arXiv:1803.08961v1 [math.AC] 23 Mar 2018

COHEN-MACAULAY CRITERIA FOR PROJECTIVE MONOMIAL
CURVES VIA GRÖBNER BASES
JÜRGEN HERZOG, DUMITRU I. STAMATE
Abstract. We prove new characterizations based on Gröbner bases for the CohenMacaulay property of a projective monomial curve.

Contents
Introduction
1. A Cohen-Macaulay criterion via Gröbner bases
2. Dual sequences
3. A bound for the number of generators of in(I(a)), when C(a) is
arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay
4. Applications
References

1
3
5
10
12
14

Introduction
Let K be any field. For any sequence of distinct positive integers a : a1 , . . . , an
we denote I(a) the kernel of the K-algebra homomorphism φ : S → K[t] where
S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and φ(xi ) = tai for i = 1, . . . , n. The image of this map is the
semigroup ring over K of the semigroup H generated by a1 , . . . , an . We no not insist
that a is a minimal generating set for H.
In the following, we assume that gcd(a1 , . . . , an ) = 1 and an > ai for all i < n.
We note that the homogenization of I(a) with respect to the variable x0 is again a
toric ideal, namely it is the kernel of the K-algebra map ψ : S[x0 ] → K[s, t] where
ψ(xi ) = tai san −ai for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and ψ(x0 ) = san . The image of the map ψ is the
subalgebra K[A] of K[t, s] generated by the monomials whose exponents are read
from the columns of the matrix


0
a1
...
an−1
an
(1)
A=
.
an an − a1 . . . an − an−1 0

In case K is an algebraically closed field, I(a) is the vanishing ideal of the affine
curve C(a) given parametrically by t 7→ (ta1 , . . . , tan ), while I(a)h is the vanishing

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13H10, 13P10, 16S36; Secondary 13F20,
14M25.
Key words and phrases. arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, projective monomial curve, revlex,
Gröbner basis, numerical semigroup, Apéry set.
1

ideal of the projective closure C(a) of C(a) in Pn , given parametrically by [s : t] 7→
[tan : sa1 tan −a1 : · · · : san−1 tan −an−1 : san ]. Curves of this type are called projective
monomial curves.
The projective monomial curve C(a) is called arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if
its vanishing ideal I(a)h is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal. It is known that this is the case
if and only if tan , san is a regular sequence on K[A]. This fact is a special case of
[10, Theorem 2.6].
Arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curves are not rare among the projective monomial curves. It follows from Vu’s [18, Theorem 5.7] that for any fixed a, the curve
C(a1 + k, . . . , an + k) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay for all k ≫ 0. In small
embedding dimension, Bresinsky, Schenzel and Vogel [4] characterized the arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay projective monomial curves in P3 by the property that
I(a)h is generated by at most 3 elements.
In the context of numerical semigroups, Gröbner bases have been used in algorithms in [16] and [17] to find the Frobenius number of the numerical semigroup H
generated by a, or to characterize when is the tangent cone of the semigroup algebra
K[H] Cohen-Macaulay, see [1], [2].
One of the main results in this paper is that C(a) is arithmetically Cohen–
Macaulay if and only if in(I(a)h ), respectively in(I(a)), is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal,
see Theorem 1.2 (b) and (c). Here the initial ideals are taken for a reverse lexicographic order for which xn , x0 , respectively xn are the smallest variables. These
conditions are also equivalent to condition (f) which says that
in(xn , I(a)) = (xn , in(I(a))).
Yet other equivalent properties are (d) and (e), namely that xn , respectively x0 , xn ,
do not divide any minimal monomial generator of in(I(a)) and of in(I(a)h ), respectively, where the monomial orders are as before.
A Cohen-Macaulay criterion for a simplicial semigroup ring in terms of the Gröbner
basis of its defining ideal is given by Kamoi in [15, Corollary 2.9] and [14, Theorem
1.2]. In the particular case considered in this paper, equivalences (a), (d) and (e) in
Theorem 1.2 sharpen Kamoi’s mentioned results and his [14, Corollary 3.6].
The dual sequence of a is defined to be the sequence a′ : an − a1 , . . . , an − an−1 , an .
The projective monomial curves associated to the sequences a and a′ are obviously
isomorphic. So it is natural to compare the ideals I(a) and I(a′ ) and their reduced
Gröbner bases. That is the focus of Section 2.
P
For w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Zn we denote hw, ai = ni=1 wi ai , and we set L(a) =
{w ∈ Zn : hw, ai = 0}. Obviously, I(a) is just the lattice ideal of the lattice
+
−
L(a). Indeed, I(a) is generated by the binomials fw = xw − xw with wP∈ L(a).
Let σ : Zn → Zn be the map given by σ(w1 , . . . , wn ) = (w1 , . . . , wn−1 , − ni=1 wi ).
Then σ is an automorphism of the group Zn such that σ 2 = idZn which induces an
isomorphism between L(a) and L(a′ ). In particular, L(a′ ) = (fσ(w) : w ∈ L(a)).
In general, a minimal set of binomial generators of L(a) is not mapped to a minimal set of binomial generators of L(a′ ), see Remark 3.2. However, in Theorem 2.2 we
show that C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if and only if in(fσ(w) ) = in(fw )
2

for all fw ∈ G, where G denotes the reduced Gröbner basis of I(a) with respect to a
reverse lexicographic monomial order with xn the smallest variable. Moreover, these
conditions are also equivalent to the fact that fw ∈ G if and only if fσ(w) ∈ G ′ , for
all w ∈ Zn , where G ′ is the reduced Gröbner basis of I(a′ ) with respect to the same
monomial order.
Let H denote the numerical semigroup generated by a. For any nonzero element h
in H its Apéry set is defined as Ap(H, h) = {x ∈ H : x−h ∈
/ H}. For h ∈ Ap(H, an )
we denote ϕa (h) the smallest monomial in S for the reverse lexicographic order such
that its a-degree equals h. The close relationship between the ideals I(a) and I(a′ )
is also outlined by the fact that the curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if
and only if
in(xn , I(a)) = in(xn , I(a′ )),
see Theorem 2.6. Here one uses a reverse lexicographic order with xn the smallest
variable. For the proof, a key observation is that the latter equation is equivalent
to the fact that for all h in Ap(H, an ) the a′ -degree of ϕa (h) is in Ap(H ′ , an ), where
H ′ denotes the semigroup generated by the dual sequence a′ . As a consequence,
in Corollary 2.7 we recover a criterion of Cavaliere and Niesi ([5]) for C(a) to be
arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.
When n = 3, it is known from [11] that µ(I(a)) ≤ 3. However, we give examples
showing that a reduced Gröbner basis may be arbitrarily large, see Proposition 3.1.
In case C(a) is arithmetically
Cohen-Macaulay, in Proposition 3.4 we show that

