HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

arXiv:1606.00552v1 [math.AC] 2 Jun 2016

ROSA M. MIRÓ-ROIG∗
Abstract. In [2], Conjecture 5.5.2, Harbourne, Schenck and Seceleanu conjectured that, for r = 6
2
and all r ≥ 8, the artinian ideal I = (ℓ21 , . . . , lr+1
) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ] generated by the square of r + 1
general linear forms ℓi fails the Weak Lefschetz property. This paper is entirely devoted to prove
this Conjecture. It is worthwhile to point out that half of the Conjecture - namely, the case when
the number of variables r is even - was already proved in [5], Theorem 6.1.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background and preparatory results
3. Proof of the main Theorem
References

1
2
5
11

1. Introduction
Ideals generated by powers of linear forms have attracted great deal of attention recently. For
instance, their Hilbert function have been the focus of the papers [1], [9] and [2]; and the presence
or failure of the Weak Lefschetz Property has been deeply studied in [2], [5] and [7], among others.
Let A = R/I be a standard graded artinian algebra, where R = K[x1 , . . . , xr ] and K is an
algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. If ℓ is a linear form then multiplication by ℓ induces
a homomorphism from any graded component [A]i to the next and the algebra A is said to have
the Weak Lefschetz Property (WLP) if the “multiplication by a general linear form has maximal
rank from each degree to the next.” There has been a long series of papers determining classes of
algebras holding/failing the WLP but much more work remains to be done.
The first result in this direction is due to Stanley [8] and Watanabe [10] and it asserts that the
WLP holds for an artinian complete intersection ideal generated by powers of linear forms. In [7],
Schenck and Seceleanu gave the nice result that in three variables any ideal generated by powers
of general linear forms has WLP. In contrast, in [5], we showed by examples that in 4 variables

∗

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D02 13C13, 13C40, 13D40.
Key words and phrases. Weal Lefschetz property, powers of linear forms, artinian algebras.
Printed June 3, 2016
Part of the work for this paper was done while the author was sponsored by MTM2013-45075-P.

.
1

2

R. M. MIRÓ-ROIG

for d = 3, . . . , 12 an ideal generated by the d-th power of five general linear forms does not have
the WLP. Therefore, it is natural to ask when the WLP holds for artinian ideals I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ]
generated by powers of ≥ r+1 general linear forms. The goal of this short note is to solve Conjecture
2 ) ⊂ K[x , . . . , x ]
5.5.2 in [2] which says that for r = 6 and r ≥ 8, the artinian ideal I = (ℓ21 , . . . , lr+1
1
r
generated by the square of r + 1 general linear forms ℓi fails the Weak Lefschetz property. Half
of the Conjecture - namely, the case when the number of variables r is even - was proved in [5],
Theorem 6.1 where first we use the inverse system dictionary to relate an ideal I ⊂ K[x1 , · · · , xr ]
generated by powers of linear forms to an ideal of fat points in Pr−1 , and then we show that the
WLP problem of an ideal generated by powers of linear forms is closely connected to the geometry
of the linear system of hypersurfaces in Pr−2 of fixed degree with preassigned multiple points. In
this short note, we solve the remaining half - the case of an odd number of variables. The key point
is to determine the degree where the WLP fails.
Next, we outline the structure of the paper. In Section 2, we fix notation and we briefly discuss
general facts on Weak Lefschetz property needed later on. Section 3 is the heart of the paper and
contains the proof of the conjecture stated by Harbourne, Schenck and Seceleanu in [2], Conjecture
5.5.2.
2. Background and preparatory results
In this section we fix notation, we recall the definition of Weak/Strong Lefschetz Property and we
state some open conjectures related to the Weak Lefschetz property of ideals generated by powers
of linear forms which are motivating current research in this vast topic of research which touch
numerous and different areas like algebraic geometry, commutative algebra and combinatorics.
Throughout this work K will be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. Given a
graded artinian K-algebra A = R/I where R = K[x1 , x2 , . . . , xr ] and I is a homogeneous ideal of
R, we denote by HA : Z −→ Z with HA (j) = dimK [A]j its Hilbert function. Since A is artinian,
its Hilbert function is captured in its h-vector h = (h0 , h1 , . . . , he ) where hi = HA (i) > 0 and e is
the last index with this property. The integer e is called the socle degree of A.
Definition 2.1. Let A = R/I be a graded artinian K-algebra. We say that A is level of CohenMacaulay type t if its socle is concentrated in one degree and has dimension t. E.g. a complete
intersection is level of Cohen-Macaulay type 1 and a Gorenstein artinian K-algebra is also level of
Cohen-Macaulay type 1.
For fixed e and t, a level graded artinian K-algebra of socle degree e, Cohen-Macaulay type t
and of maximal Hilbert function among all level graded artinian K-algebras with that socle degree
and Cohen-Macaulay type is said to be compressed. We can extend this notion as follows (see [6],
Definition 1.1, for more details):
Definition 2.2. Let a ⊂ R be a homogeneous ideal. Then a level graded artinian K-algebra A of
socle degree e and Cohen-Macaulay type t is said to be relatively compressed with respect to a if A
has maximal length among all level graded artinian K-algebras R/I satisfying

HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

3

(i) Soc R/I ∼
= K(−e)t
(ii) a ⊂ I.
Equivalently, A = R/I is relatively compressed with respect to a if it is a quotient of R/a having
maximal length among all quotients of R/a with prescribed socle degree and Cohen-Macaulay type.
For level artinian algebras A relatively compressed with respect to a complete intersection a ⊂ R
we have an upper bound for its Hilbert function. In fact, we have
Lemma 2.3. Let A = R/I be a graded level artinian K-algebra of socle degree e, Cohen-Macaulay
type t and relatively compressed with respect to a complete intersection a ⊂ R. Then, we have
hA (i) ≤ min{dim[R/a]i , t · dim[R/a]e−i }.
Remark 2.4. For t = 1, we take F ∈ [ae ]⊥ and we consider the Gorenstein artinian graded Kalgebra A = R/ Ann(F ). Because R/ Ann(F ) is a quotient of R/a, which is Gorenstein, we clearly
have
(2.1)

hA (i) ≤ min{dim[R/a]i , dim[R/a]e−i }.

Note that by [4], Theorem 4.16, if a and F are both general (or if a is a monomial complete
intersection and F is general) then we have equality in (2.1).
Definition 2.5. Let A = R/I be a graded artinian K-algebra. We say that A has the Weak
Lefschetz Property (WLP) if there is a linear form L ∈ [A]1 such that, for all integers i ≥ 0, the
multiplication map
×L : [A]i −→ [A]i+1
has maximal rank, i.e. it is injective or surjective. (We will often abuse notation and say that the
ideal I has the WLP.) In this case, the linear form L is called a Lefschetz element of A. If for the
general form L ∈ [A]1 and for an integer number j the map ×L : [A]j−1 −→ [A]j does not have
maximal rank, we will say that the ideal I fails the WLP in degree j.
A has the Strong Lefschetz Property (SLP) if there is a linear form L ∈ [A]1 such that, for all
integers i ≥ 0 and k ≥ 1, the multiplication map
×Lk : [A]i −→ [A]i+k
has maximal rank.
In this paper we will deal with artinian ideals I = (ℓa11 , . . . , ℓas s ) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ] generated by
powers of s ≥ r general linear forms ℓi and we relate them to the presence or failure of the WLP.
The first result in this topic is due to R. Stanley [8] and J. Watanabe [10] and it has motivated this
entire area of research. It says:
Proposition 2.6. Let R = K[x1 , . . . , xr ] and let a be an artinian monomial complete intersection,
i.e. a = (xa11 , . . . , xar r ). Then, R/I has both the WLP and the SLP.

4

R. M. MIRÓ-ROIG

It is worthwhile to point out that the above result is false in positive characteristic. Trying to
extend the above proposition we can ask which ideals generated by powers of general linear forms
define K-algebras that fail WLP. In two and three variables all such algebras satisfy the WLP. In
fact, we have:
Proposition 2.7. (1) Any homogeneous artinian ideal in K[x, y] has WLP. In particular, every
artinian ideal generated by powers of linear forms in 2 variables has the WLP.
(2) Every artinian ideal generated by powers of general linear forms in 3 variables has the WLP.
Proof. (1) See [3], Proposition 4.4.
(2) See [7], Theorem 2.4.



