Local Picard Group of Pointed Monoids and Their Algebras
Davide Alberelli, Holger Brenner
9th February 2018

Abstract

arXiv:1802.02793v1 [math.AC] 8 Feb 2018

The main goal of this paper is to give an explicit formula for
∗
)
HjZar (Spec• K[△], OK[△]

in terms of simplicial and reduced simplicial cohomology, where K[△] is the Stanley-Reisner ring
of the simplicial complex △. In particular we compute the local Picard group of K[△]. To achieve
this we study the corresponding purely combinatorial problem on the punctured spectrum of the
pointed monoid deﬁned by △. The cohomology of the sheaf of units on Spec• K[△] is then the
direct sum of this combinatorial cohomology, which has a decomposition along the vertices, and
another part depending on the ﬁeld K.

Mathematical Subject Classiﬁcation (2010): 13F55, 13C20, 14C22.

Introduction
An important invariant of a singularity represented by a local commutative ring (R, m) is the Picard
group of the punctured spectrum Spec R \ {m}, called the local Picard group and denoted by Picloc (R).
If R is a normal isolated singularity, this group coincides with the divisor class group, which measures
the deviation from factoriality. In this paper we want to compute the local Picard group and its
higher cohomological variants in a broad combinatorial setting. We work with a binoid, a pointed
additively written monoid (M, +, 0, ∞), and the corresponding binoid ring K[M ] (where 0 becomes 1
and ∞ becomes 0). This setting allows to describe zero divisors on the combinatorial level and gives a
common framework for monoid rings, Stanley-Reisner rings, toric face rings and nonreduced variants.
We will asume that M is ﬁnitely generated, commutative, torsion free and cancellative. See [Böt15]
for basic properties of this framework, for related concepts see [Flo15], [FW14], [LPL11], [Lor12].
A central question in approaching the local Picard group of K[M ] is whether it can be computed purely
combinatorially and to what extent it depends on the base ﬁeld K. On the combinatorial side, we
have the ﬁnite combinatorial spectrum Spec M , and its punctured variant Spec• M = Spec M \ M+ ,
where M+ = M \ M ∗ is the unique maximal ideal of M , which gives rise to the combinatorial local
Picard group. A “line bundle” on Spec• M deﬁnes a line bundle on Spec• K[M ] and so we get a group
homomorphism
Picloc (M ) −→ Picloc (K[M ]) .
It is known that in the (normal) toric setting this is an isomorphism, see [DFM93], but it is not true
for other combinatorial structures represented by a binoid. To a large extent, we will concentrate on
the case of simplicial complexes, simplicial binoids and Stanley-Reisner rings.
The main strategy is based on the fact that binoid generators x1 , . . . , xn of the maximal ideal M+
S
yield an open aﬃne covering D(xi ) of Spec• M and also of Spec• K[M ], and we want to compute
the cohomology of the sheaf of units O∗ in both cases with this covering, via Čech cohomology. In the
ﬁrst case, this covering is trivially acyclic and so it can be used for computation, provided, we have a
good understanding of the units in the localizations of our binoid.
In the algebra case, we have to know that the Picard group and the higher cohomology of the aﬃne
pieces D(xi ) are trivial. This is not always true, not even in the nonnormal toric case, but there are
many positive results. For example M. Pavaman Murthy in 1969 [Mur69] showed that for a positively
1

graded normal ring the Picard group is trivial, Carlo Traverso in 1970 [Tra70], Richard G. Swan in
1980 [Swa80] and David F. Anderson in 1981 [And81] covered the seminormal case, showing that
Pic(A) = Pic(A[X1 , . . . , Xn ]) in this case. We will prove that for Stanley-Reisner rings and their
localizations, the cohomology of the sheaf of units vanishes.
The next task is to determine the units of D(xi ), where the combinatorial units and the base ﬁeld have
to be considered. Already the aﬃne line shows that there is not a direct splitting of the sheaf of units
into combinatorial units and ﬁeld units. However, in many favorable situations there is such a splitting
on the combinatorial topology, the topology generated by the D(xi )s, and so the two aspects can be
studied separately. In such situations, the ﬁrst part is determined completely by the combinatorial
situation, whereas the second part depends on the constant sheaf given by the units of the ﬁeld. In
the nonintegral case, this part contributes to the local Picard group.

Main results
We give an overview of our main results, in particular for binoids M△ and their algebra K[△] that
arise from a simplicial complex △. In Lemma 2.6 we observe that the intersection pattern of the open
subsets D(xi ) of Spec M is given directly by the faces of the simplicial complex, thus leading us to
prove, in Theorem 2.10, that the cohomology of a constant sheaf can be computed entirely in terms of
simplicial cohomology. In Theorem 2.15, we show that the localization of a simplicial binoid at a face
is isomorphic to the smash product of the simplicial binoid of the link of that face and a free group on
∗
that face. This opens the door to Theorem 2.21, where we show that we can rewrite the sheaf OM
△
as a direct sum of smaller sheaves, indexed by the vertices. These sheaves are actually deﬁned as
extensions by zeros of the constant sheaf Z on D(xi ), which is homeomorphic to the spectrum of the
link of the corresponding vertex. This brings us to Theorem 2.25, which shows that we can compute
sheaf cohomology (and thus the local Picard group) by means of reduced simplicial cohomology, via
the formula


M
∗
e j−1 (lk (v), Z) .
∼
H
Hj Spec• M△ , OM
=
△
△
v∈V

We then use these results to understand the sheaf of units on the binoid algebra and their cohomology. In order to do so, we introduce in Deﬁnition 3.17 the combinatorial topology on Spec K[M ],
which builds a bridge between the topology on Spec M and the Zariski topology on Spec K[M ]. In
Proposition 3.23, we show that if M is a reduced, torsion-free and cancellative binoid, then we can
decompose, in this topology, the sheaf of units of the algebra as a direct sum
∗ comb
∗
comb ∼
)
⊕ (K∗ )comb ,
(OK[M
= (i∗ OM
])

where K∗ is the constant sheaf and where i : Spec M → Spec K[M ] is a continuous map which exists
under these assumptions. In Theorem 3.30 we prove that the pushforward along i (with respect to
the Zariski topology) is exact, thanks to the combinatorial topology. This leads us to prove in Proposition 3.31 that the Zariski cohomology of any pushforwarded sheaf vanishes on the aﬃne spectrum
Spec K[M ].
We then specialize to the case of Stanley-Reisner rings, for which we prove a vanishing result for the
aﬃne case in Theorem 4.13, namely that
Hj (K[△], O∗ ) = 0
for all j ≥ 1, and also for their localizations. This allows us in Corollary 4.17, to compute the
cohomomology of the sheaf of units on the punctured spectrum of K[△] with Čech cohomology of the
combinatorial cover. We deduce in Theorem 4.19 from Proposition 3.23 that for a Stanley-Reisner
ring the sheaf of units splits in the combinatorial topology in a constant part and in the pushforward
of the combinatorial units. This leads us to prove Theorem 4.24, that states that we can compute the
Zariski cohomology of the sheaf of units entirely in terms of simplicial cohomology, both usual and
reduced, as
M
∗
e j−1 (lk (v), Z) ⊕ Hj (△, K∗ ) ,
Hj (Spec• (K[△]), OK[△]
)=
H
△
v∈V

2

for j ≥ 0. Finally, we present in Theorem 4.26 a generalization to algebras given by any monomial
ideal, showing that
∗
Hj (X, OX
)=

M

v∈V

e j−1 (lk (v), Z) ⊕ Hj (△, K∗ ) ⊕ Ȟj ({D(Xi )}, 1 + N ) ,
H
△

where △ is the simplicial complex describing the reduction and N is the coherent sheaf of nilpotent
elements.
This work is based on the ﬁrst author’s PhD thesis [Alb16], which was funded by the DFG-Graduiertenkolleg Combinatorial Structures in Geometry at the University of Osnabrück. The interested reader
will ﬁnd there all the proofs that are not given here, together with more details and examples. We
thank Ilia Pirashvili for his interest and many suggestions.

1
1.1

Binoids and sheaves on their spectra
Deﬁnitions

For an extended treatment of binoids and their properties, we refer the reader to [Böt15, Chapter 4].
The spectrum of a binoid M , consisting of the prime ideals of M and denoted by Spec M , is naturally
a poset ordered by inclusion, with a unique closed point M+ = M \ M ∗ , where M ∗ denotes the group
of units. A binoid is called positive, if M ∗ = {0}. We endow the spectrum of a binoid with the usual
Zariski topology, where S ⊆ Spec M is closed (respectively open) if and only if it is superset closed
(respectively subset closed) (see [Böt15, Remark 4.1.6]). Every prime ideal is generated by a subset
of the generators of the binoid. The only open subset that contains the maximal ideal M+ is Spec M .
A binoid is called integral, if M \ {∞} is a monoid. It is called cancellative, if a + x = a + y 6= ∞
implies x = y. It is called torsion free, if nx = ny 6= ∞ for some n ∈ N+ implies x = y. An element
f ∈ M is called nilpotent if nf = ∞ for some n ≥ 1. The set of all nilpotent elements will be denoted
by nil(M ) and it is easy to show that this is an ideal. We say that M is reduced if nil(M ) = {∞}.
A nonzero commutative binoid is called semifree with semibasis (ai )i∈I if M is generated by {ai | i ∈ I}
P
and every element f ∈ M • = M \ {∞} can be written uniquely as f = i∈I ni ai , with ni = 0 for
almost all i ∈ I. The set of ai such that ni 6= 0 is called the support of f , supp(f ) = {ai | ni 6= 0}.
We assume throughout that M is ﬁnitely generated. The following Proposition will be important in
describing the stalks of sheaves for schemes of binoids.
Proposition 1.1. Let M be a binoid. For any prime ideal p ∈ Spec M , there exists a unique minimal
open set that contains it.
Proof. Let x1 , . . . , xk , xk+1 , . . . , xn be the generators of M+ . Without loss of generality, we can assume
that p = hx1 , . . . , xk i and that p does not contain any other generator of M+ . Then, Mp = Mxk+1 +···+xn
and
Spec Mp = Spec Mxk+1 +···+xn = D(xk+1 + · · · + xn ) = {q ∈ Spec M | {xk+1 , . . . , xn } * q}
is the smallest neighborhood of p.

1.2

Binoid schemes

A presheaf of binoids on a topological space X is a contravariant functor from the topology of X to
the category of binoids
F : TopX −→ Bin , U 7−→ F (U ) .
A sheaf of binoids on X is a presheaf of binoids on X that is a sheaf.
Definition 1.2. A binoided space is a pair (X, OX ) where X is a topological space and OX is a sheaf
of binoids on X, called the structure sheaf of the space.
Like with rings, we have very special binoided spaces, namely the binoid schemes.
3

Definition 1.3. Let M be a binoid. The aﬃne binoid scheme deﬁned by M is the binoided space
(Spec M, OSpec M ), where OSpec M is the sheaﬁﬁcation of the presheaf deﬁned on the basis {D(f )} as
OSpec M (D(f )) = Γ(D(f ), OSpec M ) = Mf ,
called the structure sheaf of Spec M . We usually denote it by OM .
Remark 1.4. Like for rings, we can explicitly describe the presheaf OSpec M as
D(f1 , . . . , fr )

Γ

[
n

D(fi ), OM



o

= (s1 , . . . , sr ) ∈ Mf1 × · · · × Mfr si = sj in Mfi +fj ,
so the image is a subbinoid of Mf1 × · · · × Mfr .

