arXiv:1702.07765v2 [math.AC] 24 Mar 2017

LINEARITY IN MINIMAL RESOLUTIONS OF MONOMIAL
IDEALS
LUKAS KATTHÄN
Abstract. Let S = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a polynomial ring over a field k and let M
be a graded S-module with minimal free resolution F• . Its linear part lin(F• ) is
obtained by deleting all non-linear entries from the differential of F• .
Our first result is an elementary description of lin(F• ) in the case that M is the
Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex ∆. Indeed, the differential of lin(F• )
is simply a compilation of restriction maps in the simplicial cohomology of induced
subcomplexes of ∆.
Our second result concerns the linearity defect of M , which is the largest i such
that Hi (lin(F• )) 6= 0. We show that the linearity defect of M is also the largest i,
such that there exists a g ∈ Fi with g ∈
/ mFi and dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 .
Combining these two results, we obtain a description of the linearity defect of
(the Stanley-Reisner ideal of) a simplicial complex, as well as a characterization of
its componentwise linearity.
Along the way, we also show that if a monomial ideal has at least one generator
of degree 2, then the linear strand of its resolution can be written using only ±1
coefficients.

1. Introduction
Let k be a ﬁeld and S = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a polynomial ring over it, endowed with
the standard Z-grading. Consider a ﬁnitely generated graded S-module M, and its
minimal free resolution F• .
The linear part [EFS03] lin(F• ) of F• has the same modules as F• , and its diﬀerential
dlin is obtained from the diﬀerential d of F• by deleting all non-linear entries in the
matrices representing d in some basis of F• .
Our ﬁrst result is an explicit description of lin(F• ) in the case where M = k[∆]
is the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex ∆. It is well-known that F• is
multigraded and generated as S-module in squarefree multidegrees. For simplicity
we identify squarefree multidegrees with subsets of [n] := {1, . . . , n}. We are going
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 05E40; Secondary: 13D02,13F55,16W50.
Key words and phrases. Monomial ideal; Stanley-Reisner ring; Linear Part; Linearity defect;
Componentwise linear.
The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), grant KA 4128/2-1.
1

2

LUKAS KATTHÄN

d
b
c

a
e

Figure 1. The induced subcomplexes of ∆ from Example 1.2. The
arrows indicate non-zero linear coeﬃcients.
to use Hochster’s formula, which states that
f#U −i−1 (∆ ; k),
TorS (k[∆], k)U ∼
=H
U
i

where U ⊆ [n] is a squarefree multidgree and ∆U := {F ∈ ∆ : F ⊆ U} is the
restriction of ∆ to U. To simplify the notation, we set U \ u := U \ {u} and
fj (∆ ) := H
fj (∆ ; k) for u ∈ U ⊆ [n] and j ∈ N. By Hochster’s formula, lin(F )
H
U
U
i
f#U −i−1 (∆ ) ⊗ S(−U) for
is isomorphic to the direct sum of modules of the form H
U
k
U ⊂ [n]. The diﬀerential dlin turns out to be simply a compilation of all the restriction
fi (∆ ) → H
fi (∆
maps H
U
U \u ), ω 7→ ω|U \u , induced by the inclusions ∆U \u ⊂ ∆U . In the
following theorem, we use the notation α(u, U) = #{k ∈ U, k < u}, where u ∈ [n].
Theorem 1.1. Let k[∆] be the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex ∆ and
let F• denote its minimal free resolution. The linear part lin(F• ) of F• is isomorphic
to the complex with modules
lin(Fi ) =

M

U ⊆[n]

f#U −i−1 (∆ ) ⊗ S(−U),
H
U
k

and the components of differential are given by
fj (∆ ) ⊗ S(−U)
H
U
k

ω⊗s

−→

fj (∆
H
U \u ) ⊗k S(−U \ u)

7−→ (−1)α(u,U ) ω|U \u ⊗ xu s

This extends the result of Reiner and Welker [RW01], which describes the maps in
the linear strand of F• . An alternative description of lin(F• ) in terms of the Alexander
dual of ∆ was given by Yanagawa [Yan00, Theorem 4.1].

LINEAR MAPS

3

Example 1.2. Let ∆ be the simplical complex with vertex set {a, b, c, d, e} and facets
{a, c, d}, {b, d, e}, {c, d, e} and {b, c}. Its Stanley-Reisner ideal is I∆ = hab, ac, bcd, bcei.
A minimal free resolution F• is given by the following complex:
 abc

abcd

abce

bcde



 abcde 

ab
−c
cd
ce
0
abc
0
ac  d
0
0
0 
abcd  e 
ab ac bcd bce
bcd  0
−a
0
e 
abce  −d 

1
ab ac bcd bce
bce
0
0
−a
−d
bcde
a
0 ← S ←−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− S 4 ←−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− S 4 ←−−−−−−−−−−−−− S ← 0