an
µ(in(I(a))) ≤ n−2 .
In Section 4 we apply Theorem 1.2 to test the arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay
property for two families of projective monomial curves in P3 that have appeared
in the literature. For these families of 4-generated numerical semigroups which
were introduced by Arslan ([1]) and by Bresinsky ([3]), respectively, we show that
the corresponding projective monomial curve is (respectively, is not) arithmetically
Cohen-Macaulay.
1. A Cohen-Macaulay criterion via Gröbner bases
The following lemma appears in [7, Exercise 5, page 392]. Lacking reference to a
proof, we prefer to provide one.
Lemma 1.1. Let I be an ideal in the polynomial ring S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and I h ⊂
S[x0 ] its homogenization with respect to the variable x0 . We denote < any reverse
lexicographic monomial order on S and <0 the reverse lexicographic monomial order
on S[x0 ] extended from S and such that x0 is the least variable.
If f1 , . . . , fr is the reduced Gröbner basis for I with respect to <, then f1h , . . . , frh
is the reduced Gröbner basis for I h with respect to <0 . Moreover, in<0 (I h ) =
(in< (I))S[x0 ].
Proof. Let F h = {f1h , . . . , frh }. It is proved in [9, Proposition 3.15] that F h is a
Gröbner basis for I h with respect to the block order <′ on S[x0 ] which is defined as
xα xa0 <′ xβ xb0 if (xα < xβ ) or (xα = xβ and a < b)
3

for all α, β ∈ Nn and all nonnegative integers a, b.
Let f be a nonzero polynomial in I. We write f = m1 + · · · + mq as a sum of
monomials with mi > mi−1 for 2 ≤ i ≤ q. Then deg mi ≥ deg mi−1 for 2 ≤ i ≤ q
and
ε
f h = m1 + m2 xε02 + · · · + mq x0q ,
where εi = deg m1 − deg mi for i = 2, . . . , q. Moreover, in the above decomposition
of f h the monomials are listed decreasingly with respect to <0 . Thus in<0 (f h ) =
m1 = in< (f ) = in<′ (f h ) for all f in I. It follows that
in<′ (I h ) = in<′ (fih : 1 ≤ i ≤ r) = (in<′ (fih ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ r)
= (in<0 (fih ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ r) ⊆ in<0 (I h ).
Since the homogeneous ideals in<′ (I h ) and in<0 (I h ) have the same Hilbert function,
we conclude that they are equal and that F h is a Gröbner basis for I h with respect
to <0 .
Assume there exist i, j such that in<0 (fih ) divides a monomial in tail(fjh ), i.e.
in< (fi ) divides mxε0 with m a monomial in tail(fj ). This implies that in< (fi ) divides
m, which contradicts the fact that F is the reduced Gröbner basis for I with respect
to <. Therefore F h is the reduced Gröbner basis for I h with respect to <0 .

The following theorem is one of the main results of this paper.
Theorem 1.2. Let a : a1 , . . . , an be a sequence of positive integers with an > ai for
all i < n. Denote < any reverse lexicographic order on S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] such that
xn is the smallest variable and <0 the induced reverse lexicographic order on S[x0 ],
where xn > x0 . The following conditions are equivalent:
(a) the projective monomial curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay;
(b) in<0 (I(a)h ) is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal;
(c) in< (I(a)) is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal;
(d) xn does not divide any element of G(in< (I(a)));
(e) xn and x0 do not divide any element of G(in<0 (I(a)h ));
(f) in< (xn , I(a)) = (xn , in< (I(a)).
Proof. Lemma 1.1 implies that G(in< (I(a))) = G(in<0 (I(a)h )). Therefore (b) ⇐⇒
(c) and (d) ⇐⇒ (e). The implication (b) ⇒ (a) is a general fact, see for example
[12, Corollary 3.3.5]. Assuming (e), we get that x0 , xn is a regular sequence modulo
in<0 (I(a)h ), which implies (b).
Since xn is regular on S/I(a) which is a domain, using [6, Proposition 1.4] we
have that xn is regular on S/ in< (I(a)) if and only if in< (xn , I(a)) = (xn , in< (I(a)).
This shows (d) ⇐⇒ (f).
It remains to prove that (a) ⇒ (e). It is known that the ring K[A] is CohenMacaulay if and only if san , tan is a regular sequence on it, see [10, Lemma 2.4].
That is equivalent to x0 , xn being a regular sequence on S[x0 ]/I(a)h .
Let F = {f1 , . . . , fr } be the reduced Gröbner basis of I(a) with respect to <. For
all i = 1, . . . , r, fi is a binomial of the form ui − vi , where ui = in< (fi ), and ui and
vi have disjoint supports. After a reordering, we may assume that there exists ℓ ≤ r
such that fi is homogeneous if and only if i ≤ ℓ.
4

Using Lemma 1.1, we see that G(in<0 (I(a)h )) = {u1, . . . , ur }. Clearly, x0 does
not divide ui for any i, since deg ui ≥ deg vi .
We first show that for i ≤ ℓ, ui is not divisible by xn . Indeed, if that were not
the case, by the properties of the chosen monomial order <, we would have that xn
divides vi , as well, hence ui and vi do not have disjoint supports, which is false.
It remains to prove that xn does not divide ui for any i > ℓ. For that, we set
gi = fih |x0 =0 for all i = 1, . . . , r and J = (g1 , . . . , gr )S. Then K[A]/(san ) ∼
= S/J.
For i ≤ ℓ, since fi is homogeneous we obtain that x0 does not divide vi . Therefore,
J = (f1 , . . . , fℓ , uℓ+1, . . . , ur ). Since xn is regular on S/J, we infer that xn is not
in the support of any of the monomials ui with i > ℓ. This finishes the proof of
(a) ⇒ (e).

