arXiv:1701.01270v2 [math.AC] 15 Feb 2017

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY
MODULES
TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL
Dedicated to Prof. Gennady Lyubeznik
Abstract. Let A be a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero
and let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. Consider R as standard graded with deg A = 0
and deg Xi = 1 for all i. In this paper we present a comprehensive study of
graded components of local cohomology modules HIi (R) where I is an arbitrary
homogeneous ideal in R. Our study seems to be the first in this regard.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Preliminaries
3. Generalized Eulerian modules
4. Graded holonomic modules
5. Vanishing
6. Tameness and Rigidity
7. Examples and Proof of Theorem 1.5
8. Infinite generation
9. Bass numbers
10. Proof of Theorem 1.9
11. Growth of Bass numbers
12. Associate Primes
13. Dimension of Support and injective dimension
References

2
6
9
13
20
21
25
27
28
30
31
34
35
36

Date: February 16, 2017.
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13 D45, 14 B15, Secondary 13 N10, 32C36.
Key words and phrases. local cohomology, graded local cohomology, ring of differential operators, Weyl Algebra, De Rham (and Koszul) cohomology of holonomic modules over the Weyl
algebra.
1

2

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

1. Introduction
L

Let S =
n≥0 Sn be a standard graded Noetherian ring and let S+ be it’s
irrelevant ideal. The theory of local cohomology with respect to S+ is particularly
satisfactory. It is well-known (cf. [2, 15.1.5]) that if M is a finitely generated graded
S-module then for all i ≥ 0
(1) HSi + (M )n is a finitely generated S0 -module for all n ∈ Z.
(2) HSi + (M )n = 0 for all n ≫ 0.
It is natural to expect whether local cohomology with respect to other homogeneous
ideals exhibit similar results (or predictable results). It has been well-known for
many years that the answer to the latter question is clearly in the negative (even
in the case when S = B[X1 , . . . , Xn ] is a polynomial ring). Even in the case of S+
the local cohomology module HSi + (M ) need not be tame, i.e., HSi + (M )n 6= 0 for
infinitely many n < 0 does not imply that HSi + (M )n 6= 0 for all n ≪ 0, see [4, 2.2].
The purpose of this paper is to show that if A is a regular ring containing a field
of characteristic zero and if R = A[X1 , . . . , Xn ] is standard graded ( with deg A = 0)
then the theory of local cohomology of R with respect to arbitrary homogeneous
ideals of R exhibit striking good behavior. We should note that local cohomology
modules over regular rings does indeed show good behavior. For instance see the
remarkable papers [5], [7] and [8]. However there has been no previous study of
graded components of graded local cohomology modules of polynomial rings over
regular rings.
1.1. Standard Assumption: From henceforth A will denote a regular ring containing
a field of characteristic zero. Let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard graded with
deg A = 0 and deg Xi = 1 for all i. We also assume m ≥ 1. Let I be a homogeneous
ideal L
in R. Set M = HIi (R). It is well-known that M is a graded R-module. Set
M = n∈Z Mn .
We first give a summary of the results proved in this paper.
I: (Vanishing:) The first result we prove is that vanishing of almost all graded
components of M implies vanishing of M . More precisely we show
Theorem 1.2. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). If Mn = 0 for all |n| ≫ 0 then M = 0.

i
L II (Tameness:) In view of Theorem 1.2, it follows that if M = HI (R) =
n∈Z Mn is non-zero then either Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n ≪ 0, OR, Mn 6= 0
for infinitely many n ≫ 0. We show that M is tame. More precisely

Theorem 1.3. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Then we have
(a) The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n ≪ 0.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m.
(b) The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n ≫ 0.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0.
We complement Theorem 1.3 by showing the following
Example 1.4. There exists a regular ring A and homogeneous ideals I, J, K, L in
R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] such that
(i) HIi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m and HIi (R)n = 0 for all n > −m.

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

3

(ii) HJi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and HIi (R)n = 0 for all n < 0.
i
(iii) HK
(R)n 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(iv) HLi (R)n =
6 0 for all n ≤ −m, HLi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and HLi (R) = 0 for all
n with −m < n < 0.
An easy way to construct examples of type (ii) above is as follows: Choose an
i
i
i
ideal Q in A with HQ
(A) 6= 0. Then HQR
(R) = HQ
(A) ⊗A R will satisfy (ii). The
author was also able to construct example of a homogeneous
√
√ideal J in R and ideal
Q in A with J
QR such that (ii) is satisfied and J 6= qR for any ideal q in
A. Surprisingly the following general result holds:
Theorem 1.5. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume A is a domain. Suppose J is a proper homogeneous ideal in R such that HJi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0
and HJi (R)n = 0 for all n < 0. Then there exists a proper ideal Q of A such that
J ⊆ QR.
III (Rigidity:) Surprisingly non-vanishing of a single graded component of M =
HIi (R) is very strong. We prove the following rigidity result:
Theorem 1.6. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). The we have
(a) The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Mr 6= 0 for some r ≤ −m.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m.
(b) The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Ms 6= 0 for some s ≥ 0.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0.
(c) (When m ≥ 2.) The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Mt 6= 0 for some t with −m < t < 0.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
m
IV (Infinite generation:) Recall that each component of HR
(R) is a finitely
+
generated R-module, cf., [2, 15.1.5]. We give a sufficient condition for infinite
generation of a component of graded local cohomology module over R.

Theorem 1.7. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume A is a domain. Assume
I ∩ A 6= 0. If HIi (R)c 6= 0 then HIi (R)c is NOT finitely generated as an A-module.
V (Bass numbers:) The j th Bass number of an A-module E with respect to a
prime ideal P is defined as µj (P, E) = dimk(P ) ExtjAP (k(P ), EP ) where k(P ) is the
residue field of AP . We note that if E is finitely generated as an A-module then
µj (P, E) is a finite number (possibly zero) for all j ≥ 0. In view of Theorem 1.7
it is not clear whether µj (P, HIi (R)n ) is a finite number. Surprisingly we have the
following dichotomy:
Theorem 1.8. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Let P be a prime ideal in A. Fix j ≥ 0.
EXACTLY one of the following hold:
(i) µj (P, Mn ) is infinite for all n ∈ Z.
(ii) µj (P, Mn ) is finite for all n ∈ Z. In this case EXACTLY one of the following
holds:
(a) µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(b) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(c) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n < 0.

4

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

(d) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m and µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n > −m.
(e) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m, µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and
µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n with −m < n < 0.
We also give easy examples where (i) and (ii) hold. The only examples where
the author was able to show (i) hold had m ≥ 2. Surprisingly the following result
holds.
Theorem 1.9. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Assume m = 1. Let P be a prime
ideal in A. Then µj (P, Mn ) is finite for all n ∈ Z.
Remark 1.10. An intriguing consequence of Theorem 1.8 is the following: Suppose
M = HIi (M ) 6= 0 but Mc = 0 for some c. Then for any prime ideal P and j ≥ 0 we
have µj (P, Mc ) = 0 is finite. So µj (P, Mn ) < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
VI ( Growth of Bass numbers). Fix j ≥ 0. Let P be a prime ideal in A such
that µj (P, HIi (R)n ) is finite for all n ∈ Z. We may ask about the growth of the
function n 7→ µj (P, HIi (R)n ) as n → −∞ and when n → +∞. We prove
Theorem 1.11. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Let P be a prime ideal in A. Let
j ≥ 0. Suppose µj (P, Mn ) is finite for all n ∈ Z. Then there exists polynomials
j,P
j,P
fM
(Z), gM
(Z) ∈ Q[Z] of degree ≤ m − 1 such that
j,P
fM
(n) = µj (P, Mn ) for all n ≪ 0

AND

j,P
gM
(n) = µj (P, Mn ) for all n ≫ 0.

By 1.10 if Mc = 0 for some c then µj (P, Mn ) is finite for all n ∈ Z, j ≥ 0 and
prime P of A. In this case we prove:
Theorem 1.12. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Let P be a prime ideal in A. Fix
j ≥ 0. Suppose µj (P, Mc ) = 0 for some c (this holds if for instance Mc = 0). Then
j,P
fM
(Z) = 0
j,P
gM
(Z) = 0

or

j,P
deg fM
(Z) = m − 1,

j,P
or deg gM
(Z) = m − 1.
L
VII (Associate primes:) If E = n∈Z En is a graded R-module then there are
two questions regarding asymptotic primes:
S
Question 1:(Finiteness:) Is the set n∈Z AssA En finite?
Question 2: (Stability:) Does there exists integers r, s such that AssA En =
AssA Er for all n ≤ r and AssA En = AssA Es for all n ≥ s.
For graded local cohomology modules we show that both Questions above have
affirmative answer for a large class of regular rings A.

