IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

arXiv:1503.02607v2 [math.AC] 5 Apr 2016

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL
Abstract. Building on coprincipal mesoprimary decomposition [Kahle and Miller,
2014], we combinatorially construct an irreducible decomposition of any given binomial ideal. In a parallel manner, for congruences in commutative monoids we
construct decompositions that are direct combinatorial analogues of binomial irreducible decompositions, and for binomial ideals we construct decompositions into
ideals that are as irreducible as possible while remaining binomial. We provide an
example of a binomial ideal that is not an intersection of binomial irreducible ideals,
thus answering a question of Eisenbud and Sturmfels [1996].

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
3. Soccular congruences
4. Soccular decomposition of congruences
5. Binoccular decomposition of binomial ideals
6. Nonexistence of binomial irreducible decomposition
7. Irreducible decomposition of binomial ideals
References

1
3
5
8
9
11
14
15

1. Introduction
An ideal in a commutative ring is irreducible if it is not expressible as an intersection
of two ideals properly containing it. Irreducible ideals are primary, and any ideal I in
a Noetherian ring is an intersection of irreducible ideals. These irreducible decompositions are thus special cases of primary decomposition, but likewise are hard to compute
in general. If I is a monomial ideal, however, this task is much easier: any monomial
ideal is an intersection of irreducible ideals that are themselves monomial ideals (see
[MS05, Theorem 5.27] for polynomial rings and [Mil02, Theorem 2.4] for affine semigroup rings), and these monomial irreducible decompositions are heavily governed by
combinatorics. The ease of monomial irreducible decomposition plus the existence of
binomial primary decomposition in polynomial rings over algebraically closed fields
[ES96, Theorem 7.1] motivated Eisenbud and Sturmfels to ask:
Date: 16 March 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 13C05, 05E40, 20M25; Secondary: 05E15,
13F99, 13A02, 13P99.
1

2

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

Question 1.1 ([ES96, Problem 7.5]). Does every binomial ideal over an algebraically
closed field admit a binomial irreducible decomposition?
We answer Question 1.1 using the theory of mesoprimary decomposition [KM14].
Our response has three stages. First, congruences in Noetherian commutative monoids
admit soccular decompositions (Theorem 4.2), which should be considered the direct
combinatorial analogues of binomial irreducible decompositions. (Soccular congruences
(Definition 3.2) fail to be irreducible for the same reason that prime congruences do; see
the end of [KM14, Section 2] for details.) Second, lifting to binomial ideals the method
of constructing soccular congruences (but not lifting the construction itself; see Example 5.2) yields ideals that are, in a precise sense, as irreducible as possible while
remaining binomial (Definition 5.1). The resulting notion of binoccular decomposition
for binomial ideals (Theorem 5.7) proceeds as far as possible toward irreducible decomposition while remaining confined to the category of binomial ideals. Theorem 6.4
demonstrates, by example, that the confines of binomiality can prevent reaching all
the way to irreducible decomposition by exhibiting a binomial ideal not expressible
as an intersection of binomial irreducible ideals, thus solving Eisenbud and Sturmfels’
problem in the negative. That said, our third and final stage produces irreducible decompositions of binomial ideals (Corollary 7.8) in a manner that is as combinatorial as
mesoprimary decomposition: each coprincipal component has a canonical irreducible
closure (Definition 7.1) that, while not itself an irreducible ideal, has a canonical primary decomposition all of whose components are irreducible (Theorem 7.5).
All three of the decompositions in this paper—soccular, binoccular, and irreducible—
descend directly from coprincipal decomposition [KM14, Theorems 8.4 and 13.3] (see
Theorems 2.6 and 2.11 for restatements of these results). This is true in two senses:
(i) the components in all three types of decomposition are cogenerated by the same
witnesses that cogenerate the corresponding coprincipal components, and (ii) the components themselves are constructed by adding new relations to the corresponding coprincipal components. To be more precise, soccular congruences are constructed by
adding relations between all pairs of protected witnesses (Definition 3.11) for coprincipal
congruences while maintaining their cogenerators (Theorem 3.14 and Corollary 3.15).
Similarly, binoccular ideals are constructed by repeatedly throwing into a coprincipal ideal as many binomial socle elements as possible while maintaining a monomial
cogenerator in the socle (Definitions 5.3 and 5.5). In contrast, irreducible closures
allow arbitrary polynomials to be thrown in, not merely binomials. Although this
concrete description of irreducible closure is accurate, the construction of irreducible
closures (Definition 7.1) is accomplished with more abstract, general commutative algebra. Consequently, the reason why irreducible closures have canonical irreducible
decompositions is particularly general, from the standpoint of commutative algebra,
involving embeddings of rings inside of Gorenstein localizations (Remark 7.6).
Finally, it bears mentioning that for the proofs of correctness—at least for the decompositions in rings as opposed to monoids—we make explicit a unifying principle, in

