Λ. Also suppose there exists A-linear
maps u : M → N and v : N → M . Set g = v ◦ u.
(1) If f (M ) ⊆ mM then f ∈ r.
(2) If M is stable and f ∈ β(M, M ) then f ∈ r.
(3) If 1 − g ∈ r then u is a split mono and v is a split epi.
Proof. (1) This is well known.
(2) Assume f = β ◦ α where α : M → F and β : F → M and F ∼
= An . As M
is stable it follows that α(M ) ⊆ mF and so f (M ) ⊆ mM . The result follows from
(1).
(3) Let 1 − g = h where h ∈ r. Then g = 1 − h is invertible in Λ. So there exists
τ ∈ Λ with τ ◦ g = g ◦ τ = 1M . The result follows.

2.9. Now assume A is Cohen-Macaulay. Let M, N be maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-modules and let f : M → N be A-linear. Recall f is said to be irreducible if
(1) f is not a split epimorphism and not a split monomorphism.
(2) If X is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and if there is a commutative
diagram
M❇
❇❇
❇❇f
u
❇❇
❇

X v /N
then either u is a split monomorphism or v is a split epimorphism.
Remark 2.10. Let (A, m) be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring. If M is a maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-module then it is easy to verify that Syzn (M ) is stable for each
n ≥ 1.

8

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

2.11. Suppose M is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay over a local Gorenstein ring A.
Then M ∗ = HomA (M, A) is also a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module. Furthermore
ExtiA (M, A) = 0 for i > 0. We also have (M ∗ )∗ ∼
= M . Notice if
α

α

2
1
M3 → 0,
M2 −→
0 → M1 −→

is a short exact sequence of maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules then we have the
following short exact sequence
α∗

α∗

2
1
0 → M3∗ −−→
M2∗ −−→
M1∗ → 0,

of maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules.
Remark 2.12. Let (A, m) be a Gorenstein local ring and let M be a maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-module. Then there exists exact sequences of the form
0 → M → F → M1 → 0,
with F free and M1 maximal Cohen-Macaulay.
Remark 2.13. Due to 2.11 the following assertions hold:
Let M1 , M2 and N1 , N2 are maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and let F, G be
free A-modules. Suppose we have exact sequences:
0 → M1 → F → M2 → 0 and 0 → N1 → G → N2 → 0.
If there exists an A-linear map ψ1 : M1 → N1 then:
(1) there exists A-linear maps ψ2 : M2 → N2 and φ : F → G such that the
following diagram commutes:
0

/ M1

0


/ N1

ψ1

′

/F

/ M2
φ


/G

/0

ψ2


/ N2

/0

′

(2) If ψ : M2 → N2 and φ : F → G are another pair of maps such that the
above commutative diagram holds then ψ2 − ψ2′ ∈ β(M2 , N2 ).
Definition 2.14. (with hypotheses as in 2.13.) We call ψ2 to be a pre-lift of ψ1 .
The following is an easy consequence of 2.11.
Proposition 2.15. Let (A, m) be a local Gorenstein ring and let M, N be maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. Let f : M → N be A-linear and let f ∗ : N ∗ → M ∗ be
the induced map. We have:
(1) f is a split mono if and only if f ∗ is a split epi.
(2) f is a split epi if and only if f ∗ is a split mono.
(3) f is irreducible if and only if f ∗ is irreducible.

2.16. Let (A, m) be a Gorenstein local ring. Let us recall the definition of CohenMacaulay approximation from [1]. A Cohen-Macaulay approximation of an Amodule M is an exact sequence
0 −→ Y −→ X −→ M −→ 0,
where X is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and Y has finite projective dimension. Such a sequence is not unique but X is known to unique up to a free

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

9

summand and so is well defined in the stable category CM(A). We denote by X(M )
the maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of M
2.17. If M is Cohen-Macaulay then maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of
M are very easy to construct. We recall this construction from [1]. Let n =
codim M = dim A − dim M . Let M ∨ = ExtnA (M, A). It is well-known that M ∨ is
Cohen-Macaulay module of codim n and M ∨∨ ∼
= M . Let F be any free resolution
of M ∨ with each Fi a finitely generated free module. Note F need not be minimal
∂n
Fn−1 ). Then note Sn (F) is
free resolution of M . Set Sn (F) = image(Fn −→
maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. It can be easily proved that X(M ) ∼
= Sn (F)∗
in CM(A).
The following result is well-known and easy to prove.
Proposition 2.18. Let (A, m) be a Gorenstein local ring and let M be an A-module.
Then
X(Syz1 (M )) ∼
= Syz1 (X(M ))

in CM(A).

3. Lifts of irreducible maps
In this section (A, m) is a Gorenstein local ring, not necessarily an isolated singularity. Also A need not be Henselian.
The following is the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.1. (with hypotheses as above.) Let M, N be stable maximal CohenMacaulay A-modules and let f : M → N be A-linear. Let f1 : Syz1 (M ) → Syz1 (N )
be any lift of f . If f is irreducible then f1 is also an irreducible map.
We need a few preliminaries to prove Theorem 3.1.
We first prove:
Lemma 3.2. Let (A, m) be a local Gorenstein ring and let M, N be stable maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. Let f : M → N be A-linear and let δ ∈ β(M, N ). If
f is irreducibe then so is f + δ.
∼ An . As M is
Proof. Assume δ = v ◦ u where u : M → F and v : F → N and F =
stable it follows that u(M ) ⊆ mF and so δ(M ) ⊆ mN .
Claim-1: f + δ is not a split mono.
Suppose it is so. Then there exists σ : N → M with σ ◦ (f + δ) = 1M . So
σ ◦ f + σ ◦ δ = 1M . As δ(M ) ⊆ mN we get σ ◦ δ(M ) ⊆ mM . It follows that
σ ◦ δ ∈ rad EndA (M ). By 2.8(3) it follows that f is a split mono. This is a
contradiction as f is irreducible.
Claim-2: f + δ is not a split epi.
Suppose it is so. Then there exists σ : N → M with (f +δ)◦σ = 1N . So f ◦σ+δ◦σ =
1N . Notice
δ ◦ σ(N ) ⊂ δ(M ) ⊆ mN.
It follows that δ ◦ σ ∈ rad EndA (N ). By 2.8(3) it follows that f is a split epimorphism. This is a contradiction as f is irreducible.

10

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Claim 3: Suppose X is maximal Cohen-Macaulay and we have a commutative
diagram
M❇
❇❇
❇❇f +δ
g
❇❇
❇

/N
X
h

then either g is a split monomorphism or h is a split epimorphism.
Proof of Claim 3: Notice we have a commutative diagram
M●
●●
●●f
●●
(g,−u)
●●

#
/N
X ⊕F
h+v

As f is irreducible either (g, −u) is a split mono or h + v is a split epi. We assert:
Subclaim-1: If (g, −u) is a split mono then g is a split mono.
Subclaim-2: If h + v is a split epi then h is a split epi.
Notice that Subclaim 1 and 2 will finish the proof of Claim 3. Also Claims 1,2,3
implies the assertion of the Lemma. We now give:
Proof of Subclaim-1: As (g, −u) is a split mono there exits σ : X ⊕ F → M such
that σ ◦(g, −u) = 1M . Write σ = σ1 +σ2 where σ1 : X → M and σ2 : F → M . Thus
we have σ1 ◦ g − σ2 ◦ u = 1M . As M is stable u(M ) ⊆ mF . So σ2 ◦ u(M ) ⊆ mM .
Thus σ2 ◦ u ∈ rad EndA (M ). It follows from 2.8(3) that g is a split mono.
We now give:
Proof of Subclaim-2: As h + v is a split epi there exists σ : N → X ⊕ F with
(h + v) ◦ σ = 1N . Write σ = (σ1 , σ2 ) where σ! : N → X and σ2 : N → F . It follows
that h ◦ σ1 + v ◦ σ2 = 1N .
As N is stable σ2 (N ) ⊆ mF . So v ◦ σ2 (N ) ⊆ mN . Thus v ◦ σ2 ∈ rad EndA (N ).
It follows from 2.8(3) that h is a split epi.

We also need
Lemma 3.3. Let (A, m) be a Gorenstein local ring and let M be a stable maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-module. Let F = Aµ(M) and let ǫ : F → M be a minimal map.
Set M1 = ker ǫ ∼
= Syz1 (M ). Let X be another maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module
(not necessarily stable) and let η : G → X be a projective cover (not necessarily
minimal). Let X1 = ker η. Let α : M → X be A-linear and let α1 : M1 → X1 be
any lift of α. If α is a split mono then α1 is a split mono.
Proof. We note that M1 is also stable. Let φ : X → M be such that φ ◦ α = 1M .
Let φ1 : X1 → M1 be a lift of φ. Then note that φ1 ◦ α1 is a lift of 1M . Thus
φ1 ◦ α1 − 1 ∈ β(M1 , M1 ). The result now follows from 2.8.

The following is a dual version of Lemma 3.3 and can be proved similarly.
Lemma 3.4. Let (A, m) be a Gorenstein local ring and let N be a stable maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-module. Let F = Aµ(N ) and let ǫ : F → N be a minimal map.
Set N1 = ker ǫ ∼
= Syz1 (N ). Let X be another maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module
(not necessarily stable) and let η : G → X be a projective cover (not necessarily
minimal). Let X1 = ker η. Let β : X → N be A-linear and let β1 : X1 → N1 be any
lift of α. If β is a split epi then β1 is a split epi.


SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

11

We now give:
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Set M1 = Syz1 (M ) and N1 = Syz1 (N ).
Claim-1: f1 is not a split mono.
Suppose if possible f1 is a split mono. Then there exists σ1 : N1 → M1 with
σ1 ◦ f1 = 1M1 . Let σ : N → M be a pre-lift of σ (see 2.14 for this notion). Then
σ ◦ f is a pre-lift of 1M1 . Notice 1M is a pre-lift of of 1M1 . Then by 2.13 we get
that 1M − σ ◦ f ∈ β(M, M ). As M is stable we get by 2.8 that f is a split mono.
This is a contradiction as f is irreducible.
Claim-2: f1 is not a split epi.
Suppose if possible f1 is a split epi. Then there exists σ1 : M1 → N1 with f1 ◦ σ1 =
1N1 . Let σ : N → M be a pre-lift of σ. Then f ◦ σ is a pre-lift of 1N1 . Notice 1N is
a pre-lift of of 1N1 . Then by 2.13 we get that 1N − f ◦ σ ∈ β(N, N ). As N is stable
we get by 2.8 that f is a split epi. This is a contradiction as f is irreducible.
Claim-3: If X1 is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and if there is a commutative diagram
M1 ❈
❈❈ f
❈❈ 1
u1
❈❈
❈!

