arXiv:1607.01228v1 [math.AC] 5 Jul 2016

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR
TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS
RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI
UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN
Abstract. Let S = k[x11 , · · · , x1b1 , · · · , xn1 , · · · , xnbn ] be a polynomial ring
in m = b1 + · · · + bn variables over a field k. For all j, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, let Pj be
the prime ideal generated by variables {xj1 , · · · , xjbj } and let
X
Pj1 . . . Pjt
In,t =
1≤j1 <···<jt ≤n

be the transversal monomial ideal of degree t on P1 , · · · , Pn . We explicitly
construct a canonical polytopal Zt -graded minimal free resolution for the ideal
In,t by means of suitable gluing of polytopes.

1. Introduction
The idea to describe a resolution of a monomial ideal by means of combinatorialgeometric chain complexes was initiated by Bayer, Peeva and Sturmfels [2], and
was extended by Bayer and Sturmfels [3]. Novik, Postnikov and Sturmfels gave
a polytopal complex that supports the minimal free resolution of matroidal ideals
[17]. Further extension was made by Jöllembeck and Welker who used discrete
Morse theory to construct desired CW complexes [13]. Sinefakoupols showed that
the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution [6] of Borel-fixed monomial ideals which are Borelfixed generated in one degree are cellular supported on a union of convex polytopes
[20, Theorem 20]. Mermin and Clark, separately, constructed regular cell complexes which support the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution of a stable monomial ideal
[14], [7]. On the other hand, Valesco showed that there exist minimal free monomial resolutions which can not be supported on any CW-complex [21]. Still from a
different point of view, Fløystad investigated monomial labelings on cell complexes
which give minimal free resolution of the ideal generated by these monomials in the
case the quotient ring is Cohen-Macaulay [10]. Dochtermann and Engström gave
a cellular resolutions for the ideals of cointerval hypergraphs supported on polyhedral complexes and, they extended their construction to more general hypergraphs
[5, Theorems 4.4 and 6.1]. Further on, Engström and Norén constructed cellular
resolutions for powers of ideals of a bipartite graph [8, Proposition 4.4 and Theorem 7.2]. Okazaki and Yanagawa showed that the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution of
a Cohen-Macaulay stable monomial ideal is supported by a regular CW complex
whose underlying space is a closed ball and they improved their result to some
variants of Bore-fixed ideals [18, Theorem 3.8]. More recently, Goodarzi proved
that the Herzog-Takayama resolution [12] is cellular [9]. This is a resolution for the
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D02, 13F20.
Key words and phrases. Minimal free resolution, cellular resolution, transversal monomial
ideal.
1

2

RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI

class of monomial ideals with regular linear quotients. This class includes matroidal
ideals and stable monomial ideals.
In this paper we consider the class of transversal monomial ideals of degree t (see
Definition 2.4). A minimal free resolution for monomial ideals in this class was given
in [23] and [22]. However, in general, this resolution is not polytopal (see Remark
3.4). We construct a labeled polytopal cell complex which provides a canonical
Zt -graded minimal free resolution for transversal monomial ideals of degree t. Any
such monomial ideal is in fact a matroidal ideal (see Remark 2.5). Thus, by [9] its
Herzog-Takayama resolution is cellular. Nevertheless, the Herzog-Takayama resolution is obtained by consecutive applications of mapping cone constructions. In
contrast, the resolution provided here is based on decomposing any ideal in this class
and “gluing” together the polytopal cell complexes associated to each summand to
get a polytopal cell complex which gives the expected resolution (see Lemma 3.2
and Theorem 3.3). This resolution is explicit and is much simpler to compute compared to the Herzog-Takayama resolution (see Example 3.5). Furthermore, unlike
most results which prove cellularity of certain known resolutions, the cell-complex
constructed here provides the resolution.
The paper is organized is as follows. After the introduction in Section 1, in
Section 2 we provide preliminary material and notations. Section 3 is devoted
to the main result, the construction of a polytopal cell complex that supports a
graded minimal free resolution of a transversal monomial ideal. Then the squarefree Veronese ideals of fixed degree, the only Cohen-Macaulay case of this class
of ideals, is treated. In this case, the cell complex is a polytopal subdivision of a
simplex, in particular, its underlying space is homeomorphic to a closed ball. This
last result, using some “depolarization”, also follows by a result of Sinefakopoulos
[20].
2. Notations and preliminaries
We assume familiarity with basic notions of cell complexes, polytopes and monomial ideals referring to [24], [4], [15] and [11]. In particular, we have freely used
several statements and results from [20]. Let I ⊂ R = k[y1 , · · · , yn ] be a monomial
ideal in the polynomial ring over a field k and let G(I) be the unique minimal
monomial generating set of I. Let X be a regular cell complex with vertices labeled
by members of G(I). Let ǫX be an incidence function on X. Any face of X will
be labeled by mF , the least common multiple of the monomials in G(I) on the
vertices of F . If mF = y1a1 · · · ynan , then the degree aF is defined to be the exponent
vector e(mF ) = (a1 , · · · , an ). Let RF be the free R-module with
Lone generator in
degree aF . The cellular complex FX is the Zn -graded R-module ∅6=F ∈X RF with
differentials
X
mF ′
ǫ(F, F ′ )
F ,
∂(F ) =
m
F′
′
∅6=F ∈X

