arXiv:1505.01788v2 [math.AC] 21 Aug 2016

VAN DEN ESSEN’S THEOREM ON THE DE RHAM COHOMOLOGY OF A
HOLONOMIC D-MODULE OVER A FORMAL POWER SERIES RING
NICHOLAS SWITALA

A BSTRACT. In this expository paper, we give a complete proof of van den Essen’s theorem that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic D-module are finite-dimensional
in the case of a formal power series ring over a field of characteristic zero. This proof requires results from at least five of van den Essen’s papers as well as his unpublished thesis,
and until now has not been available in a self-contained document.

1. I NTRODUCTION
Let k be a field of characteristic zero, let R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a polynomial ring over k,
and let D = D(R, k) be the ring of k-linear differential operators on R (the Weyl algebra).
To any finitely generated left D-module M, we can associate its dimension d(M): if M is
nonzero, this dimension is an integer between n and 2n. The left D-modules of minimal
dimension (those for which d(M) = n) are called holonomic. A basic result in the theory of
D-modules, due to Bernstein, states that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic
left D-module M are finite-dimensional over k. These spaces are the cohomology objects
of a complex defined using the usual exterior derivative formulas with respect to the action
of the partial derivatives ∂1 , . . . , ∂n ∈ D on M. The key idea in the proof of this finiteness
is that the kernel and cokernel of ∂n acting on M are holonomic Dn−1 -modules, where
Dn−1 = D(k[x1 , . . . , xn−1 ], k); with this statement in hand, the finiteness of the de Rham
cohomology follows by a routine induction.
Now consider the case where R is a formal power series ring k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], again over a
field of characteristic zero. We again have the ring D = D(R, k) of k-linear differential operators on R, and a well-defined notion of dimension for finitely generated left D-modules
(hence a notion of holonomy for left D-modules). In this case, the analogue of Bernstein’s result is due to van den Essen. If M is a holonomic left D-module, its de Rham
cohomology spaces are again finite-dimensional over k, just as in the polynomial case; in
contrast to this case, however, it is not true in general that the cokernel of ∂n acting on
M is a holonomic Dn−1 -module, which makes the proof more difficult. The kernel of ∂n
is again holonomic, and the cokernel is holonomic whenever M satisfies a certain generic
condition called xn -regularity. It turns out that if M is holonomic, we can always make
a linear change of coordinates (which does not affect de Rham cohomology) after which
M becomes xn -regular. The same routine induction argument used by Bernstein is then
sufficient to prove finiteness of the de Rham cohomology in the formal power series case
as well:
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 14F10, 14F40.
Key words and phrases. D-modules, de Rham cohomology.
NSF support through grant DMS-0701127 is gratefully acknowledged.
1

2

NICHOLAS SWITALA

Theorem 1.1. [8, Prop. 2.2] Let k be a field of characteristic zero, let R = k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] be
a formal power series ring over k, and let D = D(R, k) be the ring of k-linear differential
operators on R. If M is a holonomic left D-module, its de Rham cohomology spaces
i (M) are finite-dimensional over k for all i.
HdR
Van den Essen’s proof is not contained in a single paper. The complete argument requires results from at least five of his papers, as well as his (unpublished) thesis. Moreover,
some of the necessary results are proved more than once in these papers, with simpler and
better proofs superseding more complicated ones. The purpose of this expository paper
is to assemble these preliminary results and proofs in one place, giving only the shortest
argument in each case.
Ideally, this paper would be entirely self-contained except for basic commutative algebra, but the amount of necessary background material on D-modules is too large for this
ideal to be reasonable. Our compromise is the following. Björk’s book [1] is our basic
reference for the theory of D-modules (it is also the basic reference cited in van den Essen’s papers), and we freely quote without proof results appearing in this book. We will
also appeal to Gabber’s deep result [9, Thm. I] on the involutivity of characteristic ideals
without providing a proof. We will, however, give full proofs for all preliminary results
taken from van den Essen’s papers. We stress that nothing in this paper is original, neither
the results nor the proofs; our goal in writing it is merely to make available a complete
proof of Theorem 1.1 in one document.
In this paper, we only state and prove precisely what we need for Theorem 1.1. The
papers of van den Essen cited here contain many more results on kernels and cokernels of
differential operators that are not strictly necessary for the proof of this theorem, and we
encourage the interested reader to investigate further.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we collect preliminary material
on formal power series rings, D-modules, de Rham cohomology, and Gabber’s theorem.
In section 3, we give the proof that the kernel of ∂n acting on a holonomic D-module is
again holonomic (with no further conditions on the module). In section 4, we define the
xn -regularity condition for a holonomic D-module and prove some technical results concerning the consequences of this condition. In section 5, we give the proof that (possibly
after a linear change of coordinates) the cokernel of ∂n acting on a holonomic D-module
is again holonomic, and then complete the proof of Theorem 1.1.

2. P RELIMINARIES
Throughout the paper, k denotes a field of characteristic zero, R denotes the formal
power series ring k[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], and Rn−1 denotes the subring k[[x1 , . . . , xn−1 ]]. The rings
R and Rn−1 are commutative, Noetherian, regular local rings. We denote by m the unique
maximal ideal (x1 , . . . , xn ) of R (similarly, mn−1 is the unique maximal ideal of Rn−1 ).
Since R is local, any element of R with a nonzero constant term is a unit.
Definition 2.1. A formal power series f ∈ R is said to be xn -regular if f (0, 0, . . . , 0, xn ) 6= 0
in k[[xn ]], that is, if a term c0,...,0,i xin with c0,...,0,i ∈ k \ {0} occurs in f .
The following theorem clarifies the significance of the xn -regularity hypothesis:

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

3

Theorem 2.2 (Weierstrass preparation theorem). [13, Thm. IV.9.2] Suppose that f ∈ R is
xn -regular. There exists a unique expression f = u(xdn + bn−1xd−1
+ · · · + b0 ) where u ∈ R
n
is a unit and each bi ∈ mn−1 .
Remark 2.3. The Weierstrass preparation theorem has the following consequence: if f ∈ R
is xn -regular, then R/ f R is finitely generated (by the classes of xin with 0 ≤ i ≤ d − 1)
as a module over Rn−1 . It follows that any finitely generated R/ f R-module is in fact a
finitely generated Rn−1 -module. In the sequel, our appeals to the “Weierstrass preparation
theorem” will in fact be appeals to this consequence.
We now review some definitions and properties of D-modules and de Rham complexes.
Our basic reference for what follows is [1]. The ring D = D(R, k) of k-linear differential
operators, a subring of Endk (R), takes the form D = Rh∂1 , . . . , ∂n i, where ∂i = ∂∂xi . (This
notation is meant to indicate that, after adjoining the new variables ∂i to R, we do not
obtain a commutative ring.) As a left R-module, D is free on monomials in the ∂i . If
R is any commutative ring and A ⊂ R any commutative subring, there is a more general
definition ([11, §16]) of the ring D(R, A) of A-linear differential operators on R. See [11,
Thm. 16.11.2] for a proof that our definition coincides with this more general one in the
formal power series case.
Unless expressly indicated otherwise, by a D-module we will always mean a left module over D.
The ring D has an increasing, exhaustive filtration {D j }, called the order filtration,
where D j is the R-submodule consisting of those differential operators of order ≤ j (the
order of an element of D is the maximum of the orders of its summands, and the order of
a single summand ρ∂1a1 · · · ∂nan with ρ ∈ R is ∑ ai ). Note that for all f ∈ R and for all i, we
have the relation
[∂i , f ] = ∂i f − f ∂i = ∂i ( f ) ∈ R ⊂ D,

