THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

arXiv:1212.1419v3 [math.AC] 24 Apr 2014

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

Abstract. We prove a characterization of the j-multiplicity of a monomial
ideal as the normalized volume of a polytopal complex. Our result is an extension of Teissier’s volume-theoretic interpretation of the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity for m-primary monomial ideals. We also give a description of the
ε-multiplicity of a monomial ideal in terms of the volume of a region.

1. Introduction
The j-multiplicity was defined in 1993 by Achilles and Manaresi in [1] as a
generalization of the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity for arbitrary ideals in a Noetherian
local ring. Several results on the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity have been successfully
extended to more general classes of ideals using the j-multiplicity, for example [8],
[14], and [4]. The main result of this paper may be viewed as one of these extensions.
Let (R, m, k) be a Noetherian local ring of dimension d, and I ⊂ R an ideal. The
j-multiplicity of I is defined as the limit

(d − 1)!
j(I) = lim
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) .
d−1
n→∞ n
There have been previous approaches for computing the j-multiplicity. For example, in [1] and [21] it is proven that if k is infinite, then for general elements
a1 , . . . , ad in I, and α = (a1 , . . . , ad−1 ), we have

j(I) = λR R/((α :R I ∞ ) + ad R) .
This formula is applied to compute specific examples in [12].
Let R denote now the polynomial ring k[x1 , . . . , xd ] over the field k, m the homogeneous maximal ideal (x1 , . . . , xd ), and I a monomial ideal of R. The Newton
polyhedron of I is the convex hull of the points in Rd that correspond to monomials
in I, which we will denote by conv(I). In this paper we generalize the classical
result that describes the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity of an m-primary ideal as the
normalized volume of the complement of its Newton polyhedron in Rd>0 , see [17].
If I is not m-primary, the complement of conv(I) is infinite, but we can define the
analogue of this region in the general case by considering the truncated cone from
the origin to the union of the bounded faces of conv(I). This truncated cone will
be denoted by pyr(I). With this notation, we can state our main result:
Theorem 3.2. Let I ⊂ R be a monomial ideal. Then j(I) = d! vol(pyr(I)).
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
No 0932078 000, while the authors were in residence at the Mathematical Science Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Fall semester of 2012. The first author was also supported
in part by NSF grants DMS 0758474 and DMS 1162585, and the second author by NSF grant
DMS 0901613.
1

2

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

Earlier unpublished work of J. Validashti obtains this formula in dimension two.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the second section we set up
the notation and also present some results that will be used in the proof of the
main theorem. The third section will include the proof of Theorem 3.2. In the
fourth section we provide an extension of this result to pointed normal affine toric
varieties. In the fifth section we will apply our characterization of the saturation
of a monomial ideal in R in Lemma 2.2 to give a geometric description of the
ε-multiplicity. The paper ends with some examples in a sixth section.
2. Preliminaries
Let R = k[x1 , . . . , xd ] be a polynomial ring over a field k and m = (x1 , . . . , xd ) its
homogeneous maximal ideal. Let I be a monomial ideal of R minimally generated by
v
v
xv1 , xv2 , . . . , xvn where vi = (vi,1 , . . . , vi,d ) and xvi = x1i,1 · · · xdi,d . For a monomial
d
ideal L in R we denote by Γ(L) the set of lattice points in R corresponding to the
exponents. Additionally, if L1 ⊇ L2 are monomial ideals, we will write Γ(L1 /L2 )
for Γ(L1 ) \ Γ(L2 ).
We denote by conv(I) the Newton polyhedron of I, that is:
conv(I) := conv(v1 , . . . , vn ) + Rd>0 ,
where + denotes the Minkowski sum. It is worth noting that the collection of
bounded facets of the Newton polyhedron is not convex, and thus is not a polytope,
but rather has the structure of a polytopal complex. Notice also that conv(I) =
conv(Γ(I)). Since every polyhedron is defined by the intersection of finitely many
closed half spaces, we can define Hi = {x ∈ Rn | hx, bi i = ci }, with bi ∈ Qd , ci ∈ Q
for i = 1, . . . , w to be the supporting hyperplanes of conv(I) such that
conv(I) = H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hw+ ,
where Hi+ = {x ∈ Rn | hx, bi i > ci }. Let Fi = Hi ∩ conv(I) for i = 1, . . . , w
be the facets of conv(I). We will assume that H1 , . . . , Hu , are the hyperplanes
corresponding to unbounded facets.
It can be shown that all the vectors bi have nonnegative components, and that
bi ∈ Rd>0 if and only if Fi is a bounded facet, as in [15, Lemma 1.1]. This forces
the ci to be nonnegative, and in fact positive in the case of a bounded facet.
Recall that the analytic spread of an arbitrary ideal I, denoted
L∞by l(I), is defined
to be the dimension of its special fiber ring grI (R) ⊗R R/m L
= n=0 I n /mI n , where
∞
grI (R) is the associated graded algebra of I, i.e., grI (R) = n=0 I n /I n+1 . We will
say that I has maximal analytic spread if l(I) = dim(R). If I is monomial, l(I)
can be computed as c + 1 where c is the highest dimension of a bounded facet of
conv(I), see [2, Theorem 2.3] or [15, Corollary 4.10].
Sw
We denote by vert(I) the set of vertices of conv(I), and set bd(I) = i=u+1 Fi for
the union of the bounded facets of conv(I). If P is a polytope, we will write pyr(P)
for conv(P, 0), the truncated
cone, or pyramid, over P. By abuse of notation, we
Sw
will write pyr(I) for i=u+1 pyr(Fi ). Note that the monomials corresponding to the
points in vert(I) are part of the set of minimal generators of I, so we will assume
vert(I) = {v1 , . . . , vs } for some 1 6 s 6 n. We will also find it convenient to define
the nth cone section of a polytope P as


