ON THE REES, DILWORTH AND MATSUMURA NUMBER
MOHSEN ASGHARZADEH

arXiv:1712.03828v2 [math.AC] 24 Jan 2018

A BSTRACT. We deal with some questions posted by Matsumura and Watanabe about the Rees and Dilworth
number, and their higher-dimensional versions.

1. I NTRODUCTION
Rings with uniform bound on the minimal number of generators of their ideals are so special. Sally
proved that they are rings of Krull dimension at most one (see [15]). Here, ℓ(−) is the length function and
µ(−) stands for the minimal number of generators. Let ( R, m) be of Krull dimension at most one. Then
µ(a) ≤ ℓ( R/xR) for any ideal a and for any element x ∈ m. In particular, r( R) := inf{ℓ( R/xR) : x ∈ m}
is an upper bound for d( R) := sup{µ(a) : a ⊂ m}. These numbers were introduced by J. Watanabe in
the zero dimensional case and by Matsumura in the 1-dimensional case. They called them the Rees and
the Dilworth number, respectively. In particular, d( R) ≤ r( R) (also see [18]). The local ring ( R, m) is
called exact if d( R) = r( R). This word was coined by Matsumura, but after that no one has used this
word. This sometimes is called the maximum-minimum property, see e.g. [10]. In [12, Question A],
Matsumura asked the following question:
Question 1.1. Are zero-dimensional complete-intersections exact?
By using a high-school computation (and also by a modern argument) we present a non-exact local
complete-intersection ring over F2 . Section 3 deals with the following question of Watanabe:
Question 1.2. Can one construct an example of an artinian Gorenstein local ring, which is not exact over
a field of characteristic zero?
By m( R) we mean inf{ℓ( R/xR) : x is a parameter sequence } and we call it the Matsumura number. In
[12, Question C], Matsumura asked:
Question 1.3. i) Is m( R) an interesting integer?
ii) Is there any higher dimensional generalization of the exactness?
In §4 we present some basic properties of m( R). Then we apply an idea taken from Gunston’s thesis,
to introduce a new family of noetherian local rings which we call them homologically exact with the
property that they are the same as of the exact rings provided they are 1-dimensional. The class of
homologically exact rings contains the class of Buchsbaum rings. This drops a dimension-restriction
from a result of Ikeda.
In the sequel all rings are commutative, noetherian and local. The symbol m stands for the maximal
ideal. The modules are finitely generated, otherwise specializes. The Matsumura’s beautiful book [13]
is our reference book.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13H10; 13E15.
Key words and phrases. homologically exact; Rees and Dilworth number; complete-intersection; Gorenstein rings.

1

2

2. A

COMPLETE - INTERSECTION RING WHICH IS NOT EXACT

In this section R is the ring F2 [ X, Y, Z ]/( X 2 , Y 2 , Z2 ). The ring R =

L3

i =0

Ri is both graded and local.

In particular, any element a of R is of the form a = a0 + a1 + a2 + a3 where ai ∈ Ri .
Lemma 2.1. Let a ∈ R2 + R3 and 0 6= b ∈ R1 . Then (0 : R a + b) " m2 .
Proof. We bring the following claim:
Claim A) Let r ∈ R be such that r0 = 0. Then r2 = 0. Indeed, ( R2 )2 = ( R3 )2 = 0. It remains to assume
that r is homogeneous and is of degree one. The claim is clear from the above table.
Suppose on the contradiction that (0 : R a + b) ⊆ m2 . From Claim A), one has ( a + b)2 = 0. Thus,
a + b ∈ (0 : R a + b) ⊆ m2 . Since a ∈ R2 we have b ∈ m2 , a contradiction.



The following easy (but important) fact plays an essential role in this paper:
Fact 2.2. (Watanabe, Matsumura, Ikeda; see [12, Theorem 2]) Let ( A, m) be a local Noetherian ring, let
M be a finitely generated A-module with dim M ≤ 1, let N ⊂ M and a ∈ m. Then µ( N ) ≤ ℓ( M/aM ).
Furthermore, µ( N ) = ℓ( M/aM ) if and only if the following claims hold:
a) ℓ( M/aM ) < ∞, and dim( M/N ) = 0.
b) (0 : M a) ⊂ N, and mN = aN.
Example 2.3. One has r( R) = 4.
Proof. In the light of [10, Example 1.4] we observe that d( R) = 3*. Recall that d( R) ≤ r( R). Hence,
r( R) ≥ 3. Since ℓ( R/xR) = 4, it is enough to show that inf{ℓ( R/aR) : a ∈ m} 6= 3. Recall that
µ(m2 ) = d( R). We apply Fact 2.2 for N := m2 and M := R. We are going to show that (0 : r ) " m2 for
all r ∈ m. We may assume that r 6= 0 and that r0 = 0. Suppose first that r is homogeneous. To this end,
we bring 3 claims according to deg( a).
Claim A) Let r ∈ R1 . Then (0 : R r ) * m2 .
Indeed, due to Claim A) from Lemma 2.1, r2 = 0. So, r ∈ (0 : R r ) \ m2 .
Claim B) Let r ∈ R2 . Then (0 : R r ) * m2 . Indeed, suppose r := xy + yz + zx. Then

( x + y)r = x2 y + xyz + zx2 + xy2 + y2 z + xzy = 2xyz = 0.
So, ( x + y) ∈ (0 : R r ) * m2 . Suppose r := xy + yz. Then yr = 0. So, y ∈ (0 : R r ) * m2 . By the
symmetric, the same claim hold for both of xy + xz, and yz + xz. Suppose r := xy. Then yr = 0.
So, y ∈ (0 : R r ) * m2 . By the symmetric, the same claim hold for both of xy, and xz. Thus, the
desired claim checked for all elements of R2 .
Claim C) Let r ∈ R3 . Then (0 : R r ) * m2 .
Indeed, we have Ri = 0 for all i > 3. Thus R1 r = 0. So, R1 ⊂ (0 : R r ) * m2 .
Thus, the proof in the homogenous case follows. Write r = r1 + r2 + r3 . In view of Lemma 2.1, we
can assume that r1 = 0, i.e., r = r2 + r3 . Since r is not homogeneous, r2 and r3 are nonzero. By the
proof of Claim B) there is non-zero b ∈ R1 such that r2 b = 0. Recall that R1 R3 = 0, because Ri = 0
for all i > 3. In particular, bR3 = 0. So, b ∈ (0 : r2 + r3 ). Combine this along with b ∈
/ m2 to get that

( 0 : r 2 + r 3 ) " m2 .
Corollary 2.4. The ring R is a zero-dimensional local complete-intersection ring which is not exact.
*One may prove this by hand as a high school exercise (this is tedious at least for me).