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

3

the form of equivalent criteria involving socles and monomial localization (Lemma 5.6),
for when a binomial ideal in a monoid algebra equals a given intersection of ideals.
Note on prerequisites. Although the developments here are based on those in [KM14],
the reader is not assumed to have assimilated the results there. The exposition here assumes familiarity only with the most basic monoid theory used in [KM14]. To make this
paper self-contained, every result from [KM14] that is applied here is stated precisely
in Section 2 with prerequisite definitions. In fact, Section 2 serves as a handy summary
of [KM14], proceeding through most of its logical content as efficiently as possible.
2. Preliminaries
We need to briefly review some definitions and results from [KM14]. Following that
paper, we first deal with monoid congruences (the combinatorial setting) and then
the respective binomial ideal counterparts (the arithmetic setting). Throughout, let Q
denote a commutative Noetherian monoid and k a field. We assume familiarity with
basic notions from monoid theory; see Sections 2 and 3 of [KM14], which contain an
introduction to the salient points with binomial algebra in mind. For an example of the
kinds of concepts we assume, an element q ∈ Q is partly cancellative if q + a = q + b 6=
∞ ⇒ a = b for all cancellative a, b ∈ Q, where ∞ ∈ Q is nil [KM14, Definition 2.9].
Definition 2.1. An equivalence relation ∼ on Q is a congruence if a ∼ b implies
a + c ∼ b + c for all a, b, c ∈ Q. A binomial in k[Q] is an element of the form ta − λtb
where a, b ∈ Q and λ ∈ k. An ideal I ⊂ k[Q] is binomial (resp. monomial ) if it can be
generated by binomials (resp. monomials).
Remark 2.2. A binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] induces a congruence ∼I on Q that sets a ∼I b
whenever ta − λtb ∈ I for some nonzero λ ∈ k. The quotient algebra k[Q]/I is finely
graded by the quotient monoid Q/∼I . Conversely, each congruence on Q is of the form
∼I for some binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q], although more than one I is possible: the nil class
can be zero or not [KM14, Proposition 9.5], and the congruence forgets coefficients.
Definition 2.3 ([KM14, Definitions 2.12, 3.4, 4.7, 4.10, 7.1, 7.2, 7.7, and 7.12]). Fix
a congruence ∼ on Q and a prime P ⊂ Q. Write QP = QP /∼, where QP is the
localization along P , and denote by q the image of q ∈ Q in Q = Q/∼.
1. An element q ∈ Q is an aide for w ∈ Q and a generator p ∈ P if w 6= q, and
w + p = q + p, and q is maximal in the set {q, w}. The element q is a key aide for
w if q is an aide for w for each generator of P . An element w ∈ Q is a witness
for P if it has an aide for each p ∈ P , and a key witness for P if it has a key aide.
A key witness w is a cogenerator of ∼ if w + p is nil modulo ∼ for all p ∈ P .
2. The congruence ∼ is P -primary if every p ∈ P is nilpotent in Q and every f ∈
Q r P is cancellative in Q. A P -primary congruence ∼ is mesoprimary if every
element of the quotient Q is partly cancellative. The congruence ∼ is coprincipal
if it is mesoprimary and every cogenerator for ∼ generates the same ideal in Q.

4

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

3. The coprincipal component ∼Pw of ∼ cogenerated by a witness w ∈ Q for P is the
coprincipal congruence that relates a, b ∈ Q if one of the following is satisfied:
(i) both a and b generate an ideal not containing q in QP ; or
(ii) a and b differ by a unit in QP and a + c = b + c = q for some c ∈ QP .
A (key) witness for P may be called a (key) ∼-witness for P to specify ∼. Congruences
may be called P -mesoprimary or P -coprincipal to specify P .
Definition 2.4 ([KM14, Definitions 5.1 and 5.2]). Fix a congruence ∼ on a monoid Q,
a prime ideal P ⊂ Q, and an element q ∈ Q that is not nil modulo ∼.
1. Let GP ⊂ QP denote the unit group of the localization QP , and write KqP ⊂ GP
for the stabilizer of q ∈ QP under the action of GP .
2. If ≈ is the congruence on QP that sets a ≈ b whenever
• a and b lie in PP or
• a and b lie in GP and a − b ∈ KqP ,
then the P -prime congruence of ∼ at q is ker(Q → QP /≈).
3. The P -prime congruence at q is associated to ∼ if q is a key witness for P .
Definition 2.5 ([KM14,
Definition 8.1]). An expression of a congruence ∼ on Q as a
T
common refinement i ≈i of mesoprimary congruences is a mesoprimary decomposition
of ∼ if, for each ≈i with associated prime Pi ⊂ Q, the Pi -prime congruences of ∼ and ≈i
at each cogenerator for ≈i coincide. This decomposition is key if every cogenerator for
every ≈i is a key witness for ∼.
Theorem 2.6 ([KM14, Theorem 8.4]). Each congruence ∼ on Q is the common refinement of the coprincipal components cogenerated by its key witnesses.
The proof of Theorem 2.6 at the source [KM14, Theorem 8.4] yields the following
corollary, which is necessary for Theorem 4.5.
Corollary 2.7. Given a congruence ∼ on Q and elements a, b ∈ Q with a 6∼ b, there
exists a monoid prime P ⊂ Q and an element u ∈ Q such that (after possibly swapping
a and b) the element a + u is a key ∼-witness for P with key aide b + u.
A few more definitions are required before a precise statement of the main existence
result for binomial ideals from [KM14] can be made in Theorem 2.11.
Definition 2.8 ([KM14, Definitions 11.7, 11.11, and 12.1]). Let I ⊂ k[Q] be a binomial
ideal. Fix a prime P ⊂ Q and an element q ∈ Q with tq ∈
/ IP .
1. Let GP ⊂ QP denote the unit group of QP , and write KqP ⊂ GP for the subgroup
of GP that fixes the class of q modulo ∼I .
2. Denote by ρ : KqP → k∗ the group homomorphism such that tu − ρ(u) lies in the
kernel of the k[GP ]-module homomorphism k[GP ] → k[QP ]/IP taking 1 7→ tq .
3. The P -mesoprime ideal of I at q is the preimage IqP in k[Q] of (IqP )P = Iρ + mP ,
where Iρ = htu − ρ(u − v)tv | u − v ∈ KqP i ⊂ k[Q]P .