The above proposition is no longer true for ideals generated by powers of linear forms in r ≥ 4
variables. In fact, in [5] we prove that A := K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]/(x31 , x32 , x33 , x44 , (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 )3 )
does not have the WLP. The h-vector of A is (1, 4, 10, 15, 15, 6) and A3 −→ A4 has not maximal
rank. The following questions naturally arise from this example:
Question 2.8. (1) (Almost complete intersections and uniform powers) Let I = (ℓt1 , . . . , ℓtr+1 ) ⊂
K[x1 , . . . , xr ] be an almost complete intersection ideal generated by uniform powers of general linear
forms. For which values of r and t does K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/I fail WLP?
(2) (Uniform powers) Let I = (ℓt1 , . . . , ℓts ) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ] be an artinian ideal generated by
uniform powers of general linear forms. For which values of r, s and t does K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/I fail
WLP?
(3) (Mixed powers) Let I = (ℓa11 , . . . , ℓas s ) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ] be an artinian ideal generated by
powers of general linear forms. For which values of r, s and ai does K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/I fail WLP?
Nice contributions to these problems are given in [7], [5] and [2] but no complete answers to them
are known and more work has to be done. Here there are three open conjectures from [5] and [2]
related to these questions:
Conjecture 2.9. ( [2], Conjecture 5.5.2) For r = 6 and all r ≥ 8, K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/(ℓ21 , . . . , ℓ2r+1 )
where ℓi are general linear forms, fails WLP.
Conjecture 2.10. ( [2], Conjecture 1.2) For I = (ℓt1 , . . . , ℓtn ) ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xr ] with ℓi general linear
forms and n ≥ r + 1 ≥ 5, A = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/I fails WLP for t ≫ 0.
Conjecture 2.11. ( [5], Conjecture 6.6) Let R = K[x1 , . . . , x2n+1 ], where n ≥ 4. Let ℓ ∈ R be a
general linear form, and let I = hxd1 , · · · , xd2n+1 , ℓd i. Then the ring R/I fails the WLP if and only
if d > 1. Furthermore, if n = 3 then R/I fails the WLP when d = 3.
This paper will be devoted to proving Conjecture 2.9. More precisely, we will prove that for almost complete intersection ideals generated by squares of general linear forms we have the following
full characterization which solves Conjecture 2.9.
Theorem 2.12. Set A = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/(ℓ21 , . . . , ℓ2r+1 ) where ℓi are general linear forms. We have:

HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

5

(1) If 2 ≤ r ≤ 5 or r = 7 then A has the WLP.
2) If r = 6 or r ≥ 8 then A fails WLP.
3. Proof of the main Theorem
This section is entirely devoted to prove Theorem 2.12. In order to make the proof self-contained
we start with a series of technical lemmas and propositions which have as a goal to compute the
Hilbert function of an almost complete intersection ideal generated by the quadratic powers of
general linear forms.
Lemma 3.1. Let a = (x21 , x22 , . . . , x2r ). Then the Hilbert function of A = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/a is
 
 r
if 0 ≤ j ≤ r,
j
HA (j) =
0
otherwise.

Proof. To compute the Hilbert function HA (t) of A, it is enough to describe bases Bj of [A]j . We
choose the residue classes of the elements in the following sets
Bj = {xi1 · · · · · xij | 1 ≤ i1 < · · · < ij ≤ r} for 1 ≤ j ≤ r,
and this concludes the proof.



Given the polynomial ring R = K[x1 , . . . , xr ] we will consider its Macaulay-Matlis inverse system
∂
.
E = K[X1 , . . . , Xr ] which means that E is a graded R-module and xi acts as ∂X
i
P
Proposition 3.2. Set g := 1≤i1 <···<ir−2 ≤r Xi1 Xi2 · · · · · Xir−2 and let G := K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/ Ann(g)
be the associated artinian Gorenstein K-algebra. The following hold:
(1) The Hilbert function of G is given by



0 
r
HG (t) =
t


 r 
r−2−t

if t < 0 or t > r − 2,
if 0 ≤ t ≤
if

r−2
2

r−2
2 ,

< t ≤ r − 2.