conen (P) := (n + 1) pyr(P) \ (n + 1)P \ n pyr(P) \ nP ,

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

3

Figure 1. Various regions for the monomial ideal I = (xy 5 , x2 y 3 , x3 y 2 )
S
which we may alternatively write as n6s<n+1 sP. We again abuse notation by
Sw
writing conen (I) for i=u+1 conen (Fi ).
For the monomial ideal I = (xy 5 , x2 y 3 , x3 y 2 ), in Figure 1, on the left we mark
vert(I) with black dots, bd(I) with dark red lines, and the unbounded facets with
pink lines. In this example, the green region with its boundary forms pyr(I), and
the yellow region with its boundary forms conv(I). In the graph on the right, we
shade cone2 (I) in purple, where the top dotted segments of the boundary are not
included.
The following description of the faces of the Newton polyhedron will be useful.
Lemma 2.1. [15, Lemma 3.1] Let F be a face of conv(I) with supporting hyperplane
H = {x ∈ Rn | hx, bi = c}. Then F ∩ vert(I) = {vi1 , . . . , vir } is non-empty, and
X
F = conv(vi1 , . . . , vir ) +
R>0 ej
j:bj =0

where ej is the unit vector with nonzero j

th

component.

Recall that for any submodule N of an R-module M , the saturation of N , denoted
(N :M m∞ ), is the set of elements a in M for which there exists n ∈ N such that
amn ∈ N . The zeroth local cohomology module of M is defined to be (0 :M m∞ )
and is denoted by H0m (M ). Notice that in general, H0m (M/N ) = (N :M m∞ )/N . If
I is a monomial ideal, then (I :R m∞ ) is also monomial.
The integral closure of an arbitrary ideal J is the set of elements x in R that
satisfy an integral relation xn + a1 xn−1 + · · · + an−1 x + an where ai ∈ J i for
i = 1, . . . , n. It is denoted by J and it is an ideal. For monomial ideals, it is possible
to give a geometric description of the integral closure, namely Γ(I) = Zd ∩ conv(I),
i.e., conv(I) = conv(I); see [19, Proposition 7.25].
Proposition 2.2. Γ(I :R m∞ ) = H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ∩ Zd>0 .
Proof. Let v ∈ H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ∩ Zd>0 ; then hv, bi i > ci for i = 1, . . . , u. For t ∈ R>0 ,
one has
hv + tej , bi i > ci + tbi,j > ci

4

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

for j = 1, . . . , d and i = 1, . . . , u. Also, if u + 1 6 i 6 w then all the entries of bi are
positive, so we also have that hv + tej , bi i > ci for t  0. We conclude xtj xv ∈ I for
j = 1, . . . , d and t  0, that is v ∈ Γ(I :R m∞ ).
Conversely, if v ∈ Γ(I :R m∞ ), then v + tej ∈ conv(I) ⊂ H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ for
j = 1, . . . , d and t  0. Now, suppose v 6∈ Hi+ for some 1 6 i 6 u, then hv, bi i < ci .
By Lemma 2.1, since Fi is an unbounded facet, we can pick j such that bi,j = 0,
and hence hv + tej , bi i = hv, bi i < ci for every t ∈ R, which is a contradiction. 
Lemma 2.3. Γ(I :R m∞ ) ⊂ conv(I) ∪ pyr(I) .
Proof. The result follows immediately by Proposition 2.2 if conv(I) does not have
bounded facets. We will assume that u < w.
Let v be a nonzero vector in Zd>0 \ (pyr(I) ∪ conv(I)). We will proceed by
contradiction. Suppose v ∈ Γ(I :R m∞ ), then v ∈ H1+ ∩· · ·∩Hu+ by Proposition 2.2.
Note that since bi has positive entries for each i = u+1, . . . , w, we have hv, bi i =
6 0.
For each u+1 6 i 6 w we can find a real number ti such that ti v ∈ Hi , each of which
is positive because ci > 0. Suppose, without loss of generality, that tw is largest
among tu+1 , . . . , tw . Since v 6∈ Hi+ for some u + 1 6 i 6 w we have hv, bi i < ci ,
then ti > 1, and so tw > 1.
Now, htw v, bi i > hti v, bi i = ci for i = u + 1, . . . , w, so
+
tw v ∈ H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hw−1
∩ Hw = Fw .

Then we have v ∈ pyr(I) which is a contradiction.