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

5

4. An element w ∈ Q is an I-witness for a monoid prime P if w is a ∼I -witness
for P or if P = ∅ is empty and I contains no monomials. w ∈ Q is an essential
I-witness if w is a key ∼I -witness or some polynomial in k[QP ]/IP annihilated
by mP has tw minimal (under Green’s preorder) among its nonzero monomials.
5. The mesoprime IqP is associated to I if q is an essential I-witness for P .
Definition 2.9 ([KM14, Definitions 10.4, 12.14, 12.18]). Fix a binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q]
and a prime P ⊂ Q.
1. The ideal I is mesoprimary (resp. coprincipal ) if the congruence ∼I is mesoprimary (resp. coprincipal) and I is maximal among binomial ideals in k[Q]
inducing this congruence.
2. The P -coprincipal component of I at w ∈ Q is the preimage WwP (I) ⊂ k[Q] of
the ideal IP + Iρ + MwP (I) ⊂ k[Q]P , where MwP (I) is the ideal generated by the
monomials tu ∈ k[Q] such that w ∈
/ hui ⊂ QP .
T
Definition 2.10 ([KM14, Definition 13.1]). An expression I = j Ij is a mesoprimary decomposition if each component Ij is Pj -mesoprimary and the Pj -mesoprimes
of I and Ij at each cogenerator of Ij coincide. This decomposition is combinatorial
if every cogenerator of every component is an essential I-witness. A mesoprimary
decomposition is a coprincipal decomposition if every component is coprincipal.
Theorem 2.11 ([KM14, Theorem 13.3]). Every binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] is the intersection of the coprincipal components cogenerated by its essential witnesses. In particular,
every binomial ideal admits a combinatorial mesoprimary decomposition.
Theorem 2.11 produces a primary decomposition of any binomial ideal via the next
result. Precise details about the primary components here can be found at the cited
locations in [KM14].
Proposition 2.12 ([KM14, Corollary 15.2 and Proposition 15.4]). Fix a mesoprimary
ideal I ⊂ k[Q]. The associated primes of I are exactly the minimal primes of its associated mesoprime. Consequently, I admits a canonical minimal primary decomposition.
When k = k is algebraically closed, every component of this decomposition is binomial.
Theorem 2.13 ([KM14, Theorems 15.6 and 15.12]). Fix a binomial ideal I ⊆ k[Q].
Each associated prime of I is minimal over some associated mesoprime of I. If k = k
is algebraically closed, then refining any mesoprimary decomposition of I by canonical
primary decomposition of its components yields a binomial primary decomposition of I.
3. Soccular congruences
Although the condition to be a coprincipal quotient is strong, it does not imply that
a binomial ideal inducing a coprincipal congruence has simple socle. Precisely, the socle
of a coprincipal quotient has only one monomial up to units locally at the associated
prime. While this suffices for irreducible decomposition of monomial ideals, modulo a