(2) G has socle degree r − 2 and it is relatively compressed with respect to the complete intersection monomial ideal a = (x21 , x22 , . . . , x2r ).
(3) For r ≥ 3 odd, we define
S := {x21 , x22 , · · · , x2r , (xi1 − xi2 )(xi3 − xi4 ) · · · · · (xir−2 − xir−1 )}
where 1 ≤ ij ≤ r and ij 6= is . We have hSi ⊂ Ann(g).
(4) For r ≥ 4 even, we define
S := {x21 , x22 , · · · , x2r , (xi1 − xi2 )(xi3 − xi4 ) · · · · · (xir−3 − xir−2 )xir−1 }
where 1 ≤ ij ≤ r and ij 6= is . We have hSi ⊂ Ann(g).

6

R. M. MIRÓ-ROIG

Proof. (1) Since G is an artinian Gorenstein K-algebra, the Hilbert function of G is symmetric, i.e.
HG (i) = HG (r − 2 − i) for 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 2 and we only have to compute HG (j) for r−2
2 ≤ j ≤ r − 2.
r−2
By Macaulay-Matlis duality for any 2 ≤ j ≤ r − 2, we have:
j

g
HG (j) = dimK h ∂X a1∂···∂X
ar | 0 ≤ ai and a1 + · · · + ar = ji
1

r

j

g
| 0 ≤ i1 < · · · < ij ≤ ri
= dimK h ∂Xi ∂···∂X
ij
1

= rj .

(2) By definition A has socle degree r − 2. Using (1) and Lemma 3.1 we check that
HG (i) = min{dim[R/a]i , dim[R/a]r−2−i }
and we deduce from Lemma 2.3 that G is relatively compressed with respect to the complete
intersection monomial ideal a.
(3) Set C = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/a. By item (2), HG (j) = HC (j) for all 0 ≤ j ≤ r−2
2 and we clearly
∂2g
2
have a ⊂ Ann(g) since xi ◦ g = ∂X 2 = 0 for all 0 ≤ i ≤ r. Therefore, for r ≥ 7, the only generators
of Ann(g) of degree ≤

r−2
2

i

are: x21 , x22 , · · · , x2r .

Claim: (xi1 − xi2 )(xi3 − xi4 ) · · · · · (xir−2 − xir−1 ) ∈ Ann(g).
Proof of the Claim. Obviously, it is enough to check one case, namely (x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · ·
(xr−2 − xr−1 ) ◦ g = 0. We set r = 2q + 1 and we proceed by induction on q.
For q = 1 and 2 the claim is true since we have (x1 − x2 ) ◦ (X1 + X2 + X3 )=0 and (x1 − x2 )(x3 −
x4 ) ◦ (X1 X2 X3 + X1 X2 X4 + X1 X2 X5 + X1 X3 X4 + X1 X3 X5 + X1 X4 X5 + X2 X3 X4 + X2 X3 X5 +
X2 X4 X5 + X3 X4 X5 ) = 0.
Assume q ≥ 3. We define
P
g1 :=
1≤j1 <···<jr−3 ≤r Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−3
P
P ji 6=r−2
= Xr 1≤j1 <···<jr−4 ≤r−1 Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−4 + 1≤j1 <···<jr−3 ≤r−1 Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−3
=: Xr g11 + g12

ji 6=r−2

ji 6=r−2

and, analogously,
P
g2 :=
1≤j1 <···<jr−3 ≤r Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−3
P
P ji 6=r−1
= Xr 1≤j1 <···<jr−4 ≤r−1 Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−4 + 1≤j1 <···<jr−3 ≤r−1 Xj1 · · · · · Xjr−3
=: Xr g21 + g22 .

ji 6=r−1

ji 6=r−1

We have:
(x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) ◦ g =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 )xr−2 ◦ g − (x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 )xr−1 ◦ g =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ g1 − (x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ g2 =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (Xr g11 + g12 ) − (x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (Xr g21 + g22 ).

HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

7

Using the induction hypothesis we get
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ Xr g11 = 0
and
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ Xr g21 = 0.
Therefore, we have
(x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) ◦ g =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ g12 − (x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ g22 =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (X1 · · · · · Xr−3 ) + Xr−1 h)−
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (X1 · · · · · Xr−3 ) + Xr−2 h)
where
h=

X

Xs1 · · · · · Xsr−4

1≤s1 <···<sr−4 ≤r−3

Applying again hypothesis of induction we obtain
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ Xr−1 h = 0
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ Xr−2 h = 0
and, hence, we get
(x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) ◦ g =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (X1 · · · · · Xr−3 ) + Xr−1 h)
−(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ (X1 · · · · · Xr−3 ) + Xr−2 h) =
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ X1 · · · · · Xr−3 −
(x1 − x2 ) · · · · · (xr−4 − xr−3 ) ◦ X1 · · · · · Xr−3 =
0.
(4) It is analogous to (3) and we leave it to the reader.

