arXiv:1301.1468v3 [math.AC] 18 Oct 2013

Annihilators of Artinian modules compatible with a Frobenius
map
Mordechai Katzman1
Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Sheffield S3 7RH, United
Kingdom

Wenliang Zhang2
Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska, 203 Avery Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA

Abstract
In this paper we consider Artinian modules over power series rings endowed with a Frobenius
map. We describe a method for finding the set of all prime annihilators of submodules which
are preserved by the given Frobenius map and on which the Frobenius map is not nilpotent.
This extends the algorithm by Karl Schwede and the first author, which solved this problem
for submodules of the injective hull of the residue field.
The Matlis dual of this problem asks for the radical annihilators of quotients of free
modules by submodules preserved by a given Frobenius near-splitting, and the same method
solves this dual problem in the F -finite case.
Keywords: Frobenius map, Frobenius splitting

1. Introduction
This paper describes an algorithm for finding the annihilators of submodules of Artinian
modules which are preserved by a given Frobenius map.
Throughout this paper R will denote a ring of formal power series over a field K of
prime characteristic p, m will denote its maximal ideal, and E = ER (R/m) will denote the
injective hull of its residue field. The Frobenius map sending r ∈ R to its pth power will be
denoted f , and f e will be its eth iteration.
Given any R-module M and e ≥ 0, we may endow M with a new R-module structure
e
given by r · m = rp m for all r ∈ R and m ∈ M and we denote this new module F∗e M . An
Email addresses: M.Katzman@sheffield.ac.uk (Mordechai Katzman), wzhang15@unl.edu (Wenliang
Zhang)
1 The first author thankfully acknowledges support from EPSRC grant EP/I031405/1.
2 The second author is supported in part by NSF Grant DMS #1068946.

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

June 19, 2017

eth Frobenius map on M is an element of HomR (M, F∗e M ), or, equivalently, an additive map
e
φ : M → M such that φ(rm) = rp φ(m) for all r ∈ R and m ∈ M . Given such a Frobenius
map φ ∈ HomR (M, F∗e M ) we call an R-submodule N ⊆ M φ-compatible if φ(N ) ⊆ F∗e N .
When discussing the case e = 1, we shall drop the e from the notation above.
The aim of this paper is to find the set of radical annihilators of all φ-compatible submodules of a given Artinian R-module, or, equivalently (cf. Proposition 2.1 below), given
a φ ∈ HomR (E α , F∗ E α ) for some positive integer α, to find all radical annihilators of Rsubmodules N ⊆ E α which satisfy φ(N ) ⊆ F∗ N . We shall accomplish this under the
assumption that this φ restricts to a non-zero map on N : in this case the set of radical annihilators is shown to be finite and given by the intersection of all prime ideals in it (cf. [S,
Corollary 3.11] and [EH, Section 3].)
This extends the results in [KS] which describes an algorithm for producing such sets
of annihilators when α = 1. We shall first describe this algorithm from a more algebraic
point of view than in [KS] and comment on why it cannot be directly extended for α > 1.
We shall then give a description of Frobenius maps on E α in terms of certain matrices and
finally we will produce an algorithm which works recursively on α, in which the case α = 1
treated in [KS] provides the foundation.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the notion of Frobenius maps
and studies Frobenius maps of Artinian modules using the properties of a version of Matlis
duality which keeps track of the Frobenius maps: these are the functors ∆e and Ψe described
there.
In section 3 we generalize two operations which were originally introduced in the context
of Frobenius splittings and Frobenius maps in the injective hulls of residue fields, namely,
e
the Ie (−) operation (denoted [1/p ] by some authors) and the ⋆-closure. These are extended
from operations on ideals to operations on submodules of free modules, and some of their
properties are studied here, e.g., their behaviour under localization.
Section 4 reviews the algorithm in [KS] for finding prime annihilators of submodules of
the injective hull of the residue field stable under a given Frobenius map, and presents a
proof for its main ingredient in algebraic language.
The main section of this paper, section 4 generalizes the Katzman-Schwede algorithm to
deal with prime annihilators of general Artinian modules endowed with a Frobenius map.
The main result, Theorem 5.5, yields an algorithm which is described in detail in section
6. We also carry out two calculations following the algorithm to illustrate its use.
Finally, section 7 translates the previous results into the language of Frobenius nearsplittings of free modules in the case where we work over an F -finite ring: in this setup
Frobenius maps and near-splittings are dual notions.

2

2. Frobenius maps of Artinian modules and their stable submodules
In this section we describe all Frobenius maps on Artinian R-modules. We may think
of eth Frobenius maps as left-module structures over the following skew-commutative rings
i
pe
R[Θ; f e ]: as an R-module it is the free module ⊕∞
i=0 RΘ and we extend the rule Θr = r Θ
for all r ∈ R to a (non-commutative!) multiplicative structure on R[Θ; f e ]. Now given an
eth Frobenius map φ on an R-module M , we can turn it into a left R[Θ; f e ]-module by
extending the rule Θm = φ(m) for all m ∈ M . The fact that this gives M the structure of
a left R[Θ; f e ]-module is simply because for all r ∈ R and m ∈ M ,
e

e

Θ(rm) = φ(rm) = rp φ(m) = rp Θm = (Θr)m.
Conversely, if M is a left R[Θ; f e ]-module, then Θ : M → M is an eth Frobenius map.
Recall the definition of the eth Frobenius functor : the tensoring (−) → F∗e R ⊗R (−)
defines a functor from the category of R-modules to the category of F∗e R-modules. We may
now identify the rings R and F∗e R and to obtain eth Frobenius functor FRe (−) from the
category of R-modules to itself.
Following [K1] we shall refer to the category of Artinian R[Θ; f e ]-modules C and the
category D of R-linear maps M → FRe (M ) where M is a finitely generated R-module, and
a
b
where a morphism between M −
→ FRe (M ) and N −
→ FRe (N ) is a commutative diagram of
R-linear maps
µ
/N .
M
a


FRe (M )

b
e
FR
(µ)


/ FR (N )

We also refer to the mutually inverse functors ∆e : C → D and Ψe : D → C also
introduced in [K1]. These are extensions of Matlis duality functors (−)∨ = HomR (−, E)
which, additionally, keep track of Frobenius actions and are defined as follows. Given an
R[Θ; f e ]-module M , ∆e (M ) is defined (functorially) as Matlis dual of the R-linear map
F∗e R ⊗R M → M given by r ⊗ m 7→ rΘm where (F∗e R ⊗R M )∨ is identified with FRe (M ∨ )
(cf. [L, Lemma 4.1].) Given an R-linear map in De , one can reverse the steps of the
construction of ∆e and obtain functorially an Artinian module with a Frobenius map defined
on it.
As before, we will suppress e from the notation when e = 1.
Given an Artinian R-module M we can embed M in E α for some α and extend this
inclusion to an exact sequence
At

0 → M → E α −−→ E β → . . .
3

∼ HomR (Rα , Rβ ) is a β × α matrix with entries in R. Proposiwhere At ∈ HomR (E α , E β ) =
tion 2.1 below shows that the Frobenius maps on M are restrictions of Frobenius maps on E α
and those can be described in terms of the following canonical Frobenius map T : E α → E α .
−
Since R is regular local, E is isomorphic to the module of inverse polynomials K[[x−
1 , . . . , xd ]]
where x1 , . . . , xd are minimal generators of the maximal ideal of R (cf. [BS, §12.4].) Thus E
1
d
has a natural R[T ; f ]-module structure additively extending T (λx−α
. . . x−α
) = λp x1−pα1 . . . x1−pαd
1
1
for λ ∈ K and α1 , . . . , αd > 0. We can further extend this to a natural R[T ; f ]-module structure on E α given by
 


a1
T a1
 .   . 
 