where ǫ(F, F ′ ) is nonzero only if F ′ is a face of F of codimension 1 and is +1 or −1
such that the resulting sequence is a chain complex (see [3]).
If the complex FX is is exact, then FX is called a cellular resolution of I. Alternatively, we say that I has a cellular resolution supported on the labeled cell

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS

3

complex X. If X is a simplicial complex or a polytopal cell complex, then FX is
called simplicial and polytopal resolution, respectively. A cellular resolution FX is
minimal if and only if any two comparable faces F ′ ⊂ F of the same degree coincide. For more on cellular resolutions and polytopal complexes we refer to [4], [15]
and [24].
The following two lemmas will be essential for our constructions.
Lemma 2.1. (The gluing lemma) [20, Lemma 6]. Let I and J be two monomial
ideals in R such that G(I + J) = G(I) ∪ G(J). Suppose that
(i) X and Y are labeled regular cell complexes in some RN that supports a minimal
free resolution FX and FY of I and J, respectively, and
(ii) X ∩ Y is a labeled regular cell complex that supports a minimal free resolution
FX∩Y of I ∩ J.
Then X ∪ Y is a labeled regular cell complex that supports a minimal free resolution
of I + J.
Remark 2.2. [20, Remark 7]. For any two monomial ideals I and J, we have
G(I + J) ⊆ G(I) ∪ G(J).
A case where equality holds is when all elements of G(I) ∪ G(J) are of the same
degree, or more generally, when G(I) ∪ G(J) is a minimal set of generators.
Lemma 2.3. [20, Lemma 8]. Let I ⊂ k[y1 , · · · , yk ] and J ⊂ k[yk+1 , · · · , yn ] be
two monomial ideals. Suppose that X and Y are labeled regular cell complexes in
some RN of dimensions k − 1 and n − k − 1, respectively, that support minimal
free resolutions FX and FY of I and J, respectively. Then the labeled cell complex
X × Y supports a minimal free resolution FX×Y of IJ.
Recall that a simplicial complex M on [n] = {1, · · · , n} is called a matroid if, for
any two distinct facets F and G of M and for any i ∈ F , there exists j ∈ G such
that (F \ {i}) ∪ {j} is a facet of M. A matroid M is said to have strong exchange
property if, for any two distinct facets F and G of M and for any i ∈ F , j ∈ G \ F ,
(F \ {i}) ∪ {j} is a facet of M. Let A = {v1 , · · · , vm } be a set of vectors in Rn . The
set of all linearly independent subsets of A of cardinality t ≤ n forms a matroid
which is called a linear matroid. A matroid is called linear if it has a representation
using a vector space over a field. A monomial ideal I ⊂ k[y1 , · · · , yn ] is said to be
a matroidal ideal if it is the facet ideal of a matroid M on [n] under some labeling
of vertices of M by the variables y1 , · · · , yn .
Definition 2.4. We fix positive integers 1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn and a polynomial ring
S = k[x11 , · · · , x1b1 , · · · , xn1 , · · · , xnbn ]
in m = b1 + · · · + bn variables over a field k. Let Pj = (xj1 , · · · , xjbj ), j = 1, · · · , n.
The ideal
X
X
In,t =
Pj1 . . . Pjt =
Pj1 ∩ . . . ∩ Pjt
1≤j1 <···<jt ≤n

1≤j1 <···<jt ≤n

is called the transversal monomial ideal of degree t on P1 , · · · , Pn .

