AUSLANDER-REITEN SEQUENCES FOR GORENSTEIN RINGS OF DIMENSION ONE

arXiv:1710.00907v1 [math.AC] 2 Oct 2017

ROBERT ROY

A BSTRACT. Let R be a complete local Gorenstein ring of dimension one, with maximal ideal m. We
show that if M is a Cohen-Macaulay R -module which begins an AR-sequence, then this sequence is
produced by a particular endomorphism of m corresponding to a minimal prime ideal. We apply this
result to determining the shape of some components of Auslander-Reiten quivers.

1. I NTRODUCTION
The theory of Auslander-Reiten (AR) quivers is central in the study of artin algebras. Regarding AR theory for maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over a complete Cohen-Macaulay
local ring, the cases of finite AR quivers have been studied thoroughly (see [17]), but on the
whole, shapes of AR quivers seem to be largely unknown. In particular this seems to be the
case for, say, an unreduced complete Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension one.
The paper [1] agrees with this assessment (cf. its introduction), and begins to bridge this
gap in two ways. First, it establishes a variety of lemmas in the relatively broad context
of symmetric orders over a DVR, O. Second, it applies these lemmas to proving the shape
(namely, a tube) of some components of the AR quiver of O[ X ]/( X n ). The work of the latter
calculation consisted largely in proving that a module is indecomposable, but also in proving that a sequence is an AR sequence. Our main result, Theorem 4.12, makes the latter
task much easier, in the setting of a complete local Gorenstein ring R of dimension one, with
maximal ideal m. Namely it shows that there exists a set of elements of EndR m, corresponding to the minimal primes of R , which produce the AR sequences in a concrete way. (The
statement of the theorem does not explicitly mention AR sequences, but see Remark 2.15.)
We apply the theorem in Section 6, where we establish the shapes of AR components (again,
tubes) over a graded hypersurface of the form k[ x, y]/(( bx p + y q ) f ) where f ∈ k[ x, y] is an
arbitrary homogeneous polynomial.
This paper owes a considerable debt to [1]. Firstly, our proof of Theorem 4.12 relies on [1,
Lemma 4.1]. Secondly, our Section 5 is based on material from the “Preliminaries” section of
[1], and without these results we have no way of assessing the shape of an infinite component
of an AR quiver.
Regarding the structure of this paper, Sections 2 and 3, as well as the Appendix, consist
of supporting material for the proof of our main result in Section 4. Specifically, Section 3 is
mostly just a presentation of [1, Lemma 4.1] for the reader’s convenience. In the Appendix
we record some lemmas for graded rings which we use in Section 4 to prove our main result
in a graded setting (alongside the complete local setting). In Section 5 we record some
lemmas concerning the AR quiver of R . Specifically, Proposition 5.30 establishes a criterion,
This work will appear as part of the author’s dissertation at Syracuse University. The author gratefully acknowledges
support from U.S. National Science Foundation grant DMS 1502107.
1

based on [1], for proving that an AR component is a tube. We employ this Proposition,
together with our main result, in the example constituting Section 6.
We would like to thank the developers of Singular [7]; we used it to compute many examples testing Theorem 4.12 and Proposition 7.7 before proving them.
2. P RELIMINARIES
Notation 2.1. Throughout this paper, all rings are assumed noetherian. A ring which
is described with any subset of the words {reduced, Cohen-Macaulay, Gorenstein, regular} is implicitly a commutative ring. By a graded ring we shall mean a Z-graded ring,
L
that is, a ring A = i∈Z A i satisfying A i A j ⊆ A i+ j . If A has not been referred to as a
graded ring, J ( A ) will denote the Jacobson radical of A ; but if we have introduced A as
a graded ring, then J ( A ) will denote the intersection of all maximal graded left ideals of
A (in our situations this will always coincide with the intersection of all maximal graded
right ideals). Similarly, but when A is commutative, if A is not given a grading then
Q ( A ) = A [nonzerodivisors]−1 (the total quotient ring of A ), whereas if A is graded then
Q ( A ) = A [homogeneous nonzerodivisors]−1 .
If A /J ( A ) is a division ring, we will say that A is local, unless A is graded, in which case
we will say that A is graded-local. If A is local and not necessarily commutative then we
may emphasize this by calling A an nc-local ring. By a connected graded ring we shall
L
mean a commutative N-graded ring R = i≥0 R i such that R 0 is a field. In this case R̂ will
L
denote the m-adic completion of R , where m = i≥1 R i . If R is any commutative ring, min R
will denote its set of minimal primes. If R is furthermore local or graded-local, then we
might write mR instead of J (R ).
Since “R ” will be our most common ring name, an unadorned Q will always denote Q (R ),
and an unadorned m will always denote mR .
We will say that an R -module M has rank (specifically, rank n), if M ⊗R Q is a free Q module (of rank n). If R is reduced, then R will denote the integral closure of R in Q .
2.1. Trace lemmas. We prove some lemmas regarding the trace of an endomorphism of a
module over a reduced ring. Certainly observations of this type have been made before; see
[2, Proposition 5.4]. First, we define the trace of an endomorphism of an arbitrary finitelygenerated projective module, as in [10].
Definition 2.2. Let A be a commutative ring, and let P be a finitely-generated projective
A -module. Then the map µP : Hom A (P, A ) ⊗ A P −→ End A P given by f ⊗ x 7→ ( y 7→ f ( y) x) is
an isomorphism. Let ǫ : Hom A (P, A ) ⊗ A P −→ A denote the map given by f ⊗ x 7→ f ( x). For
Pn
1
h ∈ End A P , we define trace( h) = ǫ(µ−
P ( h)). If µP ( i=1 φ i ⊗ e i ) = idP , then trace( h) furtherPn
more equals i=1 φ i ( h( e i )). From this it follows that trace is symmetric, in the sense that
trace( gh) = trace( h g) for all g, h ∈ End A P .
Remark 2.3. We can see that the above definition of trace specializes to the usual one when
P is free, by taking the aforementioned { e i , φ i } i to be a free basis and the corresponding
projection maps. If A = k 1 × . . . × k s is a product of fields k i , then by a similar argument we
see that for any h ∈ End A P , we have trace( h) = (trace( h ⊗ A k 1 ), . . ., trace( h ⊗ A k s )).
Recall that if R is a reduced ring, then Q is the product of fields R p = Q (R /p) where p
ranges over min R . In particular, each R p is an ideal of Q , and a Q -algebra.
2

Lemma 2.4. Let R be a reduced ring, M a finitely-generated R -module, and h ∈ EndR ( M ).
Then trace( h ⊗R Q ) ∈ R .
Q
Proof. Since R = p∈min R R /p, we see by Remark 2.3 that it suffices to show trace( h ⊗R R p ) ∈
R /p, for each p ∈ min R . As h ⊗R R p = ( h ⊗R R /p) ⊗R/p R p , we may assume R is a domain. By
([15, Theorem 2.1]), h satisfies a monic polynomial with coefficients in R , say f ( X ) ∈ R [ X ].
Let H = h ⊗R Q , and let µ( X ) ∈ Q [ X ] denote the minimal polynomial of H . Let χ( X ) ∈ Q [ X ]
denote the characteristic polynomial of H , and take a field extension L ⊇ Q over which
χ( X ) splits, say χ( X ) = ( X − α1 )( X − α2 ) · · · ( X − αs ), α i ∈ L. Each α i is also a root of µ( X ),
and therefore of f ( X ). Therefore R [α1 , ..., αs ] is an integral extension of R . Thus R ⊇ Q ∩
R [α1 , ..., αs ], which contains the coefficients of χ( X ). This concludes the argument, since
trace( H ) is the degree-( s − 1) coefficient of χ.

Lemma 2.5. In the situation of the previous lemma, assume that dim R = 1 and that R is
either a complete local ring or a connected graded ring. If some power of h lies in m EndR ( M ),
then trace( h ⊗R Q ) ∈ J (R ).
Q
Proof. As J (R ) = p∈min R J (R /p), we may again assume R is a domain. In the connected

graded case, we have J (R̂ ) ∩ R = J (R ) by Lemma 8.4, and we can therefore assume the complete local case. We can also assume M ⊆ M ⊗R Q , i.e., replace M by its image in M ⊗R Q . Now
let MR denote the R -module of M ⊗R Q generated by M . Note that MR is a free R -module,
since all torsion-free R -modules are free. Since R is local, we can choose a basis for MR
which consists of elements of M , say e 1 , ..., e n . (Indeed, setting n = rank( MR ), Nakayama’s
lemma allows us to find a generating set { e 1 , ..., e n } ⊂ M . Then we have a surjective endomorphism, equivalently an automorphism, mapping a basis onto { e 1 , ..., e n }.) By fixing this basis,
we can identify EndR ( M ) as an R -subalgebra of the ring of n × n matrices Matn×n (R ), in the
obvious way. By assumption on h, some power of h lies in m Matn×n (R ) ⊆ J (R ) Matn×n (R ).
Thus the image of h in Matn×n (R /J (R )) is nilpotent. Our desired result now follows from
the fact that over a field, any nilpotent matrix has zero trace.


2.2. Cohen-Macaulay modules and Gorenstein rings. If R is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring, let CM(R ) denote the category of finitely-generated maximal Cohen-Macaulay R modules, and (following [3]) L p (R ) denote the full subcategory of CM(R ) whose objects M
have the property that Mp is R p -free for all prime ideals p 6= mR . If R is instead a CohenMacaulay connected graded ring, we define CM(R ) and L p (R ) in the same way except we
restrict to graded modules. For the remainder of this section, assume R is a Cohen-Macaulay
ring which is either a complete local ring or a connected graded ring.
R
( k, R )) =
Let k = R /mR . Then R is Gorenstein if and only if it is Cohen-Macaulay and dimk (Extdim
R
i
1. If R is Gorenstein, and M ∈ CM(R ), then ([6, Theorem 3.3.10]): ExtR ( M, R ) = 0 for all
i ≥ 1, and the map M → HomR (HomR ( M, R ), R ) given by m 7→ ( f 7→ f ( m)) is a natural isomorphism. We will denote Hom( M, R ) by M ∗ .
2.3. Auslander-Reiten sequences.
Definition 2.6. Let N be an indecomposable in CM(R ). Then (cf. [17, Lemma 2.9′ ]) we may
define an Auslander-Reiten (AR) sequence starting from N to be a short exact sequence
(2.1)

0

/N

p

/E
3

q

/M

/0

in CM(R ) such that M is indecomposable and the following property is satisfied: Any map
N −→ L in CM(R ) which is not a split monomorphism factors through p. Equivalently, N
is indecomposable and any map L −→ M in CM(R ) which is not a split epimorphism factors
through q. The sequence 2.1 is unique if it exists, and is also called the AR sequence ending
in M . Given an AR sequence 2.1, N is called the Auslander-Reiten translate of M , written
τ( M ); and τ−1 ( N ) denotes M .
Definition 2.7. A morphism f : X → Y in CM(R ) is called an irreducible morphism if (1) f
is neither a split monomorphism nor a split epimorphism, and (2) Given any pair of morphisms g and h in CM(R ) satisfying f = gh, either g is a split epimorphism or h is a split
monomorphism.
2.8. Let L be an indecomposable in CM(R ), and assume we have the AR sequence 2.1. Then
the following are equivalent (cf. [17, 2.12 and 2.12′]):
(a) L is isomorphic to a direct summand of E .
(b) There exists an irreducible morphism N −→ L.
(c) There exists an irreducible morphism L −→ M .
Theorem 2.9. (cf. [17, Theorem 3.4], and [3, Theorem 3]) Let M ≇ R be an indecomposable
in CM(R ). Then M ∈ L p (R ) if and only if there exists an AR sequence ending in M .
Notice also that if R is Gorenstein, applying (_)∗ shows that there exists an AR sequence
ending in M if and only if there exists an AR sequence starting from M . The appendix of [1]
contains a nice proof of Theorem 2.9 in a slightly different setting, but one which includes
Gorenstein rings of dimension one.
Lemma 2.10. Assume dim R = 1, and let N ∈ CM(R ). Then N ∈ L p (R ) if and only if N ⊗R Q
is a projective Q -module.
Proof. The prime ideals of Q correspond to the prime ideals of R not equal to m. Now use
the fact that, since Q is noetherian, a Q -module is projective precisely when it is free at all
maximal ideals of Q (cf. [8, Exercise 4.11]).