where [, ] denotes the commutator of two elements of D and the operator ∂i ( f ) ∈ D is multiplication by ∂i ( f ) ∈ R. Consequently, the associated graded object gr D = ⊕ j D j /D j−1
with respect to the order filtration is isomorphic to the polynomial ring R[ζ1 , . . . , ζn ], where
ζi is the image of ∂i in D1 /D0 ⊂ gr D. (In particular, gr D is commutative.) For all
i, ζi is called the principal symbol of ∂i , and we write ζi = σ (∂i ). More generally, if
δ ∈ D j \ D j−1 , its principal symbol σ (δ ) is its class in gr j D = D j /D j−1 ⊂ gr D.
If M is a finitely generated D-module, there exists an increasing, exhaustive filtration
{M j } of M such that M becomes a filtered D-module with respect to the order filtration
on D (so Di · M j ⊂ Mi+ j for all i and j) and gr M = ⊕ j M j /M j−1 is a finitely generated
gr D-module. We call such a filtration good. Let J be the radical of Anngr D gr M (the characteristic ideal of M) and set d(M) = dim (gr D)/J where dim denotes Krull dimension.
The ideal J, and hence the number d(M), is independent of the choice of good filtration
on M. By Bernstein’s theorem, if M is a (nonzero) finitely generated D-module, we have
n ≤ d(M) ≤ 2n. In the case where d(M) = n we say that M is holonomic.
Some basic facts about holonomic modules are the following: submodules and quotients of holonomic D-modules are holonomic, an extension of a holonomic D-module
by another holonomic D-module is holonomic, holonomic D-modules are of finite length
over D, and holonomic D-modules are cyclic (generated over D by a single element). We
will use these basic facts below without comment.

4

NICHOLAS SWITALA

If M is a D-module, the operator ∂n ∈ D acts on M via a Dn−1 -linear map, and so its
kernel and cokernel are Dn−1 -modules. The main question we will be concerned with in
this paper is the following: if M is holonomic, are the kernel and cokernel of ∂n acting on
M holonomic Dn−1 -modules?
Exactly the same question can be asked about the operator xn ∈ D. This question is
easier, and we have the following unconditional affirmative answer:
Proposition 2.4. [1, Thm. 3.4.2, Prop. 3.4.4] Let M be a holonomic D-module. The kernel
and cokernel of xn acting on M are holonomic Dn−1 -modules.
We remark that in the polynomial ring case, xn and ∂n play essentially symmetric roles,
and so the question for ∂n is no more difficult than the question for xn (and has the same
unconditional affirmative answer). The symmetry between xn and ∂n does not persist in the
formal power series case, which is why the question for ∂n is significantly more difficult.
We next discuss the de Rham complex of a D-module M. This is a complex of length n,
denoted M ⊗ Ω•R , whose objects are R-modules but whose differentials
 are merely k-linear.
It is defined as follows: for 0 ≤ i ≤ n, M ⊗ ΩiR is a direct sum of ni copies of M, indexed
by i-tuples 1 ≤ j1 < · · · < ji ≤ n. The summand corresponding to such an i-tuple will be
written M dx j1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx ji .
The k-linear differentials d i : M ⊗ ΩiR → M ⊗ ΩRi+1 are defined by
d i (m dx j1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx ji ) =

n

∑ ∂s (m) dxs ∧ dx j1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx ji ,

s=1

with the usual exterior algebra conventions for rearranging the wedge terms, and extended
by linearity to the direct sum. The cohomology objects hi (M ⊗ Ω•R ), which are k-spaces,
i (M).
are called the de Rham cohomology spaces of the D-module M, and are denoted HdR
We have defined the de Rham complex of a D-module using a chosen regular system
of parameters x1 , . . . , xn for the formal power series ring R. There is an alternate definition
from which it is easier to see that this complex does not depend on the chosen parameters,
based on the characterization of D-modules in terms of integrable connections. Let Ω1R be
the R-module of (m-adically) continuous Kähler differentials of R over k [10, 20.7.14], and
d : R → Ω1R the corresponding universal continuous derivation. In coordinates, if x1 , . . . , xn
is a regular system of parameters for R, we have Ω1R ≃ ⊕i R dxi and d( f ) = ∑i ∂i ( f ) dxi
for all f ∈ R. However, Ω1R and d can also be defined using a universal property, with no
reference to coordinates: every m-adically continuous derivation δ : R → M where M is an
R-module factors uniquely through d. Now recall that a connection on an R-module M is
a k-linear map ∇ : M → Ω1R ⊗R M such that ∇(rm) = dr ⊗ m + r · ∇(m) for all r ∈ R and
m ∈ M. A connection ∇ = ∇0 on M induces k-linear maps ∇l : ΩlR ⊗R M → Ωl+1
R ⊗R M
for all l ≥ 0, where ΩlR is the lth exterior power of Ω1R . If ∇1 ◦ ∇0 is the zero map, the
connection ∇ is said to be integrable, in which case ∇l+1 ◦ ∇l is the zero map for all l.
Since D is generated over R by derivations, the data of a left D-module structure on an Rmodule M is equivalent to that of an integrable connection on M [1, 3.2.9], and the complex
(Ω•R ⊗R M, ∇• ) induced by ∇ is the de Rham complex of M, which in coordinates {xi } is
exactly the complex M ⊗ Ω•R defined above. The only use we will have in this paper for
this alternate definition of M ⊗ Ω•R is the following obvious consequence:
i (M) of any D-module M are indeProposition 2.5. The de Rham cohomology spaces HdR
pendent of the choice of a regular system of parameters x1 , . . . , xn for R.