X1 v1 / N1
then either u1 is a split monomorphism or v1 is a split epimorphism.
Proof of Claim-3: By 2.12 there exists an exact sequence
0 → X1 → L → X → 0,
with L1 free and X maximal Cohen-Macaulay.
Let u : M → X be a pre-lift of u1 and let v : X → N be a pre-lift of v1 . Then
notice v ◦ u is a pre-lift of f1 = v1 ◦ u1 . As f by definition is a pre-lift of f1 we get
that v ◦ u = f + δ for some δ ∈ β(M, N ).
By 3.2 we get that f + δ is irreducible. So u is a split mono or v is a split epi.
By Lemma’s 3.3 and 3.4 we get that u1 is a split mono or v1 is a split epi.
By Claims 1, 2 and 3 the result follows.

4. Indecomposable non-free summands of
maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of the maximal ideal
In this section (A, m) is a Henselian Gorenstein local ring. Let X(m) be a
maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of the maximal ideal. In this section we
are concerned with non-free indecomposable summands of X(m). Our results are:
Theorem 4.1. Let (A, m) be a Henselian Gorenstein local ring of dimension d and
let X(m) be a maximal approximation of m. Let M be an indecomposable non-free
summand of X(m). Then M is extremal, i.e.,
(1) If A is a complete intersection of codimension c then cx(M ) = cx(k) = c.
(2) If A is not a complete intersection then curv(M ) = curv(k) > 1.
We also prove:
Theorem 4.2. Let (A, m) be a Henselian Gorenstein local ring of dimension d ≥ 1
and infinite residue field k. Let e(A) ≥ 3. Assume either dim A = 2 or A is a
hypersurface ring (with no restriction on dimension) with multiplicity e(A) ≥ 3.

12

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Let M be an indecomposable Ulrich A-module. Then neither M or Syz1 (M ) is a
summand of X(m).
4.3. Motivation: Our motivation to prove the above results is the following: Assume A is a Gorenstein Henselian isolated singularity. If M is a maximal CohenMacaulay non-free indecomposable module then there exists an irreducible morphism from M → A only if M is a summand of X(m), see [23, 4.2.1]. In our
Theorems we have to show that the vertex [A] does not belong to certain components of Γ(A).
We first give:
Proof of Theorem 4.1. By Proposition 2.18 we get that X(m)⊕F = Syz1 (X(k))⊕G
for some free modules F, G. Thus it suffices to prove that if M is a direct summand
of X(k) then it is extemal. By 2.17 it suffices to prove that if M is a summand of
Syzd (k)∗ then M is extremal. We prove by induction on d that if M is a summand
of Syzn (k)∗ for some n ≥ d then M is extremal.
We first consider the case d = 0. We note that as k is indecomposable Syzn (k)
is indecomposable for all n ≥ 0. So Syzn (k)∗ is indecomposable. Therefore M =
Syzn (k)∗ . Notice Syzn (Syzn (k)∗ ) = k. It follows that M is extremal.
We now assume that d ≥ 1 and the result has been proved for Gorenstein
Henselian rings of dimension d − 1. Let x ∈ m \ m2 be a non-zero divisor on
A. Set B = A/(x) and for any A-module N set N = N/xN . We note that
B
B
∼
SyzA
d (k) = Syzd (k) ⊕ Syzd−1 (k).

It follows that
B
B
∗
∗
∗ ∼
SyzA
d (k) = Syzd (k) ⊕ Syzd−1 (k) .
A ∗
∗
If M is a summand of SyzA
d (k) then M is a summand of Syzd k . Let E be an
irreducible summand of M . Then by Krull-Schmidt it is an irreducible summand
B
∗
∗
of either SyzB
d (k) or of Syzd−1 (B) . By induction hypothesis we get that E is
extremal. It follows that M is extremal.
∗
We prove by induction on n ≥ d that if M is an irreducible summand of SyzA
n (k)
then M is extremal. We just proved the result for n = d. We now assume that
n ≥ d + 1 and the result has been proved for n − 1. There is an exact sequence
A
0 → SyzA
n (k) → F → Syzn−1 (k) → 0,

with F free.

As n ≥ d + 1 we have that SyzA
j (k) is maximal Cohen-Macaulay for all j ≥ n − 1.
So there is an exact sequence
A
∗
∗
∗
0 → SyzA
n−1 (k) → F → Syzn (k) → 0.
A
∗
Therefore SyzA
1 (M ) is a summand of Syzn−1 (k) . By induction hypothesis Syz1 (M )
is extremal. So M is extremal.


We now give:
Proof of Theorem 4.2. Case 1: We first consider the case when A is a hypersurface
of dimension d ≥ 1 and multiplicity e(A) ≥ 3.
Let M be an indecomposable Ulrich A-module. Suppose if possible M is a
summand of X(m). By Proposition 2.18 we get that X(m) ⊕ F = Syz1 (X(k)) ⊕ G
for some free modules F, G. It follows that Syz−1 (M ) is a summand of X(k). As

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

13

M has no free summands we get Syz1 (M ) = Syz−1 (M ). By 2.17 we get Syz1 (M )
is a summand of Syzd (k)∗ . It follows that Syz1 (M )∗ is a summand of Syzd (k). But
Syz1 (M )∗ ∼
= Syz1 (M ∗ ).
= Syz−1 (M ∗ ) ∼
Notice if M is Ulrich then M ∗ is also Ulrich. Similarly if we set N = Syz1 (M ) is a
summand of X(m) then M ∗ is a summand of Syzd (k).
By the arguments in the previous paragraph it suffices to prove that if E is an
Ulrich A-module then neither E nor Syz1 (E) is a summand of Syzd (k). This we
prove by induction on d.
We first consider the case d = 1. Then as e(A) ≥ 3 we have that m = Syz1 (k) is
indecomposable [22, Theorem A].
If E is a summand of m then m = E. Let x be E-superficial. Then as E = m
is Ulrich we get that mm = xm. So m2 = xm. So A has minimal multiplicity. It
follows that e(A) = 2. This is a contradiction.
If Syz1 (E) is a summand of m then m = Syz1 (E). Using [21, Theorem 2] we get
the h-polynomial of m
hm (z) = 2(1 + z + z 2 + · · · + z e−2 ) where e = e(A) ≥ 3.
It follows that the h-polynomial of A is
hA (z) = 1 + z(hm (z) − 1) = 2z e−1 + lower terms in z.
This is a contradiction as A is a hypersurface.
Now assume that d ≥ 2 and the result has been proved for hypersurface rings
of dimension d − 1. Let x ∈ m \ m2 be sufficiently general. Then x is A-regular
and A ⊕ E ⊕ SyzA
1 (E)-superficial. Set B = A/(x) and if V is an A-module set
V = V /xV . Then notice
B
B
SyzA
d (k) = Syzd (k) ⊕ Syzd−1 (k).

Note E is an Ulrich B-module. Let E = U1 ⊕ U2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Us where Ui are indecomposable B-modules. Then each Ui is an Ulrich B-module. We also have
B
B
B
∼
∼
SyzA
1 (E) = Syz1 (E) = Syz1 (U1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Syz1 (Us ).

By [23, 8.17], SyzB
1 (Ui ) is an indecomposable B-module for i = 1, . . . , s.
A
If E is a summand of SyzA
d (k) then E is a summand of Syzd (k). So U1 is
B
B
a summand of Syzd (k) or Syzd−1 (k). By our induction hypothesis U1 is not a
B
summand of SyzB
d−1 (k). It follows that U1 is a summand of Syzd (k). Therefore
B
B
∼
SyzB
1 (U1 ) is a summand of Syzd+1 (k) = Syzd−1 (k), a contradiction. A similar
A
argument will show that Syz1 (E) is not a summand of SyzA
d (k).
Case 2: We now consider the case when A is a Gorenstein local ring of dimension
2 but not a hypersurface.
Notice e(A) ≥ 4. Let M be an indecomposable non-free, maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-module. If M is a summand of X(m) then SyzA
−1 (M ) is a summand of X(k).
Notice SyzA
(M
)
is
an
indecomposable
non-free
A-module.
Therefore SyzA
−1
−1 (M )
A
A
∗
is a summand of Syz2 (k) . By [22, Theorem B], Syz2 (k) is an indecomposable
A
∗
∼
maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. It follows that SyzA
−1 (M ) = Syz2 (k) . Notice
(4.3.1)

A
∗ ∼
Syz1 (M ∗ ) ∼
= SyzA
−1 (M ) = Syz2 (k).

14

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Let x1 , x2 be a A ⊕ M ∗ ⊕ Syz1 (M ∗ )-superficial sequence. Set C = A/(x1 , x2 ) and
if E is an A-module, set E = E/(x1 , x2 ). We note that
C
C
C
2
SyzA
2 (k) = Syz2 (k) ⊕ Syz1 (k) ⊕ Syz0 (k).

(4.3.2)

C
∗ ∼
Set N = M ∗ . Then SyzA
1 (M ) = Syz1 (N ). We now consider two cases.
Case 1: M is Ulrich.
Then notice M ∗ is also Ulrich. Then N = k a where a = µ(N ). Let n be the
maximal ideal of C. Note it is indecomposable as a C-module. By 4.3.2 and 4.3.1
we get
C
2
na = SyzC
2 (k) ⊕ Syz1 (k) ⊕ k.
By Krull-Schmidt we get that k = n. So n2 = 0. It follows that e(A) = e(C) = 2,
a contradiction.
Case 2: M = SyzA
1 (D) where D is Ulrich.
A
A
∗
Then D = SyzA
−1 (M ). It follows that Syz2 (k) is Ulrich. Therefore Syz2 (k) is
∼ l
also Ulrich. Therefore SyzA
2 (k) = k for some l. So by 4.3.2 it follows that n the
maximal ideal of C is isomorphic to k. Therefore n2 = 0 and so e(A) = e(C) = 2 a
contradiction.