The linear entries are marked in boldface. We indicate the relevant induced subcomplexes of ∆ in Figure 1. There, the arrows indicate non-zero linear entries in
the matrices of F• . They correspond to non-zero restriction maps in the zero- or
one-dimensional cohomology.
As a special case of Theorem 1.1, we obtain a very simple and explicit description
of the 1-linear strand of F• (this is the strand containing the quadratic generators of
I∆ , cf. Deﬁnition 3.3). In particular, we show that the maps in the 1-linear strand
can always be written using only ±1 coeﬃcients, see Corollary 4.2. This extends
and simpliﬁes the results of Horwitz [Hor07] and Chen [Che10], who constructed the
minimal free resolution of I∆ under the assumption that I∆ is generated by quadrics
and has a linear resolution.
We now consider a more general situation. Let J ⊆ S be a homogeneous ideal
(with respect to the Z-grading) and let R := S/J. Let M be a ﬁnitely generated
Z-graded R-module with minimal free resolution F• (over R). The linearity defect of
M is
ld(M) = sup{i : Hi (lin(F• )) 6= 0}.
This invariant was introduced in Herzog and Iyengar [HI05] and studied recently by
a number of authors [Röm01; IR09; Yan09; Şeg13; Ngu15; NV16]. In particular,
Okazaki and Yanagawa [OY07] showed that the linearity defect of a Stanley-Reisner
ideal I∆ depends only on the homeomorphism type of the Alexander dual ∆∨ . In
contrast to that, we are going to express it in terms of ∆ itself, using Theorem 1.1.
For this, we ﬁrst give a convenient reformulation of the linearity defect. Şega [Şeg13]
considered the maps
ℓ+1
ℓ
νiℓ (M) : TorR
) −→ TorR
i (M, R/m
i (M, R/m ),

which are induced by the projections R/mℓ+1 → R/mℓ , where m := (x1 , . . . , xn ) is
the irrelevant ideal in R. It is not diﬃcult to see that the elements in the image
of νi1 (M) correspond to elements g ∈ Fi with g ∈
/ mFi and dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 [Şeg13, p.
208]. In [Şeg13, Theorem 2.2], the linearity defect of a module over a local ring is
characterized in terms of the vanishing of the νiℓ (M). It turns out that in our graded
situation, it is enough to consider νi1 (M):

4

LUKAS KATTHÄN

Theorem 1.3. Let M be a finitely generated Z-graded R-module with minimal free
resolution F• . Then
ld(M) = sup{i : νi1 (M) 6= 0}.
In particular, M is componentwise linear if and only if for all i > 0, every g ∈ Fi
with dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 has g ∈ mFi .
In this article, we apply the preceding theorem only in the case R = S, but we consider the extra generality to be of independent interest. By combining Theorem 1.1
and Theorem 1.3, one immediately obtains a description of the linearity defect of a
Stanley-Reisner ideal (Corollary 4.3), as well as a characterization of componentwise
linear Stanley-Reisner ideals:
Corollary 1.4. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex. The following are equivalent:
(1) The Stanley-Reisner ideal I∆ is componentwise linear.
f∗ (∆ ), ω 6= 0, the following holds:
(2) For every subset U ⊆ [n] and every ω ∈ H
U
If #U > dim ω + 2, then there exists a vertex u ∈ U such that the restriction
f∗ (∆
ω|U \u ∈ H
U \u ) is nonzero.
f (∆ ) is represented by
(3) For every subset U ⊆ [n], each homology class [z] ∈ H
∗
U
a sum of complete cycles.
(4) Each cycle z ∈ Ce• (∆) can be written as a sum of complete cycles, using only
vertices from the support of z.
Here, Ce• (∆) denotes the simplical chains of ∆ with coeﬃcients in k. Further, a
cycle z ∈ Ce• (∆) is complete if it is the boundary of a simplex, and its support is the
set of all vertices of all faces appearing in it.
This article is structured as follows. In Section 2 we set up several notational
conventions. Then, in Section 3 we study the linearity defect and prove Theorem 1.3.
In the subsequent Section 4 we specialize our consideration to Stanley-Reisner rings.
In particular, we prove Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.4. In the last section of this
article, we ask several open questions and pose a conjecture.
Acknowledgments. The author thanks Vic Reiner for many inspiring discussions.
2. Notation
For n ∈ N we write [n] := {1, . . . , n}. For U ⊆ [n] and u ∈ [n] we deﬁne U \ u :=
U \ {u} and U ∪ u := U ∪ {u}.
Throughout the paper let k denote a ﬁxed ﬁeld and S = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a polynomial ring over it. We will consider both the standard Z-grading and the ﬁne
Zn -grading on S. Squarefree multidegrees are identiﬁed with subsets of [n]. In particular, for U ⊆ [n], we write S(−U) for the free cyclic S-module whose generator is
in degree U.

LINEAR MAPS

5

3. Linearity defect and componentwise linearity
Let J ⊆ S be a homogeneous ideal, let R := S/J and let M be a ﬁnitely generated
Z-graded R-module. The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.3, which describes
the linearity defect of M, as well as a criterion for M to be componentwise linear.
We start by recalling the deﬁnitions. Every ﬁnitely generated Z-graded R-module
M has a (possibly inﬁnite) minimal free resolution
d

d

1
i
F• : 0 ←− M ←− F0 ←−
· · · ←−
Fi ←− · · · ,

where the diﬀerential di is homogeneous and each Fi is a free R-module. Moreover,
F• is unique up to graded isomorphism. There is a natural ﬁltration on F• , which is
given by
F j (Fi ) := mj−iFi .
The associated graded complex lin(F• ) is called the linear part of F• . Is was introduced in [EFS03], but see also [HSV83, Chapter 5]. Note that lin(Fi ) ∼
= Fi as
R-modules, but the diﬀerentials on the complexes are diﬀerent. Indeed, lin(F• ) can
be constructed alternatively by choosing a basis for F• , representing its diﬀerential
in this basis by matrices, and deleting all non-linear entries, that is, entries in m2 .
Componentwise linear ideals were introduced by Herzog and Hibi in [HH99]. The
deﬁnition was later generalized to modules by Yanagawa [Yan00, Def. 4.8].
Definition 3.1. For k ∈ N, let Mhki ⊆ M denote the submodule of M generated
by all elements of degree k. M is called componentwise linear if Mhki has a linear
resolution for all k.
The linearity defect [HI05] of M is deﬁned as
ld(M) := sup{i : Hi (lin(F• )) 6= 0}.
By [Yan00, Prop. 4.9], M is componentwise linear if and only if ld M = 0, so the
linearity defect measures the failure of M to be componentwise linear. See also [IR09,
Theorem 5.6] for a generalization of this.
It turns out to be more convenient to work with a ﬁltration on F• which is diﬀerent
from the one used to deﬁne lin(F• ). For this, consider a non-zero homogeneous
element a ∈ Fi . We write deg(a) for the degree of a with respect to the standard
Z-grading on R and we set ||a|| := deg(a) − i. Let F≤k
⊆ F• be the submodule
•
generated by all elements a ∈ F• with ||a|| ≤ k. This is a subcomplex of F• , and we
call the ﬁltration
≤k+1
· · · ⊆ F•≤k−1 ⊆ F≤k
⊆ ···
• ⊆ F•
the strand filtration of F• . Note that if k0 is the smallest degree of a generator of M,
0 −1
0
then F≤k
= 0 and F≤k
is the k0 -linear strand of F• . Moreover, let us deﬁne
•
•
|a|F := min(k : a ∈ F≤k
• ), and
|a|m := max(k : a ∈ mk F• ).