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

5

There is a long exact sequence relating the de Rham cohomology of a D-module M
with the de Rham cohomology of the kernel and cokernel of ∂n acting on M (which are
Dn−1 -modules):
Lemma 2.6. [1, Prop. 2.4.13] Let M be a D-module. Let M∗ (resp. M) be the kernel (resp.
cokernel) of ∂n acting on M. Then there is a long exact sequence
i−2
i
i
i−1
· · · → HdR
(M) → HdR
(M∗ ) → HdR
(M) → HdR
(M) → · · ·
j

j

of k-spaces, where HdR (M∗ ) and HdR (M) are de Rham cohomology spaces of the Dn−1 modules M∗ and M, defined using only ∂1 , . . . , ∂n−1 .
Finally, we will need Gabber’s theorem on involutivity of characteristic ideals, originally proved in [9]. We need to introduce the Poisson bracket (see [9] or [12, App. D]).
Its definition makes sense, and Gabber’s theorem holds, for more general filtered rings,
but we content ourselves here with stating everything for the ring D and its order filtration {D j }. Suppose that δ ∈ gri D and δ ′ ∈ gr j D for some i and j. Then we can write
δ = σ (d) and δ ′ = σ (d ′ ) for some d ∈ Di and d ′ ∈ D j , where σ denotes the principal symbol. Since gr D is commutative, the commutator [d, d ′ ] belongs to Di+ j−1 , and we define
{δ , δ ′ } ∈ gri+ j−1 D to be the principal symbol of [d, d ′ ]. It is easy to check that {δ , δ ′ }
does not depend on the choices of d and d ′ . The unique biadditive extension
{, } : gr D × gr D → gr D
is called the Poisson bracket on gr D, and, in particular, is a biderivation. An ideal I ⊂ gr D
is called involutive if it is closed under the Poisson bracket, that is, if {I, I} ⊂ I.
Theorem 2.7 (Gabber’s theorem). [9, Thm. I] Let M be a finitely generated left D-module.
Let gr M be the associated
graded gr D-module of M with respect to a chosen good filtration
p
on M. Let J = Anngr D gr M ⊂ gr D be the characteristic ideal of M (as stated earlier, J
does not depend on the choice of good filtration). Then J is involutive.
Corollary 2.8. [8, Lemma 1.12] With the notation of Theorem 2.7, let p be a minimal
prime ideal over J. Then p is again involutive.
Proof. As J is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write J as an intersection J =
p1 ∩ · · · ∩ pt of prime ideals of gr D, and we may assume that each pi is minimal over J.
If t = 1, J is prime and there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, fix i, write p for pi , and let
q = ∩ j6=i p j . There exists some c ∈ q \ p. Let a, b ∈ p be given. We have ac, bc ∈ ∩ j p j = J,
and hence {ac, bc} ∈ J, since J is involutive by Theorem 2.7. We now use the fact that the
Poisson bracket is a biderivation, which gives
{ac, bc} = a{c, b}c + a{c, c}b + c{a, b}c + c{a, c}b.
The first, second, and fourth summands on the right-hand side all have a factor of a or b
and thus belong to p. Since the sum belongs to p, the third summand, c2 {a, b}, belongs to
p as well. As p is prime and c2 ∈
/ p, we must have {a, b} ∈ p, and so p is involutive.

Remark 2.9. If M, J, and p are as above, we note that J is homogeneous with respect to
ζ1 , . . . , ζn by definition, and by [15, Thm. 13.7(i)], p is homogeneous with respect to the ζi
as well.

6

NICHOLAS SWITALA

3. K ERNELS
In this section, we prove that the kernel M∗ of ∂n acting on a holonomic D-module
M is a holonomic Dn−1 -module, with no further conditions on M. After some reductions,
it suffices to check that the cokernel of xn is holonomic, which is Proposition 2.4. These
reductions are made possible by the following key lemma, which states that R-linear dependence relations among elements of M∗ hold homogeneously in xn . (We write ∂ for ∂n ;
this shorthand will be used throughout the rest of the paper.)
Lemma 3.1 (Key lemma for kernels). [3, Lemme 1] Let M be any D-module, and let
M∗ = ker(∂ : M → M). Suppose that m1 , . . . , ml ∈ M∗ are such that f1 m1 + · · · + fl ml = 0
for some f1 , . . . , fl ∈ R. Then f1, j m1 + · · · + fl, j ml = 0 for every j ≥ 0, where fi, j ∈ Rn−1
j
denotes the coefficient of xn in fi .
Proof. We first assume that the statement holds for j = 0 and prove that it follows for all
j > 0. Note that for any j ≥ 0 and any f ∈ R, we have f j = j!1 (∂ j f )0 , where the subscript 0
denotes the constant term with respect to xn . If m1 , . . . , ml ∈ M∗ and f1 m1 + · · · + fl ml = 0,
then ∂ j ( f1 m1 + · · · + fl ml ) = 0. By the Leibniz rule,
l

l

i=1

i=1

∂ j ( ∑ fi mi ) = ∑ (∂ j ( fi ))mi ,
∂ α (m

as all other terms have a factor of
i ) for some α > 0 and some i and hence vanish
since mi ∈ M∗ . Multiplying by a harmless constant, we see that 1j! ∑li=1 (∂ j ( fi ))mi = 0. By

our assumption, ∑li=1 ( 1j! ∂ j ( fi ))0 mi = 0, but this sum is nothing but ∑li=1 fi, j mi . We have
thus reduced ourselves to the case j = 0.
Let m = ∑li=1 fi,0 mi , and let E be the R-submodule of M generated by {m1 , . . . , ml }.
q
We claim that m ∈ xn E for all q ≥ 1. As E is a finitely generated R-module and R is a
Noetherian local domain (whose maximal ideal contains xn ), this will imply that m = 0
[15, Thm. 8.10(ii)], as desired. We prove m ∈ xqn E for all q by induction on q. For the base
case, q = 1, consider the difference ∑li=1 fi mi − ∑li=1 fi,0 mi . On the one hand, by definition,
this difference belongs to xn E, as we have removed all terms which a priori may lack an
xn factor. On the other hand, the first term is 0 by hypothesis and the second is m, so
q
q
−m ∈ xn E. Now suppose that m ∈ xn E for some q ≥ 1, and write m = xn ∑li=1 ri mi for
some r1 , . . . , rl ∈ R. As m is an Rn−1 -linear combination of elements of M killed by ∂ , we
have ∂ (m) = 0, so q!1 xqn ∂ q m = 0. Substituting xqn ∑li=1 ri mi for m in the left-hand side of this
equation and using the Leibniz rule, we see that the only terms which a priori may lack an
q+1
q
xn factor are those in the sum ∑li=1 ri,0 xn mi : we obtain, for some µ ∈ E, an expression
0=

l
l
1
1 q q
xn ∂ m = xqn ∂ q (xqn ∑ ri mi ) = ∑ ri,0 xqn mi + xq+1
n µ,
q!
q!
i=1
i=1

q

q+1

so that ∑li=1 ri,0 xn mi ∈ xn

q+1

E. It follows that m ∈ xn E, as
l

l

∞

m − ∑ ri,0 xqn mi = ∑ ( ∑ ri,s xs+q
n mi )
i=1

and we have an

q+1
xn

i=1 s=1

factor in every remaining term. This completes the proof.