Definition 1.5. The binoided space (X, OX ) is a binoid scheme, or scheme of binoids, if there exists
an open cover {Ui }i∈I of X and a collection of binoids {Mi }i∈I , such that
Ui ∼
= Spec Mi

and

OX |Ui ∼
= OMi .

For every open subset U ⊆ Spec M , we get the scheme of binoids (U, OM |U ). We are mainly interested
in the following scheme of binoids.
Definition 1.6. Let M be a binoid. Its punctured spectrum is the scheme
(Spec• M, OM |Spec• M ) ,
where Spec• M = Spec M \ M+ .
If the {xi }i∈I are the generators of the maximal ideal M+ , then there is always the standard covering
Spec• M = ∪i∈I D(xi ) with the aﬃne binoid schemes D(xi ).
Example 1.7. Let M = (x, y, z | x + y = 2z). Here M+ = hx, y, zi. Since hx, yi is not in Spec M , we
can cover the punctured spectrum also by D(x) and D(y) alone. So the standard cover is in general
not minimal.
Proposition 1.8. Let (Spec M, OM ) be the aﬃne scheme of binoids deﬁned by M , let M+ be generated
by x1 , . . . , xk , xk+1 , . . . , xn and let p = hx1 , . . . , xk i be a prime ideal such that p does not contain any
other generator of M+ . The stalk of OM at the point p is
OM,p = Mp = OM (D(xk+1 + · · · + xn )) = Mxk+1 +···+xn .
Proof. This is clear because, thanks to Proposition 1.1, we know that D(xk+1 + · · · + xn ) is the unique
minimal open subset of X that contains p.
Proposition 1.9. An open subset W ⊆ Spec M is aﬃne if and only if there exists f ∈ M such that
W = D(f ).
Proof. If W is aﬃne, there exists a binoid N such that W ∼
= Spec N . In particular, there exists a
unique closed point in W . This point corresponds to a prime ideal p. Then W = {q|q ⊆ p} and W is
the open aﬃne subset from Proposition 1.1.
Remark 1.10. An aﬃne open subset D(a) of Spec M deﬁnes an open aﬃne subset D(aK[M ]) of
Spec K[M ], but the converse is not true. For example, let M = (x, y | x + y = ∞). Then Spec• M =
{hxi, hyi} is not aﬃne as a binoid scheme, because it does not have a unique closed point. But
Spec• M = Spec M \ hx, yi is deﬁned by D(X + Y ) ⊆ Spec• K[M ]. The point is that the element
X + Y is not combinatorial, since it involves explicitly the operation + of the ring.

4

1.3

Sheaves

From now on, we concentrate on schemes of the type (U, OM |U ), where U is an open subset of the
aﬃne scheme Spec M , where M is a ﬁnitely generated binoid. We refer to such schemes as quasi-aﬃne
schemes.
An M -set is a pointed set (S, p), together with an action of M , that satisﬁes the usual properties (see
[Böt15, Section 1.10]). For any f ∈ M , Sf is an Mf -set.
Definition 1.11. Let (X, OX ) be a binoid scheme. A sheaf of OX -sets on X, or OX -sheaf, is a sheaf
F on X such that F (U ) is a OX (U )-set for any open subset U of X, and such that the restrictions
are compatible with the actions.
e associated to
Definition 1.12. Let S be an M -set. The sheaﬁﬁcation of S is the OSpec M -sheaf S,
the presheaf deﬁned on the fundamental open subsets by
e
e =S .
S(D(f
)) = Γ(D(f ), S)
f

Remark 1.13. Like for binoids, that we saw in Remark 1.4, we can explicitly describe the presheaf
Se as
[

D(f1 , . . . , fr )
Γ
D(fi ), Se ⊆ Sf1 × · · · × Sfr ,
where Mf1 × · · · × Mfr acts on Sf1 × · · · × Sfr and we have once again the compatibility conditions on
the intersections. Similarly, we can look at the stalk Sep at a point p ∈ Spec M , and it is easy to see
that Sep = Sp .

Remark 1.14. The sheaﬁﬁcation of the maximal ideal M+ of M and OM are isomorphic as sheaves
on the punctured spectrum, i.e.
∼
g
M
+ |Spec• M = OM |Spec• M .

g
∼
It is not true in general that M
+ = OM on the whole spectrum, since their global sections are diﬀerent.

Definition 1.15. Let (X, OX ) be a binoid scheme and F a sheaf of OX -sets on X. We say that F
is locally free of rank n if there exists an n ∈ N and a cover {Ui }i∈I of X, such that for every i
∪· n ,
F |Ui ∼
= (OX |Ui )

see [Böt15, Deﬁnition 1.9.2] for the deﬁnition of the pointed union of M -sets. If n = 1, we say that
the sheaf is invertible. We denote by Locn (X) the isomorphism classes of locally free OX -sheaves of
rank n.
Remark 1.16. Like in the context of schemes (see [Har77, Excerise III.5.18]), there is a correspondence
between locally free sheaves and geometric vector bundles on binoid schemes. Starting (locally) with
an M -set S, we get a binoid Sym(S) = M ∪· S ∪· Sym2 (S) ∪· Sym3 (S) . . ., where Symn (S) is S ∧n modulo
P
the action of the symmetric group n . The spectrum of this binoid is then a geometric realization of
S.
Definition 1.17. The set of isomorphism classes of locally free sheaves of rank 1 on X, equipped
with the operation ∧OX is a group, called the Picard group of X and it is denoted by Pic(X).
]
Example 1.18. Let M = (x, y, z | x + y = 2z). The sheaﬁﬁcation of the ideal hx, zi, hx,
zi, is a line
•
bundle on X = Spec M . Its order in the group Pic(X) is 2.
We will later work mainly with the cohomological description of the Picard group. For this, we also
look at sheaves of abelian groups on a binoid scheme.
Example 1.19. Important examples of constant sheaves of groups are Z, (K, +), (K∗ , ·) for a ﬁeld K
and the diﬀerence group of a binoid M , that we denote by Γ• .
Definition 1.20. Let M be an integral binoid. In this case, the subset M • is a monoid. The diﬀerence
binoid of M is Γ = (−M • + M ). The diﬀerence group of M is the group Γ• .
5

If M is integral then the constant presheaf is already a sheaf, but if M is not integral, then the
sheaﬁﬁcation is not trivial.
Remark 1.21. If M is an integral and cancellative binoid, then the map to the diﬀerence group is
injective and the structure sheaf of Remark 1.4 can be deﬁned as
D(f1 , . . . , fr ) 7−→

r
\

i=1

Mfi ⊆ Γ .

Example 1.22. Let M = (x, y | x + y = ∞). Then Spec• M can be covered by the two disjoint
open subsets D(x) and D(y). Let G be an abelian group. Then Γ(D(x) ∪ D(y), G) = Γ(D(x), G) ⊕
Γ(D(y), G) = G ⊕ G because D(x) ∩ D(y) = ∅.
Remark 1.23. Let U be an open subset of Spec M and let G be a constant sheaf, so the sheaﬁﬁcation
of a constant presheaf. Then G(U ) = Gk where k is the number of connected components of U . In the
previous example, U = Spec• M and k = 2 because V (hxi)∩U and V (hyi)∩U are the two components.
The sheaf we are most interested in is the sheaf of units of a binoid scheme, which is not constant.
Definition 1.24. Let (X, OX ) be a binoid scheme. Its sheaf of units is the sheaf of abelian groups
on X
∗
: TopX −→ Ab , U 7−→ (OX (U ))∗ .
OX

∗ with O ∗ .
Here, given a binoid M , M ∗ denotes the group of its units. If X = Spec M , we denote OX
M

The following easy observations were also stated in [Pir15] for monoid schemes, see in particular [Pir15,
Proposition 2.2.ii, Lemma 2.4, Proposition 3.1].
Theorem 1.25. Let M be a binoid and F a sheaf of abelian groups on Spec M . Then
Hi (Spec M, F ) = 0
for any i ≥ 1.
Corollary 1.26. Let (X, OX ) be a separated binoid scheme, U an aﬃne cover of X and F a sheaf
of abelian groups on X. Then H• (X, F ) = Ȟ• (U , F ).
Proposition 1.27. Let M be an integral binoid. For any open subscheme U of Spec M and any
constant sheaf of abelian groups G on U , we have
Hi (U, G ) = 0
for all i ≥ 1.
Proposition 1.28. There is an isomorphism of groups
∗
Pic(X) ∼
).
= H1 (X, OX

In our computations, we will mainly work with this characterization of the Picard group, but in some
examples we will also present invertible sets or line bundles explicitly.
Definition 1.29. Let M be a binoid. Its local Picard group is the Picard group of its punctured
spectrum, Picloc (M ) = Pic(Spec• M ).
∗ can be embedded in a
Remark 1.30. If M is torsion-free, cancellative and reduced, the sheaf OM
ﬂasque sheaf
M
O∗
Mp∗ .
p minimal
prime ideal of M

If M is integral, the sheaf above on the right is just the constant sheaf Γ.
6

1.4

Čech-Picard complex

∗ on the covering of Spec• M ,
In this Section, we are going to study the Čech complex for the sheaf OX
given by {D(xi )}.

Definition 1.31. Let (X, OX ) be a binoid scheme. Let U = {Ui }i∈[n] be a ﬁnite aﬃne covering of
∗ with respect to U
X. The Čech-Picard complex of X is the Čech co-chain complex of OX
∂0

∗ ) : C 0 (U , O ∗ )
C(U , OX
X

∂1

∗ )
C 1 (U , OX

...

∂ p−1

∗ )
C p (U , OX

∂p

... ,

where the groups are
∗
C p (U , OX
)=

M

1≤i0 <i1 <···<ip ≤n

∗
OX
Ui0 ∩ Ui1 ∩ · · · ∩ Uip



and the coboundary maps are deﬁned as (see [Har77, Section III.4])


∂

p−1



(σ)

i0 ,...,ip

=

p
X

(−1)k σi0 ,...,ib ,...,ip |Ui0 ,...,ip .
k

k=0

∗ is acyclic on these
Remark 1.32. Since Spec• M can be covered by {D(xi )} and we know that OM
aﬃne open subsets, we can compute the local Picard group of M as the ﬁrst cohomology group of the
Čech-Picard complex on {D(xi )},

Picloc M = Ȟ1 ({D(xi )}, O∗ ) .
Example 1.33. Let M = (x, y, z | x + y = 2z) as in Example 1.18 above and let X = Spec• M .
We know that there exists at least an invertible sheaf in Pic(X), and it has order 2. In details,
Mx = (x, −x, y, z | x + (−x) = 0, y = 2z + (−x)) and so Mx∗ = (x, −x | x + (−x) = 0) ∼
= Z, where this
integer represents the coeﬃcient of x. Similarly for y. On the intersection, when we invert both x and
y, also z gets inverted. We have
∗
∼
Mx+y
= Z2 ,

where x and z are the generators on the right and y = 2z − x. The maps in the Čech complex come
ιy
ιx
from the localizations Mx −→ Mx+y and My −→
Mx+y when restricted to the units. So the complex
looks like
0
∂1
∗
Mx∗ ⊕ My∗ ∂
Mx+y
0
∼
=

∼
=

∼
=

Z ⊕ Z
(α , β)

0

Z⊕Z
(α − β, 2β) .

