Arf good semigroups

arXiv:1710.03223v1 [math.AC] 9 Oct 2017

Giuseppe Zito

Abstract
In this paper we study the property of the Arf good subsemigroups of Nn , with n ≥ 2.
We give a way to compute all the Arf semigroups with a given collection of multiplicity
branches. We also deal with the problem of determining the Arf closure of a set of vectors and of a good semigroup, extending the concept of characters of an Arf numerical
semigroup to Arf good semigroups.

Introduction
In this paper we study a particular class of good subsemigroups of Nn . The concept of good
semigroup was introduced in [2]. Its definition depends on the properties of the value semigroups of one dimensional analytically unramfied ring (for example the local rings of an algebraic curve), but in the same paper it is shown that the class of good semigroups is bigger
than the class of value semigroups. Therefore the good semigroups can be seen as a natural
generalization of the numerical semigroup and can be studied without referring to the ring theory context, with a more combinatorical approach. In this paper we deal only with local good
semigroups, i.e good semigroups S ⊆ Nn such that the only element of S with zero component
is the zero vector.
In this paper we focus on the class of local Arf good semigroups. This is motivated by the
importance of the Arf numerical semigroups in the study of the equivalence of two algebroid
branches. Given an algebroid branch R, its multiplicity sequence is defined to be the sequence
of the multiplicities of the succesive blowups Ri of R. Two algebroid branches are equivalent
if and only if they have the same multiplicity sequence (cf. [4, Definition 1.5.11]). In [1] it is
introduced the concept of Arf ring and it is shown that for each ring R there is a smallest Arf
overring R′ , called the Arf closure of R, that has also the same multiplicity sequence of R. In
Keywords: Good semigroup, Arf closure, semigroup of values, algebroid curve,characters of an Arf semigroup.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 20M14, 13A18, 14H50,20-04.

1

the same paper it is proved that two algebroid branches are equivalent if and only if their Arf
closure have the same value semigroup, that is a numerical Arf semigroup, i.e. a numerical
semigroup S such that S(s) − s is a semigroup, for each s ∈ S, where S(s) = {n ∈ S; n ≥ s}.
All these facts can be generalized to algebroid curves (with more than one branch) and this
naturally leads to define the Arf good semigroups of Nn by extending the numerical definition
considering the usual partial ordering given by the components.
In the numerical case an Arf semigroup S = {s0 = 0 < s1 < s2 , . . .} is completely described by its multiplicity sequence, that is the sequence of the differences si+1 − si . Extending
the concept of multiplicity sequence, in [2] it is also shown that to each local Arf good semigroup can be associated a multiplicity tree that characterizes the semigroup completely. A tree
T of vectors of Nn has to satisfy some properties to be a multiplicity tree of a local Arf good
semigroup. For instance it must have multiplicity sequences along its branches (since the projections are Arf numerical semigroups) and each node must be able to be expressed as a sum of
nodes in a subtree of T rooted in it. Thus, taking in account this 1-1 correspondence, the aim of
this paper is to study Arf good semigroups by characterizing their multiplicity trees, finding an
unambiguous way to describe them. Using this approach, we can also deal with the problem of
finding the Arf closure of a good semigroup S, that is the smallest Arf semigroup containing S.
The structure of the paper is the following.
In Section 1, given a collection of n multiplicity sequences E, we define the set σ(E) of all
the Arf semigroups S such that the i-th projection Si is an Arf numerical semigroup associated
to the i-th multiplicity sequences of E. We define also the set τ (E) of the corresponding
multiplicity trees and we describe a tree in τ (E) by an upper triangular matrix (pi,j ), where pi,j
is the highest level where the i-th and j-th branches are glued, and we give a way to deduce
from E the maximal value that can be assigned to the pi,j . This fact let us to understand when
the set σ(E) is finite. We introduce the class of untwisted trees that are easier to study because
they are completely described by the second diagonal of their matrix, and we notice that a tree
can be always transformed in to an untwisted one by permuting its branches.
In Section 2 we address the problem of understanding when a set of vectors G ⊆ Nn determines uniquely an Arf semigroup of Nn . Thus we define Arf(G) as the minimum of the set
S(G) = {S : S ⊆ Nn is an Arf semigroup and G ⊆ S} , and we find the properties that G has
to satisfy in order to have a good definition for Arf(G) (cf. Theorem 2.1). Finally, given a G
satisfying these properties, we give a procedure for computing Arf(G).
In Section 3 we adapt the techniques learned in the previous section to the problem of
determining the Arf closure of a good semigroup. In [6], the authors solved this problem for
n = 2, leaving it open for larger dimensions. In this section we use the fact that a good
semigroup S can be completely described by its finite subset Small(S) = {s ∈ S : s ≤ δ},
where δ is the smallest element such that δ + Nn ⊆ S, whose existence is guaranteed by the
properties of the good semigroups.
Finally, in Section 4, we address the inverse problem: given an Arf semigroup S ⊆ Nn , find
a set of vectors G ⊆ Nn , called set of generators of S, such that Arf(G) = S, in order to find a
possible generalization of the concept of characters in the numerical case. In Theorem 4.1, we
find the properties that such a G has to satisfy and we focus on the problem of finding a minimal
2

one. From this point of view we are able to give a lower and an upper bound for the minimal
cardinality for a set of generators of a given Arf semigroup (Corollary 4.9). With an example
we also show that, given an Arf semigroup S, it is possible to find minimal sets of generators
with distinct cardinalities.
The procedures presented here have been implemented in GAP ([8]).

1 Arf semigroups with a given collection of multiplicity branches
In this section we determine all the local Arf good semigroups having the same collection of
multiplicity branches.
First of all we need to fix some notations and recall the most important definitions. In the
following, given a vector v in Nn , we will always denote by v[i] its i-th component.
A good semigroup S of Nn is a submonoid of (Nn , +) such that: (cf. [2])
• for all a, b ∈ S, min(a, b) ∈ S;
• if a, b ∈ S and a[i] = b[i] for some i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, then there exists c ∈ S such that
c[i] > a[i] = b[i], c[j] ≥ min(a[j], b[j]) for j ∈ {1, . . . , n}\{i} and c[j] = min(a[j], b[j])
if a[j] 6= b[j];
• there exists δ ∈ S such that δ + Nn ⊆ S
(where we are considering the usual partial ordering in Nn : a ≤ b if a[i] ≤ b[i] for each
i = 1, . . . , n).
In this paper we will always deal with local good semigroups. A good semigroup S is local if
the zero vector is the only vector of S with some component equal to zero. However, it can be
shown that every good semigroup is the direct product of local semigroups (cf. [2, Theorem
2.5]).
An Arf semigroup of Nn , is a good semigroup such that S(α) − α is a semigroup for each
α ∈ S where S(α) = {β ∈ S; β ≥ α}. The multiplicity tree T of a local Arf semigroup
S ⊆ Nn is a tree where the nodes are vector nji ∈ Nn (where with nji we mean that this node is
in the i-th branch on the j-th level. The root of the tree is n11 = n1i for all i because we are in
the local case and at level one all the branches must be glued) and we have


[  X j
ni ,
S = {0}

j
′
T

ni ∈T ′

where T ′ ranges over all finite subtree of T rooted in n11 .
Furthermore a tree T is a multiplicity tree of an Arf semigroup if and only if its nodes satisfy
the following properties (cf. [2, Theorem 5.11]):
• there exists L ∈ N such that for m ≥ L, nm
i = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0 . . . , 0) (the nonzero coordinate is in the i-th position) for any i = 1, . . . , n;
3

• nji [h] = 0 if and only if nji is not in the h-th branch of the tree;
• each nji can be obtained as a sum of nodes in a finite subtree T ′ of T rooted in nji .
Notice that from these properties it follows that we must have multiplicity sequences along each
branch.
Suppose now that E is an ordered collection of n multiplicity sequences (that will be the multiplicity branches of a multiplicity tree). Since any multiplicity sequence is a sequence of integers
that stabilizes to 1, we can describe them by the vectors
M(i) = [mi,1 , . . . , mi,ki ],
with the convention that mi,j = 1 for all j ≥ ki − 1 and mi,ki −2 6= 1; it will be clear later why
do not truncate the sequence to the last non-one entry.
If M = max(k1 , . . . , kn ) we write for all i = 1, . . . , n
M(i) = [mi,1 , . . . , mi,M ],
in order to have vectors of the same length. Each M(i) represents a multiplicity sequence of an
Arf numerical semigroup, so it must satisfy the following property:
∀j ≥ 1 there exists si,j ∈ N, such that si,j ≥ j + 1 and mi,j =

si,j
X

mi,k .

k=j+1

Denote by τ (E) the set of all multiplicity trees having the n branches in E and by σ(E) the set
of the corresponding Arf semigroups. We want to find an unambiguous way to describe distinct
trees of τ (E).
We define, for all i = 1, . . . , n, the following vectors
S(i) = [si,1 , . . . si,M ].
Because we have mi,j = 1 for all j ≥ M − 1, it follows that si,j = j + 1 for all j ≥ M − 1.
Example 1.1. Let M(1) be the following multiplicity sequence:
M(1) = [14, 7, 5, 1, 1].
Then S(1) is:
S(1) = [5, 5, 8, 5, 6].
Notice that, with this notation, from the vectors S(i) we can easily reconstruct the sequences
M(i). It suffices to set mi,M = 1 and then to compute the values of mi,j using the information
contained in the integers si,j .
4

