On the Stanley depth of powers of some classes of monomial ideals

Mircea Cimpoeaş

arXiv:1512.08195v3 [math.AC] 16 Oct 2016

Abstract
Given arbitrary monomial ideals I and J in polynomial rings A and B over a field
K, we investigate the Stanley depth of powers of the sum I + J, and their quotient
rings, in A ⊗K B in terms of those of I and J. Our results can be used to study
the asymptotic behavior of the Stanley depth of powers of a monomial ideal. For
instance, we solved the case of monomial complete intersection.
Keywords: Stanley depth, monomial ideal, powers of ideals.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 13C15, 13P10, 13F20.

Introduction
Let K be a field and S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] the polynomial ring over K. LetL
M be a Zn -graded
r
S-module. A Stanley decomposition of M is a direct sum D : M =
i=1 mi K[Zi ] as a
n
Z -graded K-vector space, where mi ∈ M is homogeneous with respect to Zn -grading,
Zi ⊂ {x1 , . . . , xn } such that mi K[Zi ] = {umi : u ∈ K[Zi ]} ⊂ M is a free K[Zi ]-submodule
of M. We define sdepth(D) = mini=1,...,r |Zi | and sdepthS (M) = max{sdepth(D)| D is a
Stanley decomposition of M}. The number sdepthS (M) is called the Stanley depth of M.
Herzog, Vladoiu and Zheng show in [11] that sdepthS (M) can be computed in a finite
number of steps if M = I/J, where J ⊂ I ⊂ S are monomial ideals. In [18], Rinaldo give
a computer implementation for this algorithm, in the computer algebra system CoCoA [7].
For a friendly introduction in the thematic of Stanley depth, we refer the reader [12].
Let I and J be two monomial ideal in polynomial rings A and B over a field K. In [9],
H. H. Ha, N. V. Trung and T. N. Trung studied the behavour of the depth for powers of
I + J, in terms of those of I and J. Our aim is to do a similar task for the sdepth. However,
since there are no homological methods for computing the sdepth, our results are weaker. In
Proposition 2.4 we show that sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 ) ≥ mini+j=n {sdepthA (I i /I i+1 ) +
sdepthB (J j /J j+1)}, for all n ≥ 0.
Also, sdepth((I +J)n ) ≥ min{sdepth(I n ), sdepth(I n−1 J/I n J), . . . , sdepth(J n /IJ n )} for
any n ≥ 1, see Proposition 2.6. There are no general results regarding the asymptotic
behavior of the numerical functions n 7→ sdepthB (B/J n ), n 7→ sdepthB (J n ) and n 7→
sdepthB (J n /J n+1 ), like in the case of depth, see for instance [10]. If J ⊂ B is a monomial
complete intersection ideal, we prove that sdepth(R/(I + J)n ) ≥ mini≤n {sdepthA (A/I i ) +
dim(B/J)}, see Theorem 2.11.
In the general case, is difficult to estimate sdepth(R/(I +J)n ). A partial result for n = 2
is given in Proposition 2.9. If J ⊂ B is a monomial complete intersection, we prove that
sdepthB (B/J n ) = sdepthB (J n /J n+1 ) = dim(B/J), and we give bounds for sdepthB (J n ),
see Theorem 2.15.
1
The support from grant ID-PCE-2011-1023 of Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation is gratefully acknowledged.