2. Dual sequences
Given a : a1 , . . . , an a sequence of distinct nonnegative integers such that an > ai
for all i < n, the dual sequence is defined to be a′ : an − a1 , . . . , an − an−1 , an . It is
clear that this procedure is a duality: (a′ )′ = a.
The projective monomial curves associated to the sequences a and a′ are isomorphic. Indeed, the ideals I(a)h and I(a′ )h are the kernel of the maps on S[x0 ] sending
x0 , . . . , xn to the monomials having as exponent vectors the columns of the matrix
A in (1), and respectively the columns of the matrix


0 an − a1 . . . an − an−1 an
′
A =
.
an
a1
...
an−1
0

This implies that the polynomials in the ideal I(a′ )h are obtained from those in
I(a)h by switching the variables x0 and xn .
In this section we compare the Gröbner bases of the ideals I(a) and I(a′ ) with
respect to a reverse lexicographic order, in connection to the Cohen-Macaulay property of the associated projective monomial curve.
P
Let σ : Zn → Zn be the map given by σ(w1 , . . . , wn ) = (w1 , . . . , wn−1 , − ni=1 wi ).
It is easy to see that σ is an automorphism P
of the group Zn and that σ 2 = idZn . For
n
w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Z we denote hw, ai = ni=1 wi ai . We set
L(a) = {w ∈ Zn : hw, ai = 0}.

Lemma 2.1. With notation as above, the map σ induces an isomorphism between
the groups L(a) and L(a′ ).
P
Proof. If w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Zn with ni=1 wi ai = 0 then
!
!
n
n
X
X
(an − ai )wi −
wi an = 0,
i=1

i=1

′

′

equivalently hσ(w), a i = 0 and σ(w) ∈ L(a ). Similarly, if w ′ ∈ L(a′ ) then σ(w ′ ) ∈
L(a′′ ) = L(a).


If the entries of the vector α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) are nonnegative integers we let xα =
· · · xαnn . For w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ Zn , let w + and w − be the unique vectors with

xα1 1

5

nonnegative entries and disjoint supports such that w = w + − w − . We denote
+
−
fw = xw − xw . It is clear that f−w = −fw . Therefore, a difference of two
monomials with disjoint supports can be identified with a vector w ∈ Zn .
It is known that I(a) = (fw : w ∈ L(a)), hence I(a′ ) = (fσ(w) : w ∈ L(a)).
However, it is not always true that σ maps a minimal generating set (or a Gröbner
basis) for I(a) into a minimal generating set (or a Gröbner basis) for I(a′ ), see
Proposition 3.1 and Remark 3.2.
Theorem 2.2. Let a : a1 , . . . , an be a sequence of nonnegative integers with an > ai
for all i < n. Let G and G ′ be the reduced Gröbner bases of I(a) and I(a′ ), respectively, with respect to a reverse lexicographic monomial order on S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]
such that xn is the smallest variable. The following conditions are equivalent:
(a) the projective monomial curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay;
(b) in(fσ(w) ) = in(fw ), for all fw ∈ G;
(c) fw ∈ G ⇐⇒ fσ(w) ∈ G ′ , for all w ∈ Zn .
Proof. We first prove that conditions (a) and (b) are equivalent.
(a) ⇒ (b): We assume that I(a)h is a Cohen-Macaulay ideal in S[x0 ]. We pick
fw in G, where w = (w1 , . . . , wn ). We denote w ′ = σ(w) = (w1′ , . . . , wn′ ). Since the
P
+
leading coefficient
LC(fw ) = 1 we get that in(fw ) = xw , hence d = ni=1 wi ≥ 0
P
and wn′ = − ni=1 wi = −d ≤ 0.
By Theorem 1.2 we obtain that xn does not divide in(fw ), hence wn ≤ 0. ConseP
′ +
′ −
quently, (w ′ )+ = w + . Also, ni=1 wi′ = −wn ≥ 0, and hence deg x(w ) ≥ deg x(w ) .
We distinguish two cases.
′ +
+
′ +
′ −
Firstly, if wn < 0 then deg x(w ) > deg x(w ) , hence in(fw′ ) = x(w ) = xw =
−
′ −
n
in(fw ). Moreover, x(w ) = xw · xd+w
.
n
′ +
′ −
Secondly, in case wn = 0 we get that deg x(w ) = deg x(w ) . Now, if d = 0 then
′ +
′ −
w ′ = w. If d > 0, for the chosen monomial order we obtain that x(w ) > x(w ) ,
′ −
−
because x(w ) = xw · xdn .
+
Thus in(fw′ ) = xw = in(fw ) in all cases, and property (b) holds.
(b) ⇒ (a): If I(a)h is not a Cohen-Macaulay ideal, by Theorem 1.2 there exists
fw in G such that xn divides in(fw ). Let w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) and w ′ = σ(w) =
+
(w1′ , . . . , wn′ ). Since LC(fw ) = 1 we get that in(fw ) = xw , hence wn > 0 and
P
n
i=1 wi ≥ 0.
There exists i0 6= n such that wi0 > 0, otherwise, since hw, ai = 0 we get that
Pn−1
Pn−1
i=1 ai (−wi ) = wn an ≥ −(w1 + · · · + wn−1 )an > −
i=1 ai wi , which is a contradiction. P
′ −
′ +
Since ni=1 wi′ = −wn < 0, we obtain that deg x(w ) > deg x(w ) and in(fw′ ) =
′
−
′ +
x(w ) . As i0 < n, we have that wi′0 = wi0 > 0, hence xi0 divides x(w ) . On the other
′ −
hand, condition (b) implies that in(fσ(w) ) = in(fw ), and therefore xi0 divides x(w )
as well, which gives a contradiction. We conclude that the projective monomial
curve C(a) is Cohen-Macaulay.
Next we prove that (a),(b) ⇒ (c). From the proof above of the equivalence
(a) ⇐⇒ (b), we see that under the assumption that (a) (hence also (b)) holds, for
6

all fw in G one has
(2)

tail(fσ(w) ) = tail(fw ) · xan for some integer a.