2.11. For the remainder of this section assume furthermore that R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and M ≇ R is an indecomposable in L p (R ). Then (ignoring a graded shift,
in the graded case; it will not concern us) τ( M ) = syzR ( M ) (cf. [17, 3.11]), where syzR ( M )
denotes the syzygy module of M , which is defined to be the kernel of a minimal surjec1
tion onto M by a free R -module. The module τ−1 ( M ) = syz−
( M ) ∈ L p (R ) is determined by
R
−1
−1 ∼
∼
syzR (syzR ( M )) = M , and can be computed via syzR = (syzR ( M ∗ ))∗ .
Definition 2.12. Given a ring A , and A -modules X and Y , Hom A ( X , Y ) denotes
Hom A ( X , Y )/{maps factoring through projective A -modules}; and End A ( X ) denotes Hom A ( X , X ).
An A -homomorphism is said to be stably zero if it factors through a projective A -module.
Lemma 2.13. [17, Lemma 3.8] Let A be a commutative ring, and let X and Y be finitelygenerated A -modules. The sequence
Hom A ( X , A ) ⊗ A Y

µ

/ Hom A ( X , Y )

/ Hom ( X , Y )
A

/0

is exact, where µ : Hom A ( X , A ) ⊗ A Y −→ Hom A ( X , Y ) is given by f ⊗ y 7→ ( x 7→ f ( x) y).
1
Lemma 2.14. EndR ( M ) ∼
= Ext1R (syz−
R ( M ), M ) as left EndR ( M )-modules.
4

1
Proof. Let N = syz−
R ( M ). By applying HomR (_, M ) to a short exact sequence 0 → M →
F → N → 0 where F is free, we have an exact sequence HomR (F, M ) → HomR ( M, M ) →
Ext1R ( N, M ) → Ext1R (F, M ) = 0. It only remains to observe that the image of HomR (F, M ) →
HomR ( M, M ) consists of all endomorphisms factoring through projectives, which simply follows from the definition of projective.


Remark 2.15. Left M ∈ L p (R ) be a nonfree indecomposable. Then EndR M is a (graded-)
local ring (cf. [3, Proposition 8]), and therefore so is EndR M . It follows from Lemma 2.14 and
Theorem 2.9 that the ring EndR ( M ) has a simple socle when considered as a left module over
itself, and that if h : M → M generates this socle then the AR sequence starting from M is
1
obtained as the pushout via h of the short exact sequence 0 → M → F → syz−
( M ) → 0 where
R
F is free. In particular, if ι denotes the given injective map M → F , and 0 → M → X → N → 0
is the AR sequence starting from M , then X ∼
= ( M ⊕ F )/{(− h( m), ι( m))|m ∈ M }.
3. T ESTING STABLE - VANISHING WITH TRACE
In this section, let R simply be a commutative ring, and let M be a finitely-generated
R -module such that M ⊗R Q is a projective Q -module. Let (_)∗ denote HomR (_, R ).
Notation 3.1. Given an R -algebra B, let D B (_) denote HomR (_, B). Let νB denote D B ((_)∗ ) =
D B ◦ D R (_), and let λB denote the Hom-Tensor adjoint isomorphism λB : D B ( M ∗ ⊗R _) −→
HomR (_, νB M ). We also let µ M denote the natural transformation µ M : M ∗ ⊗R _ → HomR ( M, _ )
given by f ⊗ x 7→ ( m 7→ f ( m) x). For future reference, we note that for a given R -module X ,
the map λB ◦ (D B µ M ) : D B HomR ( M, X ) −→ HomR ( X , νB M ) is given by the rule
(3.1)

[λB ◦ D B µ M ](σ)( x)( f ) = σ(µ M ( f ⊗ x)) , for all σ ∈ D B HomR ( M, X ), x ∈ X , f ∈ M ∗ .

Let E = Q /R . The exact sequence 0
commutative diagram
0

/ D R HomR ( M, _ )

0


/ HomR (_ , νR M )

(3.2)

/R

ι

/Q

/ D Q HomR ( M, _ )

q

q∗

/E

/ 0 induces the exact

/ D E HomR ( M, _ )

λQ ◦DQ µM

λ R ◦D R µ M
ι∗


/ HomR (_ , νQ M )

λ E ◦D E µ M

.


/ HomR (_ , νE M )

We now show that D Q µ M is an isomorphism on the category of finitely-generated R modules, so that the second map in the composable pair
(3.3)

D R HomR ( M, _ )

λ R ◦D R µ M

/ HomR (_ , νR M )

q ∗ (λQ ◦DQ µM )−1 ι∗

/ D E HomR ( M, _ )

is well-defined.
Lemma 3.2. [1, Appendix]
(1) The map D Q µ M is an isomorphism on finitely-generated R -modules, and the sequence 3.3
is exact.
(2) If R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and both M and the input module X lie in CM(R ),
then the image of λR ◦ D R µ M consists of the stably zero maps X −→ νR M .
Proof. Note that µ M ⊗R Q can be identified with µ M ⊗Q : HomQ ( M ⊗R Q,Q ) ⊗Q (_ ⊗R Q ) −→
HomQ ( M ⊗R Q, _ ⊗R Q ), which is an isomorphism because M ⊗R Q is a projective Q -module.
5

Thus D Q µ M is an isomorphism, since it can be viewed as D Q (µ M ⊗R Q ). The exactness of 3.3
is seen by chasing the diagram 3.2.
/ syz ( M )
/F p /M
/ 0 be a
Now we assume the hypotheses of (2). Let 0
R
short exact sequence, where F is a free R -module. Consider the commutative diagram
(3.4)

(HomR (F, X ))∗

(HomR ( M, X ))∗

/ ( F ∗ ⊗ R X )∗
D R µM


/ ( M ∗ ⊗ R X )∗

λR

/ HomR ( X , F ∗∗) o

HomR ( X , F )


/ HomR ( X , M ∗∗ ) o


HomR ( X , M ) ,

where the vertical maps are induced by p : F −→ M , and the horizontal maps on the right
are the isomorphisms induced by M ∼
= M ∗∗ and F ∼
= F ∗∗ . It is easy to see that the image
of the rightmost vertical map consists of the stably zero maps X −→ M , and it follows that
the third vertical map consists of the stably zero maps X −→ M ∗∗ . Let H denote the map
HomR ( M, X ) −→ HomR (F, X ) induced by p. Since the top row of diagram 3.4 consists of isomorphisms, establishing surjectivity of the leftmost vertical map, namely D R H , is sufficient
for proving (2). Let N = cok H . By left-exactness of Hom, we have a left-exact sequence
0

/ HomR ( M, X )

H

/ HomR (F, X )

/ HomR (syz ( M ), X ) ,
R

and therefore N embeds into HomR (syzR ( M ), X ). Thus N ∈ CM(R ), so Ext1R ( N, R ) = 0.
Therefore the sequence 0
so (2) is proved.

/ N∗

/ HomR (F, X )∗

DR H

/ HomR ( M, X )∗

/ 0 is exact,



Lemma 3.3. Assume R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and M ∈ CM(R ). Then a given
endomorphism h : M −→ M is stably zero if and only if trace( gh ⊗ Q ) ∈ R for all g : M −→ M .
(Recall the definition of trace, Definition 2.2.)
Proof. Let η denote the isomorphism EndR M −→ HomR ( M, M ∗∗ ) induced by M ∼
= M ∗∗ , and
−1
∗∗
let θ = (λQ ◦ D Q µ M ) ◦ ι∗ : HomR ( M, M ) −→ HomR (EndR M,Q ). It follows from Lemma 3.2
that h is stably zero if and only if [θ (η h)]( g) ∈ R for all g : M −→ M . Thus, by the symmetry
of trace, it suffices to show that [θ (η h)]( g) = trace( h g ⊗ Q ). Let σ : EndR M −→ Q denote
the map sending g ∈ EndR M to trace( h g). Thus, we wish to show θ (η h) = σ; equivalently,
ι∗ (η h) = (λQ ◦ D Q µ M )(σ).
Take a finite collection of maps {φ i : M ⊗R Q −→ Q } i and elements { e i } i ∈ M ⊗R Q , such that
P
P
w = i φ i (w) e i for all w ∈ M ⊗R Q ; thus trace( h ⊗ Q ) = i φ i (( h ⊗ Q )( e i )), as we mentioned
in Definition 2.2. Given m ∈ M , and f ∈ M ∗ , let g denote the endomorphism µ M ( f ⊗ m). By
P
equation 3.1, (λQ ◦ D Q µ M )(σ)( m)( f ) = σ( g) = trace( h g) = i φ i (( h ⊗ Q )(( g ⊗ Q )( e i ))). Now using
firstly that g ⊗ Q is given by w 7→ ( f ⊗ Q )(w) m, and then that f ⊗ Q and the φ i ’s have output
in Q , we have
P
P
(λQ ◦ D Q µ M )(σ)( m)( f ) = i φ i (( h ⊗ Q )(( f ⊗ Q )( e i ) m)) = i ( f ⊗ Q )( e i )φ i ( h( m))
P
= ( f ⊗ Q )( i φ i ( h( m)) e i ) = f ( h( m)) = ι∗ (η h)( m)( f ).