1

1

Preliminaries

We consider I ⊂ S a monomial ideal. We say that I, respectively S/I, satisfies the Stanley
inequality, if sdepth(I) ≥ depth(I), respectively sdepth(S/I) ≥ sdepth(S/I). Stanley [19]
conjectured in fact that for any ideal I ⊂ S, both I and S/I satisfy these inequalities. This
conjecture proved to be false in the case of S/I, see [8].
In [16], L. Katthän proposed the following conjecture, which is a weaker form of the
Stanley conjecture, and it is open.
Conjecture 1.1. (See [16, Theorem 3.1])
(1) sdepth(S/I) ≥ depth(S/I) − 1.
(2) sdepth(I) ≥ depth(I).
Another conjecture, stated by Herzog in [12], is the following.
Conjecture 1.2. sdepth(I) ≥ sdepth(S/I) + 1.
B. Ichim proved that this conjecture is true for n ≤ 5, see [14, Theorem 1.2]. Also, this
result is true in some other particular cases, for example, when I is a monomial complete
intersection, see [3, Theorem 2.4].
Now, we recall the well known Depth Lemma, see for instance [20, Lemma 1.3.9].
Lemma 1.3. (Depth Lemma) If 0 → U → M → N → 0 is a short exact sequence of
modules over a local ring S, or a Noetherian graded ring with S0 local, then
a) depth M ≥ min{depth N, depth U}.
b) depth U ≥ min{depth M, depth N + 1}.
c) depth N ≥ min{depth U − 1, depth M}.
In [17], Asia Rauf proved the analog of Lemma 1.3(a) for sdepth:
Lemma 1.4. Let 0 → U → M → N → 0 be a short exact sequence of Zn -graded Smodules. Then:
sdepth(M) ≥ min{sdepth(U), sdepth(N)}.
Let R = K[y1 , . . . , ym ] be a polynomial ring. Let M be a graded S-module and N be a
graded R-module. It is well known, see for instance [9, Lemma 2.5], that:
depth(M ⊗K N) = depth(M) + depth(N).
W. Bruns, C. Krattenthaler, and J. Uliczka proved in [1] a similar result for sdepth:
Lemma 1.5. [1, Proposition 2.10]
sdepth(M ⊗K N) ≥ sdepth(M) + sdepth(N)
As a consequence of Lemma 1.5, if sdepth(M) ≥ depth(M) and sdepth(N) ≥ depth(N),
then sdepth(M ⊗K N) ≥ depth(M ⊗K N).
2

2

Main results

Let r, s ≥ 1 be two integers, and let A = K[x1 , . . . , xr ] and B = K[xr+1 , . . . , xr+s ] be
polynomial rings over a field K, and let R = K[x1 , . . . , xr+s ]. Let I ⊂ A and J ⊂ B be
nonzero proper monomial ideals. In order to simplify the notations, we will denote also by
I and J, their extensions in R. We recall the following results of L. T. Hoa and N. D. Ham.
Lemma 2.1. [13, Lemma 1.1 and 3.2] (a) IJ = I ∩ J.
(b) depth(R/IJ) = depthA (A/I) + depthB (B/J) + 1.
As a direct consequence of Lemma 2.1 and [4, Theorem 1.2], we get the following result:
Proposition 2.2. (1) sdepth(IJ) ≥ sdepthA (I) + sdepthB (J).
(2) sdepth(R/I) ≥ sdepth(R/IJ) ≥ min{sdepth(R/I), sdepthB (B/J) + sdepthA (I)}
(3) sdepth(R/J) ≥ sdepth(R/IJ) ≥ min{sdepth(R/J), sdepthA (A/I) + sdepthA (J)}
(4) If I and J satisfy the Stanley inequality, then IJ also satisfy the Stanley inequality.
(5) If 1.2 holds for I or J, and A/I and B/J satisfy the Stanley inequality, then R/IJ
satisfies the Stanley inequality.
(6) If I and J satisfy 1.1(2) and A/I and B/J satisfy 1.1(1), then R/IJ satisfies 1.1(1).
H. H. Ha, N. V. Trung and T. N. Trung proved in [9] the following result.
L
Proposition 2.3. (I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 = i+j=n (I i /I i+1 ) ⊗K (J j /J j+1 ), for all n ≥ 0.
As a direct consequence of Lemma 1.4, Lemma 1.5 and Proposition 2.3, we get:
Proposition 2.4. For all n ≥ 0, we have:
sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 ) ≥ min {sdepthA (I i /I i+1 ) + sdepthB (J j /J j+1 )}.✷
i+j=n