Remark 3.3. In this paper we do not need an explicit description of a (minimal) system of
generators of Ann(g). Computer evidences, using Macaulay2, suggest that S is a full system of
r−1
generators of Ann(g) and, hence Ann(g) is generated by r quadrics and q−1
forms of degree q if
r
r 
r = 2q + 1 ≥ 7 and by r quadrics and q − q−2 forms of degree q if r = 2q ≥ 6.

P
Proposition 3.4. Fix an integer r ≥ 3. Set g := 1≤i1 <···<ir−2 ≤r Xi1 Xi2 · · · · · Xir−2 . Let G :=
K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/ Ann(g) be the associated artinian Gorenstein K-algebra relatively compressed with
respect to the monomial complete intersection a = (x21 , . . . , x2r ). We define J = (a : Ann(g)). We
have:

8

R. M. MIRÓ-ROIG

(1) J is an almost complete intersection artinian ideal generated by r + 1 forms of degree 2 and
with socle degree

q + 1 if r = 2q + 1,
e(J) =
q
if r = 2q.

(2) If r = 2q + 1, the Hilbert function of A := K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/J is given by


if t < 0 or t > q + 1,

0 

r
r
HA (t) =
if 0 ≤ t ≤ q,
t − t−2




 r
r
if t = q + 1.
q − q−1
If r = 2q, we have


0
HA (t) =

 r −
t

(3) J = (x21 , x22 , . . . , x2r , (x1 + · · · + xr )2 ).

if t < 0 or t > q,
r
t−2



if 0 ≤ t ≤ q.

Proof. (1) Since G is an artinian Gorenstein K-algebra relatively compressed with respect to a and
with socle degree r − 2 and J is linked to Ann(g) by means of a, we have that J is an almost
complete intersection generated by x21 , . . . , x2r , f where f is a form of degree 2.
According to the proof of Proposition 3.2 (3) and (4), Ann(g) has r minimal generators of
degree 2, at least one minimal generator of degree ⌊ 2r ⌋ and all the others (if any) in degree ≥ ⌊ 2r ⌋.
Therefore, the socle degree of J is

q + 1 if r = 2q + 1,
r
e(J) = −⌊ ⌋ + r =
q
2
if r = 2q
which proves what we want.

(2) Since the Hilbert function of K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/a is known (Lemma 3.1) and of K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/ Ann(g)
is also known (Proposition 3.2 ), we can compute the Hilbert function of J = (a : Ann(g)) and we
have
HK[x1,...,xr ]/J (t) = HK[x1,...,xr ]/a (t) − HG (r − t)
and we get what we want.
(3) By the proof of (1) we know that J = (x21 , x22 , . . . , x2r , f ) where f is an homogeneous form of
degree 2. Let us determine it. More precisely, let us chech that we can take f = (x1 + · · · + xr )2 .
We assume that r is odd, say, r = 2q + 1. Analogous argument works for r even. Set
S := {x21 , x22 , · · · , x2r , (xi1 − xi2 )(xi3 − xi4 ) · · · · · (xir−2 − xir−1 )}
where 1 ≤ ij ≤ r and ij 6= is . By Proposition 3.2, S is part of a system (not necessarily minimal)
of generators of Ann(g). Therefore, it is enough to prove:
i) For all h ∈ S, h · (x1 + · · · + xr )2 ∈ a.

HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

9

(ii) If f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xr ]2 and h · f ∈ a for all h ∈ S then f ∈ (x21 , x22 , . . . , x2r , (x1 + · · · + xr )2 ).
Let us prove (i). By symmetry we only have to check that (x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) ·
P
(x1 + · · · + xr )2 ∈ a or, equivalently, (x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · ( 1≤i1 <i2 ≤r xi1 xi2 ) ∈ a.
We proceed by induction on q. For q = 1 we have (x1 − x2 )(x1 x2 + x1 x3 + x2 x3 ) = x21 (x2 + x3 ) −
x22 (x1 + x3 ) ∈ a. Assume q ≥ 2. By hypothesis of induction, it holds
X
(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · (
xi1 xi2 ) ∈ (x23 , . . . , x2r ).
3≤i1 <i2 ≤r