Proposition 3.2. [3, Thm. (iii)] Let M be a holonomic D-module. Then M∗ is a holonomic
Dn−1 -module.

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

7

Proof. Consider the R-submodule R · M∗ of M generated by M∗ . If r ∈ R and m ∈ M∗ ,
then ∂ (rm) = ∂ (r)m + r∂ (m) = ∂ (r)m; since M∗ is already a Dn−1 -submodule of M, this
calculation shows that R · M∗ is a D-submodule of M. Furthermore, it is clear that ker(∂ :
R · M∗ → R · M∗ ) coincides with M∗ . Therefore, we may assume that M = R · M∗ . With
this assumption, we conclude at once that M = M∗ + xn M as Dn−1 -modules, since M∗ is
an Rn−1 -module. We claim that this sum is direct. Suppose that m ∈ M∗ ∩ xn M. Since
xn M = xn (R · M∗ ), we can write m = xn (∑ ri mi ) for some ri ∈ R and mi ∈ M∗ . From this,
we obtain an equation m − xn(∑ ri mi ) = 0 where m and all the mi belong to M∗ . By Lemma
3.1, the constant term of the left-hand side with respect to xn , which is simply m, also
vanishes. Thus M∗ ∩ xn M = 0, and so M = M∗ ⊕ xn M. This direct sum decomposition
implies that M∗ ≃ M/xn M, which is a holonomic Dn−1 -module by Proposition 2.4. This
completes the proof.

4. R EGULARITY
In this section, we define what it means for a D-module M to be xn -regular. If M
is holonomic, this is a weak condition that is always satisfied up to a linear change of
variables in R. This is the technical assumption necessary for the cokernel of ∂ acting on a
holonomic D-module to again be holonomic.
Definition 4.1. [2, p. 21] Let M be a D-module, let m ∈ M, and suppose that τ ∈ D is
i
a k-linear derivation. We write Eτ (m) for the R-submodule ∑∞
i=0 R · τ (m) of M generated
i
by the family {τ (m)}. If N ⊂ M is an R-submodule, Eτ (N) is the R-submodule of M
generated by Eτ (n) for n ∈ N.
For a given τ and m, if Eτ (m) is a finitely generated R-module, then there exists p such
p−1
p−1
R · τ i (m).
that τ p (m) ∈ ∑i=0
R · τ i (m). In this case, Eτ (m) = ∑i=0
Lemma 4.2. [2, Ch. II, Prop. 1.16] Let M be a D-module, and suppose there exists a
nonzero f ∈ R such that the localization M f is a finitely generated R f -module. Then for
any m ∈ M, there exists s ≥ 0 such that E f s ∂ (m) is a finitely generated R-module.
Proof. Let m ∈ M be given. Since R (and hence R f ) is Noetherian, any R-submodule
of M f is also finitely generated over R. In particular, this is true of the R-submodule
E∂ (R f · m) ⊂ M f , where here we are regarding M f as a D-module in the obvious way (and
replacing R with R f in our definition of the E∂ construction). Therefore, for some p ≥ 1,
E∂ (R f ·m) = R f ·m+R f · ∂ (m)+· · ·+R f · ∂ p−1 (m), and consequently ∂ p (m) can be written
ρ0 m + ρ1∂ (m) + · · · + ρ p−1∂ p−1 (m) for some ρ0 , . . . , ρ p−1 ∈ R f . Clearing denominators
(and multiplying by a further power of f if necessary), we see that there exists s ≥ 0
such that f s ∂ p (m) = r0 m + r1 ∂ (m) + · · · r p−1 ∂ p−1 (m) for some r0 , . . . , r p−1 ∈ R. Write N
p−1
for the R-submodule ∑i=0
R · ∂ i (m) of M. Then the fact that f s ∂ p (m) ∈ N implies that
s
f ∂ (N) ⊂ N, from which it follows at once that E f s ∂ (N) ⊂ N. By definition, N is a finitely
generated R-module, so E f s ∂ (N) and its R-submodule E f s ∂ (m) are finitely generated Rmodules, completing the proof.

Lemma 4.2 is useful because its hypothesis is satisfied for every holonomic D-module.
Proposition 4.3. [4, Prop. 1] Let M be a holonomic D-module. There exists a nonzero
f ∈ R such that M f is a finitely generated R f -module.

8

NICHOLAS SWITALA

Proof. We first consider two special cases. If M is R-torsionfree, this is [1, Lemma 3.3.19].
If M is simple as a D-module and is not R-torsionfree, there exist nonzero f ∈ R and m ∈ M
such that f m = 0. By the simplicity of M, M = D · m, from which it follows that M f is zero
and a fortiori finitely generated. To prove the proposition for all holonomic D-modules M,
we use the fact that any such M is of finite length as a D-module. If
0 → M ′ → M → M ′′ → 0

is a short exact sequence of D-modules and there exist nonzero g, h ∈ R such that M ′f (resp.
Mg′′ ) is a finitely generated R f - (resp. Rg -) module, then M f g is a finitely generated R f g module. Therefore induction on length, which reduces us to the case of a simple D-module
and hence to the previous two special cases, completes the proof.