T
 ..  =  ..  .
aα
T aα
Proposition 2.1. Let M = ker At be an Artinian R-module where A is a α × β matrix with
e
entries in R. Let e ≥ 1 and let B be the set of α×α matrices which satisfy Im BA ⊆ Im A[p ] .
e
[pe ]
For a given eth Frobenius map on M , ∆ (M ) ∈ HomR (Coker A, Coker A ) and is given by
multiplication by a matrix B in B and, conversely, any such B defines an R[Θ; f e ]-module
structure on M which is given by the restriction to M of the Frobenius map φ : E α → E α
defined by φ(v) = B t T e (v) where T is the natural Frobenius map on E α .
A

Proof. Matlis duality gives an exact sequence Rβ −
→ Rα → M ∨ → 0 hence
e

∆e (M ) ∈ HomR (M ∨ , FRe (M ∨ )) = HomR (Coker A, Coker A[p ] ).
e

Let ∆e (M ) be the map φ : Coker A → Coker A[p ] .
In view of Theorem 3.1 in [K1] we only need to show that any such R-linear map is given
by multiplication by a matrix B in B, and that any such B defines an element in ∆e (M ).
e
The freeness of Rα enables us to lift the map φ : Coker A → Coker A[p ] to a map
φ′ : Rα → Rα given by multiplication by some α × α matrix B in B. Conversely, any such
e
matrix B defines a map φ : Coker A → Coker A[p ] , and Ψe (φ) is a Frobenius map on M as
described in the statement of the proposition.
In the rest of the paper we shall consider Frobenius actions Θ = U T on E α and R[Θe ; f e ]
submodules M ⊆ E α . The proposition above shows that for any such M there is a V ⊆ Rα
e
such that M = annE α V t := {z ∈ E α | V t z = 0} and U V ⊆ V [p ] . This will be henceforth
used extensively and implicitly. For simplicity we adopt the following notation: given any
V ⊆ Rα we define E (V ) = annE α V t .
3. Extending the ⋆-closure
The purpose of this section is to extend the ⋆-closure operation as first defined in section
5 of [K1].
Definition 3.1. Let e ≥ 0.
4

e

(a) Given any matrix (or vector) A with entries in R, we define A[p ] to be the matrix
obtained from A by raising its entries to the pe th power.
e
(b) Given any submodule K ⊆ Rα , we define K [p ] to be the R-submodule of Rα generated
e
by {v [p ] | v ∈ K}.
The theorem below extends the Ie (−) operation defined on ideals in [K1, Section 5] and
e
in [BMS, Definition 2.2] (where it is denoted (−)[1/p ] ) to submodules of free R-modules.
Theorem 3.2. Let e ≥ 1.

(a) Given a submodule K ⊆ Rα there exists a minimal submodule L ⊆ Rα for which
e
K ⊆ L[p ] . We denote this minimal submodule Ie (K).
(b) Let U be a α × α matrix with entries in R and let V ⊆ Rα . The set of all submodules
e
W ⊆ Rα which contain V and which satisfy U W ⊆ W [p ] has a unique minimal
element.
e

Proof. Let L be the intersection of all submodules M ⊆ Rα for which K ⊆ M [p ] . Proposie
tion 5.3 in [K1] implies that K ⊆ L[p ] and clearly, L is minimal with this property.
To prove (b) we carry out a construction similar to that in [K1, section 5]. Define
inductively V0 = V and Vi+1 = I1 (U Vi ) + Vi for all i ≥ 0. The sequence {Vi }i≥0 must
stabilize to some submodule W = Vj ⊆ Rα . Since W = I1 (U W ) + W , I1 (U W ) ⊆ W and
U W ⊆ W [p] .
Let Z be any submodule of Rα containing V for which U Z ⊆ Z [p] . We show by induction
on i that Vi ⊆ Z for all i ≥ 0. Clearly, V0 = V ⊆ Z, and if for some i ≥ 0, Vi ⊆ Z then
U Vi ⊆ U Z ⊆ Z [p] hence I1 (U Vi ) ⊆ Z and Vi+1 ⊆ Z. This shows that W ⊆ Z.
Definition 3.3. With notation as in Theorem 3.2, we call the unique minimal submodule
in 3.2(b) the star closure of V with respect to U and denote it V ⋆U .
The effective calculation of the ⋆-closure boils down to the calculation of Ie , and this is a
straightforward generalization of the calculation of Ie for ideals. To do so, we first note that
if R is a free Rp -module with free basis B (e.g., when dimKp K < ∞), then every element
P
[pe ]
v ∈ Rα can be expressed uniquely in the form v = b∈B ub b where ub ∈ Rα for all b ∈ B.

Proposition 3.4. Let e ≥ 1.

(a) For any submodules V1 , . . . , Vℓ ⊆ Rn , Ie (V1 + · · · + Vℓ ) = Ie (V1 ) + · · · + Ie (Vℓ ).
(b) Assume that R is a free Rp -module with free basis B (e.g., when dimKp K < ∞). Let
v ∈ Rα and let
X [pe ]
v=
ub b
b∈B

be the unique expression for v where ub ∈ Rα for all b ∈ B. Then Ie (Rv) is the
submodule W of Rα generated by {ub | b ∈ B}.

Proof. The proof of this proposition is a straightforward modification of the proofs of propositions 5.2 and 5.6 in [K1] and Lemma 2.4 in [BMS].

5

Clearly, Ie (V1 + · · · + Vℓ ) ⊇ Ie (Vi ) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ ℓ, hence Ie (V1 + · · · + Vℓ ) ⊇ Ie (V1 ) +
· · · + Ie (Vℓ ). On the other hand
e

e

e

(Ie (V1 ) + · · · + Ie (Vℓ ))[p ] = Ie (V1 )[p ] + · · · + Ie (Vℓ )[p ] ⊇ V1 + · · · + Vℓ
and the minimality of Ie (V1 + · · · + Vℓ ) implies that Ie (V1 + · · · + Vℓ ) ⊆ Ie (V1 ) + · · · + Ie (Vℓ )
and (a) follows.
e
Clearly v ∈ W [p ] , and so Ie (Rv) ⊆ W . On the other hand, let W be a submodule of
Ps
e
[pe ]
Rα such that v ∈ W [p ] . Write v = i=1 ri wi for ri ∈ R and wi ∈ W for all 1 ≤ i ≤ s,
P
pe
and for each such i write ri = b∈B rbi
b where rbi ∈ R for all b ∈ B. Now
!
s
X [pe ]
X X
pe [pe ]
b
rbi wi
ub b = v =
b∈B

b∈B

i=1


P
[pe ]
s
pe [pe ]
r
w
and since these are direct sums, we compare coefficients and obtain ub =
i=1 bi i
Ps
for all b ∈ B and so ub = ( i=1 rbi wi ) for all b ∈ B hence ub ∈ W for all b ∈ B.