6

LUKAS KATTHÄN

The following lemma collects some properties of these notions.
Lemma 3.2. Let a ∈ Fi , a 6= 0 be homogeneous for some i. Then the following holds:
(1) |a|m = 0 ⇐⇒ a ∈
/ mF• ,
(2) (a) ||da|| = ||a|| + 1,
(b) |da|m ≥ |a|m + 1,
(c) |da|F ≤ |a|F , and
(3) ||a|| = |a|F + |a|m .
Proof. Parts (1) and (2) are immediate from the deﬁnitions, so we only need to
prove (3). First, assume that a ∈
/ mF• , so we need to show that ||a|| = |a|F . Let
≤k
k = ||a||. By deﬁnition, a ∈ F• and thus k ≥ |a|F . Assume for the contrary that
P
k > |a|F . Then a can be written as a sum j fj aj where fj ∈ R and aj ∈ F•≤k−1.
Now deg(aj ) = ||aj || + i < k + i = deg(a) and thus deg(fj ) > 0 for all j. But this
implies that a ∈ mFi , contradicting our assumption.
Now we turn to the general case. Choose an R-basis B of Fi consisting of homogeneous elements and expand a in this basis:
a=

X

fb b

b∈B

Then |a|m is the minimum of the degrees of the fb and |a|F is the maximum of |b|F
for b ∈ B. Note that |b|F = ||b|| = deg(b) − i for each b ∈ B by the argument
above, so instead of maximizing |b|F we can also maximize deg(b). Further, the sum
deg(fb ) + deg(b) does not depend on b because a is homogeneous, and so those b
which minimize deg(fb ) also maximize deg(b). For such an element b, it holds that
|a|m = deg(fb ), |a|F = |b|F and thus
||a|| = ||fb b|| = deg(fb b) − i = deg(fb ) + deg b − i
= |a|m + |b|F = |a|m + |a|F .



The next step is to show that the strand ﬁltration gives an alternative description
of the linear part. By the construction of lin(F• ) as an associated graded complex,
there is a canonical isomorphism lin(Fi ) ∼
= Fi /mFi ⊗k R, where R is actually its
associated graded ring, but the latter is isomorphic to R. Now Fi /mF
= TorR
i (M, k)
Li
is a graded k-vector space, so we obtain a decomposition lin(Fi ) = j lin(Fi )j with
lin(Fi )j := TorR
i (M, k)j ⊗k R.
Definition 3.3. The j-linear strand lin(F• )hji of lin(F• ) is the subcomplex of lin(F• )
with the module lin(Fi )i+j in homological degree i.
The linear strands are indeed subcomplexes of lin(F• ) because the diﬀerential on
lin(F• ) is linear, and its holds that
lin(F• ) =

M
j

lin(F• )hji

LINEAR MAPS

7

≤k−1
Lemma 3.4. The k-linear strand lin(F• )hki of lin(F• ) is isomorphic to F≤k
.
• /F•

Proof. We work with a ﬁxed homogeneous R-basis B of F• . On the one hand,
lin(F• )hki is spanned by the elements b ∈ B with ||b|| = k and deleting all non-linear
entries from the matrices representing the diﬀerential (see [Yan00, Section 4]).
On the other hand, F≤k
i is the subcomplex spanned by the basis elements b ∈ B with
≤k
≤k−1
||b|| ≤ k, so Fi /Fi
is also spanned by the elements b ∈ B with ||b|| = k. Consider
P
≤k
a basis element b0 ∈ Fi ∩ B with ||b0 || = k. Then we can write db0 = b∈B fb b with
fb ∈ R. For each b, it holds that k = ||b0 || = ||fb b|| − 1 = deg(fb ) + |b|F − 1, and
L
≤k−1
≤k−1
hence b ∈ Fi−1
if and only if fb ∈ m2 . Therefore, the diﬀerential on k F≤k
• /F•
is obtained by deleting the matrix entries in m2 , and thus this complex is isomorphic
to lin(F• ).

R
2
Recall that νi1 (M) is the map νi1 (M) : TorR
i (M, R/m ) → Tori (M, R/m) induced
by the projection R/m2 → R/m = k. The following is almost obvious, but we include
it for ease of reference.

