ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

arXiv:1203.2046v2 [math.AC] 1 Nov 2012

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU
A BSTRACT. Let I ⊂ C[x, y, z] be an ideal of height 2 and minimally generated by three homogeneous polynomials of the same degree. If I is a locally complete intersection we give a criterion for
C[x, y, z]/I to be arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay. Since the setup above is most commonly used
when I = JF is the Jacobian ideal of the defining polynomial of a “quasihomogeneous” reduced
curve Y = V (F ) in P2 , our main result becomes a criterion for freeness of such divisors. As an
application we give an upper bound for the degree of the reduced Jacobian scheme when Y is a
free rank 3 central essential arrangement,
√ as well as we investigate the connections between the first
syzygies on JF , and the generators of JF .

1. I NTRODUCTION
In the landmark paper of Saito ([9]) it was introduced the concept of a free divisor Y on a smooth
algebraic variety X. A divisor Y on X is free if the OX −module
DerX (− log Y ) := {θ ∈ Der|θ(OX (−Y )) ⊆ OX (−Y )},
is free, where OX is the sheaf of regular functions on X.
Terao specialized the study to the case when Y is an arrangement of hyperplanes in a vector
space, obtaining amazing results in both the algebraic and topological directions of study of such
divisors. We mention just a few of these results: Terao’s Factorization Theorem ([16]) shows
that the Poincaré polynomial of the complement of a free arrangement factors completely, and
Terao’s Addition-Deletion Theorem ([15]) which relates the freeness of Y to the freeness of Y ′ ,
the hyperplane arrangement obtained from Y by removing a hyperplane. Also, Terao conjectured
that over a field of characteristic 0, the condition to be free depends only on the intersection lattice
(for background related to hyperplane arrangements one should check [7]).
This early success, and the very difficult conjecture mentioned above, determined a whole pleiad
of mathematicians to look for various criteria of freeness for hyperplane arrangements, and more
generally, for other type of divisors. An interesting nice criterion is due to Yoshinaga ([18], Corollary 3.3), and relates the freeness of an arrangement of lines in P2 to the restricted multiarrangement. This criterion was later generalized by Schulze ([12], Theorem 2) to higher rank hyperplane
arrangements.
Outside the world of hyperplane arrangements, the tests for freeness are specialized to divisors
with quasihomogeneous singularities. Without this condition, as we can see in [11], Example 4.1
and Example 4.2, Terao’s Conjecture is not true anymore (in the sense that there exists two arrangements of lines and conics with the same real picture, but one free and the other not free),
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D02; Secondary 52C35, 13C14.
Key words and phrases. regular sequence, Hilbert-Burch resolution, syzygies, hyperplane arrangements.
1

2

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

and even Yoshinaga’s criterion fails to work. For the case of quasihomogeneous line-conic arrangements, the same paper presents a similar method to Terao’s Addition-Deletion Theorem. At
the other end, i.e. when the divisor is irreducible, it seems that freeness and quasihomogeneity of
the singularities should also be put together (see [14], Proposition 4.4). Note that for divisors in
P2 , quasihomogeneity and linear type property are equivalent notions. In affine space, or in more
dimensions, this is not true anymore. Also, [2] goes to the extent of studying freeness of general
divisors Y on any X, when Y admits locally an Euler vector field (i.e., “quasihomogeneous”).
Our notes follow the same path; we give a criterion for freeness for quasihomogeneous curves
in P2 . In a more general setting we prove the following:
Main Result: Let I ⊂ R = C[x, y, z] be a height 2 locally a complete intersection ideal, minimally
generated by three homogeneous polynomials of the same degree. Then, R/I is arithmetically
Cohen-Macaulay if and only if there exists a syzygy on I forming an R−regular sequence.
This result is in the spirit of a note of Eisenbud and Huneke ([4]); the title says it all: “Ideals
with a regular sequence as syzygy”. Their theorem is the following:
Theorem 1.1. ([4], Theorem) Let R be a local Noetherian ring, let f1 , . . . , fk ∈ R such that
s1 f1 + · · · + sk fk = 0,
where s1 , . . . , sk ∈ R is a regular sequence. Let I = hf1 , . . . , fk i and suppose that grade(I) =
k − 1, the maximal possible value. Then
(1) if k is odd, then R/I is perfect of Cohen-Macaulay type 2.
(2) if k is even, there exists an element f ∈
/ I such that I : hs1 , . . . , sn i = hI, f i, and hI, f i is
perfect of Cohen-Macaulay type 1.
It is very important to mention that Kustin, in [5], gives a complete answers in regard to the
graded minimal free resolutions of ideals I and hI, f i, where I is generated by the entries in the
product of a vector of variables with an alternating square matrix of some other variables, and f
is the Pfaffian of this square matrix. The specialization from this generic case to the ideals in the
above theorem is done in [4].
∂F
Our case of interest is the situation when I = JF = h ∂x
, . . . , ∂x∂F
i ⊂ C[x0 , . . . , xk−1] is the
0
k−1
k−1
Jacobian ideal of a divisor Y = V (F ) ⊂ P , k ≥ 3, with ht(JF ) = 2 (e.g., Y is an arrangement
of hyperplanes). In this case grade(JF ) = 2 and it can be maximal in the sense of the theorem
above only when k = 3. Despite the beauty of Theorem 1.1, we can use only the first part with
k = 3. But in this particular instance, from the definition of regular sequences, the result is a
restatement of the Hilbert-Burch Theorem ([3], Theorem 20.15). The restriction to divisors on P2
is made not only because of the above considerations, but also due to an example (Example 2.4)
when the natural generalization of this criterion to higher dimensions does not work.
We should mention that the local complete intersection condition in our result means exactly
that the ideal I is of linear type (see [6], Lemma 3.1 and Corollary 3.2). So, under the linear type
assumption, with Corollary 3.12 in [13], we can add an equivalent statement to the nice criterion
for freeness of divisors in P2 obtained in [13], Proposition 4.1.
In Section 2 we give a detailed proof of our result. One implication is immediate from Theorem
1.1, and the other implication uses several steps. In Section 3 we give an application of this criterion

ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

3

to obtain an upper bound for the degree of the reduced Jacobian scheme of a free line arrangements
in P2 . We also study the first homological properties of this zero-dimensional reduced scheme, in
connection to the syzygies on the Jacobian ideal of the divisor.
2. A LMOST

COMPLETE INTERSECTIONS OF HEIGHT

2 IN C[x, y, z]

Let I be an ideal in R = C[x, y, z], the ring of homogeneous polynomials with coefficients in C,
the field of complex numbers. Also, we assume that the height (or codimension) of I is ht(I) = 2,
and I is minimally generated by three homogeneous polynomials of the same degree.
By [3], R/I is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if and only if R/I has the Hilbert-Burch minimal
free resolution
0 → R2 → R3 → R → R/I → 0.
A first syzygy on I is a 3−tuple (A, B, C), A, B, C ∈ R, such that
Af1 + Bf2 + Cf3 = 0,

for some minimal generating set of homogeneous polynomials {f1 , f2 , f3 } for the ideal I (i.e.,
I = hf1 , f2 , f3 i). A syzygy (A, B, C) on I will be called regular if A, B, C form an R−regular
sequence.
I is locally a complete intersection iff Ip ⊂ Rp is generated by two elements, for all minimal
prime ideals p of I. By [1], Theorem 1.7, I is locally a complete intersection if and only if the
only syzygies (A, B, C) on I with A, B, C ∈ I sat are the Koszul syzygies. This result of Cox
and Schenck was the initial inspirational point for our main result: observe that the syzygies they
considered have V (A, B, C) 6= ∅, and our question addresses when does I has a syzygy (A, B, C),
with V (A, B, C) = ∅?
In what follows we will use extensively [3], Corollary 17.7. In our setup (R is a local ring
of maximal ideal hx, y, zi) this result translates to the following: a set of three homogeneous
polynomials {A, B, C} in R forms a regular sequence if and only if ht(A, B, C) = 3 (equivalently
V (A, B, C) = ∅ as a set in P2 ).
Theorem 2.1. Let I ⊂ R be a height 2 ideal locally a complete intersection, minimally generated
by three polynomials of the same degree. Then R/I is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if and only
if there exists a regular syzygy on I.
Proof. “ ⇐′′ Let (A, B, C) be a regular syzygy on I. This means that there exist f1 , f2 , f3 ∈ R
such that I = hf1 , f2 , f3 i and
Af1 + Bf2 + Cf3 = 0
with {A, B, C} forming a regular sequence in R.
From the syzygy equation above and from the definition of a regular sequence, we have f1 ∈
hB, Ci, and so f1 = BD + CE. Therefore
B(AD + f2 ) + C(AE + f3 ) = 0,

which will give that AD + f2 = CF and AE + f3 = −BF . We get that f1 , −f2 , f3 are the 2 × 2
minors of the matrix


A F
 B −E  .
C D

4

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

But this means that R/I has the desired Hilbert-Burch minimal free resolution ([3], Theorem
20.15).
“ ⇒′′1 Suppose R/I has a minimal free resolution
φ




A1 A2
where φ =  B1 B2 . Let
C1 C2

0 → R2 → R3 → R → R/I → 0,

f1 = B1 C2 − B2 C1 , f2 = A1 C2 − A2 C1 , f3 = A1 B2 − A2 B1 ,

be the 2 × 2 minors of φ which will minimally generate the ideal I.
We are going to show that there exist a syzygy (A, B, C) on these generators (i.e., Af1 + Bf2 +
Cf3 = 0) with {A, B, C} forming a regular sequence.
On a side note, every minimally generating set of I will have a regular syzygy: if I = hg1 , g2 , g3i,
then
(g1 , g2 , g3 ) = (f1 , f2 , f3 )M,
for some invertible 3 × 3 matrix M with entries inC. If{A, B, C} isa regular
 sequence with
A
A′
Af1 + Bf2 + Cf3 = 0, then {A′ , B ′ , C ′ }, where  B ′  = M−1 ·  B , is also a regular
C
C′
′
′
′
sequence with A g1 + B g2 + C g3 = 0.
If {A1 , B1 , C1 } is a regular sequence or {A2 , B2 , C2 } is a regular sequence, we are done.
Suppose neither of them is, and suppose that deg(A1 ) = deg(B1 ) = deg(C1 ) = d1 and
deg(A2 ) = deg(B2 ) = deg(C2 ) = d2 , with d2 ≥ d1 . The goal is to show that there exists
f ∈ Rd2 −d1 such that {A2 − f A1 , B2 − f B1 , C2 − f C1 } is a regular sequence.
Step 1. First we show that Z = V (A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 , C1, C2 ) = ∅. If [a, b, c] ∈ Z is a point, then
[a, b, c] ∈ V (I). Suppose p is the ideal of the point [a, b, c]. Localizing at p, and since I is locally
a complete intersection, we obtain
0 → Rp2 → Rp3 → Ip → 0
and
0 → Rp → Rp2 → Ip → 0

to be two free resolutions of Ip .
Obviously, the first resolution is not minimal, so after some columns operations, we get that the
matrix φ has an entry which is an invertible element in Rp . So some polynomial combination of
A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 does not vanish at [a, b, c]. Contradiction with the assumption. So Z = ∅.
Step 2. For every f ∈ Rd2 −d1 , construct the ideal

I(f ) = hA2 − f A1 , B2 − f B1 , C2 − f C1 i.