5. Proofs of Theorem’s 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6
We first give
Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let M be an indecomposable periodic maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-module. Let N, L be indecomposable non-free maximal CohenMacaulay A-modules and assume there exists irreducible maps u : N → M and
v : M → L. Let
0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0,

0 → M → VM → τ −1 (M ) → 0

be the AR-sequences starting and ending at M .
We first note that Syzi (u) : Syzi (N ) → Syzi (M ) and Syzi (v) : Syzi (M ) →
Syzi (L) are irreducible, see 3.1. Let p be the period of M . Note Syzp (M ) ∼
= M.
We have irreducible maps Syzip : Syzip (N ) → M for all i ≥ 1. As Syzip (N )
is indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module we get that Syzip (N ) are
factors of EM for all i ≥ 1. By Krull-Schmidt theorem we get that N is periodic.
A dual argument gives that L is periodic.
If there exists an irreducible map from M → A then M is factor of X(m) the
maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of m. So by 4.1 we get that M is extremal.
As A is not a hypersurface this is a contradiction.
Notice τ (M ) = Syz−d+2 (M ) as A is Gorenstein. If there is an irreducible map
from A → M then A is a factor of EM and so there exist’s an irreducible map
from τ (M ) → A. By previous argument we get that τ (M ) is extremal. So M is
extremal. As A is not a hypersurface this is a contradiction,
Thus P defines a union of connected components of Γ(A).

Remark 5.1. In Proposition 5.2 of [2] it is shown that if A is a self-injective Artin
algebra and M, N are non-projective A-modules such that there is an irreducible
map f : M → N then M is a periodic module if and only if N is. To the best of
my knolwedge this proof does not generalize to higher dimensions.
We now give

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

15

Proof of Theorem 1.4. Let M be an indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay Amodule such that projdimQ M is finite. Then M is a periodic A-module with period
≤ 2. As A is not a hypersurface ring then by proof of previous Theorem there is
no irreducible map from A → M or M → A.
Let N, L be indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and
assume there exists irreducible maps u : N → M and v : M → L. Let
0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0,

0 → M → VM → τ −1 (M ) → 0

be the AR-sequences starting and ending at M . Notice τ (M ) = SyzA
−d+2 (M ) and
−1
τ −1 (M ) = SyzA
(M ) is
d−2 (M ). It follows that projdimQ τ (M ) and projdimQ τ
finite. Therefore projdimQ EM and projdimQ VM is finite.
By [23, 5.5, 5.6], we get that N, L are direct summands of EM and VM respectively. It follows that projdimQ N and projdimQ L are finite. Thus PQ determines
a union of connected components of Γ(A).

5.2. Let us recall that a quasi-deformation A → B < − − Q of A is a flat local map
η
A → B and a deformation Q −
→ B (i.e., ker η is generated by a Q-regular sequence.
We say CI-dimension of an A-module M is finite if there is a quasi-deformation
A → B < − − Q with projdimQ M ⊗A B is finite. We say CI-dimension of M is
infinite if it is not finite.
We now give:
Proof of Theorem 1.6. Let M be an indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay Amodule which is periodic and has a finite CI-dimension over A. Let A → B <
− − Q be a quasi-deformation of A with projdimQ M ⊗A B finite. As A is not a
hypersurface by proof of Theorem 1.2 there is no irreducible map from A → M or
M → A.
Let N, L be indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and
assume there exists irreducible maps u : N → M and v : M → L. Let
0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0,

0 → M → VM → τ −1 (M ) → 0

be the AR-sequences starting and ending at M . Notice τ (M ) = SyzA
−d+2 (M ) and
A
−1
τ (M ) = Syzd−2 (M ).
Notice τ (M ) ⊗A B = SyzB
−d+2 (M ⊗A B). Thus CI-dimension of τ (M ) is finite.
As the quasi-deformations involved are the same we get that EM also has finite
CI-dimension over A. A similar argument yields that VM has finite CI dimension
over A. As N and L are summands of EM and VM respectively we get that CI
dimension of N and L are finite. It follows that PO defines a union of connected
components of Γ(A).
Let C be the union of connected components of Γ(A) consisting of periodic indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and let CO be the union of connected components of Γ(A) consisting of periodic indecomposable maximal CohenMacaulay A-modules having finite CI-dimension over A. Then as CO ⊆ C we get
that C \ CO is a union of connected components of Γ(A). Notice C \ CO consists
of precisely those periodic maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules which has infinite
CI-dimension over A.


16

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

6. Proof of Theorem 1.8
We need to recall some preliminaries regarding support varieties. This is relatively simple in our case since A is complete with algebraically closed residue field.
6.1. Let A = Q/(u) where (Q, n) is regular local and u = u1 , . . . , uc ∈ n2 is a
regular sequence. We need the notion of cohomological operators over a complete
intersection ring; see [16] and [13]. The Eisenbud operators, [13] are constructed as
follows:
∂
∂
→ Fi → · · · be a complex of free A-modules.
→ Fi+1 −
Let F : · · · → Fi+2 −
Step 1: Choose a sequence of free Q-modules Fei and maps ∂e between them:
e
e
∂
∂
e : · · · → Fei+2 −
→ Fei → · · ·
→ Fei+1 −
F

e
so that F = A ⊗ F
Pc
Step 2: Since ∂e2 ≡ 0 modulo (u), we may write ∂e2 = j=1 uj e
tj where tej : Fei →
Fei−2 are linear maps for every i.
Step 3: Define, for j = 1, . . . , c the map tj = tj (Q, f , F) : F → F(−2) by tj =
A⊗e
tj .
6.2. The operators t1 , . . . , tc are called Eisenbud’s operator’s (associated to u) . It
can be shown that
(1) ti are uniquely determined up to homotopy.
(2) ti , tj commute up to homotopy.
6.3. Let R = A[t1 , . . . , tc ] be a polynomial ring over A with variables t1 , . . . , tc
of degree 2. Let M, N be finitely generated A-modules. By considering a free
resolution F of M we get well defined maps
for 1 ≤ j ≤ c and all n,
tj : ExtnA (M, N ) → Extn+2
R (M, N )
L
i
∗
which turn ExtA (M, N ) = i≥0 ExtA (M, N ) into a module over R. Furthermore
these structure depend on u, are natural in both module arguments and commute
with the connecting maps induced by short exact sequences.
6.4. Gulliksen, [16, 3.1], proved that Ext∗A (M, N ) is a finitely generated R-module.
We note that Ext∗ (M, k) is a finitely generated graded module over T = k[t1 , . . . , tc ].
Define V ∗ (M ) = V ar(annT (Ext∗ (M, k)) in the projective space Pc−1 . We call
V ∗ (M ) the support variety of a module M .
We need the following
Lemma 6.5. Let (Q, n) be a complete regular local ring with algebraically closed
residue field k. Let f = f1 , . . . , fc ∈ n2 be a regular sequence. Assume c ≥ 2. Set
A = Q/(f ) and let d = dim A. Let W be an irreducible non-empty sub-variety
of Pc−1 . Then there exists an indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-module M with V ∗ (M ) = W .
Proof. By [7, 2.3], there exists an A-module E with V ∗ (E) = W . Then N =
Syzd+1 (E) is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and V ∗ (N ) = V ∗ (E) = W .
Notice N has no free summands. If N is indecomposable then we are done. Otherwise N = N1 ⊕ N2 where N1 and N2 are maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules
with no free-summands. Let T = k[t1 , . . . , tc ] and let Ext∗A (N, k), Ext∗A (N1 , k) and

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

17

Ext∗A (N2 , k) be given T -module structure as above. As Ext∗ (N, k) = Ext∗A (N1 , k)⊕
Ext∗A (N2 , k) we get that
annT Ext∗ (N, k) = annT Ext∗ (N1 , k) ∩ annT Ext∗ (N2 , k).
It follows that
W = W1 ∩ W2

where Wi = V ∗ (Ni ) for i = 1, 2.

As W is irreducible we get that W = W1 or W = W2 . Iterating this procedure we
get our result.

The following result yields Theorem 1.8 as an easy corollary.
Theorem 6.6. Let Q = k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] be the formal power series over an algebraically closed field k. Let u = u1 , . . . , uc ∈ n2 be a regular sequence. Assume
c ≥ 2. Set A = Q/(u) and let d = dim A. Let W be a proper sub-variety of Pc−1 .
Let
CW = {M | M is indecomposable MCM A-module with V ∗ (M ) = W }.
Then CW defines an union of connected components of Γ(A). If W is irreducible
then CW is non-empty.
Proof. Let M ∈ CW . Notice M is not free. As W is a proper subset of Pc−1 we
get that dim W ≤ c − 2. So cx M = dim W + 1 ≤ c − 1. In particular M is not
extremal. So there is no irreducible map M → A. As τ (M ) = Syz−d+2 (M ) is also
not extremal there is no irreducible map τ (M ) → A. So there is no irreducible map
A → M.
Let N, L be indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and
suppose there exists an irreducible map u : N → M and an irreducible map v : M →
L.
Claim: V ∗ (N ) = V ∗ (M ) = W and V ∗ (L) = V ∗ (M ) = W .
Suppose there exists a ∈ V ∗ (N ) \ V ∗ (M ). Let D be a maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-module with V ∗ (D) = {a}. As {a} ∩ W = ∅ we get that ExtA
i (D, M ) = 0
for all i ≫ 0. As V ∗ (τ (M )) = V ∗ (M ) = W we also get ExtA
(D,
τ
(M )) = 0 for
i
i ≫ 0. Thus ExtA
(D,
E
)
=
0
for
i
≫
0.
As
N
is
a
summand
of
EM we get
M
i
∗
that ExtA
(D,
N
)
=
0
for
all
i
≫
0.
This
implies
a
∈
/
V
(N
),
a
contradiction.
i
Thus V ∗ (N ) ⊆ V ∗ (M ). We now notice that there exists an irreducible map M →
τ −1 (N ). By the previous argument we get that V ∗ (M ) ⊆ V ∗ (τ −1 (N )) = V ∗ (N ).
Thus V ∗ (N ) = V ∗ (M ) = W .
As there exist’s an irreducible map v : M → N . Then there exists an irreducible map from v ′ : N → τ −1 (M ). By the previous argument we get V ∗ (N ) =
V ∗ (τ −1 (M )). As V ∗ (τ −1 (M )) = V ∗ (M ) = W we get V ∗ (N ) = W . Thus we have
proved our Claim.
By our claim and as there are no irreducible maps from M → A and A → M we
get that CW is a union of connected components of Γ(A). If W is irreducible then
by 6.5 we get that CW is non-empty.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 1.8. By 6.6 the result follows.