Lemma 3.5 ([Şeg13, §2.3]). It holds that νi1 (M) = 0 if and only if every g ∈ Fi with
dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 has g ∈ mFi .
The next lemma is the key step in our proof of Theorem 1.3.
Lemma 3.6. The following are equivalent for i ≥ 0:
(1) Hi−1 (F≤k
• ) = 0 for all k ∈ N, and
(2) νi1 (M) = 0.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): Assume that νi1 (M) 6= 0 and Hi−1 (F≤k
• ) = 0. By Lemma 3.5,
there exists an element g ∈ Fi with g ∈
/ mFi and dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 . By Lemma 3.2 we
compute that
|dg|F = ||dg|| − |dg|m = ||g|| + 1 − |dg|m ≤ ||g|| + 1 − 2 = |g|F − 1
≤k
Let k := |dg|F , so that dg ∈ F≤k
i−1 . Since ddg = 0, the hypothesis that Hi−1 (F• ) =
≤k
′
′
0 implies that there exists g ∈ Fi with dg = dg. Note that

|g ′|F ≤ k = |dg|F ≤ |g|F − 1,
and also
||g ′|| = ||dg ′|| + 1 = ||dg|| + 1 = ||g||.
It follows that |g ′|m = ||g ′|| − |g ′|F ≥ ||g|| − |g|F + 1 = 1, so g ′ ∈ mFi . Hence
g − g′ ∈
/ mFi , but d(g − g ′ ) = 0, contradicting the minimality of F• .
≤k
(2) ⇒ (1): Let Z(F≤k
i−1 ) denote the submodule of cycles. Assume that Hi−1 (F• ) 6=
≤k
0 for some k. Then there exists a (homogeneous) cycle h ∈ Z(Fi−1 ) which is not a
≤k
boundary. We may assume that h ∈
/ mZ(F≤k
i−1 ), because Z(Fi−1 ) is generated by these
elements and if each generator were a boundary, then the complex would be exact.

8

LUKAS KATTHÄN

As F• is exact, there exists a g ∈ Fi with dg = h. Further, h ∈
/ mZ(F≤k
i−1 ) implies
≤k
that g ∈
/ mFi . We assumed that h is not a boundary in F≤k
,
so
g
∈
/
F
and thus
i
•
|g|F > k ≥ |h|F = |dg|F . It follows that
|dg|m = ||dg|| − |dg|F > ||g|| + 1 − |g|F = |g|m + 1 = 1,
and hence dg ∈ m2 Fi . Thus, νi1 (M) 6= 0 by Lemma 3.5.

Now we can give the proof of Theorem 1.3. We recall the statement.
Theorem 1.3. Let M be a finitely generated Z-graded R-module with minimal free
resolution F• . Then
ld(M) = sup{i : νi1 (M) 6= 0}.
In particular, M is componentwise linear if and only if for all i > 0, every g ∈ Fi
with dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 has g ∈ mFi .
Proof. By Lemma 3.4, the linearity defect of M is given by
ld(M) = sup{i : Hi (lin(F• )) 6= 0}
= sup{i : Hi (F•≤k+1 /F≤k
• ) 6= 0 for some k}.
Moreover, for the duration of this proof we set
ld(M) := sup{i : νi1 (M) 6= 0}
= sup{i : Hi−1 (F≤k
• ) 6= 0 for some k},
where the equality follows from Lemma 3.6. First, we argue that ld(M) ≥ ld(M).
For this, choose a j ∈ N such that Hj (F•≤k+1 /F≤k
• ) 6= 0 for some k. By considering
the long exact sequence associated to
≤k+1
0 → F≤k
→ F•≤k+1 /F≤k
• → F•
• → 0,

we see that either Hj (F•≤k+1 ) or Hj−1(F≤k
• ) is nonzero, and thus ld(M) ≥ (j −1)+1 =
j. Thus, if ld(M) < ∞ we can choose j = ld(M) and conclude that ld(M) ≥ ld(M).
If ld(M) = ∞, we can choose arbitrary large values of j, and thus ld(M) = ∞ as
well.
For the other inequality, choose an i ∈ N such that Hi−1 (F≤k
• ) 6= 0 for some k. As
F• is exact and only ﬁnitely many strands contribute to Fi , we may assume that k
is the maximal number with this property. Consider the following part of the long
exact sequence mentioned above:
≤k
≤k+1
Hi (F•≤k+1 /F≤k
)
• ) −→ Hi−1 (F• ) −→ Hi−1 (F•

The module on the right vanishes because our choice of k and the one in the middle
is nonzero by assumption. Hence Hi (F•≤k+1/F≤k
• ) 6= 0 and thus ld(M) ≥ i. As before,
it follows that ld(M) ≥ ld(M).


LINEAR MAPS

9

4. Stanley-Reisner rings
Throughout this section, we restrict our attention to the case J = 0 and thus
R = S. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex with vertex set [n]. In this section we study
the linear part lin(F• ) of the minimal free resolution F• of its Stanley-Reisner ring
k[∆] over S.
Recall that the Stanley-Reisner ideal of ∆ is deﬁned as I∆ := hxU : U ⊆ [n], U ∈
/
Q
U
∆i, where x := i∈U xi . Further, the Stanley-Reisner ring is k[∆] := S/I∆ . Every squarefree monomial ideal arises as the Stanley-Reisner ideal of some simplicial
complex.
4.1. Simplicial chains and cochains. For the convenience of the reader, we recall
the deﬁnitions of the chain and cochain complexes of a simplicial complex ∆. For
keeping track of the signs, we use the notation
α(A, B) := #{(a, b) : a > b, a ∈ A, b ∈ B}
for subsets A, B ⊆ [n]. We further set α(a, B) = α({a}, B). The (augmented oriented) chain complex of ∆ is the complex of k-vector spaces Ce• (∆), where Ced (∆) is
the k-vector space spanned by the d-faces of ∆, and the diﬀerential is given by
∂(F ) =

X

(−1)α(i,F ) F \ i.