1

The referee suggested an alternative shorter proof of this implication using Prime Avoidance ([3], Lemma 3.3),
yet the details of this approach remains to be clarified.

ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

5

If we show that there exists an f such that V (I(f )) = ∅ we will be done (see the result we stated
before the theorem).
Suppose that for all f ∈ Rd2 −d1 , V (I(f )) 6= ∅. For each f , let
Pf ∈ V (I(f )).

Since A2 (Pf ) − f (Pf )A1 (Pf ) = 0, B2 (Pf ) − f (Pf )B1 (Pf ) = 0, C2 (Pf ) − f (Pf )C1 (Pf ) = 0,
rewriting the generators of I in a convenient way (for example, f1 = B1 (C2 − f C1 ) − C1 (B2 −
f B1 )), we obtain that Pf ∈ V (I). So for each f ∈ Rd2 −d1 , we have V (I(f )) ⊂ V (I).
Step 3. If [a, b, c] ∈ V (I(f )) ∩ V (I(g)) for some f, g ∈ Rd2 −d1 , then f (a, b, c) = g(a, b, c).
At Step 1, we saw that Z = ∅. So one of the A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 does not vanish at [a, b, c]. If
for example A2 (a, b, c) 6= 0, since A2 (a, b, c)−f (a, b, c)A1 (a, b, c) = 0, we get that A1 (a, b, c) 6= 0.
Without loss of generality we may assume that A1 (a, b, c) 6= 0. Since [a, b, c] ∈ V (I(f )) ∩
V (I(g)), we get that
A2 (a, b, c)
f (a, b, c) = g(a, b, c) =
.
A1 (a, b, c)
Step 4. Let f ∈ Rd2 −d1 , generic enough (i.e. f does not vanish at any point of V (I)). Consider the
sequence of polynomials
f, 2 · f, 3 · f, . . . , k · f, . . . .
Then for every i 6= j,
V (I(i · f )) ∩ V (I(j · f )) = ∅.
Otherwise, if [a, b, c] is a point in the intersection, from Step 3 we should get that i · f (a, b, c) =
j · f (a, b, c), and so f (a, b, c) = 0. But this will contradict the generic condition on f , since by
Step 2,
[a, b, c] ∈ V (I(i · f )) ⊂ V (I),
and so f would vanish at a point of V (I).
So for each k ≥ 1 we obtain a distinct point in V (I(k · f )) ⊂ V (I). So the cardinality of V (I)
is infinity. Contradiction, since ht(I) = 2.
In conclusion, for this particular f , V (I(f )) = ∅.


For the first implication, the condition that I is locally a complete intersection is not used. In
fact, as the referee observed, if I has a regular syzygy, then I is locally a complete intersection, and
Theorem 2.1 can be restated: let I ⊂ R = C[x, y, z] be an ideal of height 2, minimally generated
by three homogeneous polynomials of the same degree. Then, I is locally a complete intersection
and R/I is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay ⇔ I has a regular syzygy.
Now we apply this result to divisors in P2 . Let Y = V (F ) be a reduced (not necessarily
irreducible) curve in X = P2 , then Y is free if and only if the R−module
D(Y ) := {θ ∈ DerC (R)|θ(F ) ∈ hF iR},

is a free R−module, where R = C[x, y, z].
Since F ∈ R is a homogeneous polynomial, one has the Euler relation deg(F ) · F = xFx +
yFy + zFz , and we have a splitting
D(Y ) = θE · R ⊕ D0 (Y ),

6

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

where D0 (Y ) = D(Y )/θE · R is isomorphic to the first syzygy module of the Jacobian ideal
∂
∂
∂
+ y ∂y
+ z ∂z
is the Euler derivation. Indeed, if θ ∈ D(Y ),
JF = hFx , Fy , Fz i of F and θE = x ∂x
D
then θ(F ) = DF, for some D ∈ R. But we can write DF = ( deg(F
· θE )(F ). So modulo θE · R,
)
the coefficients of θ ∈ D(Y ) in the standard basis of Der(R) can be viewed as first syzygy on
Fx , Fy , Fz . The splitting of D(Y ) comes from the fact that if AFx + BFy + CFz = 0 is a syzygy,
∂
∂
∂
then θ = A ∂x
+ B ∂y
+ C ∂z
is an element in D(Y ), as θ(F ) = 0.
Suppose Y has isolated singularities (i.e., ht(JF ) = 2). Then, from above, D(Y ) is free
R−module if and only if the first syzygies module of JF is free (of rank 2). This leads to the
following well-known criterion (Saito’s Criterion2) for freeness:
Y is free if and only if R/JF is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.
Let V (f ) ⊂ C2 be a reduced curve withP
isolated singularity at (0, 0) ∈ V (f ). (0, 0) is called
quasihomogeneous singularity if f (x, y) =
ci,j xi y j is weighted homogeneous (i.e., there exists
α
β
rational numbers α, β such that f (x , y ) is homogeneous). V (JF ) describes the singular locus of
Y = V (F ), and we say that Y is quasihomogeneous if every P ∈ V (JF ) is a quasihomogeneous
singularity for FP (the localization of F at P ).
Every arrangement of lines in P2 is quasihomogeneous (see Remark 2.3 below).
Now we are ready to prove the following criterion for freeness of a special class of divisors on
2
P.
Theorem 2.2. Let Y = V (F ) be a quasihomogeneous reduced curve in P2 . Y is free if and only if
there exists a syzygy AFx + BFy + CFz = 0 with {A, B, C} forming an R−regular sequence.
Proof. The result is immediate from Theorem 2.1, if we show that JF is locally a complete intersection. Also, the side note at the beginning of Proof 1 is useful to find a regular syzygy on the
specific set of minimal generators of JF , consisting of the partial derivatives of F .
After a change of coordinates we may assume that Y has no singularities on the line of equation
z = 0. Let f (x, y) = F (x, y, 1). Then the dehomogenization z 7→ 1 gives an isomorphism of rings
R/JF → C[x, y]/hfx , fy , f i.

