FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

arXiv:1508.00128v2 [math.AC] 21 Jan 2016

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO
Abstract. Nonunique factorization in commutative monoids is often studied using
factorization invariants, which assign to each monoid element a quantity determined
by the factorization structure. For numerical monoids (co-finite, additive submonoids
of N), several factorization invariants have received much attention in the recent
literature. In this survey article, we give an overview of the length set, elasticity,
delta set, ω-primality, and catenary degree invariants in the setting of numerical
monoids. For each invariant, we present current major results in the literature and
identify the primary open questions that remain.

1. Motivating numerical monoids
Factorization theory has its genesis in studying the decomposition of natural numbers
into its prime (irreducible) divisors. In this multiplicative monoid, the Fundamental
Theorem of Arithmetic guarantees that such a decomposition is unique. Many other
monoids, however, have elements that fail to admit a unique factorization into irreducibles; in such cases, algebraists are frequently interested in measuring, in various
ways, how different the plural factorizations of an element can be.
One does not have to look far for examples. In fact, certain submonoids of the natural
numbers have a rich non-unique factorization theory. Numerical monoids (co-finite,
additive submonoids of the natural numbers) have garnered much recent interest, as
their factorization theories are complicated enough to be interesting while controlled
enough to be tractable. The goal of this paper is to introduce various perspectives and
tools for studying factorizations in numerical monoids, and to present open problems
that are of primary interest in this field.
Several natural examples of numerical monoids are found in the literature. Historically, Frobenius’ coin-exchange problem asked what monetary values one could make
with relatively prime coin denominations. A more endearing manifestation of numerical
monoids is the McNugget monoid, which enumerates the number of chicken McNuggets
one could buy by using the standard package sizes of 6, 9, and 20. As with the coinproblem and the McNugget monoid, all numerical monoids can be described using a
finite set of generators. We provide the formal definition below. In what follows, we
let N denote the set of non-negative integers.
Date: January 22, 2016.
1

2

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

Definition 1.1. Let n1 , n2 , . . . , nk be a collection of relatively prime positive integers.
The numerical monoid S generated by these integers is the set of all non-negative,
integral linear combinations of these numbers. In other words,
S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i = {a1 n1 + a2 n2 + · · · + ak nk : ai ∈ N}.
Remark 1.2. This set is an additive monoid with identity 0, and the condition that
gcd(n1 , n2 , . . . , nk ) = 1 guarantees that there exist only finitely many natural numbers
that are not elements of S. In fact, every co-finite additive submonoid of N can be
generated by a finite set of relatively prime natural numbers; thus, numerical monoids
are precisely the co-finite, additive submonoids of N.
While generating sets of a fixed numerical monoid are non-unique, there always exists
a unique minimal generating set (with respect to set-theoretic containment). As these
minimal generators cannot be represented in terms of the other generators, they are
precisely the irreducible elements of the numerical monoid. For the remainder of the
paper, we will assume that {n1 , n2 , . . . , nk } constitutes the unique minimal generating
set for a numerical monoid S and that n1 < n2 < . . . < nk .
Both Frobenius’ coin problem and the McNugget problem ask which natural numbers
arise as non-negative, integral linear combinations of their respective generators. As
such, understanding the largest natural number that is not an element of S (named
for the aforementioned coin problem) is often useful.
Definition 1.3. For a numerical monoid S, the values in N \ S are called the gaps of
S, and F (S) = max(N \ S) is called the Frobenius number of S.
Example 1.4. For two relatively prime positive integers n1 , n2 , the numerical monoid
S = hn1 , n2 i has F (S) = n1 n2 − (n1 + n2 ) as its Frobenius number [50]. Furthermore,
all but finitely many elements of S can be written in multiple ways as non-negative
integral combinations of n1 and n2 . The simplest example is the element n1 n2 ∈ S,
which can be seen as n1 copies of n2 or as n2 copies of n1 . These two representations of
n1 n2 as an element of S are called factorizations; see Section 2 for precise definitions
and notation.
The McNugget monoid M = h6, 9, 20i has Frobenius number 43; thus, for every
n > 43, one can purchase exactly n McNuggets using the standard package sizes of
6, 9, and 20. As with the numerical monoid hn1 , n2 i, almost every element in M has
multiple distinct factorizations. For example, 60 can be expressed as three copies of
20, ten copies of 6, or four copies of 6 plus four copies of 9. Each such expression
corresponds to a way to purchase exactly 60 McNuggets.
The existence of a Frobenius number for a numerical monoid S guarantees that past
some value, every natural number lies in S. Therefore, as a set, a numerical monoid
S is a scattering of “small” elements (those less than F (S)) and an infinite ray after
F (S). What is less understood is the factorization theory of these elements, which is

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

3

hinted at in Example 1.4. In general, the factorization theory of numerical monoids
with 2 minimal generators is well-understood, while those numerical monoids with 3 or
more irreducible elements have a much more complicated factorization structure with
numerous open questions.
Factorization structures are often classified and quantified using a variety of important factorization invariants, which generally measure how far from unique a monoid
element’s factorizations are. The coming sections introduce several standard invariants, together with results and open questions in the context of numerical monoids.
Section 2 describes the strongest (but most cumbersome) invariant, the set of factorizations. Then, Section 3 describes the length set and elasticity invariants, which
measure, in different ways, how many irreducible elements appear in the factorizations
of an element. Section 4 gives several important results for delta sets, which measure
the gaps in lengths that are possible between distinct factorizations of a single element.
While length sets, elasticity, and delta sets record only information about the length
of factorizations of an element, the catenary degree, which is described in Section 5,
measures how many irreducible elements different factorizations of the same element
do not share in common. Lastly, as non-unique factorizations coincide with the presence of irreducible elements that are not prime, Section 6 describes ω-primality, which
measures how “far from prime” a monoid element is.
2. Sets of factorizations
Definition 2.1. Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i and an element n ∈ S.
A factorization of n is an expression n = u1 + · · · + ur of n as a sum of irreducible
elements u1 , . . . , ur of S. Collecting like terms, we often write factorizations of n in the
form n = a1 n1 + · · · + ak nk (see Remark 1.2). Write
ZS (n) = {(a1 , . . . , ak ) : n = a1 n1 + · · · + ak nk } ⊂ Nk
for the set of factorizations of n ∈ S. When there is no ambiguity, we often omit the
subscript and simply write Z(n).
Remark 2.2. The notation for factorizations in Definition 2.1 is motivated in part by
connections to discrete geometry. In particular, each factorization of n corresponds to
an integer point in Nk , and the set ZS (n) forms a codimension-1 linear cross-section
of Nk that coincides with the set of integer points of a convex integral polytope. This
viewpoint allows the use of techniques from lattice point enumeration and other tools
from combinatorial commutative algebra when examining the factorization structure
of numerical monoids [8, 36].
The set of factorizations (Definition 2.3) is an example of a perfect factorization
invariant in that it encapsulates enough information to uniquely determine the underlying monoid (Theorem 2.4). However, such complete information comes at a cost:
extracting information from it (or even simply writing it down) is a nontrivial task.