3

One can prove r( R) ≥ 4 by using the machinery of Lefschetz properties. Let us recall the following
comment of Watanabe:
Discussion 2.5. Let ( A, m) be a graded artinian algebra over a field K.
i) Recall that A has the weak Lefschetz property if there is an element ℓ of degree 1 such that the
multiplication ℓ : Ai → Ai+1 has maximal rank, for every i.
ii) The Hilbert function (h0 , . . . , h c ) is said to be unimodal if the there exists j such that
h 0 ≤ h 1 ≤ h i ≤ . . . ≤ h j ≥ h j +1 ≥ . . . ≥ h c −1 ≥ h c
iii) (See [8, Proposition 3.5]) Suppose A has unimodal Hilbert function, and let ℓ ∈ A1 . Then

ℓ is a weak Lefschetz element for A ⇐⇒ sup{dim Ai } = ℓ( A/ℓ A).
iv) Due to [10, Lemma 2.2], we have r( A) = inf{ℓ( A/r ) : r ∈ A1 }.
v) (See [9, Theorem 13]) Set A :=

K [ X1 ,...,Xn ]
d

( X1 1 ,...,Xnd n )

. Then the maximum and the minimum of { I ✁

A|µ( I ) = d( A)} are powers of the maximal ideal. In particular, sup{µ(mi )} = d( A).
vi) It may be sup{µ(mi )} 6= d( A) (see [10, Example 4.4]).
Now, we are ready to present a modern proof of Corollary 2.4:
Second proof of Corollary 2.4. One has r( R) ≥ 4: Indeed, one can check easily that R has no Lefschetz
element (see e.g. [7, Remark 2.9]). The Hilbert function of R is unimodal. In view of Discussion 2.5(iii)
sup{dim Ri } 6= inf{ℓ( R/ℓ R) : ℓ ∈ R1 }. By Discussion 2.5(iv) r( R) = inf{ℓ( R/rR) : r ∈ R1 }. In the
light of Discussion 2.5(v) we see d( R) = sup{dim Ri }. Also, d( R) ≤ r( R). Putt all of these together to
observe r( R) > sup{dim Ri } = 3.
3. D EALING

WITH

Q UESTION 1.2

Lemma 3.1. Let R be an artinian local ring such that ℓ( R) ≤ µ(m) + 2. Then R is exact.
Proof. The case ℓ( R) = µ(m) never happens, because µ(m) = ℓ(m/m2 ) < ℓ( R). Suppose first that

ℓ( R) = µ(m) + 1. Let x ∈ m be nonzero. Then
µ(m) ≤ sup{µ(a)} = d( R) ≤ r( R) = inf{ℓ( R/rR)} ≤ ℓ( R/xR) ≤ ℓ( R) − 1 = µ(m).
Therefore, d( R) = r( R) = µ(m). So, R is exact.
Now, we deal with ℓ( R) = µ(m) + 2. Since µ(m) = ℓ(m/m2 ) we may assume that m2 6= 0. Let
x ∈ m \ m2 . There is an y ∈ m such that xy 6= 0. Indeed, if such a thing does not happen, then it yields
that m2 = 0 which is excluded. Clearly, ℓ( R/xR) < ℓ( R) = µ(m) + 2. We claim that ℓ( R/xR) = µ(m).
Indeed, recall that ℓ( R/xR) ≥ r( R) ≥ d( R) ≥ µ(m). If ℓ( R/xR) 6= µ(m), then ℓ( R/xR) = µ(m) + 1.
Also, ℓ( R/xyR) ≤ ℓ( R) − 1. Since R/xyR → R/xR → 0,
µ(m) + 1 = ℓ( R) − 1 ≥ ℓ( R/xyR) ≥ ℓ( R/xR) = µ(m) + 1.
So, ℓ( R/xyR) = ℓ( R/xR). Now, we look at the exact sequence
0 −→ xR/yxR −→ R/xyR −→ R/xR −→ 0.
Taking length, implies that xyR = xR. By Nakayama’s lemma, x = 0. This contradiction says that

ℓ( R/xR) = µ(m). By definition, R is exact.
Lemma 3.2. Let R be an artinian local ring such that m2 = 0. Then R is exact.



4

Proof. We may assume that m is nonzero. First note that µ(m) = ℓ(m/m2 ) = ℓ(m). In view of 0 → m →
R → R/m → 0 we get that µ(m) = ℓ(m) = ℓ( R) − 1. The claim is now clear from Lemma 3.1.



Proposition 3.3. Let R be an artinian Gorenstein local ring such that m3 = 0. Then R is exact.
Proof. By Lemma 3.2, we may assume that m2 is nonzero. Note that µ(m2 ) = ℓ(m2 /m3 ) = ℓ(m2 ). Since
R is Gorenstein its socle is one-dimensional. Due to m3 = 0, we have m2 ⊂ soc( R). Consequently,
1 ≤ ℓ(m2 ) ≤ ℓ(soc( R)) = 1. Thus, µ(m2 ) = ℓ(m2 ) = 1. In view of 0 → m2 → m → m/m2 → 0 we get
that µ(m) = ℓ(m) − ℓ(m2 ) = ℓ(m) − 1. Also, we apply the exact sequence 0 → m → R → R/m → 0 to
see ℓ(m) = ℓ( R) − 1. Therefore, µ(m) = ℓ(m) − 1 = ℓ( R) − 2. It remains to apply Lemma 3.1.



The Gorenstein assumption in the above proposition is important:
Example 3.4. Let R :=

C [ X,Y,Z,W ]
.
( X 2 ,Y2 ,Z2 ,W 2 ,XY,ZW )

In view of [12, Page 160] R is not exact. Let us present a proof:

By a result of Watanabe if a monomial algebra k[ x i ]/I were be exact then we should have (∑ xi )m = m2
(this criterion works only for monomial algebras, see Example 3.17). One has m2 = (wx, wy, xz, yz) and
m( x + y + z + w) = ( xz + xw, yz + yw, xz + yz, xw + yw). From this we see that
dimQ ( xz + xw, yz + yw, xz + yz, xw + yw)2 < 4 = dimQ (m2 )2 .
We apply Watanabe’s criterion to see R is not exact. Note that m3 is generated by degree three monomials
in { x, y, z, w}. They are zero by the relations x2 = y2 = z2 = w2 = xy = zw = 0. So, m3 = 0.
Notation 3.5. Let ( R, m, k) be a local artinian k-algebra. There is ℓ such that mℓ+1 = 0 and mℓ 6= 0. We set
i

hi := dimk ( mmi+1 ). By the Hilbert function of R we mean H( R) := (1, h1 , . . . , h ℓ ).
Fact 3.6. (Watanabe) Let ( R, m, k) be an artinian local ring. The following assertions hold.
i) If embdim( R) = 1, then R is exact.
ii) If embdim( R) = 2 and k is infinite, then d( R) = r( R).
iii) If r( R) ≤ 3 and k is infinite, then d( R) = r( R).
iv) One has r( R) ≤ r(grm ( R))
Proof. i) Let x be such that m = ( x ). Then µ(m) = ℓ( R/xR). Thus, d( R) = r( R) = 1.
ii) This is in [10, Theorem 4.2].
iii) If d( R) ≤ 2, by ii) we get the claim. We may assume that d( R) = 3. Recall that d( R) ≤ r( R). So,
d( R) = r( R) = 3.
iv) This is in [21, Proposition 2].