We will use the vectors S(i) to determine the level, in a tree of τ (E), where two branches
have to split up.
For each pair of integers i, j such that i < j and i, j = 1, . . . , n we consider the set D(i, j) =
{k : si,k 6= sj,k }. If D(i, j) 6= ∅ we consider the integer
kE (i, j) = min {min(si,k , sj,k ), k ∈ D(i, j)} ,
while if D(i, j) = ∅, and then the i-th and j-th branches have the same multiplcity sequence,
we set kE (i, j) = +∞. We have the following proposition.
Proposition 1.2. Consider a collection of multiplicity sequences E and let T ∈ τ (E). Then
kE (i, j) + 1 is the lowest level where the i-th and the j-th branches are prevented from being
glued in T (if kE (i, j) is infinite there are no limitations on the level where the branches have
to split up).
Proof The case kE (i, j) = +∞ is trivial, because we have the same sequence along two consecutive branches and therefore no discrepancies that force the two branches to split up at a certain
level. Thus suppose kE (i, j) 6= +∞ and, by contradiction, that the i-th and the j-th branches
are glued at level kE (i, j) + 1. From the definition of kE (i, j), there exists k ∈ D(i, j) such that
kE (i, j) = min(si,k , sj,k ). Without loss of generality suppose that min(si,k , sj,k ) = si,k 6= sj,k
(since k ∈ D(i, j)).
So in the tree we have the following nodes,
(. . . , mi,k , . . . , mj,k , . . .), . . . , (. . . , mi,kE (i,j) , . . . , mj,kE (i,j) , . . .),
, (. . . , mi,kE (i,j)+1 , . . . , mj,kE (i,j)+1 , . . .).
We have that kE (i, j) = si,k so
kE (i,j)

mi,k =

X

mi,t ,

t=k+1

while kE (i, j) + 1 = si,k + 1 ≤ sj,k so
kE (i,j)+1

mj,k ≥

X

mj,t .

t=k+1

These facts easily imply that the first node cannot be expressed as a sum of the nodes of a
subtree rooted in it, so we have a contradiction. Two branches are forced to split up only when
we have this kind of problem, so the minimality of kE (i, j) guarantees that they can be glued at
level kE (i, j) (and obviously at lower levels).
Example 1.3. Suppose that we have
M(1) = [14, 7, 5, 1, 1] and M(2) = [7, 3, 1, 1, 1].
5

So we have the vectors S(1) and S(2):
S(1) = [5, 5, 8, 5, 6] and S(2) = [6, 5, 4, 5, 6].
We have D(1, 2) = {1, 3}, then k(1, 2) = min {min(5, 6), min(4, 8)} = min {5, 4} = 4. Then
the branches have to be separated at the fifth level.
(1, 0)
(1, 0)

(0, 1)

(0, 1)
(1, 1)

(1, 1)

(1, 1)

(5, 1)

(5, 1)

(7, 3)

(7, 3)

(14, 7)

(14, 7)

Notice that the first tree in the previous picture fulfills the properties of the multiplcity trees
of an Arf semigroup. The second one cannot be the multiplicity tree of an Arf semigroup
because the third node (5, 1) cannot be expressed as a sum of nodes in a subtree rooted in it.
Now we prove a general lemma that will be useful in the following.
Lemma 1.4. Consider v1 , v2 and v3 in Nn . If i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3} with i 6= j we define:
• MIN(vi , vj ) = +∞ if vi = vj ;
• MIN(vi , vj ) = min {min(vi [k], vj [k]), k ∈ {1, . . . , n} : vi [k] 6= vj [k]} .
Then there exists a permutation δ ∈ S 3 such that
MIN(vδ(1) , vδ(2) ) = MIN(vδ(2) , vδ(3) ) ≤ MIN(vδ(1) , vδ(3) ).
Proof Suppose by contradiction that the thesis is not true. Then, renaming the indices if necessary, we have
MIN(v1 , v2 ) < MIN(v1 , v3 ) ≤ MIN(v2 , v3 ).
From the definition of MIN(v1 , v2 ) = l1,2 it follows that there exists a k ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that
v1 [k] 6= v2 [k] and min(v1 [k], v2 [k]) = l1,2 . We have two cases:
• If v1 [k] = l1,2 ⇒ v2 [k] > l1,2 . Then we must have v3 [k] = l1,2 , in fact otherwise we would
have MIN(v1 , v3 ) ≤ l1,2 < MIN(v1 , v3 ). But then
l1,2 < MIN(v2 , v3 ) ≤ min(v2 [k], v3 [k]) = l1,2 ,
and we have a contradiction.
6

• If v2 [k] = l1,2 ⇒ v1 [k] > l1,2 . Then we must have v3 [k] = l1,2 , in fact otherwise we would
have MIN(v2 , v3 ) ≤ l1,2 < MIN(v2 , v3 ). But then
l1,2 < MIN(v1 , v3 ) ≤ min(v1 [k], v3 [k]) = l1,2 ,
and we have a contradiction.
Remark 1.5. If we have three multiplicity sequences M(1), M(2) and M(3) then, if E =
{M(1), M(2), M(3)} then there exist a permutation δ ∈ S 3 such that
kE (δ(1), δ(2)) = kE (δ(2), δ(3)) ≤ kE (δ(1), δ(3)).
In fact the integers kE (i, j) are of the same type of the integers MIN(vi , vj ) of the previous
lemma with vi = S(i).
We give now a way to describe a tree of τ (E). If T ∈ τ (E), it can be represented by an
upper triangular matrix n × n


0 p1,2 p1,3 . . . p1,n
0
0 p2,3 . . . p2,n 


,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
M(T )E = 


0
0
0 . . . pn−1,n 
0
0
0 ...
0
where pi,j is the highest level such that the i-th and the j-th branches are glued in T .

Remark 1.6. If M(T )E is the matrix of a T ∈ τ (E), it is clear that everytime we consider three
indices i < j < k we must have:
pi,j ≥ min(pi,k , pj,k ), pj,k ≥ min(pi,j , pi,k ) and pi,k ≥ min(pi,j , pj,k ),
when we are using the obvious fact that the relation of being glued has the transitive property.
From the previous inequalities it follows that the set {pi,j , pj,k , pi,k } = {x, x, y}, with x ≤ y
(independently of the order).
From Proposition 1.2 we have that pi,j ∈ {1, . . . , kE (i, j)} for all i, j = 1, . . . , n with i < j.
In the following, with an abuse of notation, we will identify a tree with its representation.
We call a tree T of τ (E) untwisted if two nonconsecutive branches are glued at level l if
and only if all the consecutive branches between them are glued at a level greater or equal to l.
We will call twisted a tree that it is not untwisted.
From the definition it follows that the matrix of an untwisted tree T ∈ τ (E) is such that:
pi,j = min {pi,i+1 , pi+1,i+2 , . . . , pj−1,j } for all i < j.
So an untwisted tree can be completely described by the second diagonal of its matrix. Thus
in the following we will indicate an untwisted tree by a vector TE = (d1 , . . . , dn−1 ) where
di = pi,i+1 . It is easy to see that a twisted tree can be converted to an untwisted one by accordingly permuting its branches. So in the following we can focus, when it is possible, only
on the properties of the untwisted trees, that are easier to study, obtaining the twisted one by
permutation.
7

Example 1.7. Let us consider the following tree of τ (E) with
E = {M(1) = [5, 4, 1, 1], M(2) = [2, 2, 1, 1], M(3) = [6, 4, 1, 1]}
(1, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 1)
(4, 0, 4)

(0, 1, 0)
(0, 2, 0)

(5, 2, 6)

This tree is twisted because the first and the third branches are glued at level two while the
first and the second are not.
If we consider the permutation (2, 3) on the branches we obtain the tree
(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)
(4, 4, 0)

(0, 0, 1)
(0, 0, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

that is untwisted, even if it belongs to a different set τ (E ′ ) where
E ′ = {M(1) = [5, 4, 1, 1], M(2) = [6, 4, 1, 1], M(3) = [2, 2, 1, 1]} ,
and can be represented by the vector TE′ = (2, 1).
Denote by S(T ) the semigroup determined by the tree T . In [3, Lemma 5.1] it is shown
that if T 1 and T 2 are untwisted trees of τ (E), then S(T 1 ) ⊆ S(T 2 ) if and only if TE2 is coordinatewise less than or equal to TE1 . The previous result can be easily extended to the twisted
trees. Then, in the general case we have that S(T 1 ) ⊆ S(T 2 ), where S(T 1 ) and S(T 2 ) belong
to σ(E), if and only if each entry of M(T 2 )E is less than or equal to the corresponding entry of
M(T 1 )E . If kE (i, j) 6= +∞ for all i < j, we can consider T MIN such that