4

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

Invariants derived from the set of factorizations, such as the length set and elasticity
invariants (Section 3), are more manageable and easier to work with, but necessitate
k
a loss of information. Below, 2N denotes the power set of Nk .
Definition 2.3. Given a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i, let
k

Z(S) = {ZS (n) : n ∈ S} ⊂ 2N
denote the set of factorizations of S.

Theorem 2.4 follows from the fact that a minimal presentation of a numerical monoid
S (as well as its defining congruence) can be recovered from Z(S). Example 2.5 exhibits one possible method of doing so; see [46, 45] for more background on monoid
congruences and minimal presentations. In fact, for a fixed n  0, the set ZS (n)
alone contains enough information to recover the monoid structure of S. As such, it is
perhaps not surprising that Z(S) is often hard to describe in complete detail.
Theorem 2.4. For two numerical monoids S and S 0 , the following are equivalent.
(a) S = S 0 ,
(b) S ∼
= S 0 , and
(c) Z(S) = Z(S 0 ).
Proof. [45, Theorem 1.1].



Example 2.5. Fix a numerical monoid S, and suppose that the two-element sets
{(3, 0, 0), (0, 2, 0)} and {(10, 0, 0), (0, 0, 3)} are each a subset of some element of Z(S).
Since each is a subset of N3 , S must have three minimal generators, say S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i.
Moreover, since (3, 0, 0) and (0, 2, 0) are factorizations of the same element, we must
have 3n1 = 2n2 , and similarly that 10n1 = 3n3 . Since gcd(n1 , n2 , n3 ) = 1, we conclude
that S = h6, 9, 20i, the McNugget monoid from Example 1.4.
Larger elements in a numerical monoid S are more likely to have larger factorization
sets. More precisely, if S has k minimal generators, the size of Z(n) grows on the order
of nk−1 . Theorem 2.6, which specializes the asymptotic result in [33] to numerical
monoids, can be found in [38].
Theorem 2.6 ([38, Theorem 3.9]). Given S = hn1 , . . . , nk i numerical, there exist
periodic functions a0 , . . . , ak−2 : N → Q whose periods divide lcm(n1 , . . . , nk ) such that
|ZS (n)| =
for all n ∈ S.

1
nk−1 + ak−2 (n)nk−2 + · · · + a1 (n)n + a0 (n)
(k − 1)!n1 · · · nk

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

5

Remark 2.7. Much of the recent literature on numerical monoids has focused on
algorithms for explicit computation. It is worth noting that although Theorem 2.6
implies |Z(n)| is polynomial in n, is it N P -hard to compute this set in general, as
doing so requires solving a system of Diophantine equations. See [26] for a survey of
recent computational advances in this area.
Several of the factorization invariants introduced in the coming sections, including
those derived directly from the set of factorizations, benefit from faster computation
methods. In particular, several of these invariants admit algorithms that do not require
computing large sets of factorizations; see, for instance, Remarks 4.20 and 6.5. Additional computational traction can also be obtained by specializing to certain families
of monoids, such as those with a fixed number of generators or generating sets of a
certain form; see, for instance, Theorems 3.12, 4.3 and 5.6.
Another computation technique in computing invariant values is to first compute
the Apéry set of S (a set determined by the complement of S; see [46]). Although
computing the Apéry set from a list of generators is also N P -hard in general, many
invariants can then be computed directly from it. For instance, computing the Frobenius number of a numerical monoid is N P -hard in general [42], but if the Apéry set
is known, its computation is trivial [48]. In this way, the complexity of computing an
invariant (or several invariants) can be “transferred” to the computation of the Apery
set [26, 35, 43]. Additionally, for some special families of numerical monoids, the Apery
set is known to admit a closed form; see [44, 47].
3. Length sets and elasticity
While the set of factorizations for a numerical monoid is a perfect invariant, it is
often cumbersome to compute and encode. The next two sections focus on invariants
obtained by passing from factorizations to their lengths. In this section, we introduce
length sets and elasticity as useful invariants for numerical monoids. We begin with
the definition of a length set.
Definition 3.1. Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i, and fix n ∈ S. Given a
factorization a = (a1 , a2 , . . . , ak ) ∈ ZS (n), we denote by |a| the number of irreducibles
in the factorization a; that is, |a| = a1 + · · · + ak . The set of factorization lengths of n,
denoted LS (n) = {|a| : a ∈ ZS (n)}, is called the length set of n. When there is no
ambiguity, we often omit the subscript and simply write L(n).
Example 3.2. The length set of an element is easily computed from its set of factorizations. In the numerical monoid S = h7, 10, 13i, the element 20 has factorization set
Z(20) = {(1, 0, 1), (0, 2, 0)} and length set L(20) = {2}. This length set, however, is
shared with other elements (e.g., L(14) = {2}). This example highlights one manner
in which information is frequently lost when passing from Z(n) to L(n).