6

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

binomial ideal the socle can have binomials and general polynomials. Our first step is
soccular decomposition (Theorem 4.5), which parallels, at the level of congruences, the
construction of irreducible decompositions of binomial ideals (Theorem 7.7). While it
is the optimal construction in the combinatorial setting, soccular decomposition cannot
yield irreducible decompositions of binomial ideals in general since these need not be
binomial (Example 6.1). To start, here is a simple example of a primary coprincipal
binomial ideal that is reducible, demonstrating that coprincipal decomposition of ideals
is not irreducible decomposition.
Example 3.1. The congruence on N2 induced by the ideal I = hx2 − xy, xy − y 2 , x3 i
is coprincipal, but x − y ∈ socm (I) for m = hx, yi. This is because x and y are both
key witnesses and each is an aide for the other.
Definition 3.2. A congruence ∼ on Q is soccular if its key witnesses all generate the
same principal ideal in the localized quotient QP /∼.
Definition 3.3. Fix a monoid prime P ⊂ Q and a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q
with cogenerator w ∈ Q. The (first) soccular collapse of ∼ is the congruence ≈ that
sets a ≈ b if a, b ∈
/ hwi and a + p ∼ b + p for all p ∈ P . The i-th soccular collapse of ∼
is the soccular collapse of the (i − 1)st soccular collapse of ∼.
Soccular collapses remove key witness pairs that are not Green’s equivalent to the
cogenerator of a coprincipal congruence. It is routine to check that the soccular collapse
of a coprincipal congruence is a coprincipal congruence (see the following lemmas). The
construction stabilizes since Q is a Noetherian monoid and consequently the iterated
soccular collapse of a coprincipal congruence is a soccular congruence.
In general, to form a congruence from a set of relations, one takes monoid closure
and then transitive closure. Lemma 3.4 says that for a soccular collapse of a coprincipal
congruence, both of these operations are trivial.
Lemma 3.4. The soccular collapse of a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ is a congruence
on Q that coarsens ∼.
Proof. The soccular collapse ≈ is symmetric and transitive since ∼ is symmetric and
transitive. Suppose a, b ∈
/ hwi with a + p ∼ b + p for all p ∈ P . Then for all q ∈ Q,
a + q + p ∼ b + q + p for all p ∈ P since q + p ∈ P , so a + q ≈ b + q. Therefore ≈ is a
congruence on Q. Lastly, if a ∼ b, then a + p ∼ b + p for all p ∈ P , so ∼ refines ≈. 
Lemma 3.5. Resuming the notation from Definition 3.3, if a ≈ b and a 6∼ b, then
neither a nor b is maximal in Q modulo Green’s relation.
Proof. Given Lemma 3.4, the definition of ≈ ensures that a and b both preceed w
modulo Green’s relation, which ensures a and b are not maximal.

Lemma 3.6 shows that taking the soccular collapse of a coprincipal congruence does
not modify Green’s classes.

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

7

Figure 1. For I = hx3 − x2 y, x2 y − xy 2 , xy 3 − y 4 , x5 i ⊂ k[x, y], the
congruence induced by I on N2 (left), and its soccular collapse (right).
The monomial xy is a key witness for both ∼I and its soccular collapse.
Lemma 3.6. Resuming the notation from Definition 3.3, if a, b ∈ Q differ by a cancellative modulo ∼, then soccular collapse does not join them.
Proof. Suppose a ≈ b and a = b + f for some cancellative element f . For each p ∈ P ,
a + p = b + p by Lemma 3.4, and each is non nil by Lemma 3.5. Thus b + f + p ∼ b + p,
so f = 0 by the partly cancellative property of b + p in Definition 2.3.2.

Proposition 3.7. Fix a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q with cogenerator w. The
soccular collapse ≈ of ∼ is coprincipal with cogenerator w, and ≈ coarsens ∼. Moreover, the elements a, b ∈ Q distinct under ∼ but identified under ≈ are precisely the
key witnesses of ∼ lying outside the Green’s class of w.
Proof. The congruence ≈ coarsens ∼ by Lemma 3.4. As ∼ is mesoprimary, Lemma 3.6
ensures that ≈ is also mesoprimary, and by Lemma 3.5 ≈ agrees with ∼ on the Green’s
class of w. The final claim follows upon observing that a and b are by definition key
witnesses for ∼.

Definition 3.8. Fix a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q. Two distinct key witnesses
a, b ∈ Q for ∼ form a key witness pair if each is a key aide for the other.
Remark 3.9. If a, b ∈ Q form a key witness pair under a coprincipal congruence ∼
and neither of them is Green’s equivalent to the cogenerator w, then they are no longer
a key witness pair under the soccular collapse ≈ of ∼ by Proposition 3.7. However, ≈
may still have key witnesses, as shown in Example 3.10.
Example 3.10. Let I = hx3 −x2 y, x2 y−xy 2 , xy 3 −y 4 , x5 i ⊂ k[x, y]. The congruence ∼I
and its soccular collapse are shown in Figure 1. The monoid element xy is a key witness
for ∼I , where it is paired with y 2 , as well as for the soccular collapse of ∼I , where it is
paired with x2 .

8

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

Definition 3.11. Fix a coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q with cogenerator w. An element
a ∈ Q is a protected witness for ∼ if it is a key witness for the ith soccular collapse
of ∼ for some i ≥ 1. Elements a, b ∈ Q form a protected witnesses pair if they form a
key witness pair for some iterated soccular collapse of ∼.
Definition 3.12. Fix a coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q. The soccular closure ∼ of ∼
is the congruence refined by ∼ that additionally joins any a and b related under some
soccular collapse of ∼.
Lemma 3.13. Fix a coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q with cogenerator w. The soccular
closure ∼ of ∼ is a soccular congruence, and its set of key witnesses is exactly the
Green’s class of w.
Proof. By construction, the soccular closure has no key witnesses outside the Green’s
class of w.