0 kE (1, 2) kE (1, 3) . . .
kE (1, n)
0
0
kE (2, 3) . . .
kE (2, n) 


MIN
,
...
...
...
...
M(T )E = 

. . .
0
0
0
. . . kE (n − 1, n)
0
0
0
...
0
that is well defined for Remark 1.5. Then S(T MIN ) is the smallest Arf semigroup belonging to
σ(E).
8

Remark 1.8. If in the collection E there are two branches with the same multiplicity sequence
then |σ(E)| = +∞.
Example 1.9. We can count the number of untwisted trees of τ (E) by using their representation.
If we call τ ∗ (E) the set of all the untwisted trees of τ (E), these trees are completely determined
by the elements in the second diagonal of their matrix, that are bounded by kE (j, j + 1). Hence
the number of untwisted trees is:
∗

|τ (E)| =

n−1
Y

kE (j, j + 1).

j=1

Suppose that E = {M(1), M(2), M(3)}, where
M(1) = [5, 4, 1, 1], M(2) = [6, 4, 1, 1], M(3) = [2, 2, 1, 1].
We have:
S(1) = [3, 6, 4, 5], S(2) = [4, 6, 4, 5], S(3) = [2, 4, 4, 5].
Then D(1, 2) = {1} , D(2, 3) = {1, 2} and kE (1, 2) = min(3, 4) = 3 and
kE (2, 3) = min {min(2, 4), min(4, 6)} = 2. There are kE (1, 2) · kE (2, 3) = 6 trees in τ ∗ (E).
They are:
(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)
(1, 1, 0)

(1, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 1)

(4, 4, 2)

(0, 1, 0)
(1, 1, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(4, 4, 0)

(0, 0, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

TMIN = TE = (3, 2)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)

TE = (3, 1)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(0, 1, 0)
(4, 4, 0)

(4, 4, 2)
(5, 6, 2)

(0, 0, 2)
(5, 6, 2)

TE = (2, 2)

TE = (2, 1)

9

(0, 0, 1)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)

(4, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 1)
(0, 4, 2)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(4, 0, 0)

(0, 4, 0)

(0, 0, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

TE = (1, 2)

TE = (1, 1)

Remark 1.10. Because we are able to determine completely τ ∗ (E) for each E collection of
multiplicity sequences we have a way to determine τ (E). If δ ∈ Sn is a permutation of the
symmetric group Sn we can consider δ −1 (τ ∗ (δ(E))) ⊆ τ (E). It is trivial to see that
[
δ −1 (τ ∗ (δ(E))) = τ (E).
δ∈Sn

If we apply this strategy to find τ (E) with the E
τ (E) there is only one twisted tree T with

0 1
M(T )E = 0 0
0 0
(1, 0, 0)

of the previous example we find that in

(0, 0, 1)
(4, 0, 2)


2
1 .
0
(0, 1, 0)
(0, 4, 0)

(5, 6, 2)

2

When a set of vectors determines an Arf semigroup

In this section we want to understand when a set G ⊆ Nn determines uniquely an Arf semigroup
of Nn . First of all we need to fix some notations.
Given G ⊆ Nn we denote by S(G) the following set
S(G) = {S : S ⊆ Nn is an Arf semigroup and G ⊆ S} .
If the set S(G) has a minimum (with the partial order given by the inclusion), we will denote
such a minimum by Arf(G). Hence we have to understand when Arf(G) is well defined and, in
this case, how to find it.
10

If i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, and S ∈ S(G) we denote by Si the projection on the i-th coordinate.
We know that Si is an Arf numerical semigroup and it contains the set G[i] = {g[i] : g ∈ G}
where with g[i] we indicate the i-th coordinate of the vector g. We recall also that, if we have
a set of integers I such that gcd(I) = 1, it is possible to compute the smallest Arf semigroup
containing I, that is the Arf closure of the numerical semigroup generated by the elements of I.
This computation can be made by using the modified Jacobian algorithm of Du Val (cf. [7]).
We have the following theorem:
Theorem 2.1. Suppose that we have G ⊆ Nn . Then Arf(G) is well defined if and only if the
following conditions hold:
• gcd {g[i], g ∈ G} = 1 for i = 1, . . . , n;
• For all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n} such that i < j there exists g ∈ G such that g[i] 6= g[j].
Proof (⇒) Suppose that Arf(G) is well defined and suppose by contradiction that the two
conditions of the theorem are not simultaneuously fulfilled.
We have two cases.
• Case 1: The first condition is not fulfilled.
Then there exists an i such that gcd(G[i]) = d 6= 1. When we apply the Jacobian algorithm to the elements of G[i] we will produce a sequence of the following type:
[mi,1 , . . . , mi,k , . . .]
where there exists a k such that mi,j = d for all j ≥ k (it happens because the Jacobian
algorithm performs an Euclidean algorithm on G[i]). Denote by k the minimum k such
that the Arf semigroup associated to the sequence
[mi,1 , . . . , mi,k = d, 1, 1],
contains G[i] (such minimum exists for the properties of the algorithm of Du Val). Then
for all z ≥ k we can consider the multiplicity sequence
M(z) = [mi,1 , . . . , mi,k = d, . . . , mi,z = d, 1, 1]
and if S(z) is the Arf numerical semigroup associated to M(z) then G[i] ⊆ S(z). Now
it is trivial to show that S(z1 ) ⊆ S(z2 ) if z1 ≥ z2 . Then we have an infinite decreasing
chain of Arf semigroup containing the set G[i]. This means that the projection on the i-th
branch can be smaller and smaller, therefore we cannot find a minimum in the set S(G).
Thus we have found a contradiction in this case.
An example illustrating Case 1 is the following.

11

If we consider G = {[2, 3], [4, 4]}, we have no information on the multiplicity sequence
along the first branch and so we can obtain the following infinite decreasing chain of Arf
semigroups containing G:
(1, 0)

(1, 0)

(1, 0)

(0, 1)

(2, 0)

(2, 1)

(2, 3)

(0, 1)

(2, 3)

(2, 0)

(2, 0)

(2, 0)

(2, 0)

(2, 1)

⊇

(1, 0)

(0, 1)

(2, 0)

(2, 1)

⊇

(2, 3)

(0, 1)

(2, 1)

⊇

(2, 3)

⊇ ...

• Case 2: The first condition is fulfilled.
So in this case the second condition is not fulfilled. The fact that gcd {g[i], g ∈ G} = 1
for i = 1, . . . , n implies that we can compute the smallest Arf numerical semigroup S(i)
containing G[i] for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Therefore if we denote by Mi the multiplicity sequence of S(i) we clearly have that
Arf(G) ∈ σ(E), where E = {Mi , i = 1, . . . , n}. Suppose that it is defined by the matrix


0 p1,2 p1,3 . . . p1,n
0
0 p2,3 . . . p2,n 



... 
M(T )E = . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
0
0
0 . . . pn−1,n 
0
0
0 ...
0

Now if we consider an element h ∈ G[i] we have that h ∈ S(i) and therefore there exists
an index posE (i, h) such that
posE (i,h)
X
mi,k .
h=
k=1

If g ∈ G we can define posE (g) = [posE (1, g[1]), . . . , posE (n, g[n])].

Notice that, if we consider i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, with i < j and g ∈ G such that posE (i, g[i]) 6=
posE (j, g[j]), we can easily deduce that in a multiplicity tree of an Arf semigroup of
σ(E) containing G the i-th and j-th branches cannot be glued at a level greater than
min(posE (i, g[i]), posE (j, g[j])) .
Then pi,j is at most min(posE (i, g[i]), posE (j, g[j])), and we also have to recall that pi,j
is at most kE (i, j).
12

So denote by

UE (G) = (i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 : i < j; posE (i, g[i]) = posE (j, g[j]) for all g ∈ G .
For each (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G) we define

MINE (i, j, G) = min (kE (i, j), min {min(posE (i, g[i]), posE (j, g[j])) : g ∈ G,
posE (i, g[i]) 6= posE (j, g[j])}) .
Notice that we need (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G) to have the previous integers well defined.
So from the previous remark it follows that an Arf semigroup S(T 1 ) of σ(E) containing
G with


0 a1,2 a1,3 . . . a1,n
0
0 a2,3 . . . a2,n 


1
... 
M(T )E = 

. . . . . . . . . . . .
0
0
0 . . . an−1,n 
0
0
0 ...
0

is such that ai,j is at most kE (i, j) for (i, j) ∈ UE (G) and ai,j is at most MINE (i, j, G)
for (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G). So for the Arf closure we want to choose the biggest possible values,
therefore we have:
pi,j = kE (i, j) for (i, j) ∈ UE (G) and pi,j = MINE (i, j, G) for (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G).
We need to prove that this integers are compatible with the transitive property of a matrix
of an Arf semigroup tree. Therefore we consider a triad of integers i < j < k and we
want to show that pi,j , pj,k and pi,k are in a {x, x, y} configuration. We have the following
cases:
1. (i, j), (j, k), (k, i) ∈ UE (G). Then pi,j = kE (i, j),pi,k = kE (i, k) and pj,k =
kE (j, k) and for the Remark 1.5 they satisfy our condition;
2. (i, j), (j, k), (k, i) ∈
/ UE (G). We consider the vectors
vl = [posE (l, g1 [l]), . . . , posE (l, gm [l])],
where l ∈ {i, j, k} and G = {g1 , . . . , gm }. Then, using the notations of Lemma 1.4,
we have that
pi,j = min(kE (i, j), MIN(vi , vj )), pi,k = min(kE (i, k), MIN(vi , vk )) and
pj,k = min(kE (j, k), MIN(vj , vk )).
Then suppose by contradiction that they are not compatible. Without loss of generality we can assume that
pi,j < pi,k ≤ pj,k .
We have two cases
13