From Theorem 1.2 we have that in(I(a′ )) = in(I(a)), therefore property (b) implies
that G ′′ = {fσ(w) : fw ∈ G} is a minimal Gröbner basis for I(a′ ). We show that it is
reduced.
+
Let fw ∈ G with w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) and σ(w) = (w1′ , . . . , wn′ ). Then in(fw ) = xw
+
−
and deg(xw ) ≥ deg(xw ). Condition (a) and Theorem 1.2 imply that wn ≤ 0. Thus
Pn
′ )−
′
(w ′ )+
) ≥ deg(x(w P
).
i=1 wi = −wn ≥ 0, which implies that deg(x
′
′
If wn = 0 then w is homogeneous and either w = w (if ni=1 wi = 0), or xn
P
′ +
′ −
divides x(w ) (if ni=1 wi > 0), hence x(w ) = in(fσ(w) ) and LC(fσ(w) ) = 1.
′ +
′ −
If wn < 0 then deg(x(w ) ) > deg(x(w ) ), and again LC(fσ(w) ) = 1.
If there are fw and fwe in G such that in(fσ(w) ) divides tail(fσ(w)
e ), then, since xn
is not in the support of in(fw ) = in(fσ(w) ), by using (2) we get that in(fw ) divides
tail(fwe ). This contradicts the fact that G is the reduced Gröbner basis for I(a).
Hence G ′′ = G ′ , which proves (c).
For (c) ⇒ (a): If we assume that (c) holds, but I(a)h is not Cohen-Macaulay, then
+
by Theorem 1.2 there exists fw in G such that xn divides in(fw ) = xw . Let σ(w) =
P
−
+
(w1′ , . . . , wn′ ). Since ni=1 wi′ = −wn < 0, it follows that deg(xσ(w) ) > deg(xσ(w) ),
−
hence in(fσ(w) ) = xσ(w) . On the other hand, property (c) implies that fσ(w) ∈ G ′ ,
+
hence in(fσ(w) ) = xσ(w) , which is a contradiction. Therefore, property (a) holds.
This ends the proof of the theorem.

Remark 2.3. The fact that the involution σ maps some (minimal) Gröbner basis
for I(a) into a (minimal) Gröbner basis for I(a′ ) is not enough to imply that the
curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.
Indeed, let a : 4, 13, 19. Then a′ : 15, 6, 19. A Singular [8] computation shows
that
G = {y 5 − x2 z 3 , x3 y 2 − z 2 , x5 z − y 3 , x8 − yz}, and
G ′ = {y 5 − x2 , x3 y 2 − z 3 , y 3z 3 − x5 , x8 − yz 6 }
are the reduced Gröbner bases with respect to the reverse lexicographic order with
x > y > z > t for the ideals I(a) and I(a′ ), respectively.
One has G = {fw1 , fw2 , fw3 , fw4 }, where w1 = (−2, 5, −3), w2 = (3, 2, −2), w3 =
(5, −3, 1) and w4 = (8, −1, −1). Since σ(w1 ) = (−2, 5, 0), σ(w2 ) = (3, 2, −3),
σ(w3 ) = (5, −3, −3) and σ(w4 ) = (8, −1, −6) we note that
G ′ = {fσ(w1 ) , fσ(w2 ) , −fσ(w3 ) , fσ(w4 ) }.
This means that {fσ(w1 ) , fσ(w2 ) , fσ(w3 ) , fσ(w4 ) } is a minimal Gröbner basis for I(a′ ),
although different from the reduced one G ′ .
Let a = a1 , . . . , an be a sequence of nonnegative integers with gcd(a1 , . . . , an ) = 1
and an > ai for all i = 1, . . . , n−1. Our next goal is to describe the Cohen-Macaulay
property of C(a) in terms of the Apéry sets of the semigroup generated by a or the
7

dual sequence a′ . We recall that for a numerical semigroup H and 0 6= h in H, the
Apéry set of H with respect to h is
Ap(H, h) = {x ∈ H : x − h ∈
/ H}.
It is known that | Ap(H, h)| = h and that the elements of Ap(H, h) have distinct
residues modulo h.
The sequence a induces a grading on S = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] by letting deg(xi ) = ai
for all i = 1,P. . . , n. For any monomial xα = xr11 · · · xrnn we denote its a-degree by
dega (xα ) = ni=1 ri ai . We denote H the numerical semigroup generated by a. For
any h in Ap(H, an ) we denote ϕa (h) the smallest monomial in S (with respect to
a reverse lexicographic monomial order where xn is the smallest variable) such that
its a-degree equals h. Since h − an ∈
/ H we see that the monomial ϕa (h) is in
′
S = k[x1 , . . . , xn−1 ].
Proposition 2.4. With notation as above, for any h in Ap(H, an ) the monomial
ϕa (h) ∈
/ (xn , in(I(a)))S.
Proof. Let h ∈ Ap(H, an ) and ϕa (h) = xα . Assume that xα ∈ in(xn , I(a)). Then
xα = in(F ) for some F in (xn , I(a)). Since the ideal (xn , I(a)) is generated by
monomials and binomials which are the difference of two monomials with the same
a-degree, without loss of generality we may assume that F is a-homogeneous. Thus
we may write
xα = in(xn f + f1 fw1 + · · · + fq fwq ),
where w1 , . . . , wq ∈ L(a), and f, f1 , . . . , fq are a-homogeneous with dega (xn f ) =
dega (f1 fw1 ) = · · · = dega (fq fwq ).
We notice that f = 0, otherwise h = dega (xα ) = dega (xn f ) = an + dega (f ),
gives that h − an ∈ H, which is false. Hence xα ∈ in(I(a)). The ideal I(a) has
a Gröbner basis of binomials, hence we can write xα = m · in(fw ) for some binomial fw ∈ I(a) and m a monomial in S ′ . Without loss of generality, we may
+
+
−
−
assume in(fw ) = xw . Thus xw > xw , which gives ϕa (h) = xα > xw m. But
−
dega (w + ) = dega (w − ), hence dega (xα ) = dega (xw m), which contradicts the choice
of xα . Therefore, ϕa (h) ∈
/ (xn , in(I(a))).