In the following lemma, we will use the notion of the Hausdorff distance between
compact sets A and B in Rd , which is defined as
ρ(A, B) := inf{λ > 0 | A ⊆ B + λU , B ⊆ A + λU } ,
where U is the unit ball. We will use a related notion for polytopes: for a convex
polytope P = conv(v1 , . . . , vt ) in Rd , we will say that another convex polytope with
t vertices P 0 = conv(v10 , . . . , vt0 ) is an ε-shaking of P if |vj − vj0 | < ε for all j.
(n)

(n)

Lemma 2.4. Fix P = conv(v1 , . . . , vt ) in Rd . Let (P1 , . . . , Ps )n∈N be a sequence
(n)
of s-tuples of polytopes such that each Pj is a (1/n)-shaking of P. Then,
!
s
\
(n)
lim vol P ∩
Pi
= vol(P) .
n→∞

i=1

Proof. Let P 0 = conv(v10 , . . . , vt0 ) be an ε-shaking of P, and write
P 0 q P = conv(v10 , . . . , vt0 , v1 , . . . , vt ) .
Note that P
P0 ∪ P ⊆P
P 0 q P. Also,Pρ(P, PPq P 0 ) < ε, since for q ∈ P q P 0 , we may
write q = λj vj + λ0j vj0 with
λi + λ0i = 1, and
X
X
X
X
X
|q −
λ j vj −
λ0j vj | = |
λ0j vj0 −
λ0j vj | 6
λ0j |vj0 − vj | < ε ,
where

P

λj v j +

P

λ0j vj ∈ P. Similarly ρ(P, P 0 ) < ε.

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

5

We have
0 6 vol(P) − vol(P ∩

s
\

(n)

Pi ) 6

i=1

s
X

(n) 
vol(P) − vol(P ∩ Pi )

i=1

=

s
X

(n)
(n) 
vol(P ∪ Pi ) − vol(Pi )

i=1

6

s
X

(n)
(n) 
vol(P q Pi ) − vol(Pi ) .

i=1

Then, by continuity of volume with respect to Hausdorff distance, see [20, The(n)
(n)
orem 6.2.17], we have that vol(Pi ) and vol(P q Pi ) both converge to vol(P) as
Ts
(n)
n → ∞. Thus, vol(P ∩ i=1 Pi ) → vol(P) as n → ∞, as required.

Recall that the Ehrhart function of a polytope P ⊂ Rd is defined as
EP (n) := #(Zd ∩ nP) .
Ehrhart [7] showed that if the vertices of P have integer coordinates, EP (n) is a
polynomial of degree dim(P) with leading coefficient equal to the relative volume
of P (cf., [11, Chapter 12]). We will employ a strengthening of this fact. Recall
that a function f : N → Z is called a quasi-polynomial if there is an m ∈ N and
polynomials f0 , . . . , fm−1 such that f (n) = f(n mod m) (n) for all n ∈ N. The grade
of f is the least δ such that the ith coefficient of each of the fj is the same for
all i > δ. The following was conjectured by Ehrhart [7], and proved by McMullen
[10] and Stanley [16] separately (see also [3] for a proof based on monomial ideal
techniques).
Theorem 2.5 (McMullen, Stanley). Let P ⊂ Rd be a polytope with vertices in
Qd . Suppose that the affine span of each t-dimensional face of P contains a lattice
point. Then #(Zd ∩ nP) as a function of n is given by a quasi-polynomial of degree
equal to the dimension of P and grade less than t.
Proposition 2.6.
a) Let P ⊂ Rd be a polytope with vertices in Qd , and dim P < d. Suppose that
the affine span of P contains a point in the integer lattice Zd , or that the
dimension of P is less than d − 1. Then #(Zd ∩ conen (P)) as a function
of n is given by a quasi-polynomial of the form
p(n) = d vol(pyr(P)) nd−1 + O(nd−2 ) .
b) If I is a monomial ideal, then #(Zd ∩conen (I)) is given by a quasi-polynomial
of the form
p(n) = d vol(pyr(I)) nd−1 + O(nd−2 ) .
Proof. Write





#(Zd ∩ conen (P)) = # Zd ∩ (n + 1) pyr(P) \ (n + 1)P \ n pyr(P) \ nP


= Epyr(P) (n + 1) − Epyr(P) (n) − EP (n + 1) − EP (n) .
Notice that the hypothesis in part a) ensures the affine span of each (d − 1)dimensional face of pyr(P) contains a lattice point: if dim P = d − 1, because
the affine span of P has a lattice point and every other (d − 1)-dimensional face

6

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

contains 0. If dim P = d − 2, the only (d − 1)-dimensional face contains 0, and the
condition is vacuous otherwise. By Theorem 2.5, in this situation Epyr(P) and EP
are quasi-polynomials of the form
Epyr(P) (n) = ad nd + ad−1 nd−1 + O(nd−2 )
EP (n) = bd−1 nd−1 + O(nd−2 ) ,
where ad , ad−1 , and bd−1 are constants; specifically, they do not depend on n.
Further, from the definition of the Riemann integral we compute that

ad = lim n−d · # ( n1 Z)d ∩ pyr(P) = vol(pyr(P)) .
n→∞

Part a) now follows from the formula above.
For part b), we first show that that for two different bounded faces F, F 0 of
conv(I) we have conen (F) ∩ conen (F 0 ) = conen (F ∩ F 0 ). Indeed, let v be a nonzero
element of pyr(F) ∩ pyr(F) and t, r > 1 such that tv ∈ F and rv ∈ F 0 . If t > r,
then rt (rv) = tv ∈ F implies that tv ∈ rv + Rd>0 , but tv is on the boundary of
conv(I) so t = r and v ∈ pyr(F ∩ F 0 ). Now, the claim follows from the definition
of conen and the fact that nP ∩ nP 0 = n(P ∩ P 0 ) for any pair of polytopes P, P 0 .
Then by inclusion-exclusion we have
#(Zd ∩ conen (I)) =

w
X

#(Zd ∩ conen (Fi )) −

i=u+1

X

#(Zd ∩ conen (Fi ∩ Fj ))

u+1≤i<j≤w
d

+ · · · ± #(Z ∩ conen (Fu+1 ∩ · · · ∩ Fw )) .
The conclusion now follows from part a).



