arXiv:1212.1841v2 [math.AG] 25 Jan 2013

Twenty Points in P3
David Eisenbud, Robin Hartshorne, and Frank-Olaf Schreyer ∗

Abstract
Using the possibility of computationally determining points on a finite
cover of a unirational variety over a finite field, we determine all possibilities
for direct Gorenstein linkages between general sets of points in P3 over an
algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. As a consequence we show that
a general set of d points is glicci (that is, in the Gorenstein linkage class of
a complete intersection) if d ≤ 33 or d = 37, 38. Computer algebra plays
an essential role in the proof. The case of 20 points had been an outstanding
problem in the area for a dozen years [8].

Introduction
The theory of liaison (linkage) is a powerful tool in the theory of curves in P3
with applications, for example, to the question of the unirationality of the moduli
spaces of curves (for example [3, 30, 27]. One says that two curves C, D ⊂ P3
(say, reduced and without common components) are directly linked if their union
is a complete intersection, and evenly linked if there is a chain of curves C =
C0 , C1 , . . . , C2m = D such that Ci is directly linked to Ci+1 for all i. The first
step in theory is the result of Gaeta that any two arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay
curves are evenly linked, and in particular are in the linkage class of a complete
intersection, usually written licci. Much later Rao ([24]) showed that even linkage
classes are in bijection with graded modules of finite length up to shift, leading
to an avalanche of results (reported, for example in [21] and [20]). However, in
∗

This paper reports on work done during the Commutative Algebra Program, 2012-13, at
MSRI. We are grateful to MSRI for providing such an exciting environment, where a chance
meeting led to the progress described here. The first author is also grateful to the National Science
Foundation for partial support during this period.

1

codimension > 2 linkage yields an equivalence relation that seems to be very
fine, and thus not so useful; for example the scheme consisting of the 4 coordinate
points in P3 is not licci.
A fundamental paper of Peskine and Szpiro [23] laid the modern foundation
for the theory of linkage. They observed that some of the duality used in liaison
held more generally in a Gorenstein context, and Schenzel [26] introduced a full
theory of Gorenstein liaison. We say that two schemes X, Y ⊂ Pn that are reduced
and without common components are directly Gorenstein-linked if their union is
arithmetically Gorenstein (for general subschemes the right definition is that IG :
IX = IY and IG : IY = IX ). We define Gorenstein linkage to be the equivalence
relation generated by this notion. This does not change the codimension 2 theory,
since, by a result of Serre ([28]) every Gorenstein scheme of codimension 2 is
a complete intersection. Moreover, the behavior of Gorenstein linkage in higher
codimensions seems closer to that in codimension 2. For example, it is not hard
to show that a set of 4 points of P3 is linked via Gorenstein schemes to a complete
intersection—that is, in now-standard terminology, it is glicci (see for example
[18].)
For the theory in higher codimension to be similar to the codimension 2 theory, one hopes that every arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay scheme is glicci, and, in
particular: every finite set of points in P3 should be glicci. This was verified by the
second author in 2001(see [8]) for general sets of d points in P3 with d < 20, and
he proposed the case of 20 general points in P3 as a “first candidate counterexample”. The question of of whether 20 general points in P3 is glicci has remained
open since then.
Theorem 0.1. Over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, a scheme
consisting of d general points in P3 is glicci when d ≤ 33 and also when d = 37
or d = 38.
Further, we determine all pairs of numbers d, e such that there exist “bi-dominant” direct Gorenstein linkage correspondences between the smoothing components (that is, the components containing reduced sets of points) of the Hilbert
schemes of degree d subschemes and degree e finite subschemes of P3 —see Section 1 for a precise statement. All such bi-dominant correspondences are indicated
by the edges in the graph shown in Figure 1. Our approach makes essential use
of computation, done in Macaulay2 [6] by the package GlicciPointsInP3 [5]. It
passes by way of characteristic p > 0, and we get the same results in all the
characteristics we have tested.
2

28
27

29
26

31
24

36

32

34

30

38

23

35
45

37

25

46
47
44

33

15

16

22

14

17
13

12

7

8

21

18

19

11

20

10
9

6

4
5
3

2
1

Figure 1: The graph shows all bi-dominant Gorenstein direct linkage correspondences for collections of points in P3 over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. A vertex d represents a set of d points, and an edge d—e represents
linkage by an arithmetically Gorenstein set of d + e points with a particular hvector. Thus two edges are shown where two different h-vectors are possible.

3

Paradoxically, though our method proves that almost all sets of points of the
given degrees is glicci, and uses computation, it is not constructive: we prove that
a general set of 20 points in P3 is linked to a set of 10 points by a Gorenstein
scheme of length 30. But if you give us a set of 20 points, we have no way of
producing a Gorenstein scheme of length 30 containing it.
As far as we know, our paper is the first to make explicit use of linkages by
Gorenstein that are not divisors of the form mH − K on some arithmetically
Cohen-Macaulay scheme of one larger dimension (see Section 5, below).
Thanks: We are grateful to Peter Cameron, Persi Diaconis, Ira Gessel, Robert
Guralnick, Brendan Hassett and Yuri Tschinkel for helping us to understand various aspects of this paper.