For a monomial v ∈ S, we denote supp(v) = {xj : xj |v} the support of v.
Proposition 2.5. Let J ⊂ B be a complete intersection monomial ideal. It holds that
sdepth(J n /J n+1 ) = dim(B/J), for all n ≥ 0.
Proof. We denote G(J) = {v1 , . . . , vt } the set of minimal monomial generators of J. We
use induction on t ≥ 1. If t = 1, then we set v = v1 and we get J n /J n+1 = (v n )/(v n+1 ) =
v n (S/(v)). Therefore there is nothing to prove. If t > 1, we let B ′ = K[xi : i > r, xi ∤ vt ]
and B ′′ = K[xi : i > r, xi |vt ]. Since J is a complete intersection we get vi ∈ B ′ , for i < t.
We write J = J ′ + J ′′ where J ′ = (v1 , . . . , vt−1 ) ⊂ B ′ and J ′′ = (vt ) ⊂ B ′′ . Using the
induction hypothesis we get sdepth(J ′n /J ′n+1 ) = dim(B ′ /J ′ ). By Proposition 2.4, it follows
that sdepthB (J n /J n+1 ) ≥ dim(B ′ /J ′ ) + dim(B ′′ /J ′′ ) = dim(B/J).
Let uK[Z] ⊂ J n /J n+1 be a Stanley space. We claim that for each 1 ≤ j ≤ t, there
exists some r + 1 ≤ ij ≤ r + s such that xij ∈ supp(vj ) \ Z. Indeed, if supp(vj ) ⊂ Z,
then uvjn+1 ∈ uK[Z] and uvjn+1 ∈ J n+1 , a contradiction. Since the monomials vj ’s have
disjoint supports, it follows that |Z| ≤ s − t = dim(B/J) and therefore sdepthB (B/J n ) ≤
dim(B/J), as required.
3

Let Qi :=

Pi

j=0 I

n−j

J j , for 0 ≤ i ≤ n. Note that there is a chain of ideals:
I n = Q0 ⊂ Q1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Qn = (I + J)n .

According to [9, Lemma 2.2], we have Qi /Qi−1 ∼
= I n−i J i /I n−i+1J i , for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Thus,
using repeatedly Lemma 1.4, we get the following result.
Proposition 2.6. For all n ≥ 0, we have:
sdepth((I + J)n ) ≥ min{sdepth(I n ), sdepth(I n−1 J/I n J), . . . , sdepth(J n /IJ n )}.✷
Proposition 2.7. For all n ≥ 0, we have:
sdepth((I + J)n ) ≥ min{sdepth((I + J)n+1 ), sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 )}.
sdepth(R/(I + J)n+1 ) ≥ min{sdepth(R/(I + J)n ), sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 )}.
Proof. We consider the short exact sequences:
0 → (I + J)n+1 → (I + J)n → (I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 → 0 and
0 → (I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 → R/(I + J)n+1 → R/(I + J)n → 0.
By Lemma 1.4, we get the required inequalities.
Remark 2.8. If we consider the short exact sequence 0 → Qi /Qi−1 → R/Qi−1 → R/Qi →
0, then, by Lemma 1.4, we get sdepth(R/Qi−1 ) ≥ min{sdepth(R/Qi ), sdepth(Qi /Qi−1 )},
for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Also, from the short exact sequence 0 → Qi /Qi−1 → R/I n−i+1 J i → R/I n−i J i → 0 , by
Lemma 1.4, we get sdepth(R/I n−i+1J i ) ≥ min{sdepth(R/I n−i J i ), sdepth(Qi /Qi−1 )}, for
all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Proposition 2.9. (1) If sdepth(R/(I 2 + IJ)) < sdepthA (A/I) + sdepthB (J 2 ), then:
sdepth(R/(I + J)2 ) ≤ sdepthA (A/I) + sdepthB (J 2 ).
(2) If sdepth(R/I 2 ) < sdepthA (I/I 2 ) + sdepthB (J), then:
sdepth(R/(I 2 + IJ)) ≤ sdepth(R/I 2 ). Moreover sdepthA (A/I) ≤ sdepthA (A/I 2 ).
Proof. We consider the following short exact sequences:
(i) 0 −→ J 2 /IJ 2 −→ R/(I 2 + IJ) −→ R/(I + J)2 −→ 0.
(ii) 0 −→ IJ/I 2 −→ R/I 2 −→ R/(I 2 + IJ) −→ 0,
Note that IJ/I 2 J ∼
= (A/I) ⊗K J 2 . Therefore, by Lemma
= (I/I 2 ) ⊗K J and J 2 /IJ 2 ∼
1.5, sdepth(IJ/I 2J) ≥ sdepthA (I/I 2)+sdepthB (J) and sdepth(J 2 /IJ 2 ) ≥ sdepthA (A/I)+
sdepthB (J 2 ).
4

By (i) and Lemma 1.4, it follows that sdepth(R/(I 2 + IJ)) ≥ min{sdepth(J 2 /IJ 2 ),
sdepth(R/(I + J)2 )} ≥ min{sdepthA (A/I) + sdepthB (J 2 ), sdepth(R/(I + J)2 )}, hence we
get (1). By (ii) and Lemma 1.4, it follows that
sdepth(R/I 2 ) = sdepthA (A/I 2 ) + s ≥ min{sdepthA (I/I 2 ) + sdepthB (J), sdepth(R/(I 2 + IJ))}.