∗ / im(∂ 0 ).
To compute the ﬁrst cohomology, we need to compute the quotient ker(∂ 1 )/ im(∂ 0 ) ∼
= Mx+y
The image of ∂ 0 is generated by (1, 0) and (1, 2) as a subgroup of Z2 , so the quotient is Z/Z ⊕ Z/2Z ∼
=
Z/2Z. So Pic(X) ∼
= Z/2Z, and we already found a representative of the only non-trivial class in this
group, in Example 1.18.

Example 1.34. Let us consider the binoid M = (x, y, z, w | x+y = z+w) and compute its local Picard
group. Its punctured spectrum can be covered by the four open subsets {D(x), D(y), D(z), D(w)} and
∗ with respect to this covering looks like
the Čech complex of OX
Z4

∂0

Z14

∂1

Z12

∂2

Z3

∂2

0.

One shows directly that H 2 = 0. Since −4 + 14 − 12 + 3 = 1 we know that the rank of H1 will be 1.
It is not hard to examine the relations between elements in the kernel of ∂ 1 and in the image of ∂ 0 to
conclude that this group has to be free, so, in particular, Picloc (M ) = Z. A generator of this group is
represented by the sheaﬁﬁcation of the ideal hx, zi.
7

∗ .
Lemma 1.35. Let M be a binoid. Then M ∗ ∼
= Mred

Proof. Let ϕred : M −→ Mred be the reduction morphism. We will prove that it is an isomorphism
when restricted to the group of units. We have that ker(ϕred ) = nil(M ), ϕred is a bijection outside
∗ , but this is true for
this ideal and nil(M ) ∩ M ∗ = ∅. So we only have to prove that ϕred (M ∗ ) ⊆ Mred
any binoid homomorphism.
This Lemma proves that, unlike for rings, the nilpotent elements do not play any role in the computation of units of a binoid. We will use this fact later in Section 3.
∗ ∼ O∗
Corollary 1.36. Let (X, OX ) be a binoid scheme. Then OX
= Xred .

Example 1.37. The above is not true for the torsionfreeiﬁcation Mtf . Let n ∈ N, n ≥ 2 and let
M = (x | nx = 0). Then M ∗ ∼
= 0.
= Zn , but Mtf ∼
= {0, ∞}, so Mtf∗ ∼

∗ ∼ O∗
Remark 1.38. Since OX
= Xred , also their cohomologies will be the same. So we can concentrate
on the reduced case to study the line bundles and the higher cohomology of the sheaf of units. This
is not true for K[M ]

Remark 1.39. A binoid is called Z-graded if there exists a map M \ {∞} → Z compatible with the
addition as long as x + y 6= ∞. Simplicial binoids are graded. If M is graded, then all its localizations
are graded and if M is generated in degree 1, then we get an exact sequence of sheaves on the punctured
spectrum
0 −→ O0∗ −→ O∗ −→ Z −→ 0 ,
where on the right we have the constant sheaf Z and on the left we have the units of degree 0. This
last sheaf is the sheaf of units on the corresponding projective binoid scheme, which is homeomorphic
to the punctured spectrum U but has as its structure sheaf only the degree zero part. If M is positive
and U connected, then the corresponding cohomology sequence is
0 −→ Z −→ Picproj M −→ Picloc M −→ H 1 (U, Z) −→ . . . .

2

Simplicial Binoids

In this section, we concentrate on the case of binoids arising from simplicial complexes, namely sim∗
restricted to the quasi-aﬃne case and we relate
plicial binoids. We look at the sheaf of groups OM
△
properties of the Čech-Picard complex introduced in Deﬁnition 1.31 to the simplicial complex. With
∗ ).
that, we will provide explicit formulas for the computation of Hi (Spec• M△ , OM
△

2.1

The Spectrum of a Simplicial Binoid

Recall that a simplicial complex is a subset △ of the power set of the ﬁnite vertex set V that is closed
under taking subsets, i.e. G ∈ △ and F ⊆ G implies F ∈ △. Its elements are called faces and the
maximal faces (under inclusion) are called facets. The dimension of a face is the number of vertices
in it minus 1 and the dimension of △ is the maximal dimension of its faces. A simplicial subcomplex
△′ of △ is a subset of △ that is again a simplicial complex. If W ⊆ V is a subset of the vertices, the
restriction of △ to W is △W = {F ∈ △ | F ⊆ W }. When we say that △ is a simplicial complex on
V , we assume, unless otherwise speciﬁed, that the singletons are faces, so {v} ∈ △, for every v ∈ V .
Definition 2.1. Let △ be a simplicial complex on V . Its simplicial binoid is the binoid with presentation
!
M△ =

xv , v ∈ V

xH =

X

v∈H

xv = ∞ for H ∈
/△

.

Of course, the deﬁnition of a simplicial binoid is made in such a way that its binoid algebra gives
the Stanley-Reisner ring K[△]. There exists an order-reversing correspondence between faces of the
simplicial complex and prime ideals of the binoid (see [Böt15, Corollary 6.5.13]). In particular, the
minimal prime ideals correspond to the (complements of) facets.
8

We want to study open subsets of Spec M in the simplicial case. There is the following correspondence
between simplicial subcomplexes of △ and closed subsets of Spec M△ .
Closed subsets
of Spec M△
V

Radical ideals of M△
I = p1 ∩ · · · ∩ pr
pi minimal prime in V

Subcomplexes of △
{F1 , . . . , Fr } .

Here, {F1 , . . . , Fr } are the facets of the corresponding simplicial subcomplex. In particular, V (xi )
corresponds to the subsimplicial complex △′ = △[n]\{i} , the restriction of △ to [n] \ {i}. Since our goal
is to discuss sheaves and, in particular, to build the Čech complex of the sheaf of units on the punctured
spectrum, we are interested in studying open subsets of Spec M△ . We recall that a simplicial binoid
is semifree and reduced.
Theorem 2.2 ([Böt15, Theorem 6.5.8]). Let △ be a simplicial complex on V . The binoid M△ is
ﬁnitely generated by #V = n elements, semifree and reduced. Conversely, every commutative binoid
M satisfying these properties is a simplicial binoid. More precisely, M is isomorphic to M△ , with
P
△ = {F ⊆ W | w∈F w 6= ∞} for a minimal generating set W .
In the following Lemma, we denote by hx1 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xn i the prime ideal generated by all the variables
except xi .

Lemma 2.3. Let △ be a simplicial complex on V = [n]. Then hx1 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xn i ∈ Spec• M△ for
every i ∈ V .
Proposition 2.4. {D(xi )} is a covering by aﬃne subsets of Spec• M△ that is minimal among all the
possible aﬃne coverings.

Proof. We already know that this is a covering. To prove that it is minimal, it is enough to observe
three things. First, thanks to Lemma 2.3, we need to cover hx1 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xn i. Second, D(xi ) is
the only aﬃne open subset here that covers hx1 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xn i. Third, any other aﬃne open subset
that covers hx1 , . . . , xbi , . . . , xn i, needs to come from an element f that has the same support of xi , i.e.
f = mxi , for some m ∈ N, and D(f ) = D(xi ).

Definition 2.5. For H ⊆ V , we set

D(H) := D(xH ) = D(

X

v∈H

xv ) =

\

D(xv ) .

v∈H

The given simplicial complex has a direct eﬀect on the intersection pattern in Spec M△ .
Lemma 2.6. Let {D(xi )} be the covering of Spec• M△ as above. Then D(H) 6= ∅ if and only if H is
a face of △.
Proof. In terms of faces, which are in correspondence to the prime ideals of M△ , we have D(H) =
{F ∈ △|H ⊆ F }, from where the result follows.
Corollary 2.7. The nerve of the covering of Spec• M△ given by {D(xi )} is the simplicial complex
itself.
The following Lemma generalizes Proposition 2.4.
Lemma 2.8. Let U ⊆ Spec• (M△ ) be an open subset. Then U can be minimally covered by V =
{D(F1 ), . . . , D(Fj )}, for some F1 , . . . , Fj ∈ △.
Proof. Let p1 , . . . , pk be the maximal prime ideals in U . Then F1 , . . . , Fj are the faces corresponding
to these prime ideals. Minimality can be proved as in Proposition 2.4.
We explore now the relation between Čech cohomology on the covering {D(xi )} of a constant sheaf
of abelian groups on Spec• M△ and simplicial cohomology of △ with coeﬃcients in that group.
9

Remark 2.9. Let G be a constant sheaf of abelian groups on Spec M . We already know that
Γ(U, G) = G#{connected components of U } .
Moreover, if {D(xi )} is the usual covering of the punctured spectrum given by the combinatorial open
subsets, we can use it to compute the cohomology via Čech cohomology, and we can explicitly write
the groups in the Čech complex as
Cˇ (D(Xi0 ) ∩ · · · ∩ D(xik ), G) =

(

G,
0,

if D(Xi0 ) ∩ · · · ∩ D(xik ) 6= ∅,

otherwise,

because this intersection is either empty or connected.
Theorem 2.10. Let △ be a simplicial complex on V = [n]. Let {D(xi ), 1 ≤ i ≤ n} be the usual acyclic
covering of Spec• M△ and let G be the constant group sheaf on this space. Then Čech cohomology and
simplicial cohomology are described by the same chain complexes
C • (△, G) = Cˇ• ({D(xi )}, G) .
In particular, the cohomology groups are the same
Hi (△, G) = Ȟi ({D(xi )}, G)
for all i ≥ 0.

Proof. We understand what we have on the right. Thanks to Lemma 2.6 and Remark 2.9, Cˇj ({D(xi )}, G) =
G△j , i.e. we have a G for any face in △ of dimension j. The maps are the usual maps of the Čech
complex.
On the left hand side, we can follow a reasoning similar to [MS05, Section 1.3]. The ﬁrst thing to note
is that the only diﬀerence between the complex for simplicial cohomology stated here and the one
stated there is the degree −1, since they are considering reduced simplicial cohomology. We can now
easily see that the complex C • (△, G), dual to the homology complex C• (△, G), has the same groups as
Cˇ• ({D(xi )}, G): in every degree j ≥ 0 this group is G△j . As for the maps, it is again easy to see that
the map for vector spaces that Miller and Sturmfels describe in their book, can be written instead for
G and, when we restrict their complex to the non negative degrees, it is exactly the map of the Čech
complex described above.
Corollary 2.11. Since {D(xi )} is an acyclic covering of Spec• M△ , for every sheaf of abelian groups,
the cohomology in Theorem 2.10 is also equal to the sheaf cohomology Hi (Spec• M△ , G).
The previous Corollary relates sheaf cohomology, Čech cohomology and simplicial cohomology in the
case of the punctured spectrum. The next one, extends these results to any open subset of the
spectrum.
Corollary 2.12. Let U ⊆ Spec• (M△ ) be an open subset minimally covered by the covering V =
{D(F1 ), . . . , D(Fj )} for some F1 , . . . , Fj ∈ △. We have
Hi (U, G) ∼
= Ȟi (V , G) ∼
= Hi (nerve(V ), G).