1

Basic definitions and outline of the argument

For simplicity, we work throughout this paper over a perfect (but not necessarily
algebraically closed) field k. Given a closed subscheme X ⊂ Pn , we write SX
for the homogeneous coordinate ring of X and OX for the structure sheaf of X.
Similarly, we write IX and IX for the homogeneous ideal and the ideal sheaf of
X.
We write HX for the union of the components of the Hilbert scheme of subschemes of Pn that contain X; and we write HC X for the union of the components
of the Hilbert scheme of cones in An+1 that contain the cone over X (see [7]). For
example, if X is a reduced set of points then HX is smooth at X of dimension nd,
but HC X may be more complicated.
The reason for considering these cones is the following. While, for a set of
general points X ⊂ Pn , the deformation theory and Hilbert schemes HX and
HC X are naturally isomorphic, this is not so for other subschemes. Also, if G is
an arithmetically Gorenstein set of points in Pn , then deformations of G will not
in general be arithmetically Gorenstein. On the other hand, the deformations of
the cone over G in HC G are again cones over arithmetically Gorenstein schemes,
and this is the way one normally defines the scheme structure (called PGor(H) in
[17]) on the subset of the Hilbert scheme of points in Pn consisting of arithmetically Gorenstein subschemes. In particular, the tangent space to HC G at the point
corresponding to G is HomS (IG , S/IG )0 .
We say that a finite scheme of degree d in Pn has generic Hilbert function if
the maps H 0 (OPn (d)) → H 0 (OX (d)) are either injective or surjective for each
d. This is the case, for example, when X consists of d general reduced points. In
4

any case, such a generic Hilbert function is determined by d alone. Moreover, any
nearby set of points will also have generic Hilbert function, so the Hilbert scheme
HX is naturally isomorphic, in a neighborhood of X, to the Hilbert scheme HC X ,
and in particular the latter is also smooth and of dimension nd at X.
By [1], any arithmetically Gorenstein scheme G of codimension 3 in Pn is defined by the Pfaffians of a skew symmetric matrix of homogeneous forms. From
this description and Macaulay’s growth conditions Stanley [29] derived a characterization of the possible Hilbert functions of such schemes, and [4, 17] showed
that the family HC G is smooth and irreducible. To simplify our discussion, we
will use the term Gorenstein Hilbert function in this paper to refer to a Hilbert
function of some arithmetically Gorenstein scheme of codimension 3 in P3 .
Given two positive integers d, e, we ask whether there exists a a zero-dimensional arithmetically Gorenstein scheme G of degree d + e in P3 that “could”
provide a direct Gorenstein linkage between a set X of d points with generic
Hilbert function and a set Y of e points with generic Hilbert function. It turns out
that there is only a finite number of possibilities for the Hilbert function of such a
scheme, and we can list them.
If G is a finite reduced Gorenstein scheme in P3 containing a subscheme X
with complement Y , we let
HC X∪Y =G = {(X 0 , Y 0 , G0 ) ∈ HC X ×HC Y ×HC G |X 0 ∪Y 0 = G0 and X 0 ∩Y 0 = 0}.
be the incidence correspondence, and we ask when HC X∪Y =G projects dominantly onto HX and HY via HC X and HC Y ; in this case we say that the correspondence is bi-dominant. Of course for this to happen, the family HC G must
have dimension at least max(3d, 3e). We will show that no bi-dominant correspondence is possible unless the numbers d, e are both ≤ 47.
Given d, e and an appropriate Gorenstein Hilbert function, we search for an
example of a reduced Gorenstein scheme G ⊂ P3 with the given Hilbert function
such that G contains a degree d subscheme X with generic Hilbert function whose
complement Y also has generic Hilbert function. We do not know how to find
such examples directly in characteristic 0. It is perhaps the most surprising part
of this paper that one can find examples of the type above by computer over a
finite field; We can then lift the examples of pairs X ⊂ G to characteristic zero.
The success of the method in finite characteristic is based on the observation that,
given integers d, e, a random polynomial of degree d + e over a large finite field
“often” has a factor of degree e. This phenomenon is explored in Section 2.
Set
HC X⊂G = {(X 0 , G0 ) ∈ HC X × HC G | X 0 ⊂ G0 }.
5

Near a triple (X, Y, G) as above, the natural projection HC X∪Y =G → HC X⊂G is
an isomorphism, with inverse defined from the family, over HC X⊂G , of residual
subschemes to X in G, and the universal property of HC X∪Y =G .
We use a deformation-theoretic argument given in Section 3, together with
machine computation, to test whether HC X⊂G is smooth at the pair (X, G) and
projects dominantly onto HX , and similarly for Y . If our example passes both
these tests, it follows that the incidence correspondence HC X∪Y =G is bi-dominant.
If HC X∪Y =G is bi-dominant then for any dense open set V ⊂ HC Y there
exists a dense open set U ⊂ HC X such that each point X 0 ∈ U can be directly
Gorenstein-linked to a point Y 0 ∈ V . In particular, if a general point Y 0 ∈ HC Y
is glicci, then a general point X 0 ∈ HC X is glicci as well.
Figure 1 presents a graph (produced by the program Graphviz) of all bidominant correspondences. A node numbered d is connected to a node numbered
e if, for a general set of d points X, there exists a Gorenstein scheme of degree
d + e containing X with complement Y such that the scheme HC X∪Y =G dominates both HC X and HC Y . By the remark above, general set of d points is glicci
if d lies in the connected component of 1 in this graph.
34 Points? The degree of the smallest collection of general points in P3 that is still
not known to be glicci is 34. Here is a possible attack on this case: a general set of
34 points can be linked (using a five-dimensional family of Gorenstein schemes) to
a five-dimensional family F of sets of 34 points. On the other hand the schemes
in H34 that can be directly Gorenstein linked to 21 points form a subfamily of
codimension only 3. Hence it is plausible that the family F meets this stratum.
If this does indeed happen, then, since we know that a set of 21 general points is
glicci, it would follow that a set of 34 general points is glicci. (One could also link
back and forth between sets of 34 and 36 points; or some combination of both.)
To make this work would seem to require a good compactification of HC G , on
which one could do intersection theory.