If we identify a monomial which is in S and not in in(xn , I(a)) with its residue class
modulo the monomial ideal in(xn , I(a)), by Proposition 2.4 the assignment ϕa (−)
defines a map from Ap(H, an ) into Mon(S/ in(xn , I(a))), the K-basis of monomials
of S/ in(xn , I(a)). We prove that this is a bijection.
Proposition 2.5. The map ϕa : Ap(H, an ) → Mon(S/ in(xn , I(a))) is bijective.
Proof. Let h, h′ in Ap(H, an ) with ϕa (h) = ϕa (h′ ). Then h = dega (ϕa (h)) =
dega (ϕa (h′ )) = h′ , and the map ϕa is injective.
By Macaulay’s theorem ([9, Theorem 2.6]) the monomials in S which do not
belong to in(xn , I(a)) form a K-basis for S/(xn , I(a)). Therefore,
| Mon(S/ in(xn , I(a)))| = dimK S/(xn , I(a))
= dimK K[H]/(tan ) = an .
Since | Ap(H, an )| = an , we conclude that the map ϕa is bijective.
8



Theorem 2.6. Let a : a1 , . . . , an be a sequence of distinct positive integers such that
gcd(a1 , . . . , an ) = 1 and an > ai for all i = 1, . . . , n − 1. We denote a′ the dual
sequence of a. Let H and H ′ be the numerical semigroups generated by a and a′ ,
respectively. The following statements are equivalent:
(a) the projective monomial curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay;
(b) in(xn , I(a)) = in(xn , I(a′ ));
(c) Mon(S/ in(xn , I(a))) = Mon(S/ in(xn , I(a′ )));
(d) dega′ (ϕa (h)) ∈ Ap(H ′ , an ) for all h in Ap(H, an ),
where the initial ideals are taken with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order
on S.
Proof. Assume (a) holds. It follows from Theorem 1.2 that in(xn , I(a)) = (xn , in(I(a)))
and in(xn , I(a′ )) = (xn , in(I(a′ ))). We get from Lemma 1.1 that G(in(I(a))) =
G(in(I h (a))) = G(in(I h (a′ ))) = G(in(I(a))), hence the statement (b) is true.
Clearly, the properties (b) and (c) are equivalent.
We now prove that (b) ⇐⇒ (d). Assume that (b) holds. Let h ∈ Ap(H, an ). By
Proposition 2.4 we have that the monomial ϕa (h) is not in in(xn , I(a)), hence it is
not in in(xn , I(a′ )). Using Proposition 2.5 we get that ϕa (h) = ϕa′ (h′ ) for some h′
in Ap(H ′ , an ). Hence dega′ (ϕa (h)) ∈ Ap(H ′, an ), which proves (d).
Conversely, we assume that (d) holds and we consider the monomial xα not in
in(xn , I(a)). By Proposition 2.5 there exists h in Ap(H, an ) such that ϕa (h) = xα .
Property (d) implies that there exists h′ in Ap(H ′, an ) such that h′ = dega′ (xα ),
which by Proposition 2.4 gives that xα ∈
/ in(xn , I(a′ )). Hence (d) ⇒ (b).
To finish the proof of the theorem we are left to show that (b) ⇒ (a). Assume
in(xn , I(a)) = in(xn , I(a′ )). By Theorem 1.2, it is enough to prove that xn does
not divide any monomial in G(in(I(a))). Assume there exists a monomial u · xcn in
G(in(I(a))) with u not divisible by xn and c > 0. Then u is not a constant, otherwise,
rn−1
in
since I(a) has a Gröbner basis of binomials, there exists f = xcn − xr11 . . . xn−1
Pn−1
c
I(a) with xn = in(f ). This implies that we have a relation c · an = i=1 ri ai with
Pn−1
ri , which is false since an > ai for all i < n.
c ≥ i=1
Let u · xcn = in(fw ), where w = (w1 , . . . , wn ) ∈ L(a). Without loss of generality we
+
−
may assume in(fw ) = xw , hence wn = c. Set v = xw and d = deg(u · xcn ) − deg v.
Then d > 0 by the above discussion. The sum of the components of σ(w) equals
Pn−1
Pn
−
σ(w)+
) < deg(xσ(w) ) and
i=1 wi + (−
i=1 wi ) = −wn = −c < 0, hence deg(x
fσ(w) = u − xdn · v. This gives that
u = xdn · v + fσ(w) ∈ (xn , I(a′ )),
and also that u ∈ in(xn , I(a′ )), which by our hypothesis (b) implies that u ∈
in(xn , I(a)). Since the ideal I(a) is a-homogeneous we can write
u = in(xn f + f1 fz1 + · · · + fq fzq ),
where z1 , . . . , zq ∈ L(a), and f, f1 , . . . , fq are a-homogeneous with dega (xn f ) =
dega (f1 fz1 ) = · · · = dega (fq fzq ). We see that f 6= 0, otherwise u ∈ in(I(a)), which
contradicts the fact that u · xcn is a minimal monomial generator for in(I(a)).
9

Let h = dega (u). Since f 6= 0 we get that h − an ∈ H. We may write h =
h1 + λn an with λn a maximal positive integer and h1 ∈ H, i.e. h1 ∈ Ap(H, an ). Let
λn−1
u1 = ϕa (h1 ) = xλ1 1 . . . xn−1
. Then the binomial f1 = u1 xλnn −u is in I(a). As u · xcn ∈
G(in(I(a))) with c > 1, we get that u ∈
/ in(I(a)), hence in(f1 ) = u1 · xλnn ∈ in(I(a)).
By Proposition 2.4, u1 ∈
/ in(xn , I(a)), hence u1 ∈
/ in(I(a)), as well. This implies
that u1 · xλnn is divisible by a monomial u2 xen ∈ G(in(I(a)) with xn and u2 coprime,
e > 0. Therefore u2 divides u1 , hence dega (u2 ) + h2 = dega (u1 ) for some positive h2
in H. This gives dega (u2 ) ∈ Ap(H, an ).
We may write u2 · xen = in(fwe ) with w
e ∈ L(a), and arguing as before we get that
d′
′
u2 = xn · v1 + fσ(w)
e ∈ in(xn , I(a)) for some positive d . Thus
u2 = in(xn f ′ + f1′ fz1′ + · · · + fℓ′ fzℓ′ ),

where z1′ , . . . , zℓ′ ∈ L(a), and f ′ , f1′ , . . . , fq′ are a-homogeneous with dega (xn f ′ ) =
dega (f1′ fz1′ ) = · · · = dega (fℓ′ fzℓ′ ). If f ′ = 0, then u2 ∈ in(I(a)), which is false since
u2 · xen ∈ G(in(I(a))). On the other hand, f ′ 6= 0 implies that an + dega (f ′ ) =
dega (u2 ), hence dega (u2 ) ∈
/ Ap(H, an ), which is also false. Therefore xn does not
divide any monomial in G(in(I(a))). This concludes the proof of the implication
(b) ⇒ (a) and of the theorem.