Theorem 1.13. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume that either A is local
i
or
L a smooth affine algebra over a field K of characteristic zero. Let M = HI (R) =
n∈Z Mn . Then
S
(1) n∈Z AssA Mn is a finite set.
(2) AssA Mn = AssA Mm for all n ≤ −m.
(3) AssA Mn = AssA M0 for all n ≥ 0.
VIII (Dimension of Supports and injective dimension:) Let E be an A-module.
Let injdimA E denotes the injective dimension of E. Also SuppA E = {P | EP 6=
0 and P is a prime in A} is the support of an A-module E. By dimA E we mean
the dimension of SuppA E as a subspace of Spec(A). We prove the following:

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

Theorem 1.14. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Let M = HIi (R) =
we have
(1) injdim Mc ≤ dim Mc for all c ∈ Z.
(2) injdim Mn = injdim M−m for all n ≤ −m.
(3) dim Mn = dim M−m for all n ≤ −m.
(4) injdim Mn = injdim M0 for all n ≥ 0.
(5) dim Mn = dim M0 for all n ≥ 0.
(6) If m ≥ 2 and −m < r, s < 0 then
(a) injdim Mr = injdim Ms and dim Mr = dim Ms .
(b) injdim Mr ≤ min{injdim M−m , injdim M0 }.
(c) dim Mr ≤ min{dim M−m , dim M0 }.

L

n∈Z Mn .

5

Then

Techniques used to prove our results: We use three main techniques to prove our
results:

1.15. (a) For the first technique A is arbitrary regular ring containing a field of
characteristic zero. Let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ], graded with deg A = 0 and deg Xi = 1
for all j. Let S be the mth Weyl-algebra on A. We consider it a graded ring with
deg A = 0, deg Xi = 1 and deg ∂i = −1. We note that R is a graded subring of S. If
E is a graded S-module and e is a homogeneous
element of E then set |e| = deg e.
P
Consider the Eulerian operator E = m
X
∂
i
i . If f ∈ R is homogeneous then
i=1
it is easy to check that Ef = |f |f . We say a graded S-module W is Eulerain if
Ew = |w|w for each homogeneous element w of W . Notice R is an Eulerian Smodule. We say W is generalized Eulerian if for each homogeneous w of W there
exists a depending on w such that (E − |w|)a w = 0.
The notion of Eulerian modules was introduced in the case A is a field K by Ma
and Zhang [9] (they also defined the notion of Eulerian D-modules in characteristic
p > 0, where D is the ring of K-linear differential operators on R = K[X1 , . . . , Xm ]).
Unfortunately however the class of Eulerian D-modules is not closed under extensions (see 3.5(1) in [9]). To rectify this, the author introduced the notion generalized
Eulerian D-modules (in characteristic zero), see [12].
One can define the notion of graded Lyubeznik functors on ∗ M od(R) the category of all graded R-modules, see 2.5. Our techniques in [15, Theorem 1.7]
generalize to prove the following:
Theorem 1.16. [with hypotheses as in 1.15.] Let G be a graded Lyubeznik functor
on ∗ M od(R). Then G(R) is a generalized Eulerian S-module.

1.17. (b) For the second technique we look at A = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]] where K is a
field of characteristic zero. Let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ], graded with deg A = 0 and
deg Xi = 1 for all j. Let Dk (A) = A < δ1 , . . . , δd > (where δj = ∂/∂Yj ) be
the ring of k-linear differential operators on A. Furthermore set D = Am (Dk (A))
be the mth -Weyl algebra over Dk (A). We can consider D a graded ring with
deg Dk (A) = 0, deg Xi = 1 and deg ∂i = −1. We note that R is a graded subring
of D.
It is well-known that the global dimension of D is d + m, see [1, 3.1.9]. Furthermore there is a filtration T of D such that the associated graded grT (D) is the
polynomial ring over A with d + 2m-variables, [1, 3.1.9]. Thus a D-module M is
holonomic if either it is zero or there a T compatible filtration F of M such that
grF M is a finitely generated grT D-module of dimension d + m.
The main technical result we show is

6

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Theorem 1.18. [with hypotheses as in 1.17.] Let G be a graded Lyubeznik functor
on ∗ M od(R). Then G(R) is a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian D-module.
1.19. (c) The final technique that we use is the technique of de Rham cohomology,
Koszul homology of generalized Eulerian modules (when A = K, a field). We also
prove
Theorem 1.20. Let K be a field of characteristic zero. Let A = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]] and
R = A[X1 , . . . , Xn ] and D is as in 1.17. Let E be a graded holonomic generalized
Eulerian D-module. Then for all i ≥ 0 the Koszul homology Hi (Y1 , . . . , Yd ; E) is
a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module (here Am (K) is the mth Weyl algebra over K).
Our technique to prove all our results is as follows: Localize A at an appropriate prime ideal and complete it. Then we use Theorem 1.16, Corollary 1.18 and
Theorem 1.20 to reduce to the case A is a field.
Remark 1.21. A natural question is what happens when A contains a field of
characteristic p > 0. We note that technique (a) and (b) have analogues in this
case. However we do not know any analogue of our technique (c). So our proofs do
not work in this case.
Acknowledgment: In 2008, I started learning about applications of D-modules
in local cohomology theory. At that time Prof. G. Lyubeznik visited IIT-Bombay.
I asked him whether de Rham cohomology of local cohomology modules will be
interesting. He told me that it will be of interest. I (and co-authors) developed
techniques to study de Rham cohomology and Koszul cohomology of local cohomology modules in a series of papers [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15]. These techniques
have proved to be fantastically useful in this paper. I thank Prof. G. Lyubeznik
for his advice and to him this paper is dedicated.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we discuss a few preliminary result that we need.
2.1. Lyubeznik functors:
Let B be a commutative Noetherian ring and let X = Spec(B). Let Y be a locally
closed subset of X. If M is a B-module and Y be a locally closed subscheme of
Spec(R), we denote by HYi (M ) the ith -local cohomology module of M with support
in Y . Suppose Y = Y1 \ Y2 where Y2 ⊆ Y1 are two closed subsets of X then we have
an exact sequence of functors
(−) → .
· · · → HYi 1 (−) → HYi 2 (−) → HYi (−) → HYi+1
1

A Lyubeznik functor T is any functor of the form T = T1 ◦ T2 ◦ · · · ◦ Tm where every
functor Tj is either HYi (−) for some locally closed subset of X or the kernel, image
or cokernel of some arrow in the previous long exact sequence for closed subsets
Y1 , Y2 of X such that Y2 ⊆ Y1 .
2.2. Lyubeznik functor under flat maps:
We need the following result from [7, 3.1].
Proposition 2.3. Let φ : B → C be a flat homomorphism of Noetherian rings. Let
T be a Lyubeznik functor on M od(B). Then there exists a Lyubeznik functor Tb on
M od(C) and isomorphisms Tb (M ⊗B C) ∼
= T (M ) ⊗B C which is functorial in M .

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

7

2.4. Graded Lyubeznik functors:
Let B be a commutative Noetherian ring and let R = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard
graded. We say Y is homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R) if Y = V (f1 , . . . , fs ),
where fi′ s are homogeneous polynomials in R.
We say Y is a homogeneous locally closed subset of Spec(R) if Y = Y ′′ −Y ′ , where
′
Y , Y ′′ are homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R). Let ∗ M od(R) be the category
of graded R-modules. We have an exact sequence of functors on ∗ M od(R),
(2.4.1)

HYi ′ (−) −→ HYi ′′ (−) −→ HYi (−) −→ HYi+1
′ (−).

Definition 2.5. A graded Lyubeznik functor T is a composite functor of the form
T = T1 ◦ T2 ◦ . . . ◦ Tk , where each Tj is either HYi j (−), where Yj is a homogeneous
locally closed subset of Spec(R) or the kernel of any arrow appearing in (2.4.1)
with Y ′ = Yj′ and Y ′′ = Yj′′ , where Yj′ ⊂ Yj′′ are two homogeneous closed subsets
of Spec(R).
2.6. Graded Lyubeznik functors with respect to some standard operations on B.
(a) Let S be multiplicatively closed set in B. Set
RW = R ⊗B BW = BW [X1 , . . . , Xm ].
If Y is a homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R), say Y = V (f1 , . . . , fs ), set YW =
V (f1 /1, . . . , fs /1) where fi /1 is the image of fi in RW . We note that YW is a
homogeneous closed subset of Spec(RW ). Furthermore it is clear that we have
a homogeneous isomorphism HYi (−) ⊗B BW ∼
= HYi W (−). If Y is a homogeneous
′′
′
locally closed subset of Spec(R), say Y = Y ′′ − Y ′ . set YW = YW
− .YW
, a
homogeneous locally closed subset of Spec(RW ). Furthermore localizing (2.4.1) at
W yields a homogeneous isomorphism HYi W (−) ∼
= HYi (−) ⊗B BW . More generally
if T is a graded Lyubeznik functor on R then T ⊗B BW is a graded Lyubeznik
functor on ∗ M od(RW ).
b be the completion of B with
(b) Assume B is local with maximal ideal m. Let B
respect to m. Set
b = B[X
b 1 , . . . , Xm ].
b = R ⊗B B
R

If Y is a homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R), say Y = V (f1 , . . . , fs ), set Yb =
b We note that Yb is a homogeneous
V (fb1 , . . . , fbs ) where fbi is the image of fi in R.
closed subset of Spec(RW ). Furthermore it is clear that we have a homogeneous
b∼
isomorphism HYi (−) ⊗B B
= HYib (−). If Y is a homogeneous locally closed subset
c′ , a homogeneous locally closed
of Spec(R), say Y = Y ′′ − Y ′ . set Yb = Yc′′ − Y
b to (2.4.1) yields a
b
subset of Spec(R). Furthermore applying the functor (−) ⊗B B
i
i
∼ H (−) ⊗B B.
b More generally if T is a graded
homogeneous isomorphism H (−) =
b
Y

Y

b is a graded Lyubeznik functor on
Lyubeznik functor on R then T ⊗B B

∗

b
M od(R).