3. The j-multiplicity of monomial ideals
In order to be consistent with the definition of j-multiplicity, which is defined
for ideals in a local ring, in this chapter we will consider R = k[x1 , . . . , xd ]m and
I an ideal generated by monomials. All the results of the second section still hold
in this setting, because all the ideals involved are monomial ideals. Moreover, the
analytic spread does not change.
For an R-module M , we can define the j-multiplicity of I with respect to M as

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n M/I n+1 M ) .
nd−1
In the case M = R, j(I, R) will be denoted j(I) as in the introduction.
j(I, M ) = lim

n→∞

The following proposition shows that we can compute j(I) using the filtration
{I n }n∈N . The proof is similar to [8, Proposition 2.10].
Proposition 3.1. Let I be a monomial ideal, then

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) .
d−1
n→∞ n

j(I) = lim

Proof. By [19, Theorem 7.29], I n+1 = II n for n > d. From [12, Theorem 3.11],
and the following exact sequence of R-modules
0 → I d → R → R/I d → 0 ,

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

7

we obtain j(I, R) = j(I, I d ) + j(I, R/I d ). But I d (R/I d ) = 0, so j(I, R/I d ) = 0 and
then j(I) = j(I, R) = j(I, I d ).
Now,

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I t I d /I t+1 I d )
d−1
t→∞ t

(d − 1)!
= lim
λR H0m (I t+d /I t+d+1 )
d−1
t→∞ t

nd−1
(d − 1)!
= lim
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) ,
d−1
d−1
n→∞ (n − d)
n

j(I) = j(I, I d ) = lim

nd−1
= 1.
n→∞ (n − d)d−1

and the result follows from the equality lim



Theorem 3.2. Let I ⊂ R be a monomial ideal. Then j(I) = d! vol(pyr(I)).
Proof. By Lemma 3.1, we compute

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) .
d−1
n→∞ n

j(I) = lim

Step 1: The proof that j(I) 6 d! vol(pyr(I)): 
Recall that H0m (I n /I n+1 ) = (I n+1 : m∞ ) ∩ I n /I n+1 , so that



λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) = # Zd ∩ Γ(I n+1 : m∞ ) ∩ conv(I n ) \ conv(I n+1 )



6 # Zd ∩ conv(I n+1 ) ∪ pyr(I n+1 ) ∩ conv(I n ) \ conv(I n+1 )
where the last inequality holds by Lemma 2.3. By [15, Corollary 3.4], we have
n conv(I) = conv(I n ), n pyr(I) = pyr(I n ), and n bd(I) = bd(I n ) for every n > 1.
Note that bd(I) = conv(I) ∩ pyr(I); then,
(pyr(I n+1 ) ∩ conv(I n )) \ conv(I n+1 )

= (n + 1) pyr(I) ∩ n conv(I) \ (n + 1) conv(I)

= (n + 1) pyr(I) ∩ n conv(I) \ (n + 1) bd(I)


= (n + 1) pyr(I) \ (n + 1) bd(I) \ n pyr(I) \ n bd(I) = conen (I) .

It follows that λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) 6 #(Zd ∩ conen (I)). Therefore, by Proposition 2.6, part b),
j(I) = lim

n→∞


(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 ) 6 d! vol(pyr(I)) .
d−1
n

Step 2: The proof that j(I) > d! vol(pyr(I)):
Step 2a: Reduction to the case of an ideal corresponding to a single facet:
First we claim that it suffices to verify the inequality for a monomial ideal whose
Newton polyhedron has a single bounded facet. Indeed, if the inequality holds
for such ideals, write J1 , . . . , Jt ⊂ I for the monomial ideals corresponding to the
boundedSfacets of I and F1 , . . . , Ft for the corresponding facets, so that we have
bd(I) = i Fi and bd(Ji ) = Fi . Then since we have

8

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

t
[

Γ (Jin+1 : J n m∞ )/Jin+1


⊆ Γ (I n+1 : I n m∞ )/I n+1 ,



i

i=1

and

t
[

conen (Fi ) = conen (I) ,

i=1

we have a containment
t
t
[
 [

conen (I) \ Γ (I n+1 : I n m∞ )/I n+1 ⊆
conen (Fi ) \
Γ (Jin+1 : J n m∞ )/Jin+1
i

⊆

i=1
t
[

i=1


(conen (Fi ) \ Γ (Jin+1 : J n m∞ )/Jin+1 ) .
i

i=1


Notice #Γ (J n+1 : J n m∞ )/J n+1 = λR H0m (J n /J n+1 ) for any ideal J, so

#(conen (I) ∩ Zd ) − λR H0m (I n /I n+1 )
t 
X

6
#(conen (Fi ) ∩ Zd ) − λR H0m (Jin /Jin+1 ) .