Let Ap(H, an ) = {0, ν1 , . . . , νan −1 }. We may assume that νi ≡ i mod an for
e
all i. For each νi , let µi ∈ H ′ be the smallest element such that (νi , µi ) ∈ H.
Note that µi ≡ −i mod an for all i. Cavalieri and Niesi [5] call Ap(H, an ) good, if
{0, µ1 , . . . , µnd −1 } = Ap(H ′ , an ).
As a consequence of Theorem 2.6 we obtain
Corollary 2.7. (Cavaliere-Niesi, [5, Theorem 4.6]) The projective monomial curve
C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if and only if Ap(H, an ) is good.
Pn−1
Pn−1
Proof. Let νi =
j=1 rj (an − aj )
j=1 rj aj with integer coefficients rj ≥ 0 and
Pn−1
Pn−1
Pn−1
minimal. Then µi = j=1 rj (an − aj ). Thus µi = ( j=1 rj )an − νi with j=1
rj
Pn−1
minimal and j=1 rj aj = νi .
Qn−1 sj
Pn−1
xj , then dega′ (ϕa (νi )) = i=1
This shows that if ϕa (νi ) = j=1
sj (an − aj ) =
Pn−1
Pn−1
Pn−1
( j=1 sj )an − j=1 sj aj = ( j=1 rj )an − νi = µi . Hence Theorem 2.6(a) ⇐⇒ (d)
yields the desired conclusion.

3. A bound for the number of generators of in(I(a)), when C(a) is
arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay
In this section we show by examples that the number of generators of in(I(a))
may be arbitrarily large, already if a has only 3 elements.
Proposition 3.1. For the integer h ≥ 2, let a = 4, 6h+1, 6h+7. Then µ(in(I(a))) =
h + 2, where the initial ideal is computed with respect to the reverse lexicographic
monomial order with x1 > x2 > x3 .
10

Proof. We first find I(a) using the method from [11]. For 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 we let ci be the
smallest prositive integer such that
(3)

ci ai = rij aj + rik ak ,

with rij , rik nonnegative integers and {i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3}. Since a1 , a2 , a3 are pairwise
coprime, it is known from [11] that the rij ’s are unique and positive, and ci = rji +rki
for all {i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3}.
From the equations (3h + 2)a1 = a2 + a3 and 2a3 = 3a1 + 2a2 we find c1 = 3h + 2,
c3 = 2 and the corresponding rij ’s from (3). Hence c2 = 3 and 3a2 = (3h−1)a1 +a3 is
the corresponding equation from (3). According to [11], the ideal I(a) is minimally
generated by f1 = x3h+2
− x2 x3 , f3 = x31 x22 − x23 and g1 = x3h−1
x3 − x32 .
1
1
We introduce recursively the polynomials gi+1 = S(gi , f3 ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ h − 1. It
3(h−i)+2 2i−1
follows easily by induction that gi = x1
x3 − x2i+1
, for 1 ≤ i ≤ h. We claim
2
that
(4)

G = {f1 , g1 , . . . , gh , f3 }

is the reduced Gröbner basis of I(a).
To prove that G is a Gröbner basis we need to check that the S-pairs of elements
in G reduce to zero with respect to G, see [9, Theorem 2.14]. Here are the relevant
computations.
G
S(f1 , f3 ) = x22 − x3h−1
f3 = x3 (x32 − x3h−1
x3 ) = −x3 g1 → 0.
1
1
G
S(gh , f1 ) → 0 since gcd(in(gh )), in(f1 )) = 1.
G
S(gh , f3 ) = x31 gh − x2h−1
f3 = x23 gh−1 → 0.
2
For 1 ≤ i ≤ h − 1 :
G
2i−1
3i 2i
2
3 2
S(gi , f1 ) = x3i
f1 = x2 (x2i
1 gi −x3
3 −x1 x2 ) = x2 ·(x3 −x1 x2 )·(. . . ) = x2 ·f3 ·(. . . ) →
0, and
G
S(gi , f3 ) = gi+1 → 0.
For 1 ≤ i < j < h:
2(i+1) 3(j−i) 2(j−i)
2(j−i) 2i+1
2(j−i)
3(j−i)
3(j−i) 2j+1
x2 = x2
(x1
x2
−
S(gi , gj ) = x3
gi −x1
gj = x1
x2 −x3
G
2(j−i)
2(i+1)
x3
) = x2
· f3 · (· · · ) → 0.
G
For 1 ≤ i < h we have that S(gi , gh ) → 0, since gcd(in(gi ), in(gh )) = 1.
By inspecting the binomials in G it follows that they are in fact the reduced
Gröbner basis for I(a). This shows that µ(in(I(a)) = |G| = h + 2.

Remark 3.2. The sequence dual to the one from Proposition 3.1 is
a′ = 6h + 3, 6, 6h + 7.
It is easy to check (using [11]) that the corresponding toric ideal is a complete
intersection I(a′ ) = (x2h+1
− x21 , x31 x22 − x33 ). In particular, this shows that the image
2
through the involution σ of a minimal set of binomial generators for I(a) may no
longer be a minimal generating system for I(a′ ).
Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 3.1, it is routine to verify that for the
reduced Gröbner basis G in (4), the set {fσ(w) : fw ∈ G} is a minimal Gröbner basis
for I(a′ ). The latter set of binomials is fully interreduced, yet it is not the reduced
11