6

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

Although distinct elements in a numerical monoid can have identical length sets, one
may ask whether distinct numerical monoids can have different sets of length sets. In
what follows, 2N denotes the power set of N.
Definition 3.3. For a numerical monoid S, its set of length sets is given by
L(S) = {L(n) : n ∈ S} ⊂ 2N .
Investigations into whether sets of length sets determine finitely generated, cancellative, commutative monoids up to isomorphism are widespread in factorization theory.
The most famous conjecture is stated below for certain block monoids (that is, monoids
of zero-sum sequences of abelian group elements under concatenation). Since a detailed
introduction to block monoids would take us too far afield, we refer the interested reader
to [30] for background on block monoids and [31, 32] for recent progress on Conjecture 3.4. In what follows, let B(G) denote the block monoid over a group G; L(B(G))
is defined analogously for this class of monoids. Note that for two abelian groups G
and G0 , B(G) ∼
= B(G0 ) if and only if G ∼
= G0 .
Conjecture 3.4. Given two finite abelian groups G and G0 with |G|, |G0 | > 3, we have
L(B(G)) = L(B(G0 )) implies B(G) ∼
= B(G0 ).
Theorem 3.5 answers an analogous question for numerical monoids in the negative.
Theorem 3.5. [2, Corollary 3.4] There exist numerical monoids S 6= S 0 with L(S) =
L(S 0 ). In particular, sets of length sets do not characterize numerical monoids.
Remark 3.6. The distinct numerical monoids with equal sets of length sets described
in [2] are called arithmetical numerical monoids, which are numerical monoids generated by an arithmetic sequence a, a + d, . . . , a + kd with gcd(a, d) = 1 and 1 ≤ k < a.
Theorem 3.5 is proven by computing the set of length sets of arithmetical numerical
monoids in terms of the parameters a, d and k and showing that different values of
these parameters yield the same set.
The description of the set of length sets for arithmetical numerical monoids upon
which Theorem 3.5 is based is rare and, in general, it is difficult to obtain such a description for other families of numerical monoids. Part of the difficulty comes in computing
every factorization length that an element in a numerical monoid can obtain. Many
times, the most interesting factorization lengths for an element are the largest and
smallest ones. The quotient of these two values gives a weaker factorization invariant
called elasticity, which is defined below.
Definition 3.7. Let S be a numerical monoid, n ∈ S nonzero, and L(n) its length set.
Let M(n) = max L(n) and m(n) = min L(n). The elasticity of n is given by
ρ(n) = M(n)/m(n).
The set of elasticities of S is given by R(S) = {ρ(n) : n ∈ S, n 6= 0}. The elasticity of
S is given by ρ(S) = sup R(S).

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS
2.2

7

1.8

2
1.6

1.8
1.4

1.6
1.4

1.2

1.2
1

1
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 1. A plot showing the elasticities for the numerical monoid
h20, 21, 45i (left) and the arithmetical numerical monoid h7, 10, 13, 16i
(right), produced using SAGE [49]. Here, the point at (n, q) indicates
that ρ(n) = q.
In what follows, we see that ρ(S) < ∞ for numerical monoids and that, in fact,
ρ(S) = max R(S). Moreover, elasticity is one of the few factorization invariants known
to admit a closed form for any numerical monoid S.
Theorem 3.8 ([19, Theorem 2.1 & Corollary 2.3]). Let S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i be minimally generated by n1 , . . . , nk with n1 and nk the smallest and largest generators, respectively. Then, ρ(S) = ρ(n1 nk ) = nk /n1 and the set of elasticities R(S) has nk /n1
as its unique accumulation point.
Example 3.9. Figure 1 depicts the elasticity of elements in the numerical monoids
S = h20, 21, 45i and S 0 = h7, 10, 13, 16i. The maximal values attained are 9/4 and
16/7, respectively, as ensured by Theorem 3.8. Moreover, the monoid elements with
maximal elasticity are precisely the multiples of the least common multiple of the first
and last generators.
More can be said about the structure of the set R(S) upon examining the asymptotic
behavior of the maximum- and mininum-length factorization functions max LS (n) and
min LS (n) for large monoid elements n ∈ S. See [6, Section 4] for more detail.
Theorem 3.10. [6, Corollary 4.5] Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i.
(a) For n ≥ nk−1 nk , we have
ρ(n + n1 nk ) =

M (n) + nk
.
m(n) + n1

(b) The set R(S) is the union of a finite set and a collection of n1 nk monotone increasing sequences, each converging to nk /n1 .

8

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

Remark 3.11. Both plots in Figure 1 demonstrate the claims in Theorem 3.10.
Roughly speaking, each plot can be viewed as a union of “wedges” of points, where
each wedge contains one point from each of the monotone increasing sequences described in Theorem 3.10(b). Moreover, the right-hand plot depicts the elasticies of
an arithmetical numerical monoid, where elasticity values are often repeated in quick
succession. It is this repetition of elasticitiy values that gives rise to Theorem 3.12.
Certainly, two numerical monoids with identical sets of length sets have equal sets
of elasticities. Conversely, there exist pairs of numerical monoids with equal elasticity sets and unequal sets of length sets. For example, for S = h6, 10, 13, 14i and
S 0 = h6, 11, 13, 14i, a computation shows that R(S) = R(S 0 ), while {4, 6} ∈ L(S)
but {4, 6} 6∈ L(S 0 ); see [6, Example 3.11]. Thus, in general, sets of elasticities do not
determine sets of length sets. Theorem 3.12 demonstrates that, within the class of
arithmetical numerical monoids, equality of sets of length sets is equivalent to equality
of sets of elasticities.
Theorem 3.12. [6, Theorem 1.2] For two distinct arithmetical numerical monoids
S = ha, a+d, . . . , a+kdi and S 0 = ha0 , a0 +d0 , . . . , a0 +k 0 d0 i, the following are equivalent:
(a) R(S) = R(S 0 )
(b) L(S) = L(S 0 )
Theorem 3.10 demonstrates that computing the set of elasticities is fairly tractable,
while the set of length sets is, in general, much more difficult to describe. Therefore,
finding classes of numerical monoids (beyond the arithmetical case) for which the set
of elasticities is as strong an invariant as the set of length sets is of much interest.
Problem 3.13. Characterize which distinct numerical monoids S and S 0 satisfy R(S) =
R(S 0 ) and L(S) 6= L(S 0 ).
4. The delta set
In this section, we consider the delta set invariant (Definition 4.1). The delta set
of a monoid element n, like its elasticity (Definition 3.7), is derived from the set of
factorization lengths L(n).
Definition 4.1. Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i, and fix n ∈ S. Writing
L(n) = {`1 < · · · < `r }, the delta set of n is the set ∆S (n) = {`i S
− `i−1 : 2 ≤ i ≤ r}
of successive differences of factorization lengths of n, and ∆(S) = n∈S ∆S (n). When
there is no ambiguity, we often omit the subscript and simply write ∆(n).
Example 4.2. Consider the numerical monoid S = hn1 , n2 i with two relatively prime
generators. If n ∈ S, then there exist a, b ∈ N such that n = an1 + bn2 . Notice that
for any k ∈ Z, n = (a + kn2 )n1 + (b − kn1 )n2 is a factorization so long as a + kn2
and b − kn1 are non-negative. In fact, it can be shown that all factorizations of n in
S are of this form, corresponding to successive values of k. Since the length of such a