6

4. THE MAIN RESULT
Our goal now is to prove Theorem 4.12, which is really a formula for the AR sequence
ending in M , cf. Remark 2.15. For this section, let R be a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay
ring which is either a complete local ring or a connected graded ring. (We will assume R is
Gorenstein from 4.4 onwards.)
Recall that for a commutative ring A , if M and N are finitely-generated A -submodules of
Q ( A ), and M contains a faithful element w, i.e. (0 : A w) = 0, then Hom A ( M, N ) is naturally
identified with ( N :Q ( A ) M ).
Notation 4.1. If R is reduced, let F(R ) denote (R :Q J (R )) = J (R )∗ . Let I cd denote the
conductor ideal, I cd = (R :R R ).
Lemma 4.2. Assume R is reduced. Then
(1) F(R ) ⊆ m∗ . If R is not regular, then F(R ) ⊆ EndR m.
(2) Assume R is not regular, and further that either (a) R is a domain, or (b) R is Gorenstein. Then F(R ) * R .
Proof. As m ⊆ J (R ), we have F(R ) ⊆ m∗ . Now assume R is not regular. Then R is not
integrally closed: see [14, Theorem 11.2] for the complete local case, and Lemma 8.6 for the
connected graded case. So I cd ⊆ m. It is easy to see that (R :Q J (R )) = ( I cd :Q J (R )), which
lies in EndR m since I cd ⊆ m ⊆ J (R ). So (1) is proven.
Case 2a: R is a domain. Then R is a DVR in the complete local case, and a polynomial ring
over a field in the connected graded case (Lemmas 8.4 and 8.5). Let π denote a generator
for mR , and let n denote the positive integer such that I cd = πn R . Then πn−1 R ⊆ F(R ), while
πn−1 R * R .
Case 2b: R is Gorenstein. Consider the family of finitely-generated R -submodules X ⊂ Q
such that X contains a faithful element. It can be checked that application of (_ )∗ to such
modules X is an inclusion reversing operation satisfying X ∗∗ = X . So, the observation that
R * J (R ) implies F(R ) * R .

Lemma 4.3. Let I ⊂ R be a (homogeneous) radical ideal of height zero. Then we have an
R -algebra isomorphism Q / IQ ∼
= Q (R / I ).
Proof. If x ∈ R is a (homogeneous) nonzerodivisor, we have R x = Q . To see this, it suffices
to check that a given (homogeneous) nonzerodivisor y ∈ R becomes a unit in R x . As R y is
m-primary, we have x i = r y for some i ≥ 1 and some r ∈ R . Therefore y is a unit in R x ;
hence R x = Q . As R / I is reduced, its associated primes are all minimal; namely they are
the images of those minimal primes of R which contain I . So x remains a nonzerodivisor
modulo I . Therefore Q (R / I ) = (R / I ) x = R x ⊗R (R / I ) = Q ⊗R (R / I ) = Q / IQ .

4.4. For the remainder of this section, adopt the further assumption on R that it is Gorenstein and not regular. Let I ⊂ R be a radical ideal of height zero, and assume I is homogeneous in the case that R is connected graded. Let R ′ = R / I , and Q ′ = Q (R ′ ), which we
identify with Q / IQ by Lemma 4.3. After the upcoming Proposition 4.6, we will assume the
following condition, which is automatically satisfied if I is prime or R ′ is Gorenstein; see
Proposition 4.6 and Remark 4.7.
Condition 4.5. There exists (homogeneous) elements z ∈ R and γ′ ∈ F(R ′ ) \ R ′ such that
7

(1) I = AnnR ( z), and
(2) For some (equivalently, every) γ̃′ such that γ̃′ + IQ = γ′ , we have γ̃′ z ∉ R .
Proposition 4.6. If I ∈ min R , then Condition 4.5 is satisfied.
Proof. By Lemma 4.2, we can pick (homogeneous) γ′ ∈ F(R ′) \ R ′ ; any such γ′ will do. Let ω
denote the ideal AnnR ( I ). Now ω ∼
= HomR (R ′ , R ) is, up to a graded shift, a canonical module
for R ′ ([6, Theorem 3.3.7] and [6, Proposition 3.6.12]), and therefore we have EndR′ ω ∼
= R′
(cf. [6, Theorem 3.3.4] and the proof of [6, Proposition 3.6.9b]). We will also use that I =
AnnR (ω) = AnnR ( z) for each nonzero z ∈ ω, which is true because all associated primes of R
are minimal, so that any ideal strictly larger than I contains a nonzerodivisor.
Now let γ̃′ be a lift of γ′ to Q . Regarding ω as a subset of Q via ω ⊂ R ⊂ Q , suppose that
′
γ̃ ω ⊆ ω. Then the action of γ̃′ on ω agrees with the multiplication on ω by some r ∈ R , so
γ̃′ − r ∈ AnnQ (ω) = IQ . But then γ′ ∈ R ′ is a contradiction. So there must exist z ∈ ω such that
γ̃′ z ∉ ω; any such z will do. As AnnQ ( I ) ∩ R = ω, we thus have γ̃′ z ∉ R .

Remark 4.7. In Proposition 4.6, the hypothesis I ∈ min R can replaced by the assumption that R ′ is Gorenstein; the proof is similar. In this case zR = AnnR ( I ), and one may
obtain part (1) of Condition 4.5 by observing that, since R ′ ∈ CM(R ) and R is Gorenstein,
AnnR (HomR (R ′, R )) = AnnR (R ′ ) = I .
Notation 4.8. For the remainder of this section we assume Condition 4.5, and fix such z,
γ′ , and γ̃′ ; and we set γ = zγ̃′ .
Lemma 4.9. We have γ ∈ EndR m.
Proof. From Lemma 4.2 we have γ′ mR ′ ⊆ R ′ . Since zR ∼
= R ′ , it follows that γ̃′ zm ⊆ zR , thus
γ ∈ m∗ . It remains to observe that m has no free direct summand. But any proper direct
summand of an ideal has nonzero annihilator; and if m were free R would be regular.

Lemma 4.10. Let M ∈ L p (R ), and h ∈ EndR M . Then trace( h ⊗ Q ′ ) = trace( h ⊗ Q ) + IQ .
P
Proof. Take {φ i : M ⊗R Q −→ Q } i and { e i } i ∈ M ⊗R Q such that w = i φ i (w) e i for all w ∈
M ⊗R Q . If φ′i = φ ⊗R R ′ : M ⊗R Q ′ −→ Q ′ and e′i denotes the image of e i in M ⊗R Q ′ , then
P
P
P
w′ = i φ′i (w′ ) e′i for all w′ ∈ M ⊗R Q ′ . Now trace( h ⊗ Q ′ ) = i φ′ (( h ⊗ Q ′ )( e′i )) = i φ(( h ⊗ Q )( e i )) +
IQ = trace( h ⊗ Q ) + IQ .

Notation 4.11. Assume M ∈ L p (R ) has no free direct summands. Then there exists no
surjection M −→ R , so M ∗ = HomR ( M, m), hence M ∼
= HomR ( M, m)∗ is a module over the
ring EndR m. Therefore γ induces an endomorphism of M , by Lemma 4.9. Denote it by γM .
Denote by [γM ] the class of γM in the stable category.
Theorem 4.12. Assume M ∈ L p (R ) is a nonfree indecomposable. Then [γM ] ∈ soc(EndR M ),
for γ as in Notation 4.8. Let M ′ = M ⊗R R ′ , and suppose that either
(1) M ′ has rank (as an R ′ -module), and rank( M ′ ) is a unit in R ; or
(2) For some minimal prime p of R ′ , dimRp′ ( M ⊗R R p′ ) is a unit in R , and pγ′ = 0.
Then, [γM ] generates soc(EndR M ).
Proof. First we show [γM ] ∈ soc(EndR M ), which by Lemma 3.3 is equivalent to having
trace(γh) ∈ R for an arbitrary h : M −→ M . As EndR M /(m EndR M ) is an artinian local
ring, there exists some i ≥ 1 such that h i ∈ m EndR M , and thus h i ⊗R R ′ ∈ m EndR′ ( M ′ ).
8

So trace( h ⊗ Q ′) ∈ J (R ′ ), by Lemma 2.5. Now using Lemma 4.10, γ̃′ trace( h) + IQ ∈ γ′ J (R ′ ) ⊂
R + IQ , whence γ trace( h) ∈ zR + zIQ = zR ⊂ R .
Now suppose that the second condition holds. By Lemma 3.3, it suffices to show trace(γM ⊗
Q ) ∉ R . Let n = dimRp′ ( M ⊗R R p′ ), and let P = p ∩ R . Note that γ̃′ P ⊆ IQ , and therefore γP =

zγ̃′ P ⊂ zIQ = 0. Now trace(1 M ⊗Q ) + PQ = trace(1 M ⊗Q /PQ ) = n1Q /PQ , hence trace(γM ⊗ Q ) =
γ trace(1 M ⊗Q ) ∈ γ( n + PQ ) = γn ∉ R , by the last part of Condition 4.5. If instead the first
condition holds, then trace(1 M ⊗Q ) + IQ = rank( M ′ ) and the same argument works.

The following lemma, which we use in Section 6, is for locating γ′ when R ′ is Gorenstein.
Lemma 4.13. Let B be a Gorenstein connected graded ring of dimension one. Let g ∈ m∗B be
a homogeneous element, and let a = deg g. If B a = 0, then g ∈ F(B) \ B.
Proof. Since B a = 0, g is not an element of B. As B is Gorenstein, dimk Ext1B ( k, B) = 1, where
k = B0 . Then dualizing the short exact sequence 0 → mB → B → k → 0 yields dimk (m∗B /B) = 1.
By Lemma 4.2, there exists some homogeneous w ∈ F(B)\B. Then w ∈ m∗B \B, so m∗B = B + kw.
Therefore g = r + αw for some r ∈ B a and homogeneous α ∈ B. But r = 0 since B a = 0. As
g ∉ B while wmB ⊂ B, we have α ∉ mB , i.e. α ∈ k. Thus g ∈ kw ⊂ F(B).

5. STABLE AR QUIVERS
The over-arching ideas of this section are largely from [1], which in turn is based partly
on [9]. Since we confine our arguments to the commutative setting, the arguments we give
here are sometimes slightly easier. Also, the proof of [1, Lemma 1.23] is flawed, since its
penultimate sentence is false, and we give a corrected proof as Lemma 5.19. A principal
goal of this section is to provide some sufficient conditions for guaranteeing that a given
component of the stable AR quiver of a hypersurface is a tube; see Proposition 5.30.
We have many terms to define. The following definitions generally agree with [1] and [5],
although the meaning of “valued” is different in [5].
Definition 5.1. A quiver is a directed graph Γ = (Γ0 , Γ1 ), where Γ0 is the set of vertices and
Γ1 is the set of arrows. A morphism of quivers φ : Γ → Γ′ is a pair (φ0 : Γ0 → Γ′0 , φ1 : Γ1 → Γ′1 )
such that φ1 applied to an arrow x → y is an arrow φ( x) → φ( y). For x ∈ Γ0 , x− denotes the
set { y ∈ Γ0 |∃arrow y → x in Γ1 }; and x+ = { y ∈ Γ0 |∃arrow x → y in Γ1 }. Γ is locally finite if x+
and x− are finite sets for each x ∈ Γ0 . A loop is an arrow from a vertex to itself. A multiple
arrow is a set of at least two arrows from a given vertex to another given vertex.
A valued quiver is a quiver Γ together with a map v : Γ1 → Z≥0 ×Z≥0 . By a graph we mean
an undirected graph. A valued graph is a graph G together with specified integers d x y ≥ 1
and d yx ≥ 1 for each edge x— y .
A stable translation quiver is a locally finite quiver together with a quiver automorphism τ called the translation, such that:
• Γ has no loops and no multiple arrows.
• For x ∈ Γ0 , x− = τ( x)+ .