Proof. The ﬁrst isomorphism is easy because D(F ) is aﬃne and G is a sheaf of abelian groups, hence
acyclic on the covering V . Moreover, thanks to Theorem 2.10, we know that Hi (nerve(V ), G) =
Hi (Spec• Mnerve(V ) , G). It is enough to show that Spec• Mnerve(V ) ∼
= U as topological spaces. This
is easily done thanks to the correspondences above between prime ideals and faces of the simplicial
complex.
We want to understand now the localization of a simplicial binoid M△ at a face F with the help of
the link complex of △ at F . The link complex is the simplicial complex on V \ F consisting of all faces
G ⊆ V \ F with the property that F ∪ G is a face of △. For a face F ∈ △, we once again denote by xF
P
the sum v∈F xv and by (M△ )xF = (M△ )P xv the binoid localized at the variables corresponding
i∈F
∞
to the elements of F . Our goal is to prove that Mlk (F ) ∧ (ZF ) ∼
= (M△ ) .
△

10

xF

Lemma 2.13. Let F be a face of △. There exists an injective binoid homomorphism
(ZF )

∞

ψ

−→ (M△ )xF ,

X

nv v 7−→

v∈F

X

nv xv .

v∈F

Proof. This is clear since xv is a unit on the right for any v ∈ F and since M△ is semifree.
Lemma 2.14. Let F be a face of △. There exists an injective binoid homomorphism
Mlk△ (F ) −→ (M△ )xF ,

X

w∈G

X

nw xw 7−→

nw xw .

w∈G

Theorem 2.15. For any face F ∈ △ there is an isomorphism
(M△ )xF ∼
= M△′ ∧ (ZF )∞ ,

(1)

where △′ = lk△ (F ).
Proof. By Lemma 2.13, Lemma 2.14 and the universal property of the smash product (see [Böt15,
Proposition 1.8.10]), we get a commutative diagram
∞

∞

i

Mlk△ (F ) ∧ (ZF )

(ZF )

ζ

j

Mlk△ (F )

ψ

(M△ )xF .

ϕ

We can then explicitly describe ζ in general as
ζ

X

w∈G

nw xw ∧

X

m v xv

v∈F

!

=

X

nw xw +

X

m v xv .

v∈F

w∈G

This map is injective because the maps ψ and ϕ are injective themselves and G and F are disjoint.
Moreover, it is surjective because every element f ∈ (M△ )xF , f 6= ∞, has a unique description (the
binoid is semifree) with respect to the semibasis,
f=

X

nw xw +

X

n v xv .

v∈F

w∈V \F

P

Here, the indices w with nw 6= 0 belong to some G ∈ lk△ (F ), else f were ∞. Hence f = ζ(
P
v∈F nv xv ) for G = {xw | nw 6= 0} ∈ lk△ (F ).

2.2

w∈G nw xw ∧

The punctured Čech-Picard Complex

Our goal is to compute the cohomology of the sheaf of units O∗ on the punctured spectrum of a binoid
M . A special feature in the simplicial case is that one can decompose this sheaf into easier sheaves
depending only on one vertex.
Definition 2.16. Let v be a vertex of a simplicial complex △, let M = M△ be the corresponding
simplicial binoid and let jv : D(v) −→ Spec• M be the open embedding. Let Z be the constant sheaf
on D(v). We denote by Ov∗ the extension of Z by zero along jv , that is the sheaﬁﬁcation of the presheaf
on Spec• M
(
Z, if U ⊆ D(v),
G :U
0, otherwise.
Since v is a unit of OM on D(v), we think of Z on D(v) as multiples of v.
Remark 2.17. We can easily describe the stalk of Ov∗ at p as
(Ov∗ )p = lim Ov∗ (U ) =
−→
p∈U

11

(

Z,
0,

if p ∈ D(v),

otherwise.

Example 2.18. Consider the binoid M = (x, y | x+y = ∞). Its punctured spectrum is U = {hxi, hyi},
that we can cover with D(x) and D(y), that have empty intersection. Indeed, Ox∗ (D(x)) = Z and
Ox∗ (D(y)) = 0, so Ox∗ (U ) = Z. This shows that the sheaﬁﬁcation is needed and that Ov∗ (U ) = Z does
not mean that v is a unit on U , but that there is a nonempty component of U where v is a unit.
Lemma 2.19. Let M = M△ be the simplicial binoid associated to the simplicial complex △ on the
vertex set V and let F ⊆ V . Then
\

∗
OM

and
Ov∗

\

i∈F

i∈F

!

D(xi ) ∼
=
!

D(xi ) ∼
=

(

(

ZF

if F ∈ △,

0

otherwise.

if F ∈ △ and v ∈ F,

Z
0

otherwise .

(2)

(3)

Proof. Thanks to Lemma 2.6 the statement is clear if F is a non-face, so assume that F is a face. We
have
!
\
OM
D(xi ) ∼
= (M△ )xF ∼
= Mlk△ (F ) ∧ (ZF )∞
i∈F

by Theorem 2.15. Since any simplicial binoid is positive, we obtain our result.
The second statement follows from the deﬁnition and since the sheaﬁﬁcation does not aﬀect the aﬃne
non-empty subsets.

Lemma 2.20. There exists a morphism of sheaves
Ov∗

∗ .
OM

∗
OM
Proof. There is a morphism of presheaves G
because if U ⊆ D(v) then G (U ) = Z and v is
a unit of OM (U ), so we just send 1 7→ v. If U * D(v) then the value of the presheaf is 0, so we send it
∗ (U ). Thanks to the universal property of the sheaﬁﬁcation, we have the following diagram
to 0 in OM
∗
OM

G
Ov∗

∗ .
that yields the desired morphism Ov∗ −→ OM

Theorem 2.21. For a simplicial complex △ on a vertex set V there exists an isomorphism of sheaves
M

v∈V

Ov∗

∗
OM

on the spectrum of M = M△ .
Proof. This map exists because it is induced component-wise by the maps obtained in Lemma 2.20,
applied to the diﬀerent vertices. In order to show that it is an isomorphism, recall from [Har77, Exercise
II.1.2] that a morphism ϕ : F −→ G between two sheaves on a topological space X is an isomorphism
if and only if it is an isomorphism at the stalks. Let p ∈ Spec M . Thanks to Lemma 1.1,
Pthere exists
a unique minimal open subset that contains p, namely the fundamental open subset D
v∈p
/ v . On
the right hand side, we have by Lemma 2.19




∗
∗  
OM,p
= OM
D

X
v∈p
/



v  ∼
= Zr ,

where r is the cardinality of {v | v ∈
/ p}. On the other hand
M

v∈V

Ov∗

!

p

∼
=

M

v∈V

(Ov∗ )p ∼
=

M

v∈V

and the morphism between them is the identity.
12





Ov∗ D 

X
v∈p
/



v  ∼
= Zr ,

Thanks to this Theorem, we know that we can decompose the Čech complex of O∗ associated to the
covering {D(xi )} as the direct sum of the Čech subcomplexes of this decomposition.
Corollary 2.22. The Čech complex for the sheaf of units on the combinatorial aﬃne covering of a
simplical binoid as deﬁned in Deﬁnition 1.31 is given by
Cˇj =

M

ZF =

F ∈△
|F |=j+1

There exists the decomposition

M

ZF ∼
=

M

Cˇvj ,

F ∈△j

Cˇj =

where

Cˇvj =

v∈V

M

M

Zj+1 .

(4)

F ∈△j

(5)

Z.

(6)

F ∈△j ,v∈F

Proof. This follows from Lemma 2.19 and Theorem 2.21.
Remark 2.23. An element α = α(v,F ) ∈ Cˇvj is just a collection of integers indexed by (v, F ), where
v ∈ F and F contains j + 1 elements. Suppose that V = [n] is ordered. Under the map in the Čech
complex, it is sent to β(v,G) , where for G a face containing v with j + 2 elements. We have
β(v,G) =

j+1
X

(−1)k α(v,G\{k}) .

k=0

For k = v, the entry is zero. For computing the cohomology we can always reorder and assume that
v = n is the last vertex.
Lemma 2.24. For j ≥ 1, we have
Cˇvj =

M

v∈F, |F |=j+1

Z=

M

Z = C j−1 (lk△ (v), Z) = Hom(Cj−1 (lk△ (v)), Z),

H∈lk△ (v), |H|=j

where Cj−1 denotes the group of j−1-chains of the simplicial complex lk△ (v). For j = 0, this statement
is also true if we interpret C−1 (lk△ (v), Z) as Z (given by the empty set).
If v = n, then this identiﬁcation respects also the maps in the Čech complex and the maps for computing
simplicial cohomology.
Proof. All statements are clear from the deﬁnitions.

2.3

Cohomology

Summing up what we did until now, we can produce the following Theorem that allows us to compute
sheaf cohomology in terms of the reduced simplicial cohomology.
Theorem 2.25. Let △ be a simplicial complex on the ﬁnite vertex set V . We have the following
explicit formula for the computation of the cohomology groups of its Čech-Picard complex




∗
∼
Hj Spec• M△ , OM
=
△

M

v∈V

e is the reduced simplicial cohomology.
for j ≥ 0, where H

Proof. We set V = {1, . . . , n} and denote the
open subsets deﬁned by the variables {D(xi )}
compute the sheaf cohomology of the sheaf of
of sheaves
∗
OM
= Ox∗1
△

e j−1 (lk△ (v), Z)
H

(7)

corrsponding elements in M△ by xi . We can use the
as a Čech covering for Spec• M△ (Proposition 2.4) to
units. By Theorem 2.21, there exists an isomorphism

⊕ Ox∗2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ox∗n .
13

The cohomology of Ox∗i can also be computed with this covering. In Lemma 2.24, we observed that




Cˇ• Spec• M, Ox∗i = Ce•−1 (lk△ (i), Z) ,

where, for i = n, the identiﬁcations also respect the mappings. Since for the computation of cohomology we can always reorder V , we obtain that
j

H



•

Spec

∗
M△ , OM
△



j

=H
=

M

•

Spec M△ ,
j

H

i∈V

=

M

i∈V



M

i∈V
•

Ox∗i

Spec M△ , Ox∗i

e j−1 (lk (i), Z) .
H
△

!



Corollary 2.26. The 0-th and the ﬁrst cohomology groups are always free and they have the form
H0 (Spec• M△ , O∗ ) = Z#{0−dim

facets of △}

H1 (Spec• M△ , O∗ ) = Zr ,

,

where
r=

X

v∈V

e 0 (lk (v), Z)) =
rk(H
△

X

v∈V

rk(H0 (lk△ (v), Z)) − #{0-dim non-facets of △} .

It follows that the local combinatorial Picard group of a simplicial complex △ is 0 if and only if all
links lk△ (v) are connected. This is true for the simplices, but also for many other examples, see the
next Section. We also mention that in cohomological degree ≥ 2 torsion can occur.




∗
Corollary 2.27. Hj Spec• M△ , OM
= 0, for j ≥ dim △ + 1.
△

2.4

Examples

Corollary 2.28. Let △ = (V, E) be a simple graph. For an isolated vertex v we have
H0 (Spec• M△ , Ov∗ ) = Z and H1 (Spec• M△ , Ov∗ ) = 0 ,
and for a nonisolated vertex we have
H0 (Spec• M△ , Ov∗ ) = 0 and H1 (Spec• M△ , Ov∗ ) = Zdeg(v)−1 ,
where deg(v) denotes the degree of the vertex, i.e. the number of adjacent edges. Moreover,




∗
= Zs ,
H0 Spec• M△ , OM
△

where s is the number of isolated vertices of the graph and




∗
Picloc (M△ ) = H1 Spec• M△ , OM
= Zr ,
△

where r =

X

v∈V
v not isolated

(deg(v) − 1). All higher cohomologies vanish.