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

9

factorization is a + b + k(n2 − n1 ), all successive length differences in L(n) yield n2 − n1 .
Thus, for any n ∈ S, either ∆(n) is empty (when its length set is a singleton), or
∆(n) = {n2 − n1 }. In particular,
∆(S) = {n2 − n1 }.
The above example is a special case of arithmetical numerical monoids, whose minimal generators form an arithmetic sequence (Remark 3.6). Such monoids have singleton delta sets consisting of the step size between these generators, a fact which plays
a crutial role in characterizing their length sets (Theorems 3.5).
Theorem 4.3. [2, Corollary 2.3] Fix positive integers a, d, and k with gcd(a, d) = 1
and 1 ≤ k < a. For S = ha, a + d, a + 2d, . . . , a + kdi and n ∈ S, either ∆(n) is empty,
or ∆(n) = {d}. In particular, ∆(S) = {d}.
Even slight generalizations of arithmetical numerical monoids have elusive delta sets;
this leads us to the following open problem.
Problem 4.4. Let a, h, d, and k be positive integers such that gcd(a, d) = 1 and k < a,
and consider S = ha, ah + d, ah + 2d, . . . , ah + kdi. Compute ∆(S).
Remark 4.5. The generators of the numerical monoid in Problem 4.4 form what is
known as a generalized arithmetic sequence. Numerical monoids generated by generalized arithmetic sequences and arithmetic numerical monoids are closely connected:
when h = 1, a generalized arithmetic sequence reduces to an arithmetic sequence; also,
the last k generators of a generalized arithmetic sequence form an arithmetic sequence.
These relationships, together with a precise membership criterion [37, Theorem 3.1],
make working with this family of numerical monoids more tractable.
Remark 4.6. Aside from the arithmetical setting, few natural families of numerical
monoids are known to admit closed forms for their delta sets. In general, given a
numerical monoid S, it can be hard to prove that d ∈
/ ∆(S) for a given integer d,
especially if min ∆(S) < d < max ∆(S), since it must be shown that d does not lie in
the delta set of even a single element of S. Example 4.7 demonstrates the sublety of
this question.
Example 4.7. The delta set of elements of the numerical monoid S = h17, 33, 53, 71i
are depicted in Figure 2. Notice that ∆(S) = {2, 4, 6}, but 6 only appears in ∆(266),
∆(283), and ∆(300). Indeed, for n > 300, ∆(n) ⊂ {2, 4}; see Theorem 4.16.
Remark 4.8. In contrast to numerical monoids, the delta set of any block monoid
M = B(G) over a finite abelian group G is known to be an interval, and recent work
has focused on determining its maximal element [30, Section 6.7]. In particular, any
positive integer d ≤ max ∆(M ) must also lie in ∆(M ). Roughly speaking, block
monoids have abundant irreducible elements, so if d ∈ ∆(a) for some a ∈ M , one can

10

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

100

150

200

250

300

350

Figure 2. A plot showing the delta sets of elements in the numerical monoid h17, 33, 53, 71i from Example 4.7, produced using SAGE [49].
Here, each point (n, d) indicates that d ∈ ∆(n).
produce an element in M with d − 1 in its delta set by simply adding the appropriate
irreducible elements to a. This process effectively “cuts down” a length gap d by
carefully filling in a particular factorization length.
The difficulty in controlling the phenomenon discussed in Remark 4.8 when considering numerical monoids motivates Problem 4.9, which is known as the delta set
realization problem for numerical monoids.
Problem 4.9. Let D ⊂ Z>0 be a finite set of positive integers. Determine if there
exists a numerical monoid S such that ∆(S) = D.
Currently, the only known restrictions on ∆(S) for a numerical monoid S are given
in Theorem 4.10, each of which also holds for a much larger class of monoids.
Theorem 4.10 ([30, Proposition 1.4.4]). If M is an atomic, cancellative, commutative
monoid with ∆(M ) 6= ∅, then, min(∆(M )) = gcd(∆(M )). If, additionally, M is finitely
generated, then ∆(M ) is finite.
Remark 4.11. Progress on Problem 4.9 has come from finding specific subsets that
can be realized as delta sets. For example, every set of the form {d, 2d, . . . , td} is
known to occur as the delta set of a numerical monoid [11]. Additionally, a family of
numerical monoids whose delta sets are {d, td} for any t, d > 1 is given [22].
Recent investigation into Problem 4.9 has greatly benefited from evidence produced
by computer algebra systems. That said, until very recently, there was no known
algorithm to compute the delta set of an entire numerical monoid S. Although the delta
set ∆(n) of an element n ∈ S can be computed by computing its set of factorizations

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

11

Z(n), it is less straight forward to compute the entire set ∆(S), as this requires taking
the union of the delta sets of all (infintely many) elements of S.
Before discussing how this issue can be resolved (see Corollary 4.17), we state Theorem 4.14, which demonstrates that the maximal element max ∆(S) in the delta set
of a numerical monoid S can be obtain by computing the delta sets of a special (computable) class of monoid elements, called Betti elements (Definition 4.12).
Definition 4.12. Let S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i be a numerical monoid and n ∈ S. Consider
the graph Gn with vertex set given by its set of factorizations Z(n) and an edge connecting a, b ∈ Z(n) if a and b have disjoint support as vectors. That is, a = (a1 , . . . , ak )
and b = (b1 , . . . , bk ) are adjacent in Gn if for all i, ai and bi are never both non-zero.
An element n ∈ S is called a Betti element if Gn is disconnected. The set of Betti
elements of S is denoted by Betti(S).
Remark 4.13. Every numerical monoid contains only finitely many Betti elements.
When S = hn1 , n2 i is a numerical monoid with two irreducible elements, n1 n2 is the
unique Betti element. In the case when S = hn1 , n2 , n3 i has three irreducible elements,
there are at most three Betti elements, each of which is an integer multiple of one of
the generators of S [46, Section 9.3].
Theorem 4.14 ([16, Theorem 2.5]). Let S be a numerical monoid. The largest element
of ∆(S) is achieved at a Betti element of S. In other words,
max ∆(S) = max{d : d ∈ ∆(b) for b ∈ Betti(S)}.
Betti elements are discussed in more depth in Section 5, as they are useful in finding
maximal and minimal catenary degrees achieved in a numerical monoid (see Definitions 5.2 and 5.4).
Example 4.15. As stated in Remark 4.13, for the numerical monoid S = hn1 , n2 i with
two irreducible elements, n1 n2 is the unique Betti element. In fact, it has precisely two
factorizations, namely (n2 , 0) and (0, n1 ). Since their difference in length equals n2 −n1 ,
we have max ∆(S) = n2 − n1 . Of course, by Theorem 4.3, ∆(S) = {n2 − n1 }.
Theorem 4.16 states that delta sets for numerical monoids are eventually periodic
with period dividing lcm(n1 , nk ). The value of NS given in [25] is explicitly computed,
albeit cumbersome to state. Most impressive about Theorem 4.16 is that it provides a
concrete upper bound for the beginning of the periodic behavior, and thus a finite set
of monoid elements the union of whose delta sets equals the delta set of the entire numerical monoid. As a consequence, Theorem 4.16 also yields the first known algorithm
to compute the delta set of any numerical monoid; see Corollary 4.17.
Theorem 4.16 ([25, Theorem 1]). For S = hn1 , . . . , nk i numerical, there exists a
number NS such that for any n ∈ S with n ≥ NS , ∆(n) = ∆(n + lcm(n1 , nk )).