2.7. Weyl Algebra’s:
Let Γ be a ring (not necessarily commutative). The first Weyl algebra over Γ is
denoted by A1 (Γ) and it is the ring Γ < x, y > /(xy − yx − 1). Alternatively we
can consider the polynomial ring Γ[X] and let δ be the derivation on Γ[X] defined
by formal differentiation with respect to X (treating elements of Γ as constants):
X
 X
δ
iγi X i−1 .
γi X i =

8

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

It can be easily shown that the differential polynomial ring Γ[X][Y ; δ] is isomorphic
to the first Weyl algebra over Γ, see [6, p. 12]. We note that Y X = XY + δ(X) =
XY +1. Thus Y can be thought as ∂/∂X. The identification of A1 (Γ) as Γ[X][Y ; δ]
also yields that a Γ basis of A1 (Γ) is given by
{X i Y j : i, j ≥ 0}

as well as by {Y j X i : i, j ≥ 0}.

It follows that if Z(Γ), the center of Γ, contains a field k then A1 (Γ) = Γ ⊗k A1 (k).
The higher Weyl algebra’s are defined inductively as Am (Γ) = A1 (Am−1 (Γ). For
us the ring Γ will always contain a field K of characteristic zero in its center. So
Am (Γ) = Γ ⊗K Am (K). The description of Am (K) can be found in [1, Chapter 1].
2.8. Koszul homology: Let Γ be a not-necessarily commutative, Z-graded ring.
We assume that Γ has a commutative field K in its center with deg K = 0 Let
u1 , . . . , uc be homogeneous commuting elements in Γ. Consider the (commutative)
subring S = K[u1 , . . . , ul ] of Γ.
Let M be a graded Γ-module. Let Hi (u1 , . . . , uc ; M ) be the ith Koszul homology
module of M with respect to u1 , . . . , uc . It is clearly a graded S-module. (with its
natural grading). The following result is well-known.
Lemma 2.9. Let u = ur , ur+1 , . . . , uc and let u′ = ur+1 , . . . , uc . For each i ≥ 0
there exists an exact sequence of graded S-modules.
0 → H0 (ur ; Hi (u′ ; M )) → Hi (u; M ) → H1 (ur ; Hi−1 (u′ ; M )) → 0.
2.10. Examples
(1) Γ = Am (K), the mth -Weyl algebra over K. The operators ∂1 , · · · , ∂m
commute with each other. In this case Hi (∂; M ) is usually called the ith de
Rham homology of M .
(2) Γ = Am (K), the mth -Weyl algebra over K. The elements X1 , . . . , Xm
commute with each other. We can consider the usual Koszul homology
modules Hi (X, M ).
2.11. We will recall the following computation of Koszul homology which we need.
Let A = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]]. Let E be the injective hull of K as an A-module. Then
(
K if ν = d
Hν (Y, E) =
0 otherwise.
Although we believe that this result is already known, we give sketch of a proof for
the benefit of the reader. Set Ai = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yi ]] and Ei to be the injective hull
of K as an Ai -module. We have an exact sequence
Y

i
Ai → Ai−1 → 0
0 → Ai −→

Taking Matlis dual’s with respect to Ei yields
Y

i
Ei → 0.
0 → Ei−1 → Ei −→

Now an easy induction of Koszul homology ( compute Hj (Yi , Yi+1 , · · · , Yd ; Ed ))
yields the result.
2.12. We will use the following well-known result often. Let B be a Noetherian ring
and let M be an A-module not necessarily finitely generated. Let P be a minimal
cP -module
prime of M . Then the BP -module MP has a natural structure of an B

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

9

cP is the completion of BP with respect to it’s maximal ideal P BP . In fact
(here B
cP .
MP ∼
= MP ⊗BP B
3. Generalized Eulerian modules

The hypotheses in this section is a bit involved. So we will carefully state it.
3.1. Setup: In this section
(1) B is a commutative Noetherian ring containing a field K of characteristic
zero.
(2) We also assume that there is a not necessarily commutative ring Λ containing B such that K ⊆ Z(Λ), the center of Λ. Furthermore we assume
that
(a) Λ is free both as a left B-module and as a right B-module.
(b) N = B is a left Λ-module such that if we restrict the Λ action on N
to B we get the usual action of B on N .
(3) Set R = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We consider R graded with deg B = 0 and
deg Xi = 1 for all i.
(4) Set Γ = Λ[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We consider Γ graded with deg Λ = 0 and deg Xi =
1 for all i. Notice
(a) R is a graded subring of Γ.
(b) Γ is free both as a left and right R-module.
(c) N ′ = R is a graded left Γ-module such that if we restrict the Γ action
on N ′ to R we get the usual action of R on N ′ .
(5) We also assume that for each homogeneous ideal I of R and a graded Γmodule E the set HI0 (E) is a graded Γ-submodule of E. Here
HI0 (E) = {e ∈ E | I s e = 0 for some s ≥ 1}.
(6) Let Dm be the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Note Dm = Λ ⊗K Am (K) where
Am (K) is the mth -Weyl algebra over K. We can consider Dm graded by
giving deg Λ = 0, deg Xi = 1 and deg ∂i = −1. Notice
(a) Γ is a graded subring of Dm .
(b) Dm is free both as a left and right module over Γ. Thus Dm is free
both as a left and right R-module.
(c) The operators ∂i act as derivations on R. It follows that R is a graded
Dm -module.
3.2. Examples where our hypotheses 3.1 hold:
(1) K = B = Λ.
(2) B =
6 K but Λ = B.
(3) B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]] and Λ = DK (B) is the ring of K-linear differential
operators on B, i.e., Λ = B < δ1 , · · · , δd > where δj = ∂/∂Yj . We have
to verify hypotheses (5) of 3.1. We note that in the action of Γ on R the
elements δj act as derivations on R. Let I be a homogeneous ideal of R and
let E be a graded Γ-module. We note that HI0 (E) is a graded R-submodule
of E. Let e ∈ HI0 (E). Say I s e = 0.
(a) We first show that δj e ∈ HI0 (E). We claim I s+1 δj e = 0. Let u ∈ I s+1 .
Notice uδj = δj u + δj (u). We note that δj (u) ∈ I s . Thus uδj e = 0. So
our claim is true.

10

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

(b) We now note that Γ is a free left R-module with generators
{δ1i1 δ2i2 · · · δdid | i1 , i2 , · · · , id ≥ 0}.

It follows that HI0 (E) is a Γ-submodule of E.
3.3. Generalized Eulerian Dm -modules:
The Euler operator on Dm , denoted by Em , is defined as
m
X
Xi ∂i .
Em :=
i=1

Note that deg Em = 0. Let E be a graded Dm -module. If e ∈ E is homogeneous
element, set |e| = deg e.
Definition 3.4. Let E be a graded Dm -module Then E is said to be Eulerian if
for each homogeneous element e of E.
Em e = |e| · e.
We note that R is an Eulerian Dm -module.
Definition 3.5. A graded Dm -module M is said to be generalized Eulerian if for
each homogeneous element e of E there exists a positive integer a (depending on
e) such that
(Em − |e|)a · e = 0.
The main result of this section is
Theorem 3.6. Let T be a graded Lyubeznik functor on
a generalized Eulerian Dm -module.

∗

M od(R). Then T (R) is

The first step in proving Theorem 3.6 is that T (R) is a graded Dm -module.
Notice that T (R) is a graded R-module. So we have to show both that T (R) is
a Dm -module and that this action is compatiable with the grading on T (R). We
isolate this fact as a seperate
Lemma 3.7. [with hypotheses as in Theorem 3.6] T (R) is a graded Dm -module.
L
Remark 3.8. If S = n∈Z Sn is a graded but not-necessarily commutative ring
then the category ∗ M od(S) of graded left S-modules has enough injectives (the
proof given in Theorem 3.6.3 of [3] in the case S is commutative extends to the
non-commutative case).
The following result is an essential ingredient in proving Lemma 3.7.
Proposition 3.9. Let V be a
R-module.