Example 2.29. We describe explicitely the line bundles given on the punctured spectrum of a simplicial complex in the situation where {u, v} and {v, w} are faces and {u, v, w} is a non-face. We look
at Ov∗ , and the Čech cohomology class av ∈ D(u + v), bv ∈ D(v + w) and 0 on all other intersections.
The cocycle condition is fulﬁlled, as D(u + v + w) = ∅. Using Ov∗ (D(v)) = Z, we can normalize to
b = 0. For a 6= 0, this gives a nontrivial line bundle.
14

Let c, d ∈ N+ be such that a = c − d and consider the M -set S given by (we set v = x1 , u = x2 ,
w = x3 , other variables are allowed, but irrelevant)




S=
ei , 1 ≤ i ≤ n


e1 + x2 = e2 + cx1 ,





.
e1 + xj = ej + x1 for j ≥ 3 


e1 + x3 = e3 + dx1 ,

ei + xj = ej + xi for i, j ≥ 2

This is invertible, since after localizing at any xj , we can eliminate the ei , i 6= j, and we see that ej
is a generator of Sxj over Mxj . The emptyness of D(u + v + w) ensures that there are no further
relations. If we work with the generators f1 = e1 −dx1 and fj = ej −xj , we get the transition functions
f1 − f2 = e1 − dx1 − e2 + x2 = (c − d)x1 = ax1 on D(x1 + x2 ) and 0 everywhere else.
Remark 2.30. From Remark 1.39, we get the following short exact cohomology sequence in the case
of a connected graph,
0 −→ Z −→ Picproj M −→ Picloc M −→ H 1 (U, Z) −→ 0 .
Here, H 1 (U, Z) = H 1 (△, Z) and Picproj M ∼
= ZE . One should think of Proj M as a union of combinatorial projective lines whose intersection pattern is a copy of the graph. The second identity is
given by sending an edge e = {u, v} to the cohomology class given by u − v on D(u + v) and 0 on the
other intersections. These classes are non-trivial in Picproj M though they might be trivial in Picloc M .
Since Picloc M ∼
= Z2|E|−|V | , we have an exact sequence
0 −→ Z −→ Z|E| −→ Z2|E|−|V | → H 1 (△, Z) −→ 0
from which we can deduce that the cyclomatic number (the rank of H 1 (△, Z)) equals −|E| + 1 +
(2|E| − |V |) = |E| − |V | + 1.
Example 2.31. The simplical complex △ given by u, v, w, z with facets {x, y, z} and {y, z, w} corresponds to the binoid N4 /z + w. All links are connected, hence the local combinatorial Picard group
is trivial by Corollary 2.26, but it is not a simplex. Since H 1 (△, K∗ ) = 0, the local Picard group of
K[△] is also trivial by Theorem 4.24 below.
Example 2.32. We consider the following pictured simplicial complex △:
✓❅
❅
✓
◗ ❅
✓ ❅
◗
✓
❅◗❅
✓
❅◗❅
◗
✓❤
◗
❤❤
❅ ❅
❤
❤
❤
✓
❤❤❤ ❅
❤❤❅
❤
✓

The triangles on the three rectangles belong to the complex, but the triangle on the bottom and on
the top not. The link for each vertex consists of four points which are connected by a chain of edges.
Hence the local combinatorial Picard group is trivial by Corollary 2.26. This simplicial complex can
be contracted to a circle. Hence H 1 (△, K∗ ) = K∗ and it follows from Theorem 4.24 below that the
local Picard group of K[△] is not trivial.

3

From Combinatorics to Algebra

In this section, we investigate the relations between the local Picard group of binoids and the local
Picard group of binoid K-algebras, where K denotes a ﬁxed base ﬁeld. It will turn out that in many
cases the algebraic local Picard group decomposes into a combinatorial part and a part depending on
the base ﬁeld.

15

3.1

Units in K[M]

The faithful functor
K[ ] : Binoids

K-Algebras ,
K[M ] ,

M

(8)

induces other functors of spectra, sheaves and cohomology groups, that we are going to exploit in what
follows. For a ﬁxed binoid M , we get a functor from (ﬁnitely generated) M -sets to (ﬁnitely generated)
K[M ]-modules:
K[ ] : M -Sets
K[M ]-Modules ,
(9)
S
K[S] ,
where K[S] is the free K-module on S \ {p}, and p is the special point of S, together with the natural
action of K[M ]. This functor is again faithful and it respects localizations (see [Böt15, Corollary
3.2.8]).
From now on, assume that M is torsion-free up to nilpotence and cancellative.
Lemma 3.1. If M is a torsion-free, integral and cancellative binoid, then K[M ] is an integral domain.
Proof. This is a standard result in the toric setting.
Lemma 3.2. An ideal p is a prime ideal of M if and only if P = K[p] is a prime ideal of K[M ].
Proof. ⇐= trivial, since K[p] ∩ M = p. =⇒ P is prime if and only if K[M ]/P is an integral domain.
We know that K [M/I] ∼
= K[M ]/K[I] for any ideal, and M/p is integral because p is a prime ideal.
We can apply Lemma 3.1 and get the result.
We come now to the splitting behavior of the sheaf of units.
Lemma 3.3. If p is a prime ideal of a cancellative binoid M that is torsion-free up to nilpotence ,
then
h
i∗
K [M/p]∗ ∼
= K (Zl )∞ = Zl × K ∗

for some l.

Proof. Modulo the prime ideal we are in a toric setting, where this is known.
Lemma 3.4. Let M be a reduced, torsion-free, cancellative binoid. Then K[M ] is reduced.
Theorem 3.5. Let M be a reduced, torsion-free, cancellative binoid and let K[M ] be its binoid algebra.
Then
(K[M ])∗ = M ∗ ⊕ K∗ .
Proof. What we have to prove is that, under these hypothesis, any unit is a product of a monomial
and a unit in the ﬁeld. On the binoid side, since by deﬁnition M+ = M \ M ∗ , there is an isomorphism
(M ∗ )∞ ∼
= M/M+ .
Let p be a prime ideal of M . Since p ⊆ M+ , there are maps
M

πp

M/p

π M+

M/M+ = (M ∗ )∞ ,

and since (M ∗ )∞ ⊆ M , we have a map σ going the other way
M

πp

M/p

π M+

(M ∗ )∞

σ

such that the composition πM+ ◦ πp ◦ σ is the identity on (M ∗ )∞ . Thanks to the functor from binoids
to algebras, we get maps for the rings
K[M ]

K [M/p]
16

K [(M ∗ )∞ ]

that induce maps of groups
K [M/p]∗

K[M ]∗

K [(M ∗ )∞ ]∗

that again compose to the identity on the right. Let P be a unit in K[M ]. Then
P = λν T ν +

X

λµ T µ

µ∈M+

with ν ∈ M ∗ , since K[M ∗ ] ∼
= K[M ]/K[M+ ] and the statement is true for K[M ∗ ], thanks to Lemma 3.3.
If we apply the ﬁrst map πp to P , we get
X

λν T ν +

µ∈M+ , µ∈p
/

λµ T µ ∈ K [M/p]∗ .

We can apply Lemma 3.3 to obtain that this has to be a monomial. So, in particular,
K[p] for all minimal prime ideals p. This means that
X

µ∈M+

λµ T µ ∈

\

P

µ∈M+

λµ T µ ∈

K[p] = nil(K[M ]) .

p minimal
prime of M

Since K[M ] is reduced, thanks to Lemma 3.4, its nilradical is trivial, so
X

λµ T µ = 0

µ∈M+

and
P = λν T ν .
Remark 3.6. If M is torsion-free and cancellative but not reduced, then the algebra is not reduced.
Still, we can split its units as
(K[M ])∗ = M ∗ ⊕ K∗ ⊕ (1 + n)
where n is the nilradical of K[M ]. Indeed, in the above proof, we get that
N=

X

λµ T µ

µ∈M+



is nilpotent. Then λµ T µ + N = λµ T µ 1 +

N
λµ T µ



∈ 1 + n.

Example 3.7. Consider the non-cancellative and torsion binoid M = (x, y | 2x = x + y, 2y = x + y),
whose ring is R = K[X, Y ]/(X 2 − XY, Y 2 − XY ). The element X − Y is nilpotent in R, since
(X − Y )2 = X 2 − 2XY + Y 2 = 0, but does not come from a nilpotent element in M , since M
is reduced. So 1 + X − Y is algebraically invertible but it is not the product of a combinatorially
invertible element and a ﬁeld unit, and this shows that the units of a binoid ring are not always the
direct sum of combinatorial units and the units of the ﬁeld.

3.2

Relations between Spec M and Spec K[M]

The functor (9), together with Lemma 3.2, gives rise to an injection
i : Spec M

Spec K[M ] .

(10)

K[p] .

p

Lemma 3.8. i is a continuous map between the two spaces equipped with the respective Zariski topologies.
P

Lemma 3.9. Let P = αµ T µ ∈ K[M ] where T µ are the monomials corresponding to µ ∈ M . Then
S
i−1 (D(P )) = D(µ), where the union runs over all µ with αµ 6= 0.
17

Lemma 3.10. For any non empty open subset ∅ =
6 U ⊆ Spec K[M ], the intersection U ∩ i(Spec M )
is non empty.
Proof. If M is integral then h0i = i(h∞i) ∈ U . If M is non integral, consider a minimal prime ideal
P ∈ Spec K[M ]. Then P = i(p), see [Böt15, Corollary 3.3.5]. Thanks to the correspondence between
prime ideals in K[M ] that contain P and prime ideals in K[M ]/P, and thanks to the fact that K[M ]/P
is integral, we can apply the previous case and obtain our result.
Since the map in (10) is continuous, we can pushforward a sheaf from the combinatorial spectrum to
the algebraic spectrum
K[

] : SheavesSpec M

SheavesSpec K[M ] ,

(11)

i∗ F .

F

Definition 3.11. Let Ib be an ideal in K[M ]. We say that Ib is combinatorial if Ib = K[I] for some I
ideal of M .

Definition 3.12. Given a prime ideal P ∈ K[M ], we denote by Pmon the ideal of K[M ] generated by
the monomials in P, and by Pcomb the ideal in M such that Pmon = K[Pcomb ].

Definition 3.13. We denote by Spec• K[M ] the punctured spectrum of K[M ], i.e.
Spec• K[M ] := Spec K[M ] \ {K[M+ ]} .
We will be interested in computing the cohomology of some sheaves, both on Spec K[M ] and on its
∗ ) is the Picard group of X, i.e. the group of
punctured version. It is a known result that H1 (X, OX
∗ ), see for example [Har77, Exercise III.4.5].
invertible OX -sheaves on X, for any ringed space (X, OX
Definition 3.14. Let K[M ] be a binoid ring. Its local Picard group is the Picard group of the scheme
(Spec• K[M ], OK[M ] |Spec• K[M ] )
and it is denoted by Picloc (K[M ]).
Note that K[M ] is not a local ring, but it is a ring with the prominent maximal ideal K[M+ ]. If M is
graded, then this is also the (irrelevant) graded maximal ideal.
Definition 3.15. The covering D(Xi ) of Spec• K[M ] is called the coordinate aﬃne combinatorial
covering.