It is enough to show that the ideal hfx , fy , f i is locally a complete intersection. Let P ∈ P2
be a singularity of Y . Let’s assume that P = [0, 0, 1]. Then P = (0, 0) is an isolated singularity
of V (f ). Since P is quasihomogeneous, then, by [11], Section 1.3 (in fact by Reiffen, [8]), f ∈
hfx , fy i in the localization at the ideal hx, yi of P .
Therefore hfx , fy , f i is locally a complete intersection.

Remark 2.3. The argument used by Schenck (see [10], Lemma 2.5.) to show that the Jacobian
ideal of a line arrangement (more generally, of a hyperplane arrangement) is locally a complete
intersection, does not work at a first glance. Suppose P = [0, 0, 1] is a singularity of Y , when
2

Originally ([9]) this criterion was stated as follows: if θi = ai ∂x + bi ∂y + ci ∂z , i = 1, 2, 3 are in D(Y ) such
that the determinant of the 3 × 3 matrix with columns (ai , bi , ci ) is a nonzero scalar multiple of F , then Y is free.
Replacing one of the θi with θE , it comes to show that Fx , Fy , Fz are the maximal minors of a 2 × 3 matrix, which
by Hilbert-Burch Theorem is equivalent to R/JF being arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay. One can also check [13],
Proposition 3.7.

ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

7

Y = V (F ) ⊂ P2 is a line arrangement. Suppose F = G · H with G(P ) = 0 and H(P ) 6= 0 (i.e.,
G is the product of the equations of the lines passing through P ). We have
Fx = Gx · H + G · Hx
Fy = Gy · H + G · Hy
Fz = Gz · H + G · Hz .

In the localization at the ideal of P , H and Hz are invertible. Furthermore we have G ∈ C[x, y],
and therefore Gz = 0. Since from Euler relation one has deg(G) · G = xGx + yGy , we get that
locally Fz ∈ hFx , Fy i.
If G is not a product of linear forms, Gz does not vanish and the proof may not work as nicely
as for the case of line arrangements.
It would be interesting to have a similar result for height 2 ideals in C[x1 , . . . , xk ], locally complete intersection minimally generated by k homogeneous polynomials. In our situation, when
k = 3, the first part of the proof uses the fact that if we have a regular syzygy then the minimal
generators are the maximal minors of a 2 × 3 matrix and we used Hilbert-Burch theorem. As we’ll
see below this is not the case when k ≥ 4, and a “natural” generalization to higher dimensions will
not work. Also when k = 3, the second part of the proof relies on the fact that V (I) is a finite set
of points in P2 .
Example 2.4. Let Q = xyzw(x + y + z + w) ∈ R = C[x, y, z, w], be the defining polynomial of
a hyperplane arrangement in P3 . Let JQ = hQx , Qy , Qz , Qw i be the Jacobian ideal of Q. We have
ht(JQ ) = 2, JQ is locally a complete intersection (see Remark 2.3), but R/JQ is not arithmetically
Cohen-Macaulay (i.e, the arrangement is not free).
We have that JQ is minimally generated by g1 , g2 , g3 , g4 ∈ JQ , where
g1 = x2 yz + xy 2 z + xyz 2 + 2xyzw
g2 = x2 yw + xy 2 w + 2xyzw + xyw 2
g3 = x2 zw + 2xyzw + xz 2 w + xzw 2
1
1
1
g4 = xyzw + y 2 zw + yz 2 w + yzw 2 .
2
2
2

We also have
s1 g1 + s2 g2 + s3 g3 + s4 g4 = 0,
where
s1
s2
s3
s4

=
=
=
=

−8xw − 4zw − 3w 2
4xz + yz + 2z 2 + 3zw
−y 2 − 4yw
4x2 + 2xy + 14xw.

Noting that ht(hs1 , s2 , s3 , s4 i) = 4, gives that {s1 , s2 , s3 , s4 } is an R−regular sequence.
Example 2.5. In this example we can see that the condition of quasihomogeneity is essential for
Theorem 2.2 to work. Let Y = V (x(x + y)(x − y)(x + 2y)(x2 + yz)) be a union of four lines and
an irreducible conic in P2 , all passing through the point P = [0, 0, 1].

8

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

Y is not quasihomogeneous at P : let
f (x, y) = F (x, y, 1) = x6 + 2x5 y − x4 y 2 − 2x3 y 3 + x4 y + 2x3 y 2 − x2 y 3 − 2xy 4.