Given a stable translation quiver (Γ, τ) and a map v : Γ1 → Z≥0 × Z≥0 , the triple (Γ, v, τ) is
called a valued stable translation quiver if v( x → y) = (a, b) ⇔ v(τ( y) → x) = ( b, a).
A stable translation quiver is connected if it is non-empty and cannot be written as
disjoint union of two subquivers each stable under the translation.
9

Definition 5.2. By a directed tree we shall mean a quiver T , with no loops or multiple
arrows, such that the underlying undirected graph of T is a tree, and for each x ∈ T , the set
x− has at most one element.
Given a directed tree T , there is an associated stable translation quiver ZT defined as
follows. The vertices of ZT are the pairs ( n, x) with n ∈ Z and x a vertex of T . The arrows of
ZT are determined by the following rules: Given vertices x, y ∈ T , and n ∈ Z,
• ( n, x) → ( n, y) ∈ ZT ⇔ x → y ∈ T ⇔ ( n, y) → ( n − 1, x) ∈ ZT ;
• If n′ ∉ { n, n − 1}, there is no arrow ( n, x) → ( n′ , y).

Remark 5.3. Let T be a valued quiver which is also a directed tree. Then there is a unique
extension of v to ZT such that the latter becomes a valued stable translation quiver. Namely,
if v( x → y) = (a, b), then v(( n, x) → ( n, y)) = (a, b), and v(( n, y) → ( n − 1, x)) = ( b, a).
Lemma 5.4. Let T and T ′ be (valued) directed trees. Then ZT ∼
= ZT ′ as (valued) stable
translation quivers if and only T ∼
= T ′ as (valued) graphs.
Proof. See [5, Proposition 4.15.3].



A group Π of automorphisms (commuting with the translation) of a stable translation
quiver Γ is said to be admissible if no orbit of Π on the vertices of Γ intersects a set of the
form { x} ∪ x+ or { x} ∪ x− in more than one point. The quotient quiver Γ/Π, with vertices the
Π-orbits of Γ0 , and with the induced arrows and translation, is also a stable translation
quiver. A surjective morphism of stable translation quivers φ : Γ → Γ′ is called a covering
if, for each x ∈ Γ0 , the induced maps x− → φ( x)− and x+ → φ( x)+ are bijective. Note that if Π
is an admissible group of automorphisms of Γ,
(5.1)

the canonical projection Γ → Γ/Π is a covering.

Theorem 5.5. (Riedtmann Structure Theorem; see [5, Theorem 4.15.6] ) Given a connected
stable translation quiver Γ, there is a directed tree T and an admissible group of automorphisms Π ⊆ Aut(ZT ) such that Γ ∼
= ZT /Π. In particular, we have a covering ZT → Γ. The
underlying undirected graph of T is uniquely determined by Γ, up to isomorphism.
The underlying undirected graph of T is called the tree class of Γ.
Remark 5.6. Suppose Γ is a valued stable translation quiver, and let φ : ZT → Γ be a covering, which exists by the Theorem. Now ZT becomes a valued stable translation quiver, by
setting v( x → y) = v(φ( x → y)). In particular, T becomes a valued quiver.
Definition 5.7. The valued tree class of a stable translation quiver Γ is a valued graph
(T, v) where T denotes the tree class of Γ, and v : {edges of T } → Z≥0 × Z≥0 is given as in
Remark 5.6.
So by definition, we have a value-preserving covering ZT → Γ, where ZT is the valued
stable translation quiver from Remark 5.3 (after choosing edge directions making T a directed tree; the choice is irrelevant by Lemma 5.4). The valued tree class is unique up to
value-preserving isomorphism, but we will not require this fact.
Definition 5.8. Let (Γ, v) be a valued, locally finite quiver without multiple arrows. For
x → y in Γ, we write v( x → y) = ( d x y, d yx ). If there is no arrow between x and y, we set
d x y = d yx = 0. Let Q>0 be the set of positive rational numbers.
10

(i) A subadditive function on (Γ, v) is a Q>0 -valued function f on the set of vertices of Γ
P
such that 2 f ( x) ≥ y∈Γ d yx f ( y), for each vertex x.
(ii) An additive function on (Γ, v) is a Q>0 -valued function f on the set of vertices of Γ such
P
that 2 f ( x) = y∈Γ d yx f ( y), for each vertex x.

Lemma 5.9. [5, Theorem 4.5.8] Let (Γ, v) be a connected valued quiver without loops or
multiple arrows. Suppose f is a subadditive function on Γ, and assume Γ has infinitely
many vertices. Then:
(1) The underlying valued graph of Γ is a Dynkin diagram.
(2) If f is unbounded, or if f is not additive, then the underlying valued graph of Γ is A ∞ .

5.10. Throughout this section, we assume R is a Cohen-Macaulay complete local ring. (But
the same results hold when R is connected graded instead of complete local.)
Definition 5.11. If M and N are indecomposables in CM(R ), let Irr( M, N ) denote the module of nonisomorphisms M −→ N modulo those which are not irreducible. Let k M denote
the division ring EndR ( M )/J (EndR ( M )). Thus Irr( M, N ) is a right k M -space, and a left k N space.
Definition 5.12. The Auslander-Reiten quiver of R is the valued quiver defined as follows:
• Vertices are isoclasses of indecomposables in CM(R ).
• There is an arrow M → N if and only if there exists an irreducible morphism M → N ,
i.e. Irr( M, N ) 6= 0. The value v( M → N ) of the arrow M → N is (a, b) where a is the
dimension of Irr( M, N ) as a right k M -space, and b is the dimension of Irr( M, N ) as a
left k N -space.
Recall that we use τ to denote the AR-translate (see subsection 2.3). For the proof of the
following two lemmas, see [17, Lemmas 5.5 and 5.6].
Lemma 5.13. Let M and N be indecomposables in CM(R ).
(1) If 0 → τ N → E → N → 0 is an AR sequence, the number of copies of M appearing in a
decomposition of E equals the dimension of Irr( M, N ) as a right k M -space.
(2) If 0 → M → E ′ → τ−1 M → 0 is an AR sequence, then the number of copies of N appearing in a decomposition of E ′ equals the dimension of Irr( M, N ) as a left k N -space.
Notationally, we allow τ to be a partially-defined morphism on the AR quiver of R ; τ x is
defined precisely when the vertex x corresponds to a module in L p (R ), by [17, Theorem 3.4].
The following is used in [1] without proof. The proof essentially follows that of [4, VII 1.4].
Lemma 5.14. Let x → y be an arrow in the AR quiver of R , and let (a, b) = v( x → y). If τ y is
defined, then v(τ y → x) = ( b, a). If τ x and τ y are both defined, then v(τ x → τ y) = v( x → y).
Proof. We need not prove the last sentence, as it follows from the previous. Let M and
N ∈ CM(R ) be the modules corresponding to x and y respectively. We first show k N and
/ τN p / E q / N
/ 0 be an AR
k τ N are isomorphic k-algebras, where k = R /m. Let 0
sequence. Given h ∈ EndR ( N ), there exists a commutative diagram
(5.2)

0

/ τN

p

/E

q

h′

0


/ τN

/N

/0

h
p


/E

q
11


/N

/0

.

Indeed, note that hq is not a split epimorphism, because if h is surjective, then h is an
isomorphism, and thus hq is not a split epimorphism because q is not. Therefore, by Definition 2.6, there exists u : E −→ E such that hq = qu, and the existence of h′ follows.
By the dual argument, any given h′ ∈ EndR (τ N ) can be fit into a commutative diagram of
the same form.
We wish to show that h 7→ h′ induces a well-defined map k N → k τ N . If so then it is a surjective ring map from a division ring, hence an isomorphism, so we will be done. It suffices to
show that, given any commutative diagram 5.2 such that h is a nonisomorphism, it follows
that h′ is also a nonisomorphism. Suppose, to the contrary, that h is an nonisomorphism
and h′ is an isomorphism. We may assume h′ is the identity map, since we could certainly
compose the diagram 5.2 with a similar diagram which has ( h′ )−1 on the left. As h is not a
split epimorphism, it factors through q. But then the bottom sequence in 5.2 splits, cf. [13,
Lemma 3.3]; and this of course is a contradiction. Thus k N ∼
= k τ N as k-algebras.
In particular, dimk ( k N ) = dimk ( k τ N ). As dimk M Irr( M, N ) = dimk M Irr(τ N, M ) is an immediate consequence of Lemma 5.13, our aim is to show dimk N Irr( M, N ) = dimkτN Irr(τ N, M ).
By the former, we have dimk Irr( M, N ) = dimk Irr(τ N, M ). Thus, dimk N Irr( M, N )
= dimk Irr( M, N )/ dimk ( k N ) = dimk Irr(τ N, M )/ dimk ( k τ N ) = dimkτN Irr(τ N, M ).

Definition 5.15. If R is Gorenstein, the stable Auslander-Reiten quiver of R is the valued
quiver defined as in Definition 5.12, except that the vertices are only the isoclasses of nonfree
indecomposable modules M ∈ L p (R ). We will denote the stable AR quiver of R by ΓR .
Definition 5.16. Let C be a full subquiver of ΓR . We call C a component of ΓR if:
(1) For all vertices x ∈ C , we have τ x ∈ C and τ−1 x ∈ C .
(2) C is a union of connected components of the underlying undirected graph of ΓR .
(3) There is no proper subquiver of C that satisfies (1) and (2).
Lemma 5.17. Assume dim R = 1, and let M be an arbitrary indecomposable in CM(R ). Then
there exists an irreducible morphism M −→ R if and only if M is isomorphic to a direct
summand of m. If R is Gorenstein, then there exists an irreducible morphism R −→ M if and
only if M is isomorphic to a direct summand of m∗ .
L
Proof. Write m as a direct sum of indecomposables, m = i m i . Let ι i denote the inclusion
map m i ,→ R . To see that ι i is irreducible, take a factorization ι i = h g in CM(R ), where h is
not a split epimorphism. Then h is not onto, so im h ⊆ m. Then if h′ denotes the map into m
given by x 7→ h( x), and p i denotes the projection m ։ m i , we have that p i h′ g = 1mi , so g is a
split monomorphism; hence ι i is irreducible. Now let M be an indecomposable in CM(R ) and
let f : M −→ R be an irreducible morphism. Let ι denote the inclusion map m ,→ R . Since f
is not a split epimorphism, im f ⊆ m, hence f = ι g for some g : M −→ m. As ι is certainly not
a split epimorphism, g is a split monomorphism.
For the last sentence of the statement, note that the irreducible maps from R are obtained
by dualizing the irreducible maps into R .

Notation 5.18. For an R -module M , let e( M ) denote the multiplicity of M . Recall that e( M )
is a positive integer for all M ∈ CM(R ) and that e is additive along short exact sequences: if
0 −→ M ′ −→ M −→ M ′′ −→ 0 is exact, then e( M ) = e( M ′ ) + e( M ′′ ).
Lemma 5.19. If M ∈ L p (R ) is a nonfree indecomposable, there are no irreducible maps from
M to itself.
12

Proof. Suppose to the contrary. Then the AR sequence ending in M is 0 −→ τ M −→ M ⊕ τ M ⊕
N −→ M −→ 0 for some N ∈ CM(R ). Then e( N ) = 0, hence N = 0. Now Miyata’s Theorem [16,
Theorem 1] says that the given AR sequence splits, which is a contradiction.