3.3

The Combinatorial topology

We want to compute the cohomology of the sheaf of units on Spec K[M ] (and open subsets) in the
Zariski topology, using the results from the combinatorial setting. However, the splitting for the units
of monoid rings from Section 3.1 does not hold for the sheaf of units in the Zariski topology, not even
for the aﬃne line. To remedy this situation we introduce a new topology on Spec K[M ], that is in
between the topology on Spec M and the Zariski topology on Spec K[M ]. This topology will be often
coarse enough to still have the splitting but also ﬁne enough to compute the cohomology in the Zariski
topology.
Proposition 3.16. The collection of sets {D(A)}, with A a combinatorial ideal, is a topology on
Spec K[M ].
Definition 3.17. The topology {D(A)} is called the combinatorial topology of Spec K[M ] and it is
denoted by Topcomb
Spec K[M ] .
Corollary 3.18. The collection of sets {D(P )}, with P a monomial in K[M ], is a basis for the
combinatorial topology.
18

Remark 3.19. The combinatorial topology is, in general, a really coarse topology, since Spec K[M ]
equipped with it is not even T0 . In fact, two points P and Q in Spec K[M ] have exactly the same
combinatorial neighbourhoods if and only if they contain the same set of monomials, Pmon = Qmon .
Remark 3.20. We have the commutative diagram of continuous maps
Spec M

i

Spec K[M ]Zar
λ

j

Spec K[M ]comb
where λ is the identity (as a set), i is the injection that we proved to be continuous in Lemma 3.8 and
j is the embedding into the space with the combinatorial topology, that is again obviously continuous.
Taking the preimages of open subsets along j gives a bijection between the open subsets in the
combinatorial topology and the open subsets in the topology of Spec M , which is compatible with
intersections and unions.
Given any sheaf F on Spec K[M ]Zar , we get by pushforward along λ, a sheaf λ∗ F = F |Topcomb on the
∗ ) = j O∗ .
combinatorial topology and in particular, λ∗ (i∗ OM
∗ M
Definition 3.21. Let F be a sheaf on Spec K[M ] equipped with the Zariski topology. We denote by
F comb the restriction of this sheaf to the combinatorial topology.
Lemma 3.22. For any sheaf of abelian groups F on Spec K[M ] equipped with the combinatorial
topology and any prime ideal P of K[M ], we have that
FP ∼
= FK[Pcomb ] .
Proof. P and K[Pcomb ] have the same combinatorial neighbourhoods, i.e. P ∈ U if and only if
K[Pcomb ] ∈ U for U ∈ Topcomb .
On the combinatorial topologiy, we can extend the splitting results from Section 3.1 on the sheaf level.
Proposition 3.23. Let M be a reduced, torsion-free and cancellative binoid and let K[M ] be its binoid
algebra. Then
∗ comb
∗
comb ∼
)
⊕ (K∗ )comb ,
(OK[M
= (i∗ OM
])

where K∗ is the constant sheaf.

Proof. We have a natural injective sheaf homomorphism in the Zariski topology
∗ ⊕ K∗
i∗ OM

∗
OK[M
],

∗ (U ) ⊕ K∗ (U ) is trivially a unit in O ∗
because every element in i∗ OM
K[M ] (U ) for any U , and in particular
in the combinatorial topology. We have to show that the map
∗ )comb ⊕ (K∗ )comb
(i∗ OM

∗
comb
(OK[M
])

is an isomorphism. It is enough to show the isomorphism on the combinatorial aﬃne open subsets
D(P ), with P a monomial. Indeed,






∗
comb
∗
Γ D(P ), (OK[M
= Γ D(P ), OK[M
])
]







∗
∗
= Γ Spec K[MP ], OK[M
] = K[MP ] .

Since MP is again reduced, torsion-free and cancellative, we can apply Theorem 3.5 and obtain a
decomposition




∗
comb
Γ D(P ), (OK[M
= K[MP ]∗ = K∗ ⊕ (MP )∗
])





= Γ D(P ), (i∗ O∗ )comb ⊕ (K∗ )comb .
19

Notation. For any combinatorial open subset U of Spec K[M ] and Zariski sheaf F on U , we use the
notation Hicomb (U, F ) to denote the cohomology of the sheaf F comb on U , i.e. the cohomology of F
in the combinatorial topology.
S

Proposition 3.24. If U = D(A) = D(P ) is a combinatorial open subset of Spec K[M ] and {D(P )},
with P monomial, is an acyclic covering for the Zariski sheaf F on U , then
HjZar (U, F ) = Hjcomb (U, F ) ,
for all j ≥ 0.

3.4

Pushforwards to the Zariski topology

We want to compute Zariski cohomology of a sheaf i∗ F , where i : Spec M → Spec K[M ] for a torsion
free cancellative binoid M on open subsets of Spec K[M ]. For Čech cohomology this is easy, but in
order to show that this coincides with Zariski cohomology, we also need acyclicty results.
f = {U
e be a combinatorial open subset of Spec K[M ], with a covering U
fj }j∈J made
Lemma 3.25. Let U
e ) be the correspondent open subset of Spec M ,
of combinatorial aﬃne open subsets. Let U = i−1 (U
−1
−1
f
f
covered by U = i (U ) = {i (Uj )}j∈J and let F be a sheaf of abelian groups on U . Then

for all j.

Hj (U, F ) ∼
= Ȟj (Uf, i∗ F )

(12)

fj ). {Uj } deﬁnes an acyclic covering of U for F , because they are aﬃne
Proof. Let Uj = i−1 (U
open subsets of Spec M , so its Čech cohomology computes the cohomology on the left. Moreover,
fj ) = F (i−1 (U
fj )) = F (Uj ), so the Čech complexes are the same, C(
ˇ Uf, i∗ F ) = C(U
ˇ , F ), and
i∗ F (U
we get our result.

Corollary 3.26. Let F be a sheaf of abelian groups on Spec• M and let U = {D(Xk )} be the
combinatorial covering of Spec• K[M ]. Then
Hj (Spec• M, F ) ∼
= Ȟj (U , i∗ F )

(13)

for all j.
Lemma 3.27. Let F be a sheaf of abelian groups on Spec M and U any Zariski covering of Spec K[M ].
Then
Ȟj (U , i∗ F ) = 0
(14)
for all j ≥ 1.
Proof. The preimage of the covering i−1 (U ) is a covering of Spec M . In particular, since i∗ F (Uj ) =
F (i−1 (Uj )) for all Uj ∈ U , the Čech complexes are the same
C(U , i∗ F ) = C(i−1 (U ), F ) .
Finally, since Spec M is aﬃne, we know that the cohomology of degree larger than 0, of the combinatorial complex, is zero, and so, it is the one of the pushforward.
Corollary 3.28. H1 (Spec K[M ], i∗ F ) = 0
Proof. From [Har77, Exercise III.4.4] we know that
H1 (Spec K[M ], i∗ F ) = lim Ȟ1 (U , i∗ F ) ,
−→
U

where the limit is taken over all the possible coverings of X. Assume that there is a non-zero cohomology class [c] in H1 (Spec K[M ], i∗ F ). Then there exists a covering that realizes it, i.e. [c] ∈ Ȟ1 (U , i∗ F ).
But this is impossible, thanks to Lemma 3.27.
20

Lemma 3.29. (i∗ F )P ∼
= FPcomb for P ∈ Spec K[M ].
Proof. We begin by investigating the stalk of the pushforward
(i∗ F )P = lim F (i−1 (U )) = lim F (i−1 (D(P ))) = lim F (∪(D(Pj ))) ,
−→
−→
−→
P∈U

P ∈P
/

P ∈P
/

P

where P = αj Pj , αj 6= 0, and Pj are monomials (see Lemma 3.9). Moreover, P ∈
/ P implies that
there exists j such that Pj ∈
/ P, and this is true if and only if Pj ∈
/ Pcomb . Consider the direct limit
lim F (D(g)) .
−→
comb

g ∈P
/

Since {g ∈
/ Pcomb } ⊆ {g ∈
/ P}, there is a natural map
lim
−→

g ∈P
/ comb

F (D(g)) −→ lim F (∪(D(Pj ))) .
−→
P ∈P
/

This map is surjective because, given a section in the stalk s ∈ (i∗ F )P , there exists a polynomial
P
P = αj Pj such that s ∈ F (∪(D(Pj ))). In particular, one of these Pj ’s is not in P and so not in
Pcomb . Let Pk be this monomial, so s comes via the restriction F (∪(D(Pj ))) −→ F (D(Pk )) also
from a section in F (D(Pk )). As such, it comes from the left, so the map is surjective.
This map is also injective because, given s and t in lim F (D(g)), if their images are the same in
−→
comb
g ∈P
/

the limit, then, in particular, they are the same on some open subset D(Pj ), such that Pj ∈
/ Pcomb .
So they were already the same before. This proves that
(i∗ F )P ∼
=

lim
−→

F (D(g)) = FPcomb .

g ∈P
/ comb

Theorem 3.30. The pushforward of a sheaf of abelian groups along i is exact.
Proof. For an exact sequence 0 → F → G → H → 0 of sheaves of abelian groups on Spec M , we have
to show show that the sequence 0 → i∗ F → i∗ G → i∗ H → 0 is exact as well. Since exactness is a
local property, it is enough to prove this on the stalks. So this follows from Lemma 3.29.
Proposition 3.31. For any sheaf of abelian groups F on Spec M , the Zariski cohomology of the
pushforward vanishes
Hj (Spec K[M ], i∗ F ) = 0
for all j ≥ 1.
Proof. We use induction on j ≥ 1. For j = 1 this is true by Corollary 3.28. Let j ≥ 1. We can embed
F in a ﬂasque sheaf G on Spec M and use the exact sequence
0

F

G

Q

0

on Spec M , where Q = G /F . We pushforward this sequence along i and, thanks to Theorem 3.30,
we get an exact sequence on Spec K[M ]
0

i∗ F

i∗ G

i∗ Q

0

that yields a long exact sequence in cohomology (we omit the topological space for ease of notation)
0

H0 (i∗ F )

H0 (i∗ G )

H0 (i∗ Q)

H1 (i∗ F )

H1 (i∗ G )

H1 (i∗ Q)

H2 (i∗ F )

H2 (i∗ G )

... .

21

Thanks to [Har77, Exercise II.1.16.(d)], we know that i∗ G is again ﬂasque, so
Hj (Spec K[M ], i∗ G ) = 0
for all j ≥ 1, and we get isomorphisms
Hj (i∗ Q) ∼
= Hj+1 (i∗ F ) .
By the induction hypothesis, the left hand side is 0, and so is the right hand side.
Remark 3.32. The cohomology of any sheaf i∗ F on any open combinatorial subset U of Spec K[M ]
can be computed by Čech cohomology, using the aﬃne combinatorial covering of U , that is the
cover given by the fundamental open subsets {D(P )}, with P monomials. This is true because
D(P ) ∼
= Spec K[MP ] and (i∗ F )|D(P ) = i∗ (F |D(P ) ) and from Proposition 3.31 this cover is acyclic.
∗ , that in
Remark 3.33. The Proposition is true in particular for the cohomology of the sheaf i∗ OM
∗
∗
general is a subsheaf of OK[M
] , so we can compute the cohomology of i∗ O on the punctured spectrum
using the acyclic covering given by the coordinates {D(Xi )}.
∗ is called the sheaf of combinatorial units of K[M ].
Definition 3.34. i∗ OM
∗ ) ∼ Hi (Spec• M, O ∗ ).
Corollary 3.35. Hi (Spec• K[M ], i∗ OM
=
M
∗
∗
∼
Corollary 3.36. If we have OK[M
] = i∗ OM ⊕ F for some sheaf of abelian groups F in the combinatorial topology, then Picloc (M ) 6= 0 implies Picloc (K[M ]) 6= 0.