i=1

Thus, if the claimed inequality holds for each Ji , we have that


(d − 1)! 
0
d
n /I n+1 )
(I
#
cone
(I)
∩
Z
−
λ
H
lim
n
R
m
n→∞ nd−1

X


(d − 1)!
(d − 1)!
0
n+1
d
n
# conen (Fi ) ∩ Z − lim
λR Hm (Ji /Ji )
6
lim
n→∞ nd−1
n→∞ nd−1
i
X

=
d! vol(pyr(Ji )) − j(Ji ) 6 0 .
i

It follows that

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 )
nd−1

(d − 1)!
# conen (I) ∩ Zd = d! vol(pyr(I)) ,
> lim
n→∞ nd−1
where the last equality follows from Proposition 2.6, part b).
We subsequently assume that the Newton polyhedron of I has a single bounded
facet F.
j(I) = lim

n→∞

Step 2b: Description of a rational polytope containing points contributing to j(I):
Let F be bd(I). If dim(F) < d − 1, then dim(pyr(F)) < d, so vol(pyr(F)) = 0,
and there is nothing to show. Assume dim(F) = d − 1, and let H be the affine
(d − 1)-plane spanned by F. Let hx, bi = c be a defining equation for H. Recall
that each entry of b is positive for a bounded face, so that after rescaling b, we may
assume that c = 1, with each bj > 0.
We now describe a region Rn ⊂ conen (F) such that for any α ∈ Zd ∩ Rn , one
has xα ∈ (I n+1 : I n m∞ ). Note that xα ∈ (I n+1 :R x∞
i ) if and only if α is in the
image of πi , the projection in the ei direction onto hα, biH. That is,

d
Γ(I n+1 :R x∞
i ) ∩ hα, biH = Z ∩ πi (n + 1)F .

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

9

Let F = conv(v1 , . . . , vt ). Then

(n + 1) − hα, bi
πi (n + 1)vj = (n + 1)vj −
ei ,
hei , bi
so that


(n + 1) − hα, bi
(n + 1) − hα, bi 
πi (n+1)F = conv (n+1)v1 −
ei , . . . , (n+1)vt −
ei .
hei , bi
hei , bi
Since each bj > 0, this is well-defined. Now,
(I n+1 : I n m∞ ) = I n ∩

d
\

(I n+1 :R x∞
i ).

i=1

We define a region
Rn := conen (F) ∩

d
\

(n + 1)F + R60 ei



i=1


so that, by the above, Rn ∩ Zd is contained in Γ (I n+1 : I n m∞ )/I n+1 . (In fact,
these two sets are quickly verified to be equal, but we will only use the stated
containment.) We remark that for n 6 s < (n + 1),
s
s
Rn ∩ sH ⊇ sH ∩ (Rn ∩ nH + Rd>0 ) ⊇ (Rn ∩ nH) = (Rn ∩ nF)
n
n
where the second containment holds because the vectors in Rn ∩ nH have nonnegative components. If we set τn = n1 (Rn ∩ nF), then conen (τn ) ⊂ Rn . Note that τn
has vertices in Qd .
We also claim that τn ⊂ τn+1 . We have α ∈ τn if and only if
1
1
n
α+
ei ∈ F
n+1
n + 1 hei , bi
for all i. By convexity of F since α ∈ F, if λα + (1 − λ) hei1,bi ei ∈ F then also
λ0 α + (1 − λ0 ) hei1,bi ei ∈ F for 0 6 λ 6 λ0 6 1. In particular,
1
n+1
1
α+
ei ∈ F
n+2
n + 2 hei , bi
for all i, so that α ∈ τn+1 . It follows by induction that τn ⊂ τn0 for n 6 n0 .
Step 2c: Using pyr(τn ) to give a lower bound:
Consider the distance between a vertex of nF and the corresponding vertex of
πi (n + 1)F . We compute this distance as
|nvj − ((n + 1)vj −

1
1
ei )| = |vj −
ei | ,
hei , bi
hei , bi

which is bounded above uniformly in n by L := maxi,j {|vj − hei1,bi ei |}. Then the
region nτn = Rn ∩ nF is the intersection of (d + 1) many polytopes, each of which
is the convex hull of t points v10 , . . . , vt0 such that |vj − vj0 | < L for all j. That is,
each such polytope is an L-shaking of nF in the sense of Lemma 2.4. Dividing
through by n we see that τn is the intersection of (d + 1) many polytopes that are
all L
n -shakings of the polytope F.

10

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

Given 0 < c < 1, we may now apply Lemma 2.4 in the affine subspace H. We
obtain, for a sufficiently large M , a τM such that vol(τM ) > c vol(F) in H, and
hence vol(pyr(τM )) > c vol(pyr(F)).
For n > M , we have from the previous step that τn ⊇ τM , so
conen (τM ) ⊆ conen (τn ) ⊆ Rn .
Thus, if α ∈ Zd ∩ conen (τM ), then
xα ∈ (I n+1 : I n m∞ )/I n+1 = H0m (I n /I n+1 ) .
Thus,

(d − 1)!
λR H0m (I n /I n+1 )
nd−1

(d − 1)!
> lim
# Zd ∩ conen (τM ) = d! vol(pyr(τM )) ,
n→∞ nd−1
where the last equality follows from Proposition 2.6. Therefore, for all c < 1, we
have the inequality j(I) > c(d! vol(pyr(F))), so
j(I) = lim

n→∞

j(I) > d! vol(pyr(F)) = d! vol(pyr(I)) ,
as required.