Following Sally [16], a local artinian ring is said to be stretched if m2 is a principal ideal.
Proposition 3.7. Any stretched Gorenstein algebra is exact.
Proof. We are going to use the associated graded ring grm ( R). This is a graded ring and is of zero
dimension (see [13, Theorem 13.9]). Keep the notation be as of Notation 3.5. By Macaulay’s theorem
hi = 1 for all 2 ≤ i ≤ ℓ (Sally [16, Theorem 1.1(ii)] proved this without any use of Macaulay’s theorem).
Thus, H( R) = (1, n, 1, . . . , 1). Any nonzero map from (resp. to) a 1-dimensional vector space is injective
(resp. surjective). Conclude by this that grm ( R) has a weak Lefschtez element. In the light of Discussion
2.5, r(grm ( R)) = n. By Fact 3.6(iv), r( R) ≤ r(grm ( R)). Therefore,
n = µ(m) ≤ d( R) ≤ r( R) ≤ r(grm ( R)) = n.
So, R is exact.



5

Proposition 3.8. Any almost stretched Gorenstein algebra ( A, m) over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 is exact.
Proof. Due to Fact 3.6 we may assume that n := embdim( A) ≥ 3. Let us clarify the assumption: There
is a regular local ring ( R, n) such that A = R/I. By the almost stretched we mean that µ(m2 ) = 2. Then
H A (i ) = 2 for 2 ≤ i ≤ t and H A (i ) = 1 for all t + 1 ≤ i ≤ s. We recall the following classification result
of Elias and Valla (see [3, Theorem 4.1]): There is a basis Y1 , . . . , Yn of n and b ∈ R such that I is generated
by the following four classes of functions:
i) Yi Yj with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n and (i, j) 6= (1, 2),
ii) Yj2 − d j Y1s with 3 ≤ j ≤ n,
iii) Y22 − bY1 Y2 − cY1s−t+1,
iv) Y1t Y 2 ,
where {d j , c} are invertible. Note that m2 = (yi y j )i,j . From the first three relations we see that m2 =

(y21 , y1 y2 ). Let ξ := y1 + y3 . Then y1 ξ = y21 and y2 ξ = y1 y2 . Thus, mξ = m2 . Clearly, (0 : ξ ) ⊂ m. In the
light of Fact 2.2, ℓ( A/ξ A) = µ(m) = n. Therefore, n ≤ d( A) ≤ r( A) ≤ n, which is what we want to
prove.

Corollary 3.9. Let ( R, m, k) be a Gorenstein artinian local k-algebra, where k = k is of zero-characteristic. If

ℓ( R) ≤ 7, then R is exact.
Proof. First, assume that ℓ( R) = 6. In this case µ(m) ≤ 3 (see Lemma 3.1). The case µ(m) ≤ 2 is in Fact
3.6. Then µ(m) = ℓ(m/m2 ) = 3. In view of 0 → m2 → m → m/m2 → 0, we observe

ℓ(m2 ) = ℓ(m) − 3 = 5 − 3 = 2.
Either µ(m2 ) = 1 or µ(m2 ) = 2. Since R is Gorenstein, (1, 3, 2) is not admissible. Conclude by this that
H( R) = (1, 3, 1, 1), i.e., R is stretched. So, R is exact. Without loss of the generality we can assume that

ℓ( R) = 7. In view of Proposition 3.3 we may and do assume that m3 6= 0. Also, in the light of Lemma
3.1 we may assume that µ(m) ≤ 4. There are the following two possibilities:
i) One has µ(m) = 4 (in this case the claim holds without Gorenstein assumption). Indeed, there
are x, y and z in m such that xyz 6= 0. Note that ℓ( R/( xyz)) ≤ 6. By Nakayama, xyR/xyzR 6= 0.
Since 0 → xyR/xyzR → R/xyzR → R/xyR → 0, we have ℓ( R/( xy)) < ℓ( R/( xyz)) ≤ 6.
Similarly,

ℓ( R/( x )) < ℓ( R/( xy)) < ℓ( R/( xyz)) ≤ 6.
Hence, ℓ( R/( x )) ≤ 4. Recall that 4 ≤ µ(m) ≤ ℓ( R/( x )) ≤ 4, i.e., R is exact.
ii) One has µ(m) ≤ 3. Indeed, by Fact 3.6 µ(m) = 3. Suppose that H( R) := (1, 3, 1, 1, 1). Let us
check this case directly. Let x, y, z, w be such that xyzw 6= 0 (note that m4 6= 0). We deduce from

ℓ( R/( x )) < ℓ( R/( xy)) < ℓ( R/( xyz)) < ℓ( R/( xyzw)) ≤ 6
that ℓ( R/( x )) ≤ 3. Recall that 3 ≤ µ(m) ≤ ℓ( R/( x )) ≤ 3. Therefore, R is exact. By Macaulay’s
theorem, (1, 3, 1, 2) is not admissible. The only remaining case is H( R) = (1, 3, 2, 1). By definition, R is almost stretched. So, R is exact.


Remark 3.10. Recall that (1, 3, 1, 2) is not admissible. Here, we derive it as an application of the theory
of exact rings. Suppose it is an O-sequence of a ring R. Let A := grm ( R) and let x ∈ A1 be such that

6

xA2 6= 0. We can pick this, because A3 6= 0. Note that xA = xA0

L

xA1

L

xA2 . Clearly, dimk ( xA0 ) = 1.

We see 0 6= xA1 ⊂ A2 . Combine this along with dimk ( A2 ) = 1 to observe that dimk ( xA1 ) = 1. Since
0 6= xA2 ⊂ A3 and that dimk ( A2 ) = 1 we get that dimk ( xA2 ) = 1. We apply these to conclude that
dimk ( xA) = ∑2i=0 dimk ( xAi ) = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. We look at the exact sequence 0 → xA → A → A/xA →
0 to deduce ℓ( A/xA) = ℓ( A) − ℓ( xA) = 7 − 3 = 4. This proof shows that x is a weak Lefschetz element.
By Discussion 2.5 ℓ( A/xA) = sup{µ( Ai )} = 3. This contradiction says that (1, 3, 1, 2) is not admissible.
The ring presented in §2 was of length 8. Despite of this we have:
Corollary 3.11. Let ( R, m, k) be a Gorenstein artinian local k-algebra, where k = k is of zero-characteristic. If

ℓ( R) = 8, then R is exact.
Proof. By Fact 3.6 we may assume µ(m) > 2. In view of Proposition 3.3 we can assume that m3 6= 0.
Also, in the light of Lemma 3.1 we may assume that µ(m) ≤ 5. Since R is Gorenstein, the final coordinate
of its Hilbert function is one. The following are the possible shape of Hilbert functions:

{(1, 6, 1), (1, 5, 1, 1), (1, 4, 2, 1), (1, 4, 1, 1, 1), (1, 3, 2, 1, 1), (1, 3, 3, 1), (1, 2, . . ., 1)}.
The stretched and almost stretched cases were handled in Proposition 3.7 and 3.8. Then we may assume
that H( R) = (1, 3, 3, 1). We are going to apply the associated graded ring grm ( R). This is a graded ring
with Hilbert function (1, 3, 3, 1). Watanabe proved that if the Hilbert function of a local ring is symmetric
then the associated graded ring grm (−) is Gorenstein (see [21, Proposition 9]). The assumptions imply
that grm ( R) ≃ k[ x, y, z]/I where I is Gorenstein, graded and of height three. Since h3 (k[ x, y, z]/I ) = 1,
grm ( R) has weak Lefschetz property (see [14, Corollary 3.7]). Combine this along with Discussion 2.5(iii)
to observe that
r(grm ( R)) = D (grm ( R)) = sup{hi (grm ( R))} = 3.
We apply Fact 3.6(iv) to deduce r( R) ≤ r(grm ( R)) = 3. Recall that
3 = µ(m) ≤ d( R) ≤ r( R) ≤ 3.
So, d( R) = r( R). The proof is now complete.