Example 3.37. We give an example of an integral binoid, such that the natural map of the combinatorial local Picard group to the local Picard group of the geometric realization over a ﬁeld is not
injective. We consider the monoid M generated by e, f, g, subject to the relations
2e = e, 2f = f, 2g = e + f .
This monoid is not cancellative because of the idempotent elements and it is also not torsion free,
since 2g = e + f = 2(e + f ), but g 6= e + f . The combinatorial prime ideals are
(∞), (e, g), (f, g), (e, f, g) ,
so the combinatorial Krull dimension is 2 and the punctured spectrum is covered by D(e) and D(f ),
with the intersection D(e) ∩ D(f ) = D(g). We determine the Picard-Čech-complex for the units. We
have
Me = gN/(4g = 2g),
since from 2e = e, we get e = 0, as e becomes a unit and so, with the help of 2g = f , we can eliminate
f and only the generator g remains, with the given equation. Similarily, we have Mf = gN/(4g = 2g).
These binoids are positive. Moreover, we have Mg = gN/(2g = 0), where g is a nontrivial unit. Hence
the Picard-Čech-complex is
0 −→ 0 ⊕ 0 −→ Z/(2) −→ 0
and g deﬁnes a nontrivial cohomology class, showing the existence of nontrivial combinatorial line
bundles over the punctured spectrum.
Let now K be a ﬁeld and compute the K-spectrum of M . The values of e and f are either 0 or 1, and
the possible values of g are −1, 0, 1. Hence, there are only ﬁnitely many K-points and so K[M ] has
Krull dimension 0, there is no cohomology at all and the local Picard group is trivial.

22

3.5

Cohomology of O∗ in the Zariski topology

Computations of cohomology in the combinatorial topology are only helpful for the computation of
the cohomology of O∗ in the Zariski topology if there exist combinatorial coverings which are acylic
in the Zariski topology. We will use the follwing result from [DFM93, Lemma 5].
Theorem 3.38. If Y is a normal aﬃne toric variety, then
HpZar (Y, OY∗ ) = 0,
for all p ≥ 1.
Let Spec K[M ] be a normal aﬃne toric variety and let X = Spec• K[M ]. Then D(Xj ) is a normal
aﬃne toric variety embedded in X, so {D(Xj )} deﬁnes by Theorem 3.38 an acyclic covering for O∗
on X. In particular, we can use it to compute Zariski sheaf cohomology via Čech cohomology on X.
Moreover, since the D(Xi )’s are combinatorial, we can apply Proposition 3.24 to obtain isomorphisms
HpZar (X, O∗ ) = Hpcomb (X, O∗ ) = Ȟp ({D(Xj )}, O∗ ) .
We can apply Proposition 3.23 to split the sheaf (O∗ )comb and obtain
∗
) ⊕ Hpcomb (X, K∗ )
HpZar (X, O∗ ) = Hpcomb (X, O∗ ) = Hpcomb (X, i∗ OM
∗
= Ȟp ({D(Xj )}, i∗ OM
) ⊕ Ȟp ({D(Xj )}, K∗ )
∗
= Hp (Spec• M, OM
) ⊕ Ȟp ({D(Xj )}, K∗ )
∗
= Hp (Spec• M, OM
),

where the last steps rests on the integrality.
If we drop the hypothesis of normality, Theorem 3.38 might not be true, as the following Example
shows.
Example 3.39. Consider the Neil binoid M = (x, y | 2x = 3y). Its algebra is K[X, Y ]/(X 2 − Y 3 )
and it deﬁnes the curve called the Neil parabola, i.e.
C = Spec K[X, Y ]/(X 2 − Y 3 ) ,
∗ ) = 0 for all i ≥ 1,
that is a toric variety. We already know from Theorem 1.25, that Hi (Spec M, OM
because it is aﬃne. On the other hand, this variety is not normal and, indeed, Pic(C) = K+ , where
K+ is K seen as the additive group, see [Eis95, Exercise 11.15 and 11.16]. So, in this case, we have
that
∗
K+ = H1 (Spec K[M ], O∗ ) 6= H1 (Spec M, OM
) = 0.

4

Stanley-Reisner rings

In this section, we compute the local Picard group of a Stanley-Reisner ring, through the study of the
cohomology of the sheaf of units O∗ in the Zariski topology. While doing so, we will also look at the
cohomology of higher degrees of the sheaf of units, and we will give a combinatorial description of this
cohomology. In order to describe this cohomology group, we ﬁrst prove that Hi (K[△], O∗ ) = 0 and
Hi (K[△][x, x−1 ], O∗ ) = 0 for i ≥ 1. This is proved by induction on the complexity of the simplicial
complex, where the starting point is Theorem 3.38 for aﬃne space. We use this to show that we
can compute the cohomology of O∗ on Spec• (K[△]) with the combinatorial Čech covering, where the
answers is known thanks to our previous results. Lastly, we will look at the non-reduced monomial
case and we will apply results from Section 3 in order to get some explicit results also in this case.

23

4.1

The Spectrum of a Stanley-Reisner ring

Let △ denote a simplicial complex on the ﬁnite set V of vertices.
Lemma 4.1. There is a bijective order-preserving correspondence between the faces of the complex
△ and the linear coordinate subspaces contained in Spec K[△]. This correspondence is dimensionpreserving, in the sense that the dimension of the linear coordinate subspace is the dimension of the
face associated to it plus one. The irreducible components of Spec(K[△]) correspond bijectively to the
facets of △. The component to a facet F is Spec(K[P(F )]) ∼
= A#F .
Here P(F ) is the power set for F , considered as a full simplicial set.
Lemma 4.2. Let F be a facet of △ and △′ := △ \ {F }. Then
Spec(K[△]) = Spec(K[△′ ]) ∪ Spec(K[P(F )]) .
Lemma 4.3. Let F be a facet of △, △′ = △ \ {F } and △′′ = △′ ∩ P(F ). Then
Spec(K[△′′ ]) = Spec(K[△′ ]) ∩ Spec(K[P(F )]) .
Lemma 4.4. Under the hypothesis of the previous Lemma,


dim Spec K[△′′ ]





≤ min dim Spec K[△′ ]

, dim (Spec (K[P (F )]))

and equality holds if and only if F is the unique facet of maximal dimension.
Corollary 4.5. If △ is a simplex, then we have △′′ = △′ and, equivalently,




Spec K[△′′ ] = Spec K[△′ ] .
These previous Lemmata will play a key role in the rest of the section.
P

Remark 4.6. By intersecting Spec R[△] with the hyperplane { Xi = 1} and considering Xi ≥ 0,
we recover a geometric realization of the abstract simplicial complex we have started with.
Example 4.7. If the simplicial complex is given by a triangle (three intervals meeting pairwise), then
K[△] = K[X, Y, Z]/(XY Z). Its spectrum, including the intersection with the plane X + Y + Z = 1,
is shown in the following picture.

(0, 0, 1)

(1, 0, 0)

(0, 1, 0)

The following statement is a version of Lemma 2.6 for Stanley-Reisner rings.
24

Q

Lemma 4.8. Let F be a subset of V and let D(F ) denote the aﬃne open subset D(
T
v∈F D(Xv ) of Spec K[△]. Then D(F ) 6= ∅ if and only if F ∈ △.

v∈F

Xv ) =

Proof. This is clear since in the combinatorial topology of Spec K[△], we have the same intersection
pattern as in Spec M and this reﬂects the combinatorial structure of the simplicial complex.

Corollary 4.9. The nerve of the covering {D(Xi )} of Spec• K[△] is the simplicial complex itself.

4.2

Acyclicity of the sheaf of units

In this section, we prove that the covering of the punctured spectrum of a Stanley-Reisner algebra
given by the coordinate fundamental open subsets is an acyclic covering for the sheaf of units. In
order to show this, we will use the fact that D(X) ∼
= Spec K[(M△ )x ] ∼
= Spec K[△′ ] × A∗ (△′ is the link
at the vertex x), which we proved in Theorem 2.15 on the combinatorial level. In particular, we will
prove that Hj (Spec K[△], O∗ ) = 0 for j ≥ 1.
Lemma 4.10. Let R be a local ring and A an ideal of R. Then the map R∗ → (R/A)∗ is surjective.
Proof. This is easily proved because in a local ring, the group of units is the complement of the
maximal ideal, and quotients of local rings by ideals are again local rings.
Proposition 4.11. Let A and B be ideals of a commutative ring R such that A ∩ B = 0. Let
X = Spec R, Y = Spec R/A and Z = Spec R/B. Then there exists a short exact sequence of sheaves
1

ϕ

∗
OX

ψ

i∗ OY∗ ⊕ i∗ OZ∗

i∗ OY∗ ∩Z

1,

where i are the inclusion maps and ϕ(f ) = (f |Y , f |Z ) and ψ(g, h) = gh−1 .
Proof. Clearly X = Y ∪ Z. These maps exist because they are induced by taking the quotients of
the involved rings, and the fact that this is a complex is clear. In order to prove the exactness of this
sequence, we look at the stalks at a point P. The surjectivity of ψ follows from Lemma 4.10, because
the stalks are local rings and Y ∩ Z is deﬁned by a quotient of the ring of Y (and of the ring of Z).
In order to prove injectivity of ϕ, we look at it on a stalk
ϕP

∗
OX,P
−→ (i∗ OY∗ )P ⊕ (i∗ OZ∗ )P .

Since Y = Spec R/A and Z = Spec R/B, we can rewrite this sequence as
ϕP

(RP )∗ −→ (RP /A)∗ ⊕ (RP /B)∗ , f 7−→ (f, f ) ,
where RP /A and RP /B denote the quotients via the extended ideals. Consider now f ∈ (RP )∗ such
that ϕP (f ) = (1, 1). Then f − 1 ∈ A and f − 1 ∈ B, so f − 1 ∈ A ∩ B = 0, so ﬁnally, f = 1 and this
map is injective. In order to prove exactness in the middle, we have to show that if ψ(g, h) = 1, then
they both lie in the image of ϕ. Recall that we have an exact sequence of rings
ψ

0 −→ RP −→ RP /A ⊕ RP /B −→ RP /A + B −→ 0 .
Let g, h ∈ R such that g is a unit on Y , h is a unit on Z and ψ(g, h) = 1. This happens if and only if
g = h in Y ∩ Z, because the map ψ sends them to gh−1 . The same holds for RP and the quotients in
the sequence above. So, there exists f in RP such that f = g + a = h + b in RP , with a ∈ A and b ∈ B
(where these are the extended ideals in RP ). What is left to prove is that f is a unit of RP . Clearly
f = g is invertible modulo A. Assume that f is not, so it belongs to the maximal ideal PRP , and if
we now go modulo A, it belongs to PRP /A, that is again the maximal ideal, and so it would not be
invertible. Hence f is invertible and g, h both come from the left, thus the sequence is also exact in
the middle.