12

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

Corollary 4.17. Given a numerical monoid S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i, we have
[
∆(S) =
∆(n),
n∈S∩[0,N ]

where N = NS + lcm(n1 , nk ).
Example 4.18. Let S = h17, 33, 53, 71i as in Example 4.7. Readily visible in Figure 2
is the eventual periodicity of ∆ : S → 2N described by Theorem 4.16. In particular,
Theorem 4.16 ensures that ∆(n) = ∆(n + lcm(17, 71)) for all n ≥ NS = 6461. Computing ∆(n) for smaller values of n demonstrates that, in fact, ∆(n) = ∆(n + 17) holds
for all n ≥ 319.
Remark 4.19. While Corollary 4.17 provides the delta set of the entire numerical
monoid by taking the union of only finite many element-wise delta sets, the number of
elements n for which ∆(n) needs to be computed becomes prohibitively large, especially
when larger generators are used. Aside from recent improvements in the special case
when S has 3 minimal generators [27], few refinements are known for the set of elements
whose delta sets must be computed. Alternatively, we can utilize a dynamic algorithm
for computing length sets to dynamically compute ∆(n) and ∆(S); see Remark 4.20.
Remark 4.20. In the numerical monoid S = h6, 9, 20i, it is possible to compute L(60)
directly from L(40), L(51), and L(54), without computing Z(60). The key observation
is that one can produce a factorization of 60 from a factorization of 40, 51 or 54 by
adding a single irreducible element, and this opereration always increases factorization
length by exactly one. Consider the following computation:
L(60) = (L(40) + 1) ∪ (L(51) + 1) ∪ (L(54) + 1)
= {3} ∪ {7, 8, 9} ∪ {7, 8, 9, 10}
= {3, 7, 8, 9, 10}.
This provides an inductive (dynamic) method to compute all the length sets necessary
to employ Corollary 4.17 without having to compute any factorization sets, and the
resulting algorithm is significantly faster than one dependent on factorizations. Indeed,
the set Z(n) of factorizations of n grow large very quickly [33], whereas |L(n)| grows
linearly in n [6, Theorem 4.3]. For a more detailed analysis, see [7, Section 3].
5. The catenary degree
Many of the factorization invariants discussed above (e.g., length sets, delta sets,
and elasticity) measure only information about the lengths of factorizations of an element. While helpful in measuring the non-uniqueness of factorizations of an element,
these invariants lose certain information when passing from the set of factorizations
to the set of lengths (Theorem 3.5). The catenary degree, which we describe in this
section, is derived directly from factorizations and is not uniquely determined by sets
of factorization lengths.

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

13

Definition 5.1. Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i, and fix an element n ∈ S.
For a, b ∈ Z(n), the greatest common divisor of a and b is given by
gcd(a, b) = (min(a1 , b1 ), . . . , min(ar , br )) ∈ Nr ,
and the distance between a and b (or the weight of (a, b)) is given by
d(a, b) = max(|a − gcd(a, b)|, |b − gcd(a, b)|).
The function d : Z(n) × Z(n) → N measures how many irreducible elements two
factorizations do not share in common. As implied by the notation, d(−, −) is a metric
on the set Z(n) [30, Proposition 1.2.5.3]. In fact, it is common to represent Z(n) as
the vertices of a complete graph, where the edge between factorizations a and b is
decorated with d(a, b).
Below, we use the metric d to define the catenary degree, which measures the “overall”
distance between distinct factorizations of a given monoid element.
Definition 5.2. Given a, b ∈ Z(n) and N ≥ 1, an N -chain from a to b is a sequence
a1 , . . . , ar ∈ Z(n) of factorizations of n such that (i) a1 = a, (ii) ar = b, and (iii)
d(ai−1 , ai ) ≤ N for all i ≤ r. The catenary degree of n, denoted c(n), is the smallest
N ∈ N such that there exists an N -chain between any two factorizations of n.
With respect to the decorated complete graph representing Z(n), the catenary degree
c(n) can be computed by repeatedly removing edges of maximal distance until the graph
becomes disconnected. The distance decorating the last removed edge is equal to c(n).
Example 5.3 describes such a computation.
Example 5.3. Consider the numerical monoid S = h11, 36, 39i. The left-hand picture
in Figure 3 depicts the factorizations of 450 ∈ S along with all pairwise distances. There
exists a 16-chain between any two factorizations of 450; one such 16-chain between
(6, 2, 8) and (24, 3, 2) is depicted with bold red edges. Since every 16-chain between
these factorizations contains the edge labeled 16, we have c(450) = 16.
This can also be computed in a different way. In the right-hand picture of Figure 3,
only distances of at most 16 are depicted, and the resulting graph is connected. Removing the edge labeled 16 yields a disconnected graph, so we again conclude c(450) = 16.
While the catenary degree of an individual element contains information about its
different factorizations, the range of catenary degrees achieved by all elements in a
monoid has also been studied. Definition 5.4 gives two ways to measure how the
catenary degree varies throughout a numerical monoid.
Definition 5.4. The set of catenary degrees of S is the set C(S) = {c(m) : m ∈ S},
and the catenary degree of S is the maximal catenary degree: c(S) = max C(S).
By far, the more well-understood of these two invariants is c(S), which has been
computed for several classes of numerical monoids. Theorem 5.5 gives a summary of
some known results (additionally, see Theorem 5.8).