Remark 3.3. If I is an m-primary monomial ideal, the j-multiplicity is equal
to the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity, and pyr(I) is the complement of the Newton
polyhedron in Rd>0 . In this way, Theorem 3.2 agrees with Teissier’s result for mprimary monomial ideals.
4. Normal Affine Semigroup Rings
We next record that, with slight modifications, we can use the same proof to
establish a similar result for a wider class of rings. In this section, we state this
generalization, and describe necessary modifications to the argument.
By an affine semigroup ring, we mean a ring A = k[Q] that has as a k vector
space basis {xq | q ∈ Q}, where Q is a subsemigroup of Zd (with the operation +),
and multiplication given by xq1 xq2 = xq1 +q2 . We denote by mA its maximal homogeneous ideal. If A is a normal ring, then there is a cone σ ⊆ Rd with finitely
many extremal rays, each of which contains a lattice point (σ is a rational cone)
and such that A ∼
= k[Zd ∩ σ], see [11, Chapters 7 and 10]. We assume henceforth
that A is presented in this form. Additionally, suppose that σ is pointed, i.e., that
it contains no nontrivial linear subspace of Rd , and that dim(σ) = d.
Set r1 , . . . , rs to be ray generators for σ, i.e., minimal lattice points along the extremal rays of σ. Let I be a monomial ideal of R minimally generated by monomials
xv1 , xv2 , . . . , xvn . In this context, we define
conv(I) := conv(v1 , . . . , vn ) + σ ,
and, as in section two, Hi = {x ∈ Rn | hx, bi i = ci }, with bi ∈ Qd , ci ∈ Q for
i = 1, . . . , w to be the supporting hyperplanes of conv(I) so that
conv(I) = H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hw+ ,
where Hi+ = {x ∈ Rn | hx, bi i > ci }. We again assume that H1 , . . . , Hu , are the
hyperplanes corresponding to unbounded facets. We retain the other definitions,
e.g., pyr and conen , from the preliminary section. Note that since we have chosen

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

11

an embedding of our semigroup in Zd ⊂ Rd , it makes sense to talk about volume.
Our main result from the previous section holds in this context:
Theorem 4.1. Let A = k[Zd ∩ σ]mA , where σ is a d-dimensional pointed rational
cone. Let I ⊂ A be a monomial ideal. Then j(I) = d! vol(pyr(I)).
Proof. The proof of Theorem 3.2 applies, after some slight changes:
It is easy to see that the inequalities hrj , bi i > 0 hold for all i, j, and hrj , bi i > 0
for u + 1 6 i 6 w and all j, as in [15, Lemma 1.1]. Apply these inequalities in the
proof of Lemma 2.3 mutatis mutandis to obtain the same conclusion. Step 1 in the
proof of Theorem 3.2 follows.
To prove the other inequality in this setting, first note that for any monomial
ideal J, we have α ∈ Γ(J :A m∞
A ) if and only if there exist aj ∈ R>0 such that
α + aj rj ∈ Γ(J) for all j. Thus, for a monomial ideal I with a single bounded face
F, we may define the region
m
\

(n + 1)F + R60 rj
Rn := conen (F) ∩
j=1
∞



: In m
= Zd ∩ Rn . This region has all of the salient
so that Γ
properties from the case of the polynomial ring R (i.e., Rn is a rational polytope
such that Rn ∩ sF ⊇ ns (Rn ∩ nF) for n 6 s < (n + 1)), and we employ this to
complete the proof of Step 2 as before.

(I n+1

)/I n+1

Remark 4.2. The j-multiplicity of an ideal I is greater than zero if and only if I has
maximal analytic spread ([12, Lemma 3.1]). Then it follows from Theorems 3.2 and
4.1 that a monomial ideal of a normal affine semigroup ring has maximal analytic
spread if and only if conv(I) has some bounded facet of dimension d − 1. In the
polynomial case, this fact is easily deduced from the characterization of analytic
spread of monomial ideals stated in section 2.
5. The ε-multiplicity as a volume
In this section we follow the notation from the third section, i.e.,
R = k[x1 , . . . , xd ]m . The ε-multiplicity was defined by Ulrich and Validashti [18] in
2011 as a generalization of the Buchsbaum-Rim multiplicity for submodules of free
modules with arbitrary colength. In its simpler form for ideals, the ε-multiplicity
is defined by
d!
ε(I) = lim sup d λR (H0m (R/I n )) ,
n→∞ n
where the limit of the sequence has been shown to exist in wide generality, see [5].
For monomial ideals, the limit is known to exist and is a rational number as shown
in [9, Corollary 2.5]. Nevertheless, unlike the j-multiplicity, there are examples of
ideals for which the ε-multiplicity is not an integer; see [6, Example 2.4]. In this
section, we will give a combinatorial proof of the existence and rationality of the
limit in the monomial case, identifying ε(I) with the normalized volume of a region
with rational vertices.
−
Let out(I) be the region (H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ) ∩ (Hu+1
∪ · · · ∪ Hw− ) if the ideal I
has maximal analytic spread, and empty otherwise. Notice that by the proof of
Lemma 2.3 we have H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ⊂ conv(I) ∪ pyr(I) and then out(I) is contained
in pyr(I) ∪ bd(I) which is bounded.