We now characterize protected witnesses and give a non-iterative way to specify the
soccular closure. To this end, let
(w :∼ q) = {p ∈ Q | q + p = w in QP /∼}.
Theorem 3.14. Fix a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q with cogenerator w, and write
Q = Q/∼. Then q, q 0 ∈ Q with distinct classes in Q are a protected witnesses pair for ∼
if and only if (w :∼ q) = (w :∼ q 0 ).
Proof. Let ∼ denote the soccular closure of ∼. Since passing to ∼ leaves the class of w
under ∼ unchanged, (w :∼ q) = (w :∼ q) for all q ∈ Q. Therefore, if q and q 0 are
merged under ∼, the sets (w :∼ q) and (w :∼ q 0 ) coincide.
Now assume q and q 0 are not related under ∼. Pick an element p ∈ P such that
q + p and q 0 + p are distinct under ∼ and such that the image p ∈ Q is maximal among
images of elements in P with this property. Existence of p is guaranteed because ∼ is
primary, whence QP has only finitely many Green’s classes. Maximality of p implies
that q + p and q 0 + p become merged in Q/∼ under the action of any element of P .
Since ∼ has no key witness pairs, one of q + p and q 0 + p must be nil, and maximality
of p implies the other is Green’s equivalent to w. After possibly switching q and q 0 ,
this gives p ∈ (w :∼ q) but p ∈
/ (w :∼ q 0 ).

Corollary 3.15. Fix a coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q cogenerated by w. The soccular
closure ∼ of ∼ relates a and b if and only if (w :∼ a) = (w :∼ b).

4. Soccular decomposition of congruences
Every congruence can be expressed as a common refinement of soccular congruences. Our constructive proof first produces the decomposition in Corollary 4.3, which
might not be a mesoprimary decomposition; see Remark 4.4. Theorem 4.5 removes
unnecessary components and shows that the resulting decomposition is mesoprimary.

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

9

Definition 4.1. Fix a P -coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q and a key witness w ∈ Q.
The soccular component ∼Pw of ∼ cogenerated by w along P is the soccular closure of
the coprincipal component ∼Pw cogenerated by w along P .
Theorem 4.2. Any coprincipal congruence ∼ on Q is the common refinement of the
soccular components cogenerated by its protected witnesses.
Proof. Each soccular component coarsens ∼ by Lemma 3.4, so it suffices to show that
their common refinement is ∼. Let w ∈ Q denote a cogenerator of ∼ and fix distinct
a, b ∈ Q. If the soccular component of ∼ at w (that is, the soccular closure of ∼) leaves
a and b distinct, we are done. Otherwise, both a and b are protected witnesses, and
the soccular component of ∼ at a joins b with the nil class.

Corollary 4.3. Any congruence ∼ on Q can be expressed as a common refinement of
soccular congruences.
Proof. Apply Theorem 2.6 to ∼, then Theorem 4.2 to each component.



Remark 4.4. The decomposition in Corollary 4.3 is not necessarily a mesoprimary
decomposition in the sense of Definition 2.5, since the associated prime congruence of
a component ≈ cogenerated at a protected witness q ∈ Q need not coincide with the
prime congruence at q under ∼. The next theorem shows that the components in this
decomposition cogenerated at protected witnesses that are not key ∼-witnesses are
redundant, and the resulting decomposition is indeed a mesoprimary decomposition.
Theorem 4.5. Any congruence ∼ is the common refinement of the soccular components cogenerated by its key witnesses.
Proof. For elements a, b ∈ Q with a 6∼ b, Corollary 2.7 produces, after possibly swapping a and b, a prime P ⊂ Q and u ∈ Q such that a 6∼Pw b for a key witness w = a + u
with key aide b + u. Since ∼Pw has the same cogenerator and nil class as ∼Pw , Corollary 3.15 ensures that ∼Pw does not relate a and b as well.

5. Binoccular decomposition of binomial ideals
The binomial ideal analogue (Theorem 5.7) of soccular decomposition (Theorem 4.5)
yields a decomposition into binoccular ideals (Definition 5.1), each of whose socles
contains a monomial cogenerator and no two-term binomials other than linear combinations of monomial cogenerators. Due to the possibility of non-binomials in the
socle, binoccular decomposition is not irreducible decomposition, but it is the best
approximation that does not exit the class of binomial ideals. As with coprincipal decomposition, the relevant witnesses are essential witnesses rather than key witnesses.
For any monoid prime ideal P ⊂ Q, let mP = htp : p ∈ P i. In general, a monoid
prime ideal P in a subscript denotes monomial localization, which arises from inverting
all monomials outside of mP . (This notation was used in [KM14, Section 11].)

10

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

Definition 5.1. Fix a binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] and a prime monoid ideal P ⊂ Q. The
P -socle of I is the ideal
socP (I) = {f ∈ k[Q]P /IP | mP f = 0} ⊂ k[Q]P /IP .
A binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] is binoccular if it is P -coprincipal and every monomial
appearing in each binomial in socP (I) is a monomial cogenerator of k[Q]P /IP .
Example 5.2. Binoccular ideals need not induce soccular congruences. The ideal
I = hx2 − xy, xy + y 2 i is hx, yi-coprincipal since it contains all monomials of degree 3.
The monomials x and y form a key witness pair for ∼I , but I is irreducible, so these
monomials do not form a binomial socle element.
Example 5.2 implies that the witness protection program in Section 3 cannot be
expected to lift directly to the arithmetic setting, in the sense that collapsing the
congruence ∼I combinatorially need not reflect an operation on I itself. Nonetheless,
the analogous arithmetic collapse is easily defined and has the desired effect.
Definition 5.3. Fix a P -coprincipal binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] cogenerated by w ∈ Q.
The (first) binoccular collapse of I is the ideal
I1 = hta − λtb | tp (ta − λtb ) ∈ I for all p ∈ P i
and the i-th binoccular collapse Ii of I is the binoccular collapse of Ii−1 . The binoccular
closure of I is the smallest ideal I containing all binoccular collapses of I.
Proposition 5.4. Fix a P -coprincipal binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] cogenerated by w ∈ Q.
The binoccular collapse I1 of I is also a coprincipal ideal cogenerated by w, and for any
binomial ta −λtb ∈ I1 outside of I, the elements a and b form a key witness pair for ∼I .
Proof. This follows from Definition 5.3 and Proposition 3.7 since ∼J coarsens ∼I and
refines ∼I .