i∈F

Here, we consider the empty set as the unique face of dimension −1. Note that we use
the natural order on [n] in the deﬁnition of α(i, F ). The (reduced) simplicial homology
f (∆) := H
f (∆; k) := H (C
e (∆)). The (augmented oriented) cochain complex
of ∆ is H
∗
∗
∗
•
of ∆ is the dual complex Ce • (∆) := homk (Ce• (∆), k). We write F ∗ ∈ Ce d (∆) for the
basis element dual to a d-face F ∈ ∆. In this basis, the diﬀerential on Ce • (∆) can be
written as
X
∂(F ∗ ) =
(−1)α(i,F ) (F ∪ i)∗ .
i∈[n]\F

Here, we adopt the convention that (F ∪i)∗ = 0 if F ∪i ∈
/ ∆. The (reduced) simplicial
∗
∗
∗ e•
f
f
cohomology of ∆ is H (∆) := H (∆; k) := H (C (∆)).
For a subcomplex Γ ⊆ ∆, there are an inclusion map ι : Ce• (Γ) → Ce• (∆) and a
restriction map Ce • (∆) → Ce • (Γ). If ω ∈ Ce • (∆) is a cochain and U ⊆ [n], then we
write ω|U for the restriction of ω to ∆U .
4.2. The linear part of the resolution of a Stanley-Reisner ring. Our next
goal is to prove Theorem 1.1. We are going to need an explicit version of Hochster’s
formula. This is of course well-known, but we give the details for the convenience of
the reader. Let V = spank {e1 , . . . , en } be an n-dimensional k-vector space and let
Λ• V denote the exterior algebra over it. For F = {i1 , . . . , ir } ⊆ [n] with i1 , . . . , ir , we
set eF := ei1 ∧ · · · ∧ eir . Then k[∆] ⊗k Λ• V is the Koszul complex of k[∆].

10

LUKAS KATTHÄN

Proposition 4.1 ([Hoc77]). For each squarefree multidegree U ⊆ [n], there is an
isomorphism of complexes (k[∆] ⊗k Λ• V )U −→ Ce #U −1−• (∆U ), given by xF ⊗ eU \F 7→
(−1)α(F,U ) F ∗ .
Proof. It suﬃces to show that the following diagram commutes:
X

xF ⊗ eU \F

(−1)α(i,U \F ) xF xi ⊗ eU \(F ∪i)

i∈U \F

(−1)α(F,U ) F ∗

X

(−1)α(F,U )

(−1)α(i,F ) (F ∪ i)∗

i∈U \F

We only need to show that α(F, U) + α(i, F ) ≡ α(i, U \ F ) + α(F ∪ i, U) modulo 2.
This follows from the following computation:
α(F ∪ i, U) − α(F, U) = α(i, U) = α(i, F ) + α(i, U \ F )

Now we turn to the proof or Theorem 1.1, which we restate for convenience.
Theorem 1.1. Let k[∆] be the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex ∆ and
let F• denote its minimal free resolution. The linear part lin(F• ) of F• is isomorphic
to the complex with modules
lin(Fi ) =

M

U ⊆[n]

f#U −i−1 (∆ ) ⊗ S(−U),
H
U
k

and the components of differential are given by
fj (∆ ) ⊗ S(−U)
H
U
k

ω⊗s

−→

fj (∆
H
U \u ) ⊗k S(−U \ u)

7−→ (−1)α(u,U ) ω|U \u ⊗ xu s

Proof. We follow the arguments of the proof of [Yan00, Theorem 4.1].
Following [HSV83] and [EFS03, p. 107–109], we consider the double complex
(L•,• , ∂, ∂ ′ ), whose modules are given by La,b := k[∆]⊗k Λa V ⊗k Sb and the diﬀerentials
are
X
∂(s1 ⊗ eF ⊗ s2 ) :=
(−1)α(i,F ) s1 xi ⊗ eF \i ⊗ s2
i∈F

′

∂ (s1 ⊗ eF ⊗ s2 ) :=

X

(−1)α(i,F ) s1

⊗ eF \i ⊗ xi s2

i∈F

It is not diﬃcult to see that the homology of (L•,• , ∂) is isomorphic to TorS• (k[∆], k)⊗k
S. By [HSV83, Theorem 5.1], the linear part of the minimal free resolution is induced
by ∂ ′ .

LINEAR MAPS

11

L

Consider the sub-double complex L′a,b := σ∈[n] (k[∆] ⊗k Λa V )σ ⊗k Sb of L•,• . As
TorS• (k[∆], k) is non-zero in squarefree degrees only [MS05, Cor. 1.40], both L′•,• and
L•,• have the same homology with respect to ∂.
L
By Proposition 4.1, (L′•,• , ∂) is isomorphic to U ⊆[n] Ce #U −1−• (∆U )⊗k S(−U), where
∂ ′ translates to the map
Ce j (∆U ) ⊗k S(−U) −→
∗

F ⊗ s 7−→

M

u∈U

X

Ce j (∆U \u ) ⊗k S(−U \ u)
(−1)α(u,F ) F ∗ |U \u ⊗ xu s

u∈U

Now the claim follows by taking homology with respect to ∂ and applying [HSV83,
Theorem 5.1].