2

Split Polynomials over Finite Fields

In this section we describe the philosophy leading us to believe that the computations underlying this paper could be successful. In a nutshell: Q-rational points
on varieties over Q are very hard to find, but Fp -rational points on varieties over a
finite field Fp are much more accessible. No new result is proven in this section,
and none of the results mentioned will be used in the rest of the paper.
6

By a result of Buchsbaum and Eisenbud [1], the homogeneous ideal of an
arithmetically Gorenstein subscheme G of codimension 3 in projective space has
a minimal presentation matrix that is homogeneous and skew-symmetric. The
degrees of the elements in this matrix (the degree matrix) determine the Hilbert
function of G. For the arithmetically Gorenstein schemes in an open dense subset
of the Hilbert scheme, the degree matrix is also determined (up to permutation of
the rows and columns) by the Hilbert function.
Our method thus requires that we find an arithmetically Gorenstein scheme
with given degree matrix that also contains reduced components—and these must
be sufficiently general so that the Hilbert function of the corresponding subscheme
is “generic”. We do this by choosing a random skew symmetric matrix with appropriate degrees over a moderately large finite field. We then hope that it contains
a reduced subscheme of the right degree; and we check whether it does by projecting (in a random direction) to a line and factoring the polynomial in 1 variable that
corresponds to the subscheme of the line. Once we have such an example we can
proceed with the computations of tangent spaces described in the next sections.
For instance, to show that a set of 20 points in P3 is directly Gorenstein-linked
to a set of 10 Gorenstein points, we will choose a random arithmetically Gorenstein, 0-dimensional scheme G ⊂ P3 such that the presentation matrix of IG is a
9×9 skew-symmetric matrix of linear forms (this choice of a 9×9 matrix of linear
forms is determined by considerations to be described later). If M is a sufficiently
general matrix of this kind over a polynomial ring in four variables then the cokernel of M will be the homogeneous ideal of a reduced 0-dimensional scheme of
degree 30 in P3 . Now suppose that the ground field k is a moderately large finite
field, and we choose such a matrix randomly (say by choosing each coefficient
of each linear form in the upper half of the matrix uniformly at random from k).
What will be the chance that it contains a subscheme of length 20 defined over
k? That is, how many random examples should one expect to investigate before
finding a good one?
The answer was surprising to us: Taking k to be a field with 10,007 elements,
and making 10,000 random trials, we found that the desired subscheme occurs in
3868 examples—about 38% of the time. For the worst case needed for this paper,
where the Gorenstein scheme has degree 90 and the desired subscheme has degree
45, the proportion is about 17% in our experiments.
The proportion of Gorenstein schemes of degree 30 that are reduced and have a
subscheme of degree 20 defined over k turns out to be quite close to the proportion
of polynomials of degree 30 that have a factor of degree 20 over k. That proportion
can be computed explicitly as a rational function in the size of the ground field;
7

for |k| = 10, 007 it is approximately .385426.
Such phenomena are quite general (see [16], Theorem 9.4.4). Thus, to consider applications of this random search technique it is worthwhile to know something about the proportion of polynomials of degree n in 1 variable over a finite
field Fq that are square-free and have a factor of given degree k.
This proportion can be computed explicitly (for small n and k). Gauss showed
that the number of irreducible monic polynomials in Fq [x] of degree ` is
N (`, q) =

1X
µ(`/d)q d
`
d|`

where µ denotes the Möbius function. Thus the number of square free polynomials is of degree n is

r 
XY
N (λi , q)
ti

λ`n i=1

where ti denotes the frequency of λi in the partition λ = (λt11 , λt22 , . . . , λtrr ). (This
number, rather amazingly, can also be written as q n − q n−1 ; for a simple proof see
[25].)
The number of square free polynomials of degree n with a factor of degree k
is

r 
X
Y
N (λi , q)
A(n, k, q) =
.
t
i
λ`n
i=1
with subpartition of size k

For small n and k the polynomial in q can be evaluated explicitly. For example
A(6, 3, q) =
and

5
5
13
29 6 11 5
q − q + q4 − q3 + q2
80
16
16
16
40

.
A(30, 20, q)/q 30 = .385481 − .550631q −1 + O(q −2 ).
Since
lim N (`, q)/q ` =

q→∞

1
`

the relative size of the contribution of a partition λ converges to

r 
Y
N (λi , q)
1
lim
/q n = Qr
ti = |Cλ |/n!,
q→∞
t
t
!λ
i
i
i
i=1
i=1
8

which is also the relative size of the conjugacy class Cλ in the symmetric group
Sn . Thus the sum
X
p(n, k) =
|Cλ |/n!
λ`n

with subpartition of size k

can serve as an approximation for A(n, k, q)/q n for large q.
For fixed k, Cameron (unpublished) proved that the limit limn→∞ p(n, k) exists and is positive. For example,
lim p(n, 1) = 1 − exp(−1)

n→∞

was established by Montmort around 1708 [22].
Indeed, over a finite field F with q elements the fraction of polynomials with
a root in F is about 63% nearly independently of q and n. Experimentally we find
that
.
A(n, 1, q)/q n = .632121 − .81606q −1 + O(q −2 ).