Definition 5.5. Fix a binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q], a prime P ⊂ Q, and w ∈ Q. The
binoccular component of I cogenerated by w is the binoccular closure W Pw (I) of the
coprincipal component WwP (I) of I cogenerated by w along P .
Lemma 5.6 is the core of the original proof of Theorem 2.11, but it was not stated
explicitly in these terms. This unifying principle is also important as we construct
binoccular decompositions of binomial ideals (Theorem 5.7) and irreducible decompositions of binomial ideals (Theorem 7.7).
Lemma 5.6. Fix a binomial ideal I ⊂ R = k[Q] and (not necessarily binomial) ideals
W1 , . . . , Wr containing I. The following are equivalent.
1. I = W1 ∩ · · · ∩ Wr .
2. The natural map R/I → R/W1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ R/Wr is injective.
3. The natural map socP (I) → RP /(W1 )P ⊕ · · · ⊕ RP /(Wr )P is injective for every
monoid prime P ⊂ Q associated to ∼I .

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

11

4. The natural map socp (I) → Rp /(W1 )p ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rp /(Wr )p is injective for every
prime p ∈ Ass(I).
Proof. The containments I ⊆ W1 , . . . , I ⊆ Wr induce a well-defined homomorphism
R/I → R/W1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ R/Wr .
whose kernel is W1 ∩ · · · ∩ Wr modulo I. Thus I = W1 ∩ · · · ∩ Wr holds if and only if
this map is injective and therefore 1 ⇔ 2. Assume the homomorphism just constructed
is injective. Exactness of localization produces an injective map
RP /IP ,→ RP /(W1 )P ⊕ · · · ⊕ RP /(Wr )P
for each monoid prime P ⊂ Q. This proves 2 ⇒ 3. Now assume 3 holds and fix a
prime p ∈ Ass(I). By Theorem 2.13, p is minimal over some associated mesoprime
of I. Since P is associated to ∼I , the map
socP (I) → RP /(W1 )P ⊕ · · · ⊕ RP /(Wr )P
is injective. Every monomial outside of mP also lies outside of p, so by inverting the
remaining elements outside of p, we obtain the injection
socP (I)p → Rp /(W1 )p ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rp /(Wr )p .
Any element in socP (I)p is annihilated by mP , so socp (I) ⊂ socP (I)p , yielding 3 ⇒ 4.
Finally, suppose 4 holds. Fix a nonzero f ∈ R/I and a prime p minimal over the
annihilator of f . The image f ∈ Rp /Ip of f is nonzero since p contains the annihilator
of f . Minimality of p implies some power of p annihilates f , so af is annihilated by p
for some a ∈ p. By assumption, af has nonzero image in some (R/Wi )p , meaning af
has nonzero image in R/Wi . This proves 4 ⇒ 2.

Theorem 5.7. For any binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q], the intersection of the binoccular components cogenerated by its essential I-witnesses is a mesoprimary decomposition of I.
Proof. Fix a monoid prime P ⊂ Q associated to ∼I and a nonzero f ∈ socP (I). By
Lemma 5.6, it suffices to show that f is nonzero modulo the localization along P of
some binoccular component. By Definition 2.8.4, some nonzero monomial λtw of f is
an essential IP -witness for P . This means every monomial of f other than λtw that
is nonzero modulo WwP (I)P is Green’s equivalent to w, so f has nonzero image in the
binoccular closure W Pw (I)P .

6. Nonexistence of binomial irreducible decomposition
The only binomials in the socle of a binoccular binomial ideal are binomials where
both terms are monomial cogenerators. When the monomial ideal mP for the associated
monoid prime P is a maximal ideal in k[Q], this means that in fact the socle has exactly
one binomial, up to scale, namely the unique monomial cogenerator. However, even in
that case the socle can contain non-binomial elements, too.