The non-exact ring presented in Example 3.4 is of length 9 and it contains C (it is not Gorenstein).
Despite of this, there is a complete list of artinian Gorenstein k-algebra of length 9. The possible Hilbert
functions are

{(1, 2, . . . , 1), (1, 3, 2, 2, 1), (1, 3, 3, 1, 1), (1, 4, 3, 1), (1, 4, 2, 1, 1), (1, 5, 2, 1), (1, 5, 1, 1, 1), (1, 6, 1, 1), (1, 7, 1)}.
The cases m2 = 0, stretched, and almost stretched are exact. Thus, the only nontrivial cases are

(1, 3, 3, 1, 1) and (1, 4, 3, 1).
Fact 3.12. (See [2, §2]) Let ( R, m, k) be a Gorenstein artinian local k-algebra, where k is of zerocharacteristic. If H( R) = (1, 3, 3, 1, 1), then R :=
i) ( x1 x2 + x32 , x1 x3 , x22 − tx32 − x1ℓ )
ii) ( x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x2 x3 , x23 − x1ℓ , x33 − x1ℓ )
iii) ( x1 x2 , x2 x3 , x12 , x1 x32 − x2ℓ , x33 − x2ℓ )
iv) ( x1 x2 , x2 x3 , x12 − x3ℓ−1 , x1 x32 , x23 − x3ℓ )

v) ( x1 x2 − x3ℓ−1 , 2x1 x3 + x22 , x12 , x1 x32 , x2 x32 )

vi) ( x1 x2 , x12 − x3ℓ−1 , x22 − x3ℓ−1 , x1 x32 , x2 x32 ).

k [ x, x2 ,x3 ]
I

where I is of the form:

7

Example 3.13. Let R :=

k [ x, x2 ,x3 ]
.
( x1 x2 ,x2 x3 ,x12 ,x1 x32 − x2ℓ ,x33 − x2ℓ )

Then R is exact.

Proof. It is easy to see that m2 = ( x22 , x32 , x1 x3 ). Set ξ := x1 + x2 + x3 . Then
mξ = ( x1 ξ, x2 ξ, x3 ξ ) = ( x1 x3 , x22 , x3 x1 + x32 ) = ( x22 , x32 , x1 x3 ) = m2 .
In view of Fact 2.2, R is exact.



Fact 3.14. (See [2, §5]) Let ( R, m, k) be a Gorenstein artinian local k-algebra, where k is of zerok [ x x ,x ,x ]

characteristic. If H( R) = (1, 4, 3, 1), then R := , 2I 3 4 where I is of the form:


i) x1 x2 + x32 , x1 x3 , x22 − ax32 − x1ℓ−1 , xi x4 , x42 − x13
for some a ∈ k,
i <4

2
2
2
2
ii) x1 , x2 , x3 + 2x1 x2 , xi x4 , x4 − x1 x2 x3 i<4

iii) x12 , x22 , x32 , xi x4 , x42 − x1 x2 x3 i<4

iv) x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x2 x3 , x23 − x13 , x33 − x13 , xi x4 , x42 − x13 i<4

v) x12 , x1 x2 , x2 x3 , x23 − x33 , x1 x32 − x33 , x i x4 , x42 − x33 i<4

vi) x12 , x1 x2 , 2x1 x3 + x22 , x33 , x2 x32 , xi x4 , x42 − x1 x32 i<4 .
Example 3.15. Let R :=

k [ x, x2 ,x3 ,x4 ]
.
( x12 ,x22 ,x32 ,x i x4 ,x42 − x1 x2 x3 )

Then R is exact provided char(k) 6= 2.

Proof. It is easy to see that m2 = ( x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x2 x3 ). Set ξ := x1 + x2 + x3 . Then mξ := ( x1 x2 +
x1 x3 , x1 x2 + x2 x3 , x1 x3 + x2 x3 ). Since char(k) 6= 2,
x1 x2 =

1
1
1
( x1 x2 + x1 x3 ) + ( x1 x2 + x2 x3 ) − ( x1 x3 + x2 x3 ).
2
2
2

Thus, x1 x2 ∈ mξ. Therefore, mξ = ( x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x2 x3 ) = m2 .* In view of Fact 2.2, R is exact.



Here, we study exactness of Gorenstein rings with m4 = 0 in some examples:
Example 3.16. Let A := Q [u, v, x, y, z] and let I :=
Then R := A/I is an exact Gorenstein ring.




f ∈ A| f (∂u , ∂v , ∂ x , ∂y , ∂z (u2 x + uvy + v2 z) = 0}.

Proof. By a result of Watanabe the Hilbert series of R is 1 + 5t + 5t2 + 1. Note that

(2∂u ∂y − ∂v ∂z )(u2 x + uvy + v2 z) = 0.
Also, (∂u ∂ x − 2∂v ∂y )(u2 x + uvy + v2 z) = 0. These mean that 2uy − vz ∈ I and ux − 2vy ∈ I. Let
J := hz2 , yz, xz, uz, y2, xy, 2uy − vz, x2 , vx, ux − 2vy, v3, uv2 , u2 v, u3 i.
It is easy to see that J ⊂ I and that the Hilbert series of A/J is 1 + 5t + 5t2 + 1. We look at the exact
sequence of graded modules 0 → I/J → A/J → R → 0. By using the additivity of Hilbert function,
I/J = 0. In particular, J = I and that R is local. Let a := ( x, y, z, uv, u2, v2 ). Then (0 : R u) ⊂ a and
ma = ua. In the light of Fact 2.2, µ(a) = ℓ( R/uR). Therefore, d( R) = r( R) = 6.



Example 3.17. Let A := k[ X1 , . . . , X5 ] be the polynomial ring over any field k of zero-characteristic. Let I
be the ideal generated by the following quadric relations:
∆ := { X1 X3 + X2 X3 , X1 X4 + X2 X4 , X32 + X1 X5 − X2 X5 , X42 + X1 X5 − X2 X5 , X12 , X22 , X3 X4 , X3 X5 , X4 X5 , X52 }.
Let R := A/I. The ring R is Gorenstein and m4 = 0. The following holds:
*If char( k) = 2, then mξ $ m2 . Indeed, x x + x x = ( x x + x x ) + ( x x + x x ). Therefore, dim (mξ ) < 3 = dim (m2 ) .
2 3
2 3
2
2
1 2
1 3
1 2
1 3
k
k

From this mξ $ m2 .