∗

-injective left Dm -module. Then V is a

∗

-injective

Proof. We note that
∗

HomR (−, V ) =

∗

HomR (−,

∗

=

∗

HomDm (Dm ⊗R −, V ).

HomDm (Dm , V )) ,

As Dm is free as a graded right R-module we have that Dm ⊗R − is an exact
functor from ∗ M od(R) to ∗ M od(Dm ). Also by hypothesis V is a ∗ -injective
Dm -module. It follows that ∗ HomR (−, V ) is an exact functor. So V is ∗ -injective
as a R-module.


GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

11

3.10. We now give
Proof of Lemma 3.7. Step-1: Let I be a homogeneous ideal in R. Let M be a
graded left Dm -module and let i ≥ 0 be fixed. Then HIi (M ), the ith -local cohomology module of M with respect to I, has a canonical structure of a graded left
Dm -module.
Proof of Step 1:
We first show that HI0 (M ) is a graded Dm -submodule of M . By our assumption
3.1(5), HI0 (M ) is a graded Γ = Λ[X1 , . . . , Xm ]-submodule of M . Let e ∈ HI0 (M ).
Say I s e = 0.
(1) We first show that ∂j e ∈ HI0 (E). We claim I s+1 ∂j e = 0. Let u ∈ I s+1 .
Notice u∂j = ∂j u − ∂j (u). We note that ∂j (u) ∈ I s . Thus u∂j e = 0. So
our claim is true.
(2) We now note that Dm is a free left Γ-module with generators
im
{∂1i1 ∂2i2 · · · ∂m
| i1 , i2 , · · · , im ≥ 0}.

It follows that HI0 (M ) is a Dm -submodule of M .
Let E be a ∗ -injective resolution of M as Dm -module. Then by Proposition
3.9 we get that E be a ∗ -injective resolution of M as R-module. So HIi (M ) =
H i (HI0 (E)). But as shown earlier we get that HI0 (E) is complex of graded Dm modules. So HIi (M ) has a structure of a Dm -module. Standard arguments yield
that this structure is independent of the resolution E of M (as a Dm -module).
Step-2: Let Y be a homogeneous locally closed subset of Spec(R) i.e., Y =
Y ′′ − Y ′ , where Y ′ , Y ′′ are homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R). Say Y ′ = V (I)
and Y ′′ = V (J) where I, J are homogeneous ideals in R with J ⊆ I. Let ∗ M od(R)
be the category of graded R-modules. We have an exact sequence of functors on
∗
M od(R),
(3.10.2)

HYi ′ (−) −→ HYi ′′ (−) −→ HYi (−) −→ HYi+1
′ (−).

We note that ∗ M od(Dm ) the category of graded left Dm -modules is a subcategory
of ∗ M od(R).
Claim-1: (3.10.2) is an exact sequence of functors on ∗ M od(Dm ).
To see this let M be a graded left Dm -module. Let E be a ∗ -injective resolution
of M as Dm -module. Then by Proposition 3.9 we get that E be a ∗ -injective
resolution of M as R-module. We have an exact sequence of complexes
(3.10.3)

φ

0 → HI0 (E) −
→ HJ0 (E) → L → 0,

where φ is the canonical inclusion and L is the quotient complex. We note that
HYi (M ) = H i (L). As argued in Step-1, HI0 (E) and HJ0 (E) are Dm sub-complexes of
E. So L is a complex of Dm -modules. Taking cohomology gives the desired result.
This proves Claim-1.
To prove the assertion of Lemma 3.7, it suffices to show that if T is a graded
Lyubeznik functor and M is a graded Dm -module, then so is T (M ). Since T =
T1 ◦ T2 ◦ . . . ◦ Ts , by induction it is enough to show that Ti (M ) is a graded Dm module. By Claim-1; Ti (M ) is a graded Dm -submodule of HYi (M ), where Y is
locally closed homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R).

The following properties of generalized Eulerian modules were proved in [12] in
the case B = K = Λ. The proofs in [12] generalize in the present setup 3.1.

12

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL
α

α

Property 3.11 (Proposition 2.1 in [12]). Let 0 → M1 →1 M2 →2 M3 →0 be a short
exact sequence of graded Dm -modules. Then M2 is generalized Eulerian if and only
if M1 and M3 are generalized Eulerian.
If M is graded Dm -module, then for l ∈ Z the modules M (l) denotes the shift
of M by l; that is, M (l)n = Mn+l for all n ∈ Z.
Property 3.12 (Proposition 2.2 in [12]). Let M be a non-zero generalized Eulerian
Dm -module. Then the shifted module M (l) is not a generalized Eulerian Dm module for l 6= 0.
We note that the proof of Proposition 2.2 in [12] uses the fact that K is a field
of characteristic zero and that K ⊆ Z(Dm ), the center of Dm .
In [15] the following result was proved in the case B = K = Λ. The same proof
generalizes in the present setup 3.1.
Property 3.13. Let M be a nonzero generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Let S be
a multiplicatively closed set of homogeneous elements in R. Then S −1 M is also
a generalized Eulerian Dm -module. In particular, Mf is generalized Eulerian for
each homogeneous polynomial f ∈ R.
Remark 3.14. Computing local cohomology with respect to Cech-complex, cf. [2,
5.1.19], we immediately get that if M is generalized Eulerian Dm -module and if I
is a homogeneous ideal of R then HIi (M ) is generalized Eulerian for all i ≥ 0.
As an easy consequence of Lemma 3.7 and 3.13 we get
Proof of Theorem 3.6: By proof of Lemma 3.7 we get that if M is a graded Dm module and T is a graded Lyubeznik functor then T (M ) is a graded Dm -module.
To prove our result it suffices to prove that if M is generalized Eulerian Dm -module
then so is T (M ). Since T = T1 ◦ T2 ◦ . . . ◦ Ts , by induction it is enough to show
that Ti (M ) is a generalized Eulerian Dm -module.
But Ti (M ) is a graded Dm -submodule of HYi (M ), where Y is locally closed
homogeneous closed subset of Spec(R). By Property 3.11, it suffices to show that
HYi (M ) is generalized Eulerian. Let Y = Y ′′ − Y ′ , where Y ′ , Y ′′ are homogeneous
closed sets of Spec(R). Then by Claim-1 of Lemma 3.7 we have an exact sequence
of graded Dm -modules
HYi ′ (M ) −→ HYi (M ) −→ HYi+1
′′ (M ).

By Remark 3.14, HYi ′ (M ) and HYi+1
′′ (M ) are generalized Eulerian Dm -modules.
Thus by Property 3.11, HYi (M ) is generalized Eulerian Dm -module.


3.15. In this subsection we assume that the hypotheses in 3.2(3) holds. Set B ′ =
K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd−1 ]], Γ′ = DK (B ′ ) the ring of K-linear differential operators on B ′ .
′
′
Set Dm
= Am (Γ′ ). We note that B ′ , Γ′ and Dm
are subrings of A, Γ and Dm ′
respectively. We note that the Eulerian operator Em of Dm
extends to the Eulerian
operator on Dm . The main result of this subsection is
Proposition 3.16. [ with hypotheses as in 3.15] Let E be a generalized Eulerian
Dm -module. Then the Koszul homology Hl (Yd , E) of E with respect to Yd is a
′
generalized Eulerian Dm
-module for l = 0, 1.
Y

d
′
E is Dm
-linear. So it follows that Hl (Yd , E)
Proof. We note that the map E −→
′
is a Dm -module for l = 0, 1. Let u ∈ H1 (Yd , E) be homogeneous. Then as u ∈ Ed .

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

13

So there exists a ≥ 1 such that (Em − |u|)a = 0. It follows that H1 (Yd , E) is
generalized Eulerian. A similar argument yields that H0 (Yd , E) is a generalized
′
Eulerian Dm
-module.