14

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO
(0,6,6)

27

(27,1,3)

4

4
24
8

(3,4,7)

24
21

21
19

12 19

4

18
8

(6,2,8)

(0,6,6)

18

17

4

17

(21,5,1)

8
4

16

8

(24,3,2)

8

12

4

12

4

18

4
(9,0,9)

(3,4,7)

4

21
19 12

19

4
(24,3,2)

8

(27,1,3)

(18,7,0)

8

(6,2,8)

(21,5,1)

8

4

4
(9,0,9)

16

(18,7,0)

Figure 3. Computing the catenary degree of 450 ∈ S = h11, 36, 39i,
as in Example 5.3. Each vertex is labeled with an element of Z(450),
and each edge is labeled with the distance between the factorizations at
either end. The diagram on the left depicts all edges, and the diagram
on the right includes only those edges labeled at most c(450) = 16. Both
graphics were created using the computer algebra system SAGE [49].
Theorem 5.5 ([34, 37]). Fix a numerical monoid S.
(a) If S = hn1 , n2 i, then c(S) = n2 .
(b) If S = ha, ah + d, . . . , ah + kdi for positive integers a, h, k, d with gcd(a, d) = 1 and
k < a, then c(S) = d ka eh + d.
Q
Q
(c) If S = h( ij=1 bj )( kj=i+1 aj ) : 0 ≤ i ≤ ki, where 2 ≤ ai < bi and gcd(ai , bj ) = 1
for all i 6= j ≤ k, then c(S) = max{b1 , . . . , bk }.
While a closed form for c(n) for every element n is a numerical monoid is rare, such
a formula has been found for numerical monoids generated by an arithmetic sequence.
Theorem 5.6 ([13, Theorem 3.1]). Suppose S = ha, a + d, . . . , a + kdi for positive
integers a, k, d with gcd(a, d) = 1 and k < a. Then

|Z(n)| = 1
 0
2
|L(n)| = 1 and |Z(n)| > 1
c(n) =
 c(S) |L(n)| > 1
for each nonzero n ∈ S, where c(S) = d ka e + d. In particular, C(S) = {0, 2, c(S)}.
While it remains a lofty goal to give a closed form for the catenary degree of individual
elements in the general setting, the set of catenary degrees may prove to be more
approachable. Problem 5.7 is, in many ways, an analog of Problem 4.9 for the set of
catenary degrees.
Problem 5.7. Determine which finite sets equal C(S) for some numerical monoid S.

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

15

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 4. A SAGE plot [49] showing the catenary degrees for the numerical monoid S = h11, 25, 29i discussed in Example 5.9.
Many of the arguments that compute the maximal catenary degree c(S) for a finitely
generated monoid S focus on the Betti elements of S (Definition 4.12). The factorizations of Betti elements contain enough information about Z(S) to give sharp bounds
on the catenary degrees occuring in C(S) (Theorem 5.8), and can be readily computed
using the GAP package numericalsgps [23].
Theorem 5.8 ([17, 41]). For any finitely generated monoid S, we have
c(S) = max C(S) = max{c(b) : b ∈ Betti(S)} and
min C(S) = min{c(b) : b ∈ Betti(S)}.
Example 5.9. Let S = h11, 25, 29i. The catenary degrees of S are plotted in Figure 4.
The only Betti elements of S are 58, 150, and 154, which have catenary degrees 4, 12,
and 14, respectively. The Betti elements can be seen in the plot as the first occurence
of each of these three values. Notice that c(175) = 11 is distinct from each of these
values. By Theorem 5.8, every element of S with at least two distinct factorizations
has catenary degree at least 4 and at most 14.
As with the delta set, understanding the long-term behavior of the catenary degree (when viewed as a function c : S → N) is of particular interest. Theorem 5.10
shows that the catenary degree in numerical monoids is also eventually periodic, a
phenomenon that can be seen in Figure 4.
Theorem 5.10 ([12, Theorem 3.1]). Fix a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i. The
catenary degree function c : S → N is eventually periodic, and moreover, its period
divides lcm(n1 , . . . , nk ).
Remark 5.11. Among the eventual periodicity results in this paper (Theorems 3.10,
4.16, 5.10, and 6.9), Theorem 5.10 provides the most room for improvement. There
is currently no known bound on the start of this periodic behavior, as its proof in
[12] relies on the fact that a nonincreasing sequence of positive integers is eventually

16

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

constant. Additionally, the period is only known to divide the least common multiple
of the monoid generators, but in practice this bound is far from sharp. It remains an
interesting problem to refine understanding of these properties.
Examination of the delta set and the ω-primality invariant (intoduced in Section 6)
both benefit from the use of dynamic algorithms; see Remarks 4.20 and 6.5. An answer
to Problem 5.12 is likely within reach, and would aide in refining Theorem 5.10.
Problem 5.12. Find a dynamic algorithm to compute the catenary degree of numerical
monoid elements.
6. ω-primality
In cancellative, commutative monoids, non-unique factorizations arise from irreducible elements that are not prime. The rich factorization theory in numerical monoids
stems in part from the fact that no element is prime. In this section, we develop the
notion of ω-primality, which measures how “far from prime” an element is in a natural
way (see [3, 40] for a more thorough introduction). We begin with a definition.
Definition 6.1. Let S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i be a numerical monoid. For n ∈ S, define the
ω-primality of n to be ω(n) = m if m is the smallest positive integer with the property
P
that whenever a ∈ Nk satisfies ki=1 ai ni − n ∈ S with |a| > m, there exists a b ∈ Nk
P
with bi ≤ ai for each i such that ki=1 bi ni − n ∈ S and |b| ≤ m.
In a multiplicative monoid M , an element n ∈ M is prime if whenever n | ab for a, b ∈
M , then either n | a or n | b. Definition 6.1 is a generalization of primeness, written
additively in the context of a numerical monoid. In fact, in a general cancellative,
commutative monoid, ω(n) = 1 if and only if n is prime.
In practice, the ω-primality of an element n of a numerical monoid S = hn1 , . . . , nk i is
computed
by finding those a ∈ Nk that are maximal among those with the property that
Pk
i=1 ai ni − n lies in S (Definition 6.2). Proposition 6.3 states their precise relationship
to the ω-value of n.
P
Definition 6.2. We say that a ∈ Nk is a bullet for n if (i) ( ni=1 ai ni ) − n ∈ S and
P
(ii) ( ki=1 ai ni )−nj −n 6∈ S whenever aj > 0. A bullet a for n is maximal if |~a| = ω(n).
The set of bullets for an element n is denoted by bul(n).
In general, an element n has several bullets with different lengths. As stated in
Proposition 6.3, the largest such length coincides with the ω(n), justifying the above
definition for a maximal bullet.
Proposition 6.3 ([40, Proposition 2.10]). Given any numerical monoid S,
ω(n) = max{|a| : a ∈ bul(n)}
for each element n ∈ S.

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

17

Example 6.4. Let S = h6, 9, 20i denote the numerical monoid from Example 1.4.
Consider the following sets:
bul(40)
bul(51)
bul(54)
bul(60)

=
=
=
=

{(0, 0, 2), (4, 4, 0), (7, 2, 0), (10, 0, 0), (1, 6, 0), (0, 8, 0)},
{(0, 7, 0), (10, 0, 0), (4, 3, 0), (1, 5, 0), (0, 0, 3), (7, 1, 0)},
{(9, 0, 0), (6, 2, 0), (0, 6, 0), (3, 4, 0), (0, 0, 3)},
{(4, 4, 0), (7, 2, 0), (10, 0, 0), (1, 6, 0), (0, 8, 0), (0, 0, 3)}.