Lemma 3.5 (cf. [M]). Let S ⊂ R be a multiplicative set, and let W ⊆ Rα . For all e ≥ 1,
Ie (S−1 W ) exists and equals S−1 Ie (W ).
e

e

Proof. We first note that Ie (S−1 W ∩ Rα )[p ] ⊇ S−1 W ∩ Rα hence S−1 Ie (S−1 W ∩ Rα )[p ] ⊇
S−1 (S−1 W ∩ Rα ) = S−1 W .
[pe ]
Let W1 ⊆ Rα be another module for which S−1 W1 ⊇ S−1 W ; we have
[pe ]
[pe ]
S−1 W1 ∩ Rα
= S−1 W1 ∩ Rα ⊇ S−1 W ∩ Rα

hence Ie (S−1 W ∩Rα ) ⊆ S−1 W1 ∩Rα and S−1 Ie (S−1 W ∩Rα ) ⊆ S−1 S−1 W1 ∩ Rα = S−1 W1 .
We can now conclude that Ie (S−1 W ) exists and equals S−1 Ie (S−1 W ∩ Rα ).
We now have Ie (S−1 W ) = S−1 Ie (S−1 W ∩ Rα ) ⊇ S−1 Ie (W ), and we finish the proof
by showing that Ie (S−1 W ) ⊆ S−1 Ie (W ). This last inclusion is equivalent to S−1 W ⊆
[pe ]
e
S−1 Ie (W )
and this follows from the fact that W ⊆ Ie (W )[p ] .
The existence of the Ie (−) operation in localizations of Rα allows us to define ⋆U operations on submodules of these localizations in an identical way to its definition for submodules
of Rα . We shall use these later in Section 5.

Throughout the rest of this section we fix a Frobenius map Θ = U t T : E α → E α where
U is an α × α matrix with entries in R. Recall that, given any V ⊆ Rα we use E (V )
to denote annE α V t . We will collect some properties of E (V ) which will be used later in
Section 5.
Lemma 3.6 (cf. Theorem 4.7 in [K1]). The R[Θ; f ]-submodule Z = {a ∈ E α | Θe a = 0} is
given by


e−1
e−2
E Ie (Im U [p ] U [p ] . . . U ) .
6

Proof. Write Z = E (W ) for some R-submodule W ⊆ Rα . We may view E α and Z as
R[Θe ; f e ]-modules and an application ∆e to the inclusion Z ⊆ E α gives a commutative
diagram with exact rows
Rα
U [p

e−1 ]

U [p

e−2 ]

/ Rα /W
U [p

···U

/0
e−1 ]


/ Rα /W [pe ]


Rα

U [p

e−2 ]

···U

/0

where the right-most vertical map is zero. We deduce that W is the smallest submodule of
e−1
e−2
Rα for which the rightmost vertical map is zero, i.e., W = Ie (Im U [p ] U [p ] · · · U ).
Lemma 3.7 (cf. Theorem 4.8 in [K3]). Let K ⊆ Rα and assume that E (K) is an R[Θ; f ]module. The R[Θ; f ]-module M = {z ∈ E α | Θz ∈ E (K)} is E (I1 (U K)).
Proof. Since E (K) is an R[Θ; f ]-module, E (K) ⊆ M . Write M = E (V ) for some V ⊆ Rα
and apply ∆1 to the short exact sequence 0 → E (K) → E (V ) → E (V ) / E (K) → 0 of
R[Θ; f ]-modules to obtain the following commutative diagram with exact rows
0

/ K/V

0


/ K [p] /V [p]

/ Rα /V

U

/ Rα /K

U


/ Rα /V [p]

/0

U


/ Rα /K [p]

/0

and V is the smallest submodule of Rα on which the leftmost vertical map vanishes, i.e.,
V = I1 (U K).
Lemma 3.8. Let E (W ) be a R[Θ; f ]-submodule, where W ⊆ Rα . Write J = (0 :R E (W )) =
α
c
(0 :R Rα /W) and
 let Q be an associated prime of J. There
  exists an R-submodule W ⊆ R
c is a R[Θ; f ]-submodule and (0 :R E W
c ) = (0 :R Rα /W
c ) = Q.
such that E W

√
Proof. Let q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qs be a minimal primary decomposition of J with Q = q1 . Pick an
c = (W :Rα a) := {v ∈ Rα | av ∈ W }. It is
a ∈ R for which (J : a) = Q. and write W
α c
straightforward to verify that (0 :R R /W ) = (J : a) = Q and since U W ⊆ W [p] , we have
c ⊆ ap−1 U W ⊆ ap−1 W [p] ⊆ W [p]
ap U W

c ⊆ (W [p] :Rα ap ) = (W :Rα a)[p] .
and so U W

Next, we want to introduce the following terminology.

Definition 3.9. Let Θ = U t T : E α → E α (where U is a α × α matrix with entries in R)
be a Frobenius map. We shall call an ideal Θ-special (or just special if Θ is understood) if
it is an annihilator of an R[Θ; f ]-submodule of E α . Equivalently, an ideal is Θ-special if it
is the annihilator of Rα /W where U W ⊆ W [p] .
A Θ-special prime ideal shall be referred to as being Θ-special prime.
7

A basic fact concerning special primes is the following.
⋆U

Lemma 3.10. Let P ⊂ R be a special prime and V = (P Rα )
largest R[Θ; f ]-module whose annihilator is P .

⊆ Rα . Then E (V ) is the

Proof. The construction of the ⋆-closure guarantees that E (V ) is an R[Θ; f ]-module, and
this is clearly annihilated by P . If E (W ) is another R[Θ; f ]-module annihilated by P then
⋆U
P Rα ⊆ W and (P Rα ) ⊆ W ⋆U = W and hence E (V ) ⊇ E (W ) and the annihilator of
both is P .
4. The case α = 1
In this section we describe an algorithm for finding all submodules of E (P ) ⊂ E which
are preserved by a given Frobenius map Θ = uT (u ∈ R), under the assumptions that
P ⊂ R is prime and that the restriction of Θ : E → E to E (P ) is not the zero map. This
algorithm is essentially the one described in [KS], however, we present it here in terms of
R[Θ; f ]-submodules of E rather than in terms of Frobenius splittings and we do so in more
algebraic language.
Fix u ∈ R and Θ = uT throughout the rest of this section.
Theorem 4.1 (cf. section 4 in [KS]). Let P ⊂ Q be prime Θ-special ideals, write S = R/P .
Let J ⊆ R be an ideal whose image in S defines its singular locus.
(a) If (P [p] : P )Q ⊆ Q[p] then J ⊆ Q.
(b) If (P [p] : P )Q * Q[p] then (uR + P [p] : (P [p] : P )) ⊆ Q.
(c) Assume further that R is F -finite. If the restriction Θ to E (P ) is not the zero map,
then (uR + P [p] : (P [p] : P )) ) P .

Proof. Write ERQ = ERQ (RQ /QRQ ). Note that RQ is regular; let Te be the natural Frobenius on ERQ .
e are
e = ESQ (SQ /QSQ ) = annER P RQ and note that the Frobenius maps on E
Write E
Q
[p]
given by (P R : P RQ )Te and that the Frobenius maps on annER QRQ ⊂ annER P RQ =
Q

Q

Q

e are given by (QR[p] : QRQ )Te (cf. Proposition 4.1 in [K1]).
E
Q
[p]

[p]

If (a), then (P RQ : P RQ ) ⊆ (QRQ : QRQ ), i.e., annERQ QRQ is an S[θ]-submodule of
e
e Now if J * Q, SQ is regular and E
e is a simple S[τ ]-module
E for all Frobenius maps θ on E.
e
e
where τ : E → E is the natural Frobenius map, hence Q = P or Q = R, a contradiction.
If (b), pick any c ∈ (uR + P [p] : (P [p] : P )). We have
c(P [p] : P )Q ⊆ (uR + P [p] )Q ⊆ Q[p]

and since (P [p] : P )Q * Q[p] we conclude c is a zero-divisor on R/Q[p] and c ∈ Q.
To prove (c) we follow [F] and identify the S-module (P [p] : P )/P [p] with HomS (F∗ S, S)
and u with a non-zero ψ ∈ HomS (F∗ S, S). We define C to be the S-submodule of HomS (F∗ S, S)
generated by ψ. Now HomS (F∗ S, S) is a rank-one F∗ S-module (cf. [F, Lemma 1.6]) and
hence there exists a non-zero c ∈ S which multiplies HomS (F∗ S, S) into C, and hence c
multiplies (P [p] : P ) into uR + P [p] .
8