4

RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI

This class of ideals naturally arises in the study of generic singularities of algebraic varieties [19].
It is helpful to notice that the ideal In,t may also
t-minors of a matrix D where

0 ···
0
0 ···
x11 · · · x1b1
 0 ···
0 ···
0
x
·
·
·
x
21
2b
2

D= .
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
 ..
.
.
0 ···
0
0 ···
0
0 ···

be realized as the ideal of
0
0
..
.

0
0
..
.

0 xn1

···
···
..
.

0
0
..
.

···

xnbn





.


Remark 2.5. Let {v1 , · · · , vn } be a vector space basis in Rn . For each i, 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
let λij , j = 1, · · · , bi , be distinct nonzero real numbers. Let A = {λij vi : 1 ≤ i ≤
n, 1 ≤ j ≤ bi }. In other words, A is a set of vectors linearly independent up to
proportionality. Let M be the linear matroid of all linearly independent subsets
of A of cardinality t ≤ n. Then In,t is the facet ideal of the linear matroid M,
when the vertex corresponding to λij vi is labeled by xij . In particular, In,t is a
matroidal ideal. Therefore, In,t has linear quotients [11, Theorem 12.6.2], and a
linear resolution [1] or [11, Lemma 8.2.1]. On the other hand, the only case In,t is
Cohen-Macaualay is the case of the square-free Veronese ideal of degree t, i.e., the
case b1 = · · · = bn = 1, n = m [11, Theorem 12.6.7]. In this case the corresponding
matroid M has the strong exchange property.
3. A cellular graded resolution for transversal monomial ideals
In this section we construct a polytopal cell complex that supports a graded
minimal free resolution of In,t .
We will need the construction for certain special cases.
Proposition 3.1. Let ∆(Pi ) be the (bi − 1)-simplex with vertices labeled by variables generating Pi . Then the following statements hold:
(a) The labeled cartesian product of simplexes Γn,n = ∆(P1 ) × · · · × ∆(Pt ) supports
a Zn -graded minimal free resolution of In,n = P1 . · · · .Pn .
Pn−1
(b) In,n−1 = i=1 P1 . · · · .Pi−1 .(Pi + Pi+1 ).Pi+2 . · · · .Pn , and the labeled cell complex
Γn,n−1 =

n−1
[

∆(P1 ) × · · · × ∆(Pi−1 ) × ∆(Pi + Pi+1 ) × ∆(Pi+2 ) × · · · × ∆(Pn )

i=1

supports a Zn−1 -graded minimal free resolution of In,n−1 and Γn,n−1 ⊂ Γn,n .
Proof. (a) The Koszul complex on the sequence {xi1 , · · · , xibi } is a minimal free
resolution of Pi , i = 1, · · · , n and ∆(Pi ) supports the minimal free resolution of
Pi . Hence by Lemma 2.3 the cartesian product ∆(P1 ) × · · · ∆(Pn ), as a labeled
polytopal cell complex, supports a Zn -graded minimal free resolution of In,n .
(b) We use induction on n for both claims. A generator of In,n−1 is either a
monomial with a variable in Pn or with a variable in Pn−1 + Pn . Thus we have
In,n−1 = In−1,n−2 .Pn + In−2,n−2 .(Pn−1 + Pn ).

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS

5

Replacing In−1,n−2 by induction hypothesis and In−2,n−2 by (a) the equality for
In,n−1 follows.
Now by induction hypothesis and Lemma 2.3, Γn−1,n−2 × ∆(Pn ) and Γn−2,n−2 ×
∆(Pn−1 + Pn ) provide labeled cell complexes which support Zn−1 -graded minimal
free resolutions of In−1,n−2 .Pn and In−2,n−2 .(Pn−1 + Pn ), respectively. The conditions of the gluing lema are satisfied for these two ideals and the cell complexes. In
fact, since the generators of Pi ’s form a partition of the set of variables, we have
[In−1,n−2 .Pn ] ∩ [In−2,n−2 .(Pn−1 + Pn )]
= [In−1,n−2 ∩ Pn ] ∩ [In−2,n−2 ∩ (Pn−1 + Pn )]
= In−2,n−2 .Pn .
On the other hand, replacing Γn−1,n−2 and Γn−2,n−2 by induction hypothesis and
(a), we get
[Γn−1,n−2 × ∆(Pn )] ∩ [Γn−2,n−2 × ∆(Pn−1 + Pn )] = Γn−2,n−2 × ∆(Pn ),
while the last equality follows by the inclusion Γn−2,n−2 ⊂ Γn−1,n−2 which is a
consequence of the expressions of them using induction hypothesis. Therefore,
[Γn−1,n−2 × ∆(Pn )] ∪ [Γn−2,n−2 × ∆(Pn−1 + Pn )] = Γn,n−1
is a Zn−1 -graded minimal free resolution of In,n−1 .
Finally, the inclusion Γn,n−1 ⊂ Γn,n follows by the expression of the cell complexes
in (b).