An easy induction (and using 3.11) yields the following result:
Theorem 3.17. [ with hypotheses as in 3.15] Let E be a generalized Eulerian Dm module. Then the Koszul homology Hl (Y, E) of E with respect to Y = Y1 , . . . , Yd
is a generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module for l = 0, 1, . . . , d.
Remark 3.18. We note that the notion of Eulerian Dm -modules is NOT closed
under extensions. So even if E is an Eulerian Dm -module the Koszul homology
Hl (Y, E) is only a generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module.
3.19. Koszul homology, de Rham Cohomology of generalized Euelrian Am (K)modules We recall three earlier results we proved:
Lemma 3.20. Let M be a generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module. Then for l = 0, 1
(1) Hl (∂m ; M )(−1) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module; see [12, 3.2].
(2) Hl (Xm , N ) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module; see [15, 5.3].
(3) If m = 1 then for l = 0, 1,
(a) Hl (∂1 ; M ) is concentrated in degree −1, i.e., Hl (∂1 ; M )j = 0 for j 6= −1;
see [12, 3.5].
(b) Hl (X1 ; M ) is concentrated in degree 0, i.e., Hl (∂1 ; M )j = 0 for j 6= 0; see
[15, 5.5].
4. Graded holonomic modules
4.1. In this section K is a field of characteristic zero, A = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]], and
R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard graded with deg A = 0 and deg Xi = 1 for all i.
Let Γ = A < δ1 , . . . , δd >, where δj = ∂/∂Yj , be the ring of K-linear differential
operators on A. Let Dm be the mth Weyl algebra over Γ. We note that Dm =
Γ ⊗K Am (K). We give a grading on Dm by giving deg Γ = 0, deg Xi = 1 and
deg ∂i = −1. Notice that R is a graded subring of Dm .
There is a well-known filtration T on Dm such that grT Dm is isomorphic to the
polynomial ring over A in 2m + d-variables ( for instance see 4.5). Furthermore the
weak global dimension of Dm is d + m, see [1, 3.1.9]. Thus we can define the notion
of holonomic Dm -modules. The following result is the main result of this section:
Theorem 4.2. Let T be a graded Lyubeznik functor on
a graded, generalized Eulerian, holonomic Dm -module

∗

M od(R). Then T (R) is

Remark 4.3. To prove Theorem 4.2 we need to first give graded filtration’s on
relevant objects so that the associated graded filtration has a natural bi-graded
structure. This is not done in the standard reference [1]. So we are compelled to
do it carefully in this section.
The following result is definitely known. We sketch a proof for the convenience
of the reader.
Lemma 4.4. The set
βm
{δ α ∂ β | where δ α = δ1α1 · · · δdαd , and ∂ β = ∂1β1 · · · ∂m
, where αi , βj ≥ 0}

is a basis of Dm as a left R-module.

14

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Sketch of a proof: The result follows since
γm
βm
{X γ ∂ β | where X γ = X1γ1 · · · Xm
, and ∂ β = ∂1β1 · · · ∂m
, where γi , βj ≥ 0}

is a basis of Dm as a left Γ-module. Furthermore

{δ α | where δ α = δ1α1 · · · δdαd , αi ≥ 0}

is a basis of Γ as a left A-module. Also note that δj commutes with Xi for all
i, j.

4.5. A filtration of Dm :
We note that R is a graded subring of Dm . Consider the following filtration of Dm
by graded R-submodules of Dm . Set
T0 = R,

T1 = R + Rδ + R∂,
M
Rδ α ∂ β .
Tn =
|α|+|β|≤n

We note that
[

n≥0

Tn ⊆ Tn+1 for all n ≥ 0.
Tn = Dm ,

Ti Tj ⊆ Ti+j .

For convenience set T−1 = 0. Set Tn = Tn /Tn−1 for n ≥ 0. We note that Tn and
T n are graded, finitely generated, free, R-modules.
L
4.6. Consider the associated graded ring grT Dm = n≥0 Tn . We first note that
it is a quotient algebra of R < δ1 , · · · , δd , ∂1 , · · · , ∂m >. We now note that as
δj Yj = Yj δj + 1, it follows that δj Yj = Yj δj for all j. Similarly we get that Xi
commutes with ∂i . Thus grT Dm is a commutative ring and is a quotient of a
polynomial ring in d + m variables over R. It follows from Lemma 4.4 that in-fact
grT Dm = R[δ1 , · · · , δd , ∂1 , · · · , ∂m ],

is a polynomial ring.

4.7. We note that there are three graded structures on grT Dm .
(1) We give deg R = 0 and deg δi = 1 and deg ∂j = 1. We denote grT Dm with
this graded structure as G(0) (Dm ).
(2) We give deg A = 0, deg Xi = (1, 0), deg δi = (0, 1) and deg ∂j = (0, 1). We
denote grT Dm with this bi-graded structure as G(b) (Dm ).
(3) We give deg A = 0, deg Xi = 1, deg δi = 1 and deg ∂j = 1. We denote
grT Dm with this structure structure as G(t) (Dm ).
L
4.8. Let M = n∈Z be a graded Dm -module. By a T -compatible filtration of M
we mean a filtration F = {Fn }n∈Z such that
(1) For all n ∈ Z, Fn is an R-graded submodule of M .
(2) Fn ⊆ Fn+1 for all n ∈ Z.
(3) Ti Fj ⊆ Fi+j for all i, j.
(4) F
Sn = 0 for all n ≪ 0.
(5) n∈Z Fn = M .

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

15

L
Set Fn = Fn /Fn−1 for all n ∈ Z. We note that grF M = n∈Z Fn is a bi-graded
G(b) (Dm )-module. If grF M is finitely generated as a G(b) (Dm )-module then we
say that F is a good graded filtration on M
The following result has a standard proof, see [1, 2.6, 2.7].
Theorem 4.9. Let M be a graded Dm -module. The following assertions are equivalent:
(1) M is finitely generated as a Dm -module.
(2) There exists a good graded T -compatible filtration on M .
4.10. A short note on dimension: We first note that first dimension of finitely
generated modules over commutative Noetherian local rings is defined. In general
we have the following:
(1) Let S be a Noetherian ring and let E be a finitely generated S-module.
Then
dimS E = max{dimSm Em | m a maximal ideal of S }.
L
(2) If S = n≥0 Sn and E is a finitely generated graded S-module then

dimS E = max{dimSm Em | m a graded maximal ideal of S }, see [3, 1.5.8].
Furthermore a graded maximal ideal m of S is of the form (n, S+ ) where n
is a maximal ideal of S0 . In particular if S0 is local with maximal ideal m0
then
dimS E = dimSM EM , where M = (m0 , S+ ).
(3) If S is local with maximal ideal n and Sb is the completion of S with respect
to n then
b
dimS E = dim b E ⊗S S.
S

We will need the following result which is perhaps well-known. Absence of a
suitable reference has forced me to include it here:
L
Proposition 4.11. Let S = i,j≥0 Sij be a bigraded Noetherian ring and let E be
a finitely generated
bi-graded S-module. Assume S0,0 is local with maximal ideal n.
L
Set M = (n, i+j>0 Sij ), the maximal bi-graded ideal of S. Then
dimS E = dimSM EM .

Remark 4.12. The reason why Proposition 4.11 requires a proof is that the extension of [3, 1.5.8] to the bigraded case is not known (and according to the author
is probably wrong).
4.13. To prove
L Proposition 4.11 we need the following well-known construction:
Let S =
i,j≥0 Sij be a bigraded Noetherian ring. Then S has a N-graded
structure as given below:
L
L
(t)
(t)
Set Sn = i+j=n Sij and S (t) = n≥0 Sn . We note that S = S (t) as rings
and the later
Lis N-graded.
If E =
i,j∈Z Eij is a bi-graded S-module then we can give it a Z-graded
structure overL
S (t) as follows:
L
(t)
(t)
Set En = i+j=n Eij and E (t) = n∈Z En . We note that E = E (t) and the
later is a Z-graded S (t) -module.
We now give

16

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Proof of Proposition 4.11. Give N-graded structure on S as in 4.13. Furthermore
give E a Z-graded structure over S (t) as in 4.13.
Notice that M is also the unique maximal homogeneous ideal of S (t) . The result
follows from 4.10(2).

4.14. Dimension of graded Dm -modules: We first note the three graded structures
on grT Dm . We work with G(b) (Dm ), the bi-graded structure on grT Dm . We note
that G(b) (Dm )0,0 = A is local with maximal ideal n = (Y1 , . . . , Yd ). Let M be the
unique bi-graded maximal ideal of G(b) (Dm ).
Then we have
Lemma 4.15. Let E be a finitely generated, graded, Dm -module. Let F and G be
two graded, good, T -compatible filtration’s of E. Then
(1)
dim(grT Dm )M (grF E)M = dim(grT Dm )M (grG E)M
(2) dim grF E = dim grG E as grT Dm -modules.
Proof. We note that grF E and grG E are finitely generated bi-graded G(b) (Dm )modules.
(1) This can be proved along the lines of [1, 2.6.2].
(2) This follows from Proposition 4.11.