A particularly simple case of Theorem 1.1 is the following:
Corollary 4.2. Let I ⊆ S be a monomial ideal and let F• be its minimal free resolution. Then one can choose a basis of F• such that the maps in its 2-linear strand
have only coefficients in {−1, 0, 1}.
See Conjecture 5.6 for a conjectural improvement of this result.
Proof. We may assume that I is squarefree by replacing it with its polarization [MS05,
p. 44]. So it is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of some simplicial complex ∆. By Theorem 1.1, maps in the 2-linear strand of its minimal free resolution are induced by the
f0 (∆ ) → H
f0 (∆
restriction maps H
U
U \u ) for each u ∈ U.
For each subset U ⊆ [n] we choose a distinguished connected component CU,0 of ∆U .
For each other connected component CU,i of it, let eU,i : U → k the function which
is 1 in the vertices of CU,i and 0 on the others. It is clear that the set {eU,i : i > 0}
f0 (∆ ).
forms a basis of H
U
We claim that in this basis, the diﬀerential has coeﬃcients ±1. For i > 0 there are
the following cases:
(1) CU,i = CU \u,j for some j > 0,
(2) CU,i = CU \u,0 ,
(3) CU,i splits into several connected components CU \u,j1 , . . . , CU \u,jr of ∆U \u with
j1 , . . . , jr > 0,
(4) same as (3), with j1 = 0,
(5) CU,i is the isolated vertex u.
In each case, it is not diﬃcult to see that eU,i is mapped to a linear combination of
the eU \u,j with coeﬃcients in {−1, 0, 1}.

4.3. Linearity defect and componentwise linearity of Stanley-Reisner ideals.
We now apply the result of the previous section together with Theorem 1.3 to describe
the linearity defect of Stanley-Reisner ideals.

12

LUKAS KATTHÄN

Corollary 4.3. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex on the vertex set [n] with StanleyReisner ideal I∆ . Then the linearity defect of I∆ is given by the maximal number i
with the following property: There exists a subset U ⊆ [n] and a nonzero cohomology
f#U −i−2 (∆ ) such that all restrictions ω|
class ω ∈ H
U
U \u for u ∈ U vanish.
Proof. Let F• denote the minimal free resolution of I∆ . It follows from Theorem 1.3
and Lemma 3.5 that the linearity defect of I∆ is the maximal i such that there exists
an element g ∈ Fi with g ∈
/ mFi and dg ∈ m2 Fi−1 . In other words, it is the maximal
i, such that there exists an element g ∈ lin(Fi ) with g ∈
/ m lin(Fi ) and dg = 0.
Since lin(F• ) is generated in squarefree multidegrees as S-module, we only need to
consider squarefree multidegrees. It follows from Theorem 1.1 that in a squarefree
degree U ⊆ [n], d is given by
(1)

fj (∆ ) −→
H
U

ω 7−→

M

u∈U

X

fj (∆
H
U \u )

ω|U \u

u∈U

where j = #U − i − 2. The claim describes exactly the maximal i where this is not
injective.

We illustrate the last proposition in the case of a one-dimensional simplicial complex.
Example 4.4. Let ∆ be a one-dimensional simplicial complex, i.e. a graph. For
simplicity we assume that every element of [n] is indeed a vertex of ∆, so its Stanleyf0 (∆ ) and H
f1 (∆ )
Reisner ideal contains no variables. We only need to consider H
U
U
0
f
for U ⊆ [n]. However, zero-dimensional cohomology classes ω ∈ H (∆U ) always
admit a vertex u ∈ U such that ω|U \u 6= 0, unless #U = 2. This amounts to the fact
that the diﬀerential of F≤2
• is linear except in homological degree 1.
f1 (∆ ) all of whose
Further, the subsets U ⊆ [n] such that there is a class ω ∈ H
U
restrictions vanish are exactly the induced chordless cycles of ∆. For such a U, note
that 1 = #U − i − 2 and so i = #U − 3. In conclusion, we obtain that
ld(I∆ ) = (maximal length of an induced chordless cycle) − 3.
In particular, we recover Fröbergs theorem [Frö90] that (I∆ )h2i has a linear resolution
if and only if ∆ is chordal, i.e. every induced cycle has a chord.
Finally, we can prove Corollary 1.4. Let us recall the statement.
Corollary 1.4. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex. The following are equivalent:
(1) The Stanley-Reisner ideal I∆ is componentwise linear.
f∗ (∆ ), ω 6= 0, the following holds:
(2) For every subset U ⊆ [n] and every ω ∈ H
U
If #U > dim ω + 2, then there exists a vertex u ∈ U such that the restriction
f∗ (∆
ω|U \u ∈ H
U \u ) is nonzero.

LINEAR MAPS

13

f (∆ ) is represented by
(3) For every subset U ⊆ [n], each homology class [z] ∈ H
∗
U
a sum of complete cycles.
(4) Each cycle z ∈ Ce• (∆) can be written as a sum of complete cycles, using only
vertices from the support of z.

Recall that a cycle z ∈ Ce• (∆) is complete if it is the boundary of a simplex, and
its support is the set of all vertices of all faces appearing in z.
Proof. (1) ⇔ (2) This is immediate from Corollary 4.3.
(2) ⇔ (3) Since we are working over a ﬁeld, the map in Eq. (1) is injective if and
only if the dual map
M
f (∆
f
H
i
U \u ) −→ Hi (∆U )
u∈U

([z1 ], . . . , [zr ]) 7−→

X

ι([zu ])

u∈U

is surjective. Using induction on the size of the support of the cycle, one easily sees
that the latter is equivalent to condition (3).
(3) ⇒ (4) Consider a cycle z ∈ Ce• (∆) and let U ⊆ [n] be the set of vertices present
f (∆ ) of z can be written as a sum of complete cycles,
in it. By (3), the class [z] ∈ H
∗
U
using only vertices in U. In other words, there exist a z ′ ∈ Ce• (∆U ) which is a sum
of complete cycles and homologous to z. Then z − z ′ is a boundary in Ce• (∆U ), and
thus a sum of boundaries of simplices.
f (∆ ). Then z can be written as a sum of
(4) ⇒ (3) Let U ⊆ [n] and [z] ∈ H
∗
U
f (∆ ).
complete cycles, using only vertices in the support of z, and thus in H
∗
U