8

i) One has ℓ( R/ ∑5i=1 xi ) 6= inf{ℓ( R/rR)}.
ii) The ring R is exact. In fact, there are infinitely many r such that ℓ( R/rR) = r( R) = d( R) = 5.
Proof. In view of [4], R is a local Gorenstein ring with Hilbert series H(t) = 1 + 5t + 5t2 + t3 . Hence
m4 = 0. Also, as a k-vector space, it has a basis consisting of
Γ := {1, x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x1 x5 , x2 x5 , x1 x2 x5 }.
The relations x32 + x1 x5 − x2 x5 = x42 + x1 x5 − x2 x5 = 0 implies that x32 = x42 and x42 + x1 x5 = x2 x5 . Let
ξ := x1 + Ax2 + Bx3 + Cx4 + Dx5 ∈ R1
be an element. We are going to force conditions for which mξ = m2 . Let us compute xi ξ :
1) x1 ξ = Ax1 x2 + Bx1 x3 + Cx1 x4 + Dx1 x5 ,
2) x2 ξ = x1 x2 + Bx2 x3 + Cx2 x4 + Dx2 x5 = x1 x2 − Bx1 x3 − Cx1 x4 + Dx1 x5 + Dx32,
3) x3 ξ = x3 x1 + Ax2 x3 + Bx32 = (1 − A) x3 x1 + Bx32 ,
4) x4 ξ = x4 x1 + Ax2 x4 + Cx42 = (1 − A) x1 x4 + Cx32 ,
5) x5 ξ = x5 x1 + Ax2 x5 = ( A + 1) x1 x5 + Ax32 .
We now are ready to prove the desired claims:
i) Let A = B = C = D = 1. We have m ∑5i=1 xi 6= m2 , because dimk (m ∑5i=1 xi )2 < 5 = dimk (m2 )2 .
ii) Let A := −1. We claim that mξ = m2 for any nonzero B, C and D. Indeed, from 5) we get that
x32 ∈ mξ. In view of 4) and 3) we see { x3 x1 , x1 x4 } ⊂ mξ. Look at
x1 ξ + x2 ξ = ( A + 1) x1 x2 + (2D ) x1 x5 + Dx32 = (2D ) x1 x5 + Dx32 .
Conclude by this that x1 x5 ∈ mξ. In the light of x32 + x1 x5 − x2 x5 = 0 we see x2 x5 ∈ mξ. Since
m2 = h x1 x2 , x3 x1 , x1 x4 , x2 x5 , x1 x5 i we have mξ = m2 . This says that ξ is a Lefschetz element.
The Hilbert function is unimodal. Combine these along with Discussion 2.5(iii) to conclude that
r( R) = 5. Recall that 5 ≤ d( R) ≤ r( R) = 5.
This is what we want to prove.


4. H IGHER

DIMENSIONAL EXACTNESS

Suppose R is homomorphic image of a Gorenstein ring A of same dimension as of R (e.g. R is complete). Let M be a finitely generated R-module of dimension d. If d = 0 set dh ( M ) := d( M ). Note
that dim(ExtdA−i ( M, A)) ≤ i. Inductively, define the homological Dilworth number of M by dh ( M ) :=
∑di=−01 (di −1 ) dh (ExtdA−i ( M, A)) + e( M ). This is independent of the choose of A (see [23, Proof of 3.9(a)]).

Fact 4.1. (Gunston [6]) Adopt the above notation. If dim R = 1, then d( R) = dh ( R).
b ).
Lemma 4.2. Adopt the above notation. Then dh ( M ) = dh ( M ⊗ R R
Proof. The proof is by induction on d := dim M. Since finite-length module are complete, we may
assume d > 0. This is well-known that e( M ) = e( M̂ ). Recall that R is homomorphic image of a
b) =
Gorenstein ring ( A, m A ) of same dimension as of R. Let i < d. By induction, dh (Extd−i ( M, A) ⊗ R R
A

dh (ExtdA−i ( M, A)). Note that m A -adic completion of a finitely generated R-module N is the same as of its
b≃
mR -adic completion, when we view N as an A-module via the map A → R. Then, Extd−i ( M, A) ⊗ R R
A

Extd−i ( M̂, Â). Therefore, dh (ExtdA−i ( M, A)) = dh (Extd−i ( M̂, Â)). By definition, dh ( M ) = dh ( M̂).
Â

Â



9

b ). By the above
If R is not homomorphic image of a Gorenstein ring, define dh ( M ) := dh ( M ⊗ R R
b
lemma, this is well-define. By a formal module we mean a finitely generated R-module.
Also, a formal

b ≃ M.
module M is called algebraic if there is a finitely generated R-module M such that M
b
Fact 4.3. i) Any finite length R-module
M is algebraic.
b ) < ∞. Then ℓ R ( M ) = ℓ b ( M
b ).
ii) Let M be an R-module such that ℓ R ( M
R

Proof. This follows by an easy induction and we left the routine details to the reader.



b be a full parameter ideal in a local ring R.
b Then there is a full parameter ideal I in R
Corollary 4.4. Let I ⊳ R
b
b
such that ℓ( R/I ) = ℓ( R/I). In particular, m( R) = m( R).

b ≃ R/
b I . We claim that M is
Proof. By Fact 4.3(i), there is a finitely generated R-module M such that M
F b
b →
cyclic. Indeed, we look at the following exact sequence of formal modules 0 → I → R
R/I → 0.
b R/
b I) ≃ HomR ( R, M ) ⊗ R
b there is an F ∈ Hom R ( R, M ) such that Fb = F . Due to
Since Hom Rb ( R,

faithfully flatness of completion, coker( F ) = 0, i.e., F is surjective. So M is cyclic. Put I := ker F ✁ R.
b → I . We apply 5-lemma to observe that b
There is a natural map I ⊗ R
I ≃ I . By Fact 4.3(ii), ℓ( R/I ) =
b I). Now, we show I is full parameter:
ℓ( R/
µ( I ) = dim R (
m

I
I
b ) = dim Rb ( I ) = µ(I).
) = dim(( ) ⊗ R
bI
mI
mI
m
b m

b ). Let I ✁ R be a parameter ideal. Then b
b is a parameter ideal.
This implies that m( R) ≤ m( R
I✁R
b ). So, m( R) = m( R
b ).
Conclude from this that m( R) ≥ m( R

Definition 4.5. Let R be any local ring. We say R is homologically exact if dh ( R) = m( R).
The following may answer Question 1.3(ii):
Proposition 4.6. Let R be a 1-dimensional local ring. Then R is exact if and only if R is homologically exact.
Proof. Note that ℓ( R/xR) is finite if and only if x is parameter. From this, m( R) = r( R). By Corollary 4.4,
b ). It follows from Lemma 4.2 that dh ( R) = dh ( R
b ). Hence, without loss of the generality,
m( R ) = m( R

we may assume that R is complete. By Fact 4.1 d( R) = dh ( R). It is now clear that R is exact if and only
if R is homologically exact.