– pi,j = kE (i, j). Then we would have
kE (i, j) = pi,j < pj,k ≤ kE (j, k) and kE (i, j) = pi,j < pi,k ≤ kE (i, k),
and this is absurd for the Remark 1.5;
– pi,j = MIN(vi , vj ). Then we would have
MIN(vi , vj ) = pi,j < pj,k ≤ MIN(vj , vk ) and MIN(vi , vj ) = pi,j < pi,k ≤ MIN(vi , vk ),
and this is absurd against Lemma 1.4 applied to the vectors vi , vj and vk .
3. (i, j) ∈ UE (G) and (j, k), (k, i) ∈
/ UE (G) (and the similar configurations). In this
case we have that vi = vj . Then
pi,j = kE (i, j), pi,k = min(kE (i, k), x), and pj,k = min(kE (j, k), x),
where x = MIN(vi , vk ) = MIN(vj , vk ). We have two cases:
– kE (i, j) = kE (j, k) ≤ kE (i, k) (or equivalently kE (i, j) = kE (i, k) ≤ kE (j, k)).
If x < kE (j, k) ≤ kE (i, k) then we have pj,k = pi,k = x < kE (i, j) and it is
fine. If x ≥ kE (j, k) then pj,k = kE (j, k) = pi,j ≤ pi,k that is compatible too.
– kE (i, k) = k(j, k) < kE (i, j). In this case we have pi,k = pj,k < kE (i, j) = pi,j
and it is fine.
So we actually have a well defined tree.
Anyway, because the second condition is not fulfilled, then there exists a pair (i, j) ∈
{1, . . . , n}2 such that for all g ∈ G we have g[i] = g[j]. So (i, j) ∈ UE (G), and, since in
this case the two sequences are the same, we obtain pi,j = kE (i, j) = +∞.
Thus we have found a contradiction because Arf(G) is not well defined.
An example illustrating Case 2 is the following. If we consider G = {[3, 3, 2], [2, 2, 3]},
we will have the same multiplicity sequences in the first two branches, with no clues
about the splitting point so we can obtain the following infinite decreasing chain in S(G):

(1, 0, 0)

(1, 0, 0)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(2, 2, 2)

(0, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(2, 2, 2)

⊇
14

(0, 1, 0)

(1, 1, 0)

⊇

(0, 0, 1)

(2, 2, 2)

⊇ ...

(⇐) The previous proof gives us a way to compute Arf(G). We have to compute, using the
modified Jacobian algorithm of Du Val, the Arf closure of each G[i], finding the collection
E (the first condition guarantees that it is possible to do that). Then we can find the matrix
describing the semigroup using the set UE (G) and the integers MINE (i, j, G) with the procedure
present in the first part (we cannot have pi,j = +∞ for the second condition).
Example 2.2. Suppose that we have G = {G(1) = [5, 6, 5], G(2) = [9, 11, 4], G(3) = [9, 10, 2]} ,
that satisfies the conditions of the theorem. Then we have to apply the modified Jacobian algorithm to the sets
G[1] = {5, 9} , G[2] = {6, 10, 11} and G[3] = {2, 4, 5} .
We will find the following multiplicity sequences:
M1 = [5, 4, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 1, 1] and M3 = [2, 2, 1, 1].
We have kE (1, 2) = 3, kE (2, 3) = 2 and kE (1, 3) = 2.
So we have posE (G(1)) = [1, 1, 3], posE (G(2)) = [2, 3, 2] and posE (G(3)) = [2, 2, 1].
In this case UE (G) = ∅.
We have MINE (1, 2, G) = min(2, kE (1, 2)) = 2, MINE (2, 3, G) = min(1, kE (2, 3)) = 1
and MINE (1, 3, G) = min(1, kE (1, 3)) = 1.
So the Arf closure is described by the matrix


0 2 1
M(T )E = 0 0 1 .
0 0 0

with

E = {M1 = [5, 4, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 1, 1] and M3 = [2, 2, 1, 1]} .
Notice that in this case we find that the Arf closure is an untwisted tree of τ (E) represented by
the vector TE = (2, 1).
(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)
(4, 4, 0)

(0, 0, 1)
(0, 0, 2)

(5, 6, 2)

Example 2.3. Suppose that we have G = {G(1) = [8, 6, 10], G(2) = [5, 10, 5], G(3) = [10, 13, 8]} ,
that satisfies the conditions of the theorem. Then we have to apply the modified Jacobian algorithm to the sets
G[1] = {5, 8, 10} , G[2] = {6, 10, 13} and G[3] = {5, 8, 10} .
15

We will find the following multiplicity sequences:
M1 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 2, 1, 1] and M3 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1].
We have kE (1, 2) = 4, kE (2, 3) = 4 and kE (1, 3) = +∞.
So we have posE (G(1)) = [2, 1, 3], posE (G(2)) = [1, 2, 1] and posE (G(3)) = [3, 4, 2].
In this case UE (G) = ∅.
We have MINE (1, 2, G) = min(1, kE (1, 2)) = 1, MINE (2, 3, G) = min(1, kE (2, 3)) = 1
and MINE (1, 3, G) = min(2, kE (1, 3)) = 2.
So the Arf closure is described by the matrix


0 1 2
M(T )E = 0 0 1 .
0 0 0

with

E = {M1 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 2, 1, 1] and M3 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1]} .
Notice that in this case we find that the Arf closure is a twisted tree.
(1, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 1)

(0, 1, 0)

(2, 0, 0)

(0, 0, 2)

(0, 2, 0)

(3, 0, 3)

(0, 4, 0)
(5, 6, 5)

3 Arf closure of a good semigroup of Nn
Denote by S a good semigroup of Nn . In this section we describe a way to find the smallest Arf
semigroup of Nn containing S, that is the Arf closure of S (the existence of the Arf closure is
proved in [6]). We denote this semigroup by Arf(S). If S is a good semigroup of Nn , we denote
by Si the projection on the i-th coordinate. The properties of the good semigroups guarantee
that Si is a numerical semigroup. Thus it is clear that an Arf semigroup T containing S is
such that Arf(Si ) ⊆ Ti for all i = 1, . . . , n, where Arf(Si ) is the Arf closure of the numerical
semigroup Si (we can compute it using the algorithm of Du Val on a minimal set of generators
of Si ).
Therefore, in order to have the smallest Arf semigroup containing S, we must have Arf(S) ∈
σ(E) where E = {M1 , . . . , Mn } and Mi is the multiplicity sequence associated to the Arf
16

numerical semigroup Arf(Si ).
Now we need to find the matrix


0 p1,2 p1,3
0
0 p2,3


M(T )E = . . . . . . . . .
0
0
0
0
0
0


. . . p1,n
. . . p2,n 

...
... 
.
. . . pn−1,n 
...
0

that describes the tree of Arf(S).
We recall that from the properties of good semigroups, it follows that there exists a minimal
vector δ ∈ Nn such that δ + Nn ⊆ S (we will call this vector the conductor of S).
Suppose that δ = (c[1], . . . , c[n]). We denote by
Small(S) = {s : 0 < s ≤ δ} ∩ S,
the finite set of the small elements of S (the elements of S that are coordinatewise smaller than
the conductor). In [6] it is shown that Small(S) describes completely the semigroup S (in this
paper we are not including the zero vector in Small(S) to enlight the notations of the following
procedures).
Remark 3.1. We can recover the collection E from Small(S). In fact, the multiplicity sequence Mi can be determined applying the Du Val algorithm to the set {s[i], s ∈ Small(S)} ∪
{c[i] + 1} ⊆ Si . In order to apply the Du Val algorithm we may have to add c[i] + 1 because
we can have gcd({s[i], s ∈ Small(S)}) 6= 1. Because c[i] and c[i] + 1 belong to Si , we know
that Arf(Si ) has conductor smaller than c[i] and this implies that we only have to consider the
elements that are smaller than c[i] + 1.
Now, we notice that pi,j ≤ min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j])) for all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, with
i < j, where we are using the notations of the previous section. In fact, if posE (i, c[i]) 6=
posE (j, c[j]), we have already noticed that in an Arf semigroup containing δ the i-th and the
j-th branches cannot be glued at a level greater than min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j])), then
pi,j ≤ min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j])) . If posE (i, c[i]) = posE (j, c[j]) then we have δ1 =
(c[1], . . . , c[i]+1, c[i+1], . . . , c[n]) ∈ S, and posE (i, c[i]+1) = posE (i, c[i])+1 > posE (j, c[j]).
Therefore in an Arf semigroup containing δ1 the i-th and the j-th branches cannot be glued
at a level greater than
min(posE (i, c[i]) + 1, posE (j, c[j])) = posE (j, c[j]) =
= min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j]),
hence we have again pi,j ≤ min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j])).
Furthermore, we always have to take in account that pi,j ≤ kE (i, j) for all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}.
Now let us consider the following subset of {1, . . . , n}2 ,
UE (Small(S)) = {(i, j) : posE (i, s[i]) = posE (j, s[j]) for all s ∈ Small(S)} .
17