The following “Maranda-type result” corresponds to Lemma 1.24 in [1]. In our setting,
namely that of a Cohen-Macaulay complete local ring, this result is well-known. The following proof can be found, for example, in [12, Proposition 15.8] and its corollaries.
Lemma 5.20. Let M and N be nonisomorphic indecomposables in L p (R ), and let x ∈ m be
a nonzerodivisor. Then there exists i ≥ 1 such that M / x i M and N / x i N are nonisomorphic
indecomposable modules.
Proof. Since M and N lie in L p (R ), Ext1R ( M, N ) has finite length. Therefore we may assume,
after replacing x by a suitable power of itself, that x Ext1R ( M, N ) = 0. By applying HomR ( M, _)
to the commutative exact diagram
0

/N

x2

/N

/ N / x2 N

/N


/ N / xN

/0

,

x

0


/N

x

/0

we obtain a commutative exact diagram
HomR ( M, N )

/ HomR ( M, N / x2 M )

/ Ext1 ( M, N )
R


HomR ( M, N )


/ HomR ( M, N / xM )

(5.3)

x

.

/ Ext1 ( M, N )
R

Consider the maps θ : HomR ( M, N ) → HomR ( M / xM, N / xN ) and θ2 : HomR ( M / x2 M, N / x2 N ) →
HomR ( M / xM, N / xN ) given by tensoring all maps with R /( x). Notice that in diagram 5.3, the
horizontal and vertical maps into HomR ( M, N / xM ) can be identified with θ and θ2 respectively, while the rightmost vertical map is zero. Therefore a diagram chase yields
(5.4)

im(θ ) = im(θ2 ).

We claim i = 2 will suffice. Suppose M / x2 M is not indecomposable. Then there exists a
nontrivial idempotent e ∈ EndR ( M / x2 M ). Consider the equation 5.4 in the case M = N ;
now θ and θ2 are of course ring homomorphisms. Since EndR M is nc-local, so is im θ , and
therefore θ2 ( e) is either 0 or 1. Since 1 − e ∈ EndR ( M / x2 M ) is also a nontrivial idempotent,
we may assume θ2 ( e) = 0, i.e. im e ⊆ xM / x2 M . But then e2 = 0 is a contradiction.
Now suppose ϕ : M / x2 M −→ N / x2 N is an isomorphism, with inverse ψ : N / x2 N −→ M / x2 M .
By 5.4, there exist ϕ̃ : M −→ N such that ϕ̃ ⊗R (R / x) = ϕ ⊗R (R / x), and ψ̃ : M −→ N such that
ψ̃ ⊗R (R / x) = ψ ⊗R (R / x). By Nakayama’s Lemma, ϕ̃ and ψ̃ are surjective. Thus ψ̃ϕ̃ is a
surjective endomorphism, equivalently, an isomorphism; and thus ϕ̃ is an isomorphism. 
We recall the Harada-Sai Lemma:
Lemma 5.21. [4, VI. Cor. 1.3] Let Λ be an artin algebra (e.g. a commutative artinian ring). If
f i : M i → M i+1 are nonisomorphisms between indecomposable modules M i for i = 1, ..., 2n − 1
and length( M i ) ≤ n for all i , then f 2n −1 · · · f 1 = 0.
13

Lemma 5.22. [1, Proposition 1.26] Assume R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and m is
indecomposable; and suppose there exists a finite component, C , of ΓR . Then C consists of all
isoclasses of non-projective indecomposables in CM(R ).
Proof. As C is finite, Lemma 5.20 implies that we can take x ∈ m such that for each pair
M ≇ N in C , M / xM and N / xN are nonisomorphic indecomposable modules.
Of course we may assume R is not regular. Now first we show m ∈ C . Suppose not;
then there are no irreducible maps to R from any module in C (Lemma 5.17). Therefore if
N ∈ C and N → N ′ is any irreducible map in CM(R ), N ′ must lie in C (since L p (R ) is closed
1
under syz−
, and therefore under irreducible maps by consideration of AR sequences). Pick
R
a module M ∈ C . By replacing x by a power of itself if necessary, we can choose f : M → R
such that f ( M ) * xR , i.e. f ⊗R (R / x) 6= 0. Since f is not a split monomorphism, and there
exists an AR sequence beginning in M , f equals a sum of maps of the form gh, where h is an
irreducible map between modules in C . Since g ∈ HomR ( N, R ) for some N ∈ C , g is not a split
monomorphism, and can in turn be written as a sum of maps of the form kl where l is an
P
irreducible map in C ; now f = klh. Continue this process until we have written f as a sum
P
i g i h 2 n−1 ,i · · · h 1,i where each h j,i is an irreducible map in C , and n = max{length( N / xN )| N ∈
C }. Note that each h j,i ⊗R (R / x) is a nonisomorphism by our assumption on x together with
Lemma 5.19. Therefore, Lemma 5.21 implies f ⊗R (R / x) = 0, contradiction. Thus m ∈ C .
Now just suppose C omits some indecomposable nonfree M ∈ CM(R ). Again choose f : M →
R such that f ⊗R (R / x) 6= 0. Note that any map to R which is not a split epimorphism factors
through m. Whereas in the previous paragraph we reached a contradiction via Lemma 5.21,
by “stacking irreducible maps while moving forwards through C ”, we now obtain a contradiction by “stacking irreducible maps while moving backwards through C ∪ {R }”.

Notation 5.23. If R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and M is an indecomposable in L p (R ),
define an R -module push( M ) as follows. If M is free, let push( M ) = 0. Otherwise let push( M )
denote the unique module (up to isomorphism) such that there exists an AR sequence 0 →
L
1
( M ) → 0. More generally, if M = ni=1 M i with each M i in L p (R ), then
M → push( M ) → syz−
R
L
we set push( M ) = ni=1 push( M i ).

Remark 5.24. Assume R is Gorenstein and let C be a component of ΓR . By Lemma 5.19,
C has no loops, so it is a valued stable translation quiver, and therefore has a valued tree
class T . Then T carries the information of how many nonfree direct summands push( M )
and push(push( M )) (in general, push i ( M )) have for modules
X M ∈ C . Let us explain further.
d yx . Then n is the number of
Let x be the vertex in C corresponding to M , and let n =
( x→ y)∈C
L
nonfree summands in push( M ); that is, push( M ) = F ⊕ ni=1 X i where F is a (possibly zero)
free module, and the X i are nonfree indecomposables in L p (R ). We have a value-preserving
covering φ : ZT → C , and after possibly composing
power of τ, we have x ∈ φ(T ),
X φ with a X
say x = φ( u). Since φ : ZT → C is a covering,
d yx =
d wu , and by definition of
(
x
→
y
)
∈
C
(
u
→
w
)
∈
Z
T
X
X
X
ZT this equals
d wu . Thus n =
d wu . Likewise,
d zw d wu is the number of nonfree
w∈T

w∈T

w,z∈T

direct summands in push(push( M )).

Definition 5.25. Let (Γ, τ) be a translation quiver, and x a vertex of Γ. If x = τn ( x) for
some n > 0, we say that x is τ-periodic. A module M ∈ CM(R ) is said to be τ-periodic
14

if it corresponds to a τ-periodic vertex in the AR quiver of R , i.e., M ∼
= τn M . When R is
Gorenstein of dimension one, we will omit the prefix “τ-” and just say M is periodic.
A valued stable translation quiver Γ is called a tube if Γ ∼
= Z A ∞ /〈τn 〉 for some n ≥ 1.
Remark 5.26. Let Γ be a connected stable translation quiver, with τ-periodic vertices, and
suppose the valued tree class of Γ is A ∞ . Then Γ is a tube. To see this, let Π be an admissible
group of automorphisms of Z A ∞ such that Γ ∼
= Z A ∞ /Π. Note that every automorphism of
the stable translation quiver Z A ∞ is of the form τn for some n ≥ 0. Thus Π = 〈τn 〉 for some
n ≥ 0; and the periodicity implies n ≥ 1.
Lemma 5.27. If (Γ, τ) is a connected translation quiver containing a τ-periodic vertex, then
all of its vertices are τ-periodic.
Proof. This is well-known. If x is a vertex in Γ and τn x = x, then τn induces a permutation
on the finite set x− , and so some power of τn stabilizes x− pointwise. Thus each vertex in x−
is τ-periodic; likewise for x+ , so every vertex in Γ is τ-periodic by induction.

Notation 5.28. Recall that we use e( M ) to denote the multiplicity of a module M . Define a
function e avg from τ-periodic maximal Cohen-Macaulay R -modules to Q>0 as follows: If M
P
is τ-periodic of period n, let e avg ( M ) = n1 ni=−01 e(τ i ( M )).

Lemma 5.29. Assume R is Gorenstein of dimension one, and M ∈ L p (R ) is indecomposable
and periodic. Then push M is periodic, and e avg (push M ) ≤ 2 e avg ( M ).

Proof. We know push M is periodic from Lemma 5.27. Note that if N ∈ CM(R ) is periodic,
Pn+ j−1
then for any j ∈ Z, and n ∈ N a multiple of the period of N , i= j e(τ i N ) = ne avg ( N ). Let

X = push( M ). For each integer i , we have by Lemma 5.14 an AR sequence 0 → τ i+1 M →
F i ⊕ τ i X → τ i M → 0, where F i is a (possibly zero) free module. So e(τ i X ) ≤ e(τ i+1 M ) + e(τ i M ),
P
P
P
hence ni=1 e(τ i X ) ≤ ni=1 e(τ i+1 M ) + ni=1 e(τ i M ) for each n ∈ N. We obtain the desired result
by taking n to be a common multiple of the periods of M and X .