Lemma 4.7. Let ( R, m, k) be a local ring and M a module such that mM = 0. Then M is exact.
Proof. The condition mM = 0 implies that M/xM = M for any x ∈ m. Hence, ℓ( M ) = r( M ). Also,
mM = 0 implies that any submodule N of M is a vector space. It turns out that dimk N = ℓ( N ) =

ℓ( N/mN ) = µ( N ). Thus, d( M ) = dimk M. So, d( M ) = dimk M = ℓ( M ) = r( M ).



Lemma 4.8. Let ( R, m) be a generalized Cohen-Macaulay ring of dimension d > 0 and that k is an infinite. The
following assertions hold:
i
i) One has m( R) ≤ e( R) + ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)).

i
ii) If R is Buchsbaum, then m( R) = e( R) + ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)).

Proof. i) For each parameter ideal q, set I (q) := ℓ( R/q) − e(q, R). Since R is generalized Coheni
Macaulay, I ( R) := sup{ I (q)} is finite. In fact, I ( R) = ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)). In view of [13, Theorem

10

14.14], m has a reduction q0 which is a parameter ideal. Due to [13, Theorem 14.13] e( R) = e(q0, R).
Putting all of these together, we have
m( R )

≤ ℓ( R/q0 )
= I ( q0 ) + e ( q0 , R )
= I ( q0 ) + e ( R )
≤ sup{ I (q)} + e( R)
i
= ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)) + e( R).

ii) Let q0 be a parameter sequence such that m( R) = ℓ( R/q0 ). The natural surjection R/q0n →
R/mn shows that ℓ( R/q0n ) ≥ ℓ( R/mn ). Consequently, e( R) ≤ e(q0 , R). Also, I (q0 ) = sup{ I (q) :
q is parameter}, because over Buchsbaum rings I (q) is independent of q. Putting these together,
m( R )

= ℓ( R/q0 )
= I ( q0 ) + e ( q0 , R )
≥ I ( q0 ) + e ( R )
= sup{ I (q)} + e( R)
i
= ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)) + e( R)

(i)

≥ m( R ) .

i
Thus, m( R) = ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)) + e( R).



The following is a higher-dimensional version of [11, Theorem 2.2]:
Proposition 4.9. Any Buchsbaum ring with infinite residue field is homologically exact.
Proof. In view of [19, Lemma 1.13] a ring is Buchsbaum if and only its m-adic completion is Buchsbaum.
b ). We may assume that R is complete. Let A be a Gorenstein ring of same
By Corollary 4.4 m( R) = m( R

i
dimension as of R that maps onto R. By Lemma 4.8 m( R) = ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)) + e( R). Since R is
i
i
i
i
Buchsbaum m Hm ( R) = 0 for al i < dim R. In view of Lemma 4.7 ℓ(Hm ( R)) = µ(Hm
( R)) = d(Hm
( R)).
i
i
i
Since dim(Hm
( R)) = 0, we have d(Hm
( R)) = dh (Hm
( R)). In view of [6, Corollary 4.2.3] Dilworth

number of a finite length module is stable under taking Matlis duality. In view of independence theorem
and local duality from Grothendieck’s local cohomology modules, we have:
m( R )

i
= ∑di=−01 (di −1 )ℓ(Hm
( R)) + e( R)
d −1 d −1
i
= ∑i=0 (i ) dh (Hm
( R)) + e( R)
d −1 d −1
i
= ∑i=0 (i ) dh (Hm A ( R)) + e( R)
i
= ∑di=−01 (di −1 ) dh (Hm
( R ) v ) + e( R )
A
= ∑di=−01 (di −1 ) dh (ExtdA−i ( R, A)) + e( R).

The last one is dh ( R). This completes the proof.



An example of homologically exact ring which is not Buchsbaum:
Example 4.10. Look at R :=

Q [[ x,y ]]
.
xm2

This is well known that e( R) = sup{µ(mn ) : n ≫ 0}. The set

{ x i y j : 0 < i + j = n} is a generator for mn . Due to x3 = x2 y = xy2 = 0 we observe that mn = yn R for all
n ≥ 3. From this, e( R) = 1. Also,
R/yR ≃

Q [[ x, y]]/( x 3 , x2 y, xy2 )
≃ Q [[ x, y]]/(y, x3, x2 y, xy2 ) ≃ Q [[ x, y]]/(y, x3 ).
(y, x3, x2 y, xy2 )/( x3 , x2 y, xy2 )

11

As a vector-space, the last one is Q ⊕ Qx ⊕ Qx2 . Thus, m( R) ≤ ℓ( R/yR) ≤ 3. Note that H0m ( R) = xR.
This is principal. But its submodule m H0m ( R) = ( x2 , xy) is not principal. Consequently, d(H0m ( R)) >
1. Recall from [11, Proposition 2.4] that d( R) = e( R) + d(H0m ( R)) and d( R) ≤ m( R). Putting these
together: 3 ≤ d( R) ≤ m( R) ≤ 3. Hence d( R) = m( R). Therefore, R is homologically exact. But R is not
Buchsbaum, because m H0m ( R) 6= 0.
Rings of Dilworth number 2 are so special:
Observation 4.11. (After Bass-Matlis) Let R be a 1-dimensional reduced ring and R′ be its normalization
such that µ R ( R′ ) < ∞. The following are equivalent: a) d( R) = 2, b) Any ring between R and R′ is
Gorenstein, c) Any ring between R and R′ is complete-intersection.
Proof. The equivalence a) ⇔ b) is in [1, §7]. Assume b). Let A be any ring between R and R′ . Any ring
between A and A′ = R′ is Gorenstein. By b) ⇔ a) we have d( A) = 2. Let m be any maximal ideal of
A. Then µ(mAm ) ≤ 2. Reduced rings satisfy in the Serre’s condition R(0). If µ(mAm ) ≤ 1 then Am is
regular. Without loss of the generality we may assume that µ(mAm ) = 2. Note Am is reduced. Thus,
dim Am 6= 0. In particular, Am is Cohen-Macaulay and that embdim( Am ) = dim Am + 1. In view of
[13, Ex. 21.2], Am is complete-intersection. In any cases c) follows. Clearly, c) implies b).



The reduced assumption is important:
Example 4.12. Look at R :=
ℓ( R/mn )( d −1) !
limn→∞
n d −1

Q [[ x,y ]]
.
( x 2 ,xy )

Then depth( R) = 0 and dim R = 1.