If x has weight α and y has weight β, then we should have that 6α = 5α + β = 4α + β, and
therefore α = β = 0. We can see this also by following the arguments in [11], Section 1.3.
We have deg(JF ) = 19 which equals the sum of Tjurina numbers at each singularity. A curve
is quasihomogeneous at a singularity if Tjurina and Milnor numbers are equal. In our case, our
singularities are transverse (i.e., the components of Y are not tangent), and therefore the Milnor
number at each singularity P equals to (nP − 1)2 , where np is the number of distinct branches of
Y at P . The sum of the Milnor numbers equals 20, so at a singularity (in our case P ) these two
numbers differ.
With Macaulay 2 we get the graded minimal free resolution:
φ

0 → R(−7) ⊕ R(−8) → R3 (−5) → R → R/JF → 0.

Therefore Y is free. One should observe (also from Macaulay 2) that each entry in the syzygies
matrix φ belongs to the ideal hx, yi of the point P . So if we localize at this ideal the resolution
remains minimal (so at P , JF is not locally a complete intersection) and the Step 1 in the proof of
Theorem 2.1 does not work.
This step in the proof can not be avoided, since any syzygy (A, B, C) has hA, B, Ci ⊆ hx, yi,
and therefore it cannot form a regular sequence.
Example 2.6. Next we give an example of a quasihomogeneous divisor that is free. Let Y =
V (y(x2 + yz)) be a union of a conic and a line tangent to the conic at P = [0, 0, 1]. So the
singularity P is not transverse. We have f (x, y) = F (x, y, 1) = x2 y + y 2 and this is weighted
homogeneous with the weight of x being α = 1, and the weight of y being β = 2. So Y is
quasihomogeneous.
JF = hxy, x2 + 2yz, y 2i. Observe that
(−x)xy + y(x2 + 2yz) + (−2z)y 2 = 0

and {−x, y, −2z} is an R−regular sequence. So Y is free.
3. A PPLICATIONS

AND CONNECTIONS TO THE REDUCED JACOBIAN SCHEME

Let Y = V (F ) be a reduced (not necessarily irreducible) curve in X = P2 . If AFx + BFy +
∂
∂
∂
CFz = 0 is a syzygy, then θ = A ∂x
+ B ∂y
+ C ∂z
belongs to D(Y ), and it will be called a special
logarithmic derivation.
The recipe to obtain a special logarithmic derivation from a non-special logarithmic derivation
∂
∂
∂
+ B1 ∂y
+ C1 ∂z
∈ D(Y ) is a logarithmic
that is not a multiple of θE is immediate: if θ1 = A1 ∂x
derivation, not a multiple of the Euler derivation θE , then θ(F ) = D · F for some D ∈ R. After
using Euler relation on F in the right-hand side we obtain:
(A1 − xD/n)Fx + (B1 − yD/n)Fy + (C1 − zD/n)Fz = 0,

where n = deg(F ).
If {A, B, C} above is a regular sequence and if deg(A) = deg(B) = deg(C) = d, θ will
be called a regular special logarithmic derivation of degree d. From Theorem 2.2, every free
quasihomogeneous reduced curve Y = V (F ) in P2 has a regular special logarithmic derivation.

ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

9

When D(Y ) is a free R−module (of rank 3), the degrees of the elements in a basis for D(Y ) are
called the exponents of Y , denoted with exp(Y ) = {1, a, b} (the number 1 comes from the degree
of the Euler derivation). If Y is free, then it should have at least one regular special logarithmic
derivation of degree a or b. If a ≤ b, and if the syzygy of degree a is not regular, then there exists
a syzygy of degree b which forms a regular sequence. The way one should construct this syzygy is
explained in Step 4 in the proof of Theorem 2.1.
The reduced Jacobian scheme of Y = V (F )√⊂ P2 is the reduced zero-dimensional scheme of
the singular locus of Y . It has as defining ideal JF .
3.1. Line arrangements in P2 . Let A = V (Q) be a central essential arrangement in C3 (i.e.pa line
arrangement in P2 ). As a consequence to Theorem 2.2, we give an upper bound for deg( JQ ),

when A is free. A priori the degree of this scheme is less or equal than |A|
, and at this moment
2
we are not aware of any other bound. Very little is known about the reduced Jacobian scheme of an
arrangement, V (JQ ), and about the connections between this scheme and the arrangement. In fact,
Wakefield and Yoshinaga give a very nice and simple example ([17], Example 4.2) of two rank
3 central arrangements completely different (they have
p different number of hyperplanes, and one
is supersolvable and the other is not) with the same JQ , emphasizing that the reduced Jacobian
scheme has few information about the arrangement itself.
Proposition 3.1. Let A be a free line arrangement in P2 with a regular special logarithmic derivation of degree d ≥ 2. Then
p
deg( JQ ) ≤ d2 + d + 1.
∂
∂
∂
Proof. Let θ = A ∂x
+ B ∂y
+ C ∂z
be the regular special logarithmic derivation of degree d ≥ 2.
This means that AQx + BQy + CQz = 0 and {A, B, C} is a regular sequence.
Suppose Q = L1 · · · Ln , where we fixed the defining linear forms: Li = ai x + bi y + ci z.
Therefore

(∗) ai A + bi B + ci C = Li Si , for some Si ∈ R, for all i = 1, . . . , n.
Let [a, b, c] ∈ V (JQ ). Then [a, b, c] is the intersection of at least two lines in A. So there exist
i 6= j such that Li (a, b, c) = 0 and Lj (a, b, c) = 0.
Two things can happen: either [a, b, c] ∈ V (A, B, C), or not.
If not, then the point [A(a, b, c), B(a, b, c), C(a, b, c)] ∈ P2 is also the intersection of the lines
of equations Li = 0 and Lj = 0 (evaluate (∗) at the point [a, b, c]). This means that there exists a
nonzero constant k such that
A(a, b, c) = ka, B(a, b, c) = kb, C(a, b, c) = kc.
Denoting with
we see that

I (A,B,C) = hyA − xB, zA − xC, zB − yCi,
[a, b, c] ∈ V (I (A,B,C) ).