25

Remark 4.12. Let △ be a simplicial complex and F be one of its facets. Let X be Spec K[△] and
Y be the linear coordinate component of X that corresponds to F . Let Z = X \ Y be the union of
all the other maximal linear coordinate components in X. Then we can apply Proposition 4.11 on Y
and Z.
Theorem 4.13. Hj (Spec K[△], O∗ ) = 0 for all j ≥ 1.
Proof. Let X = Spec K[△]. We prove the claim by induction on the number of facets of △, that
correspond to the number of maximal coordinate linear subspaces of X. If △ has only one facet, then
it is a simplex and X ∼
= An for some n, so we get from Theorem 3.38, that Hj (X, O∗ ) = 0 for all j ≥ 1.
Let now △ be any simplicial complex. Consider Y ∼
= Am a subset of X associated to a facet F of
△, so Y is a maximal coordinate linear subset of X. Let Z be the closure of the complement of Y
in X, i.e. Z = X \ Y . Clearly Z ∼
= K[△′ ] for some simplicial complex △′ , where △′ = (△ \ P(F ))⊆ ,
the subset-closure of the subset of △ obtained by removing F and all its subsets from △. Clearly,
△′ has a facet less than △, namely F . In the same way, Y ∩ Z is again a union of coordinate linear
subspaces, whose maximal components are the intersection of the maximal components of Z with Y ,
so again coming from another simplicial complex △′′ , which is easier (with smaller dimension and
with less facets) than before. Thanks to Remark 4.12, we know that the radical ideal deﬁning Y and
the radical ideal deﬁning Z have trivial intersection in K[△]. We can then apply Proposition 4.11 to
obtain the short exact sequence of sheaves
∗
OX

1

ϕ

i∗ OY∗ ⊕ i∗ OZ∗

ψ

i∗ OY∗ ∩Z

1.

When we take cohomology, we obtain the long exact sequence of cohomology on X (we omit the space
X)
∗ )
...
Hj (OX
Hj (i∗ OY∗ ) ⊕ Hj (i∗ OZ∗ )
Hj (i∗ OY∗ ∩Z )
∗ )
Hj+1 (OX

...

where, if j ≥ 1, we have that Hj (i∗ OZ∗ ) = Hj (Z, OZ∗ ) because Z is a closed subset, and this in turn is 0
by the induction hypothesis, and Hj (i∗ OY∗ ∩Z ) = Hj (Y ∩ Z, OY∗ ∩Z ) = 0. Since Y is an aﬃne space, we
∗ ) between two zeros,
already know that Hj (i∗ OY∗ ) = Hj (Y, OY∗ ) = 0. So for j > 1, we squeeze Hj (OX
and this proves that it is zero itself. For j = 1, we have to look at
∗ )
H0 (OX

H0 (i∗ OY∗ ) ⊕ H0 (i∗ OZ∗ )

H0 (i∗ OY∗ ∩Z )

∗ )
H1 (OX

0

... .

Since X, Y and Z are all deﬁned by Stanley-Reisner ideals, whose units are just the units of the ﬁeld,
this sequence becomes
1

K∗

K∗ ⊕ K∗

ψ

K∗

∗ )
H1 (OX

0

... .

∗ ) = 0.
But ψ(s, t) = s−1 t, so it is surjective, so also H1 (OX

Corollary 4.14. The Picard group of a Stanley-Reisner algebra is trivial.
±1 ], O ∗ ) = 0 for all j ≥ 1.
Theorem 4.15. Hj (K[△][y1±1 , . . . , ym

Proof. The proof is essentially the same as in Theorem 4.13, except for H1 , because the sequence of
global units becomes now
(Z)m ⊕ K∗

((Z)m ⊕ K∗ )

L

((Z)m ⊕ K∗ )

π

(Z)m ⊕ K∗

but again it is easy to see that the last map is surjective also on the Z’s.

26

... ,

4.3

The Čech-Picard complex on the punctured spectrum

Using what we have proved in the previous section, we know that {D(Xi )} is an acyclic covering for
Spec• K[△] with respect to the sheaf O∗ and we will describe the groups and the maps appearing in
the Čech complex relative to this covering.
Lemma 4.16. Let F be a face of △. Then the localization of the Stanley-Reisner ring of △ at
Q
XF = v∈F Xv is
K[△]XF ∼
= K[△′ ][ZF ] ,
where △′ = lk△ (F ).
Proof. This follows from Theorem 2.15.
Corollary 4.17. The cohomology of O∗ on the punctured spectrum Spec• (K[△]) can be computed
using, as Čech covering, the one given by the fundamental combinatorial open subsets {D(Xi )}.
Remark 4.18. For a Stanley-Reisner ring, it does not make a diﬀerence whether we compute the
cohomology of the sheaf of units Hj (Spec• K[△], O∗ ) on the Zariski or in the combinatorial topology,
since the covering {D(Xi )} is acyclic in both topologies, and this yields the same Čech complex. Since
the combinatorial topology is simpler, we can restrict to work with it.
Theorem 4.19. In the combinatorial topology of Spec• K[M△ ], we have that the sheaf of units splits
∗
∗
⊕ K∗ ,
OK[△]
= i∗ OM
△

where K∗ is the constant sheaf.
Proof. This is just an application of Proposition 3.23, because K[△] = K[M△ ] is reduced and M△ is
semifree, so torsion-free and cancellative.
∗ into smaller subsheaves (see Theorem 2.21), we can do
Remark 4.20. Since we are able to split OM
the same here, and obtain in the combinatorial topology
∗
OK[△]

= i∗

M

v∈V

Ov∗

!

∗

⊕K =

M

v∈V

i∗ Ov∗

!

⊕ K∗ .

Corollary 4.21. Let △ be a simplicial complex on the vertex set V , let K[△] be its Stanley-Reisner
∗
algebra and O∗ = OK[△]
the sheaf of units. Then
O

∗

\

v∈F

!

D(Xv ) ∼
=

(

ZF × K∗ ,

if F ∈ △,

1,

otherwise.

∗
Corollary 4.22. The complex for computing Čech cohomology of OK[△]
on Spec• K[△] with respect
to the combinatorial covering given by {D(Xi )} can be split as a direct sum of the two complexes









∗
∗
⊕ Cˇ ({D(xi )}, K∗ ) .
Cˇ {D(Xi )}, OK[△]
= Cˇ {D(xi )}, OM
△

Proof. The only thing that we have to notice is that

Cˇ ({D(Xi )}, K∗ ) = Cˇ ({D(xi )}, K∗ ) ,
because {D(Xi )} and {D(xi )} have the same intersection patterns, thanks to Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 4.8.

27

4.4

Cohomology

We are now ready to sum up our results and give the explicit formulas for computing cohomology of
the sheaf of units on the punctured spectrum of a Stanley-Reisner ring.
Lemma 4.23. For any constant sheaf of abelian groups G on Spec• K[M△ ], we have that
Ȟj ({D(Xi )} , G) = Hj (△, G).
Theorem 4.24. Let K[△] be the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex △ on a ﬁnite vertex
∗
set V . We have the following explicit formula for the cohomology groups of the sheaf of units OK[△]
,
•
restricted to the punctured spectrum Spec K[△].
∗
Hj (Spec• (K[△]), OK[△]
)=

M

v∈V

e j−1 (lk△ (v), Z) ⊕ Hj (△, K∗ ),
H

(15)

where Hj (△, K∗ ) is the j-th simplicial cohomology group with coeﬃcients in K∗ .

Proof. This follows from Corollary 4.17, Theorem 4.19, Corollary 3.35, Theorem 2.25 and Lemma
4.23.
Example 4.25. Consider
K[M ] = K[X, Y, Z]/(XY Z) .
Its punctured spectrum is covered by D(X), D(Y ) and D(Z), and the Čech complex with respect to
∗
this acyclic covering for OK[M
] is
C : (Z ⊕ K∗ )

M

(Z ⊕ K∗ )

and we have the components

M

(Z ⊕ K∗ ) −→ (Z2 ⊕ K∗ )

C(K∗ ) : K∗ ⊕ K∗ ⊕ K∗

0
∂K
∗



(a, b, c)

0
∂M

(Z2 ⊕ K∗ )

M

K∗ ⊕ K∗ ⊕ K∗

(α, β, γ)

∗
C(OM
): Z⊕Z⊕Z

M

β γ γ
, ,
α α β



(Z2 ⊕ K∗ ) −→ 1 ,

1,

,

Z2 ⊕ Z2 ⊕ Z2 ,

1
∂M

0,

(−a, b, −a, c, −b, c) ,

that give us the decomposition. The image of the ﬁrst map is (u, v, w) with uv −1 w = 1. A nontrivial
element is given by (1, 1, −1), which gives in the real case the Möbius strip on the triangle. The second
part can be split further.

4.5

The general monomial case

In this last Section, we show how the general non-reduced monomial case can be handled with our
methods. If I is any
√ monomial ideal in S = K[X1 , . . . , Xn ], then its radical ideal is a squarefree
monomial ideal, so I = I△ for a simplicial complex and the reduction of R = S/I is the StanleyReisner ring Rred = K[M△ ] = S/I△ . In Theorems 4.13 and 4.15, we proved that the covering of
∗
Spec• S/I generated by {D(Xi )} is acyclic for OR
with respect to the Zariski topology.
red
Theorem 4.26. Let N be a binoid whose reduction is a simplicial binoid M△ , so that R = K[N ] is
deﬁned by a monomial ideal with reduction Rred = K[△]. Then we can compute the cohomology of
∗ on X = Spec• R with the Zariski topology as
OX
∗
Hj (X, OX
)=

M

v∈V

e j−1 (lk (v), Z) ⊕ Hj (△, K∗ ) ⊕ Hj ({D(Xi )}, 1 + N ) ,
H
△

where N is the coherent ideal sheaf of nilpotent elements.
28

∗ = O∗
Remark 4.27. Since OM
Mred , we can rewrite the result above as
∗
∗
) ⊕ Hj ({D(Xi )}, 1 + N )
HjZar (X, OX
) = Hj (Xred , OX
red

∗
= Hj (Spec• M, OM
) ⊕ Hj (△, K∗ ) ⊕ Hj ({D(Xi )}, 1 + N ) .

References
[Alb16]

Davide Alberelli. Local Picard Group of Binoids and Their Algebras. Universität Osnabrück,
Osnabrück, 2016.

[And81] David F. Anderson. Seminormal graded rings. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 21(1):1–7, 1981.
[Böt15]

Simone Böttger. Monoids with absorbing elements and their associated algebras. Universität
Osnabrück, Osnabrück, 2015.

[DFM93] Frank R. DeMeyer, Tim J. Ford, and Rick Miranda. The cohomological Brauer group of a
toric variety. J. Algebraic Geom., 2(1):137–154, 1993.
[Eis95]

David Eisenbud. Commutative algebra, with a view toward algebraic geometry, volume 150
of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.

[Flo15]

Jaret Flores. Homological algebra for commutative monoids. 2015. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Rutgers
The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick.

[FW14]

Jaret Flores and Charles A. Weibel. Picard groups and class groups of monoid schemes. J.
Algebra, 415:247–263, 2014.

[Har77]

Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52.

[Lor12]

Oliver Lorscheid. The geometry of blueprints: Part I: Algebraic background and scheme
theory. Adv. Math., 229(3):1804–1846, 2012.

[LPL11] Javier López Peña and Oliver Lorscheid. Mapping F1 -land: an overview of geometries over
the ﬁeld with one element. Noncommutative geometry, arithmetic, and related topics, pages
241–265, 2011.
[MS05]

Ezra Miller and Bernd Sturmfels. Combinatorial commutative algebra, volume 227 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.

[Mur69] M. Pavaman Murthy. Vector bundles over aﬃne surfaces birationally equivalent to a ruled
surface. Ann. of Math. (2), 89:242–253, 1969.
[Pir15]

Ilia Pirashvili. On cohomology and vector bundles over monoid schemes. J. Algebra, 435:33–
51, 2015.

[Swa80]

Richard G. Swan. On seminormality. J. Algebra, 67(1):210–229, 1980.

[Tra70]

Carlo Traverso. Seminormality and Picard group. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3), 24:585–
595, 1970.

29