If (i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 \ UE (Small(S)), and i < j we can consider the following integers
MINE (i, j, Small(S)) = min (kE (i, j), min {min(posE (i, s[i]), posE (j, s[j])) : s ∈ Small(S),
posE (i, s[i]) 6= posE (j, s[j])}) .
Notice that we need only to consider the vectors of Small(S) because if s ∈ S then s1 =
min(s, δ) ∈ Small(S) and we clearly have
min(posE (i, s[i]), posE (j, s[j])) ≥ min(posE (i, s1 [i]), posE (j, s1 [j])),
therefore s1 ∈ Small(S) gives us more precise information on the ramification level than s (it
can happen that posE (i, s1 [i]) = posE (j, s1 [j]) and posE (i, s[i]) 6= posE (j, s[j]), but only when
min(posE (i, s[i]), posE (j, s[j])) ≥ min(posE (i, c[i]), posE (j, c[j]))).
Thus, if T 1 is an Arf semigroup of σ(E) containing S, represented by


0 a1,2 a1,3 . . . a1,n
0
0 a2,3 . . . a2,n 


1

... 
M(T )E = . . . . . . . . . . . .

0
0
0 . . . an−1,n 
0
0
0 ...
0
we have:

• ai,j ≤ MINE (i, j, Small(S)) for (i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 \ UE (Small(S));
• ai,j ≤ min(kE (i, j), posE (i, c[i])), for i ∈ UE (Small(S)) (we have posE (i, c[i]) = posE (j, c[j])).
Then we can finally deduce that the pi,j that defines the matrix of Arf(S) are such that
• pi,j = MINE (i, j, Small(S)), for (i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 \ UE (Small(S));
• pi,j = min(kE (i, j), posE (i, c[i])), for i ∈ UE (Small(S)) (we have posE (i, c[i]) = posE (j, c[j])),
and it is easy to see that the pi,j fulfill the condition of Remark 1.6.
Remark 3.2. In other words we showed that Arf(S) can be computed by computing Arf(G)
where:
[
G = Small(S) {(c[1] + 1, . . . , c[i], c[i + 1], . . . , c[n]), . . . , (c[1], . . . , c[i] + 1, c[i + 1], . . . , c[n]), . . . ,
(c[1], . . . , c[i], c[i + 1], . . . , c[n] + 1)} .

18

Example 3.3. Let us consider the good semigroup S with the following set of small elements,
Small(S) = {[5, 6, 5], [5, 10, 5], [5, 12, 5], [8, 6, 8], [8, 10, 8], [8, 12, 8], [8, 6, 10], [8, 10, 10],
[8, 12, 10], [10, 6, 8], [10, 10, 8], [10, 12, 8], [10, 6, 10], [10, 10, 10], [10, 12, 10]} .
The conductor is δ = [10, 12, 10]. First of all we need to recover from Small(S) the collection
of multiplicity sequences E. We have to apply the Du Val algorithm to the following sets:
{5, 8, 10, 11} , {6, 10, 12, 13} and {5, 8, 10, 11} ,
therefore we find that E = {[5, 3, 2, 1, 1], [6, 4, 2, 1, 1], [5, 3, 2, 1, 1]} .
We have
pos(Small(S)) = {posE (s) : s ∈ Small(S)} = {[1, 1, 1], [1, 2, 1], [1, 3, 1], [2, 1, 2], [2, 2, 2],
[2, 3, 2], [2, 1, 3], [2, 2, 3], [2, 3, 3], [3, 1, 2], [3, 2, 2], [3, 3, 2], [3, 1, 3], [3, 2, 3], [3, 3, 3]} .
It is easy to check that UE (Small(S)) = ∅. Thus we have
• p1,2 = MINE (1, 2, Small(S)) = min(kE (1, 2) = 4, 1) = 1, because we have the element
[1, 2, 1] ∈ pos(Small(S)) corresponding to s = [5, 10, 5] ∈ Small(S) such that 1 =
posE (1, s[1]) 6= posE (2, s[2]) = 2 and min(posE (1, s[1]), posE (2, s[2])) = 1 .
• p2,3 = MINE (2, 3, Small(S)) = min(kE (2, 3) = 4, 1) = 1, because we have the element
[1, 2, 1] ∈ pos(Small(S)) corresponding to s = [5, 10, 5] ∈ Small(S) such that 2 =
posE (2, s[2]) 6= posE (3, s[3]) = 1 and min(posE (2, s[2]), posE (3, s[3])) = 1 .
• p1,3 = MINE (1, 3, Small(S)) = min(kE (1, 3) = +∞, 2) = 2, because we have the
element [2, 2, 3] ∈ pos(Small(S)) corresponding to s = [8, 10, 10] ∈ Small(S) such that
2 = posE (1, s[1]) 6= posE (3, s[3]) = 3 and min(posE (1, s[1]), posE (3, s[3])) = 2, and we
cannot find a smaller discrepancy.
So the Arf closure of S is described by the matrix


0 1 2
M(T )E = 0 0 1 .
0 0 0

with

E = {M1 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 2, 1, 1] and M3 = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1]} .
The following procedure, implemented in GAP, has as argument the set of small elements of
a good semigroup and give as a result the Arf Closure of the given good semigroup. The Arf
clousure is described by a list [E, M(T )E ].
19

gap> S:=[[5,6,5],[5,10,5],[5,12,5],[8,6,8],[8,10,8],[8,12,8],
[8,6,10],[8,10,10],[8,12,10],[10,6,8],[10,10,8],[10,12,8],
[10,6,10],[10,10,10],[10,12,10]];
[ [ 5, 6, 5 ], [ 5, 10, 5 ], [
[ 8, 10, 8 ], [ 8, 12, 8 ], [
[ 8, 12, 10 ], [ 10, 6, 8 ],
[ 10, 6, 10 ], [ 10, 10, 10

5, 12, 5 ], [ 8, 6, 8 ],
8, 6, 10 ], [ 8, 10, 10 ],
[ 10, 10, 8 ], [ 10, 12, 8 ],
], [ 10, 12, 10 ] ]

gap> ArfClosureOfGoodsemigroup(S);
[ [ [ 5, 3, 2 ], [ 6, 4, 2 ], [ 5, 3, 2 ] ],
[ [ 0, 1, 2 ], [ 0, 0, 1 ], [ 0, 0, 0 ] ] ]

4 Bounds on the minimal number of vectors determining a
given Arf semigroup
Suppose that E is a collection of n multiplicity sequences. Let T ∈ τ (E) and given a semigroup
S(T ) in σ(E), we want to study the properties that a set of vectors G(T ) ⊆ Nn has to satisfy
to have S(T ) = Arf(G(T )), with the notations given in the previous section. We call such a
G(T ) a set of generators for S(T ). In particular we want to find bounds on the cardinality of a
minimal set of generators for a S(T ) ∈ σ(E).
Since we want to find a G(T ) such that Arf(G(T )) is well defined, it has to satisfy the
following properties:
• For all i = 1, . . . , n
gcd(v[i]; v ∈ G(T )) = 1,
where v[i] is the i−th coordinate of the vector v ∈ G(T ).
• For all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n}, with i < j there exists v ∈ G(T ) such that v[i] 6= v[j].
We recall that, given a Arf numerical semigroup S, there is a uniquely determined smallest
semigroup N such that the Arf closure of N is S. The minimal system of generators for such
N is called the Arf system of generators for S, or the set of characters of S.
Now we want that Arf(G(T )) is an element of σ(E). This implies that, when we apply
the algorithm of Du Val to G(T )[i], we have to find the i-th multiplicity sequence of E. This
means that, if we call Si the Arf numerical semigroup corresponding to the projection on the
i-th coordinate, we must have G(T )[i] ⊆ Si and furthermore G(T )[i] has to contain a minimal
system of generators for Si . In fact, in [1] it is proved that if we have G = {g1 , . . . , gm } ⊆ N
with gcd(G) = 1 then G must contain the set of characters of the Arf closure of the semigroup
N = hGi.
So we need to recall a way to compute the characters of an Arf numerical semigroup.
20

We suppose that E = {M(1), . . . , M(n)}. Given
M(i) = [mi,1 , . . . , mi,M ],
we define the restricion number r(mi,j ) of mi,j as the number of sums mi,q =

k
X

mi,q+h where

h=1

mi,j appears as a summand. With this notation we have that the characters of the multiplicity
sequence M(i) are the elements of the set (cf. [3, Lemma 3.1])
( j
)
X
CharE (i) =
mi,k : r(mi,j ) < r(mi,j+1) .
k=1