4.16. In view of Lemma 4.15 we have the following un-ambiguous definition of a
finitely generated, graded, Dm -module E, set
dim E = dim grF E

as a grT Dm -module, where

F is a good, graded T -compatible filtration of E.
If E = 0 or if dim E = d + m then we say E is a graded holonomic Dm -module.
4.17. Crucial idea: The main idea to Prove Theorem 4.2 is the following:
b = A[[X1 , . . . , Xm ]] = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd , X1 , . . . , Xm ]]. Let Sm+d = R
b <
Let R
b
δ1 , . . . , δd , ∂1 , . . . , ∂m > be the ring of K-linear differential operators on R where
b We
δj = ∂/∂Yj and ∂i = ∂/∂Xi . We note that derivations δj , ∂i on R extend to R.
will also denote Sm+d by S if m, d are clear by the context. We also note that Dm
can be naturally considered as a sub-ring of S.
b ⊗R E. Then E ′ has a natural structure
Let E be a Dm -module. Consider E ′ = R
b and e ∈ E. Set
of S-module as follows: Let a ∈ R
b
r · (a ⊗ e) = ra ⊗ e, here r ∈ R,
δj · (a ⊗ e) = δj (a) ⊗ e + a ⊗ δj e,
∂i · (a ⊗ e) = ∂i (a) ⊗ e + a ⊗ ∂i e

If E is a finitely generated Dm -module then it is clear that E ′ is a finitely generated
S-module. A simple and extremely essential result is that for graded Dm -modules,
the converse holds, i.e.,
Proposition 4.18. Let E be a graded Dm -module. If E ′ is a finitely generated
S-module then E is a finitely generated Dm -module.
4.19. To prove Proposition 4.18 we first note the following facts: Let M be the
d
unique maximal graded ideal of R. Let R
M be the completion of R with respect
d
b
to M. Then note RM = R. We also have the following well-known results:

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

17

(1) The functor − ⊗R RM : ∗ M od(R) → M od(RM ) is faithfully flat.
b : M od(RM ) → M od(R)
b is faithfully flat.
(2) The functor − ⊗RM R
∗
b
b is faithfully flat.
(3) Thus the composite functor − ⊗R R : M od(R) → R
We now give

Proof of Proposition 4.18. Suppose if possible E is not a finitely generated graded
Dm -module. Then we have a strictly increasing chain of graded Dm -submodules of
E:
N1 N2 N3 · · · Ni Ni+1 · · ·
By 4.19 we get that
b ⊗R Ni is a S-submodule of E ′ .
(1) Ni′ = R
′
′
(2) Ni Ni+1
for all i ≥ 1.
This contradicts the fact that E ′ is a finitely generated S-module.

P
4.20. Consider the
filtration on S where
X
X
qα,β (Y, X)δ α ∂ β },
= {Q ∈ D | Q =
k

|α|+|β|≤k

is the set of differential operators of order ≤ k. The associated graded ring grP D =
P P
P
b 1 , . . . , ξd , ζ1 , · · · , ζm ]
polynomial
ring R[ξ
0 ⊕ · · · is isomorphic to the P
1/
0⊕
P
where ξj , (ζi ) are the images of δj , (∂i ) in 1 / 0 .
b ⊗R Tk = P for all k ≥ 0. More is true:
We note that R
k

Proposition 4.21. Let E be a graded Dm -module. Let F = {Fn }n∈Z be a T compatible filtration on E. Then
P
b ⊗R Fn }n∈Z is a -compatible filtration on E ′ .
(1) Fb = {R
b ⊗R grF E = gr b E ′ .
(2) R
F
P
(3) If F is a good T -compatible filtration on E then Fb is a
-compatible good
filtration on E ′ .

b ⊗R Fn . We note the following:
Proof. (1) Set Fn′ = R
′
(a) Fn = 0 for n ≪ 0.
′
′
(b) F
for all n ∈ Z.
Sn ⊆ Fn+1
′
(c) n∈Z Fn = E ′ .
(d)
F′
b ⊗ R Fn ∼
R
for all n ∈ Z.
= ′n
Fn−1
Fn−1
We also note that for all n ∈ Z,
b ⊗R Fn ) ⊆ δj (R)
b ⊗ Fn + R
b ⊗ δj F n ⊆ R
b ⊗ Fn+1
δj (R

b ⊗R Fn ) ⊆ ∂i (R)
b ⊗ Fn + R
b ⊗ ∂i Fn ⊆ R
b ⊗ Fn+1
∂i (R
P
It follows that Fb is a -compatible filtration on E ′ .
(2) This essentially follows from (d) above.
(3) If we give grT Dm grading as in 4.7(1) then it follows that
b ⊗R G(0) (Dm ) ∼
R
= grP S.

By (2) it follows that if F is a good filtration on E then Fb is a good filtration on
E′.


18

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

We now relate dimensions of E and E ′ .
Theorem 4.22. Let E be a finitely generated graded Dm -module. Then dimension
of E as a Dm -module is the same as dimension of E ′ as a S-module.

Proof.
Let F be a good T -compatible graded filtration on E. Then by 4.21, Fb is a
P
-compatible good filtration on E ′ .
Let M be the unique bi-graded maximal bi-homogeneous ideal of grT Dm . Then
we have
dim E = dim(grT Dm )M (grF E)M
Finally let the completion of (grT Dm )M with respect to M be B. We note that
B = k[[Y1 , . . . , Yd , δ1 , . . . , δd , X1 , . . . , Xm , ∂1 , . . . , ∂m ]].
By 4.10(3) we have
(4.22.4)

dim(grT

Dm )M (grF

E)M = dimB grF E ⊗grT

Dm


B .

By 4.21 Fb is a good -filtration on E ′ . Let N be the unique maximal homogeneous
ideal of grP S. Then we have
dim E ′ = dim(grP S)N (grFb E ′ )N .

b ⊗R grT Dm . It follows that
Note that grP S = R

(4.22.5)

(4.22.6)
(4.22.7)

grP S ⊗grT

Dm

b ⊗R grT Dm ⊗gr
grF E = R
T
b ⊗gr
=R
T

Dm

Dm

grF E

grF E

′

= grFb E .

We note that B is also the completion of grP S with respect to N . Now notice by
4.22.5 we have
B ⊗grP S grFb E ′ = B ⊗grP S grP S ⊗grT
= B ⊗grT

Dm

Dm

grF E

grF E.

The result now follows from 4.22.4 and 4.10(3).



An important corollary of Theorem 4.22 is the following:
Corollary 4.23. Let E be a graded Dm -module. If E ′ is a holonomic S-module
then E is a holonomic Dm -module.

Proof. As E ′ is a holonomic S-module, it is in particular a finitely generated Smodule. So by 4.18 we get that E is a finitely generated Dm -module. By Theorem
4.22 we get that dimension of E as a Dm -module is the same as dimension of E ′ as
a S-module ( which is d + m as E ′ is holonomic).
Thus E has dimension d + m as a Dm -module. So it is holonomic.

As a trivial consequence of the above corollary we get

Proof of Theorem 4.2. By Theorem 3.6, T (R) is a graded, generalized Eulerian
b such that
Dm -module. By 2.3 there exists a Lyubeznik functor G on M od(R)
b
b
b
G(R) = R ⊗R T (R). By [7, 2.2d] we get that G(R) is a holonmic S-module. So by
Corollary 4.23 the result follows.


GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

19

4.24. Koszul homology: Let A′ = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd−1 ]] and R′ = A′ [X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We
give the standard grading on R′ . Set Γ′ = A′ < δ1 , . . . , δd−1 > the ring of K-linear
′
′
differential operators on A′ . Finally set Dm
= Am (Γ′ ). Note that Dm
is graded by
′
′
′
giving deg Γ = 0, deg Xi = 1 and deg ∂i = −1. We note that A , R′ , Γ′ and Dm
are subrings of A, R, Γ and Dm -respectively. Let E be a Dm -module. Consider the
Koszul homology groups of E with respect to Yd
H1 (Yd , E) = {e ∈ E | Yd e = 0},
H0 (Yd , E) = E/Yd E.
Y

d
′
We note that the map E −→
E is Dm
-linear. It follows that Hl (Yd , E) is a graded
′
Dm -module for l = 0, 1. The following result is extremely useful to us:

Theorem 4.25. [with hypotheses as in 4.24] If E is a graded holonomic, generalized
Eulerian Dm -module then Hl (Yd , E) are graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian
′
Dm
-modules for l = 0, 1.
Proof. By Proposition 3.16 we get that Hl (Yd , E) are graded generalized Eulerian
′
-modules for l = 0, 1.
Dm
b (and R
c′ ) be completion of R (respectively R′ ) with respect to its maximal
Let R
b
homogeneous ideal. Let Sm+d be the ring of K-linear differential operators on R.
c′ .
Finally let Sm+d−1 be the ring of K-linear differential operators on R
b
Set L = R ⊗R E. Then by 4.22 we get that L is a holonomic Sd+m -module. So
by [1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.4] we get that Hl (Yd , L) are holonomic Sd+m -modules. We note
that for l = 0, 1;
b ⊗R Hl (Yd , E),
Hl (Yd , L) = R

b ⊗R R′ ⊗R′ Hl (Yd , E),
=R

c′ ⊗R′ Hl (Yd , E)
=R

′
By 4.23 it follows that Hl (Yd , E) are graded holonomic Dm
-modules.