12

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

Figure 2. The congruence induced by hx2 y−xy 2 , x3 , y 3 i ⊂ k[x, y] on N2 .
The non-binomial element x2 + y 2 − xy lies in the socle of I, and as such,
I does not admit a binomial irreducible decomposition.
Example 6.1. Let I = hx2 y − xy 2 , x3 , y 3 i ⊂ k[x, y]. This ideal is binoccular, and
its congruence is depicted in Figure 2. The binomial generator forces x2 y 2 ∈ I, so I
is cogenerated by x2 y. The monomials x2 , xy and y 2 are all non-key witnesses, and
x2 +y 2 −xy ∈ socP (I) for mP = hx, yi. The expression I = hx2 +y 2 −xy, x3 , y 3 i∩hx3 , yi is
an irreducible decomposition of I, and as we shall see in Theorem 6.4, every irreducible
decomposition of I contains some non-binomial irreducible component.
Theorem 6.4 shows that the ideal in Example 6.1 cannot be written as the intersection
of binomial irreducible ideals, answering Question 1.1 in the negative. Its proof uses an
alternative characterization of irreducible ideals in terms of their socles (Lemma 6.3).
Definition 6.2. Fix an ideal I in a Noetherian ring R and a prime ideal p ⊂ R. The
p-socle of I is
socp (I) = {f ∈ Rp /Ip | pf = 0} ⊆ Rp /Ip .
I has simple socle if dimk(p) (socp (I)) = 1, where k(p) = Rp /pp is the residue field at p.
Lemma 6.3 ([Vas98, Proposition 3.1.7]). The number of components in any irredundant irreducible decomposition of a p-primary ideal I in a Noetherian ring R equals
dimk(p) socp (I).
Theorem 6.4. The ideal I = hx2 y − xy 2 , x3 , y 3 i ⊂ k[x, y] cannot be expressed as an
intersection of binomial irreducible ideals.
Proof. Let mP = hx, yi. The k-vector space socP (I) is spanned by α = x2 + y 2 − xy
and β = x2 y. Since dimk (socP (I)) = 2 and k = k(mP ), any irredundant irreducible
decomposition of I has exactly 2 components by Lemma 6.3. Suppose I = I1 ∩ I2
with I1 and I2 irreducible. The equivalence of parts 1 and 2 in Lemma 5.6 implies that the natural map k[x, y]/I → k[x, y]/I1 ⊕ k[x, y]/I2 induces an injection
socmP (I) ,→ socmP (I1 ) ⊕ socmP (I2 ) which is an isomorphism for dimension reasons.
Possibly exchanging I1 and I2 , assume f = α + λβ spans socmP (I1 ) for some λ ∈ k.

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

I

13

J

Figure 3. The congruences induced by I = hx2 y − xy 2 , x4 − x3 y, xy 3 −
y 4 , x5 i (left) and J = hx4 y −x3 y 2 , x2 y 3 −xy 4 , x6 −x5 y, xy 5 −y 6 , x7 i (right)
on N2 . I admits a binomial irreducible decomposition, but J does not.
This implies f ∈ I2 and socmP (I +hf i) = socmP (I2 ), the latter by an explicit, elementary
calculation. Lemma 5.6 yields I2 = I + hf i.

Example 6.1 is the first example of a binomial ideal that does not admit a binomial
irreducible decomposition. However, it is still possible to construct a (not necessarily binomial) irreducible decomposition from essentially combinatorial data, as Corollary 7.8
demonstrates.
Example 6.5 exhibits the difficulties in determining whether or not a given binomial
ideal admits a binomial irreducible decomposition. This question is closely connected
with understanding which components in a coprincipal decomposition are redundant.
Example 6.5. Consider the two ideals I = hx2 y − xy 2 , x4 − x3 y, xy 3 − y 4 , x5 i and
J = hx4 y − x3 y 2 , x2 y 3 − xy 4 , x6 − x5 y, xy 5 − y 6 , x7 i, whose respective congruences are
depicted in Figure 3. The ideal I has three key witnesses aside from its cogenerator,
and the binoccular decomposition produced in Theorem 5.7 has a component at each
of these key witnesses. Any one of these three can be omitted, and omitting the
component cogenerated by x2 y yields a binomial irreducible decomposition of I. In
contrast, J has four non-maximal key witnesses, two of which cogenerate binoccular
components that fail to admit binomial irreducible decompositions. Since only one can
be omitted, J does not admit a binomial irreducible decomposition.
Problem 6.6. Determine when all of the binoccular components without simple socle
can be omitted from the decomposition in Theorem 5.7.
Question 6.7. Which binomial ideals admit binomial irreducible decompositions?
Question 6.7 is more general than Problem 6.6 but may involve primary decompositions that do not arise from mesoprimary decomposition.