3

Deformation Theory

We are interested in pairs of schemes X ⊂ G such that the projection
HC X⊂G → HC X
is dominant, meaning geometrically that each small deformation of X is still contained in a small deformation of G that is still arithmetically Gorenstein. We will
check this condition by showing that the map of tangent spaces is surjective at
some smooth point of HC X⊂G .
We thus begin by recalling the construction of the tangent space to HC X⊂G .
Though the case of interest to us has to do with finite schemes in Pn , the (wellknown) result is quite general:
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that X ⊂ G are closed subschemes of a scheme Z, and let
TX/Z = H 0 HomZ (IX , OX ),

TG/Z = H 0 HomZ (IG , OG )

be the tangent spaces to the functors of embedded flat deformations of X and G
in Z. The functor of pairs of embedded flat deformations of X and G in Z that
preserve the inclusion relation X ⊂ G has Zariski tangent space T(X⊂G)/Z at
9

X ⊂ G equal to H 0 T(X⊂G)/Z , where T := T(X⊂G)/Z is defined by the fibered
product diagram
HomZ (IG , OG ) - HomZ (IG , OX )
6

T

6

-

HomZ (IX , OX ).

In particular, if the restriction map H 0 Hom(IX , OX ) → H 0 Hom(IG , OX ) is an
isomorphism then T(X⊂G)/Z ∼
= TG/Z .
Proof. (See also [12] Ex. 6.8.) It suffices to prove the lemma in the affine case, so
we suppose that Z = Spec R and that X ⊂ G are defined by ideals I ⊃ J in R.
The first order deformation of I corresponding to a homomorphism φ : I → S/I
is the ideal
Iφ := {i + φ(i) | i ∈ I} + I ⊂ R[]/(2 ),
and similarly for Jψ , so we have
T = {(ψ : J → R/J, φ : I → R/I) | ψ(j) ≡ φ( j)(mod I) for all j ∈ J}.
If ψ(j) ≡ φ( j)(mod I) for all j ∈ J then every element j + ψ(j) is obviously
in Iφ . Conversely, if j + ψ(j) = i + φ(i) + i0 with i0 ∈ I, then i = j, so
ψ(j) = φ(j) + i0 . This proves that T is the fibered product. The last statement of
the Lemma is an immediate consequence.
Recall from Section 1 that if X is reduced and has generic Hilbert function,
then HC X and the Hilbert scheme HX coincide in a neighborhood of X. Moreover, HC X and HX are irreducible.
Theorem 3.2. Let G ⊂ Pn be a finite scheme such that cone over G is a smooth
point on HC G . Suppose that X ⊂ G is a union of some of the components of G
that are reduced, and that X has generic Hilbert function. Let d = deg X. If
dimk HomS (IG , SG )0 − dimk HomS (IG , IX /IG )0 = nd,
then the projection map HC X⊂G → HX is dominant.
10

Proof. Consider the diagram with exact row
0

-

HomS (IG , IX /IG ) - HomS (IG , SG ) - HomS (IG , SX )
6

φ
HomS (IX , SX ).
We begin by computing the dimension of HomS (IX , SX )0 , the degree zero part of
HomS (IX , SX ). We may interpret this space as the space of first-order infinitesimal deformations of X as a cone—that is, as the tangent space to HC X at the
point X. The computation of this space commutes with base change, and since
we have assumed that the ground field k is perfect, the base change to k remains
reduced. Thus to compute the dimension of HomS (IX , SX )0 we may assume that
X consists of d distinct k-rational points.
The sheaf HomS (IX , OX ) is the sheafification of HomS (IX , SX ), so there is
a natural map
α : HomS (IX , SX )0 → H 0 (HomS (IX , OX )).
The source of α may be identified with the tangent spce to Hilbert scheme of cones
near X, while the target may be identified with the Hilbert scheme of collections
of points near X, and α is the map induced by forgetting the cone structure. Since,
by assumption, X has generic Hilbert function, these Hilbert schemes coincide,
and α is an isomorphism. Thus dim HomS (IX , SX )0 = nd.
Though the map φ : HomS (IX , SX ) → HomS (IG , SX ) in the diagram above
is generally not an isomorphism, we will next show that it induces an isomorphism
between the components of degree 0. Using the fact that SX is reduced, so that
HomS (IG , SX ) has depth ≥ 1, we see that the natural map
β : HomS (IG , SX )0 → H 0 Hom(IG , OX )
is an injection. On the other hand, any section of Hom(IG , OX ) is supported on
X. Because X is a union of the components of G, this implies that
H 0 Hom(IG , OX ) = H 0 Hom(IX , OX ).
Together with the equality HomS (IX , SX )0 = H 0 Hom(IX , OX ), this implies
that the map
φ0 : HomS (IX , SX )0 → HomS (IG , SX )0
11