Notice that, from our assumptions on M, it follows that the last two entries in each M(i) are
1, and it is easy to see how it guarantees that we cannot find characters in correspondence of
indices greater than M. We define PCharE (i) = {j : r(mi,j ) < r(mi,j+1)}.
Given the collection E, we denote by
#
" j
jn
j2
1
X
X
X
mn,k .
m2,k , . . . ,
m1,k ,
VE (j1 , j2 , . . . , jn ) =
k=1

k=1

k=1

Now, the elements of G(T ) must be of the type VE (j1 , j2 , . . . , jn ) (in fact we noticed that when
we project on the k-th coordinate we must find an element of the corresponding numerical
semigroup that has the previous representation for some jk ).
From the previous remarks and notations we have the following property:
G(T ) = {Gen(1) = VE (j1,1 , . . . , j1,n ), . . . , Gen(t) = VE (jt,1 , . . . , jt,n )}
are generators of a semigroup of σ(E) if and only if
PCharE (i) ⊆ {j1,i , . . . , jt,i } for all i = 1, . . . , n.
In particular we have found a lower bound for the cardinality of a minimal set of generators for
a S(T ) ∈ σ(E). In fact G(T ) has at least CE = max {|PCharE (i)|, i = 1, . . . , n} elements.
Now we want to determine the generators of a given semigroup S(T ) ∈ σ(E). We have the
following theorem.
Theorem 4.1. Let S(T ) ∈ σ(E) with


0 p1,2 p1,3
0
0 p2,3

.
.
.
.
.. ...
M(T )E = 

0
0
0
0
0
0


. . . p1,n
. . . p2,n 

...
... 
.
. . . pn−1,n 
...
0

Denote by P = {(q, r) : pq,r = kE (q, r)}. Then G(T ) = {Gen(1), . . . , Gen(t)} ⊆ Nn is such
that Arf(G(T )) = S(T ) if and only if the following conditons hold
21

• Gen(1) = VE (j1,1 , . . . , j1,n ), . . . , Gen(t) = VE (jt,1 , . . . , jt,n ) for some values of the indices j1,1 , . . . , jt,n ;
• PCharE (i) ⊆ {j1,i , . . . , jt,i } for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Furthermore, if we consider the following integer
MING(T ) (q, r) = min (kE (q, r), min {min(jp,q , jp,r ) : jp,q 6= jp,r , p = 1, . . . , t}) ,
for the (q, r) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 with q < r and where it is well defined, we have:
• for (q, r) ∈ P we have either jp,q = jp,r for all p = 1, . . . , t, or MING(T ) (q, r) is well
defined and it equals kE (q, r);
• MING(T ) (q, r) is well defined and it equals pq,r , for all (q, r) ∈
/ P.
Proof (⇐) Suppose that we have G(T ) = {Gen(1), . . . , Gen(t)} ⊆ Nn satisfying the conditions
of the theorem. The first two conditions ensure that if we apply the algorithm defined in the
previous section on G(T ) it will produce an element of σ(E).
Now it is easy, using the notations of Theorem 2.1, to show that jp,q = posE (q, Gen(p)[q])
and from this it follows that, when MING(T ) (q, r) is well defined, it is equal to MINE (q, r, G(T )).
Furthermore we have UE (G(T )) ⊆ P . In fact we have

UE (G(T )) = (q, r) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 : posE (q, Gen(p)[q]) = posE (r, Gen(p)[r])

for all p = 1, . . . , t} = (q, r) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 : jp,q = jp,r for all p = 1, . . . , t ,
therefore if (q, r) ∈ UE (G(T )) then (q, r) ∈ P , since G(T ) satisfy the fourth condition in the
statement of the theorem (we cannot have (q, r) ∈
/ P because in this case MING(T ) (q, r) =
MINE (q, r, G(T )) has to be well defined). So it will follows that, if S(T 1 ) is Arf(G(T )) then


0 a1,2 a1,3 . . . a1,n
0
0 a2,3 . . . a2,n 


1

... 
M(T )E = . . . . . . . . . . . .

0
0
0 . . . an−1,n 
0
0
0 ...
0
where

• ai,j = MINE (i, j, G(T )) if (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G(T ));
• ai,j = kE (i, j) if (i, j) ∈ UE (G(T )).
Therefore if (i, j) ∈
/ P then (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G(T )) and we have ai,j = min(MINE (i, j, G(T ))) =
MING(T ) (i, j) = pi,j . If (i, j) ∈ P then
• if (i, j) ∈ UE (G(T )) then ai,j = kE (i, j);
22

• if (i, j) ∈
/ UE (G(T )) then ai,j = MINE (i, j, G(T )) = MING(T ) (i, j) = kE (i, j), for the
properties of the set G(T ) ((i, j) ∈ P ).
So we showed that Arf(G(T )) = S(T ). Thus the proof of this implication is complete.
(⇒) It follows immediately by contradiction, using the first part of the proof.
Example 4.2. Suppose that we have E = {M(1), M(2), M(3)}, where
M(1) = [5, 4, 1, 1], M(2) = [6, 4, 1, 1], M(3) = [2, 2, 1, 1].
We have, kE (1, 2) = 3, kE (2, 3) = 2 and kE (1, 3) = 2.
We can define:
R(i) = [r(mi,1 ), r(mi,2), . . . , r(mi,N )].
Notice that r(mi,1 ) = 0, r(mi,2 ) = 1. The values of PChar(i) are the indices where this sequence has an increase (it can be easily shown that when the sequence has an increase we
have r(mi,j ) = r(mi,j+1) − 1 cf. [3, Lemma 3.2]). Furthermore R(1) = [0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2],
R(2) = [0, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2] and R(3) = [0, 1, 1, 2]. So PCharE (1) = {1, 2} , PCharE (2) = {1, 2, 3}
and PCharE (3) = {1, 3}.
Suppose that we want to find generators for the untwisted tree T 1 such that TE1 = (2, 1). We
need at least three vectors because CE = 3. Consider the vectors Gen(1) = VE (1, 1, 3), Gen(2) =
VE (2, 3, 2) and Gen(3) = VE (2, 2, 1). The second condition, that guarantees that we have
a tree belonging to τ (E), is satisfied. Furthermore MING(T ) (1, 2) = min(kE (1, 2), 2) = 2
, MING(T ) (2, 3) = min(kE (2, 3), 1) = 1, and MING(T ) (1, 3) = min(kE (1, 3), 1) = 1 =
min(d1 , d2 ) where G(T ) = {Gen(1), Gen(2), Gen(3)}. Thus we have Arf(G(T )) = S(T 1 ).
They are the vectors Gen(1) = [5, 6, 5], Gen(2) = [9, 11, 4], Gen(3) = [9, 10, 2] which appeared
in the Example 2.2.
Now, we want to find an upper bound for the cardinality of a minimal set G(T ) such that
Arf(G(T )) ∈ σ(E).
Remark 4.3. Suppose that T 1 is a twisted tree of τ (E), where E is a collection of n multiplicity
sequences. Then there exists a permutation δ ∈ S n such that δ(T 1 ) is an untwisted tree of
τ (δ(E)). Then if G is a set of generators for δ(T 1 ) then it is clear that we have

δ −1 (G) = δ −1 (g); g ∈ G ,
is a set of generators for the twisted tree T 1 .

From the previous remark it follows that we can focus only on the untwisted trees of τ (E)
to find an upper bound for the cardinality of G(T ).
Our problem is clearly linked to the following question.

23

Question 4.4. Let us consider a vector d = [d1 , . . . , dn ] ∈ Nn . For all the G ⊆ Nn+1 we denote
by MIN(G, i, j) the integers (if they are well defined)
MIN(G, i, j) = min {min(g[i], g[j]) : g ∈ G with g[i] 6= g[j]} ,
for all the i < j and i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n + 1} .
We define a solution for the vector d as a set G ⊆ Nn+1 such that:
MIN(G, i, j) = min {di , . . . , dj−1} for all i < j.
Consider n ∈ N with n ≥ 1 . Find the smallest t ∈ N, such that for all [d1 , . . . , dn ] ∈ Nn
there exists a solution with t vectors. We denote such a number t by NS(n).
Theorem 4.5. Consider n ∈ N with n ≥ 1 . Then NS(n) = ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉, where ⌈d⌉ =
min {m ∈ N : m ≥ d}.
Proof First of all we show that given an arbitrary vector d of Nn we are able to find a solution
of d consisting of N = ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ vectors.
We will do it by induction on n. The base of induction is trivial. In fact if n = 1 then for
each vector [d1 ] we find the solution G = {[d1 , d1 + 1]} that has cardinality ⌈log2 (1 + 1)⌉ = 1.
Thus we suppose that the theorem is true for all the m < n and we prove it for n. Let d an
arbitrary vector of Nn . We fix some notations. Given a vector d, we will denote by sol(d) a
solution with ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ vectors. We denote by Inf(d) = min {di : i = 1, . . . , n} and by
Pinf(d) = {i ∈ {1, . . . , n} : d
i = Inf(d)}. We have 1 ≤ |Pinf(d)| = k(d) ≤ n.
Suppose that Pinf(d) = i1 < i2 < · · · < ik(d) . Then we can split the vector d in the
following k(d) + 1 subvectors:


d1 = d(1 . . . i1 − 1),
dj = d(ij−1 + 1 . . . ij − 1) for j = 2, . . . , k(d),


dk(d)+1 = d(ik(d) + 1 . . . n),

where with d(a . . . b) we mean
• ∅ if b < a;