12

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

Theorem 5.1. Let I ⊂ R be a monomial ideal. Then the limit in the definition of
ε(I) exists, and ε(I) = d! vol(out(I)), which is a rational number.
Proof. Since the functor H0m (−) is sub-additive on short exact sequences, we have
X
 n−1

λR H0m (R/I n ) 6
λR H0m (I i /I i+1 ) .
i=0

The right hand side is the sum transform of the function that defines the jmultiplicity, and hence for n  0 it is equal to a polynomial of degree d and
leading coefficient j(I)
d! , see [12]. It follows that ε(I) 6 j(I), so we can assume that
I has maximal analytic spread.
Step a: Existence of the limit for the filtration {I n }n∈N :

Γ (I n :R m∞ )/I n = Γ(I n :R m∞ ) \ Γ(I n )
= Γ(H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ) \ Γ(H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hw+ )
−
= Γ((H1+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hu+ ) ∩ (Hu+1
∪ · · · ∪ Hw− )) \

w
[

Γ(Fi )

i=u+1

where the equality follows from the fact that H1+ ∩ H2+ ∩ · · · ∩ Hw+ ∩ Hi− = Fi for
every i. From this we conclude


Γ (I n :R m∞ )/I n = Zd ∩ out(I) \ bd(I) .
Let Q = conv(vert(I)) and Q0 = conv(Q, out(I)); it is easy to check that there is
an equality Q0 \ Q = out(I) \ bd(I). By [15, Lemma 3.3], the hyperplanes {nHi },
for 1 6 i 6 w, are the supporting hyperplanes of conv(I n ) for each n > 1. Then
we also have nQ0 \ nQ = out(I n ) \ bd(I n ).
Hence,


λR H0m (R/I n ) = # Zd ∩ (out(I n ) \ bd(I n ))

= # Zd ∩ (nQ0 \ nQ)
= EQ0 (n) − EQ (n) ,
where the latter is the difference of two Ehrhart quasi-polynomials of the form

vol(Q0 ) − vol(Q) nd + O(nd−1 ) = vol(out(I))nd + O(nd−1 )
(see proof of Lemma 2.6), and the result follows.
Step b: Existence of the original limit:
By [19, Theorem 7.29], I n+1 = II n for n > d. Then we have the following exact
sequences for n > 0:
0 → I n /I n → R/I n → R/I n → 0 ,
0 → I n /I n+d → R/I n+d → R/I n → 0 ,
and the following inequalities



(1) λR H0m (R/I n+d ) 6 λR H0m (R/I n ) +λR H0m (I n /I n+d )



(2)
6 λR H0m (R/I n ) +λR H0m (I n /I n ) +λR H0m (I n /I n+d ) .

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

13


 Pd−1

Now, λR H0m (I n /I n+d ) 6 λR H0m (I n /I n+d ) 6 i=0 λR H0m (I n+i /I n+i+1 ) , so
lim sup
n→∞

d−1
 X

d!
d!
0
n
n+d ) 6
λ
H
(I
/I
lim sup d λR H0m (I n+i /I n+i+1 ) = 0 ,
R
m
d
n
n→∞ n
i=0

where the last equality holds by Proposition
3.1.

Therefore, limn→∞ nd!d λR H0m (I n /I n+d ) = 0.
Similarly, for n > d,
d−1

 X

λR H0m (I n /I n ) 6 λR H0m (I n−d /I n ) 6
λR H0m (I n−d+i /I n−d+i+1 ) ,
i=0

limn→∞ nd!d λR

H0m (I n /I n )



= 0.
and then
Using these two limits in (1) and (2), we obtain
d!
λR
nd
d!
6 lim inf d λR
n→∞ n
d!
6 lim sup d λR
n→∞ n
d!
6 lim sup d λR
n→∞ n

d! vol(out(I)) = lim inf
n→∞


H0m (R/I n+d )
H0m (R/I n )



H0m (R/I n )




H0m (R/I n ) = d! vol(out(I))

which finishes the proof.