is an isomorphism, as claimed.
Let cone X ⊂ cone G ⊂ An+1 be the cones over X and G respectively.
We may apply Lemma 3.1, which tells us that the space of first-order deformations of the pair cone X ⊂ cone G is the fibered product of HomS (IX , SX ) and
HomS (IG , SG ) over HomS (IG , SX ). Since we wish to look only at deformations
as cones, we take the degree 0 parts of these spaces, and we see that the tangent
space to HC X⊂G is the fibered product of HomS (IX , SX )0 and HomS (IG , SG )0
over HomS (IG , SX )0 . Since φ0 is an isomorphism, the tangent space to HC X⊂G
is isomorphic, via the projection, to HomS (IG , SG )0 , the tangent space to HC G at
G.
Since cone X consists of a subset of the irreducible components of cone G,
and X has generic Hilbert function, it follows that the map HC X⊂G → HC G
is surjective. Since HC G is smooth at G, and the map of tangent spaces is an
isomorphism, it follows that HC X⊂G is smooth at the pair (X ⊂ G).
To prove that the other projection map HC X⊂G → HC X is dominant it now
suffices to show that the map on tangent spaces
TX⊂G HC X⊂G = TG HC G → TX HC X = HomS (IG , SX )0
is onto or, equivalently, that the right hand map in the sequence
0 → HomS (IG , IX /IG )0 → HomS (IG , SG )0 → HomS (IG , SX )0
is surjective. Since the right hand vector space has dimension nd, this follows
from our hypothesis on dimensions.
Corollary 3.3. Let G ⊂ Pn be a finite scheme. Suppose that X ⊂ G is a union
of some of the components of G that are reduced, and that X has generic Hilbert
function. Let d = deg X. If
dimk HomS (IG , IX /IG )0 = dimG HC G − nd,
then HC G and HC X⊂G are smooth in G respectively (X ⊂ G) and the projection
map HC X⊂G → HC X is dominant.
Proof. Since
dimG HC G ≤ dim TG HC G = dim HomS (IG , SG )0
≤ dim HomS (IG , IX /IG )0 + dim HomS (IG , SX )0
= dim HomS (IG , IX /IG )0 + nd
equality holds by our assumption, and HC G is smooth at G. Now the Theorem
applies.
12

4

Computational Approach

To classify the possible bi-dominant direct Gorenstein linkage correspondences
we make use of h-vectors [29], which are defined as follows. See [15] for further
details.
Let R = S/I be a homogeneous Cohen-Macaulay factor ring of a polynomial
ring S with dim R = k. The h-vector of R (or of X in case I = IX ) is defined to be
the k-th difference of the Hilbert function of R. If `1 , . . . , `k is an R-sequence of
linear forms, then R/(`1 , . . . , `k ) is artinian, and its Hilbert function is equal to the
h-vector of R. It follows in particular that the h-vector consists of a finite sequence
of positive integers followed by zeros. Over a small field such an R-sequence
may not exist, but the h-vector does not change under extension of scalars, so
the conclusion remains true. We often specify an h-vector by giving just the list
of non-zero values.We can make a similar construction for any Cohen-Macaulay
module. If X is a finite scheme then the sum of the terms in the h-vector is the
degree of X. The h-vector of a Gorenstein ideal is symmetric.
From the definition it follows at once that the h-vector of a set of points X
with general Hilbert function is equal to the Hilbert function of the polynomial
ring in 3 variables except (possibly) for the last nonzero term, and thus has the
form



s+1
1, 3, 6, ...,
, a, 0, . . . with 0 ≤ a ≤ s+2
.
2
2
where s is the least degree of a surface containing X. For example the h-vector of
a general collection of 21 points in P3 is {1, 3, 6, 10, 1}.
We will make use of the observation that if IX and IY in S are directly Gorenstein linked via IG then the h-vector of X, plus some shift of the reverse of the
h-vector of Y , is equal to the h-vector of G (see [15], 2.14.) One way to see this
is to reduce all three of IX , IY , IG modulo a general linear form. The relation of
linkage is preserved, and ωX ∼
= IY /IG (up to a shift). Since the Hilbert function
of ωX is the reverse of the Hilbert function of S/IX , this gives the desired relation.
For example our computations show that a general collection of 21 points
in P3 , with h-vector {1, 3, 6, 10, 1} as above is directly Gorenstein linked to a
collection of 9 points with general Hilbert function, and thus h-vector {1, 3, 5}.
The Gorenstein ideal that links them will have h-vector {1, 3, 6, 10, 6, 3, 1}, and
13

we have:
1 3 6 10 1
+
531
= 1 3 6 10 6 3 1
The additivity of h-vectors in zero-dimensional Gorenstein liaison can be traced
back to Macaulay (see [19], p. 112) as Tony Iarrobino pointed out to us.
We return to the problem of linking general sets of points. Let Hd ⊂ Hilbd (P3 )
denote the irreducible component whose general point corresponds to a collection
of d distinct points. Consider an (irreducible) direct Gorenstein linkage correspondence
HC X∪Y =G → Hd × He
Recall that HC X∪Y =G is said to be bi-dominant if it dominates both Hd and He .
The h-vector of a general point G = X ∪ Y of a bi-dominant correspondence is
rather special. Most of the following Proposition can be found in [15], 7.2; we
repeat it for the reader’s convenience.
Proposition 4.1. Let G = X ∪ Y be a general point of a bi-dominant correspondence. Then the h-vector of G is one of the following:
 s+1

I) {1, 3, 6, . . . , s+1
, 2 + c, s+1
, . . . , 3, 1} with 0 ≤ c ≤ s + 1, or
2
2
 s+1


s+1
s+1
II) {1, 3, 6, . . . , s+1
,
+
c,
+
c,
, . . . , 3, 1} with 0 ≤ c ≤ s + 1
2
2
2
2
Proof. We may assume that d ≥ e. A collection of d general points has generic

t+1
Hilbert function. Thus the h-vector of X has the shape hX = {1, 3,
.
.
.
,
, a},
2