Remark 4.5. The equivalence of (1) and (4) can also be proven using the results
of [ANS16]. In fact, [ANS16, Theorem 5.1] implicitly gives a characterization of
componentwise linearity in terms of resolution chordality. By [ANS16, Fact 3.1],
this can be translated into a condition in terms of decomposition chordality, which is
essentially equivalent to part (4) of Corollary 1.4.
5. Questions and open problems
In this section we give several questions and open problems related to the topics
of this article.
5.1. Affine monoid algebras. Recall that a (positive) aﬃne monoid Q ⊆ Nn is a
ﬁnitely generated submonoid of Nn . The monoid algebras k[Q] of aﬃne monoids form
a well-studied class of algebras. We refer the reader to [MS05] or [BH98, Chapter
6] for more information on these rings. Each positive aﬃne monoid has a unique
minimal generating set, which is called its Hilbert basis. It yields a set of generators

14

LUKAS KATTHÄN

for k[Q] and thus a surjection S → k[Q] from a polynomial ring S. Moreover, k[Q]
carried a natural Nn -multigrading.
There is a combinatorial interpretation of the multigraded Betti numbers of k[Q],
f (∆ ) for a certain simplicial complex ∆ , see [MS05,
namely TorSi (k[Q], k)a ∼
= H
i
a
a
Theorem 9.2].
Question 5.1. Is there a topological interpretation of the linear part of the minimal
free resolution of k[Q] over S?
In this situation, a description along the lines of Theorem 1.1 would require a
f (∆ ) → H
f (∆
map H
i
a
i−1
a−b ), where b is an element of the Hilbert basis such that
a−b ∈ Q. In this situation, ∆a−b is a subcomplex of ∆a , but it is neither a restriction
nor a link.
5.2. Approximations of resolutions. Let I∆ ⊆ S be the Stanley-Reisner ideal
of some simplicial complex ∆ and let F• denote the minimal free resolution of I∆ .
Hochster’s formula can be interpreted as giving a description of the complex F• /mF•
(with trivial diﬀerential). Our Theorem 1.1 extends this by (essentially) describing
F• /m2 F• . There results can be considered as successive approximations of F• , so the
following question seems natural:
Question 5.2. Is there a combinatorial or topological description of F• /m3 F• ?
This seems to be substantially more diﬃcult than describing F• /m2 F• . One reason
for this is the following. Even though a minimal free resolution is unique up to
isomorphism, if one wants to write it down explicitly one needs to choose an S-basis
for F• . This choice can be done in two steps. First choose a k-basis for F• /mF• =
Tor∗ (S/I∆ , k), and then choose a lifting of these elements to F• (any such lifting
works due to Nakayama’s lemma). Hochster’s formula is a convenient tool for the
ﬁrst choice. In Theorem 1.1, it turned out that the diﬀerential of F• /m2 F• does not
depend on the second choice, but this is no longer true for F• /m3 F• .
5.3. Homology of the linear part and products in the Tor-algebra. Let M
be a ﬁnitely generated Z-graded R-module with minimal free resolution F• . Consider
the short exact sequence
0 −→ mF• /m2 F• −→ F• /m2 F• −→ F• /mF• −→ 0
and the corresponding long exact sequence
ν 1 (M )

ϕ

i
i
Hi (F• /mF• ) −→
Hi−1 (mF• /m2 F• ) −→ · · ·
· · · −→ Hi (F• /m2 F• ) −→

Note that the diﬀerential on both mF• /m2 F• and F• /mF• is zero, so the connecting
homomorphism ϕi is actually a map ϕi : Fi /mFi −→ mFi−1 /m2 Fi−1 . In fact, it is
not diﬃcult to see that this map is part of the diﬀerential of lin(F• ). For this, recall
that lin(F• ) is the associated graded complex with respect to a ﬁltration by powers

LINEAR MAPS

15

of the maximal ideal. Thus, the image of νi1 (M) equals the kernel of ϕi , and this is
contained in Hi (lin(F• )). Motivated by Lemma 3.6, we ask the following:
Question 5.3. Is H∗ (lin(F• )) generated as R-module by the images of νi1 (M)?
Consider the case that M = I ⊂ S is a homogeneous ideal containing no linear
forms. It is known that if I is componentwise linear, then S/I is a Golod ring
[HRW99]. Recall that a ring is called Golod if the algebra structure on its Koszul
homology is trivial, and all higher Massey products vanish. We refer the reader
to [Avr98] for more information about these notions. In view of Theorem 1.3, the
following seems natural to ask:
Question 5.4. What is the relation between Massey products in TorS∗ (S/I, k) and
the images of νi1 (M)? More precisely, if z is a nonzero Massey product of minimal
homological degree, is z in the image of some νi1 (M)?
The following observation shows that the latter indeed holds for the ordinary product on TorS∗ (S/I, k):
Proposition 5.5. Let a, b ∈ TorS∗ (S/I, k) be homogeneous elements of homological
degrees i1 and i2 , respectively. Assume that a · b 6= 0 and there is no nonzero product
of smaller homologial degree. Then a · b is contained in the image of νi11 +i2 (S/I).
Proof. Let F• be a minimal free resolution of S/I and choose a multiplicative structure
on it, i.e. a (non-commutative, non-associative) multiplication F• ⊗S F• → F• which
induces the multiplication on TorS∗ (S/I, k) = H∗ (F• ⊗S k). Such a multiplication
always exists [BE77]. Choose representatives a′ ∈ Fi1 and b′ ∈ Fi2 of a and b,
respectively. Further, choose an S-basis of B consisting of homogeneous elements
and expand da′ and db in this basis:
da =

X

ag g

db =

g∈B

X

bg g

g∈B

As a′ · b′ + m = a · b 6= 0 in H∗ (F• /mF• ), it holds that a′ · b′ ∈
/ mFi1 +i2 . On the other
hand, we compute that
d(a′ · b′ ) =

X

g∈B

ag g · b ±

X

bg a · g.

g∈B

Now, each ag and bg is contained in mF• , and each product g · b or a · g has strictly
smaller homological degree than a′ · b′ , so they are zero modulo m, and thus also
contained in m. It follows that d(a′ · b′ ) ∈ m2 F• . Hence a · b is contained in the image
of νi11 +i2 (S/I).