Gröbner basis for I(a′ ) since the leading coefficients of the binomials coming from
g1 , . . . , gh−1 equal −1.
From Theorem 2.2 we infer that C(a) is not arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay. This
can also be seen from the fact that in(g1 ) = x3h−1
x3 ∈ G(in(I(a))) (as h > 1) and
1
using Theorem 1.2.
If C(a) is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, we give an explicit bound for µ(in< (I(a)))
depending on an , the largest element of the sequence a. To prove this we first show
Lemma 3.3. Let n ≥ 2 and I ⊂ S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a graded ideal with mk ⊂ I,
where m = (x1 , .. . , xn ). Let < be a monomial
order on S. Then µ(I) ≤ µ(in< (I)) ≤

n+k−1
µ(mk ) = n+k−1
,
and
µ(I)
=
if
and
only
if I = mk .
n−1
n−1

Proof. It suffices to show that for a monomial ideal J ⊂ S with mk ⊂ J, one has
µ(J) ≤ µ(mk ), and µ(J) = µ(mk ), if and only if J = mk . We prove this by induction
on k − a, where a is the least degree of a monomial generator of J. If a = k,
the assertion is trivial. Suppose now that a < k. We denote by G(J) the unique
minimal set of monomial generators of J, and set G(J)j = {u ∈ G(J) : deg u = j}
for all j, and let J ′ = mJa + J≥a+1 , where J≥a+1 = (u ∈ J : deg u ≥ a + 1). Then
G(J ′ )j = 0 for j < a + 1 and mk ⊂ J ′ . Therefore, by our induction hypothesis,
we have µ(J ′ ) ≤ µ(mk ). On the other hand, G(J ′ )a+1 is the disjoint union of
G(mJ)a+1 and G(J)a+1 . Furthermore, G(J ′ )j = G(J)j for j > a + 1. Hence, since
|G(J)a | < |G(mJ)a+1 |, it follows that µ(J) = |G(J)| < |G(J ′ )| = µ(J ′ ) ≤ µ(mk ), as
desired.


Proposition 3.4. Suppose that the monomial curve C(a) is arithmetically Cohen–
an
.
Macaulay. Then µ(in(I(a)) ≤ n−2
Proof. As before we assume that a = a1 , . . . , an with an > ai for all i, and we let
H be the numerical semigroup generated by a. Then I(a) ⊂ S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and
G(in< (I(a)) ⊂ S̄ = K[x1 , . . . , xn−1 ], by Theorem 1.2. Therefore,
length(S̄/ in< (I(a)) = length(S/(xn , in< (I(a)))) = length(S/(xn , I(a))) =
length(K[H]/(tan )) = an .
Let k be the smallest number such that (x1 , . . . , xn−1 )k ⊂ in< (I(a)). Then
an =

k−1
X

dimK (S̄/ in< (I(a))j = 1 + (n − 1) +

j=0

k−1
X

dimK (S̄/ in< (I(a))j

j=2

≥ 1 + (n − 1) + (k − 2) = (n − 2) + k.

Thus, k ≤
(n
 − 1) + 1, and hence by Lemma 3.3 we get µ(in< (I(a))) ≤
 an −
(n−1)+k−1
an

≤ n−2 .
n−2
4. Applications

In this section we use the criteria in Theorem 1.2 to test the arithmetically CohenMacaulay property for two families of projective monomial curves.
12

4.1. Bresinsky semigroups. In [3] Bresinsky introduced the semigroup
Bh = h(2h − 1)2h, (2h − 1)(2h + 1), 2h(2h + 1), 2h(2h + 1) + 2h − 1i,
where h ≥ 2. He showed that the toric ideal IBh ⊂ S = K[x, y, z, t] is minimally
generated by more than 2h binomials. Based on that, in [13, Section 3.3] it is proved
that
F = {xt−yz}∪{z i−1 t2h−i −xi+1 y 2h−i : 1 ≤ i ≤ 2h}∪{x2h+1−j z j −y 2h−j tj : 0 ≤ j ≤ 2h−2}
is a minimal generating set for IBh . Combining the generators corresponding to
i = 2h and j = 1 we get that
u = −z(z 2h−1 − x2h+1 ) − x(x2h z − y 2h−1t) = xy 2h−1 t − z 2h ∈ IBh ,
hence in(u) = xy 2h−1 t ∈ in(IBh ), where one uses the reverse lexicographic monomial
order with x > y > z > t.
If the projective monomial curve associated to Bh were Cohen-Macaulay, then, as
the generators of Bh above are listed increasingly, by Theorem 1.2 we obtain that
xy 2h−1 ∈ in(IBh ). The ideal IBh is generated by binomials with disjoint support,
hence in the reduced Gröbner basis of IBh there exists v = xy d − z α tβ with in(v) =
xy d , 0 < d ≤ 2h − 1 and α, β nonnegative integers. We denote a1 , . . . , a4 the
generators of Bh in the given order. Since a1 < a2 < a3 < a4 we have (d + 1)a2 >
a1 + da2 = αa3 + βa4 > (α + β)a2 , hence α + β ≤ 2h − 1.
If α + β = 2h − 1, after adding to v the binomial z α tβ − y β xα+2 from the given
minimal generating set of IBh , we obtain that xy d − xα+2 y β ∈ IBh . Thus β ≤ d and
y d−β − xα+1 ∈ IBh , which is false, since d < 2h and one can see from F that 2h · a2 is
the smallest positive multiple of a2 which is in the semigroup generated by a1 , a3 , a4 .
Thus α + β < 2h − 1. If we denote I¯ = IBh mod x ⊂ K[y, z, t], then given F it
follows that I¯ = (yz) + (t, z)2h−1 + y 2(y, t)2h−1. It is easy to see that the monomial
¯ which is a contradiction.
v̄ = z α tβ is not in I,
Therefore, we proved the following proposition, which was first obtained by Cavaliere and Niesi in [5, Remark 5.4], as an application of their criterion from Corollary
2.7.
Proposition 4.1. (Cavaliere and Niesi, [5]) The projective monomial curve associated to Bh is not arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, for any h ≥ 2.
4.2. Arslan semigroups. For h ≥ 2, let
Ah = hh(h + 1), h(h + 1) + 1, (h + 1)2 , (h + 1)2 + 1i.
This family of numerical semigroups was studied by Arslan who shows in [1, Proposition 3.2] that the defining ideal of K[Ah ] is
(5) IAh = (xh−i z i+1 − y h−i+1ti : 0 ≤ i < h)+
(xi+1 y h−i − z i th−i : 0 ≤ i ≤ h) + (xt − yz).
Proposition 4.2. The projective monomial curve associated to Ah is aritmetically
Cohen-Macaulay, for any h ≥ 2.
13