t+1
t+1
where d = 3 + a is the unique expression with 0 ≤ a < 2 . Similarly, we
 0
 0
0
t0 +1
+ a . On the other hand since G
have hY = {1, 3, . . . , t +1
,
a
},
where
e
=
2
3
is arithmetically Gorenstein, the h-vector of G is symmetric. As explained above,
the difference hG − hX coincides, after a suitable shift, with the h-vector of Y
read backwards. Since the h-vector of G coincides with the h-vector of X up to
position t we have only the possibilities
 t+1
1. t = t0 and a = a0 = 0 with hG = {1, 3, . . . , t+1
, 2 , . . . , 3, 1} of type
2
II) with s = t − 1 and c = s + 1
 s+1
2. t = t0 + 1 and a = a0 = 0 with hG = {1, 3, . . . , s+2
, 2 , . . . , 3, 1} of
2
0
type I) with s = t − 1 = t and c = s + 1
14


 s+1
3. t = t0 + 2 and a + a0 = s+1
with hG = {1, 3, . . . , s+2
, 2 , . . . , 3, 1}
2
2
0
of type I) with s = t − 1 = t + 1 and c = s + 1


4. s = t = t0 and hG = {1, 3, . . . , s+1
, a + a0 , s+1
, . . . , 3, 1} of type I)
2
2


s+1
5. s = t = t0 , a = a0 with hG = {1, 3, . . . , s+1
,
a,
a,
, . . . , 3, 1} of type
2
2
II)
By Stanley’s theorem [29] 4.2 the difference
function of the

 first half of hG is
s+1
0
nonnegative, so we have a + a0 ≥ s+1
and
a
=
a
≥
respectively in the
2
2
last two cases.
Proposition 4.2. Let G be an arithmetically Gorenstein set of points in P3 with
h-vector h be as in Proposition 4.1, and let g(h) be the dimension of HC G .
• In case I, g(h) = 4s(s + 1) + 4c − 1.
• In case II, g(h) = 92 s(s + 1) + 21 c(c + 13) − cs − 1.
Proof. Case I) is type 3 of [15] 7.2. Case II) is proved analogously, by induction
on s, using [15] 5.3 starting with the cases of h-vectors {1, 1, 1, 1} and {1, 2, 2, 1}.
Note that when c ≥ 2, Case II) will at some point reduce to Type 2 of [15] 7.2.
Corollary 4.3. There are only finitely many bi-dominant correspondences.
Proof. If HC h → HC d is dominant then we must have g(h) ≥ dim Hd = 3d.

But examining the Hilbert functions in the different cases we find that d ≥ s+2
,
3
which is cubic in s, while the functions g(h) are quadratic in s, so the inequality
cannot hold for large s. Calculation shows that s ≤ 5, and that d = 47 is the
maximal degree possible [5]. (See also [15] 7.2, 7.3.)
Theorem 4.4. The bi-dominant correspondences are precisely those indictated in
Figure 1.
Proof. To prove existence of a bi-dominant correspondence it suffices to find a
smooth point (X, Y ) ∈ HC X∪Y =G and to verify that both maps on tangent spaces
TX⊂G HC X⊂G → TX Hd and TY ⊂G HC Y ⊂G → TY He
are surjective. We test [5] each of the finitely many triples consisting of an hvector
h = {h0 , . . . , hn } and integers (d, e) satisfying g(h) ≥ max(3d, 3e) and
P
hi = d + e and subject to the condition that h can be expressed as the sum of
the h-vector of a general set of d points and the reverse of the h-vector of a general
set of e points, as follows:
15

1. Using the probabilistic method of section 1, find a pair X ⊂ G over a finite
field Fp .
2. Let Y be the scheme defined by IY = IG : IX . Test whether G is reduced,
and whether X and Y have generic Hilbert functions.
3. Test whether
dim Hom(IG , IX /IG )0 = dimG HC G − 3d
and
dim Hom(IG , IY /IG )0 = dimG HC G − 3e.
If the example X ⊂ G and Y passes the tests in 2,3 then, by Corollary 3.3,
(X, Y ) ∈ HC X∪Y =G is a point on a bi-dominant correspondence over Fp . Since
we may regard our example as the reduction mod p of an example defined over
some number field, this shows the existence of a bi-dominant correspondence in
characteristic zero.
There are nine pairs (d, h), involving six different h-vectors, where the procedure above did not, in our experiments, lead to a proof of bi-dominance. They are
given in the following table:
degrees
7
7
13,14,15
16
17
25,26

h-vector
{1,3,3,3,1}
{1,3,3,3,3,1}
{1,3,6,6,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,6,6,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,7,7,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,10,10,6,3,1}

Buchsbaum-Eisenbud matrix
S 2 (−3) ⊕ S 3 (−6) → S 2 (−5) ⊕ S 3 (−2)
S 2 (−3) ⊕ S 3 (−5) → S 2 (−4) ⊕ S 3 (−2)
S 3 (−4) ⊕ S 4 (−6) → S 3 (−5) ⊕ S 4 (−3)
S 3 (−4) ⊕ S 4 (−7) → S 3 (−6) ⊕ S 4 (−3)
S(−4) ⊕ S(−5) ⊕ S 3 (−7) → S(−6) ⊕ S(−5) ⊕ S 3 (−3)
S 4 (−5) ⊕ S 5 (−7) → S 4 (−6) ⊕ S 5 (−4)

It remains to show that, in these numerical cases, there really is no bi-dominant
family. In each of these cases the Buchsbaum-Eisenbud matrix (the skew-symmetric
presentation matrix of the IG ) has a relatively large block of zeroes, since the maps
between the first summands of the free modules shown in the table is zero for degree reasons. (In case d = 17 the map between the first two summands is zero,
as the matrix is skew symmetric). Thus among the pfaffians of this matrix are the
minors of an n × n + 1 matrix, for a certain value of n. These minors generate
the ideal of an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay (ACM) curve. In the given cases,
the general such curve will be smooth. Thus, in these cases, the Gorenstein points
lie on smooth ACM curves of degree c, the maximal integer in the h-vector of G
16