Recall from section 2 that f ∈ R is said to be xn -regular if f (0, 0, . . . , 0, xn ) 6= 0, in
which case f can be written as the product of a unit and a “Weierstrass polynomial” in xn .
Definition 4.4. [5, p. 903] Let M be a D-module. We say that M is xn -regular if for every
m ∈ M, there exists an xn -regular f ∈ R such that E f ∂ (m) is a finitely generated R-module.
(Any m ∈ M for which this holds is said to be an xn -regular element.)
Remark 4.5. In what follows, we will frequently consider D-modules M which are holonomic, hence cyclic, together with a choice of m such that M = D ·m. It is not hard to check
that if Eτ (m) is a finitely generated R-module for some derivation τ ∈ D, then Eτ (δ (m))
is also finitely generated for every δ ∈ D. It follows that if M = D · m is cyclic, then M is
xn -regular as long as Eτ (m) is finitely generated over R, and this does not depend on the
choice of D-module generator m for M.
Having now stated all necessary definitions, we begin working toward the crucial technical result (Lemma 4.8) on the cokernel of ∂ acting on a holonomic, xn -regular D-module.
The following proposition can be viewed as a generalization of the Weierstrass preparation
theorem (which we recover by taking l = 0):
Proposition 4.6. [7, Thm. 1] Let ∆ : R → R be a differential operator of the form ∆ =
∑li=0 ri ∂ i where ri ∈ R for all i and rl is xn -regular. Then R/∆(R) is a finitely generated
Rn−1 -module.
We state and prove a special case of Proposition 4.6, due to Malgrange, separately:
Lemma 4.7. [14, Prop. 1.3] Let R = k[[x]] and let ∆ : R → R be a nonzero differential
operator. Then R/∆(R) is a finite-dimensional k-space.
Proof. For any formal power series r = ∑ αi xi ∈ R, we let ν (r) = min {i|αi 6= 0}. The
differential operator ∆ takes the form ∆ = ∑li=0 ri ∂ i where rl 6= 0. Set s = max {i − ν (ri )},
and let I ⊂ {0, . . . , l} be the set of indices for which this maximum is attained, that is, for
which s = i − ν (ri ). For each i ∈ I, ri = xi−s ρi for some ρi ∈ R such that ρi (0) 6= 0. For
any integer t ≥ s, we have
∆(xt ) = ∑ t(t − 1) · · ·(t − i + 1)ρi(0)xt−s + higher order terms.
i∈I

in the above expression, namely ∑i∈I t(t − 1) · · · (t − i + 1)ρi (0), is a
polynomial in t whose leading term is ρmax I (0)t max I . Since max I ∈ I, we have ρmax I (0) 6=

The coefficient of xt−s

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

9

0, and so for large enough t, this leading term dominates the polynomial: there exists t0
such that for all t ≥ t0 ,
∆(xt ) = (nonzero)xt−s + higher order terms.

Since k is of characteristic zero, it follows that if t ≥ t0 , given any g ∈ R such that ν (g) ≥
t − s (that is, g ∈ mt−s , where m ⊂ R is the maximal ideal), we can solve the equation
∆( f ) = g uniquely for f ∈ R by recursion on the coefficients, and the unique solution f
∼
belongs to mt . Therefore the restriction of ∆ is an isomorphism of k-spaces mt −
→ mt−s for
any t ≥ t0 . Fix such a t, and consider the commutative diagram
0 −−−−→ mt −−−−→


y∆

R −−−−→ R/mt




y∆
y∆

−−−−→ 0

0 −−−−→ mt−s −−−−→ R −−−−→ R/mt−s −−−−→ 0

of k-spaces with exact rows, where ∆ is the map induced on quotients by ∆. We know that
the left vertical arrow is an isomorphism, and the source and target of the right vertical
arrow are finite-dimensional k-spaces. It follows at once from the snake lemma that the
middle vertical arrow has finite-dimensional cokernel, as desired.

Proof of Proposition 4.6. We proceed by induction on n. In the base case n = 1, the hypothesis that rl be xn -regular reduces to the hypothesis that rl 6= 0, and so we are done by
Lemma 4.7. Now assume that the proposition holds over Rn−1 . Let R′ be the formal power
series ring k[[x1 , . . . , xn−2 , xn ]], and define a differential operator ∆′ : R′ → R′ by
l

∆′ = ∑ ri (x1 , . . . , xn−2 , 0, xn )∂ i .
i=0

Since rl is xn -regular by hypothesis, so is rl (x1 , . . . , xn−2 , 0, xn ). Therefore, by the inductive
hypothesis, R′ /∆′ (R′ ) is a finitely generated Rn−2 -module. As we have isomorphisms
R′
R
R
≃
≃
′
′
′
∆ (R ) xn−1 R + ∆ (R) ∆(R) + xn−1R
of R′ -modules (and hence of Rn−2 -modules) it follows that R/(∆(R) + xn−1R) is a finitely
generated Rn−2 -module. Let f1 , . . . , fm ∈ R be such that R ⊂ ∑mj=1 Rn−2 · f j + xn−1R + ∆(R).
If r ∈ R is given, then there exist α1 , . . . , αm ∈ Rn−2 and g, h ∈ R such that
m

r=

∑ α j f j + xn−1g + ∆(h).

j=1

Likewise, since g ∈ R, there exist β1 , . . . , βm ∈ Rn−2 and g′ , h′ ∈ R such that g = ∑mj=1 β j f j +
xn−1 g′ + ∆(h′). Substituting this expression for g in the previous equation gives
m

r=

∑ (α j + β j xn−1) f j + x2n−1g′ + ∆(h + xn−1h′ ),

j=1

and we can find a similar expression to substitute for g′ and continue. Since R and Rn−1
are Noetherian complete local rings and xn−1 belongs to their maximal ideals, this process
converges to an expression
m

r=

∑ ρ j f j + 0 + ∆(η )

j=1

10

NICHOLAS SWITALA

where η ∈ R and all ρ j ∈ Rn−1 ; that is, we have R ⊂ ∑mj=1 Rn−1 · f j + ∆(R), so R/∆(R) is a
finitely generated Rn−1 -module, completing the proof.

The following is the key technical result in our study of the cokernel of ∂ acting on a
holonomic, xn -regular D-module:
Lemma 4.8 (Key lemma for cokernels). [5, Cor. 2] Let M be a D-module, and let m ∈ M
be an xn -regular element. There exists p ≥ 1 and a finitely generated Rn−1 -submodule E0
p
of R · m such that R · m ⊂ E0 + ∑i=1
∂ i (R · m). In particular, R · m ⊂ E0 + ∂ (M).
We remark that E0 can be taken to be the Rn−1 -submodule generated by m, xn m, . . . , xNn m
for some N [6, Thm. 3.2]; however, we will not need this more precise statement, and its
proof is more complicated than the proof below.
Proof. By the definition of xn -regularity of m, there exists an xn -regular f ∈ R such that
E f ∂ (m) is a finitely generated R-module. Write E for E f ∂ (m) and τ for the derivation
f ∂ : R → R. The finite generation of Eτ (m) over R implies that for some p, τ p (m) ∈
p−1
∑i=0 R · τ i (m) (so that E can be identified with the R-module on the right-hand side).
We claim that E/τ (E) is a finitely generated Rn−1 -module. Let r0 , . . . , r p−1 ∈ R be such
that τ p (m) = r0 m + r1 τ (m) + · · · + r p−1 τ p−1 (m). Define δ : R → R to be the differential
p−1
operator τ p − ∑i=0
ri τ i . Then δ (m) = 0, and therefore E is a quotient of the R-module
N = Rhτ i/(Rhτ i · δ ). It will suffice to show that N/τ (N) is a finitely generated Rn−1 module. As we have isomorphisms
Rhτ i/(Rhτ i · δ )
Rhτ i
R
N
≃
≃
≃
τ (N) τ (Rhτ i/(Rhτ i · δ )) Rhτ i · δ + τ Rhτ i R ∩ (R · δ + τ Rhτ i)