On the other hand, if sdepthA (A/I) > sdepthA (A/I 2 ), then, by Lemma 1.4 and the
short exact sequence 0 → I/I 2 → A/I 2 → A/I → 0, it follows that sdepthA (I/I 2 ) ≤
sdepthA (A/I 2 ), which contradicts the hypothesis of (2). Thus we are done.
In the following, we present an example of a monomial ideal I ⊂ S with sdepthA (A/I) <
sdepthA (A/I 2 ), firstly given by J. Herzog and T. Hibi in [10], in the frame of depth.
Example 2.10. We consider the ideal I = (x61 , x51 x2 , x1 x52 , x62 , x41 x42 x3 , x41 x42 x4 , x41 x25 x36 , x42 x26 x35 )
in A = K[x1 , . . . , x6 ]. We have depthA (A/I) = 0, depthA (A/I 2 ) = 1, depthA (A/I 3 ) = 0 and
depthA (A/I 4 ) = depthA (A/I 5 ) = 2.
Using CoCoA [7], we get sdepthA (A/I) = 0, sdepthA (A/I 2 ) = 1 and sdepthA (I) = 3.
Theorem 2.11. If J ⊂ B is a complete intersection monomial ideal, then for all n ≥ 1:
(1) depth(R/(I + J)n ) = mini≤n {depthA (A/I i ) + dim(B/J)}.
(2) r + dim(B/J) ≥ sdepth(R/(I + J)n ) ≥ mini≤n {sdepthA (A/I i ) + dim(B/J)}.
(3) In particular, if A/I i satisfy the Stanley inequality (or Conjecture 1(1)), for all
1 ≤ i ≤ n, then R/(I + J)n also satisfies the Stanley inequality (or Conjecture 1(1)).
(4) sdepth(R/(I + J)n+1 ) ≤ sdepth(R/(I + J)n ), sdepth((I + J)n+1 ) ≤ sdepth((I + J)n )
and sdepth((I + J)n+1 /(I + J)n+2 ) ≤ sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 ), for all n ≥ 1.
(5) The numerical functions n 7→ sdepth(R/(I + J)n ), n 7→ sdepth((I + J)n ) and
n 7→ sdepth((I + J)n /(I + J)n+1 ) are constant for n ≫ 0.
Proof. Assume G(J) = {v1 , . . . , vt }, where 1 ≤ t ≤ s. Note that depthB (B/J n ) = s − t =
dim(B/J). We use induction on t ≥ 1. If t = 1, we set v = v1 . Then (I + J)n = (I, v)n =
I n + vI n−1 + · · · + v n−1 I + (v n ). We claim that
(i) R/(I, v)n =

n−1
M

M

(A/I n−α )u ⊗K B/(v α ).

α=0 vα |u, vα+1 ∤u

Indeed, let w ∈ R \ (I, v)n be a monomial. Let α := max{j ≥ 0 : v j |u} and write
w = v α u. Note that α < n and v ∤ u. Note that u ∈
/ I n−α , otherwise w ∈ I n−α v n ⊂ (I, v)n ,
a contradiction. Thus, we proved our claim.
Note that sdepthB (B/(v n )) = depthB (B/(v n )) = s−1. By Lemma 1.3 and (i), it follows
(1), in the case t = 1. Also, by Lemma 1.4, Lemma 1.5 and (i), we get (2), for t = 1.
Now, assume t > 1. Let A′ = A[xi : xi ∤ vt ], B ′ = K[xi : xi |vt ] and B ′′ =
K[xi : i > r , xi ∤ vt ]. Let J ′ = (vt ) ⊂ B ′ and J ′′ = (v1 , . . . , vt−1 ) ⊂ B ′′ . We can
write I + J = I ′ + J ′ , where I ′ = I + J ′′ ⊂ A′ . By induction, we get depthA′ (A′ /I ′n ) =
mini≤n {depthA (A/I i ) + dim(B ′′ /J ′′ )}.
5