(so c ∈ {3, 6, 7, 10}.) For example if c = 3 there are 7 points, but a twisted cubic
curve can contain at most 6 general points. More generally, for a curve C moving
in its Hilbert scheme HC to contain d general points we must have 2d ≤ dim HC .
In all cases listed above, dim HC = 4c and 2d ≤ 4c is not satisfied.
The method discussed above can be used to show more generally that having
certain h-vectors forces a zero-dimensional Gorenstein scheme to be a divisor on
an ACM curve. Here is a special case:
Proposition 4.5. If Z is a zero-dimensional AG scheme with h-vector h of type I
with c = 0 or type II with c = 0, 1 in in Proposition 4.1, then Z is a divisor in a
class of the form mH − K on some ACM curve whose h-vector is the first half of
h.
We sketch an alternative proof:
Proof. For the cases with c = 0 this is a consequence of [15] 3.4 (c). For type II
with c = 1 we use induction on s. Using results 5.3 and 5.5 of [15] we compare h
to the h-vector h0 defined there, which is the same thing with s replaced by s − 1,
and we compute that the dimension fo HC h is equal to the dimension of the family
of those Z ∼ mH − K on a C, computed as dim HhC + dimC |mH − K|. The
induction starts with h = {1, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1}, where the corresponding scheme Z is a
complete intersection of type (2, 2, 3) and the result is obvious.
Remark 4.6. In some cases the projection HC X⊂G → HX is finite. This happens
for the following degrees d and h-vectors of G.
degree
7
17
21
25
29
32
33
38
45

h-vector
{1,3,3,1}
{1,3,6,7,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,6,3,1}
{ 1,3,6,10,10,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,12,10,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,12,12,10,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,15,10,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,15,15,10,6,3,1}
{1,3,6,10,15,19,15,10,6,3,1}

It would be interesting to compute the degree of the projection in these cases.
When G is a complete intersection the projection is one-to-one.
17

Corollary 4.7. A general collection of d points in P3 over an algebraically closed
field of characteristic zero is glicci if 1 ≤ d ≤ 33 or d = 37 or 38.
Proof. Since the correspondences are bi-dominant, a general collection of d points
will be Gorenstein linked to a general collection of degree e. Thus we may repeat,
and the result follows, because these degrees form a connected component of the
graph in Figure 1.

5

Strict Gorenstein Linkage

One way to obtain an arithmetically Gorenstein (AG) subscheme of any projective
space Pn is to take an ACM subscheme S satisfying the condition, called G1 , of
being Gorenstein in codimension 1, and a divisor X on it that is linearly equivalent
to mH − K, where H is the hyperplane class and K is the canonical divisor of
S (see [18], 5.4). A slight variation of this construction allows one to reduce the
condition G1 to G0 (Gorenstein in codimension 0; see [11], 3.3.) A direct linkage
using one of these AG schemes is called a strict direct Gorenstein link, and the
equivalence relation generated by these is called strict Gorenstein linkage [11].
Nearly all of the proofs in the literature that certain classes of schemes are
glicci use this more restrictive notion of Gorenstein linkage. (See [21] for a survey,
and [8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18] for some of the results)—in fact the one paper we are
aware of that actually makes use of the general notion for this purpose is [2] 7.1,
which uses general Gorenstein linkages to show that any AG subscheme of Pn is
glicci.
By contrast, some of the direct linkages established in this paper cannot be
strict direct Gorenstein links. We do not know whether such links can be achieved
by a sequence of strict Gorenstein links; but one can show that if this is possible
then some of the links must be to larger sets of points, and some of the intermediate sets of points must fail to be general.
Proposition 5.1. A general arithmetically Gorenstein scheme of 30 points in P3
cannot be written as a divisor of the form mH − K on any ACM curve C ⊂ P3 ,
where H is the hyperplane class and K the canonical class of C. The linkages
20—10 and 21—9 in Figure 1 are not strict direct Gorenstein links.
Proof. The h-vector of a Gorenstein scheme Z of 30 points, of which 20 or 21
are general, is necessarily h = {1, 3, 6, 10, 6, 3, 1}. If Z lay on an ACM curve in
the class mH − K, then the h-vector of the curve would be {1, 2, 3, 4} ([15], 3.1).
18

This is a curve of degree 10 and genus 11. The Hilbert scheme of such curves has
dimension 40, so such a curve can contain at most 20 general points. On the other
hand, our Theorem 0.1 shows that there are Gorenstein schemes with h-vector h
containing 21 general points. In particular, the linkage 21—9 is not strict.
If the link 20—10 were a strict Gorenstein link, then a set of 20 general points
X would lie in an AG scheme of 30 points in the class 5H − K on a curve C as
above. Since the Hilbert scheme of X and the incidence correspondence HX⊂C
both have dimension 60, a general X would be contained in a general, and thus
smooth and integral, curve C. But the family of pairs Z ⊂ C of this type has
dimension only 59 ([15], 6.8) and thus there is no such Z containing 20 general
points.
Some of the direct Gorenstein links in Figure 1 can be obtained by direct strict
Gorenstein links (for example, the cases d ≤ 19 are treated in [9]. However, for
d = 20, 24 ≤ d ≤ 33, and d = 37, 38 this is not the case.