18

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

7. quasi AR-sequences
7.1. Setup: In this section (A, m) is a Henselian Gorenstein local ring with algebraically closed residue field k. We also assume A is an isolated singularity. For
the notion of AR -sequences see [23, Chapter 2]. In this section we introduce the
notion of quasi AR-sequences.
Definition 7.2. Let M be an indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay
A-module. By a quasi-AR sequence ending at M we mean an exact sequence
φ
s: 0 → K → E −
→ M such that
(1) E is a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module.
(2) φ is irreducible.
(3) If L is a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and if there is an Alinear map σ : L → M which is not a split epi then there exist’s a map
ξ : L → E such that φ ◦ ξ − σ ∈ β(L, M ).
Remark 7.3. Unlike AR-sequences the module K need not be maximal CohenMacaulay. Also the map φ need not be surjective.
A consequence of the definition of quasi AR-sequence is the following:
Proposition 7.4. [with hypothesis as in 7.1.] Suppose σ is irreducible. Then ξ is
a split monomorphism.
Proof. By 3.2, φ ◦ ξ is irreducible. Now φ is irreducible. So in particular it is not a
split epi. It follows that ξ is a split mono.

We need the following analogue to Corollary 2.12 from [23].
Lemma 7.5. Let (A, m) be a Henselian Gorenstein local ring with algebraically
closed residue field k. Let M, L be indecomposable non-free maximal
φ
Cohen-Macaulay A-modules and let s : 0 → K → E −
→ M be a quasi AR-sequence
ending at M . Then the following two conditions are equivalent:
(i) There is an irreducible morphism from L to M .
(ii) L is isomorphic to a direct summand of E.
Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii). This follows from 7.4.
(ii) =⇒ (i). Assume the decomposition of E is given by E = L ⊕ Q. Denote
φ = (f, g) along this decomposition. We claim that f is irreducible.
Clearly f is not a split epi as φ is not a split epi. If f is a split mono then as L
and M are indecomposable we get that f is an isomorphism and so a split epi, a
contradiction.
The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of (ii) =⇒ (i) of Corollary 2.12
from [23].

We give two constructions of quasi AR-sequences. The first one comes from AR
sequences.
Proposition 7.6. Let (A, m) be a Henselian Gorenstein local ring with algebraically
closed residue field k. Let M be an indecomposable non-free maximal Cohenp
→ M → 0 be an AR-sequence
Macaulay A-modules and let l : 0 → N → EM −
ending at M . Suppose EM = E ⊕ F where F is a free A-module and E has no
free summands. Denote p = (φ, ψ) along this decomposition. Assume E 6= 0. Let
φ

K = ker φ. Then s : 0 → K → E −
→ M is a quasi AR-sequence ending at M .

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

19

Proof. By Corollary 2.12 from [23] we get that φ is an irreducible map. Now let
L be a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and let f : L → M be A-linear
which is not a split epi. Then as l is an AR sequence ending at M there exist’s an
A-linear map g : L → EM with f = p ◦ g. Suppose
 
σ
g=
where σ : L → E and δ : L → F.
δ
So we get f = φ ◦ σ + ψ ◦ δ. Notice ψ ◦ δ ∈ β(L, M ). It follows that s is a quasi AR
sequence ending at M .

p

→ M → 0 be an AR-sequence ending at M then it
7.7. Let l : 0 → N → EM −
is not true that a lift of p; q : Syz1 (E) → Syz1 (M ) is surjective and defines a AR
sequence ending at Syz1 (M ). The great advantage of quasi AR sequences is that
it behaves well under lifting (and also pre-lifting).
Theorem 7.8. Let (A, m) be a Henselian Gorenstein local ring with algebraically
closed residue field k. Let M be an indecomposable non-free maximal Cohenφ
Macaulay A-modules and let s : 0 → K → E −
→ M be a quasi AR-sequence ending
ψ
at M . Let ψ be any lift of φ. Set K ′ = ker ψ. Then s′ : 0 → K ′ → Syz1 (E) −
→
Syz1 (M ) is a quasi AR sequence ending at Syz1 (M ). Similarly if θ is any pre-lift
θ
e → Syz−1 (E) −
of φ. Then se: 0 → K
→ Syz−1 (M ) is a quasi AR sequence ending at
Syz−1 (M ).

Proof. As E is a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module we get that Syz1 (E)
is also a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. By Theorem 3.1 we get that
ψ is an irreducible map.
Let L be a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module and let f : L → Syz1 (M )
be an A-linear map which is not a split epi. Let g : Syz−1 (L) → M be any prelift of f . Then by 3.3 we get that g is not a split epi. It follows that there
exists ξ : Syz−1 (L) → M such that φ ◦ ξ − g = δ where δ ∈ β(Syz−1 (L), M ). Let
ξ ′ : L → Syz1 (M ) be a lift of ξ. Then notice by construction ψ ◦ ξ ′ − g is a lift of δ.
It follows that ψ ◦ ξ ′ − g ∈ β(L, Syz1 (M )). Thus s′ is a quasi AR-sequence ending
at Syz1 (M ).
The assertion regarding se can be proved similarly.


7.9. Till now we have not used the fact that k, the residue field of A is algebraically
closed. We will now use this fact. Let us recall the following definition from [23,
Chapter 5].
Let M, N be maximal
Cohen-MacaulayL
A-modules. Set (M, N ) = HomA (M, N ).
Lm
n
Decompose M = i=1 Mi and N = j=1 Nj where Mi , Nj are indecomposable
A-modules for all i, j For g ∈ (M, N ) decompose g = (gij ) where gij : Mi → Nj .
Definition 7.10. We say g ∈ (M, N )∗ if no gij is an isomorphism.
7.11. We define the following descending chain {(M, N )n }n≥1 of A-submodules of
(M, N ) as follows:
(M, N )n consists of those f ∈ (M, N ) such that there is a sequence X0 , . . . , Xn
of maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules with X0 = M and Xn = N and fi ∈
(Xi−1 , Xi )∗ such that f = fn ◦ fn−1 ◦ · · · ◦ f1 .
It is easy to see that (M, N )n are A-submodules of (M, N ) and that
(M, N ) ⊇ (M, N )1 ⊇ · · · ⊇ (M, N )n ⊇ (M, N )n+1 ⊇ · · · .

20

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

It is not difficult to see that (M, N )1 /(M, N )2 is a k = A/m vector space. It is
finite dimensional since it is finitely generated as an A-module. Set
(M, N )1
.
irr(M, N ) = dimk
(M, N )2
Let us restate the following basic result from [23, 5.5].
Lemma 7.12. [with hypothesis as in 7.1.] Let M, N be indecomposable maximal
Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. Assume there is an AR-sequence ending at M
0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0.
Let n be the number of copies of N in direct summands of EM (note that n = 0 is
possible). Then the following equality holds:
irr(N, M ) = n.
We note that the assumption k is algebraically closed is used in the proof of
Lemma 7.12. The following is a basic result in our theory of quasi AR-sequences.
Theorem 7.13. [with hypothesis as in 7.1.] Let M, N be indecomposable nonφ

free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. Let 0 → K → E −
→ M be a quasi AR
sequence ending at M . Let n be the number of copies of N in direct summands of
E (note that n = 0 is possible). Then the following equality holds:
irr(N, M ) = n.
Proof. Set S(N, E) = (N, E)/(N, E)1 . Then by proof of Lemma 5.5. in [23] it
follows that S(N, E) ∼
= k n . Define
(N, M )1
,
(N, M )2
[f ] → [φ ◦ f ].

θ : S(N, E) →

By 7.5 we get that θ is a well-defined k-linear map.
We first show that θ is surjective. Let σ : N → M be an irreducible map. Denote
by [σ] it’s class in (N, M )1 /(N, M )2 . By our definition of quasi AR sequence there
exist’s ξ : N → E such that φ ◦ ξ − σ = g ∈ β(N, M ). By 7.4 we get that ξ is a
split monomorphism. As N, M are both non-free indecomposable A-modules we
get that g ∈ (N, M )2 . Therefore we get θ([ξ]) = [σ].
Next we show that θ is injective . Let [h] ∈ S(N, E) be non-zero. Thus h : N → E
is a split mono. Then by 7.5 we get that φ ◦ h : N → M is an irreducible map.
Thus θ([h]) = [φ ◦ h] 6= 0. Therefore θ is injective.

A consequence of the previous two results is the following:
Corollary 7.14. [with hypothesis as in 7.1.] Let M be indecomposable non-free
maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. Suppose the following is an AR-sequence ending at M :
p
→ M → 0.
t : 0 → τ (M ) → EM −
Further assume EM has no free summnads. Let
φ

s:0→K →E−
→M
∼ EM and φ is surjective. Furtherbe a quasi AR sequence ending at M . Then E =
more s is also an AR-sequence ending at M (and so K ∼
= τ (M )).

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

21

Proof. By 7.12 and 7.13 it follows that E ∼
= EM . As p : EM → M is an indecomosable map, by defining property of quasi AR-sequences there exists a map
ξ : EM → E such that φ ◦ ξ − p = δ ∈ β(EM , M ). As p is indecomposable, by 7.4 we
get ξ is a split mono. As E ∼
= EM , by Krull-Schmidt we get ξ is an isomorphism.
It follows that
φ − p ◦ ξ −1 = δ ◦ ξ −1 := η ∈ β(E, M ).
Set ψ = p◦ξ −1 : E → M . Notice ψ is surjective. As E, M has no free summands we
get that η(E) ⊆ mM . It follows that the maps φ, ψ : E/mE → M/mM are equal.
As ψ is surjective, it follows that φ is surjective. So by Nakayama’s Lemma we get
that φ is surjective.
We now use that t is an AR-sequence. As φ is irreducible, it is not a split epi.
Therefore there exists θ : E → EM such that p ◦ θ = φ. As φ is irreducible we get
that θ is a split mono. Since E ∼
= EM , by Krull-Schmidt we get θ is an isomorphism.
Note there exists f : K → τ (M ) which makes the following diagram commute:
s: 0

/K

t: 0


/ τ (M )

φ

/E

f

/M

/0

1M

θ




/M

p

/ EM

/0

By Snake Lemma we get that f is an isomorphism. So K ∼
= τ (M ). In the terminology of [23, 2.3] we get s ∼ t. So s is an AR-sequence ending at M .