of Rn−1 -modules, it suffices to show R/(R ∩ (R · δ + τ Rhτ i)) is a finitely generated Rn−1 module. We claim that this module can be identified with R/∆(R) for some choice of
differential operator ∆ satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition 4.6.
To this end, we introduce a “transposition” operation on the ring Rhτ i. Let φ : Rhτ i →
Rhτ i be the unique additive map such that φ (τ ) = −τ , φ (g) = g for all g ∈ R, and φ (ST ) =
φ (T )φ (S) for all S, T ∈ Rhτ i. We will use the notation S∗ for φ (S). For all g ∈ R and
S ∈ Rhτ i, we have gS ≡ S∗ g mod τ Rhτ i (this follows by induction on the τ -degree of S: if
degτ (S) = 0, then S∗ = S ∈ R and the statement is immediate). Therefore
R ∩ (R · δ + τ Rhτ i) = δ ∗ R.

Since (τ p )∗ = (−1) p τ p , the leading term of δ ∗ with respect to ∂ is (− f ) p ∂ p . By hypothesis, f is xn -regular, and so (− f ) p is xn -regular as well. It follows that ∆ = δ ∗ satisfies the
hypotheses of Proposition 4.6, and so
R
R
N
≃
≃
τ (N) R ∩ (R · δ + τ Rhτ i) ∆(R)

is a finitely generated Rn−1 -module. As explained above, this proves that E/τ (E) =
E/ f ∂ (E) is finitely generated over Rn−1 .
The ring Rn−1 is Noetherian, so the Rn−1 -submodule
( f E + f ∂ (E))/ f ∂ (E) ⊂ E/ f ∂ (E)

is also finitely generated. This implies that there exists a finitely generated Rn−1 -submodule
G ⊂ E such that f E ⊂ f G + f ∂ (E). Now define K = (0 :E+∂ (E) f ). Clearly K is a finitely

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

11

generated R-module, since E is. As K is annihilated by f , K is in fact a finitely generated R/ f R-module. Since f is xn -regular by assumption, it follows from the Weierstrass
preparation theorem that K is a finitely generated Rn−1 -module.
We assert now that E ⊂ G + K + ∂ (E). Given µ ∈ E, we have f µ ∈ f E ⊂ f G + f ∂ (E),
so there exist µ ′ ∈ G and µ ′′ ∈ E such that f µ = f µ ′ + f ∂ (µ ′′ ). Rewrite this equation as
f (µ − µ ′ ) + f ∂ (− µ ′′ ) = f ((µ − µ ′ ) + ∂ (− µ ′′ )) = 0

to see that, by definition, (µ − µ ′ ) + ∂ (−µ ′′ ) is an element of K (since µ − µ ′ ∈ E). Then
µ = µ ′ + ((µ − µ ′ ) + ∂ (−µ ′′ )) + ∂ (µ ′′ ) ∈ G + K + ∂ (E), as desired. If we define E0 = G +
K, a finitely generated Rn−1 -module (being the sum of two such), we have E ⊂ E0 + ∂ (E),
so that R · m ⊂ E ⊂ E0 + ∂ (E).
By the Leibniz rule, it is straightforward to see that
p−1

p

i=0

i=1

∂ (E) = ∂ ( ∑ R · ( f ∂ )i (m)) ⊂ ∑ ∂ i (R · m),
so all that remains to check is that the finitely generated Rn−1 -module E0 , which we have
p
shown satisfies R · m ⊂ E0 + ∑i=1
∂ i (R · m), can be replaced with another finitely generated
Rn−1 -module which is actually a submodule of R · m. This can be done since every element
p−1
of E0 is a sum of terms belonging either to E = ∑i=0
R · ( f ∂ )i (m) or to ∂ (E) and is thus
p
congruent modulo ∑i=1 ∂ i (R·m) to an element of R·m: given a finite set of Rn−1 -generators
p
for E0 , if we replace each of them by an element of R · m in the same (∑i=1
∂ i (R · m))congruence class and then replace E0 with the Rn−1 -module having these new generators,
we obtain the statement of the proposition.

5. C OKERNELS
In light of Proposition 3.2, we may be led to conjecture that the analogue holds for
cokernels: that if M is a holonomic D-module, then M = coker(∂ : M → M) is a holonomic
Dn−1 -module. This conjecture is false:
Proposition 5.1. [4, Thm.] There exists a holonomic D-module M such that M = M/∂ (M)
is not a holonomic Dn−1 -module. Specifically, take n = 4, let f = x1 x4 + x2 + x3 x4 ex4 , and
define M = R f . Then M/∂4 (M) is not a holonomic D3 -module.
As the details of this counterexample are not necessary for the proof of Theorem 1.1,
we omit them here, contenting ourselves with the following outline.
(1) If f = x1 x4 + x2 + x3 x4 ex4 , then R3 ∩ (R · f + R · ∂4 f ) = 0 (a tricky but explicit
calculation).
(2) For any f ∈ R, if R f /∂4 (R f ) is a holonomic D3 -module, then there exists a nonzero
g ∈ R3 such that (R f /∂4 (R f ))g is a finitely generated (R3 )g -module (by Proposition 4.3).
(3) For any f ∈ R, if f is irreducible and coprime to ∂4 ( f ) and (R f /∂4 (R f ))g is a
finitely generated (R3 )g -module for some nonzero g ∈ R3 , then
R3 ∩ (R · f + R · ∂4 f ) 6= 0

(another tricky calculation).

12

NICHOLAS SWITALA

(4) If f = x1 x4 + x2 + x3 x4 ex4 , then f is irreducible and coprime to ∂4 ( f ). It follows
that if R f /∂4 (R f ) were a holonomic D3 -module, (1), (2), and (3) above would
produce a contradiction.
It follows that the analogue of Proposition 3.2 will only hold under additional hypotheses on M. In this section, we will show that an xn -regularity hypothesis suffices. If
M = D · m is a holonomic D-module, there is a natural choice of good filtration on M defined using the chosen generator m and the order filtration on D. This filtration descends
to a filtration on the cokernel M = M/∂ (M). The import of our key lemma for cokernels,
Lemma 4.8, is that if m is an xn -regular element, this filtration is also good:
Lemma 5.2. [5, Cor. 3] Let M = D · m be a holonomic D-module, and suppose that m
is an xn -regular element. Let {M j } be the good filtration on M defined by M j = D j · m
for all j, and let {M j } be the corresponding filtration on M = M/∂ (M) defined by M j =
(M j + ∂ (M))/∂ (M) for all j. Then M is a finitely generated Dn−1 -module, and {M j } is a
good filtration on M.
Proof. By Lemma 4.8, there exists p ≥ 1 and a finitely generated Rn−1 -submodule E0 of
R · m such that R · m ⊂ E0 + ∂ (M). Suppose that m1 , . . . , ml are Rn−1 -generators of E0 ,
so that R · m ⊂ (∑li=1 Rn−1 · mi ) + ∂ (M). Then if mi is the class of mi in M, we have
M = ∑li=1 Dn−1 · mi (so M is a finitely generated Dn−1 -module) and M j = ∑li=1 (Dn−1 ) j mi ,
so that {M j } is a good filtration (the associated graded gr Dn−1 -module is generated by the