References
[1] Buchsbaum, D. A. , Eisenbud, D. Algebra structures for finite free resolutions, and some structure theorems for ideals of codimension 3. Amer.
J. Math. 99 (1977), no. 3, 447–485.
[2] Casanellas, M., Drozd, E., Hartshorne, R. Gorenstein liaison and ACM
sheaves. J. Reine Angew. Math. 584 (2005), 149–171.
[3] Chang, M.C., Ran, Z. Unirationality of the moduli spaces of curves of
genus 11, 13 (and 12). Invent. Math. 76 (1984), no. 1, 41–54.
[4] Diesel, S. J. Irreducibility and dimension theorems for families of
height 3 Gorenstein algebras. Pacific J. Math. 172 (1996), no. 2, 365–
397.
[5] Eisenbud, D., Schreyer, F.-O. GlicciPointsInP3.m2 – Experiments establishing direct Gorenstein linkages for finite subsets of
P3 , a Macaulay2 [6] package, available at http://www.math.unisb.de/ag/schreyer/home/computeralgebra.htm.
[6] Grayson, D.R., Stillman, M.E. Macaulay2,
system for research in algebraic geometry,
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/
19

a software
available at

[7] Haiman, M., Sturmfels, B. Multigraded Hilbert schemes. J. Algebraic
Geom. 13 (2004), no. 4, 72–769.
[8] Hartshorne, R. Experiments with Gorenstein liaison. Dedicated to Silvio Greco on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Catania, 2001). Le
Matematiche (Catania) 55 (2000), no. 2, 305–318 (2002).
[9] Hartshorne, R. Some examples of Gorenstein liaison in codimension
three. Collect. Math. 53 (2002), no. 1, 21–48.
[10] Hartshorne, R. On Rao’s theorems and the Lazarsfeld-Rao property.
Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 12 (2003), no. 3, 375–393.
[11] Hartshorne, R. Generalized divisors and biliaison. Illinois J. Math. 51
(2007), no. 1, 83–98.
[12] Hartshorne, R. Deformation theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
257. Springer, New York, 2010. viii+234 pp.
[13] Hartshorne, R., Martin-Deschamps, M., Perrin, D. Un théorème de Rao
pour les familles de courbes gauches. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 155 (2001),
no. 1, 53–76.
[14] Hartshorne, R., Migliore, J. , Nagel, U. Liaison addition and the structure of a Gorenstein liaison class. J. Algebra 319 (2008), no. 8, 3324–
3342.
[15] Hartshorne, R., Sabadini, I., Schlesinger, E. Codimension 3 arithmetically Gorenstein subschemes of projective N-space. Ann. Inst. Fourier
(Grenoble) 58 (2008), no. 6, 2037–2073.
[16] Katz, N.M. Twisted L-functions and monodromy. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 150. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002.
viii+249
[17] Kleppe, J.O. The smoothness and the dimension of PGor(H) and of
other strata of the punctual Hilbert scheme. J. Algebra 200 (1998), no.
2, 606–628.
[18] Kleppe, J.O. , Migliore, J.C., Miró-Roig, R., Nagel, U., Peterson, C.
Gorenstein liaison, complete intersection liaison invariants and unobstructedness. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 154 (2001)
20

[19] Macaulay, F.S. On the resolution of a given modular equation into Primary Systems. Math. Ann. 74 (1913), 66–121.
[20] Martin-Deschamps, M., Perrin, D. Sur la classification des courbes
gauches. Astérisque No. 184-185 (1990), 208 pp.
[21] Migliore, J.C. Introduction to liaison theory and deficiency modules.
Progress in Mathematics, 165. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA,
1998.
[22] Pierre Raymond de Montmort. Essay d’analyse sur les jeux de hazard. Paris: Jacque Quillau. Seconde Edition, Revue et augmentée de
plusieurs Lettres. Paris: Jacque Quillau. 1713.
[23] Peskine, C.; Szpiro, L. Liaison des variétés algébriques. I. Invent. Math.
26 (1974), 271–302.
[24] Rao, A.P. Liaison among curves in P3 . Invent. Math. 50 (1978/79), no.
3, 205–217.
[25] Reifegerste, A. Enumeration of special sets of polynomials over finite
fields. Finite Fields Appl. 5 (1999), no. 2, 112–156.
[26] Schenzel, P. Notes on liaison and duality. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 22
(1982/83), no. 3, 485–498.
[27] Schreyer, F.-O. Computer aided Unirationality Proofs of Moduli
Spaces, arXiv:1109.4600 to appear in: Farkas, G, Morrison, I. (editors)
Handbook of Moduli
[28] Serre, J.-P. Modules projectifs et espaces fibrés à fibre vectorielle. 1958
Séminaire P. Dubreil, M.-L. Dubreil-Jacotin et C. Pisot, 1957/58, Fasc.
2, Exposé 23 18 pp. Secrétariat mathématique, Paris
[29] Stanley, R.P. Hilbert functions of graded algebras. Advances in Math.
28 (1978), no. 1, 57–83.
[30] Verra, A. The unirationality of the moduli spaces of curves of genus 14
or lower. Compos. Math. 141 (2005), no. 6, 1425–1444.
21

Author Addresses:
David Eisenbud
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley CA
94720
eisenbud@math.berkeley.edu
Robin Hartshorne
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley CA
94720
robin@math.berkeley.edu
Frank-Olaf Schreyer
Mathematik und Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, Campus E2 4, D-66123
Saarbrücken, Germany
schreyer@math.uni-sb.de

22