Proposition 5.30. (cf. [1, Lemma 1.23 and Theorem 1.27]) Assume that R is Gorenstein of
dimension one, m is indecomposable, and CM(R ) has infinitely many isoclasses of indecomposables. Let C be a component of ΓR containing a periodic module, and suppose that either
R is a reduced hypersurface, or there exists some M ∈ C such that push(push( M )) = X ⊕ Y ⊕ F
for some indecomposables X and Y , and some possibly-zero free module F . Then, C is a tube.
Proof. C is a valued stable translation quiver, by Lemmas 5.14 and 5.19. So by Definition 5.7, we have a valued directed tree T and a value-preserving covering φ : ZT → C .
Define a function f : ZT → Q>0 by the rule f ( x) = e avg (φ( x)).
P
We claim that the restriction of f to T is a subadditive function. That is, 2 f ( x) ≥ y∈T d yx f ( y),
for each vertex x of T . By Lemma 5.14, d yx = d (τ−1 y) x for all x, y ∈ ΓR , hence for all x, y ∈ ZT .
In what follows, for any x ∈ T , the sets x− and x+ will always be taken with respect to ZT ;
to signify the predecessors of x with respect to T we can use x− ∩ T . If x ∈ T , then x+ equals
the disjoint union of x+ ∩ T and τ−1 ( x− ∩ T ). Now, we have
X
X
X
d yx f ( y)
d yx f ( y) =
d yx f ( y) +
y∈ T
y∈ x − ∩ T
y∈ x + ∩ T
X
X
X
d yx f ( y).
d yx f ( y) =
=
d τ−1 yx f (τ−1 y) +
y∈ x − ∩ T

y∈ x + ∩ T
15

y∈ x +

P
P
So subadditivity of f is equivalent to 2 f ( x) ≥ y∈ x+ d yx f ( y). Since φ is a covering, y∈ x+ d yx f ( y) =
P
y∈φ( x)+ d yφ( x) e avg ( y), which is bounded by 2 e avg (φ( x)) by Lemma 5.29. So f is subadditive.
Notice that since φ is surjective, every vertex of C lies in the τ-orbit of a vertex in φ(T ).
Note also that C has infinitely many vertices, by Lemma 5.22. Therefore T is infinite, so it is
an infinite Dynkin diagram by Lemma 5.9. If R is a reduced then { e( M )| M ∈ C } is unbounded
(see [17, Theorem 6.2]); and so if R is a reduced hypersurface then f is unbounded. Then
T∼
= A ∞ , by Lemma 5.9. If the alternate condition holds, the same conclusion can be obtained
by a process of elimination (of the other Dynkin diagrams), in light of Remark 5.24.


6. AN EXAMPLE
In this section, we apply the results of the previous sections to determine the shape
(namely, a tube) of some components of the Auslander-Reiten quiver of the ring R̂ defined
in 6.4, below. Recall that a hypersurface, i.e. a regular (graded-) local ring modulo a nonzerodivisor, is always Gorenstein.
6.1. Let S be a regular (graded-) local ring, and f ∈ S a nonzero element. Let R = S / f S . A
matrix factorization of f is a pair of matrices (ϕ, ψ), with entries in S , such that ϕψ = ψϕ =
f id l ×l for some l > 0. As consequences of the definition, we have cok ϕ ∼
= cok(ϕ ⊗S R ), and
([17, 7.2.2])
(6.1)

im(ϕ ⊗S R ) = ker(ψ ⊗S R ) and im(ψ ⊗S R ) = ker(ϕ ⊗S R ).

In particular, cok ϕ and cok ψ are periodic R -modules, of period two.
Remark 6.2. Let (ϕ, ψ) and (ϕ′ , ψ′ ) be matrix factorizations of f . Let n 1 and n 2 be the
integers such that ϕ is n 1 -by- n 1 and ϕ′ is n 2 -by- n 2 . Given h : cok ϕ −→ cok ϕ′ , there of
course exist α : S (n1 ) −→ S (n2 ) and β : S (n1 ) −→ S (n2 ) making the diagram
(6.2)

S (n1 )

ϕ

/ S (n1 )

ϕ′



β

/ cok ϕ

α



/0

h


/ S (n2 )
/ cok ϕ′
/0
S (n2 )
³ µϕ′ −α¶ µψ′ β ¶ ´
is a matrix factorization of f .
,
commute. Now it is easy to see that
0 ϕ
0 ψ
If (ϕ, ψ) is a matrix factorization such that ϕ and ψ each contains no unit entry, then it
is called a reduced matrix factorization. If (ϕ, ψ) is a reduced matrix factorization, then
neither im ϕ nor im ψ contains a free summand (cf. [17, 7.5.1]).
Let us from now on assume dim R = 1, and that R is either a complete local ring or a
connected graded ring.

6.3. Let (ϕ, ψ) be a reduced matrix factorization, and let γ be as in Notation 4.8. Let M =
cok ϕ, and pick α and β lifting γM ∈ EndR M in the sense of Remark 6.2. One may check
that the valid choices for α are precisely those choices such that ψα = γψ after passing to
R . Now assume M satisfies the conclusion of Theorem 4.12. By Remark 2.15, push( M ) ∼
=
( n)
(im(ψ ⊗S R ) ⊕ R )/{(−γ c, c)| c ∈ im(ψ ⊗S R )µ}, where¶ n denotes the side length of the matrices
ϕ −α
.
ϕ and ψ. Then we see that push( M ) = cok
0 ψ
16

6.4. Let k be a field, of characteristic not equal to 2, and let us set up a connected graded
hypersurface R as follows. Let p and q be relatively prime integers ≥ 3, and let S = k[ x, y]
be the graded polynomial ring such that S 0 = k, deg x = q, and deg y = p. Let f ∈ S be a
homogeneous polynomial which is not divisible by x. Let g = ( bx p + y q ) f , where b ∈ k, and b
is allowed to be zero. Now, let R = k[ x, y]/( g). The m-adic completion of R is R̂ = k[| x, y|]/( g).
Let v = deg( f )/ p, which is an integer because x ∤ f . We assume that f − yv ∈ xS . Lastly,
assume that there are infinitely many isoclasses of indecomposables in CM(R ).
Now fix an ideal of R of the form I = ( xm , yn ), where 1 ≤ m < p − 1 and 2 ≤ n < q. We will
show that the component of ΓR̂ containing Î is a tube, by showing that push(push( Î )) has
only two indecomposable summands, and applying Proposition 5.30. However, we will work
over R :
Remark 6.5. Let C be a component of ΓR . Now consider the valued translation quiver C ′
obtained from C by identifying vertices x and y when they correspond to modules which are
merely graded-shifts of one another, where a “graded-shift” of a module M means a module
M ( i ) defined by M ( i ) j = M i+ j . By [3, Theorem 3], C ′ is naturally identified with a component
of ΓR̂ . Therefore we might as well work over R , and just try not to keep track of the grading
on M and the grading on push( M ) simultaneously.
Notation 6.6. Let γ = y q−1 f / x ∈ Q . If b 6= 0, set R ′ = S /( bx p + y q )S ; if b = 0, set R ′ = S / yS ∼
=
k[ x]. In either case, R ′ is a domain:
Lemma 6.7. If b 6= 0, then S /( bx p + y q )S is a domain.
Proof. As S is factorial, it suffices to show bx p + y q is irreducible. Since a product ss′ fails
to be homogeneous if either s or s′ does, bx p + y q is either irreducible or equal to a product
of homogeneous nonunits. Let s and s′ be homogeneous elements satisfying ss′ = bx p + y q ,
and s a nonunit. Then s has a term of the form α x i for α ∈ k \ {0}, so that q| deg s. Likewise
p| deg s, and thus deg s = deg( bx p + y q ), hence deg s′ = 0, so s′ is a unit.

We will use the following piece of arithmetic several times. We omit the easy proof.
Lemma 6.8. If b 1 < q and b 2 < 0, or if b 1 < 0 and b 2 < p, then b 1 p + b 2 q ∉ pN + qN.
Lemma 6.9. Let (ϕ, ψ) be a reduced matrix factorization of g and such that each indecomposable direct summand of cok ϕ has rank, and char k does not divide any of µthese ranks.
¶
ϕ −α
.
Let α be a matrix such that ψα = γψ after passing to R . Then, push(cok ϕ) = cok
0 ψ
Proof. By 6.3 we only need to check that γ satisfies agrees with Notation 4.8, and the indecomposable summands of cok ϕ satisfy the hypotheses in Theorem 4.12. If b 6= 0 then R ′ =
S /( bx p + y q )S and we set z = f (see Remark 4.7 and γ′ = y q−1 / x, which lies in HomR′ (mR′ , R ′).
As deg( y q−1 / x) = p( q − 1) − q ∉ pN + qN by Lemma 6.8, we have γ′ ∈ (R ′ :Q ′ J (R ′ )) \ R ′ by
Lemma 4.13. So γ = y q−1 f / x agrees with Notation 4.8. If b = 0, then R ′ = S / yS and we set
z = y q−1 f and γ′ = 1/ x ∈ (R ′ :Q ′ J (R ′ )) \ R ′ . Again γ = y q−1 f / x agrees with Notation 4.8. It
only remains to note that M ⊗R Q ′ is a free Q ′ -module of rank equal to that of M ⊗R Q , by
Lemma 4.3.

In preparation for what immediately follows, let us observe that g − y q+v ∈ xm S . Indeed,
we have by assumption f − yv ∈ xS , and deg f = deg( yv ) = pv. So if x i y j is a monomial
17

occurring in f − yv , then we have i > 0, and qi + p j = pv. Since gcd( p, q) = 1, i is therefore
a positive multiple of p; in particular, i > m. Thus, if ≡ denotes congruence modulo xm , we
have f − yv ≡ 0, and g − y q+v = ( bx p + y q ) f − y q+v ≡ y q ( f − yv ) ≡ 0.
Let
¶
¶
µ
µ
xm
yn
( g − y q+v )/ xm − yn
;
, and ψ =
(6.3)
ϕ=
− y q+v−n ( g − y q+v )/ xm
y q +v − n
xm
then I ∼
= cok ϕ, and (ϕ, ψ) is a matrix factorization of g. Let
µ
¶
0
− bx p−m−1 yn−1 f
(6.4)
α = m−1 q−n−1
,
x
y
f
0
¶
ϕ −α
, it follows from
and note that ψα = γψ after passing to R . Therefore if we let ξ =
0 ψ
Lemma 6.9 that cok ξ = push( I ).
By Remark 6.2, we can pick a matrix β, with entries in S , such that
µ

αϕ = ϕβ.

(6.5)
In fact

¶
y q−1 ( f − yv )/ x
− xm−1 yn−1
β = q−n−1
.
y
( bx p−m−1 yv f + ( f − yv )( g − y q+v )/ xm+1 ) − y q−1 ( f − yv )/ x
We will never need to refer to the actual entries of β, though we will use that β has no unit
entries. By equation 6.5, the pair
µ
¶
µ
¶
ϕ −α
ψ β
(6.6)
(ξ, η) forms a matrix factorization of g, where ξ =
, and η =
.
0 ψ
0 ϕ
µ

Furthermore, (ξ, η) is a reduced matrix factorization.
—–Regarding all of these matrices, and all other matrices to be introduced in this section,
we from now on abuse notation: we will always take the entries as living in R rather than
S , unless stated otherwise!!—–
The reader can check directly that αϕ = −γϕ. (This seems to be particular to this example?) In other words,
(6.7)

ϕβ = −γϕ.