• The subvector of d with components between a and b if a ≤ b.
Then the subvectors dj are either empty or with all the components greater than Inf(d). We
briefly illustrate with an example the construction of the subvectors dj .
Example 4.6. Suppose that d = [2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5]. Then Inf(d) = 2, Pinf(d) = {1, 3, 4} and
then we have the four subvectors:
• d1 = d(1 . . . 0) = ∅,
• d2 = d(2 . . . 2) = [3],
24

• d3 = d(4 . . . 3) = ∅,
• d4 = d(5 . . . 7) = [5, 4, 5].
Then we can consider the list of k(d) + 1 subvectors:
p(d) = [d1 , . . . , dk(d)+1 ],
and, because all the di have length strictly less than n we can find a solution for each of them
with N = ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ or less vectors. For the di = ∅ we will set sol(∅) = {[x]}, where x is
an arbitrary integer that is strictly greater than all the entries of d. It is quite easy to check that
the following equality holds:
k(d)+1

n = k(d) +

X

Length(di ).

(1)

i=1

We associate to the list of vectors p(d) another list of vector c(d) such that
c(d) = [c1 , . . . , ck(d)+1 ],
where Length(cj ) = Length(dj ) + 1 and the entries of cj are all equal to Inf(d) for all j =
1, . . . , k(d) + 1.
Now we consider the set I(N) = {0, 1}N . For each t ∈ I(N) we denote by O(t) the number
of one that appear in t. Because we have N = ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ , it follows
k(d) + 1 ≤ n + 1 ≤ 2N = |I(N)|,
therefore it is always possible to associate to each subvectors of the list p(d) distinct elements of
I(N). We actually want to show that it is possible to associate to all the subvectors di distinct
vectors of t ∈ I(N) such that O(t) ≥ |sol(di )| (for di = ∅ we can also associate the zero
vector). We already know for the inductive step that all the di have solutions with at most N
vectors. Suppose therefore that m ≤ N.
It is easy to see that
| {t ∈ I(N) : O(t) ≥ m} | =

N  
X
N

k=m

k

.


P
N
Then we suppose by contradiction that in p(d) we have N
k=m k + 1 subvectors with solution
with cardinality m. From the inductive step it follows that all these subvectors have at least
length 2m−1 , and from the formula 1 it follows:

n≥

N  
X
N

k=m

k

+

N  
X
N

k=m

k

!

+ 1 2m−1 ⇒ n + 1 ≥

N  
X
N

k=m

25

k

!

+ 1 (1 + 2m−1 ).

But we also have that:
N  
X
N

k=m

PN


N

k

+ 1 ≥ 2N −m+1 ,

in fact k=m k is the number of ways to select a subset of {1, . . . , N} of at least m elements
while there are 2N −m+1 − 1 ways to select a subset which contains at least m elements and
contains {1, 2, . . . , m − 1}.
Therefore we can continue the inequality:
n + 1 ≥ 2N −m+1 (1 + 2m−1 ) = 2N + 2N −m+1 > 2N .
But N = ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ and therefore n + 1 ≤ 2N and we find a contradiction. Then in
{t ∈ I(N) : O(t) ≥ m} we have enough vectors to cover all the subvectors with solution with
cardinality m. We still also have to exclude the following possibility. Suppose that we have
x subvectors with solutions of cardinality m1 and y subvectors with solutions of cardinality
m2 > m1 . If | {t ∈ I(N) : O(t) ≥ m1 } | − x < y then it would not be possible to associate
to all the subvectors of the second type an element t of I(N) with O(t) ≥ m2 . Indeed if this
happen we would have:
n ≥ x + y − 1 + x · 2m1 −1 + y · 2m2 −1 > x + y − 1 + (x + y)2m1−1 ⇒
!
N  
X
N
+ 1 (1 + 2m1 −1 ),
⇒ n + 1 ≥ (x + y)(1 + 2m1 −1 ) ≥
k
k=m
1

and we already have seen that this is not possible.
Therefore we showed that we can consider a matrix A with N rows and k(d) + 1 distinct
columns with only zeroes and ones as entries and such that the i-th column of A is a vector t of
I(N) such that O(t) ≥ |sol(di )| for each 1 ≤ i ≤ k(d) + 1.
Now we can complete the construction of a solution for d . We consider a matrix B with N
rows and k(d) + 1 columns. We fill the matrix B following these rules:
• If A[i, j] = 0 then in B[i, j] we put the vector cj ;
• If A[i, j] = 1 then in B[i, j] we put an element of sol(dj );
• All the elements of sol(dj ) have to appear in the j-th column for all j = 1, . . . , k(d) + 1.
Then if we glue all the vectors appearing in the i-th row of B for each i = 1, . . . , N we obtain
a solution G for the vector d. In fact if we consider i1 , j1 such that i1 < j1 we have two
possibilities:
• i1 and j1 both correspond to elements in the j-th column of B. Then because in this
column we have either vectors of a solution for dj or costant vectors, it follows that they
fulfill our conditions.
26

• i1 and j1 correspond to elements in distinct columns. This implies that we must have
MIN(G, i1 , j1 ) = Inf(d). In fact, for construction, between two distinct subvectors we
have an element equal to Inf(d) in d forcing MIN(G, i1 , j1 ) = Inf(d). Now suppose that
i1 and j1 correspond respectively to elements in the i-th and j-th columns of B. Because
we suppose i 6= j we have that the i-th column and the j-th column of the matrix A are
distinct so there exists a k such that A[k, i] = 0 and A[k, j] = 1 (or viceversa). This
implies that in B we have a row where in the i-th column there is the constant vector
equal to Inf(d) while in the j-th column we have a vector corresponding to a solution of
a subvectors of d (that has all the components greater than Inf(d) by construction). This
easily implies that MIN(G, i1 , j1 ) = Inf(d).
Example 4.7. Suppose that d = [2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4, 5]. We have n = 7, then we want to show that
there exists a solution with three vectors. We have already seen that in this case we have:
p(d) = [∅, [3], ∅, [5, 4, 5]].
We need to compute a solution for each entry of p(d). We have:
• sol(∅) = {[6]} ( 6 is greater than all the entries of d);
• sol([3]) = {[3, 4]};
• Let us compute a solution for f = [5, 4, 5] with the same techniques. Because Length(f) =
3 we expect to find a solution with at most two vectors. We have:
p(f) = [[5], [5]],
and we have sol([5]) = {[5, 6]}. Then in I(2) we want to find two distinct vectors with at
least an entry equal to one. We can choose [1, 1] and [0, 1]. Therefore we have:




[5, 6] [4, 4]
1 0
.
and B =
A=
[5, 6] [5, 6]
1 1
Then sol([5, 4, 5]) = {[5, 6, 4, 4], [5, 6, 5, 6]}.
Now we want to find in I(3) four vectors ti for i = 1, . . . , 4. We have free choice for the t1
and t3 , while we need O(t2 ) ≥ 1 and O(t4 ) ≥ 2. For instance we choose t1 = [0, 0, 0], t2 =
[1, 0, 0], t3 = [1, 1, 0], t4 = [1, 0, 1]. Then we have:




0 1 1 1
[2] [3, 4] [6] [5, 6, 4, 4]
A = 0 0 1 0 and B = [2] [2, 2] [6] [2, 2, 2, 2] .
0 0 0 1
[2] [2, 2] [2] [5, 6, 5, 6]
Then a solution for d is the set

G = {[2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 6, 4, 4], [2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2], [2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 5, 6]} .
27

So we proved that NS(n) ≤ ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉. To prove that the equality holds we notice that for
each n a constant vector needs exactly ⌈log2 (n + 1)⌉ vectors in its solutions.
Now we can return to the problem of determining an upper bound for the cardinality of
G(T ). We need another lemma:
Lemma 4.8. Let E = {M(1), M(2)} be a collection of two multiplicity sequences. Then, with
the previous notations we have:
kE (1, 2) ≤ min {j : j ∈ (PCharE (1) ∪ PCharE (2)) \ (PCharE (1) ∩ PCharE (2))} .
Proof Let us choose an arbitrary element t ∈ (PCharE (1) ∪ PCharE (2)) \ (PCharE (1) ∩
PCharE (2)). We want to show that kE (1, 2) ≤ t. Suppose by contradiction that t < kE (1, 2).
Without loss of generality we suppose that t ∈ PCharE (1). It follows that t ∈
/ PCharE (2) and
we have:
r(m1,t ) < r(m1,t+1 ) and r(m2,t ) ≥ r(m2,t+1 ).
Notice that if an entry of M(1) has m1,t+1 as a summand and it is not m1,t , it is forced to have
m1,t as a summand too. So from r(m1,t ) < r(m1,t+1 ) we deduce that in M(1) there are no
entries involving only m1,t . Similarly from r(m2,t ) ≥ r(m2,t+1 ) we deduce that in M(2) we
must have at least one entry m2,s which involves m2,t as a summand but not m2,t+1 .
Namely
t
X
m2,k .
(2)
m2,s =
k=s+1

Now, we have assumed that t < kE (1, 2) hence t + 1 ≤ kE (1, 2). This imply that the untwisted
tree T such that TE = (t + 1) is well defined. In T we have the following nodes:
(m1,s , m2,s ), . . . , (m1,t , m2,t ), (m1,t+1 , m2,t+1 ).