To turn this theorem into an algorithm, one would start with a given special prime P
and find all special primes Q ) P for which there is no special prime strictly between P
and Q. We shall henceforth refer to such special prime Q as minimally containing P .
Corollary 4.2. (a) Any prime containing I1 (uR) is a special prime.
(b) Let P be a special prime which does not contain I1 (uR). The set of special primes
minimally containing P is finite.
(c) Let P be a special prime such that uT is not nilpotent on E (P ). The set of special
primes minimally containing P is finite.
Proof. The first statement follows from Lemma 3.6 with e = 1, Θ = uT : if P ⊇ I1 (uR), the
restriction of uT to E (P ) is zero.
For P as in (b), any special prime ideal Q minimally containing P is either among
the finitely many special primes not containing I1 (uR) or a special prime which contains
I1 (uR) + P ) P , and in the latter case it is among the minimal primes of I1 (uR) + P .
For (c) note that if uT is not nilpotent on E (P ), the restriction of uT to E (P ) is not
zero, and Lemma 3.6 shows that P does not contain I1 (uR)
A by-product of Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2 is the algorithm described in [KS, section
3] which produces in the F -finite case all Θ-special primes P for which the restriction of
Θ to E (P ) is not the zero map. As stated in the introduction, the aim of this paper is to
extend this algorithm and produce the prime annihilators of submodules of E α preserved
by a given Frobenius map which restricts to a non-zero map, and we shall do so in the
subsequent sections. It might be instructive at this point to see why Theorem 4.1 is not
useful when α > 1: while parts (a) and (b) of the Theorem hold in this extended generality,
part (c) of the Theorem fails. The problem with (c) is that the module HomS (F∗ S α , S α ) is
usually not cyclic when α > 1.
5. The case α > 1
The main aim of this section is to extend Corollary 4.2 to the case α > 1 and to obtain
as a byproduct an algorithm for finding all special primes P with the property that for some
R[Θ; f ]-submodule M ⊆ E α with (0 :R M ) = P , the restriction of Θ to M is not nilpotent.
Theorem 5.1. The set of all special primes P with the property that for some R[Θ; f ]submodule M ⊆ E α with (0 :R M ) = P , the restriction of Θ to M is not zero, is finite.
We will prove this theorem by induction on α; the case α = 1 being the content of
Corollary 4.2. We shall assume henceforth in this section that α > 1 and that the theorem
holds for α − 1 and that, additionally, as in the case α = 1, there is an effective way of
finding the finitely many special primes in question.
t
We should note that, given a non-zero Frobenius action U ′ T : E (W ′ ) → E (W ′ ) with
special prime Q = (0 : Rα−1 /W ′ ), the induction hypothesis gives us an effective method for
9

t

finding this Q: for any other U ′ T -special prime P ⊂ Q, P Rα−1
t
W ′ and hence the restriction of U ′ T to


⋆U ′ 
⋆U ′ 
⊃ E QRα−1
E P Rα−1

⋆U ′ t T

⊂ QRα−1

⋆U ′ t T

⊆

is not nilpotent. Now we can enumerate all these special primes P starting with P = 0 and
ascending recursively to bigger special primes until all such special primes are listed.
For the rest of this section, we will fix a Frobenius map Θ = U t T : E α → E α (where U
is a α × α matrix with entries in R) and we wish to find all the special primes with respect
to Θ.
The following lemma is our starting point of finding special primes Q ⊇ P when a special
prime P is given.
Lemma 5.2. Let Q be a special prime minimally containing the special prime P . Let
⋆U
a ∈ Q \ P and write V = ((P + aR)Rα ) then Q is among the minimal primes of Rα /V .
Proof. We have

⋆U

(P Rα )
and so

⋆U

⊆ V ⊆ (QRα )





⋆U
⋆U
E (QRα )
⊆ E (V ) ⊆ E (P Rα )

and looking at the annihilators of these we get P ⊆ (0 :R Rα /V ) ⊆ Q and we deduce that
Q contains a minimal prime of Rα /V . This minimal prime is also special by Lemma 3.8
and since Q minimally contains P , this minimal prime must equal Q.
Next, we want to treat a (crucial) special case: the α-th column of U is entirely zero.
To this end, we need the following lemma, which will enable us to reduce the rank of U by
one when we handle the aforementioned special case.
Lemma 5.3. Assume α > 1. Let Q be a special prime, and let W ⊆ Rα be such that
U W ⊆ W [p] and (0 :R Rα /W ) = Q. Let a ∈
/ Q and let X be an invertible α × α matrix with
entries in the localization Ra . Let ν ≫ 0 be such that U ′ = aν X [p] U X −1 has entries in R
t
and let W ′ = XWa ∩ Rα . Write Θ′ = U ′ T . Then
(a) Q is a minimal prime of (0 :R Rα /W ′ ),
[p]
t
(b) U ′ W ′ ⊆ W ′ and hence Q is U ′ T -special, and
e
(c) if the restriction of Θe to E (W ) is not zero, nor is the restriction Θ′ to E (W ′ ),

Proof. We have
(0 :R Rα /W ′ )a = (0 :Ra Raα /XWa ) = (0 :Ra Raα /Wa ) = (0 :R Rα /W )a = QRa
and (a) follows.

10

For (b) consider the commutative diagram
U

Raα /Wa

/ Raα /Wa[p]
X [p]

X




X [p] UX/ −1 α
[p]
Raα /XWa
Ra /X [p] Wa
and compute
U ′ W ′ = aν X [p] U X −1 (XWa ∩ Rα ) ⊆ (aν X [p] U X −1 XWa ) ∩ Rα ⊆
[p]

(X [p] Wa[p] ) ∩ Rα = (XWa )[p] ∩ Rα = (XWa ∩ Rα )[p] = W ′ .
The second statement in (b) now follows from (a) and Lemma 3.8.
Lemma 3.6 shows that the restriction of Θe to E (W ) is not zero if and only if
e−1

Ie (U [p

]

e−2

U [p

]

· · · U Rα ) 6⊆ W,

i.e., if and only if
e−1

U [p

]

e−2

U [p

]

e

· · · U Rα 6⊆ W [p ] .

The same Lemma shows that to prove (c) we need to verify that this implies that
Ie (U ′

[pe−1 ]

U′

[pe−2 ]

· · · U ′ Rα ) 6⊆ W ′ ,

i.e., that
U′
ν pν

···a

Write b = a a

U′
e

e−1

and if bX [p ] U [p

]

pe−1 ν

e

U′

[pe−2 ]

· · · U ′ Rα 6⊆ W ′

]

U′

e−2

]

· · · U X −1 Rα ⊆ W ′

[p

e−1

]

[pe−2 ]

e−2

U [p

[pe ]

.

. We calculate

e−1

U [p

X [p ] U [p

[pe−1 ]

]

e

e−1

· · · U ′ = bX [p ] U [p

· · · U Raα

[pe ]

]

e−2

U [p

]

· · · U X −1

we may localize at a to obtain
e

e−1

= bX [p ] U [p
⊆ Wa′

e

[p ]

]

e−2

U [p

]

· · · U X −1 Raα

[pe ]

= (XWa )
e
e
= X [p ] Wa[p ]
e−1

e−2

e

e

hence U [p ] U [p ] · · · U Raα ⊆ Wa [p ] , and since a is not a zero-divisor on Rα /W [p
e−1
e−2
e
deduce U [p ] U [p ] · · · U Rα ⊆ W [p ] , contradicting our assumption.