The following consequence of Corollary 7.14 is significant:
Lemma 7.15. [with hypothesis as in 7.1.] Let M be an indecomposable maximal
p
→ M → 0 be an ARCohen-Macaulay non-free A-module. Let t : 0 → τ (M ) → EM −
sequence ending at M . If there is no irreducible maps A → M and A → Syz1 (M )
then we have
µ(EM ) = µ(M ) + µ(τ (M )).
Proof. Set N = τ (M ), M1 = Syz1 (M ) and E1 = Syz1 (E). As there is no irreducible
maps from A → M we get that EM is stable. In particular t is a quasi AR-sequence,
see 7.6. Let φ : E1 → M1 be any lift of p. Then we have a quasi AR-sequence
φ

→ M1 .
s : 0 → K1 → E1 −
As there are no irreducible maps from A → M1 we get that EM1 is stable. Therefore
by Corollary 7.14 we get that φ is surjective and s is an AR-sequence ending at
M1 . Furthermore E1 ∼
= τ (M1 ).
= EM1 and K1 ∼
Let F → EM and G → M be projective covers. Then we have an exact sequence
0

/ E1

0


/ M1

φ

/F

/ EM
θ


/G

/0

p


/M

/0

Set N = τ (M ). As φ, p are surjective we get θ is surjective. As G is free it is in
fact a split epi. Set H = ker θ. Then H is free and µ(H) = µ(EM ) − µ(M ).
As φ is surjective we get by Snake Lemma that the induced map H → N is
surjective. It follows that µ(N ) ≤ µ(EM ) − µ(M ). As there is an exact sequence

22

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

0 → N → EM → M → 0 it follows (after tensoring with A/m) that µ(N ) ≥
µ(EM ) − µ(M ). The result follows.

8. Proof of Theorem 1.10
In this section we give a proof of Theorem 1.10.
8.1. [with hypotheses as in 1.1.] Recall if M is an indecomposable non-free Amodule then it’s AR-translate is τ (M ) = Syz−d+2 (M ). So if d = 2 or if A is a
hypersurface of even dimension then τ (M ) = M .
We now give:
Proof of Theorem 1.10. By 8.1 we get that τ (M ) = M . Let M be an indecomosable
Ulrich A-module. Then by 4.2 there is no irreducible map from M → A and
Syz1 (M ) → A. By our assumptions on the ring there is no irreducible map from
A → M and A → Syz1 (M ). Let s : 0 → M → EM → M → 0 be the ARsequence ending at M . Then by 7.15 we get µ(EM ) = 2µ(M ). Also note that
e(EM ) = 2e(M ). So e(EM ) = µ(EM ). Therefore EM is Ulrich A-module.
Let N be a non-free indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. If
there is an irreducible morphism N → M then N is a summand of EM . As EM is
Ulrich we also get N is Ulrich. If there is an irreducible morphism from M → N
then by our assumptions on the ring there is also an irreducible morphism from
N → M . By our earlier argument we get N is Ulrich.
As there is no irreducible map from A → M or from M → A it follows that U
defines a union of connected components of Γ(A).

Remark 8.2. If A = Q/(f ) is a hypersurace ring with dim A is odd then note
that Auslander-Reiten translate τ (M ) = SyzA
1 (M ) which in general is not an Ulrich module (even if M is Ulrich), see [21, Theorem 2]. So for odd dimensions
our technique to produce an infinite family of indecomosable Ulrich modules with
unbounded multiplicities; fails.
9. Proof of Theorem 1.11
In this section we give a proof of Theorem 1.11.
9.1. We recall the definition of linkage of modules as given in [20]. Throughout
(A, m) is a Gorenstein local ring of dimension d.
φ

→ F0 → M → 0
9.2. Let us recall the definition of transpose of a module. Let F1 −
be a minimal presentation of M . Let (−)∗ = Hom(−, A). The transpose Tr(M ) is
defined by the exact sequence
φ∗

0 → M ∗ → F0∗ −→ F1∗ → Tr(M ) → 0.
Set λ(M ) = Syz1 (Tr(M )). We note that if M is a maximal Cohen-Macaulay Amodule then Tr(M ) = (Syz2 (M ))∗ .
Definition 9.3. Two A-modules M and N are said to be horizontally linked if
M∼
= λ(N ) and N ∼
= λ(M ).
If E is a stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module then it is known that E is
linked to λ(E), i.e., λ2 (E) = E see [20, Corollary 7]. Note if M is an indecomposable
non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module then so is λ(M ).

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

23

Proof. We prove the result only for λ. The proof for D is in fact simpler.
Let M, N be indecomposable non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-modules. Using terminology from 7.11 it suffices to prove that there exists an isomorphism
φ:

(λ(N ), λ(M ))1
(M, N )1
→
.
(M, N )2
(λ(N ), λ(M ))2

Let f ∈ (M, N )1 . Then as M, N are indecomposable we get that f is not an
isomorphism. In particular it is not a split mono. Let f2 : Syz2 (M ) → Syz2 (M ) be
a lift of f . By 3.3 and 2.15 it follows that f2 is not a split mono. Let f2∗ : Tr(N ) →
Tr(M ) be the dual of f2 . Then f2∗ is not a split epi. Let gf : λ(N ) → λ(M ) be any
lift of f2∗ . Define
(λ(N ), λ(M ))1
φe : (M, N )1 →
,
(λ(N ), λ(M ))2
f 7→ gf + (λ(N ), λ(M ))2 .
We first show that this map is independent of the choices we made. If f2′ is another
lift of f then f2 − f2′ ∈ β(Syz2 (M ), Syz2 (N )). So f2∗ − (f2′ )∗ ∈ β(Tr(N ), Tr(M )).
We know that if σ ∈ β(Tr(N ), Tr(M )) then any lift of σ is in β(λ(N ), λ(M )). Thus
we have gf − gf′ = δ ∈ β(λ(N ), λ(M )). As λ(N ), λ(M ) are indecomposable and
non-free we get that δ ∈ (λ(N ), λ(M ))2 . Thus φe is well-defined. It is elementary
to show that φe is A-linear.
Now let f ∈ (M, N )2 . Then there exists a maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module
X and a commutative diagram
M❇
❇❇
❇❇f
u
❇❇
❇

/N
X
v

such that u is not a split mono and v is not a split epi. Let u2 : Syz2 (M ) → Syz2 (X)
be a lift of u and v2 : Syz2 (X) → Syz2 (N ) be a lift of v. By 3.3 and 3.4 we get
that u2 is not a split mono and v2 is not a split epi. Then f2 = v2 ◦ u2 is a lift of
f . Then f2∗ = u∗2 ◦ v2∗ . Also u∗2 is not a split epi and v2∗ is not a split mono. Let
Syz1 (u∗2 ) be a lift of u∗2 and Syz1 (v2∗ ) be a lift of v2∗ . Then gf = Syz1 (u∗2 ) ◦ Syz1 (v2∗ )
is a lift of f2∗ . By 3.3 and 3.4 we get that Syz1 (u∗2 ) is not a split epi and Syz1 (v2∗ )
is not a split mono. So gf ∈ (λ(N ), λ(M ))2 . Thus we have a well-defined A-linear
map
(λ(N ), λ(M ))1
(M, N )1
→
.
φ:
(M, N )2
(λ(N ), λ(M ))2
As λ2 (M ) = M and λ2 (N ) = N we have a well defined A-linear map
ψ:

(λ(N ), λ(M ))1
(M, N )1
→
.
(λ(N ), λ(M ))2
(M, N )2

Finally it is tautological that φ and ψ are inverses of each other. Thus λ : Γ(A) →
Γ(A)rev is an isomorphism.
Now assume that A is not a hypersurface ring. We first note that Syz1 (λ(M )) =
M ∗ when M is stable maximal Cohen-Macaulay A-module. If λ(M ) = D(M ) for all
indecomposable maximal non-free A-modules then M ∗ (and so M ) has a periodic
resilution with period 1. It follows that A is a hypersurface ring, a contradiction.

24

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Next we show that there exist’s E with D(E) 6= E. As A is not a hypersurface
there exists an MCM module M which is not periodic. Let M1 = Syz1 (M ). As M
is not periodic either M 6= M ∗ or M1 6= M1∗ .
If λ(M ) = M for all indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay non-free M then
note that Syz1 (M ) = M ∗ for all such M . We now note that
Syz (M ∗ ) ∼
= Syz (Syz (M )) = Syz (M )
= (Syz (M ))∗ ∼
−2

2

1

2

3

We now note that
Syz−2 (M ∗ ) = Syz−2 (Syz1 (M )) = Syz−1 (M )
It follows that M is periodic for all indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay nonfree M . Thus A is a hypersurface, a contradiction.
Thus λ, D : Γ(A) → Γ(A)rev are distinct isomorphism’s if A is not a hypersurface
ring. Furthermore λ 6= 1 and D 6= 1.