Then from (2) and from the fact that the two branches are still glued at level t + 1 it must follow
that
t
X
m1,k
m1,s =
k=s+1

and we have still noticed how it contradicts the assumption r(m1,t ) < r(m1,t+1 ).
Now we can prove the following result:

Proposition 4.9. Let E be a collection of n multiplicity sequences. Then, if S(T ) ∈ σ(E), there
exists G(T ) ⊆ Nn with Arf(G(T )) = S(T ) and |G(T )| = CE + ⌈log2 (n)⌉.
Proof For the Remark 4.3 it suffices to prove the theorem only for the untwisted trees. Therefore
we suppose that TE = (d1 , . . . , dn−1 ). First of all we have to satisfy the condition on the
characters to ensure that Arf(G(T )) ∈ σ(E). From the Lemma (4.8) it follows that we can use
CE vectors to satisfy all the conditions. To see it, let us fix some notations.
28

Denote by τ (i) = |PCharE (i)| for all i = 1, . . . , n. Therefore CE = max {τ (i), i = 1, . . . , n}.
Suppose that

PCharE (i) = ai,1 < · · · < ai,τ (i) ,
and we define

L = max

n
[

PCharE (i)

i=1

!

+ 1.

For all i = 1, . . . , n we consider the vector J(i) = [ai,1 , . . . , ai,τ (i) , L, . . . , L] ∈ NCE . Thus we
can use the following set of vectors to satisfy the condition on the characters,
G = Gen(1) = VE (j1,1 , . . . , j1,n ), . . . , Gen(CE ) = VE (jCE ,1 , . . . , jCE ,n ),
where jp,q = J(q)[p] for all p = 1, . . . , CE and q = 1, . . . , n. Now it is clear that we have
PCharE (i) ⊆ {j1,i , . . . , jCE ,i } for all i = 1, . . . , n.
We also need to show that this choice does not affect the condition on (d1 , . . . , dn−1). We
define P = (q, r) ∈ {1, . . . , n}2 : jp,q = jp,r for all p = 1, . . . , CE . Thus for each (q, r) ∈ P
the previous vectors are compatible with the conditions on the element pq,r of M(T )E .
For each (q, r) ∈
/ P , we consider
p(q, r) = min {p : jp,q 6= jp,r } .
Now, because the entries of the vectors J(q) are in an increasing order, it is clear that we have
MING (q, r) = min (kE (q, r), min {min(jp,q , jp,r ) : jp,q 6= jp,r }) =

= min kE (q, r), min(jp(q,r),q , jp(q,r),r ) , for all (q, r) ∈
/ P.

Furthermore, for the particular choice of the vectors Gen(i) and of L, it is clear that from
jp(q,r),q 6= jp(q,r),r , it follows that
min(jp(q,r),q , jp(q,r)r ) ∈ (PCharE (q) ∪ PCharE (r)) \ (PCharE (q) ∩ PCharE (r)),
and from the Lemma (4.8), we finally have
min(jp(q,r),q , jp(q,r),r ) ≥ kE (q, r) for all (q, r) ∈
/ P,
so the vectors Gen(i) are compatible with our tree.
Now from the Theorem (4.5) it follows that we can use ⌈log2 (n)⌉ vectors to have a solution
for the vector [d1 , . . . , dn−1 ]. Adding the vectors corresponding to this solution to the previous
CE we obtain a set G(T ) such that Arf(G(T )) = S(T ).
Notice that the first CE vectors may satisfy some conditions on the di , therefore it is possible
to find G(T ) with smaller cardinality than the previous upper bound.

29

Remark 4.10. Let us consider the Arf semigroup of the Example 4.2.
It was T = TE = (2, 1), where
E = {M(1) = [5, 4, 1, 1], M(2) = [6, 4, 1, 1], M(3) = [2, 2, 1, 1]} ,
with
PCharE (1) = {1, 2} , PCharE (2) = {1, 2, 3} and PCharE (3) = {1, 3} .
We found G = {VE (1, 1, 3), VE (2, 3, 2), VE (2, 2, 1)} as a set such that Arf(G) = S(T ), and it
is also minimal because we have |G| = CE and we clearly cannot take off any vector from it.
Using the strategy of the previous corollary we would find the vectors:
Gen(1) = VE (1, 1, 1), Gen(2) = VE (2, 2, 3) and Gen(3) = VE (4, 3, 4),
that satisfy the conditions on the characters (L = 4).
We have to add vectors that correspond to a solution for the vector [2, 1]. For istance it
suffices to consider [3, 2, 1] and therefore we will add the vector Gen(4) = VE (3, 2, 1). Notice
how the set G′ = {VE (1, 1, 1), VE (2, 2, 3), VE (4, 3, 4), VE (3, 2, 1)}, with |G′ | > |G|, is still
minimal because we cannot remove any vector from it without disrupting the condition on the
tree. Therefore we can have minimal sets of generators with distinct cardinalities.
Example 4.11. Let us consider
E = {M1 = [4, 4, 1, 1], M2 = [6, 4, 1, 1], M3 = [2, 2, 1, 1], M4 = [3, 2, 1, 1]} .
We want to find a set of generators for the twisted tree T of τ (E) such that:


0 2 1 2
0 0 1 3

M(T )E = 
0 0 0 1 .
0 0 0 0

First of all we notice that it is well defined because it satisfies the conditions given by the
Remark 1.5 and we have
k(1, 2) = 2, k(1, 3) = 4, k(1, 4) = 2, k(2, 3) = 2, k(2, 4) = 3 and k(3, 4) = 2.
We consider the permutation δ = (3, 4) of S 4 . Then δ(T ) is an untwisted tree of τ (δ(E)) and it
is described by the vector Tδ(E) = (2, 3, 1). We have:
• PCharδ(E) (1) = {1, 3} ;
• PCharδ(E) (2) = {1, 2, 3} ;
• PCharδ(E) (3) = {1, 2} ;
30

• PCharδ(E) (4) = {1, 3} .
Then with the vectors Vδ(E) (1, 1, 1, 1), Vδ(E)(3, 2, 2, 3), Vδ(E)(4, 3, 4, 4), we satisfy the condition
on the characters. We need to add the vectors corresponding to a solution for [2, 3, 1]. It suffices
to add Vδ(E) (2, 4, 3, 1). Then
G(T ) = {[4, 6, 3, 2], [9, 10, 5, 5], [10, 11, 7, 6], [8, 12, 6, 2]} ,
is a set of generators for δ(T ). Because δ −1 = (3, 4), we have that
δ −1 (G(T )) = {[4, 6, 2, 3], [9, 10, 5, 5], [10, 11, 6, 7], [8, 12, 2, 6]}
is a set of generators for the twisted tree T .

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Marco D’Anna for his helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Pedro Garcı́a-Sánchez for his careful reading of an earlier version of the paper
and for many helpful hints regarding the implementation in GAP of the presented procedures.

31

References
[1] C. Arf Une interpretation algebrique de la suite des ordres de multiplicite d’une
branche algebrique Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 50:256-287, 1948.
[2] V. Barucci, M. D’Anna, R. Fröberg Analitically unramifed one-dimensional
semilocal rings and their value semigroups, in J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 147 (2000),
215-254.
[3] V. Barucci, M. D’Anna, R. Fröberg Arf characters of an algebroid curve, in JP
Journal of Algebra, Number Theory and Applications, vol.3(2)(2003), p. 219-243.
[4] A. Campillo, Algebroid curves in positive characteristic, Lecture Notes in Math.
813, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, (1980).
[5] M. D’Anna The canonical module of a one-dimensional reduced local ring,
Comm. Algebra , 25 (1997), 2939-2965.
[6] M. D’Anna, P. A. Garcia Sanchez, V. Micale, L. Tozzo Good semigroups of Nn ,
preprint, arXiv:1606.03993 (2017)
[7] P. Du Val The Jacobian algorithm and the multiplicity sequence of an algebraic
branch, Rev. Fac. Sci. Univ. Istanbul. Ser. A., 7 (1942), 107-112.
[8] The GAP Group, GAP-Groups, Algorithms and Programming, Version 4.7.5 , 25
(2014).
GIUSEPPE ZITO-Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica-Università di Catania-Viale
Andrea Doria, 6, I-95125 Catania- Italy.
E-mail address: giuseppezito@hotmail.it

32