]

we

We are now in position to deal with the following crucial special case.
Proposition 5.4. Assume that the αth column of U is zero. Then Theorem 5.1 holds and
there exists an effective method for finding the special primes P with the property that for
some R[Θ; f ]-submodule M ⊆ E α with (0 :R M ) = P , the restriction of Θ to M is not zero.
11

Proof. It suffices to show that, when given a special prime P , we can always find all special
primes Q that minimally contains P (since we can always start with the special prime (0)).
To this end, assume that P is a special prime.
Let π : Rα → Rα−1 be the projection onto the first α − 1 coordinates, let U0 be the
submatrix of U consisting of its first α − 1 rows and columns. Define the Frobenius map
Θ0 : E α−1 → E α−1 given by Θ0 = U0t T . Let Q be a special prime minimally containing P ,
and let W = QRα ⋆U so that U W ⊆ W [p] and (0 :R Rα /W ) = Q.
Our proof consists of a number of steps.
(a) E (P Rα ) being an R[Θ; f ]-module is equivalent to P Im U ⊆ P[p] Rα , and this implies
that all entries in U are in (P [p] : P ). This shows that E P Rα−1 is an R[Θ0 ; f ]-module
and that P is Θ0 -special.

(b) Consider the case when the action of Θ0 on E P Rα−1 is nilpotent. Pick e ≥ 1 so

e−1
e−2
that the restriction of Θe0 to E P Rα−1 is zero. Consider the matrix U [p ] U [p ] · · · U :
denote its last row (g1 , . . . , gα−1 , 0) and note that its top left (α − 1) × (α − 1) submatrix
[pe−1 ]

is U0
[pe ]

[pe−2 ]

U0

[pe ]

· · · U0 and our assumption implies that the entries of this matrix are in
e−1

t

e−2

t

P
⊂Q
so the action of Θe = U [p ] U [p ] · · · U t on E (W ) is the same as the action
of a matrix Ue whose first α − 1 rows are zero and its last row is (g1 , . . . , gα−1 , 0).
Define L as the union of
L0

=

QRα

L1
L2

=
=

Ie (Ue QRα ) + QRα
Ie (Ue Ie (Ue QRα ) + Ue QRα ) + Ie (Ue QRα ) + QRα = Ie (Ue QRα ) + QRα

and the stable value at L1 defines an R[Ue T e ; f e ]-module E (L1 ) whose annihilator is Q.
e
Now Ue Q ⊆ Q[p] so gi Q ⊆ Q[p ] for all 1 ≤ i ≤ α − 1, hence Q is gi T e -special for all
1 ≤ i ≤ α − 1. One of these gi T e must restrict to a non-zero map on E (P ) otherwise
e
gi ∈ P [p ] for all 1 ≤ i ≤ α and then the restriction of Θe to E (P Rα ) would be zero. We
can now find all such Q using the algorithm in section 5 of [KS]. This finishes our step (b).
Let τ ⊂ R be the intersection of the finite set of Θ0 -special prime ideals minimally
containing P and write the submodule Nil(E α−1 ) := {z ∈ E α−1 | Θe0 z = 0 for some e ≥ 0}
as E (K) where K ⊆ Rα−1 . Write J = (0 :R Rα−1 /π(W )). Note that J ⊇ Q and hence
J ) P.
(c) Let K0 = Rα−1 and define recursively Kj+1 = I1 (U0 Kj ) for all j ≥ 0. Then clearly
K ⊆ K0 . Lemma 3.7 implies that I1 (U K) = K, so if we assume inductively that K ⊆ Kj ,
then K = I1 (U K) ⊆ I1 (U Kj ) = Kj+1 .
α−1 ⋆U0
and hence that τ K ⊆ π(W ); and we reason as follows.
(d) We claim that τ K ⊆ (JR
√ )
e
Lemma 3.8 shows that τ ⊆ J, and so for all large e ≥ 0 we have τ [p ] ⊆ J and hence also


e

τ [p ] K

⋆U0

⊆ JRα−1

⋆U0

12

⊆ π(W )⋆U0 = π(W ).

e

We compute τ [p ] K
L0

=

L1

=

L2

=
..
.

Le

=
..
.

e

⋆U0

as the union of

τ [p ] K


e
e−1
e−1
I1 U0 τ [p ] K + L0 = τ [p ] I1 (U0 K) + L0 = τ [p ] K1 + L0


e−2
e−2
e−1
I1 U0 τ [p ] K1 + L1 = τ [p ] I1 (U0 K1 ) + L1 = τ [p ] K2 + L1
τ Ke + Le−1

⋆U0
[pe ]
and from (c) we deduce that τ K ⊆ τ K
K
.
e ⊆ Le ⊆ τ

(e) If the action of Θ0 on E P Rα−1 is not nilpotent, then we claim that τ K 6⊆ P Rα−1

and U0 τ K 6⊆ P [p] Rα−1 . The action of Θ0 on E P Rα−1 being not nilpotent is equivalent
α−1
to K 6⊆ P Rα−1 . Since τ 6⊆ P we obtain τ K 6⊆ P Rα−1 . If U0 τ K ⊆ P [p]
, then
R
[p] α−1
α−1
α−1
U0 K ⊆ P R
, K = I1 (U0 K) ⊆ P R
, and the action of Θ0 on E P R
is nilpotent.
This completes our step (e).
For any v = (w1 , . . . , wα−1 , wα )t ∈ Rα , we define w = (w1 , . . . , wα−1 , 0)t and for any
V ⊆ Rα let V denote {v | v ∈ V }. Let ι : Rα−1 → Rα−1 ⊕ R be the natural inclusion
ι(v) = v ⊕ 0. Note that V = ι(π(V )).
⋆U
⋆U
(f ) We claim I1 (U ι(τ K))
⊆ W and I1 (U ι(τ K))
6⊆ P Rα . Define W1 = {w ∈
W | π(w) ∈ τ K} and note that (d) implies that π(W1 ) = τ K. We have W1 ⊆ W hence
W1⋆U ⊆ W ⋆U = W ; also W1⋆U = I1 (U W1 )⋆U + W1 and U W1 = U W1 = U ι(τ K) hence
⋆U
I1 ((U ι(τ K)) ⊆ W1⋆U ⊆ W .
If I1 (U ι(τ K))⋆U ⊆ P Rα then U0 τ K = π (U ι(τ K)) ⊆ P [p] Rα−1 , in contradiction to (e).
⋆U
(g) Let M ′ be a matrix whose columns generate I1 ((U ι(τ K)) ⊆ W and choose an entry
a in it which is not in P .
⋆U
If a ∈ Q, Lemma 5.2 shows that Q is among the minimal primes of ((P + Ra)Rα ) ,
and we are done (with finding such Q).
If a ∈
/ Q, we can apply Lemma 5.3 with the matrix X with entries in Ra such that eα ∈
W ′ = XWa ∩ R where eα is the vector (0, 0, . .. , 0, 1)t ∈ Rα . Now Rα /W ′ ∼
= Rα−1 /π(W ′ ),
α−1
′
′t
Q is an associated prime of 0 :R R
/π(W ) , and Q is U T -special, with U ′ as defined
in Lemma 5.3.
t
Now Q is special for the Frobenius map obtained by the restriction of U ′ T to E (W ′ );
part (b) and Lemma 5.3(c) shows that this map is not nilpotent and we can apply the
induction hypothesis to find Q. This finishes our last step (g) and hence the proof of our
proposition.
Our next theorem provides an effective algorithm to find all special primes with the
property that for some R[Θ; f ]-submodule M ⊆ E α with (0 :R M ) = P , the restriction of
Θ to M is not zero.