An easy induction to Theorem 4.25 yields
Corollary 4.26. [with hypotheses as in 4.24] Let E be a graded holonomic,
generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Then for all ν ≥ 0 the Koszul homology
Hν (Y1 , . . . , Yd ; E) are graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian modules over the
Weyl algebra Am (K).
4.27.
A graded component supported ONLY at the maximal ideal of A: Let M =
L
M
n be a graded Dm module. Suppose Mc is supported ONLY at the maximal
n∈Z
ideal n = (Y1 , . . . , Yd ) of A. Then Mc = E α where E is the injective hull of K as an
A-module (here α is an ordinal, possibly infinite). To see this note that Γ the ring
of K-lineral differential operators over A is contained in the degree zero component
of Dm . So Mc is a Γ-module supported at n. The result now follows from [7, 2.4(a)].
L
Remark 4.28. Suppose M = n∈Z Mn is a graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Suppose Mc is supported ONLY at the maximal ideal n =
(Y1 , . . . , Yd ) of A. Then by 4.26, 4.27,2.11 it follows that Hd (Y, M ) is a graded
holonomic, generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module with Hd (Y, M )c 6= 0. In fact if
Mc ∼
= K α.
= EA (K)α then Hd (Y, M )c ∼

20

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

5. Vanishing
We first prove the following:
L
Theorem 5.1. Let M =
n∈Z Mn be a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian
Am (K)-module. Suppose Mn = 0 for all |n| ≫ 0. Then M = 0.
Proof. We prove the result by induction on m. We first consider the case m = 1.
Suppose if possible M 6= 0. Then there exists r, s such that
Mr 6= 0 and Mn = 0 for all n ≥ r + 1,
Ms 6= 0 and Mn = 0 for all n ≤ s − 1.

X

r
M.
Claim-1 r = −1. Suppose if possible r 6= 0. Consider the map M (−1) −−→
st
Looking at its (r + 1) component we get H1 (Xr , M )r+1 = Mr 6= 0. But as M is a
holonomic A1 (K)-module, we get that H1 (X1 , M ) is a finite dimensional K-vector
space concentrated in degree zero, see 3.20. So r = −1. We also get M−1 is a finite
dimensional K-vector-space.
∂1
M . Looking at its s−1 component
Claim-2 s = 0. Consider the map M (+1) −→
we get that H1 (∂1 , M )s−1 = Ms 6= 0. By 3.20, H1 (∂1 , M ) is a finite dimensional
K-vector space concentrated in degree −1. So s = 0. We also get M−1 is a finite
dimensional K-vector-space.
Thus the A1 (K)-module M = M−1 ⊕ M0 is non-zero and has finite dimension
as a K-vector space. This is a contradiction. [1, 1.4.2].
We now assume the result for m − 1 and prove it for m. Suppose if possible
M 6= 0. Then there exists r, s such that

Mr =
6 0 and Mn = 0 for all n ≥ r + 1,
Ms =
6 0 and Mn = 0 for all n ≤ s − 1.
Set N = H1 (Xm , M ). By 3.20 we get that N is a generalized Eulerian, holonomic,
Am−1 (K)-module. Also note that Nj = 0 for all |j| ≫ 0. Furthermore Nr+1 =
Mr 6= 0. This contradicts our induction hypothesis.

We now state and prove a result which implies Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 5.2. Let A be a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero and
let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard
L graded. Let T be a graded Lyubeznik functor on
∗
M od(R) and set M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn . If Mn = 0 for all |n| ≫ 0 then M = 0.

Proof. Suppose if possible Mc 6= 0 for some c. Let P be a minimal prime of Mc
cP . Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that by 2.6 the functor
and let B = A
G(−) = B ⊗R T (−) is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(S).
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2 we
get that N = G(R) is a graded holonmic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Notice
Nj = B ⊗A Mj = 0 for |j| ≫ 0. Furthermore by 2.12 we get that Nc = (Mc )P 6= 0.
As P is the minimal prime of Mc we get that Nc is supported ONLY at the
maximal ideal of B. By 4.28 we get that V = Hd (Y, N ) is a graded holonomic,
generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module with Vc 6= 0. As V ⊆ N we get Vj = 0 for
|j| ≫ 0. This contradicts Theorem 5.1. Thus M = 0.


GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

21

6. Tameness and Rigidity
It is convenient to prove Tameness and rigidity of graded local cohomology modules together. We first show
L
Theorem 6.1. Let M = n∈Z Mn be a holonomic generalized Eulerian Am (K)module. Then
(I) The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n < 0.
(b) There exists r such that Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ r.
(c) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m.
(d) Ms 6= 0 for some s ≤ −m
(II) The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n ≥ 0.
(b) There exists s such that Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ s.
(c) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0.
(d) Mt 6= 0 for some t ≥ 0

Proof. (I) Clearly (c) =⇒ (b) =⇒ (a) =⇒ (d). We only have to prove
(d) =⇒ (c). This we do by induction on m.
We first consider the case m = 1. We have an exact sequence
(6.1.8)

0 → H1 (∂1 , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂1 , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 we get that for l = 0, 1; Hl (∂1 , M ) is concentrated in degree −1. So by
6.1.8 it follows that
Mj ∼
= M−1 for all j ≤ −1.

So the result follows.
We now assume m ≥ 2 and the result is known for m − 1. We have an exact
sequence
(6.1.9)

0 → H1 (∂m , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂m , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 Hl (∂m ; M )(−1) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module. We consider
three cases:
Case 1: H0 (∂m , M )(−1)j 6= 0 for some j ≤ −m + 1.
By the induction hypotheses it follows that H0 (∂m , M )(−1)j 6= 0 for all j ≤ −m+1.
So H0 (∂m , M )j 6= 0 for all j ≤ −m. By exact sequence 6.1.9 it follows that Mj 6= 0
for all j ≤ −m.
Case 2: H1 (∂m , M )(−1)j 6= 0 for some j ≤ −m + 1.
By the induction hypotheses it follows that H1 (∂m , M )(−1)j 6= 0 for all j ≤ −m+1.
So H1 (∂m , M )j 6= 0 for all j ≤ −m. By exact sequence 6.1.9 it follows that Mj 6= 0
for all j ≤ −m + 1.
Case 3: For l = 0, 1 we have Hl (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0 for ALL j ≤ −m + 1.
Therefore for l = 0, 1 we have H1 (∂m , M )j = 0 for ALL j ≤ −m. By exact sequence
6.1.9 it follows that Mj ∼
= M−m+1 for all j ≤ −m + 1. The result follows.
(II) Clearly (c) =⇒ (b) =⇒ (a) =⇒ (d). We only have to prove (d) =⇒ (c).
This we do by induction on m.
We first consider the case m = 1. We have an exact sequence
(6.1.10)

0 → H1 (X1 , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (X1 , M )j → 0.

22

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

By 3.20 we get that for l = 0, 1; Hl (X1 , M ) is concentrated in degree 0. So by
6.1.10 it follows that
Mj ∼
= M0 for all j ≥ 0.
So the result follows.
We now assume m ≥ 2 and the result is known for m − 1. We have an exact
sequence
(6.1.11)

0 → H1 (Xm , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (Xm , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 Hl (Xm ; M ) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module for l
consider three cases:
Case 1: H0 (Xm , M )j 6= 0 for some j ≥ 0.
By the induction hypotheses it follows that H0 (Xm , M )j 6= 0 for all
exact sequence 6.1.11 it follows that Mj 6= 0 for all j ≥ 0.
Case 2: H1 (Xm , M )j 6= 0 for some j ≥ 0.
By the induction hypotheses it follows that H1 (Xm , M )j 6= 0 for all j
exact sequence 6.1.11 it follows that Mj 6= 0 for all j ≥ −1.
Case 3: For l = 0, 1 we have Hl (Xm , M )j = 0 for ALL j ≥ 0.
By exact sequence 6.1.11 it follows that Mj ∼
= M−1 for all j ≥ −1.
follows.

= 0, 1. We

j ≥ 0. By
≥ 0. So by
The result


We now prove the following surprising rigidity theorem
L
Theorem 6.2. Let M = n∈Z Mn be a holonomic, generalized Eulerian, Am (K)module with m ≥ 2 Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Mn 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(ii) There exists r with −m < r < 0 such that Mr 6= 0.