The following result is immediate:
Corollary 9.4. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). For all n ∈ Z the map Syzn : Γ(A) →
Γ(A) is an isomorphism.
Proof. We have Syz1 ◦λ = D. So Syz1 = D ◦ λ and Syz−1 = λ ◦ D. The result
follows.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 1.13. Let [M ] in C. Recall
I(M ) = {n | [Syzn (M )] ∈ C}.
We first show that I(M ) is an ideal in Z. As M = Syz0 (M ) we get 0 ∈ I(M ).
Now let n ∈ I(M ). The isomorphism Syz−n : Γ(A) → Γ(A) maps C to itself since
Syz−n (Syzn (M )) = M . In particular we have [Syz−n (M )] = Syz−n ([M ]) ∈ C. If
m, n ∈ C then note that the isomorphism Syzn : Γ(A) → Γ(A) maps C to itself
as Syzn ([M ]) = [Syzn (M )] ∈ C. Therefore [Syzn+m (M )] = Syzn ([Syzm (M )]) ∈ C.
Thus I(M ) is an ideal in Z. In particular there exist’s a unique non-negative integer
i(M ) such that I(M ) = i(M )Z.
To prove rest of the assertion of the theorem we first make a convention: if
[X], [Y ] ∈ C then write [X] < −− > [Y ] if there is an irreducible map from X to
Y OR there is an irreducible map from [Y ] to [X].
As [M ], [N ] are in C there is a sequence
[M = X0 ] < −− > [X1 ] < −− > · · · < −− > [Xn−1 ] < −− > [Xn = N ],
in C. Set a = i(M ) and b = i(N ). By 9.4 we have the following sequence in Γ(A):
[Syza (M )] < −− > [Syza (X1 )] < −− > · · · < −− > [Syza (N )].
As [Syza (M )] ∈ C we get [Syza (N )] ∈ C. So a ∈ I(N ) and therefore I(M ) ⊆ I(N ).
Similarly we get I(N ) ⊆ I(M ). Thus I(M ) = I(N ).

We now give
Proof of Corollary 1.14. (1) Suppose if possible D has only finitely many vertices.
e
Then Syzn (D) cannot be a component of Γ(A)
= Γ(A) \ Γ0 (A). As Γ0 (A) has
only finitely many components we get Syzn (D) = Syzm (D) for some n > m. Set
c = n − m. Then Syzc (D) = D. Therefore Syzlc (D) = D for all l ∈ Z.

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

25

We note that the function Syzlc permutes vertices of D among itself. As D is
finite it follows that all modules in D is periodic.
As D is a connected component of Γ0 (A) it follows that there exists [M ] ∈ D
such that there is an irreducible map either from M to A or an irreducible map
from A to M . In the first case M is a component of X(m) the maximal CohenMacaulay approximation of m. By 4.1 we get that M is extremal. As M is periodic
we get that A is a hypersurface ring, a contradiction. In the second case there
is an irreducible map from Syz−d+2 (M ) → A. Note as M is periodic then so is
Syz−d+2 (M ). An argument similar to the earlier case yields that A is a hypersurface
ring, a contradiction.
(2) Suppose if possible the function f : V ert(D) → Z given by f ([M ]) = e(M ) is
bounded. As e(M ) ≥ µ(M ) and e(Syz1 (M )) = e(A)µ(M ) − e(M ), it follows that
the multiplicity function on V ert(Syz1 (D)) is bounded. Iterating we get that the
multiplcity function on V ert(Syzn (D)) is bounded for each n ≥ 1. Then Syzn (D)
e
cannot be a component of Γ(A)
= Γ(A) \ Γ0 (A). As Γ0 (A) has only finitely many
components we get Syzn (D) = Syzm (D) for some n > m. Set c = n − m. Then
Syzc (D) = D. Therefore Syzlc (D) = D for all l ∈ Z. In particular there exists c
such that
(∗∗)

βil (M ) ≤ c

for all l ≥ 0 and all [M ] in D.

As D is a connected component of Γ0 (A) it follows that there exists [M ] ∈ D
such that there is an irreducible map either from M to A or an irreducible map
from A to M . In the first case M is a component of X(m) the maximal CohenMacaulay approximation of m. By 4.1 we get that M is extremal. As A is not an
hypersurface we get the following
(1) If A is a complete intersection of codimension c ≥ 2 then cx(M ) = c.
Furthermore lim βi (M ) = ∞. In particular the sequence {βil (M )} is unbounded. Thus (**) is not possible in this case.
(2) If A is Gorenstein but not a complete intersection then
curv(M ) = curv(k) > 1. So there exists r > 1 such that βi (M ) > ri for all
i ≫ 0. Thus (**) is not possible in this case too.
In the second case note that there is an irreducible map from N = Syz−d+2 (M )
to A. We then have that for all i ≥ 0
βil+d−2 (N ) ≤ c
Then an argument similar to above gives a contradiction.



10. Obstruction to quasi AR-sequences
Let the setup be as in 1.1. Let M be a non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay
indecomosable A-module.
10.1. Let s : 0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0 be the AR-sequence ending at M . Then
using Proposition 7.6 we get the following:
There is no quasi-AR sequence ending at M ⇐⇒ EM is free.
The next result gives an essential obstruction to non-existence of quasi ARsequences.
Lemma 10.2. [with hypothesis as in 1.1] Further assume d 6= 1. Suppose there is
a non-free indecomposable maximal Cohen-Macaulay module M such that there is
no quasi AR-sequence ending at M . Then A is a hypersurface ring.

26

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Proof. By 10.1 it follows that τ (M ) = Syz1 (M ). By construction
τ (M ) = Syz−d+2 (M ). Therefore we get that M ∼
= Syz−d+1 (M ). As d 6= 1 we get
that M (and so τ (M )) is periodic.
EM is non-zero and free. In particular it has A as a summand. So there is an
irreducible map from τ (M ) → A. It follows that τ (M ) is a summand of X(m),
the maximal Cohen-Macaulay approximation of m. By 4.1 we get that τ (M ) is
extremal A-module. It is also periodic. So A is a hypersurface ring.

We now analyze hypersuface rings having perhaps modules M such that there
is no quasi AR-sequence ending at M . Let < M > denote the isomorphism class
of a module M . Set
Qc (A) = {< M >| [M ] ∈ Γ(A) with no quasi AR-sequence ending at M }.
We show
Proposition 10.3. Let (A, m) be a complete equicharacteristic hypersurface isolated singularity. Assume d = dim A is even and non-zero. Also assume that
k = A/m is algebraically closed. Then
(1) Qc (A) is a finite set (possibly empty).
(2) If A is not of finite representation type and Syzd (k) is indecomposable then
Qc (A) is empty.
(3) If Qc (A) is non-empty and if < M > ∈ Qc (A) then
(a) Syzn (M ) = M for all n ∈ Z.
(b) [M ] is an isolated component of Γ(A).
Proof. We note that as A is a hypersurface and d is even we get that τ (M ) = M
for any non-free maximal Cohen-Macaulay indecomosable A-module M .
(1) If < M >∈ QC (A) then there is an irreducibe map from M = τ (M ) → A.
So M is a component of X(m). It follows that Qc (A) is a finite set.
(2) As Syzd (k) is indecomposable there is a unique non-free component of X(m).
It follows that ♯Qc (A) ≤ 1. If < M >∈ Qc (A) then note that [M ] ⇆ [A] is a
connected component of Γ(A). It follows that A is of finite representation type, a
contradiction.
(3)(a) As there is no quasi AR-sequence ending at M we get that EM is free. So
τ (M ) = Syz1 (M ). As dim A is even we get M = τ (M ). As A is a hypersurface we
get Syzn (M ) = M for all n ∈ Z.
(3)(b) Notice [M ] is only connected to [A]. So we get that [M ] is an isolated

component in Γ(A).
11. Structure of Γ0 (A)
In this section we completely determine the structure of Γ0 (A) when dim A = 2
and its multiplcity e(A) ≥ 3.
Theorem 11.1. [with hypothesis as in 1.1.] Assume dim A = 2 and e(A) ≥ 3. Set
M1 = A. Then Γ0 (A) is of the form
M1 ⇆ M2 ⇆ M3 ⇆ M4 ⇆ · · · ⇆ Mn ⇆ · · ·
where e(Mn ) = ne(M1 ) for all n ≥ 1. Furthermore
(1) X(m) = M2 ⊕ F where F is free.
(2) Mn∗ = Mn for all n ≥ 1.

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

27

Remark 11.2. We do not have any idea of the structure of Γ0 (A) when e(A) = 2
(so necessarily A is a hypersurface) and A is of infinite representation type. The
reason is that Proposition 11.3 given below breaks down in the case e(A) = 2.
The following result is essential in our proof of Theorem 11.1.
Proposition 11.3. (with hypotheses as in Theorem 11.1). Let X(m) be a MCM
approximation of m. Write X(m) = M ⊕ F where F is free and M has no free
summands. Then
(1) M is indecomposable.
(2) rank M = 2.
(3) M ∼
= M ∗.
A
∗
Proof. (1) By [22, Theorem B]; SyzA
2 (k) is indecomposable. So X(k) = Syz2 (k)
A
is indecomposable. As X(m) = Syz1 (X(k)) ⊕ G where G is free we get that
A
∗
M = SyzA
1 (Syz2 (k) ) is indecomposable by [23, 8.17].
A
A
∗
(2) We get M = SyzA
−1 (Syz2 (k)). Let x, y be a A ⊕ M ⊕ Syz2 (k)-superficial
sequence. Set C = A/(x, y). If E is an A-module then set E = E/(x, y)E. Notice
A
A
C
C
C
2
∼
M∗ ∼
= SyzC
−1 (Syz2 (k)) and Syz2 (k) = Syz2 (k) ⊕ Syz1 (k) ⊕ Syz0 (k).

Therefore

C
C
2
M∗ ∼
= SyzC
1 (k) ⊕ Syz0 (k) ⊕ Syz−1 (k).
We note that as we have an exact sequence 0 → k = soc(C) → C → C/ soc(C) → 0.
Thus SyzC
−1 (k) = C/ soc(C). Let n be the maximal ideal of C. Thus we have
M∗ ∼
= n ⊕ k 2 ⊕ C/ soc(C).

Thus ℓ(M ∗ ) = 2ℓ(C). Therefore
e(M ) = e(M ∗ ) = e(M ∗ ) = ℓ(M ∗ ) = 2ℓ(C) = 2e(C) = 2e(A).
It follows that rank M = 2.
(3) As there is an irreducible map M → A there exists an irreducible map
A → M ∗ . As dim A = 2 we have τ (M ∗ ) = M ∗ . So there is an irreducible map
from M ∗ → A. Thus M ∗ is an irreducible component of X(m). By (1) we have

M∗ ∼
= M.
We now give
Proof of Theorem 11.1. Set X(m) = M2 ⊕ F where F is free and M2 has no free
summands. By Proposition 11.3 we get that M2 is indecomposable of rank 2. We
have the AR-sequence
0 → M2 → M1a ⊕ X → M2 → 0.
Thus a + rank X = 4. By Lemma 10.2 and Proposition 10.3(2) we get that X 6= 0.
Thus 1 ≤ a ≤ 3. We assert a = 1. We prove this by showing that the cases a = 2
or 3 do not occur.
Claim 1: a 6= 3.
Suppose if possible a = 3 then rank X is one. So X is indecomposable. As
dim A = 2 and there is an irreducible map from X to M2 , there is an irreducible
map from M2 → X. By rank considerations we get that the AR-quiver ending at
X is
0 → X → M2 → X → 0.