13

Theorem 5.5. Let P be a special prime, let Q be a special prime minimally containing P .
⋆
Let M be a matrix whose columns generate (P Rα ) .
(I) Assume that Im M ) P Rα . Then either
(a) All entries of M are in Q, hence there is such an entry q ∈ Q \ P , and Q is
among the minimal primes of (0 :R Rα /((P + qR)Rα )⋆ ), or
(b) There exists an entry of M which is not in Q, and Q is a special prime of a
Frobenius action on E α−1 .
(II) Assume that Im M = P Rα . There exist an a1 ∈ R \ P , a g ∈ (P [p] : P ) and an α × α
matrix V such that for some µ > 0, aµ1 U ≡ gV modulo P [p] . Write d = det V . Either
(a) d ∈ P , and Q can be obtained as a special prime of a Frobenius action on E α−1 ,
(b) d ∈ Q \ P , and Q is among the minimal primes of (0 :R Rα /((P + dR)Rα )⋆ ), or
(c) d ∈
/ Q and Q can be obtained as a special prime of the Frobenius action on gT
on E.
[p]

Proof. Choose WQ ⊆ Rα such that U WQ ⊆ WQ and such that (0 :R Rα /WQ ) = Q.
Assume first that we are in case (I). If (a) we can choose an entry q of M such that q ∈ Q\
⋆
P . Now Lemma 5.2 shows that Q is among the minimal primes of 0 :R Rα / ((P + qR)Rα ) .
Assume now that we are in case (I)(b), i.e., assume the existence of an entry of M not in
⋆
⋆
Q. Note that with WQ as above we must have WQ ⊇ (QRα ) ⊇ (P Rα ) = Im M and if we
choose a matrix MQ whose columns generate WQ , we see that MQ contains an entry not in
Q. We now apply Lemma 5.3 with W replaced by WQ : there exists an invertible α×α matrix
X with entries in Ra such that XWQ contains the elementary vector eα := (0, . . . , 0, 1)t ,
and with U ′ and W ′ as in the lemma, we obtain Q as a special prime of the Frobenius
t
action (U ′ ) on E (W ′ ). We note that Rα /W ′ ∼
= Rα−1 /W ′′ where W ′′ is the projection
′
of W onto its first α − 1 coordinates, hence Q is a special prime of the Frobenius action
(U ′ )t on E (W ′′ ). We may now apply the induction hypothesis and deduce that we have an
effective method of finding Q.
Assume henceforth case (II) and note that U P Rα ⊆ P [p] Rα implies that the entries of
U are in (P [p] : P ). Write S = R/P ; recall that (P [p] : P )/P [p] ∼
= HomS (F∗ S, S) is an
S-module of rank one, so we can find an element a1 ∈ R \ P such that the localization of
[p]
(P [p] : P )/P [p] at a1 is generated by one element g/1 + Pa1 as an Sa1 -module (and hence
/ Q.
also as an Ra1 -module). If a1 ∈ Q, we may construct Q as in case (I)(a), so assume a1 ∈
We can now write aµ1 U = gV + V ′ for some µ ≥ 0 and α × α matrices V and V ′
t
with entries in R and P [p] , respectively. Now the restriction of the Frobenius map V ′ T to
E (P Rα ) is zero, and hence so is its restriction to E (WQ ), and we may, and do, replace V ′
with the zero matrix without affecting any issues.
Write d = det V and distinguish between three cases:
(1) Assume d ∈ P . Working in the fraction field F of S we can find an invertible matrix
X with entries in F such that the last column of V X −1 is zero. We can now find an
element a2 ∈ R \ P such that the entries of X and X −1 are in the localization Ra2 ;
write a = a1 a2 .
We now apply Lemma 5.3 to deduce, using the Lemma’s notation, that Q is a special
t
prime of the Frobenius map U ′ T where U ′ = aν X [p] U X −1 , Q = (0 :R Rα /W ′ ), and
(U ′ )t T : E (W ′ ) → E (W ′ ) is not nilpotent. We note that the last column of U ′ is zero
and hence we can produce Q using Proposition 6.2.
14

(2) If d ∈ Q \ P , we may construct Q as in case (I)(a).
(3) Finally we may assume that d ∈
/ Q. We now apply Lemma 5.3 with a = a1 d, W =
α ⋆U
(QR )
and X = Iα , the the α × α identity matrix. With the notation of that
⋆U
⋆U
Lemma, we have W ′ = (QRα )a ∩ Rα . We now explicitly compute (QRα )a as the
union of the sequence
L0

=

QRaα

L1
L2

=
=
..
.

I1 (U QRaα ) + QRaα = I1 (gV QRaα ) + QRaα = I1 (gQRα )a + QRaα
I1 (gL1 ) + L1

⋆gIα

and we compare this to (QRα )a

explicitly computed as the union of the sequence

L′0
L′1

=
=

QRaα
I1 (gQRaα ) + QRaα = I1 (gQRα )a + QRaα

L′2

=
..
.

I1 (gL′1 ) + L′1

where we used Lemma 3.5 in the third equalities for L1 and L′1 . The fact that L1 = L′1
⋆U
⋆gI
implies that Li = L′i for all i ≥ 1 and hence (QRα )a = (QRα )a α . Now W ′ =
⋆U
⋆gI
(QRα )a ∩ Rα = (QRα )a α ∩ Rα , Lemma 5.3 implies that Q is a minimal prime of
α
′
R /W and hence Q is (gIα )T -special.
We can now deduce that Q is gT -special, and we find Q using the case α = 1, provided
that P is also gT -special and gT : E (P ) → E (P ) is non zero. The former follows from
the fact that g ∈ (P [p] : P ) and the latter from the fact that the image of g + P [p] after
localization at the fraction field of S generates a non-zero module, hence g ∈
/ P [p] .
Theorem 5.5 also finishes the induction step of the proof of Theorem 5.1. For the sake
of completeness, we end with a proof of Theorem 5.1.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. We will use induction on α. When α = 1, our theorem has been
proved in Section 4. Assume that α > 1 and our theorem has been established for α − 1.
Let P be a special prime (we can always start with P = (0)) and let M be a matrix
⋆
whose columns generate (P Rα ) , then there will be two cases: (I). Im M ) P Rα ; (II).
Im M = P Rα . As proved in Theorem 5.5, in either cases there are only finitely many
special primes Q minimally containing P (by our induction hypothesis). Since only finitely
many special primes are produced at each step and the number of steps is bounded by the
dimension of R, there are only finitely special primes with the desired property.
6. The algorithm in action and two calculations
We first piece together all the results of the previous sections into an explicit algorithm.
15

Input
• A ring R = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] where K is a field of prime characteristic p, and

• A α × α matrix U with entries in R such that U t T is not a nilpotent Frobenius
map on E α .
Output
The list A of all U t T -special primes Q with the property that the Frobenius map
on E (QRα ) is not nilpotent.
Initialize
A = {0} , B = ∅.
Execute the following
If α = 1 use the algorithm described in [KS] to find the desired special primes, put
these in A, output it, and stop.
While A 6= B, pick any P ∈ A \ B, write (P Rα )⋆U as the image of a matrix M and
do the following:
(1) If there is an entry a of M which is not in P then
(1a) add to A the minimal primes of the annihilator of Rα /((P + aR)Rα )⋆U , and
(1b) find an α × α invertible matrix X with entries in Ra such that Im M Ra
contains the αth elementary vector, choose ν ≫ 0 such that U ′ = X [p] U X −1
has entries in R, let U0 be the submatrix of U consisting of its first α − 1
rows and columns, find recursively the special primes of U0T T , add to A those
which are also U T T -special.
(2) If (P Rα )⋆U = (P Rα ) find a1 ∈ R \ P , g ∈ (P [p] : P ), α × α matrix V and µ > 0
such that aµ1 ≡ gV modulo P [p] . Compute d = det V .