6. Examples

Example 6.1. Let I = (y 4 , x2 y, xy 2 ). We compute the j-multiplicity as two times
the area of the green region in Figure 2, obtaining j(I) = 7. For the ε-multiplicity,
we take two times the area of the portion of the green region that lies above the
dotted line, obtaining ε(I) = 5.
Example 6.2. Let I = (x6 , y 6 , z 6 , x2 yz, xy 2 z, xyz 2 ). This monomial ideal is mprimary, so we can compute its Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity as the volume underneath the bounded faces of its Newton polyhedron, which is depicted in Figure 3. We decompose this region as three regions under the yellow faces corresponding to monomial ideals I1 = (x6 , y 6 , x2 yz, xy 2 z), I2 = (y 6 , z 6 , xy 2 z, xyz 2 ),
I3 = (x6 , z 6 , x2 yz, xyz 2 ), and one region under the red face corresponding to
I4 = (x2 yz, xy 2 z, xyz 2 ). We compute j(I1 ) = j(I2 ) = j(I3 ) = 42, j(I4 ) = 4,
so that e(I) = j(I) = 130.
Example 6.3. [6, Example 2.4] Let I = (xy, yz, zx). The region out(I) is the
tetrahedron with vertices {(1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0), (0, 1, 1), ( 21 , 12 , 12 )}, and its volume is
1
1
12 . Thus, ε(I) = 2 .
Example 6.4. For a graph G on the vertex set {1, . . . , d}, the edge ideal of G is
the monomial ideal
IG := (xi xj | {i, j} is an edge of G) ⊂ k[x1 , . . . , xd ] .
The region bd(IG ) is known in the literature as the edge polytope of G, see [13]. By
Theorem 3.2, the j-multiplicity j(IG ) is (d − 1)! · h times the volume of the edge

14

JACK JEFFRIES AND JONATHAN MONTAÑO

Figure 2. Regions for the ideal (y 4 , x2 y, xy 2 )

Figure 3. Regions for the ideal (x6 , y 6 , z 6 , x2 yz, xy 2 z, xyz 2 )
polytope of G, where h is the distance from the origin to the plane
a particular example, let Cd be the cycle on d vertices. Then,
(
0 if d is even
j(ICd ) =
2 if d is odd.

P

xi = 1. As

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their Ph.D. advisors, Anurag Singh and Bernd
Ulrich. Additionally, we thank Alexandra Seceleanu for her help in finding an appropriate reference for Lemma 2.4, and for many helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. Both authors also wish to thank Bernd Sturmfels for his enthusiastic instruction on monomial ideals. We are also grateful to the referee for
his or her thorough and helpful corrections. This material is based upon the work
supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0932078 000, while
the authors were in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in
Berkeley, California, during the Fall semester of 2012. The first author was also

THE j-MULTIPLICITY OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

15

supported in part by NSF grants DMS 0758474 and DMS 1162585, and the second
author by NSF grant DMS 0901613.
References
[1] R. Achilles and M. Manaresi. Multiplicity for ideals of maximal analytic spread and intersection theory. J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 33(4):1029–1046, 1993.
[2] C. Bivià-Ausina. The analytic spread of monomial ideals. Comm. Algebra, 31(7):3487–3496,
2003.
[3] W. Bruns and B. Ichim. On the coefficients of Hilbert quasipolynomials. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc., 135(5):1305–1308, 2007.
[4] C. Ciupercă. A numerical characterization of the S2 -ification of a Rees algebra. J. Pure Appl.
Algebra, 178(1):25–48, 2003.
[5] S.D. Cutkosky. Asymptotic growth of saturated powers and epsilon multiplicity. Math. Res.
Lett., 18(1):93–106, 2011.
[6] S.D. Cutkosky, J. Herzog, and H. Srinivasan. Asymptotic growth of algebras associated to
powers of ideals. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 148(1):55–72, 2010.
[7] E. Ehrhart. Polynômes arithmétiques et méthode des polyèdres en combinatoire. Int. Ser.
Numerical Math., Birkhaüser, 1977.
[8] H. Flenner and M. Mararesi. A numerical characterization of reduction ideals. Math. Z.,
238:205–214, 2001.
[9] J. Herzog, T.J. Puthenpurakal, and J.K. Verma. Hilbert polynomials and powers of ideals.
Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 145(3):623–642, 2008.
[10] P. McMullen. Lattice invariant valuations on rational polytopes. Arch. Math. (Basel),
31(1):509–516, 1978.
[11] E. Miller and B. Sturmfels. Combinatorial commutative algebra, Grad. Texts in Math., vol.
227, Springer, New York, 2004.
[12] K. Nishida and B. Ulrich. Computing j-multiplicities. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 214(12):2101–
2110, 2010.
[13] H. Ohsugi and T. Hibi. Normal polytopes arising from finite graphs. J. Algebra, 207(2):409–
426, 1998.
[14] C. Polini and Y. Xie. j-Multiplicity and depth of associated graded modules. J. Algebra,
379:31–49, 2013.
[15] P. Singla. Minimal monomial reductions and the reduced fiber ring of an extremal ideal.
Illinois J. Math., 51(4):1085–1102, 2007.
[16] R.P. Stanley. Decompositions of rational convex polytopes. Ann. Discrete Math, 6(6):333–
342, 1980.
[17] B. Teissier. Monômes, volumes et multiplicités. In Introduction à la théorie des singularités,
II, Travaux en Cours, (37):127–141. Hermann, Paris, 1988.
[18] B. Ulrich and J. Validashti. Numerical criteria for integral dependence. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 151(01):95–102, 2011.
[19] W. Vasconcelos. Integral closure: Rees algebras, multiplicities, algorithms. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2005.
[20] R. Webster. Convexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
[21] Y. Xie. Formulas for the multiplicities of graded algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 364:4085–
4106, 2012.
Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, 155 S 1400 E Salt Lake City, UT.
84112
E-mail address: jeffries@math.utah.edu
Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, 150 North University Street West
Lafayette, IN. 47907
E-mail address: jmontano@math.purdue.edu