Definition 6.10. We choose a matrix Wµsuch that ηW
¶ = γη. Such W exists by 6.3. Let Z
′
α
Z
and Z ′ be 2-by-2 matrices such that W =
.
0 −β + ψ Z
We explain why W can be chosen to be of this form. To begin with, let W be an arbitrary
µ
¶
A B
matrix such that ηW = γη, and let A , B, C and D be 2-by-2 matrices such that W =
.
C D
¶
¶ µ
¶µ
µ
γψ γβ
ψ β A B
implies ϕD = γϕ, which equals −ϕβ (equation 6.7).
=
The equation
0 γϕ
0 ϕ C D
¶
µϕ(¶D + β) = 0, and this implies D + β = ψ Z for some matrix Z . That we may choose
µTherefore
α
A
follows from the equation ψα = γψ.
to be
0
C
18

¶
ξ −W
. As rank(cok η) = rank(cok ξ) = rank(push( I )) =
Now, let θ denote the 8-by-8 matrix θ =
0 η
2, Lemma 6.9 gives cok θ = push(cok ξ) = push(push( I )). By Proposition 5.30, in order to show
the component of ΓR̂ containing I is a tube, it suffices to show that cok θ = X ⊕ Y ⊕ F , for some
indecomposables X and Y and some possibly-zero free module F . It suffices to do this for
im θ instead of cok θ . We clarify that the term the term “indecomposable” is unambiguous:
µ

Lemma 6.11. [3, Lemma 1] Given an indecomposable N in L p (R ) (i.e., N has no proper
graded direct summand), we have that N̂ is indecomposable in L p (R̂ ). In particular, N is
indecomposable as an R -module.
We state the above discussion as a lemma.
Lemma 6.12. In order to establish that the component of the AR quiver containing Î is a
tube, it suffices to show that im θ = X ⊕ Y for some graded modules X and Y each having no
proper graded direct summand.
We begin by multiplying θ on the left and µon the
¶ right by invertible matrices. Let id
1
0
denote the 2-by-2 identity matrix, and let H = 2
. Let P ′ denote the 8-by-8 matrix
0 1




0
id
0
0
0 id − id 0
1 −1
 1
id 0
0
0
0
, which is invertible with inverse  2 id 0 2 H
 ; and let
P′ = 
1
1
−
1


0 H H
0
0
− 2 id 0 2 H
0 0
0 id
0
0
0
id




0
id 0
0
0 id − id − Z
id 0
 1 id 0 id 0 
0
0 
−1
2



P =
− 1 id 0 id − Z , which is invertible with inverse P =  0 1 id 1 id 1 Z .
2

2

2

2

0
0
0
id
0 0 id



′  
0 ψ −ψ
−ψ Z
−Z
0 id − id 0 ϕ −α −α



id 0
−Z′
0 β − ψZ
0
0
 , and
 = ϕ −α −α
 0 ψ
Now P ′ θ = 




0 H H
0 H ψ H ψ H (2β − ψ Z )
0 0
ψ
β
0
0
0
0
ϕ
0
ϕ
0 0
0 id 0 0


 

0
id 0
0
0 ψ −ψ
−ψ Z
ψ 0
0
0
  1 id 0 id 0   0 ϕ −2α
 ϕ −α −α
−Z′
αZ − Z′ 
 2
=

P ′θ P = 
1
 0 H ψ H ψ H (2β − ψ Z ) − id 0 id − Z   0 0 2 H ψ 2 H (β − ψ Z ).
2
0
0
0
ϕ
0 0
0
ϕ
0
0 0 id
P8
′
Let c j denote the j -th column of P θ P , j = 1, ..., 8. and let M = j=3 R c j . It remains to
show that M is an indecomposable module.
The module M is graded if we take the following degrees for its generators. We omit the
slightly tedious justification.
0

deg( c 3 ) = (v − n) p − mq, deg( c 4 ) = − pq, deg( c 5 ) = (v − n − 1) p − q,
deg( c 6 ) = (v − 1) p − ( m + 1) q, deg( c 7 ) = (2v − n − 2) p − ( m + 2) q + pq, deg( c 8 ) = (v − 2) p − 2 q.
Assume M = M ′ ⊕ M ′′ for some nonzero graded summands M ′ and M ′′ ; now, by Lemma 6.12,
producing a contradiction will complete our overall argument. Note that deg c 4 < deg c j for
all j ≥ 3 different from 4. Since R is connected, it follows that c 4 lies in either M ′ or M ′′ ; let
us assume c 4 ∈ M ′ . Let π : M ⊕ (R c 1 + R c 2 ) → M ′′ denote the projection map onto M ′′ , with
19

the goal of showing that π = 0. We have π( c 1 ) = π( c 2 ) = π( c 4 ) = 0. Also immediate is π( c 3 ) = 0
since xm c 3 = y q+v−n c 4 and x is a nonzerodivisor.
P
Let r 3 , ..., r 8 ∈ R be homogeneous elements such that 8j=3 r j c j = π( c 5 ) and deg( r j ) =
deg( c 5 ) − deg( c j ). Then each of deg( r 6 ) = − n p + mq, deg( r 7 ) = (−v + 1) p + ( m + 1 − p) q, and
deg( r 8 ) = (− n + 1) p + q does not lie in N p + N q by Lemma 6.8, and so r 6 = r 7 = r 8 = 0.
For a brief moment let us consider matrices withµ entries¶in S . Namely let W̃ denote a “lift
ξ −W̃
. By the same reasoning used for
to S ” of the matrix W , and let θ̃ be the lift of θ , θ̃ =
0 η
′
the matrix
¶factorization (ξ, η), we know that θ̃ is part of a matrix factorization (θ̃ , θ̃ ) where
µ
′
η W̃
for some 4-by-4 matrix W̃ ′ . Let θ ′ = θ̃ ′ ⊗S R .
θ̃ ′ =
0 ξ
As θθ ′ = 0, each column of matrix P −1 θ ′ is a syzygy relation for the columns of P ′ θ P . We
can compute that the last four entries of the column P −1 θ·′,4 are, in order, − 21 yn , 21 xm , 0, 0.
P
P
yn
Therefore 12 xm c 6 ∈ 12 yn c 5 + 4j=1 R c j . Then, π( c 6 ) = x m π( c 5 ) = 5j=3 ( yn / xm ) r j c j . In particular
yn

R must contain the fourth entry of this column: x m ( r 3 y q+v−n + r 4 xm − 2 r 5 xm−1 y q−n−1 f ) ∈ R .
Therefore, since y q+v / xm ∈ R , we have 2 r 5 y q−1 f / x ∈ R . Since r 5 ∈ k and we are assuming
char k 6= 2, this implies that either r 5 = 0 or y q−1 f / x ∈ R . If the latter were true, then
rx = y q−1 f for some r ∈ R , and lifting r to a preimage s ∈ S we would have sx − y q−1 f ∈ gS .
But sx − y q−1 f has nonzero y q+v−1 -term, whereas deg g = deg y q+v > deg y q+v−1 , so this is a
contradiction. Hence r 5 = 0. Therefore π( c 5 ) = r 3 c 3 + r 4 c 4 ∈ ker(π), hence π( c 5 ) = 0 as π is
idempotent; and π( c 6 ) = ( yn / xm )π( c 5 ) = 0.
Now we simply repeat the argument in order to show that π( c 8 ) = π( c 7 ) = 0. For r ′3 , ..., r ′8 ∈
P
R homogeneous such that 8j=3 r ′j c j = π( c 8 ) and deg( r ′j ) = deg( c 8 ) − deg( c j ), each of deg( r ′5 ) =
( n −1) p − q, deg( r ′6 ) = − p +( m−1) q, and deg( r ′7 ) = (−v + n) p +( m− p) q does not lie in N p +N q by
Lemma 6.8, so r ′5 = r ′6 = r ′7 = 0. The last two entries of P −1 θ·′,7 are xm and − y q+v−n , so we obP
tain xm c 7 ∈ y q+v−n c 8 + j≤6 R c j , and therefore π( c 7 ) = ( y q+v−n / xm )π( c 8 ) = ( y q+v−n / xm )( r ′3 c 3 +
r ′4 c 4 + r ′8 c 8 ), whose fifth entry is
− r ′8 ( y q+v−n / xm )W34 . If r ′8 = 0 then π( c 7 ) ∈ ker π whence 0 = π( c 7 ) = π( c 8 ); so, showing r ′8 = 0
is the last step. If r ′8 6= 0 then it is a unit, and therefore ( y q+v−n / xm )W34 ∈ R . Then the lemma
below would imply y q+v−1 / x ∈ R , and the reader can check that this is false.
Lemma 6.13. W34 , the (3,4)-th entry of the matrix W , lies in kxm−1 yn−1 \ {0}.

Proof. Recall that ηW = γη by definition of W . As η 4,4 = xm , we get γ xm = η 4,· W·,4 = y q+v−n W34 +
xm W44 . As x is a nonzerodivisor and γ ∉ R , we have W34 6= 0. We naturally choose W
so that deg η i j + deg W j j′ = deg(γη i j′ ) for each i, j, j ′ . Setting i = 4, j = 3, j ′ = 4, we have
deg(W34 ) = deg(γη 4,4 ) − deg η 4,3 = deg(γ xm ) − deg( y q+v−n ) = deg( y q−1 f xm−1 ) − deg( y q+v−n ) =
( n − 1) p + ( m − 1) q. Since p and q are coprime, it follows that W34 ∈ kxm−1 yn−1 .

7. ANOTHER OBSERVATION : syz([γM ])
In this section, assume R is a reduced complete local Gorenstein (but not regular) ring of
dimension one, and fix some indecomposable nonfree M ∈ L p (R ). We aim to prove Proposition 7.7, which (after some additional assumptions) states the relationship between the
socle elements [γM ] and [γsyz M ] with respect to the R -algebra isomorphism syzR : EndR M →
EndR (syzR ( M )). Let MR denote that R -submodule of M ⊗R Q generated by M , and assume
20

the following: MR is a free R -module which possesses a basis consisting of elements in M .
This is true if R is a domain, since R is in that case a DVR.
Notation 7.1. Fix γ ∈ J (R )∗ \ R , and fix elements e 1 , ..., e n ∈ M forming a free R -basis for
MR . Given h ∈ EndR M , let h denote the unique R -linear endomorphism of MR extending
h. We regard h is an n-by- n matrix with entries in R . Let I cd = (R :R R ).
L
Lemma 7.2. We have γ MR ⊆ M , and I cd ( MR ) ⊂ i R e i .

Proof. As (R :R J (R )) = ( I cd :R J (R )), we have γJ (R ) ⊆ I cd . Therefore (R γ)m ⊆ (R γ)J (R ) ⊆
I cd ⊆ m, which says that R γ ⊆ EndR m. Since M ∼
= HomR ( M, m)∗ is an EndR m-module, we
L
obtain (R γ) M ⊆ M , equivalently γ MR ⊆ M . That I cd ( MR ) ⊂ i R e i is obvious.

We have the following immediate consequence.