To prove the main result, we will further need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2. For integers 1 ≤ q ≤ p ≤ n and 1 ≤ r ≤ n, let
X
Ip,q =
Pj1 . . . . .Pjq ,
1≤j1 <···<jq ≤p

and
Qr =

n
X

Pj .

j=r

Then;
(a) For all t, 2 ≤ t ≤ n, the following holds
In,t =

n−1
X

Ii,t−1 .Qi+1 .

i=t−1

(b) For all s, t ≤ s ≤ n, let
In,t (s) =

s−1
X

Ii,t−1 .Qi+1 .

i=t−1

Then for all s, t ≤ s ≤ n − 1, we have
In,t (s) ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] = Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 .
(By (a), In,t (s) is the transversal monomial ideal of degree t on P1 , · · · , Ps−1 , and
Qs = Ps + · · · + Pn .)

6

RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI

Proof. For 1 ≤ r ≤ s ≤ n, let
Qr (s) =

s
X

Pj ,

j=r

so that in particular, Qr (n) = Qr .
To prove (a) we use induction on n. For n = t the equality is clear. Assuming the
quality for integers less than n, the inclusion ⊇ is obvious for n because each term
in the sum is contained in In,t . For the other inclusion, observe that
In,t = In−1,t + In−1,t−1 .Qn .
By induction hypothesis, we have
In−1,t =

n−2
X

Ii,t−1 .Qi+1 (n − 1).

i=t−1

Replacing this in the previous equality the inclusion ⊆ also follows by term by term
inclusion.
(b). By (a) we get
In,t (s) =

s−1
X

Ii,t−1 .Qi+1 (s) + (

s−1
X

Ii,t−1 ).Qs+1 = Is,t + Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 .

i=t−1

i=t−1

Since the modular law holds for monomial ideals, we have
In,t (s) ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] = [Is,t + Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 ] ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ]
= Is,t ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] + [Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 ] ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ].
Since Is−1,t−1 ⊆ Is,t−1 , the resulting expression is equal to
Is,t ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] + [Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 ].
But Is,t−1 .Qs+1 = Is,t−1 ∩ Qs+1 and Is,t ∩ Qs+1 = Is,t .Qs+1 because the set of
variables involved in the generators of Is,t−1 or Is,t is disjoint from the the set of
variable generators of Qs+1 . Thus by the fact that Is,t ⊆ Is,t−1 we get
Is,t ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] = Is,t ∩ Is,t−1 ∩ Qs+1 = Is,t ∩ Qs+1 = Is,t .Qs+1 .
Therefore, using the inclusion Is,t ⊆ Is−1,t−1 , we have
In,t (s) ∩ [Is,t−1 .Qs+1 ] = [Is,t .Qs+1 ] + [Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 ] = Is−1,t−1 .Qs+1 ,
as required.



We may now give the main result of the paper.
Theorem 3.3. There exists a labeled regular polytopal cell complex Γn,t ⊂ Rm−t
that supports a Zt -graded minimal free resolution of In,t . Explicitly,
Γn,t =

n−1
[

[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 )],

i=t−1

where byP
∆(Qi+1 ) we mean the simplex with vertices on the variables generating
n
Qi+1 = j=i+1 Pj . Moreover, Γs,t is connected, and as labeled polytopes, Γs,t ⊂
Γs+1,t for all s, t ≤ s ≤ n − 1.