Proof. Letting gi = xh−i z i+1 − y h−i+1ti for 0 ≤ i ≤ h, fi = xi+1 y h−i − z i th−i for
0 ≤ i ≤ h and f = xt − yz, we claim that G = {g0 , . . . , gh , f0 , . . . , fh , f } is the
reduced Gröbner basis of IAh with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order
with x > y > z > t. As a consequence, by inspecting the leading monomials we
may use Theorem 1.2 to conclude the following statement.
We show that all the S-pairs of binomials in G reduce to 0 with respect to G,
and consequently by Buchberger’s criterion ([9, Theorem 2.14]) it follows that G is
a Gröbner basis for IAh .
G
S(g0 , f ) = zg0 + y h f = xh z 2 − xy h t = xg1 → 0.
For 1 ≤ i ≤ h:
G
S(gi , f ) = ygi − xh−i z i f = xh−i+1 z i t − y h−i+2ti = tgi−1 → 0.
For 0 ≤ i < h:
G
S(fi , f ) = zfi − xi+1 y h−i−1f = xi+2 y h−i−1t − z i+1 th−i = tfi+1 → 0.
G
Also, S(fh , f ) → 0 since gcd(in(fh ), in(f )) = gcd(xh+1 , yz) = 1.
For 1 ≤ i ≤ h:
G
S(gi , g0 ) → 0 since gcd(in(gi ), in(g0 )) = 1.
For 0 ≤ i ≤ h:
S(fi , g0 ) = y i+1fi + xi+1 g0 = xh+i+1 z − y i+1 z i th−i = xi (xh+1 − z h )z + z i (xi z h−i+1 −
G
y i+1 th−i ) = xi zfa + z i gh−i → 0.
For 0 ≤ j < i ≤ h:
S(gj , gi ) = z i−j gj − xi−j gi = y h−j+1z i−j tj − xi−j y h−i+1ti = y h−i+1tj (y i−j z i−j −
G
xi−j ti−j ) = y h−i+1tj · f · (. . . ) → 0.
For 1 ≤ i ≤ a, 0 ≤ j ≤ a with i ≤ h − j − 1, i.e. i + j < h:
S(fj , gi ) = xh−i−j−1z i+1 fj −y h−j gi = y 2h−i−j+1ti −xh−i−j−1 z i+j+1 th−j = y h−i−j ti (y h+1−
G
xh z) + xh−i−j−1 zti (xi+j+1 y h−i−j − z j+i th−j−i ) = −ti y h−i−j g0 + xh−i−j−1zti fi+j → 0.
For 1 ≤ i ≤ a, 0 ≤ j ≤ a with i > h − j − 1, i.e. i + j ≥ h:
S(fj , gi ) = z i+1 fj − xi+j+1−h y h−j gi = xi+j+1−h y 2h−i−j+1ti − z i+j+1 th−j =
G
yti (xi+j+1−h y 2h−i−j −z i+j−h t2h−i−j )+z i+j−h th−j (yth −z h+1 ) = yti fi+j−h +z i+j−h th−j gh →
0.
For 0 ≤ j < i ≤ a:
S(fj , fi ) = xi−j fj − y i−j fi = y i−j z i th−i − xi−j z j th−j = z j th−i (y i−j z i−j − xi−j ti−j ) =
G
z j th−i (yz − xt) · (. . . ) = z j th−i · f · (. . . ) → 0.

Acknowledgement. We gratefully acknowledge the use of the Singular ([8])
software for our computations. Dumitru Stamate was supported by the University
of Bucharest, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, through the 2017
Mobility Fund.

References
[1] F. Arslan, Cohen-Macaulayness of tangent cones, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (1999), 2243–
2251.
14

[2] F. Arslan, P. Mete, M. Şahin, Gluing and Hilbert functions of monomial curves, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 137 (2009), 2225–2232.
[3] H. Bresinsky, On prime ideals with generic zero xi = tni , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 47 (1975),
329–332.
[4] H. Bresinsky, P. Schenzel, W. Vogel, On Liaison, Arithmetical Buchsbaum Curves and Monomial Curves in P3 , J. Algebra 86 (1984), 283–301.
[5] M.P. Cavaliere, G. Niesi, On monomial curves and Cohen-Macaulay type, Manuscripta math.
42 (1983), 147–159.
[6] M. Cimpoeaş, D.I. Stamate, Gröbner–nice pairs of ideals, in preparation.
[7] D. Cox, J. Little, D. O’Shea, Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms, Third Edition, Springer, 2007.
[8] W. Decker, G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister, H. Schönemann, Singular 3-1-6 — A computer algebra
system for polynomial computations. http://www.singular.uni-kl.de (2012).
[9] V. Ene, J. Herzog, Gröbner bases in commutative algebra, Graduate Studies in Mathematics
130, American Mathematical Society, 2012.
[10] S. Goto, N. Suzuki, K.-i Watanabe, On affine semigroup rings, Japan J. Math. 2 (1976), 1–12.
[11] J. Herzog, Generators and relations of Abelian semigroups and semigroup rings, Manuscripta
Math. 3 (1970), 175–193.
[12] J. Herzog, T. Hibi, Monomial Ideals, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 260, Springer–Verlag,
London, 2011.
[13] J. Herzog, D.I. Stamate, On the defining equations of the tangent cone of a numerical semigroup ring, J. Algebra 418 (2014), 8–28.
[14] Y. Kamoi, Defining ideals of Cohen-Macaulay semigroup rings, Comm. Alg. 20 (1992), 3163–
3189.
[15] Y. Kamoi, Defining ideals of Buchsbaum semigroup rings, Nagoya Math. J. 136 (1994), 115–
131.
[16] M. Morales, N. Thi Dung, Gröbner basis, a “pseudo-polynomial” algorithm for computing the
Frobenius number, Preprint 2015, arXiv:1510.01973 [math.AC].
[17] B.H. Roune, Solving thousand-digit Frobenius problems using Gröbner bases, J. Symb. Comput. 43 (2008), 1–7.
[18] T. Vu, Periodicity of Betti numbers of monomial curves, J. Algebra 418 (2014), 66–90.
Jürgen Herzog, Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Campus
Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany
E-mail address: juergen.herzog@uni-essen.de
Dumitru I. Stamate, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University
of Bucharest, Str. Academiei 14, Bucharest – 010014, Romania
E-mail address: dumitru.stamate@fmi.unibuc.ro

15