If [a, b, c] ∈ V (A, B, C), then, since I (A,B,C) ⊂ hA, B, Ci, we have that V (A, B, C) ⊆
V (I (A,B,C) ).

10

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

We obtained that
V (JQ ) ⊆ V (I (A,B,C) ).
Claim 1: I (A,B,C) is minimally generated by three polynomials.
Suppose there exist constants α, β ∈ C such that
yA − xB = α(zA − xC) + β(zB − yC).
Then we obtain a linear syzygy on A, B, C:
(y − αz)A + (−x − βz)B + (αx + βy)C = 0.
If d ≥ 2, then this is impossible; one cannot have a linear syzygy on a regular sequence consisting of homogeneous polynomials all of degree ≥ 2.

Claim 2: ht(I (A,B,C) )p= 2.
Since I (A,B,C) ⊂ JQ , and ht(JQ ) = 2, then ht(I (A,B,C) ) ≤ 2. If ht(I (A,B,C) ) = 1, since
R = C[x, y, z] is a unique factorization domain, there exists D ∈ R, non-constant homogeneous
polynomial, dividing each of the generators of I (A,B,C) .
So we have
yA − xB = f D
zA − xC = gD
zB − yC = hD,
with ht(f, g, h) = 2.
We obtain that
zf − yg + xh = 0.

Since {x, y, z} form a regular sequence we get that

f = yv1 + xv2 , g = zv1 + xv3 , h = yv3 − zv2 ,
where vi ∈ R.
Plugging these back into the equations above we get that
y(A − v1 D) − x(B + v2 D) = 0
z(A − v1 D) − x(C + v3 D) = 0
z(B + v2 D) − y(C + v3 D) = 0
But these mean that there exists w ∈ R such that
A − v1 D = xw
B + v2 D = yw
C + v3 D = zw
And therefore, hA, B, Ci ⊂ hD, wi. Contradiction.

ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

11

We just showed that ht(I (A,B,C) ) = 2 and by the way it is defined, R/I (A,B,C) has the HilbertBurch minimal free resolution: 3
0 → R(−(d + 2)) ⊕ R(−(2d + 1)) → R3 (−(d + 1)) → R → R/I (A,B,C) → 0.

Once we have this, since ht(I (A,B,C) ) = 2, the Hilbert polynomial computation gives the degree
of I (A,B,C) :
deg(I (A,B,C) ) = d2 + d + 1.
p
Since I (A,B,C) ⊆ JQ , finally we obtain the desired upper bound.


Example 3.2. The condition d ≥ 2 in Proposition 3.1 is essential. Consider the following free
(supersolvable) arrangement: a pencil of n − 1 lines through the point [0, 0, 1] and the line at
infinity of equation z = 0. The defining polynomial of this arrangement is
Q = zP,

where P is the defining polynomial of the pencil of lines, so P ∈ C[x, y].
Since Qx = zPx , Qy = zPy , Qz = P , and since (n − 1)P = xPx + yPy , we get that θ =
∂
∂
∂
x ∂x
+ y ∂y
− (n − 1)z ∂z
is a regular special logarithmic derivation of degree 1.
Of course, |V (JQ )| = n which is not less or equal than 3 = 12 + 1 + 1, if n ≥ 4. The reason
why the proof of Proposition 3.1 does not work for this example is that I (x,y,−(n−1)z) = hxz, yzi
has codimension 1.
Remark 3.3. The situation described in Example 3.2 is unique, in the sense that if a line arrangement A ⊂ P2 , |A| = n, has a special logarithmic derivation of degree 1 (not necessarily regular),
then it mustQ
consist of a pencil of n − 1 lines through a point, and another line missing that point.
Let Q = ni=1 Li , with Li = ai x + bi y + ci z, and let Mi = αi x + βi y + γi z, i = 1, 2, 3 be three
linear forms such that
M1 Qx + M2 Qy + M3 Qz = 0.
∂
∂
∂
Since θ = M1 ∂x + M2 ∂y + M3 ∂z
is a logarithmic derivation (we have θ(Q) = 0 ∈ hQi; so
θ is a special logarithmic derivation of degree 1), from the product rule of derivations: θ(Q) =
L1 θ(L2 · · · Ln ) + θ(L1 )L2 · · · Ln , and from the syzygy equation above we have
M1 ai + M2 bi + M3 ci = Li di , for all i = 1, . . . , n,

Pn

where di ∈ C with i=1 di = 0.
Without any loss of generality, we may assume that L1 = x, L2 = y, L3 = z. Then we obtain:
α1 = d1 , β1 = 0, γ1 = 0
α2 = 0, β2 = d2 , γ2 = 0
α3 = 0, β3 = 0, γ3 = d3 .
From these, for i ≥ 4 we obtain that

(♯) (d1 − di )ai = 0, (d2 − di )bi = 0, (d3 − di )ci = 0.