14

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

7. Irreducible decomposition of binomial ideals
This section produces an irreducible decomposition of any given binomial ideal.
We first define the irreducible closure of a coprincipal binomial ideal (Definition 7.1).
Unlike a binoccular closure (Definition 5.3), which may have non-binomial elements in
its socle, the cogenerators of coprincipal binomial ideals are the only socle elements
that survive irreducible closure.
Definition 7.1. For a P -coprincipal binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] cogenerated by w ∈ Q, set
RP = k[QP ]/IP and let GP ⊂ QP denote the group of units. Write w⊥ for the unique
graded k-vector subspace of RP such that RP = (k[GP ] · tw ) ⊕ w⊥ . Let w⊥
∞ denote the
largest k[QP ]-submodule of RP that lies entirely in w⊥ and set RP = RP /w⊥
∞ . The
irreducible closure of I is the ideal Irr(I) = ker(k[Q] → RP ).
Example 7.2. Let I = hx2 y − xy 2 , x3 , y 3 , z 3 i and mP = hx, y, zi. Then z 2 (x2 + y 2 − xy)
lies in socP (I) and thus generates a k[x, y, z]-submodule of (x2 yz 2 )⊥ . On the other
hand, the element z(x2 + y 2 − xy) lies in socP (hz 2 (x2 + y 2 − xy)i + I) but outside of
socP (I). Continuing yields the irreducible closure Irr(I) = hx2 + y 2 − xyi + I of I.
Recall the usual notion of essentiality from commutative algebra: a submodule N of
a module M is essential if N intersects every nonzero submodule of M nontrivially.
Lemma 7.3. If I ⊂ k[Q] is a P -coprincipal binomial ideal with monomial cogenerator tw , then htw i = k[GP ]·tw is an essential k[QP ]-submodule of RP that is isomorphic
to a Gorenstein quotient of k[GP ].
Proof. The equality htw i = k[GP ] · tw follows because tw is annihilated by mP . The
Gorenstein condition [Vas98, Appendix A.7] holds because the kernel of the surjection
k[GP ] → htw i is, after faithfully flat extension to an algebraically closed coefficient
field, generated by a binomial regular sequence [ES96, Theorem 2.1(b)]. To prove
essentiality, first note that socP (RP ) is an essential submodule of RP because mP is
nilpotent on RP , and then note that htw i = socP (RP ) by construction of RP .

Proposition 7.4. Fix a P -coprincipal binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] with monomial cogenerator tw . The associated primes of RP , RP , and RP /mP coincide and are all minimal.
Proof. The associated primes of RP and RP /mP coincide by Proposition 2.12. But
RP /mP ∼
= htw i ⊆ RP maps isomorphically to an essential submodule of RP by
Lemma 7.3, so all three sets of associated primes coincide.

Compare the next result to the coprincipal special case of Proposition 2.12.
Theorem 7.5. The irreducible closure Irr(I) of any coprincipal ideal I has a unique
minimal primary decomposition. Every primary component therein is irreducible.

IRREDUCIBLE DECOMPOSITION OF BINOMIAL IDEALS

15

Proof. Minimality of all associated primes in Proposition 7.4 implies the first statement. Since localization preserves essentiality [Bass62, Corollary 1.3], the ordinary
localization htw ip at the prime k[Q]-ideal p is an essential submodule of (RP )p for every p ∈ Ass(Irr(I)) by Lemma 7.3. The same lemma implies that htw ip is Gorenstein of
dimension 0, so htw ip has simple socle. Thus the quotient by Irr(I)p has simple socle,
whence Irr(I)p is irreducible by Lemma 6.3.

Remark 7.6. The proof of Theorem 7.5 via Lemma 7.3 and Proposition 7.4 shows,
quite generally, that if a Noetherian ring is contained in a localization that has an
essential submodule isomorphic to a Gorenstein ring, then the original ring has a
unique minimal primary decomposition all of whose components are quotients modulo
irreducible ideals.
We now extend Theorem 5.7 to irreducible closures before stating Corollary 7.8, our
main result for this section.
Theorem 7.7. Every binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q] equals the intersection of the irreducible
closures of the coprincipal components cogenerated by its essential witnesses.
Proof. Fix a monoid prime P ⊂ Q and nonzero f ∈ socP (I). By Definition 2.8.4, some
nonzero monomial λtw of f is an essential IP -witness for P . Every monomial of f that
is nonzero modulo Irr(WwP (I))P lies in the submodule htw i of k[Q]P / Irr(WwP (I))P , so
f is nonzero modulo Irr(WwP (I))P . Lemma 5.6 completes the proof.

Corollary 7.8. Fix a binomial ideal I ⊂ k[Q]. An irreducible decomposition of I
results by intersecting the canonical primary components of the irreducible closures of
the coprincipal components cogenerated by the essential I-witnesses.
Proof. Apply Theorem 7.7, then Theorem 7.5.



References
[Bass62] Hyman Bass, Injective dimension in Noetherian rings, Transactions of the AMS 102 (1962),
18–29.
[ES96] David Eisenbud and Bernd Sturmfels, Binomial ideals, Duke Math. J. 84 (1996), no. 1, 1–45.
[KM14] Thomas Kahle and Ezra Miller, Decompositions of commutative monoid congruences and
binomial ideals, Algebra and Number Theory 8 (2014), no. 6, 1297–1364.
[Mil02] Ezra Miller, Cohen–Macaulay quotients of normal semigroup rings via irreducible resolutions,
Math. Res. Lett. 9 (2002), no. 1, 117–128.
[MS05] Ezra Miller and Bernd Sturmfels, Combinatorial commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in
Mathematics, vol. 227, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
[Vas98] Wolmer V. Vasconcelos, Computational methods in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.

16

THOMAS KAHLE, EZRA MILLER, AND CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL

Faculty of Mathematics, Otto-von-Guericke Universität, Magdeburg, Germany
Website: http://www.thomas-kahle.de
Mathematics Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
Website: http://www.math.duke.edu/~ezra
Mathematics Department, Texas A&M University, TX 77843
Website: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~coneill/