images of the mi ).
We can now state and prove the analogue of Proposition 3.2 with a suitable additional
hypothesis:
Proposition 5.3. [8, Cor. 1.7] Let M be a holonomic, xn -regular D-module. Then M =
M/∂ (M) is a holonomic Dn−1 -module.
Proof. Fix m ∈ M such that M = D ·m. Let L ⊂ D be the annihilator of m in D (a left ideal)
so that M ≃ D/L as (left) D-modules. By hypothesis, there exists an xn -regular f ∈ R such
that E f ∂ (m) is a finitely generated R-module. Let {M j } and {M j } be the good filtrations
defined (on M and M, respectively) in the statement of Lemma 5.2.
We now consider various associated graded objects. Let Sn−1 = Rn−1 [ζ1 , . . . , ζn−1 ] be
the associated graded ring gr Dn−1 of Dn−1 with respect to the order filtration, where ζi is
the principal symbol of ∂i . Similarly, let S = gr D = R[ζ1 , . . . , ζn ]. Let σ (L) ⊂ S be the
ideal generated by the principal symbols of the elements of L. Let gr M be the associated
graded S-module of M with respect to the filtration {M j }, and gr M the associated graded
Sn−1-module of M with respect to the filtration {M j }. Since M ≃ D/L, we have gr M ≃
gr(D/L) ≃ S/σ (L) as S-modules. Consider the natural surjective map gr M → gr M defined
by associating, to the class of an element of M j modulo M j−1 , its class modulo M j−1 +
∂ (M). This map is Sn−1 -linear, and as the principal symbol of ∂ is ζn , it is clear that
ζn gr M lies in its kernel. We therefore obtain an Sn−1 -linear surjection
gr M/ζn gr M → gr M.

Since gr M ≃ S/σ (L), the source of this surjection can be identified with S/(σ (L) + (ζn ))
as an S-module, and since this surjection is Sn−1 -linear, we see that
Sn−1 ∩ (σ (L) + (ζn )) ⊂ AnnSn−1 gr M,

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

13

where both sides are ideals of Sn−1 . Therefore we have
d(M) = dim Sn−1 /(AnnSn−1 gr M) ≤ dim Sn−1/(Sn−1 ∩ (σ (L) + (ζn ))),
where the equality holds by the definition of dimension of a Dn−1 -module (as {M j } is a
good filtration) and the inequality follows from the containment of ideals above.
We now state two basic facts about radicals of ideals, whose proofs are immediate and
which hold in general for commutative rings. Let a and b be ideals of S. Then
q
q
√
√
√
√
a+b =
a+b =
a + b,
√
√
√
√
and if a = b, then Sn−1 ∩ a = Sn−1 ∩ b. Together, these facts imply that if J =
p
σ (L), then
dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (σ (L) + (ζn ))) = dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (J + (ζn )))
p
= dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ J + (ζn )),

since the three denominators all have the same radical. In particular, we have
d(M) ≤ dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (J + (ζn ))).
√
Note that J = AnnS gr M. Since M is a holonomic D-module, d(M) = dim S/J = n.
By Bernstein’s inequality, d(M) ≥ n − 1, and so it suffices to prove that d(M) ≤ n − 1 =
dim S/J − 1. That is, we have reduced ourselves to showing that
dim Sn−1/(Sn−1 ∩ (J + (ζn ))) ≤ dim S/J − 1.

As J ⊂ S is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write it as an intersection of finitely
many prime ideals: let J = p1 ∩ · · · ∩ pt be such an expression where each pi is minimal
over J. We claim that
p
p
J + (ζn ) = ∩ti=1 pi + (ζn ).
p
One containment is obvious. For the other, let x belong to pi + (ζn ) for all i, and suppose
m is large enough that xm ∈ pi + (ζn ) for all i. Then there exist yi ∈ pi and zi ∈ R such that
xm = y1 + z1 ζn = · · · = yt + zt ζn ,

p
and so xmt − y1 · · · yt ∈ (ζn ). Since y1 · · · yt ∈ ∩ti=1 pi = J, it follows that x ∈ J + (ζn ), as
claimed. Therefore,
p
dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (J + (ζn ))) = dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ J + (ζn ))
p
= dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (∩ti=1 pi + (ζn ))),
and so it suffices to prove
dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (p + (ζn))) ≤ dim S/p − 1
where p is a minimal prime ideal containing J.
First suppose that f ∈ p. As f is xn -regular, R/ f R is a finitely generated Rn−1 -module
by the Weierstrass preparation theorem. Therefore, since f ∈ p, S/p, and, a fortiori, S/(p +
(ζn )), is a finitely generated Sn−1 -module. It follows that
Sn−1/(Sn−1 ∩ (p + (ζn))) ⊂ S/(p + (ζn))
is a finite (hence integral) extension of Noetherian rings, and so both rings have the same
dimension [15, Ex. 9.2]. We have therefore reduced ourselves to proving that
dim S/(p + (ζn)) ≤ dim S/p − 1,

14

NICHOLAS SWITALA

that is (since S/p
/ p. Suppose for contradiction that ζn ∈ p.
√ is an integral domain), that ζn ∈
The ideal J = AnnS gr M is involutive by Gabber’s theorem, and so p is also involutive by
Corollary 2.8. Since f and ζn both belong to p, so does the Poisson bracket {ζn , f } = ∂ ( f );
continuing in this way, ∂ l ( f ) ∈ p for all l. Taking l to be the smallest index such that xln
appears in the expansion of f with a nonzero scalar coefficient (such l exists since f is
xn -regular), we see that p contains a unit, a contradiction. Therefore ζn ∈
/ p, as desired.