If di 6= d1 (or di 6= d2 , or di 6= d3 ) for all i ≥ 4, then from (♯) we have ai = 0 (or bi = 0, or, respectively, ci = 0) for all i ≥ 4. But this will mean that the lines V (L2 ), V (L3 ), V (L4 ), . . . , V (Ln )
3

Here we could use also Theorem 1.1, by observing that z(yA − xB) − y(zA − xC) + x(zB − yC) = 0, and
{z, −y, x} is an R−regular sequence.

12

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

will all pass through the point [1, 0, 0]. And the line V (L1 ) does not pass through this point. We
have analogous results in the other two situations.
Let us assume that d4 = · · · = dm = d1 , and dj 6= d1 , for all n ≥ j ≥ m + 1.
Let j0 be such that n ≥ j0 ≥ m + 1. If dj0 6= d2 (or dj0 6= d3 ), then, since dj0 6= d1 , we obtain
from (♯) that aj0 = 0 and bj0 = 0 (or, respectively, cj0 = 0). This means that V (Lj0 ) = V (L3 ) (or
V (Lj0 ) = V (L2 )). Contradiction.
We obtained that dm+1 = · · · = dn = d2 = d3 = dj0 6= d1 . We also have d1 = d4 6= d2 and
d1 = d4 6= d3 . So from (♯), we get b4 = c4 = 0 and so V (L4 ) = V (L1 ). Contradiction. So the
existence of the index j0 is impossible. Hence
d4 = · · · = dn = d1 .

If d4 6= d2 and d4 6= d3 we obtain again that b4 = c4 = 0 and so V (L4 ) = V (L1 ). Contradiction.
If d4P
= d2 = d3 , we have d1 = d2 = d3 = d4 = · · · = dn , leading to a contradiction with the fact
that ni=1 di = 0.
So we can suppose that d1 = d3 = d4 = · · · = dn 6= d2 . Hence we are in the situation di 6= d2 ,
for all i ≥ 4, described in the paragraph after we listed equations (♯). This means that bi = 0,
for all i ≥ 4, and so V (L1 ), V (L3 ), V (L4 ), . . . , V (Ln ) all pass through the point [0, 1, 0]. The
remaining line V (L2 ) = V (y) misses this point.
So we must have that di 6= d1 (or di 6= d2 , or di 6= d3 ) for all i ≥ 4.
Example 3.4. Consider A ⊂ P2 with defining polynomial

Q = xyz(x − y)(x − z)(y − z).

This is a free arrangement (supersolvable) with exponents exp(A) = {1, 2, 3}.
This means that the first syzygies module is free with a basis consisting of two syzygies of
degrees 2 and 3, respectively. One can check that
(−x2 + xy + xz)Qx + (xy − y 2 + yz)Qy + (xz + yz − z 2 )Qz = 0

gives the syzygy of degree 2. Since ht(h−x2 + xy + xz, xy − y 2 + yz, xz + yz − z 2 i) = 2, this
syzygy is not regular.
It remains that the regular
p syzygy must have degree 3, and therefore d = 3 in Proposition 3.1.
We also have that deg( JQ ) = 7, and indeed we have 7 ≤ 32 + 3 + 1 = 13.
Is it possible to construct examples when the bound in Proposition 3.1 is attained? Can the upper
bound be improved?
Proposition 3.1 gives a criterion for non-freeness.
Corollary 3.5. Let A ⊂ P2 be an essential arrangement of n lines, that is p
not a union of a pencil
of n − 1 lines and a generic line (i.e. the situation in Remark 3.3). If deg( JQ ) ≥ n2 − 5n + 8,
then A is not free.
Proof. Suppose A is free with exponents exp(A) = {1, a, b}. Suppose a ≤ b. Since A is not of
the type described in Remark 3.3, then a ≥ 2. Therefore, since a + b = n − 1, we have b ≤ n − 3.
From Proposition 3.1, we have
p
deg( JQ ) ≤ b2 + b + 1 ≤ (n − 3)2 + (n − 3) + 1 = n2 − 5n + 7.
Contradiction.



ON FREENESS OF DIVISORS IN P2

13

3.2. Other results concerning free divisors in P2 . In what follows we will see how the degrees
of the first syzygies on the Jacobian ideal relate to the degrees of the generators of the radical of
the Jacobian ideal.
Proposition 3.6. Let Y = V (F ) ⊂ P2 be an arrangement of m smooth irreducible curves V (Fi ),
m ≥ 2, that intersect√transversely. Let β(JF ) be the minimal degree√of a syzygy on the Jacobian
ideal JF of F . Let α( JF ) be the minimum degree of a generator of JF . Then
p
α( JF ) ≤ β(JF ) + 1.
Proof. The proof is similar to the beginning of the proof of Proposition 3.1. Let AFx + BFy +
∂
∂
∂
CFz = 0 be a syzygy of degree β(JF ). Consider θ = A ∂x
+ B ∂y
+ C ∂z
in D(Y ).
Since F = F1 · · · Fm , from properties of derivations we have that
(∗∗) A(Fi )x + B(Fi )y + C(Fi )z = Fi · gi , with gi ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , m.

Let P = [a, b, c] ∈ V (JF ). By the way we defined Y , one has P ∈ V (Fi ) ∩ V (Fj ), for some
indices i 6= j.
If P ∈
/ V (A, B, C), by evaluating (∗∗) at P , we obtain that the point [A(P ), B(P ), C(P )] is on
the tangent line Li to V (Fi ) at P , as well as on the tangent line Lj to V (Fj ) also at P . Since V (Fi )
and V (Fj ) intersect transversely, the lines Li and Lj have different slopes and therefore
P = [A(P ), B(P ), C(P )].
Denoting with
we see that

I (A,B,C) = hyA − xB, zA − xC, zB − yCi,

[a, b, c] ∈ V (I (A,B,C) ).
If P ∈ V (A, B, C), then, since I (A,B,C) ⊂ hA, B, Ci, we have that V (A, B, C) ⊆ V (I (A,B,C) ).
We obtained that
V (JF ) ⊆ V (I (A,B,C) ),
and hence the assertion.