We see that (10, 0, 0) ∈ bul(40) since 10 · 6 − 40 = 20 ∈ S, but 9 · 6 − 40 = 14 ∈
/ S.
Similarly, (7, 2, 0) ∈ bul(60) since 7 · 6 + 2 · 9 − 60 = 0 ∈ S, but omitting a single 6 or
9 produces a difference lying outside of S. Once the above sets have been determined,
Proposition 6.3 implies that ω(54) = 9 and ω(40) = ω(51) = ω(60) = 10.
Remark 6.5. Several recent works examine methods of computing ω-primality in numerical monoids [5, 9, 10, 24]. At the time of writing, the fastest known algorithm
(which is implemented in the GAP package numericalsgps [23]) utilizes dynamic programming to compute bullets [7], similar to the dynamic algorithm used to compute
the delta set (Remark 4.20). Example 6.6 demonstrates the idea behind this algorithm.
Example 6.6. Resuming notation from Example 6.4, for each bullet a ∈ bul(54),
either a ∈ bul(60) or a + e1 ∈ bul(60). Notice that it is impossible for both of these
to lie in bul(60) by Definition 6.2(ii). Similarly, bullets in bul(51) and bul(40) give
rise to bullets in bul(60). Moreover, each bullet for 60 is the “image” of a bullet for
54, 51 or 40 in this way. Much like the recurrence relation for sets of factorizations
(Remark 4.20), the set of bullets of an element n ∈ S is determined by the “images”
of the bullets of n − 6, n − 9 and n − 20; see [7] for more detail.
In general, the existence of non-unique factorizations coincides with the existence
of non-prime irreducible elements. As such, the ω-primality invariant was originally
constructed to measure how far irreducible elements were from being prime (see, for
example, [3, 4]). Although some progress has been made in the setting of numerical
monoids [5, 18, 21], Problem 6.7 remains largely open.
Problem 6.7. Determine the ω-values of numerical monoid generators.
Remark 6.8. Both the catenary degree (Definition 5.2) and a variation called the
tame degree share a surprising connection to ω-primality. Given n ∈ S, the tame degree
t(n) equals the minimum value m such that every factorization of n with at least one
zero entry is distance at most m (in the sense of Definition 5.1) from a fully supported
factorization of n, or t(n) = 0 if n has no fully supported factorizations [15, 17]. As with
the catenary degree, the tame degree of S is defined as t(S) = sup{t(n) : n ∈ S} and is
known to be finite. It is not hard to show that c(S) ≤ t(S), but what is perhaps more
surprising is that c(S) ≤ ω(S) ≤ t(S), where ω(S) = max{ω(n1 ), . . . , ω(nk )} is the
maximum ω-value obtained at an irreducible [10]. This connection has been explored
in some of the recent literature, in part as a method of bounding ω(S) [10, 28, 29].

18

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO
30
20

25
20

15

15
10

10
5

5

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 5. A plot showing the ω-function for the numerical monoids
h4, 13, 19i (left) and h6, 9, 20i (right), produced using SAGE [49].
Recent investigations focusing on the ω-values of all non-unit elements in monoids
have uncovered interesting asymptotic behavior. In the setting of numerical monoids,
ω-primality grows in a periodic, linear fashion when viewed as a function ω : S → N.
Theorem 6.9 ([7, 24, 39]). Let S = hn1 , n2 , . . . , nk i be a numerical monoid. The
2
ω-primality function is eventually quasilinear. More specifically, for N0 = Fn2(S)+n
, we
/n1 −1
1
have ω(n) = n1 n + a0 (n) for every n > N0 , where a0 : N → Q is n1 -periodic.
Theorem 6.9 implies that the graph of the function ω : S → N eventually has the
form of n1 lines with common slope 1/n1 . Figure 5 demonstrates this phenomenon.
Remark 6.10. We resume notation from Theorem 6.9. In contrast to Theorem 4.16,
the period of the function a0 is known to be exactly n1 [7]. Additionally, the value
of N0 , though not tight, is in general a relatively good bound on the start of the
quasilinear behavior of ωS [7, Remark 6.8]. Each of these improvements on the original
statement of Theorem 6.9 in [24, 39] are heavily motivated by data produced by the
dynamic algorithm described in Remark 6.5.
References
[1] F. Aguiló-Gost and P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, Factoring in embedding dimension three numerical semigroups, Electron. J. Combin. 17 (2010), no. 1, Research Paper 138, 21 pp.
[2] J. Amos, S. Chapman, Natalie Hine, João Paixão, Sets of lengths do not characterize
numerical monoids, Integers 7 (2007), #A50
[3] D. F. Anderson, S. T. Chapman, How far is an element from being prime?, Journal
Algebra Appl. 9 (2010), 1–11.
[4] D. F. Anderson, S. T. Chapman, On bounding measures of primeness in integral domains,
Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 22(2012), 15 pp.,
[5] D. F. Anderson, S. T. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Torkornoo, An algorithm to compute
ω-primality in a numerical monoid, Semigroup Forum 82 (2011), no. 1, 96–108.