(2a) If d ∈ P , find an element a2 ∈ R \ P and an invertible matrix with entries
in Ra2 such that the last column of U X −1 is zero. Find ν ≫ 0 such that
the entries of U1 (a1 a2 )ν X [p] U X −1 are in R. Let U0 be the submatrix of U1
consisting of its first α − 1 rows and columns.

(2a)(i) If the restriction of (U0t T )e to E P Rα−1 is zero for some e ≥ 0, write the
[pe ]

[pe−1 ]

last row of U1 U1
. . . U1 as (g1 , g2 , . . . , gα−1 , 0), find all gi T -special
primes as in [KS] and add to A those which are also U t T -special.

(2a)(ii) If the restriction of U0t T to E P Rα−1 is not nilpotent, compute recursively all U0t T -special primes minimally containing P and their intersection τ , find K ⊆ Rα−1 such that E (K) is the module of U0t T -nilpotent
⋆U
elements, compute I1 (U1 ι(τ K)) 1 and write this as the image of a matrix M ′ . Find a entry a in M ′ not in P . Now
16

• Add to A all the minimal primes of Rα /(P + aR)⋆U1 which are also
U t T -special.
• Find an invertible matrix X with entries in Ra such that Im M ′ Ra
contains the αth elementary vector. Find ν ≫ 0 such that U2 =
aν X [p] U1 X −1 has entries in R. Let U3 be the submatrix of U2 consisting of its first α − 1 rows and columns. Compute recursively all
U3t T -special primes and add those which are also U t T -special to A.
(2b) If d ∈
/ P , add to A the minimal primes of the annihilator of Rα ((P +
dR)Rα )⋆U .
(2c) If d ∈
/ P , use the algorithm described in [KS] to find the gT -special primes
and add to A those which are also U t T -special.
(3) Add P to B.
Output A and stop.
We now apply the algorithm to the calculation of special primes in two examples. The
first, illustrates the trick of reducing α = 2 to a calculation with α = 1, and the second
illustrates a case where Theorem 5.5(II)(a), and hence, Proposition 6.2, needs to be applied.
6.1. First example
Let R = Z/2Z[x, y, z] and let
U=

x3 + y 3 + z 3
x(y 2 + z 2 )

xy 2 z 5
x3

!

We start with the special prime P0 = 0: to find the special primes minimally containing
P0 , we apply Theorem 5.5 and find ourselves in case (II) with g = 1, U = V , and d =
det U = x2 (x(y 3 + z 2 ) + x4 + y 2 z 5 (y 2 + z 2 )). We look for special primes containing d as in
Theorem 5.5(II)(b):
!

y z 0
x
2 ⋆U
= Im
.
dR
0 0 x y+z
⋆U
The annihilator of R2 / dR2
has a unique minimal prime P1 = (x, y + z)R, hence P1 is a
special prime. We look for special primes not containing d as in Theorem 5.5(II)(c): these
would contain g = 1, hence there aren’t any.
Next we find special primes Q containing P1 .
We compute
!

x y z 0
0
2 ⋆U
= Im
) P1 R2
P1 R
0 0 0 x y+z

17

and we are in case (I) of Theorem 5.5. We first consider the cases y ∈ Q and z ∈ Q which
give:
⋆U
= (x, y, z)R2
(x, y, z)R2
and we obtain the special prime P2 = (x, y, z)R. Assume now that y ∈
/ Q, let
!
1/y 0
X=
0
1

and compute
[2]

′

U = yX U X

−1

!

x3 + y 3 + z 3 xyz 5
xy 2 (y 2 + z 2 ) x3 y

=

.

We now deduce that Q must be a x3 y-special prime; these are computed with the algorithm
in [KS] to be xR, yR and (x, y)R. We compute annR R/(xR2 )⋆U = P1 , annR R/(yR2 )⋆U =
P2 , and annR R/((x, y)R2 )⋆U = P2 so xR, yR and (x, y)R are not U -special.
We conclude that the set of special primes is {P0 , P1 , P2 }.
6.2. Second example
Let R = Z/2Z[x, y, z], f = x3 + y 3 + z 3 , g = x2 + z 4 and define
!
xf yf
U=
.
xg yg
We start with the special prime P0 = 0, and find the special primes Q minimally containing P0 by following Theorem 5.5(II)(a) as follows: with
!
1 −y/x
−1
X =
0
1
we compute
′

[2]

U = xX U X

−1

=

x2 f + y 2 g
x2 g
t

0
0

!

.

The U t -special primes either contain x or are U ′ -special primes. To find the former we find
⋆U
that P1 = (x, z)R is the only minimal prime of the annihilator of R2 /(xR2 ) and we add
it to the list of U t -special primes.
t
We now find the U ′ -special primes using Proposition as follows. Write U0 = (x2 f + y 2 g)
and compute K = R⋆U0 = (x, y)R ∩ (x, z 2 )R ∩ (x3 , y, z)R and since this is not zero, U0 T is
t
not nilpotent on E (P0 ) and we can proceed to find the U ′ -special primes using Proposition
6.2(g). We compute the set of U0 T -special primes to be {τ R, (x, y)R, (x, z)R} where τ =
(y 2 z 4 + x2 (x3 y 3 + z 3 + y 2 ))R; the intersection of these is τ R. We now compute
!
y z
x
0
⋆U0
I1 (U ι(τ K))
= Im
;
0 0 y+z x
18

We now look for special primes which contain x, and were considered above, and those Q
which do not contain x. For the latter we apply Lemma 5.3 with X being the identity, and
deduce that Q is U0 T -special which we found above. To test whether any of τ R, (x, y)R,
and (x, z)R is U0t T -special we compute (τ R2 )⋆U0 = (x, y, z)R2 , ((x, y)R2 )⋆U0 = (x, y, z)R2 ,
and ((x, z)R2 )⋆U0 = (x, y, z)R2 so none of this is U0t T -special. We conclude that the only
U0t T -special is 0.
We iterate the algorithm again, this time with the special U t T -prime P = P1 = (x, z)R.
We compute
!
x y z 0 0
2 ⋆U
(P1 R ) = Im
) P1 R2
0 0 0 x z
and with Theorem 5.5(I) we look for special U t T -primes minimally containing P1 among
those containing y and those not containing y. The former must contain the minimal primes
of the annihilator or
⋆U
R2 /(yR + P1 ) = R2 /(x, y, z)R2
hence the only such special prime is P2 = (x, y, z)R. For those special primes which do
not contain y, and application of Lemma 5.3 (with X as the identity matrix) shows that
that those special primes are yg special. These special primes can be computed to be yR,
(y, x + z 2 )R and (x + z 2 ). Only the last excludes y and none contain P1 so none yield new
U t T -special primes.
We conclude that the only U t T -special primes are P0 = 0, P1 = (x, z) and P2 = (x, y, z).
7. Connections with Frobenius near splittings
Recall that a Frobenius near-splitting of R is an element φ of HomR (F∗ R, R), and, if,
additionally, φ(1) = 1, we call φ a Frobenius splitting. The results in [KS] used in this
paper were mainly in terms of ideals I ⊆ R stable under a given Frobenius near-splitting,
that is, ideals I ⊆ R for which φ(F∗ I) ⊆ I, and later in section 6.2 there a connection was
established with submodules stable under a given Frobenius map on E.
Here we go the other way around and, having established a method for finding the radical
annihilators of submodules of E α , we show how this method finds the annihilators of certain
modules stable under the following generalization of Frobenius near-splittings.
Definition 7.1. A Frobenius near-splitting of Rα is an element φ of HomR (F∗ Rα , Rα ).
Given such a Frobenius near-splitting φ, we call a submodule V ⊆ Rα φ-compatible if
φ(F∗ V ) ⊆ V .