For the other (harder) case, suppose that f ∈
/ p. Recall that by hypothesis E f ∂ (m)
is a finitely generated R-module, so there exists q such that ( f ∂ )q (m) belongs to the Rsubmodule of M generated by {( f ∂ ) j (m)}q−1
j=0 . Let ρ0 , . . . , ρq−1 ∈ R be such that
( f ∂ )q (m) =

q−1

∑ ρ j ( f ∂ ) j (m);

j=0

it follows that ( f ∂ )q − ∑ j=0 ρ j ( f ∂ ) j ∈ D annihilates m, and hence its principal symbol
p
/p
( f ζn )q belongs to σ (L). Therefore f ζn ∈ σ (L) = J ⊂ p. As we have assumed that f ∈
and p is prime, this implies that ζn ∈ p.
q−1

For any α ∈ p, let α◦ = α (x1 , . . . , xn−1 , 0, ζ1 , . . . , ζn−1 , 0) ∈ Sn−1 , and let p◦ be the ideal
of Sn−1 consisting of all α◦ where α ranges over p. We have
p◦ + (xn , ζn ) = p + (xn, ζn ) = p + (xn)

as ideals of S, since ζn ∈ p. We note that p + (xn ) 6= S as a consequence of the fact that
p is homogeneous with respect to ζ1 , . . . , ζn (Remark 2.9): if 1 + sxn ∈ p for some s ∈ S,
then 1 + s0xn ∈ p where s0 ∈ R is the constant term of s with respect to the ζi ; but then p
contains a unit of R, a contradiction.
It is clear that p ∩ Sn−1 ⊂ p◦ , and we claim that equality holds, that is, that p◦ ⊂ p. Since
i
ζn ∈ p, it suffices to check that if a ∈ p is of the form ∑∞
i=0 ai xn with ai ∈ Sn−1 , then the
q
xn -constant term a0 belongs to p. We will verify this by showing that a0 ∈ p + xn S′ for all
q ≥ 1, where S′ = R[ζ1 , . . . , ζn−1 ] ⊂ S. This suffices because then
q
a ∈ ∩∞
q=1 p + (xn ) ⊂ S,

and the right-hand side is simply p by Krull’s intersection theorem [15, Thm. 8.10(ii)]
applied to the integral domain S/p and its ideal (p + (xn ))/p, which is a proper ideal since
we have already checked that p + (xn) 6= S.

It is clear that a0 ∈ p + xnS′ . Now assume for some q ≥ 1 that a0 = g + xqn h for some
g ∈ p and h ∈ S′ , and let h0 be the xn -constant term of h. On the one hand, since a0
belongs to S′ , the Poisson bracket {ζn , a0 } is zero. On the other hand, using the biderivation
property, we see that
0 = {ζn , a0 } = {ζn , g} + xqn{ζn , h} + qxq−1
n h.

Since p is involutive by Corollary 2.8, we have {ζn , g} ∈ p, from which it follows that
q ′
q
q+1 ′
q
q+1 ′
qxq−1
n h0 ∈ p + xn S , hence xn h0 ∈ p + xn S , and finally a0 = g + xn h ∈ p + xn S , completing the induction. We conclude that p◦ = p ∩ Sn−1.
We can now finish the proof. We have isomorphisms of rings
Sn−1
S
S
Sn−1
≃
≃
≃
,
Sn−1 ∩ (p + (ζn))
p◦
p◦ + (xn , ζn ) p + (xn)

HOLONOMIC D-MODULES OVER POWER SERIES RINGS

15

and hence dim Sn−1 /(Sn−1 ∩ (p + (ζn ))) = dim S/(p + (xn )). We need only show that
dim S/(p + (xn )) ≤ dim S/p − 1, that is (since S/p is an integral domain) that xn ∈
/ p. But
this is immediate: if xn ∈ p, then since p is involutive, {ζn , xn } = 1 ∈ p, a contradiction.
This completes the proof.

We now have all we need for the proof of Theorem 1.1:
Proof of Theorem 1.1. We proceed by induction on n. The case n = 0 is obvious, since
a holonomic D0 -module is nothing but a finite-dimensional k-space. Now suppose that
n > 0 and M is a holonomic D-module. By Proposition 4.3, there exists a nonzero f ∈ R
such that M f is a finitely generated R f -module. After a linear change of coordinates, we
may assume f is xn -regular; by Proposition 2.5, this change of coordinates does not affect
the de Rham cohomology of M. Assuming this change of coordinates has been made,
M is xn -regular by Lemma 4.2. By Propositions 3.2 and 5.3, the kernel M∗ and cokernel
M of ∂ acting on M are holonomic Dn−1 -modules, and by the inductive hypothesis have
finite-dimensional de Rham cohomology. The exact sequences
i
i
i−1
· · · → HdR
(M∗ ) → HdR
(M) → HdR
(M) → · · ·

of Lemma 2.6 finish the proof.



R EFERENCES
[1] J.-E. Björk, Rings of differential operators, North-Holland Mathematical Library 21, North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam-New York, 1979.
[2] A. van den Essen, Fuchsian modules, thesis, Katholieke universiteit Nijmegen (1979).
[3] A. van den Essen, ‘Le noyau de l’opérateur ∂∂xn agissant sur un Dn -module’, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 288
(1979), 687-690.
[4] A. van den Essen, ‘Un D-module holonome tel que le conoyau de l’opérateur ∂∂xn soit non-holonome’, C.R.
Acad. Sci. Paris 295 (1982), 455-457.
[5] A. van den Essen, ‘Le conoyau de l’opérateur ∂∂xn agissant sur un Dn -module holonome’, C.R. Acad. Sci.
Paris 296 (1983), 903-906.
[6] A. van den Essen, ‘The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables’, Indag. Math. 45
(1) (1983), 67-76.
[7] A. van den Essen, ‘The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables II’, Indag. Math.
45 (4) (1983), 403-406.
[8] A. van den Essen, ‘The cokernel of the operator ∂∂xn acting on a Dn -module II’, Compos. Math. 56 (2)
(1985), 259-269.
[9] O. Gabber, ‘The integrability of the characteristic variety’, Amer. Journal of Math. 103 (3) (1981), 445-468.
[10] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, ‘Eléments de géométrie algébrique IV: Étude locale des schémas et des
morphismes de schémas, première partie’, Publ. Math. IHES, 20 (1964).
[11] A. Grothendieck and J. Dieudonné, ‘Eléments de géométrie algébrique IV: Étude locale des schémas et des
morphismes de schémas, quatrième partie’, Publ. Math. IHES, 32 (1967).
[12] R. Hotta, K. Takeuchi, and T. Tanisaki, D-modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory, Progress
in Mathematics 236, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2008.
[13] S. Lang, Algebra, revised third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 211, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
[14] B. Malgrange, ‘Sur les points singuliers des équations differentielles’, L’Enseignement Math. 20 (1974),
147-176.
[15] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
S CHOOL OF M ATHEMATICS , U NIVERSITY OF M INNESOTA , 127 V INCENT H ALL , 206 C HURCH S T. SE,
M INNEAPOLIS , MN 55455
E-mail address: swit0020@math.umn.edu