Note that e( R) =

= 1. One has rad(y) = ( x, y). Thus y is a parameter element. Also,

R/yR =

Q [[ x, y]]/( x 2 , xy)
≃ Q [[ x, y]]/( x2 , y) ≃vector −space Q ⊕ Qx.
( x2 , y)/( x2, xy)

Thus, ℓ( R/yR) ≤ 2. Hence, 1 ≤ m( R) ≤ 2. However, m( R) 6= 1 because R is not regular. Therefore,
m( R) = 2. On the other hand d( R) ≤ m( R) = 2 and that µ(m) = 2. So, d( R) = 2. But, R is not even
Cohen-Macaulay. So, the implication a) ⇒ b) in the above observation is not true without the reduced
assumption.
Recall that a system of parameters for a non-zero finitely generated R-module M is a sequence
x := x1 , . . . , x n where n := dim M such that M/xM is artinian. By m( M ) we mean inf{ℓ( M/xM ) :
x is a M-parameter sequence} and we call it Matsumura number of M. Also, M is called homologically
exact if m( M ) = dh ( M ).
Lemma 4.13. Let R be a local ring and M an module of dimension same as of dim R. Then M is maximal
Cohen-Macaulay if and only if e( M ) = dh ( M ).
Proof. We may assume R is complete. Let d := dim M = dim R. Suppose R is homomorphic image of a
Gorenstein ring A of same dimension as of R. First, assume that e( M ) = dh ( M ). Then ExtdA−i ( M, A) = 0
i
for all i < d. By local duality, Hm
( M ) = 0 for all i < d. By the independence theorem, depthR ( M ) = d.
A

So, M is maximal Cohen-Macaulay. Conversely, assume that M is maximal Cohen-Macaulay. Let x be a
parameter sequence for R. Let π : A → R be the surjection. There are yi such that π (y i ) = xi . Note that
rad(yi ) = m A . Hence, y := {yi } is a parameter sequence for A, because dim A = dim R. We view M
as an A-module via π. By this, y is M-sequence, i.e., M is maximal Cohen-Macaulay as an A-module.
Then ExtiA ( M, A) = 0 for all i > 0. By definition, e( M ) = dh ( M ).



12

The following is a higher-dimensional version of [11, Theorem 3.3]:
Proposition 4.14. Let ( R, m, k) be a local Cohen-Macaulay ring with infinite residue field and with a canonical
module ω R . Then
m ( ω R ) = dh ( ω R ) = e ( ω R ) = m ( R ) = d h ( R ) = e ( R ) .
Proof. Since ω R is maximal Cohen-Macaulay and by the above lemma, e(ω R ) = dh (ω R ). Let q be any
ωR
qn ω R

→ mωn ωR R shows that e(q, ω R ) ≥ e(ω R ) (∗).
Let x be a system of parameters. By a theorem of Serre, Σi>0 (−1)i+1ℓ(Hi ( x, ω R )) ≥ 0, i.e., e( x, ω R ) ≤
ℓ(ω R /xω R ). Let x0 be such that the inf in m(ω R ) happens. Thus,
m-primary ideal. Recall that the natural surjection

(∗)

m(ω R ) = ℓ(ω R /x0 ω R ) ≥ e( x 0 , ω R ) ≥ e(ω R ).
Since k is infinite, there is a reduction of m by a parameter sequence x (see [13, Theorem 14.14]). In
view of [13, Theorem 14.13], e(ω R ) = e( x, ω R ). Since x is ω R -sequence, Σi>0 (−1)i ℓ(Hi ( x, ω R )) = 0, i.e.,
e( x, ω R ) = ℓ(ω R /xω R ). Hence
e(ω R ) = e( x, ω R ) = ℓ(ω R /xω R ) ≥ m(ω R ).
Therefore, m(ω R ) = dh (ω R ) = e(ω R ). Similarly, m( R) = dh ( R) = e( R). If ω R has a rank then its rank is
one and so e(ω R ) = e( R). But ω R has a rank if and only if R is generically Gorenstein. Let us handle the
general case by the following trick of Ikeda. Let x be any parameter sequence. Then x is both R-regular
ωR
xω R

≃ ω R/xR . Recall that R := R/xR is zero-dimensional. In particular, it is
complete and the only indecomposable injective module is ER (k). Thus, ω R ≃ ER (k). In view of Matlis
duality
ω
v
ℓ( R) = ℓ( R ) = ℓ( ER (k)) = ℓ(ω R ) = ℓ( R ) (+)
xω R
Let y = y1 , . . . , y d ⊂ m be any sequence of elements. If y is an R-parameter sequence, then ℓ( R/yR) <
∞. From this ℓ( R/yR ⊗ ω R ) < ∞. Since for any strict subset y′ of y we have ℓ( R/y′ R ⊗ ω R ) = ∞, it
is clear that y is an ω R -parameter sequence. Conversely, suppose y is an ω R -parameter sequence. Then
y is an ω R -regular sequence. (If p. dim(ω R ) < ∞, then by Auslander zero-divisor, y is an R-regular
sequence. But, p. dim(ω R ) < ∞ if and only if R is Gorenstein. Instead, we use the following trick:)
ωR
ωR
Recall that ( y ,...,y
is Cohen-Macaulay for all i. For any p ∈ Ass( ( y ,...,y
) we have dim R/p = d − i.
1
1
i )ωR
i )ωR
Note that canonical module has support same as of the prime spectrum. Also, associated prime ideals
of a Cohen-Macaulay module is the minimal elements of its supports. From these,
and ω R -regular. Also,

Ass(

ωR
R
) = Ass(
).
( y1 , . . . , y i ) ω R
( y1 , . . . , y i )

R

) = d − i for all i. It turns out that y is an R-parameter sequence.
Combine the previous paragraph along with (+) to conclude that m(ω R ) = m( R). Consequently:

This yields that dim( ( y

1 ,...,y i )

m ( ω R ) = dh ( ω R ) = e ( ω R ) = m ( R ) = d h ( R ) = e ( R ) .
The proof is now complete.



Remark 4.15. i) Here we present a (new) proof of Serre’s positivity theorem: Σi>0 (−1)i+1ℓ(Hi ( x, R)) ≥ 0.
Indeed, recall that I := ( x1 , . . . , x d ) is a full parameter ideal. We may assume that d > 0. The assignment
Xi 7→ x i + ( x )2 gives the surjection P :=

R
I [ X1 , . . . , X d ]

։ gr I ( R) =: G. This yields that

ℓ( R/I n )(d − 1)!
ℓ( Gn )(d − 1)!
ℓ( Pn )(d − 1)! (∗)
=
lim
= e( I, R).
≥
lim
n→∞
n→∞
n→∞
n d −1
n d −1
n d −1

ℓ( R/I ) = lim

13

Since e( I, R) = Σi≥0 (−1)i ℓ(Hi ( x, R)), we see Σi>0 (−1)i ℓ(Hi ( x, R)) ≤ 0. So, the claim follows.
ii) Recall that (∗) in part i) is the equality if and only if x is a regular sequence. From this we can
reprove the following result of Shoutens: Let ( R, m) be a local ring such that | R/m| = ∞. Then R is
Cohen-Macaulay if and only if m( R) = e( R).
5. C ONCLUDING

REMARKS AND QUESTIONS

Are zero-dimensional complete-intersections of zero-characteristic exact?
Fact 5.1. (Watanabe et al.) Let ( R, m, k) be an artinian equi-characteristic local ring.
i) Any homogeneous complete-intersection of characteristic zero and embdim( R) = 3 is exact.
ii) If f 1 , . . . , f n ∈ Q [ X1 , . . . , Xn ] be homogeneous regular sequence and of degree d1 , . . . , d n with
d1 ≤ . . . ≤ dn with dn ≥ d1 + . . . d n−1 − n. Then R :=

Q [ X1 ,...,Xn ]
( f 1 ,..., f n )

is exact.

iii) If dn ≥ d1 + . . . d n−1 − n + 2 the same claim as of ii) holds for any infinite field.
iv) If f 1 , . . . , f n ∈ Q [ X1 , . . . , Xn ] is a monomial complete-intersection, then R :=
Proof. i) The ring R is of the form

K [ x,y,z ]
( f 1, f 2, f 3 )

Q [ X1 ,...,Xn ]
( f 1 ,..., f n )

is exact.

where f i are homogeneous and of degree di . We may assume

that 2 ≤ d1 ≤ d2 ≤ d3 . By the proof of [8, Theorem 3.48], r( R) = sup{µ(mi )}. That is R is exact.
ii) By the induction assumption we may assume that 2 ≤ d1 . By the proof of [8, Corollary 3.54],
r( R) = sup{µ(mi )}.
iii) This is in [8, Remark 3.55].
iv) Monomial complete-intersections over fields of zero-characteristic has Lefschetz property. By [8,
Proposition 3.6] r( R) = sup{µ(mi )}. So, R is exact.