Lemma 7.3. Let A ∈ EndR ( MR ), i.e. A is an n × n matrix with entries in R (recall that we
have a fixed basis, { e 1 , ..., e n }). If each entry of A lies in γR , then A sends M into M . If each
entry of A lies in I cd , then A |M : M → M is stably zero.
Lemma 7.4. There exists f ∈ EndR M satisfying the following conditions:
(i) [ f ] generates soc(EndR M );
(ii) all nonzero entries of f lie in R γ.
(iii) the first column of f is its only nonzero column.
(iv) f 1,1 = γ.
Proof. If we take an n× n matrix A with A 1,1 = γ and all other entries zero, then by Lemma 7.3,
A = h for some endomorphism h ∈ EndR M . As trace( h ⊗ Q ) = trace( h) = γ ∉ R , h is stably nonzero by Lemma 3.3. Therefore by essentiality of the socle of EndR M , there exists
g ∈ EndR M such that [ gh] generates soc(EndR M ). By Lemma 3.3, there exists h′ ∈ EndR M
such that trace( ghh′ ⊗R Q ) ∉ R , i.e. trace( h′ gh ⊗R Q ) ∉ R . As h′ gh is stably nonzero by
Lemma 3.3 once more, [ h′ gh] generates soc(EndR M ). Let f = h′ gh. Now trace( f ⊗R Q ) =
trace( f ) = f 1,1 ∈ (γR ) \ R . Therefore f 1,1 = uγ for some unit u ∈ R . Finally, replacing f by

u−1 f , the result still sends M into M , by Lemma 7.3.
Note that syzR is in general a well-defined functor on the stable category. In particular it
gives an isomorphism of R -algebras EndR M −→ EndR (syzR ( M )).
For the remainder, assume R is a domain, and assume k = R /m is algebraically closed.
Proposition 7.5. If f ∈ EndR M and g ∈ EndR (syzR M ) are given such that [ f ] ∈ soc(EndR M )
and [ g] = syzR ([ f ]), then trace f + trace g ∈ R .
Proof. By Lemma 3.3, trace induces well-defined maps EndR M −→ R /R and EndR (syzR M ) −→
R /R . As syzR gives an isomorphism of R -algebras EndR M −→ EndR (syzR M ), it restricts to
an isomorphism on socles, which are R -simple due to k being algebraically closed. Because
of these remarks, we can take our pick of f and g, as long as [ f ] 6= 0 and [ g] = syzR ([ f ]);
we will choose f as in Proposition 7.4. Let n = rank( M ), and ν > n be the minimal number
of generators of M . Let ξ1 , ..., ξν be a set of generators for M , such that { e 1 = ξ1 , ..., e n = ξn }
P
is an R -basis for MR . For each ξ j we have an equation ξ j = ni=1 w i, j e i , for w i, j ∈ R . Since
21

R = R + J (R ) (due to k being algebraically closed), we may assume that for each j > n, and
for each i , we have w i, j ∈ J (R ) and therefore w i, j γ ∈ I cd .
Take a free cover π : F −→ M sending i -th basis element to ξ i . Since f ∈ EndR M is as in
Proposition 7.4, there is a ν × ν matrix A : F −→ F such that π A = f π, with the following
properties. Columns 2 through n of A are zero. In addition, A i j = w1 j f i1 for ( i, j ) ∈ {1, ..., n}×
{ n + 1, ..., ν}, and A i j = 0 for ( i, j ) ∈ { n + 1, ..., ν} × { n + 1, ..., ν}. Set N = ker(π), and let ~r =
P
[ r 1 , ..., r ν]T ∈ N , that is, νj=1 r j ξ j = 0. Recalling that MR is free, and projecting onto the
P
basis element e 1 , we get r 1 + νj=n+1 r j w1, j = 0. If we set f i1 = 0 for i > n, then by definition
P
P
of A we have that the i -th entry of A~r is A i1 r 1 + νj=n+1 w1 j f i1 r j = A i1 r 1 + f i1 νj=n+1 r j w1, j ,
and by the above equation this equals ( A i1 − f i1 ) r 1 . In other words, A~r = r 1~
v where ~
v=
T
[v1 , ..., vν] ∈ F is given by v i = A i1 − f i1 . So if we let g ∈ EndR N be the restriction of A , we
see that the image of g has rank 1. We also see that the A 2~r = A ( r 1~
v) = r 1 v1~
v, so that v1 ,
which equals A 1,1 − γ, is an eigenvalue for g. Our goal is to show that trace( g) + γ ∈ R . Since
trace( g) = trace( g ⊗R Q ) and im( g ⊗R Q ) ∼

= Q , the following lemma finishes the proof.

Lemma 7.6. If φ : F −→ F is an endomorphism of a free module over a domain D , with
im(φ) ∼
= D , and λ is an eigenvalue for φ, then λ = trace(φ).
Proof. Let ~x = [ x1 , ..., xs ]T ∈ F generate the image of φ. It is easily checked that φ(~x) = λ~x. Let
P
P
P
y1 , ..., ys ∈ D such that φ·, j = y j~x. Then λ~x = φ(~x) = sj=1 x j φ·, j = sj=1 x j y j~x. So λ = sj=1 x j y j =
P

j φ j, j = trace(φ).
Proposition 7.7. We have rank(syzR M ) · syz([γM ]) + rank( M ) · [γsyz M ] = 0.

Proof. Since soc EndR ( M ) is R -simple, the map soc EndR ( M ) −→ R /R , induced by trace, is
injective. We also know that [γM ] ∈ soc EndR ( M ), by Theorem 4.12. Therefore [γM ] =
rank( M ) · [ f ] if we take f ∈ EndR M as in Lemma 7.4; and Proposition 7.5 implies [γsyz M ] =
− rank(syzR M ) · syz([ f ]). The result follows.

8. A PPENDIX
In this appendix we record some lemmas for reduced connected graded rings of dimension
one. The following theorem is well-known.
Theorem 8.1. Let B be one-dimensional, Noetherian, local domain with integral closure B
and mB -adic completion B̂. Then the following are equivalent.
(1) B̂ is a domain. (“B is analytically irreducible.”)
(2) B is local and B̂ is reduced. (“B is unibranched and analytically unramified.”)
(3) B is local and finitely generated as a B-module.
Notation 8.2. If R is a connected graded ring, let R̂ denote the completion of R with respect
to its graded maximal ideal, m.
Lemma 8.3. Let R be a reduced connected graded ring. Then:
L
(1) R = i≥0 R i is an N-graded subring of Q = R [graded nonzerodivisors]−1 .
Q
(2) We have R̂ = i≥0 R i .

(3) If R is reduced, then so is R̂ . If R is a domain, then R̂ is a domain, and R̂ is a complete
local ring which is finitely-generated as an R̂ -module.
22

Proof. Statement (1) is [11, Corollary 2.3.6]. Statement (2) can be checked by noting that
L
{m i } i is cofinal with { j≥ i R j } i , and checking that the completion of R with respect to the
Q
latter filtration is isomorphic to i≥0 R i . From (2) we see that R̂ is reduced, resp. a domain,
if R is such. The last assertion comes from Theorem 8.1.

L
Let D be a connected graded domain of dimension one, and let q = i≥1 D i .
Lemma 8.4. We have

Q

i≥0 D i

L
ˆn ˆq
= D = D = D̂ , where n = i≥1 D i . Morever, D 0 is a field.

Proof. The notation D i means (D ) i , and makes sense due to Lemma 8.3, as does D̂ . Since D
is an N-graded domain, n is a prime ideal, and is thus maximal since dim D = dim D = 1. So
Q
ˆn
D 0 is a field. Now i≥0 D i = D by Lemma 8.3. As D is a finitely-generated algebra over the
field D 0 , D is module-finite over D by [14, Theorem 72]; in particular D is Noetherian. Note
that X n 6= 0 for all graded D -modules X 6= 0. Now D n /(qD n ) is an artinian local ring, so there
exists i ≥ 1 such that ((n i + qD )/qD )n = 0, hence (n i + qD )/qD = 0. Thus {n i } i and {q i D } i are
ˆn ˆq
ˆq
cofinal, so D = D . Lastly we show D = D̂ . Note that D ,→ D̂ , and since D̂ is complete by
ˆq
ˆq
Lemma 8.3, we have D̂ ⊇ D ⊇ D̂ . It remains to observe that D is normal. But any I -adic
completion of any excellent, normal ring, such as D , is normal; see [14, Theorem 79].

L
Lemma 8.5. Let a = min{ i > 0|D i 6= 0}, and 0 6= t ∈ D a . Then D = i≥0 D 0 t i is the polynomial
ˆ Q
ring over D 0 in the variable t; and D = i≥0 D i t i is the power series ring.

Proof. By the previous lemmas, D is connected graded, so we may assume D = D to improve
Q
notation. Then the previous lemma also shows that D̂ = i≥0 D i is a normal domain. Thus
Q
it is a DVR; let π ∈ D̂ be a uniformizing parameter. So πD̂ = i≥1 D i . Then t = uπ i for some
Q
unit u ∈ i≥0 D i , and it follows that i = 1, hence t is a uniformizing parameter for D̂ . It
follows that D i = 0 for i ∉ Na, and D i = D 0 t i/a for i ∈ Na. The lemma follows from this.


Lemma 8.6. Let R be a reduced connected graded ring which is integrally closed. Then R is
isomorphic to a polynomial ring over R 0 .
Q
Proof. R = R = p∈min R R /p being connected implies that R is a domain. Now apply Lemma 8.5.



R EFERENCES
1. Susumu Ariki, Ryoichi Kase, and Kengo Miyamoto, On components of stable Auslander-Reiten quivers that contain
Heller lattices: the case of truncated polynomial rings, Nagoya Mathematical Journal (2016), 1–42.
2. Maurice Auslander, Rational singularities and almost split sequences, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 293 (1986), no. 2,
511–531. MR 816307
3. Maurice Auslander and Idun Reiten, Cohen-Macaulay modules for graded Cohen-Macaulay rings and their completions, Commutative algebra (1987). MR 1015511
4. Maurice Auslander, Idun Reiten, and Sverre O. Smalø, Representation theory of Artin algebras, Cambridge Studies in
Advanced Mathematics, vol. 36, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, Corrected reprint of the 1995 original.
MR 1476671
5. D. J. Benson, Representations and cohomology, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
6. Winfried Bruns and Jürgen Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 39,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. MR 1251956
7. Wolfram Decker, Gert-Martin Greuel, Gerhard Pfister, and Hans Schönemann, S INGULAR 4-1-0 — A computer algebra
system for polynomial computations, http://www.singular.uni-kl.de , 2016.
23

8. David Eisenbud, Commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995,
With a view toward algebraic geometry. MR 1322960
9. Dieter Happel, Udo Preiser, and Claus Michael Ringel, Vinberg’s characterization of dynkin diagrams using subadditive functions with application to dtr-periodic modules, pp. 280–294, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
1980.
10. Akira Hattori, Rank element of a projective module, Nagoya Math. J. 25 (1965), 113–120.
11. Craig Huneke and Irena Swanson, Integral closure of ideals, rings, and modules, London Mathematical Society Lecture
Note Series, vol. 336, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. MR 2266432
12. Graham J. Leuschke and Roger Wiegand, Cohen-Macaulay representations, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 181, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012, xviii+367 pages. ISBN: 978-0-8218-7581-0.
MR 2919145
13. Saunders Mac Lane, Homology, Die Grundlehren der mathematicschen Wissenschaften, Bd. 114, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1963.
14. Hideyuki Matsumura, Commutative Algebra, W.A. Benjamin, New York, 1970.
15.
, Commutative ring theory, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, Translated from the Japanese by M. Reid. MR 1011461
16. Takehiko Miyata, Note on direct summands of modules, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 7 (1967), 65–69. MR 0214585
17. Yuji Yoshino, Cohen-Macaulay modules over Cohen-Macaulay rings, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 146, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. MR 1079937

24