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS

7

Proof. Observe that the cell complex Γn,t defined recursively as above, can also be
labeled recursively. Thus we first show the inclusion Γk,t ⊂ Γk+1,t as labeled cell
complexes, for all k, t ≤ k ≤ n − 1. Using the notation of the previous lemma we
have
k
k−1
[
[
[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 (k + 1))] = Γk+1,t .
[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 (k))] ⊂
Γk,t =
i=t−1

i=t−1

For all s, t ≤ s ≤ n, similar to In,t (s) defined in the previous lemma, let
Γn,t (s) =

s−1
[

[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 )],

i=t−1

so that Γn,t (n) = Γn,t . Thus we have
Γn,t (s) = Γn,t (s − 1) ∪ [Γs−1,t−1 × ∆(Qs )].
Using this identity we prove by induction on s, t ≤ s ≤ n, that Γn,t (s) supports
a Zt -graded minimal free resolution of In,t (s), implying the claim for s = n. For
s = t, Γn,t (t) = Γt−1,t−1 × ∆(Qs ) which support a graded minimal free resolution
of In,t (t) = It−1,t−1 .Qs by Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.2. Assume that Γn,t (s)
supports a graded minimal free resolution of In,t (s) for all s, n, t with t ≤ s < s0 ≤
n. We claim
Γn,t (s0 ) = Γn,t (s0 − 1) ∪ [Γs0 −1,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 )]
supports a graded minimal free resolution of
In,t (s0 ) = In,t (s0 − 1) + [Is0 −1,t−1 .Qs0 ].
We apply the gluing lemma. By induction hypothesis each summand of Γn,t (s0 )
supports a graded minimal free resolution of the corresponding summand in In,t (s0 ).
By the previous lemma,
In,t (s0 − 1) ∩ [Is0 −1,t−1 .Qs0 ] = Is0 −2,t−1 .Qs0 .
We also have
Γn,t (s0 − 1) ∩ [Γs0 −1,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 )] = [

s[
0 −2

[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 )] ∩ [Γs0 −1,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 )]

i=t−1

=

s[
0 −2

[(Γi,t−1 ∩ Γs0 −1,t−1 ) × (∆(Qi+1 ) ∩ ∆(Qi+1 )] = Γs0 −2,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 ),

i=t−1

where the last equality is valid by Proposition 3.1. But Γs0 −2,t−1 ×∆(Qs0 ) supports
a graded minimal free resolution of Is0 −2,t−1 .Qs0 , which is what we need for the
gluing lemma. Therefore, Γn,t (s0 ) supports a graded minimal free resolution of
In,t (s0 ) as required. The regularity of Γn,t is clear because every polytopal cell
complex is regular [24]. The connectedness of Γn,t follows from the equality
Γn,t (s0 − 1) ∩ [Γs0 −1,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 )] = Γs0 −2,t−1 × ∆(Qs0 ).

Remark 3.4. The minimal free resolution provided in [23, Theorem 3.1] and [22,
Theorem 2.1] for a transversal monomial ideal is not polytopal for 2 ≤ t ≤ n − 3.
As an example, consider I5,2 (m = n = 5). Following the construction there,
the corresponding cell complex is the same as the Morse complex which supports a

8

RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI

minimal free resolution of (y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 )2 ⊂ k[y1 , y2 , y3 , y4 ] illustrated in [20, Fig.
3] which is not polytopal. In fact, the two “faces” {x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x3 x5 , x2 x3 } and
{x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x3 x4 , x2 x3 } have two edges in common but their union is not a face of
either of them.
Example 3.5. Consider I4,3 with b1 = b2 = 2, b3 = b4 = 1. Then
Γ4,3 = [∆(x11 , x12 , x21 , x22 ) × ∆(x31 ) × ∆(x41 )] ∪ [∆(x11 , x12 ) × ∆(, x21 , x22 , x31 ) ×
∆(x41 )] ∪ [∆(x11 , x12 ) × ∆(, x21 , x22 ) × ∆(x31 , x41 )].
This is illustrated in Figure 1.
x11 x21 x31

x11 x21 x41
x12 x22 x31

x11 x22 x31

x22 x31 x41
x11 x31 x41
x12 x22 x41

x11 x22 x41
x12 x21 x31

x21 x31 x41

x12 x31 x41

x12 x21 x41

F igure 1
The minimal free resolution of I4,3 (ignoring the fine grading) is immediate from
Figure 1 as
0 −→ S 3 (−5) −→ S 22 (−4) −→ S 12 (−3) −→ I4,3 −→ 0.
The Herzog-Takayama resolution for I4,3 requires 11 consecutive mapping cone constructions.
This example reveals that, in general, the cell complex Γn,t is not convex, and its
underlying topological space is not homeomorphic to a closed ball.
For m = n, i.e., b1 = · · · = bn = 1, In,t is the square-free Veronese ideal of degree
t on the variables. To distinguish this case, we use the notation xi , Im,t and Γm,t
instead of xi1 , In,t and Γn,t , respectively. In this case, Γm,t enjoys the following
further features.