Therefore, we have
P
(x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · ( 1≤i1 <i2 ≤r xi1 xi2 ) = ( mod. a)
(x1 − x2 )(x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · (x1 (x2 + · · · + xr ) + x2 (x3 + . . . xr )) = ( mod. a)
x1 (x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · (x2 (x3 + . . . xr ))
−x2 (x3 − x4 ) · · · · · (xr−2 − xr−1 ) · (x1 (x2 + · · · + xr )) = ( mod. a)
0
( mod. a).
P
To prove (ii) we will check that if f ∈
/ (x21 , . . . , x2r , (x1 +· · ·+xr )2 ) = (x21 , . . . , x2r , 1≤i1 <i2 ≤r xi1 xi2 )
then ∃h ∈ S such that f · h ∈
/ a. Reordering the variables, if necessary, any form of degree two
P
f∈
/ (x21 , . . . , x2r , 1≤i1 <i2 ≤r xi1 xi2 ) can be written as
X

f = a1 x21 + · · · + ar x2r + a(

1≤i1 <i2 ≤r

x i1 x i2 ) +

X

bi 1 i 2 x i 1 x i 2

1≤i1 <i2 ≤r

with b12 = 0 and b13 6= 0 or b12 = · · · = b1r = 0 and b23 6= 0. If b12 = 0 and b13 6= 0, then
X

(x2 −x3 )(x4 −x5 )·· · ··(xr−1 −xr )·(

bi1 i2 xi1 xi2 ) = b13 x1 x2 x3

q
Y

x2j +( other monomials ) ∈
/ a,

j=2

1≤i1 <i2 ≤r

and, if b12 = · · · = b1r = 0 and b23 6= 0, then
(x1 −x2 )(x3 −x4 )·· · ··(xr−2 −xr−1 )·(

X

1≤i1 <i2 ≤r

bi1 i2 xi1 xi2 ) = b13 x1 x2 x3

q
Y

x2j +( other monomials ) ∈
/ a.

j=2


Lemma 3.5. Set A = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/(x21 , . . . , x2r , ℓ2 ), B = K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/(ℓ21 , . . . , ℓ2r , ℓ2r+1 ) and C =
K[x1 , . . . , xr ]/(q1 , . . . , qr , qr+1 ) where ℓ and ℓi are general linear forms and qj are general forms of
degree 2. Then
HA (t) = HB (t) = HC (t) for all t ∈ Z.
Proof. By semicontinuity we have
(3.1)

HA (t) ≤ HB (t) ≤ HC (t) for all t ∈ Z.

10

R. M. MIRÓ-ROIG

By Proposition 3.4(2), if r = 2q + 1 we have



0 
r
r 
HA (t) =
t − t−2



 r
r
q − q−1

if t < 0 or t > q + 1,
if 0 ≤ t ≤ q,
if t = q + 1

and, if r = 2q, we have

HA (t) =


0


r
t

if t < 0 or t > q
−

r 
t−2

if 0 ≤ t ≤ q.

By Proposition 2.6, J = (q1 , . . . , qr ) has the SLP. Hence, we have
HC (t) = max{HK[x1,...,xr ]/J (t) − HK[x1,...,xr ]/J (t − 2), 0} = HA (t)
and we conclude HC (t) = HA (t) for all t ∈ Z. Therefore, using the inequalities (3.1), we get
HA (t) = HB (t) = HC (t) for all t ∈ Z which proves what we want.

We are now ready to prove the main result of this paper.
Proof of Theorem 2.12 (1) For 2 ≤ r ≤ 5 or r = 7 we can use Macaulay2 to check that A has the
WLP.
(2) For r even the reader can see [5], Theorem 6.1. Let us assume r = 2q + 1, q ≥ 4. Set
I = (ℓ21 , . . . , ℓ2r+1 ) ⊂ R := K[x1 , . . . , xr ] where ℓi are general linear forms. We consider the exact
sequence :
×ℓ

0 −→ [I : ℓ]/I −→ R/I −→ R/I(1) −→ R/(I, ℓ)(1) −→ 0
where ℓ is a general linear form. The multiplication by ℓ will fail to have maximal rank from degree
i − 1 to degree i exactly when
(3.2)

dimK [R/(I, ℓ)]i 6= max{dimK [R/I]i − dimK [R/I]i−1 , 0}.

By Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 3.4 we have

 


 

2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
dimK (R/I)q =
−
and dimK (R/I)q−1 =
−
.
q
q−2
q−1
q−3
Since dimK [R/I]q > dimK [R/I]q−1 , to prove that R/I fails WLP it will be enough to check that
dimK [R/I]q < dimK [R/(I, ℓ)]q + dimK [R/I]q−1 .
By [9], Corollaries 7.3 and 7.4, we have dimK [R/(I, ℓ)]q = 2q . Therefore, we have to prove
dimK [R/I]q < 2q + dimK [R/I]q−1 .
 n+1−k n 
 n−2k n

n
− n−1
Let us prove it. Since n−1
n
k and k =
k
k−1 , we obtain
k−1 =
k

 


 

2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
q
q
dimK [(R/I)]q =
−
< 2 + dimK [(R/I)]q−1 = 2 +
−
q
q−2
q−1
q−3
if and only if

 


 

2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
2q + 1
−
< 2q +
−
q
q−1
q−2
q−3

HARBOURNE, SCHENCK AND SECELEANU’S CONJECTURE

11

if and only if





2q + 2
3
2q + 2
1
q
<2 +
q−2 q+1
q+1
q

if and only if






2q + 2
2q + 2
2q + 2
(q − 1)q
1
1
[
].
−3
[1 − 3
=
2 >
q+1
q+1
(q + 4)(q + 3)
q
q
q−2
q

We easily check that the last equality is true for q = 4 or 5 and it is obviously true for q ≥ 6 since
we have
(q − 1)q
−2q 2 + 10q + 12
−2(q − 6)(q + 1)
1−3
=
=
≤ 0.
(q + 4)(q + 3)
(q + 4)(q + 3)
(q + 4)(q + 3)

It is worthwhile to point out that if instead of considering an almost complete intersection ideal
I = (ℓ21 , . . . , ℓ28 ) ⊂ R := K[x1 , . . . , x7 ] generated by the square of general linear forms ℓi , we take an
almost complete intersection ideal J = (q1 , . . . , q8 ) generated by general quadrics then J do have
the WLP. We observe that I and J have the same Hilbert function but the WLP behaviour is very
different. This example illustrates how subtle the WLP is since a minuscule change in the ideal
can affect the WLP.
References
[1] F. Ardila and A. Postnikov, Combinatorics and geometry of power ideals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010),
4357–4384.
[2] B. Harbourne, H. Schenck and A. Seceleanu, Inverse systems, Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns and the Weak Lefschetz
Property, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 84 (2011), no. 3, 712-730.
[3] T. Harima, J. Migliore, U. Nagel, and J. Watanabe, The Weak and Strong Lefschetz Properties for artinian
K-Algebras, J. Algebra 262 (2003), 99–126.
[4] A. Iarrobino, V. Kanev, “Power sums, Gorenstein algebras, and determinantal loci,” Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1721, Springer-Verlag, 1999.
[5] J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig and U. Nagel, On the Weak Lefschetz Property for Powers of Linear Forms, Alg.
and Number Theory 6 (2012), 488–526.
[6] J. Migliore, R.M. Miró-Roig and U. Nagel, Minimal resolution of Relatively Compressed Level Algebras, J. Alg.
284 (2005), 333–370.
[7] H. Schenck and A. Seceleanu, The Weak Lefschetz Property and powers of linear forms in K[x, y, z], Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), 2335–2339.
[8] R. Stanley, Weyl groups, the hard Lefschetz theorem, and the Sperner property, SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete
Methods 1 (1980), 168–184.
[9] B. Sturmfels and Z. Xu, Sagbi bases of Cox-Nagata rings, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 12 (2010), 429–459.
[10] J. Watanabe, The Dilworth number of Artinian rings and finite posets with rank function, Commutative Algebra
and Combinatorics, Advanced Studies in Pure Math. Vol. 11, Kinokuniya Co. North Holland, Amsterdam
(1987), 303–312.
Facultat de Matemàtiques, Department d’Àlgebra i Geometria, Gran Via des les Corts Catalanes
585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain
E-mail address: miro@ub.edu