On the other hand, by the first step of induction, we get depth(R/(I ′ + J ′ )n ) =
mini≤n {depthA′ (A′ /I ′i ) + dim(B ′ /J ′ )}. Since dim(B/J) = dim(B ′ /J ′ ) + dim(B ′′ /J ′′ ), we
get (1).
Similarly, we get sdepth(R/(I + J)n ) ≥ mini≤n {sdepthA (A/I i ) + dim(B/J)}.
If uK[Z] ⊂ R/(I + J)n is a Stanley space, as in the proof of Proposition 2.5, for each
1 ≤ j ≤ t there exists some r + 1 ≤ ij ≤ r + s such that xij |vj and xij ∈
/ Z. Since
the monomials vj ‘s have disjoint supports, it follows that |Z| ≤ r + s − t and therefore
sdepth(R/(I + J)n ) ≤ r + s − t = r + dim(B/J), as required.
(3) Follows immediately from (2).
(4) Using induction on the number of generators of J, it is enough to assume that
J = (u) is principal. Since u is regular on R/IR, it follows that ((I, u)n+1 : u) = (I, u)n .
Therefore, by [6, Proposition 2.11], we are done.
(5) Follows immediately from (4).
A direct consequence of Theorem 2.11 is the following Corollary.
Corollary 2.12. If J ⊂ B is a complete intersection monomial ideal minimally generated
by t monomials, then sdepthB (B/J n ) = depthB (B/J n ) = s − t, for all n ≥ 1. ✷
Corollary 2.13. Let L ⊂ R be a monomial ideal with G(L) = {v1 , . . . , vm , v}. Assume
there exists a monomial w ∈ A such that gcd(v, vi ) = w for all i ≤ m and v/w ∈ B. Then,
depth(R/Ln ) ≤ depth(R/Ln+1 ) for all n ≥ 1.
Proof. Let n ≥ 1. Note that Ln = w n (L : w)n and therefore depth(R/Ln ) = depth(R/(L :
w)n ). Thus, we can assume that w = 1. We write L = I + J, where I = (v1 , . . . , vm ) ⊂ A
and J = (v) ⊂ B. We apply Theorem 2.11(1) and we get the required conclusion.
A semilattice L is a partial ordered set (L, ≤) such that, for any P, Q ∈ L, there is a
unique least upper bound P ∨ Q called the join of P and Q. Let L, L′ be two semilattices.
A join-preserving map ϕ : L → L′ is a map with ϕ(P ∨ Q) = ϕ(P ) ∨ ϕ(Q).
Let S be a polynomial ring in n ≥ 1 indeterminates. The lcm-semilattice LG of a finite
set G ⊂ S of monomials is defined as the set of all monomials that can be obtained as
the least common multiple (lcm) of some non-empty subset of G, ordered by divisibility.
If I ⊂ S is a monomial ideal, we define the lcm-lattice of I, LI := LG(I) . Note that
u ∨ v = lcm(u, v), for any monomials u, v ∈ LI . See [15] for further details.
Proposition 2.14. Let J ⊂ B be a monomial
intersection ideal with |G(J)| =
 complete

t
k
t ≤ s. Then s − t + 1 ≤ sdepth(J ) ≤ s − t + k+1 , for all k ≥ 1.
In particular, if k ≥ t − 1, then sdepth(J k ) = s − t + 1.
Proof. Let m = (x1 , . . . , xt ) ⊂ S := K[x1 , . . . , xt ]. Suppose that J = (v1 , . . . , vt ) and let
k ≥ 1. Since vj ’s are monomials with disjoint supports, it follows that LI k contains all the
monomials of the form v1k1 · · · vtkt with ki ≥ 0 and 1 ≤ k1 + · · · + kt ≤ k. Also, one can
easily see that ϕ : Lmk → LI k , defined by ϕ(xk11 · · · xkt t ) := v1k1 · · · vtkt , is bijective and join
k
preserving. Thus, according to [15, Theorem 4.5], we have sdepth(I k ) =r −t+sdepth(m
).