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS

9

Proposition 3.6. The polytopal cell complex Γm,t which supports the Zt -graded
minimal free resolution of the square-free Veronese ideal of degree t on x1 , · · · , xm ,
is a polytopal subdivision of the (m − t)-simplex
∆(x1 · · · xt , x2 · · · xt+1 , · · · , xn−t+1 · · · xm ).
In particular, Γm,t is shellable and its underlying topological space is homeomorphic
to a closed ball.
Proof. The proof is by induction on t. For t = 1, it is trivial; Γm,1 = ∆(x1 , · · · , xm ).
We also need to check the claim for t = 2. Adopting the notation of Lemma 3.2,
we have
m−1
m−1
[
[
[∆(x1 , · · · , xi ) × ∆(Qi+1 )].
[Γi,1 × ∆(Qi+1 )] =
Γm,2 =
i=1

i=1

Thus, using the notation || for the underlying topological spaces of the polytopes
in Rm−t , we have
|Γm,2 | =

m−1
[

|∆(x1 , · · · , xi )| × |∆(Qi+1 )| = |∆(x1 x2 , x2 x3 , · · · , xm−1 xm )|,

i=1

where the last equality is a natural partition of the (m − 2)-simplex on
{x1 x2 , x2 x3 , · · · , xm−1 xm }
into the union of polytopes while each polytope is the product of an (i − 1)-simplex
on {x1 , · · · , xi } with an (m − i − 1)-simplex on {xi+1 , · · · , xm }, i = 1, · · · , m − 1.
Thus, Γm,2 is a regular subdivision of the (m−2)-simplex ∆(x1 x2 , x2 x3 , · · · , xm−1 xm ).
For the induction step, by the previous theorem
Γm,t =

m−1
[

[Γi,t−1 × ∆(Qi+1 )].

i=t−1

By induction hypothesis
|Γm,t | =

m−1
[

[|∆(yt−1 , · · · , yi )| × |∆(Qi+1 )|],

i=t−1

where, yi = xi−t+2 · · · xi , i = t − 1, · · · , m − 1. Thus by the case t = 2,
|Γm,t | = |∆(yt−1 xt , yt xt+1 , · · · , ym−1 xm )| = |∆(x1 · · · xt , x2 · · · xt+1 , · · · , xm−t+1 · · · xm )|
as required.
Shellability of Γn,t follows from a general result that any regular subdivision of a
simplex is shellable [24, page 243]. The underlying topological space of Γn,t is a
closed ball since it is a regular subdivision of a simplex.

Remark 3.7. Proposition 3.6 also follows by a result of Sinefakopoulos [20, Theorem 12]. In fact, let s = n − t + 1and let J = (y1 , · · · , ys )t ⊂ k[y1 , · · · , ys ]. The
depolarization given by Nagel and Reiner (see Section 3 [16])
xi1 xi2 · · · xit 7→ yi1 yi2 −1 · · · yit −t+1 , i1 < i2 < · · · < it
is a bijection on the minimal monomial generators of In,t and J. The inverse map
is
y1j1 y2j2 · · · ysjs 7→ x1 x2 · · · xj1 xj1 +2 xj1 +3 · · · xj1 +j2 +1 · · · xj1 +···+js−1 +s · · · xj1 +···+js +s−1 ,