5.4. Coefficients in resolutions. Let I ⊆ S be a monomial ideal containing no
variables with minimal free resolution F• . We saw in Corollary 4.2 that the diﬀerential
on F≤2
can be written using only coeﬃcients ±1. On the other hand, in [RW01,
•
Section 5] Reiner and Welker gave an example where the diﬀerential on the complex

16

LUKAS KATTHÄN

F≤4
• cannot be written using only coeﬃcients ±1. We believe that their example is
optimal in that sense, and hence oﬀer the following conjecture.
Conjecture 5.6. Let I ⊆ S be a monomial ideal. Then it is possible to choose
a basis for its minimal free resolution F• , such that the diﬀerential on F≤3
can be
•
written using only coeﬃcients ±1.
Note that the ﬁrst map in F• , d : F1 → F0 , can always be written using coeﬃcients
from {−1, 0, 1}. This is easily seen by considering the Taylor resolution. Further, it
is not diﬃcult to explicitly give a basis for F2 such that the diﬀerential d : F2 → F1
has coeﬃcients ±1.
References
[ANS16]

K. A. Adiprasito, E. Nevo, and J. A. Samper. “Higher chordality: from
graphs to complexes”. In: Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 144.8 (2016), pp. 3317–
3329.
[Avr98]
L. L. Avramov. “Inﬁnite free resolutions”. In: Six lectures on commutative
algebra. Springer, 1998, pp. 1–118.
[BH98]
W. Bruns and J. Herzog. Cohen-Macaulay rings. Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
[BE77]
D. A. Buchsbaum and D. Eisenbud. “Algebra structures for ﬁnite free
resolutions, and some structure theorems for ideals of codimension 3”. In:
Amer. J. Math. 99.3 (1977), pp. 447–485.
[Che10]
R.-X. Chen. “Minimal free resolutions of linear edge ideals”. In: J. Algebra
324.12 (2010), pp. 3591–3613.
[EFS03] D. Eisenbud, G. Fløystad, and F.-O. Schreyer. “Sheaf cohomology and
free resolutions over exterior algebras”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355.11
(2003), pp. 4397–4426.
[Frö90]
R. Fröberg.
“On Stanley-Reisner rings”. In: Topics in algebra, Part
2 (Warsaw, 1988). Vol. 26. Banach Center Publ. PWN, Warsaw, 1990,
pp. 57–70.
[HSV83] J. Herzog, A. Simis, and W. V. Vasconcelos. “Approximation complexes
of blowing-up rings, II”. In: J. Algebra 82.1 (1983), pp. 53 –83.
[HH99]
J. Herzog and T. Hibi. “Componentwise linear ideals”. In: Nagoya Math.
J. 153 (1999), pp. 141–153.
[HI05]
J. Herzog and S. Iyengar. “Koszul modules”. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra
201.1-3 (2005), pp. 154–188.
[HRW99] J. Herzog, V. Reiner, and V. Welker. “Componentwise linear ideals and
Golod rings”. In: Michigan Math. J 46.2 (1999), pp. 211–223.
[Hoc77] M. Hochster.
“Cohen-Macaulay rings, combinatorics, and simplicial
complexes”. In: (1977), 171–223. Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.,
Vol. 26.

REFERENCES

[Hor07]
[IR09]
[MS05]
[Ngu15]
[NV16]
[OY07]
[RW01]
[Röm01]
[Şeg13]
[Yan00]
[Yan09]

17

N. Horwitz. “Linear resolutions of quadratic monomial ideals”. In: J.
Algebra 318.2 (2007), pp. 981–1001.
S. B. Iyengar and T. Römer. “Linearity defects of modules over commutative rings”. In: J. Algebra 322.9 (2009), pp. 3212–3237.
E. Miller and B. Sturmfels. Combinatorial commutative algebra. Springer,
2005.
H. D. Nguyen. “Notes on the linearity defect and applications”. In:
Illinois J. Math. 59.3 (2015), pp. 637–662.
H. D. Nguyen and T. Vu. “Linearity defect of edge ideals and Fröberg’s
theorem”. In: J. Algebraic Combin. 44.1 (2016), pp. 165–199.
R. Okazaki and K. Yanagawa. “Linearity defects of face rings”. In: J.
Algebra 314.1 (2007), pp. 362–382.
V. Reiner and V. Welker. “Linear syzygies of Stanley-Reisner ideals”. In:
Math. Scand. 89.1 (2001), pp. 117–132.
T. Römer. “On minimal graded free resolutions”. Dissertation. Essen,
2001.
L. M. Şega. “On the linearity defect of the residue ﬁeld”. In: J. Algebra
384 (2013), pp. 276–290.
K. Yanagawa. “Alexander Duality for Stanley–Reisner rings and squarefree Nn -graded modules”. In: J. Algebra 225.2 (2000), pp. 630 –645.
K. Yanagawa. “Linearity defect and regularity over a Koszul algebra”. In:
Math. Scand. 104.2 (2009), pp. 205–220.

School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
E-mail address: katth001@umn.edu