The bound in Proposition
3.6 can be attained as we can see in Example 3.4 when we have
p
β(JQ ) = 2 and α( JQ ) = 3.
We end with an immediate corollary to the proof of Proposition 3.6.
Corollary 3.7. Let Y = V (F ) ⊂ P2 be an arrangement of m smooth irreducible curves V (Fi ),
m ≥ 2, that intersect transversely. Suppose that Y is free. Then, if (A1 , B1 , C1 ) and (A2 , B2 , C2 )
are a basis for the first syzygy module of JF , we have
V (JF ) = V (I (A1 ,B1 ,C1 ) ) ∩ V (I (A2 ,B2 ,C2 ) ).
Example 3.8. In Example 3.2 we have (A1 , B1 , C1 ) = (x, y, −(n − 1)z), and (A2 , B2 , C2 ) =
(Py , −Px , 0). We have I1 = I (x,y,−(n−1)z) = hxz, yzi and I2 = I (Py ,−Px ,0) = hP, zPy , zPx i.
Let q ∈ V (I1 ) ∩ V (I2 ). Then, q is either q = [a, b, 0] with P (q) = 0, and so q is one of the
intersection points between the pencil and the line at infinity, or the other possibility for q is to be
q = [0, 0, 1] which is the multiple point of the pencil.

14

ŞTEFAN O. TOHǍNEANU

Acknowledgments: I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Graham Denham for the inspiring discussions we had on the subject. I thank Max Wakefield for suggesting Example 3.4 and
Corollary 3.5, and all the participants at Terao Fest 2011 for the feedback on generalizing Theorem
2.2 to arbitrary rank hyperplane arrangements. Their questions led to Example 2.4.
I thank the anonymous referee for bringing to my attention the references [4] and [5], and for all
the useful suggestions and comments.
All the computations were done using Macaulay 2 by D. Grayson and M. Stillman.
R EFERENCES
[1] Cox, D., Schenck, H. (2003). Local complete intersections in P2 and Koszul syzygies. Proceedings of the A.M.S.
131: 2007-2014.
[2] Denham, G., Schenck, H., Schulze, M., Wakefield, M., Walther, U. (2011). Local cohomology of logarithmic
forms. arXiv: 1103.2459, to appear in Ann. Inst. Fourier.
[3] Eisenbud, D. (1995). Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
[4] Eisenbud, D., Huneke, C. (1990). Ideals with a regular sequence as syzygy. Appendix to “Sur les hypersufaces
dont les sections hyperplanes sont module constant” by Arnaud Beauville. pp. 121-133. Grothendieck Festschrift,
Vol. 1. Progress in Mathematics 86: 132-133.
[5] Kustin, A. (1986). The minimal free resolution of the Huneke-Ulrich deviation two Gorenstein ideals. J. Algebra
100: 265-304.
[6] Nejad, A., Simis, A. (2011). The Aluffi Algebra. Journal of Singularities 3: 20-47.
[7] Orlik, P., Terao, H. (1992). Arrangements of Hyperplanes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.
[8] Reiffen, H. (1967). Das Lemma von Poincaré für holomorphe Differentialformen auf komplexen Räumen. Mathematische Zeitschrift 101: 269-284.
[9] Saito, K. (1980). Theory of logarithmic differential forms and logarithmic vector fields. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo
Sect. IA Math. 27: 265-291.
[10] Schenck, H. (2000). A rank two vector bundle associated to a three arrangement, and its Chern polynomial.
Advances in Mathematics 149: 214-229.
[11] Schenck, H., Tohaneanu, S. (2009). Freeness of conic-line arrangements in P2 . Comentarii Mathematici Helvetici
84: 235-258.
[12] Schulze, M. (2010). Freeness and multirestriction of hyperplane arrangements. arXiv:1003.0917, to appear in
Compositio Math.
[13] Simis, A. (2005). Differential idealizers and algebraic free divisors. In “Commutative Algebra: Geometric, Homological, Combinatorial and Computational Aspects”, Eds: A. Corso, P. Gimenez, M. V. Pinto and S. Zarzuela,
pp. 211-226. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 244, Chapman & Hall/CRC.
[14] Simis, A. (2005). The depth of the Jacobian ring of a homogeneous polynomial in three variables. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 134: 1591-1598.
[15] Terao, H. (1980). Arrangements of hyperplanes and their freeness I. J.Fac.Science Univ.Tokyo 27: 293312.
[16] Terao, H. (1981). Generalized exponents of a free arrangement of hyperplanes and Shepard-Todd- Brieskorn
formula. Inventiones Mathematicae 63: 159-179.
[17] Wakefield, M., Yoshinaga, M. (2008). The Jacobian ideal of a hyperplane arrangement. Math. Res. Lett. 15:
795-799.
[18] Yoshinaga, M. (2005). On the freeness of 3-arrangements, Bull. London Math. Soc. 37: 126-134.
D EPARTMENT OF M ATHEMATICS , T HE U NIVERSITY
E-mail address: stohanea@uwo.ca

OF

W ESTERN O NTARIO , L ONDON , O NTARIO N6A 5B7,