t
k
On the other hand, according to [5, Theorem 2.2], 1 ≤ sdepth(m ) ≤ k+1 .
6

According to [10, Theorem 1.2], if J ⊂ B is a homogeneous ideal, then there exists a
constant c ≥ 0, such that depthB (B/J n ) = depthB (J n /J n+1 ) = c, for n ≫ 0. One may
ask if a similar result is true in the case of sdepth. As a consequence of Proposition 2.5,
Corollary 2.12 and Proposition 2.14, we get the following theorem, which give a particular
case when the answer is positive.
Theorem 2.15. If J ⊂ B is a complete intersection monomial ideal, then:
(1) sdepthB (B/J n ) = sdepthB (J n /J n+1 ) = dim(B/J), for all n ≥ 0.
(2) sdepthB (J n ) = dim(B/J) + 1, for all n ≥ s − dim(B/J) − 1. ✷

References
[1] W. Bruns, C. Krattenthaler, and J. Uliczka, Stanley decompositions and Hilbert depth
in the Koszul complex, Journal of Commutative Algebra 2(3) (2010), 327-357.
[2] M. Cimpoeas, Stanley depth of monomial ideals with small number of generators,
Central European Journal of Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 4, (2009), 629-634.
[3] M. Cimpoeas, Stanley depth for monomial complete intersection, Bull. Math. Soc. Sc.
Math. Roumanie 51(99), no.3, (2008), 205-211.
[4] M. Cimpoeas, Several inequalities regarding Stanley depth, Romanian Journal of Math.
and Computer Science 2(1), (2012), 28-40.
[5] M. Cimpoeas, Some remarks on the Stanley depth for multigraded modules, Le Mathematiche, Vol. LXIII (ii), (2008), 65-71.
[6] M. Cimpoeas, Stanley depth of quotient of monomial complete intersection ideals,
Communications in Algebra, 42(10), (2014), 4274-4280.
[7] CoCoATeam, CoCoA: a system for doing Computations in Commutative Algebra,
Available at http://cocoa.dima.unige.it
[8] A. M. Duval, B. Goeckneker, C. J. Klivans, J. L. Martine, A non-partitionable CohenMacaulay simplicial complex, Advances in Mathematics, 299, (2016), 381-395.
[9] H. H. Ha, N. V. Trung, T. N. Trung, Depth and regularity of powers of sums of ideals,
Mathematische Zeitschrift , 282, Issue 3, (2016), 819-838.
[10] J. Herzog, T. Hibi, The depth of powers of an ideal, J. Algebra 291, no 2, (2005),
534-550.
[11] J. Herzog, M. Vladoiu, X. Zheng, How to compute the Stanley depth of a monomial
ideal, Journal of Algebra 322(9), (2009), 3151-3169.

7

[12] J. Herzog, A survey on Stanley depth, In Monomial Ideals, Computations and Applications, Springer, (2013), 3-45.
[13] L. T. Hoa and N. D. Ham, On some invariants of a mixed product of ideal, Arch.Math
94 no. 4, (2010), 327-337.
[14] B. Ichim, , L. Katthän, J. J. Moyano-Fernandez, Lcm-lattices and Stanley Depth: A
first computational approach, Experimental Mathematics, 25, Issue 1, (2016), 46-53.
[15] B. Ichim, , L. Katthän, J. J. Moyano-Fernandez, Stanley Depth and the Lcm-lattices,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/arXiv:1405.3602v2
[16] L. Katthän, Betti posets and the Stanley Depth, Arnold Mathematical Journal, 2,
Issue 2, (2016), 267-276.
[17] A. Rauf, Depth and sdepth of multigraded module, Communications in Algebra, vol.
38, Issue 2, (2010), 773-784.
[18] G. Rinaldo, An algorithm to compute the Stanley depth of monomial ideals, Le Matematiche, Vol. LXIII (ii), (2008), 243-256.
[19] R. P. Stanley, Linear Diophantine equations and local cohomology, Invent. Math. 68,
1982, 175-193.
[20] R. H. Villarreal, Monomial algebras. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 238. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2001.
Mircea Cimpoeaş, Simion Stoilow Institute of Mathematics, Research unit 5, P.O.Box 1-764,
Bucharest 014700, Romania, E-mail: mircea.cimpoeas@imar.ro

8