It may be d( R) 6= sup{µ(mn )} but R is exact. Such a thing happens even over Gorenstein rings. The
first example was found by Ikeda [10, Example 4.4]. Also, Ikeda conjectured that d( R) = sup{µ(mn )}
over any artinian Gorenstein ring of embedding dimension 3. There are counter-examples in the positive characteristic, see [22]. Let ( R, m) be a zero-dimensional Gorenstein local ring and of embedding
dimension 3 over a field of zero-characteristic. Is d( R) = sup{µ(mn )}?
Remark 5.2. i) Let Q ⊂ R be an artinian Gorenstein local ring such that µ(m) = µ(m2 ) = 3 and that
m4 = 0. Then R is exact. In fact d( R) = sup{µ(mn )}. Indeed, we may assume that m3 is not zero. Also,
µ(m3 ) = 1. In particular, max{µ(mi )} = 3. By the proof of Corollary 3.11 we have d( R) = r( R) = 3.
ii) The assumption Q ⊂ R in part i) is important. Indeed, let R :=
Gorenstein local ring such that µ(m) =

µ ( m2 )

= 3 and that

m4

F2 [ X,Y,Z ]
.
( X 2 ,Y2 ,Z2 )

Clearly, R is an artinian

= 0. We recall from §2 that R is not exact.

By hdeg(−) we mean the homological degree. When is m( R) ≤ hdeg( R)?
Remark 5.3. Let ( R, m, k) be an analytically irreducible local ring with infinite residue field. Then m( R) ≤
hdeg( R).
Proof. If R is of equi-characteristic the claim is in [17]. So, we may assume that char R = 0 6= p = char k.
We apply the same argument as of [17]. Since both of m( R) and hdeg( R) behave nicely with respect to
the completion, we may assume that R is a complete local domain. Let x := p, y2, . . . , y d be a parameter
sequence for R. By Cohen’s structure theorem, there is a regular local ring ( A, n) ⊂ R such that xA = n
and that R is finitely generated as a module over A. In fact, A = V [[y2 , . . . , y d ]] where V is the coefficient
ring of R which is a discreet valuation ring. It follows from [23, Proposition 4.1] that µ A ( R) ≤ hdeg( R).
In sum, m( R) ≤ ℓ( R/xR) = ℓ( R/nR) = µ A ( R) ≤ hdeg( R), as claimed.



14

Acknowledgement . I thank Junzo Watanabe for his valuable comments on the rough version of this draft.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Bass, On the ubiquity of Gorenstein rings, Math. Z. 82 (1963) 8-28.
[2] G. Casnati, Isomorphism types of Artinian Gorenstein local algebras of multiplicity at most 9, Comm. Algebra 38 (2010), 2738-2761.
[3] J. Elias, G. Valla, Structure theorems for certain Gorenstein ideals, Michigan Math. J. 57 (2008), 269-292.
[4] V. Gasharov, I. Peeva, Boundedness versus periodicity over commutative local rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 320 (1990), 569-580.
[5] A. Grothendieck, Cohomologie locale des faisceaux cohérents et théormes de Lefschetz locaux et globaux (SGA 2). Séminaire de
Géométrie Algébrique du Bois Marie 1962. Amsterdam: North Holland Pub. Co. (1968).
[6] T.K. Gunston, Cohomological degrees, Dilworth numbers and linear resolution, Thesis (Ph.D.) Rutgers, Available at
arXiv:1008.3711.
[7] T. Harima, J. Migliore, U. Nagel, J. Watanabe, The weak and strong Lefschetz properties for Artinian K-algebras, J. Algebra 262
(2003), no. 1, 99–126.
[8] T. Harima, T. Maeno, H. Morita, Y. Numata, A. Wachi,J. Watanabe, The Lefschetz properties, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
2080 Springer, Heidelberg, (2013).
[9] H. Ikeda, J. Watanabe, The Dilworth lattice of Artinian rings, J. Commut. Algebra 1 (2009), 315-326.
[10] H. Ikeda, Results on Dilworth and Rees numbers of Artinian local rings, Japan J. Math. (N.S.) 22 (1996), 147-158.
[11] H. Ikeda, The Dilworth number and Rees number of one-dimensional modules, Comm. Algebra 25 (1997), no. 8, 2627-2633.
[12] H. Matsumura, Some new results on numbers of generators of ideals in local rings, Topics in algebra, Part 2 (Warsaw, 1988), 157-161,
Banach Center Publ., 26, Part 2, PWN, Warsaw, (1990).
[13] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math, 8, (1986).
[14] J. Migliore, F. Zanello, The strength of the weak Lefschetz property, Illinois J. Math. 52 (2008), no. 4, 1417–1433.
[15] J.D. Sally, Numbers of generators of ideals in local rings, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel, 1978.
[16] J.D. Sally, Stretched Gorenstein rings, J. London Math. Soc. 20 (1979), no. 2, 19-26.
[17] H. Schoutens, Absolute bounds on the number of generators of Cohen-Macaulay ideals of height two, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon
Stevin Volume 13, Number 4 (2006), 719–732.
[18] N.V. Trung, Bounds for the minimum number of generators of generalized Cohen- Macaulay ideals, J. Algebra 90 (1984), 1-9.
[19] J. Stückrad, and W. Vogel, Buchsbaum rings and applications. An interaction between algebra, geometry, and topology, Mathematische Monographien 21, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1986.
[20] J. Watanabe, The Dilworth number of Artinian local rings and finite posets with rank function, Proceedings of Conference on
Commutative Algebra and Combinatorics, Kyoto 1985, Kinokuniya Co. and North-Holland Publ. Co.
[21] J. Watanabe, The Dilworth number of Artin Gorenstein rings, Adv. Math. 76 (1989), 194199.
[22] J.S. Okon, J.P. Vicknair, A Gorenstein ring with larger Dilworth number than Sperner number, Canad. Math. Bull. 43 (2000), 100-104.
[23] W. Vasconcelos, Cohomological degrees of graded modules, Six lectures on Commutative Algebra (J. Elias, J.M. Giral, R.M. MirRoig, and S. Zarzuela, eds.), Progress in Math., vol. 166, Birkhuser, 1998, 345-390.

E-mail address: mohsenasgharzadeh@gmail.com