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

19

[6] T. Barron, C. O’Neill, and R. Pelayo, On the set of elasticities in numerical monoids, to
appear, Semigroup Forum. Available at arXiv: math.CO/1409.3425.
[7] T. Barron, C. O’Neill, and R. Pelayo, On dymamic algoriths for factorization invariants
in numerical monoids, preprint, available at arXiv: math.AC/1507.07435.
[8] M. Beck and S. Robins, Computing the continuous discretely. Integer-point enumeration
in polyhedra, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007.
[9] V. Blanco, A mathematical programming approach to the computation of the omega
invariant of a numerical semigroup, Eur. J. of Oper. Research 215 (2011), 539–553.
[10] V. Blanco, P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and A. Geroldinger, Semigroup-theoretical characterizations of arithmetical invariants with applications to numerical monoids and Krull
monoids, Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 55 4 (2011), 1385–1414
[11] C. Bowles, S. T. Chapman, N. Kaplan, and D. Reiser, On delta sets of numerical
monoids, J. Algebra Appl. 5 (2006), 1–24.
[12] S. T. Chapman, M. Corrales, A. Miller, C. Miller, and D. Patel, The catenary and tame
degrees on a numerical monoid are eventually periodic, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 97 (2014),
no. 3, 289–300.
[13] S. T. Chapman, M. Corrales, A. Miller, C. Miller, and D. Patel, The catenary degrees of
elements in numerical monoids generated by arithmetic sequences, forthcoming.
[14] Scott T. Chapman, M. Fontana, A. Geroldinger, and B. Olberding (editors), Multiplicative Ideal Theory and Factorization Theory, Springer, to appear.
[15] S. Chapman, P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, and D. Llena, The catenary and tame degree of numerical semigroups, Forum Math. 21 (2009) 117-129.
[16] S. T. Chapman, P. A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, A. Malyshev, D. Steinberg, On the
Delta set and the Betti elements of a BF-monoid, Arab J. Math 1 (2012), 53–61.
[17] S. Chapman, P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, V. Ponomarenko, J. Rosales, The catenary
and tame degree in finitely generated commutative cancellative monoids, Manuscripta
Math. 120 (2006), no. 3, 253–264.
[18] S.T. Chapman, P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, Z. Tripp, and C. Viola, Measuring primality in numerical semigroups with embedding dimension three, J. Algebra Appl. 15 (2016), no. 1,
1650007, 16 pp.
[19] S. T. Chapman, M. T. Holden, and T. A. Moore, Full elasticity in atomic monoids and
integral domains, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 36 (2006), 1437–1455.
[20] S. Chapman, R. Hoyer, and N. Kaplan, Delta sets of numerical monoids are eventually
periodic, Aequationes mathematicae 77 3 (2009) 273–279.
[21] S. Chapman, W. Puckett, and K. Shour, On the omega values of generators of embedding
dimension three numerical monoids generated by an interval, Involve (to appear)
[22] S. Colton and N. Kaplan, The realization problem for delta sets of numerical semigroups,
Available at arXiv: math.AC/1503.08496.
[23] M. Delgado, P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, J. Morais, NumericalSgps, A package for numerical
semigroups, Version 0.980 dev (2013), (GAP package), http://www.fc.up.pt/cmup/
mdelgado/numericalsgps/.
[24] J. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, M. Moreno-Frı́as, A. Vigneron-Tenorio, Computation of the ωprimality and asymptotic ω-primality with applications to numerical semigroups, Israel
J. Math. 206 (2015), no. 1, 395–411.
[25] J. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, M. Moreno-Frı́as, and A. Vigneron-Tenorio, Computation of Delta sets
of numerical monoids, Monatshefte für Mathematik 178 (3) 457–472. Available at arXiv:
math.AC/1406.0280

20

CHRISTOPHER O’NEILL AND ROBERTO PELAYO

[26] P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, An overview of the computational aspects of nonunique factorization
invariants, preprint. Available at arXiv: math.AC/1504.07424
[27] P. Garcı́a-Sánchez, D. Llena, and A. Moscariello, Delta sets for numerical semigroups
with embedding dimension three, preprint. Available at arXiv: math.AC/1504.02116
[28] P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, I. Ojeda, R. Sánchez, and A. Navarro, Factorization invariants in
half-factorial affine semigroups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 23 (2013), no. 1, 111–122.
[29] P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez and C. Viola, When the catenary degree agrees with the tame degree
in numerical semigroups of embedding dimension three, Involve 8 (2015), no. 4, 677–694.
[30] A. Geroldinger, F. Halter-Koch, Nonunique factorization, Algebraic, Combinatorial and
Analytic Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006.
[31] A. Geroldinger and W. A. Schmid, A characterization of class groups via sets of lengths,
Available at arXiv: math.AC/1503.04679.
[32] A. Geroldinger and Q. Zhong, A characterization of class groups via sets of lengths II,
Available at arXiv: math.AC/1506.05223.
[33] F. Halter-Koch, On the asymptotic behaviour of the number of distinct factorizations
into irreducibles, Ark. Mat. 31 (1993), no. 2, 297–305.
[34] C. Kiers, C. O’Neill and V. Ponomarenko, Numerical semigroups on compound sequences,
to appear, Communications in Algebra. Available at arXiv: math.AC/1503.05993
[35] G. Márquez-Campos, I. Ojeda, and J. Tornero, On the computation of the Apry set of
numerical monoids and affine semigroups Semigroup Forum 91 (2015), no. 1, 139–158.
[36] E. Miller and B. Sturmfels, Combinatorial commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 227, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
[37] M. Omidali, The catenary and tame degree of numerical monoids generated by generalized
arithmetic sequences, Forum Mathematicum. Vol 24 (3), 627–640.
[38] C. O’Neill, On factorization invariants and Hilbert functions, preprint. Available at arXiv:
math.AC/1503.08351
[39] C. O’Neill and R. Pelayo, On the linearity of ω-primality in numerical monoids, J. Pure
and Applied Algebra 218 (2014) 1620–1627.
[40] C. O’Neill and R. Pelayo, How do you measure primality?, American Mathematical
Monthly 122 (2014), no. 2, 121–137.
[41] C. O’Neill, V. Ponomarenko, R. Tate, and G. Webb, On the set of catenary degrees
of finitely generated cancellative commutative monoids, preprint. Available at arXiv:
math.AC/1506.07587.
[42] J.L. Ramı́rez Alfonsı́n, The Diophantine Frobenius problem, Oxford Lecture Series in
Mathematics and its Applications, 30. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. xvi+243
pp. ISBN: 978-0-19-856820-9; 0-19-856820-7
[43] J.L. Ramı́rez Alfonsı́n and Ø. Rødseth, Numerical semigroups: Apéry sets and Hilbert
series, Semigroup Forum 79 (2009), no. 2, 323–340.
[44] J. Rosales, Numerical semigroups with Apéry sets of unique expression, J. Algebra 226
(2000), no. 1, 479–487.
[45] J.C. Rosales and P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, Finitely generated commutative monoids, Nova
Science Publishers, Inc., Commack, NY, 1999. xiv+185 pp. ISBN: 1-56072-670-9.
[46] J.C. Rosales and P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, Numerical semigroups, vol. 20, Developments in
Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[47] J.C. Rosales, P.A. Garcı́a-Sánchez, J.I. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, and M.B. Branco, Arf numerical
semigroups, J. Algebra 276 (2004), no. 1, 3–12.
[48] E. Selmer, On the linear Diophantine problem of Frobenius, J. Reine Angew. Math.
293/294 (1977), 1–17.

FACTORIZATION INVARIANTS IN NUMERICAL MONOIDS

21

[49] Sage: Open Source Mathematics Software, available at www.sagemath.org.
[50] J. Sylvester, Question 7382, Mathematical Questions from the Educational Times 41
(1884) 21.
Mathematics Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840
E-mail address: coneill@math.tamu.edu
Mathematics Department, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720
E-mail address: robertop@hawaii.edu