28

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

It follows that M1 , M2 and X constitute a connected component of Γ0 (A) and so
it is equal to Γ0 (A). Therefore A has finite representation type, a contradiction.
Claim 2: a 6= 2.
If possible assume a = 2. It follows that rank X = 2. We assert:
Subclaim 3: X is indecomposable.
Suppose if possible X = X1 ⊕ X2 where rank Xi = 1. As dim A = 2 and there is
an irreducible map from Xi to M2 , there is an irreducible map from M2 → Xi . By
rank considerations we get that the AR-quiver ending at Xi for i = 1, 2 is
0 → Xi → M2 → Xi → 0.
It follows that M1 , M2 , X1 and X2 constitute a connected component of Γ0 (A)
and so it is equal to Γ0 (A). It follows that A has finite representation type, a
contradiction. Thus X is indecomposable.
The AR-sequence ending at X is
0 → X → M2 ⊕ X1 → X → 0.
By an argument similar to Subclaim-3 we get that X1 is indecomposable of rank
2. Set X0 = X.
For i ≥ 1, by an argument similar to Subclaim-3 we get that there exists indecomposable module Xi+1 of rank 2 such that the AR-sequence ending at Xi
is
0 → Xi → Xi−1 ⊕ Xi+1 → Xi → 0.
Thus Γ0 (A) consists of the modules {M1 , M2 , Xi | i ≥ 0}, Also rank Xi = 2. This
implies that A is of finite representation type (see [23, 6.2]), a contradiction.
By claims 1, 2 we get a = 1. Thus rank X = 3.
Claim 4: X is indecomposable.
Suppose if possible this is not so. Then either
Subcase 5: X = X1 ⊕ X2 ⊕ X3 where rank Xi = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, OR
Subcase 6: X = X1 ⊕ X2 where rank Xi = i for i = 1, 2.
We show that subcase 5, 6 are not possible. If subcase 5 occurs then by rank
considerations the AR-quiver ending at Xi is
0 → Xi → M 2 → Xi → 0

for i = 1, 2, 3.

Thus the vertices of Γ0 (A) will be
{M1 , M2 , X1 , X2 , X3 }.
This implies that A has finite representation type, a contradiction.
If subcase 6 occurs then by rank considerations the AR-quiver ending at X1 is
0 → X1 → M2 → X1 → 0.
Furthermore the AR-quiver ending at X2 is
0 → X2 → M2 ⊕ X3 → X2 → 0.
Note rank X3 = 2. By an argument similar to that of subcase 5 we get that X3
is indecomposable. Iterating we obtain rank two indecomposable modules Xi for
i ≥ 4 such that the AR-quiver ending at Xi is
0 → Xi → Xi+1 ⊕ Xi−1 → Xi → 0.
It follows that the vertices of Γ0 (A) is
{M1 , M2 , Xi | i ≥ 1}.

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

29

As there is a bound on the ranks of vertices of Γ0 (A) it follows that A is of finite
representation type, a contradiction.
Set M3 = X. We have rank M3 = 3 and that M3 is indecomposable. Inductively
assume that we have indecomposable MCM A-modules M1 , . . . , Mn with n ≥ 3 and
rank Mi = i such that the AR-sequence ending at Mj for j ≤ n − 1 is
0 → Mj → Mj ⊕ Mj+1 → Mj → 0.
Let the AR-sequence ending at Mn be
0 → Mn → Mn−1 ⊕ Y → Mn → 0.
Clearly rank Y = n + 1. If we prove that Y is indecomposable then we can set
Mn+1 = Y and we will be done by induction.
Let Z be an indecomposable summand of Y . Then the AR-sequence ending at
Z is
0 → Z → Mn ⊕ W → Z → 0,
where W is an MCM A-module (possibly zero). Nevertheless we get that rank Z ≥
n/2.
As n ≥ 3, rank Y = n + 1 and an indecomposable summand Z of Y has rank
atleast n/2 it follows that Y has at most two indecomposable summnads.
We want to prove that Y is indecomposable. Suppose it is not so. Then by our
previous argument it has two indecomposable summands say Y1 and Y2 . Suppose
rank Y1 ≤ rank Y2 . Then we have
n+1
n
≤ rank Y1 ≤
.
2
2
We consider two cases:
Case 1: n = 2m + 1 is odd.
We get rank Y1 = m + 1. So rank Y2 = m + 1 also. Let the AR-sequence ending at
Y1 be
0 → Y1 → Mn ⊕ T → Y1 → 0.
Thus T has rank 1. The AR-sequence ending at T is
0 → T → Y1 ⊕ L → T → 0.
As m + 1 ≤ 2 we get m ≤ 1. As m ≥ 1 we get m = 1. Therefore n = 2m + 1 = 3.
Now consider the case n = 3. We get rank Yj = 2 for j = 1, 2 and rank T = 1.
Furthermore L = 0. Similarly the AR-sequence ending at Y2 will be
0 → Y2 → M3 ⊕ T ′ → Y2 → 0,
where T ′ has rank 1. The AR-sequence ending at T ′ is
0 → T ′ → Y2 → T ′ → 0.
It follows that the vertices of Γ0 (A) will be
{M1 , M2 , M3 , Y1 , Y2 , T, T ′ }.
It follows that A has finite representation type, a contradiction.
Case 2: n = 2m is even.
We get rank Y1 = m and rank Y2 = m + 1. The AR sequence ending at Y1 is
0 → Y1 → Mn → Y1 → 0.

30

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

The AR sequence ending at Y2 is
0 → Y2 → Mn ⊕ T → Y2 → 0.
It follows that rank T = 2. We have to consider two sub cases:
Subcase-1: T is decomposable. In this case T = T1 ⊕ T2 where rank Ti = 1 for
i = 1, 2. The AR-sequence ending at T1 is
0 → T1 → Y2 ⊕ L → T1 → 0.
We have 2 = m + 1 + rank L. As m ≥ 1 we get m = 1 and L = 0. So n = 2. We
have already dealt with this case.
Subcase-2: T is indecomposable. The AR-sequence ending at T is
0 → T → Y2 ⊕ W → T → 0.
We have 4 = m + 1 + rank W . As m ≥ 1 the possibilities for m is 1, 2, 3. If m = 1
then n = 2. This case has been discussed earlier. Next we consider the case m = 3.
In this case W = 0. So the vertices of Γ0 (A) will be
{Mi , Y1 , Y2 , T | 1 ≤ i ≤ n}.
It follows that A has finite representation type, a contradiction.
Finally we consider the case when m = 2. So n = 4. Thus rank W = 1. The
AR-sequence ending at W is
0 → W → T → W → 0.
Thus the vertices of Γ0 (A) will be
{Mi , Y1 , Y2 , T, W | 1 ≤ i ≤ n}.
It follows that A has finite representation type, a contradiction.
(2) We note that the dual map D : Γ(A) → Γ(A)rev is an isomorphism of graphs.
As D(M2 ) = M2∗ ∼
= M2 and as Γ0 (A) is connected we get that D maps Γ0 (A) to
itself. Comparing ranks we get Mn∗ ∼

= Mn for all n ≥ 3.
12. Proof of Theorem 1.15 and Corollary 1.16
In this section of the results as stated in the title of this section. Throughout
(A, m) is an equicharacteristic Gorenstein isolated singularity of dimension two.
We also assume that A is complete and the residue field k is algebraically closed.
Furthermore we assume that e(A) ≥ 3.
We first give
Proof of Corollary 1.16. It suffices to show that Syzn (M ) ∈
/ Γ0 (A) for all M ∈
Γ0 (A) and for all n 6= 0. Using the terminology of Theorem 1.13 we need to
show I(M ) = 0 for all M in Γ0 (A). We also recall that I(M ) = I(N ) for all
M, N ∈ Γ0 (A). We denote this common value by c.
We want to show c = 0. If possible assume c > 0. Set
V = {|i − j| | Mj = Syzn Mi for some n 6= 0} and r = min V.
Notice c 6= 0 if and only if V 6= ∅.
We first consider the case when r = 0. Say Mi = Syzn Mi for some n 6= 0. We
may assume n > 0. Then Mi is periodic. As A is not a hypersurface this is a
contradiction by Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 4.1.

SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

31

We now assume r ≥ 1. Say Mi+r = Syzn (Mi ) for some r > 0 and for some
n 6= 0. Note we are not assuming n > 0. As we have an irreducible morphism from
Mi+r−1 → Mi+r we have an irreducible map from
Syz−n (Mi+r−1 ) → Mi .
So we have Mi+1 = Syz−n (Mi+r−1 ) or Mi−1 = Syz−n (Mi+r−1 ). The first case
cannot occur as r = min V . So Mi−1 = Syz−n (Mi+r−1 ) and therefore Mi+r−1 =
Syzn (Mi−1 ). Iterating this procedure we get that M2+r = Syzn (M2 ). We have
irreducible maps from M2+r−1 and M2+r+1 to M2+r = Syzn (M2 ). So we have an
irreducible map from Syz−n (M2+r−1 ) and Syz−n (M2+r+1 ) to M2 . It follows that
atleast one of Syz−n (M2+r−1 ) and Syz−n (M2+r+1 ) is A. This is a contradiction. 
Next we give
Proof of Theorem 1.15. The assertion on the structure of C follows from Theorem
11.1 and [6, 4.16.2].
(1) This follows from Theorem 11.1.
(2)(a) Let C be a connected component of Γ(A) such that [M ] ∈ V ert(C) is a
periodic module. Then by Theorem 1.2 all the modules N in V ert(C) is periodic.
We note that Syzn (C) consists of periodic modules and so [A] ∈
/ V ert(Syzn (C)
for all n ∈ Z (see Theorem 4.1). Using Theorem 7.8 and Corollary 7.14 we get
that if [M ] ∈ V ert(C) and if 0 → M → EM → M → 0 is an AR sequence
ending at M then for all n ∈ Z the AR-sequence ending at Syzn (M ) is of the form
0 → Syzn (M ) → Syzn (E) → Syzn (M ) → 0.
Now consider the structure of C as given in (1). Let period of M1 be c. We
first show that I(M1 ) = cZ (notation as in Theorem 1.13). Note c ∈ I(M1 ). If
I(M1 ) 6= cZ then there exists a with 1 < a < c such that [Syza (M1 )] ∈ V ert(C).
We note that 0 → Syza (M1 ) → Syza (M2 ) → Syza (M1 ) → 0 is the AR sequence
ending at Syza (M1 ). As M1 is the unique vertex in C which is connected to only
one other vertex we get that Syza (M1 ) = M1 . This contradicts the fact that period
of M1 is c.
We show by induction on n ≥ 2 that the period of Mn is c. We first consider
the case n = 2. As period of M1 is c we get that 0 → M1 → Syzc (M2 ) → M1 → 0
is also an AR-sequence ending at M1 . By uniqueness of AR sequences we get
M2 ∼
= Syzc (M2 ). Suppose for some a with 1 ≤ a < c we have Syza (M2 ) = M2 then
note that a ∈ I(M2 ) = I(M1 ) = cZ, a contradiction. Thus period of M2 is c.
Now assume that period of M1 , . . . , Mn is c. We prove that period of Mn+1 is also
c. As the period of Mn−1 and Mn is c we get that 0 → Mn → Mn−1 ⊕Syzc (Mn+1 ) →
Mn → 0 is another AR-sequence ending at Mn . By uniqueness of AR-sequences
we get that Mn+1 ∼
= Syzc (Mn+1 ). Suppose for some a with 1 ≤ a < c we have
Mn+1 = Syza (Mn+1 ). Then a ∈ I(Mn+1 ) = I(M1 ) = cZ, a contradiction. Thus
period of Mn+1 is c. The result follows.
(2)(b) By 1.16 there exists atmost one m0 ≥ 1 such that Syzm0 (C) = Γ0 (A). Thus
for n > m0 we have that [A] ∈
/ V ert(Syzn (C)). Set M0 = 0. We have that for all
n > m0 the sequence 0 → Syzn (Mi ) → Syzn (Mi−1 )⊕Syzn (Mi+1 ) → Syzn (Mi ) → 0
is the AR quiver ending at Mi for all i ≥ 1. By Lemma 7.15 we get that for all
n > m and for all i ≥ 1
2βn (Mi ) = βn (Mi−1 ) + βn (Mi+1 ).

32

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

As M0 = 0 an easy recurssion yields that βn (Mi ) = iβn (M1 ). The result follows.

13. curvature and complexity
If (A, m) is a complete intersection of codimension c then it is known that for
any non-zero module M we have 0 ≤ cx M ≤ c. Furthermore for any integer i with
0 ≤ i ≤ c there exists an A-module M with complexity i. If A is not a complete
intersection then cx k = ∞. To deal with this situation the notion of curvature was
introduced. It can be shown that 1 < curv k < ∞ and for any non-zero module
with infinite projective dimension we have 1 ≤ curv M ≤ curv k. Furthermore if
cx M < ∞ then curv M = 1. We first prove
Proposition 13.1. Let (A, m) be an equicharactersitic complete Gorenstein isolated singularity with algebraically closed residue field k. Assume A is not a complete intersection. Then
(1) For any i ≥ 1 the modules M with complexity i form a union of connected
components of Γ(A).
(2) For any α ∈ [1, curv k) the modules M with curvature α form a union of connected components of Γ(A).
We first show
Lemma 13.2. [with hypotheses as in Proposition 13.1] Let 1 ≤ α < curv k. Let
Vα be the collection of all indecomposable modules M with curv M ≤ α. Then Vα
is a union of connected components of Γ(A). Furthermore Γ0 (A) * Vα .
Proof. Let M ∈ Vα . Note that τ (M ) = Syz−d+2 (M ) ∈ Vα . As α < curv k it follows
that there is no irreducible map from M to A or from A to M , see 4.1.
Clearly Syzn (M ) ∈ Vα for all n ∈ Z. By a similar argument as before there is
no irreducible map from Syzn (M ) to A or from A to Syzn (M ) for all n ∈ Z.
Let 0 → τ (M ) → EM → M → 0 be the AR-sequence ending at M . By 7.13 and
7.14 we get that
(1) 0 → Syzn (τ (M )) → Syzn (EM ) → Syzn (M ) → 0 is the AR-sequence ending
at Syzn (M ) for all n ≥ 0.
(2) βn (EM ) = βn (M ) + βn (τ (M )) for all n ≥ 0.
Thus we have curv(E) ≤ α. If there is an irreducible map from N to M then N is
a factor of EM and so curv(N ) ≤ curv(E) ≤ c. Thus N ∈ Vα . In a similar fashion
if there is an irreducible map from M to N then also N ∈ Vα . Thus Vα is a union
of connected components of Γ(A). Also clearly Γ0 (A) * Vα .

As an immediate consequence we get
Corollary 13.3. [with hypotheses as in Proposition 13.1] Let 1 < β < curv k. Let
Uβ be the collection of all indecomposable modules M with curv M < β. Then Uβ
is a union of connected components of Γ(A). Furthermore Γ0 (A) * Uβ .
Proof. Let 1 = α1 < α2 < · · · < αn < αn+1 < · · · be any strictly monotonically
increasing sequence converging to β. Notice
[
Uβ =
Vαn
n≥1

The result now follows from Lemma 13.2.



SYMMETRIES AND CONNECTED COMPONENTS OF THE AR-QUIVER

33

We now give
Proof of Proposition 13.1. We first prove (2). Let Cα = the collection of modules
with complexity α. Notice (with notation as in Lemma 13.2 and Corollary 13.3
(a) C1 = V1 .
(b) For 1 < α < curv(k) we have Cα = Vα − Uα .
Thus (2) follows.
(1) This is similar to (2). We have to prove results analogous to Lemma 13.2
and Corollary 13.3 first.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 1.9. Suppose A has a module M with bounded betti-numbers
but not periodic. Then note that A is not a complete intersection. We note that a
MCM A-module M will have bounded betti-numbers if and only if cx(M ) ≤ 1. By
Proposition 13.1, D the collection of all such modules defines a union of connected
components of Γ(A). We note that modules M having a periodic resolution will
form a subset C of D. By Theorem 1.2 we get that C is a union of connected
components of Γ(A). It follows that D \ C is a union of connected components of
Γ(A). If M is not periodic but has a bounded resolution then [M ] ∈ D \ C. The
result follows.

References
[1] M. Auslander and R-O. Buchweitz, The homological theory of maximal Cohen-Macaulay
approximations, Colloque en l’honneur de Pierre Samuel (Orsay, 1987). Mem. Soc. Math.
France (N.S.) No. 38 (1989), 5-37.
[2] M. Auslander and I. Reiten, Representation Theory of artin algebra V: Methods for computing
almost split sequences and irreducible morphisms, Communications in Algebra, 5(5) (1977),
519–554
[3] L. L. Avramov, V. N. Gasharov and I. V. Peeva, Complete intersection dimension, Inst.
Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1997), no. 86, 67–114 (1998).
[4] L. L. Avramov, Modules of finite virtual projective dimension, Invent. math. 96 (1989), 71101.
, Infinite free resolutions, Six lectures on commutative algebra (Bellaterra, 1996),
[5]
1118, Progr. Math., 166, Birkhuser, Basel, 1998.
[6] D. J. Benson, Representations and cohomology. I. Basic representation theory of finite groups
and associative algebras, Second edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 30.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998
[7] P. A. Bergh, On support varieties for modules over complete intersections, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 135 (2007), no. 12, 3795-3803.
[8] J. P. Brennan, J. Herzog and B. Ulrich, Maximally generated Cohen-Macaulay modules,
Math. Scand. 61 (1987), no. 2, 181-203.
[9] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, revised edition, Cambridge Stud. Adv.
Math., vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1998).
[10] R.-O. Buchweitz, G.-M. Greuel and F.-O. Schreyer, Cohen-Macaulay modules on hypersurface
singularities. II, Invent. Math. 88 (1987), no. 1, 165-182.
[11] A. Croll, Periodic modules over Gorenstein local rings, J. Algebra 395 (2013), 47-62.
[12] E. Dieterich, Reduction of isolated singularities, Comment. Math. Helv. 62 (1987), 654–676.
[13] David Eisenbud, Homological algebra on a complete intersection, with an application to group
representations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 260 (1980), no. 1, 35–64.
[14] V. Gasharov and I. Peeva, Boundedness versus periodicity over commutative local rings,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 320 (1990), no. 2, 569-580.
[15] E. L. Green and D. Zacharia, Auslander-Reiten components containing modules with bounded
Betti numbers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 361 (2009), no. 8, 4195–4214.

34

TONY J. PUTHENPURAKAL

[16] T. H. Gulliksen, A change of ring theorem with applications to Poincaré series and intersection multiplicity, Math. Scand. 34 (1974), 167–183.
[17] J. Herzog, B. Ulrich and J. Backelin, Linear maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over strict
complete intersections, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 71 (1991), no. 2-3, 187-202.
[18] S. B. Iyengar; G. J. Leuschke; A. Leykin; C. Miller; E. Miller; A. K. Singh and U. Walther,
Twenty-four hours of local cohomology. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 87. American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007.
[19] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[20] A. Martsinkovsky and J. R. Strooker, Linkage of modules, J. Algebra 271 (2004), no. 2,
587-626.
[21] T. J. Puthenpurakal, The Hilbert function of a maximal Cohen-Macaulay module, Math. Z.
251 (2005), no. 3, 551-573.
[22] R. Takahashi, Direct summands of syzygy modules of the residue class field, Nagoya Math.
J. 189 (2008), 1-25.
, Cohen-Macaulay modules over Cohen-Macaulay rings, London Mathematical Soci[23]
ety Lecture Note Series, 146. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai
400 076, India
E-mail address: tputhen@math.iitb.ac.in