19

Thus if V ⊆ Rα is φ-compatible we have a commutative diagram
φ

F∗ Rα

α



/ Rα

/ Rα /V

φ

F∗ R /F∗ V
and if we take Matlis duals we obtain

Hom(F∗ Rα , E) o ∨
O
φ
?
Hom(F∗ Rα /F∗ V, E)∨o
φ

EO α

(1)

?
E (V )

The following establishes in the F -finite case the connection between the annihilators of
submodules of E α fixed under a Frobenius map and the annihilators of quotients of Rα by
submodules compatible under a Frobenius near-splitting.
Proposition 7.2. Assume that R is F -finite. Let φ ∈ HomR (F∗ Rα , Rα ) and let V ⊆ Rα
be a φ-compatible submodule. Then φ∨ , the Matlis dual of φ, is a Frobenius map on E α
with the property that φ∨ (E (V )) ⊆ E (V ) and the annihilator of Rα /V coincides with that
of E (V ).
Hence the method of Theorem 5.1 finds all radical annihilators of quotients Rα /V for
φ-compatible submodules V for which φ(F∗ Rα ) 6⊆ V .
Proof. Since R is F -finite, F∗ R is a free R-module. In this case one has a natural isomorphism HomR (F∗ R, E) ∼
= F∗ E and diagram (1) is identified with
α o
F∗ E
O

φ∨

?
annF∗ E α F∗ V t o

φ∨

EO α

(2)

?
annE α V t

We now recall that Rα /V and its Matlis dual have the same annihilator and to establish
the last claim we note that the restriction of φ∨ to annE α V t is zero precisely when the map
F∗ Rα /F∗ V → Rα /V vanishes, i.e., when φ(F∗ Rα ) ⊆ V .
The correspondence between Frobenius near-splittings and Frobenius maps in the nonF -finite case may be far more complicated (for example, cf. section 4 in [K2].)
We shall assume for the rest of this section that R is F -finite and we will exhibit a
more explicit connection between Frobenius map and near-splittings as follows. We can
choose a free basis for F∗ R = K[[x1 , . . . , xd ]] over R which contains F∗ xp−1
· · · xp−1
and we
1
d
p−1
p−1
let π ∈ HomR (F∗ R, R) denote the projection onto the free summand F∗ x1 · · · xd .
20

Proposition 7.3. Let α be a positive integer and write Φ ∈ HomR (F∗ Rα , Rα ) for the direct
sum of α copies of π.
(a) Any φ ∈ HomR (F∗ Rα , Rα ) has the form φ = Φ ◦ F∗ U where U is an α × α matrix
with entries if R.
(b) For any φ = Φ ◦ F∗ U as in (a) and any F∗ R-submodule F∗ V ⊆ F∗ Rα , φ(F∗ V ) =
I1 (U V ).
Proof. Since HomR (F∗ Rα , Rα ) = HomR (F∗ R, R)α×α we need to show (a) holds for α = 1.
Let B a K-basis for F∗ K which contains 1 ∈ K; we obtain a free basis {F∗ bxγ11 · · · xγdd | b ∈
B, 0 ≤ γ1 , . . . , γd < p} for the free R-module F∗ R. As an R-module, HomR (F∗ R, R) is
generated by the projections πb,γ1 ,...,γd onto the free summands F∗ bxγ11 · · · xγdd ; moreover,
1
d
πb,γ1 ,...,γd = π ◦ F∗ b−1 xp−γ
· · · xp−γ
hence every element in HomR (F∗ R, R) is given by
1
d
π ◦ F∗ u for some u ∈ R.
It is enough to establish (b) when V is generated by one element v ∈ F∗ Rα . The equality
Φ(F∗ RU v) = I1 (U Rv) in (b) now follows from the fact that both sides are obtained as the
outcome of the same calculation.
Given an n × n matrix U with entries in R, Proposition 7.3 exhibits (in the F-finite case)
a correspondence between submodules E(V ) of E n fixed under the Frobenius map U t T and
submodules V of Rn for which the near-splitting Φ ◦ F∗ U composed with the quotient map
Rn → Rn /V does not vanish. In addition, Rn /V has the same annihilator as its Matlis
dual E(V ).
Thus, if one is given a the near-splitting Φ ◦ F∗ U , finding all prime annihilators of
submodules V of Rn for which the near-splitting Φ ◦ F∗ U composed with the quotient map
Rn → Rn /V does not vanish, is equivalent to finding all annihilators of submodules E(V )
of E n fixed under the Frobenius map U t T , and this we can do by applying the algorithm
described in section 6, provided that the resulting Frobenius map is not nilpotent.
We conclude by re-interpreting the examples from section 6 in the context of Frobenius
near-splittings.
Example 7.4. Let R = Z/2Z[x, y, z], let
 3
x + y3 + z 3
U=
x(y 2 + z 2 )

xy 2 z 5
x3



and consider the Frobenius near-splitting φ = (π ⊕ π) ◦ U . In the first example of section 6
we found special primes P0 = 0, P1 = (x, y + z)R and P2 = (x, y, z)R. These now give us
the following three submodules V1 = 0,



x y z 0
0
2 ⋆U
= Im
V2 = P1 R
0 0 0 x y+z

⋆U
= (x, y, z)R2 of F∗ R2 which are compatible with φ and such that
and V3 = (x, y, z)R2
2
R /Vi has annihilator Pi for i = 0, 1, 2.
21

Example 7.5. Let R = Z/2Z[x, y, z], f = x3 + y 3 + z 3 , g = x2 + z 4 , define


xf yf
U=
xg yg
and consider the Frobenius near-splitting φ = (π ⊕ π) ◦ U .
6 we found special primes P0 = 0, P1 = (x, z) and P2 =
following three submodules V1 = 0,

⋆U
x y z
= Im
V2 = P1 R2
0 0 0

In the second example of section
(x, y, z). These now give us the
0
x

0
z



⋆U
and V3 = (x, y, z)R2
= (x, y, z)R2 of F∗ R2 which are compatible with φ and such that
2
R /Vi has annihilator Pi for i = 0, 1, 2.
References
[BMS] Manuel Blickle, Mircea Mustaţă and Karen E. Smith. Discreteness and rationality
of F-thresholds. Michigan Mathematical Journal 57 (2008), 4361.
[BS] M. P. Brodmann and R. Y. Sharp. Local cohomology: an algebraic introduction with
geometric applications. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 60, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[EH] F. Enescu and M. Hochster. The Frobenius structure of local cohomology. Algebra
Number Theory 2 (2008), no. 7, 721–754.
[F] R. Fedder. F -purity and rational singularity. Transactions of the AMS, 278 (1983),
no. 2, 461–480.
[K1] M. Katzman. Parameter test ideals of Cohen Macaulay rings. Compositio Mathematica, 144 (2008), 933–948.
[K2] M. Katzman. Some properties and applications of F -finite F -modules. Journal of
Commutative Algebra, 3 (2011), 225–241.
[K3] M. Katzman. Frobenius maps on injective hulls and their applications to tight closure.
Journal of London Mathematical Society, 81 (2010), 589-607.
[KS] M. Katzman and K. Schwede. An algorithm for computing compatibly Frobenius split
subvarieties. Journal of Symbolic Computation 47 (2012), 996–1008.
[L] G. Lyubeznik. F -modules: applications to local cohomology and D-modules in characteristic p > 0. J. Reine Angew. Math. 491 (1997), pp. 65–130.
[M] S. Murru. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
22

[S] R. Y. Sharp. Graded annihilators of modules over the Frobenius skew polynomial ring,
and tight closure. Transactions of the AMS 359 (2007), no. 9, 4237–4258.

23