10

RAHIM ZAARE-NAHANDI

where j1 + · · · + js = t. The change of labeling xi1 xi2 · · · xit to yi1 yi2 −1 · · · yit −t+1
converts the polytopal cell complex Γn,t into the polytopal cell complex Pt (y1 , · · · , ys )
constructed by Sinefakopoulos which supports the resolution of J (see the proof of
[20, Theorem 12] for notations). Observe that under this change of labeling, the
subdivision structures of Γn,t on the simplex ∆(x1 · · · xt , · · · , xn−t+1 · · · xn ) converts
to that of Pt (y1 , · · · , ys ) on ∆(y1t , · · · , yst ).
Remark 3.8. For m > n the ideal In,t is not Borel-fixed (i.e., strongly stable
for characteristic zero) under certain depolarization similar to Remark 3.7. For
example, consider I2,2 with b1 = b2 = 2. Then it follows that I2,2 is not strongly
stable under the expected depolarization.
Question 3.9. Sinefakopoulos [20] has used the gluing procedure to build up
a polytopal cell complex which gives a minimal free resolution for the Borel-fixed
monomial ideals which are Borel-fixed generated in one degree. In this paper similar
procedure has been employed for the transversal monomial ideals. One expects
other monomial ideals for which the gluing construction provides a minimal free
resolution. In particular, we may ask whether one could construct a similar cell
complex to the Herzog-Takayama resolution, and if possible, when is the resulting
cell complex homeomorphic to a closed ball?
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Gunnar Fløystad for his comments on the first attempt
towards this paper, for bringing attention to [20] and [16], and for suggesting to
work on the cellularity of transversal monomial ideals. He thanks Afshin Goodarzi
for his useful comments on the final version of the paper. This work has been
partially supported by research grant no. 4/1/6103011 of University of Tehran.
References
1. A. Björner, Homology and shellability of matroids and geometric lattices, in Matroid Applications (ed. by N. White), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992).
2. D. Bayer, I. Peeva and B. Sturmfels, Monomial resolutions, Math. Res. Lett. 5 (1998) 31–46.
3. D. Bayer and B. Sturmfels, Cellular resolutions of monomial modules, J. Reine Angew. Math.
502 (1998) 123–140.
4. W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
5. A. Dochtermann and A. Engström, Cellular resolutions of cointerval ideals, Math. Z. 270
(1-2) (2012) 145–163.
6. S. Eliahou and M. Kervaire, Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals, J. Algebra 129
(1990) 1–25.
7. T. Clark, A minimal poset resolution of stable ideals In: Progress in Commutative Algebra I:
Combinatorics and Homology, pp. 143-166, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2012.
8. A. Engström and P. Norén, Cellular resolutions of powers of monomial ideals,
arXiv:1212.2146v.1 10 Dec 2012.
9. A. Goodarzi, Cellular structure for the Herzog-Takayam resolution, J. Algebr. Comb. 41
(2015) 21–28.
10. G. Flöystad, Cellular resolutions of Cohen-Macaulay monomial ideals, J. Commut. Algebra
1 (1) (2009), 57–89.
11. J. Herzog and T. Hibi, Monomial Ideals, Grad. Texts Math. 260, Springer, New York, 2011.
12. J. Herzog and Y. Takayama, Resolutions by mapping cones, The Roos Festschrift, Vol. 2,
Homology, Hmotopt Appl. 4 (2, part 2) (2002) 277–294.
13. M Jöllenbeck and V. Welker, Minimal resolutions via algebraic dicrete Morse thory, Mm.
Aer. Math. Soc. 197 (2009).

A CANONICAL POLYTOPAL RESOLUTION FOR TRANSVERSAL MONOMIAL IDEALS 11

14. J. Mermin, The Eliahou-Kervaire resolution is cellular, J. Commut. Algebra 2 (1) (2010)
55–78.
15. E. Miller and B. Sturmfels, Combinatorial Commutative Algebra, Grad. Texts Math. 227,
Springer, New York, 2005.
16. U. Nagel and V. Reiner, Betti numbers of monomial ideals and shifted skew shapes, The
Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 16 (2) (2009), #R3.
17. I. Novik, A. Postnikov, and B. Sturmfels, Syzygies of oriented matroids, Duke Math. J. 111
(2) (2002) 287–317.
18. R. Okazaki, and K. Yanagawa, On CW complexes supporting the Eliahou-Kervaire type resolutions of Borel fixed ideals, Collect. Math. 66 (1) (2015) 125–147.
19. P. Salmon and R. Zaare-Nahandi, Ideals of minors defining generic singularities and their
Gröbner bases, Commun. Algebra 33 (8) (2005) 2725–2747.
20. A. Sinefakopoulos, On Borel fixed ideals generated in one degree, J. Algebra 319 (7) (2008)
2739–2760.
21. M. Valesco, Minimal free resolutions that are not supported by a CW-complex, J. Algebra 319
(2008) 102–114.
22. R. Zaare-Nahandi, Betti numbers of transversal monomial ideals, Algebra Colloq. 18 (Spec
1) (2011) 925–936.
23. Rahim Zaare-Nahandi and Rashid Zaare-Nahandi, The minimal free resolution of a class of
square-free monomial ideals, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 189 (2004) 263-278.
24. G. Ziegler, Lectures on Polytopes, Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 152, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995.