Proof. We only have to prove (ii) =⇒ (i). This we do by induction on m.
We first consider the case m = 2. We have M−1 6= 0.
Claim-1: Mj 6= 0 for infinitely many j ≤ 0.
If Claim-1 is false then by Theorem 6.1 we get that Mj = 0 for all j ≤ −2. We
have exact sequence
(6.2.12)

0 → H1 (∂2 , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂2 , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 the de Rham homology modules Hl (∂2 , M )(−1) are generalized Eulerian.
For l = 0, 1 we have Hl (∂2 , M )j = 0 for j ≤ −3. So by Theorem 6.1 we get
Hl (∂2 , M )(−1)j = 0 for j ≤ −1 and l = 0, 1. So Hl (∂2 , M )j = 0 for j ≤ −2. By
exact sequence 6.2.12 we get for j = −2,
M−1 ∼
= M−2 = 0.
This contradicts our hypothesis. So our Claim-1 is correct. By Theorem 6.1 we get
Mj 6= 0 for j ≤ −2.
Claim-2: Mj 6= 0 for infinitely many j ≥ 0.
If Claim-2 is false then by Theorem 6.1 we get that Mj = 0 for all j ≥ 0. We have
exact sequence
(6.2.13)

0 → H1 (X2 , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (X2 , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 the Koszul homology modules Hl (X2 , M ) are generalized Eulerian. For l =
0, 1 we have Hl (X2 , M )j = 0 for j ≥ 1. So by Theorem 6.1 we get Hl (X2 , M )j = 0
for j ≥ 0. By exact sequence 6.2.13 we get for j = 0,
M−1 ∼
= M0 = 0.

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

23

This contradicts our hypothesis. So our Claim-2 is correct. By Theorem 6.1 we get
Mj 6= 0 for j ≥ 0.
Thus we have proved the result when m = 2.
We now assume that m ≥ 3 and the result is proved for m − 1.
We have Mr 6= 0 for some r with −m < r < 0. We want to show Mj 6= 0 for all
j ∈ Z.
Claim-3: Mj 6= 0 for infinitely many j ≤ 0.
If Claim-3 is false then by Theorem 6.1 we get that Mj = 0 for all j ≤ −m. We
have exact sequence
(6.2.14)

0 → H1 (∂m , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂m , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 the de Rham homology modules Hl (∂m , M )(−1) are generalized Eulerian.
For l = 0, 1 we have Hl (∂2 , M )j = 0 for j ≪ 0. So by Theorem 6.1 and induction
hypothesis we get Hl (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0 for j ≤ −1 and l = 0, 1. So Hl (∂m , M )j = 0
for j ≤ −2. By exact sequence 6.2.14 we get,
∼ M−2 ∼
M−1 =
= M−m = 0.
= · · · M−m+1 ∼

This contradicts our hypothesis. So our Claim-3 is correct. By Theorem 6.1 we get
Mj 6= 0 for j ≤ −m.
Claim-4: Mj 6= 0 for infinitely many j ≥ 0.
If Claim-4 is false then by Theorem 6.1 we get that Mj = 0 for all j ≥ 0. We have
exact sequence
(6.2.15)

0 → H1 (Xm , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (Xm , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 the Koszul homology modules Hl (Xm , M ) are generalized Eulerian. For
l = 0, 1 we have Hl (Xm , M )j = 0 for j ≫ 0. So by Theorem 6.1 and induction
hypotheses we get Hl (Xm , M )j = 0 for j ≥ −m + 2. By exact sequence 6.2.15 we
get,
M−m+1 ∼
= M0 = 0.
= ··· ∼
= M−1 ∼
= M−m+2 ∼
This contradicts our hypothesis. So our Claim-4 is correct. By Theorem 6.1 we get
Mj 6= 0 for j ≥ 0.
As m ≥ 3 we also have to prove that if c 6= r and −m < c < 0 then Mc 6= 0.
Suppose if possible Mc = 0. We have to consider two cases:
Case-1: c < r.
By exact sequence 6.2.15 we get H1 (Xm , M )c+1 = 0. We recall that
H1 (Xm , M ) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module. We have
H1 (Xm , M )c+1 = 0 and −m + 1 < c + 1 < 0 (as c < r < 0). So by induction
hypothesis H1 (Xm , M )j = 0 for −m + 1 < j < 0.
By exact sequence 6.2.15 we also get H0 (Xm , M )c = 0. We recall that
H0 (Xm , M ) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module. We have to consider two
sub-cases:
Sub-case 1.1: −m + 1 < c < 0.
By induction hypothesis we have H0 (Xm , M )j = 0 for −m + 1 < j < 0. Thus by
6.2.15 we have
M−1 ∼
= M−m+1
= ··· ∼
= M−m+2 ∼
= M−2 ∼
∼
This implies Mr = Mc = 0, a contradiction.
Sub-case 1.2: c = −m + 1.
So we have H0 (Xm , M )−m+1 = 0. So again by induction hypothesis and Theorem
6.1, we get H0 (Xm , M )j = 0 for j < 0. In particular H0 (Xm , M )j = 0 for −m+1 <

24

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

j < 0. So again by an argument similar to Sub-case-1.1, we get Mr ∼
= Mc = 0, a
contradiction.
Case-2: c > r.
By exact sequence 6.2.14 we get H1 (∂m , M )c−1 = 0. We recall that
H1 (∂m , M )(−1) is a generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module. We have
H1 (∂m , M )(−1)c = 0. As c > r we also have −m + 1 < c < 0. So by induction
hypothesis H1 (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0 for −m + 1 < j < 0. Thus H1 (∂m , M )j = 0 for
−m < j < −1.
By exact sequence 6.2.14 we also get H0 (∂m , M )c = 0. We recall that
H0 (∂m , M )(−1) is a generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module. We have to consider
two sub-cases:
Sub-case 2.1: c 6= −1.
Then −m + 2 < c + 1 < 0 and H0 (∂m , M )(−1)c+1 = 0. So H0 (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0
for −m + 1 < j < 0. Thus H0 (∂m , M )j = 0 for −m < j < −1. So by 6.2.14 we get
M−1 ∼
= M−m+1 .
= · · · M−m+2 ∼
= M−2 ∼

This implies Mr ∼
= Mc = 0, a contradiction.
Sub-case 2.2: c = −1.
So we have H0 (∂m , M )(−1)0 = 0. So again by induction hypothesis and Theorem
6.1, we get H0 (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0 for j ≥ −m+2. In particular H0 (∂m , M )(−1)j = 0
for −m + 1 < j < 0. Thus H0 (∂m , M )j = 0 for −m < j < −1. So again by an

argument similar to Sub-case-2.1, we get Mr ∼
= Mc = 0, a contradiction.
We now state and prove a result which implies Theorem 1.3 and 1.6.
Theorem 6.3. Let A be a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero and
let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard
L graded. Let T be a graded Lyubeznik functor on
∗
M od(R) and set M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn . Then
(I) The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n < 0.
(b) There exists r such that Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ r.
(c) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m.
(d) Ms 6= 0 for some s ≤ −m
(II) The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) Mn 6= 0 for infinitely many n ≥ 0.
(b) There exists s such that Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ s.
(c) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0.
(d) Mt 6= 0 for some t ≥ 0
(III) (m ≥ 2:) The following assertions are equivalent:
(a) Mn 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(b) There exists r with −m < r < 0 such that Mr 6= 0.

Proof. (I) Clearly (c) =⇒ (b) =⇒ (a) =⇒ (d). We only have to prove
(d) =⇒ (c). Suppose if possible Ms 6= 0 for some s ≤ −m. Let P be a minimal
cP . Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that by 2.6
prime of Ms and let B = A
the functor G(−) = B ⊗R T (−) is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(S).
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

25

we get that N = G(R) is a graded holonmic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module.
Furthermore by 2.12 we get that Ns = (Ms )P 6= 0.
As P is the minimal prime of Ms we get that Ns is supported ONLY at the
maximal ideal of B. By 4.28 we get that V = Hd (Y, N ) is a graded holonomic,
generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module with Vs 6= 0. By Theorem 6.1 we get Vn 6= 0
for all n ≤ −m. We note that Hd (Y, N )n ⊆ Nn for all n ∈ Z. So Nn 6= 0 for all
n ≤ −m. As Nn = Mn ⊗A B it follows that Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m.
(II) and (III) The proof of these assertions are similar to (I). We simply localize
at a minimal prime P of Mi where i is appropriately chosen. We then localize and
complete A at P . Then we take appropriate Koszul homology to reduce the case
when A = K. The result then follows by Theorem 6.1 and Theorem 6.2.

7. Examples and Proof of Theorem 1.5
In this section we give examples illustrating Theorem 6.3. We also prove Theorem
1.5. Throughout A is a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero Also
let R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard graded.
Example 7.1. Let A be any. Let R+ = (X1 , . . . , Xm ). Then
(
0
for j ≥ −m + 1
m
HR+ (R)j =
6= 0 for j ≤ −m.
At the other extreme we have:
Example 7.2. Assume dim A > 0 and let P be a prime ideal in A of height g. Let
I = P R. Then HIg (R) = HPg (A)[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. In particular
(
6= 0 for j ≥ 0
g
HI (R)j =
= 0 for j ≤ −1.
A trivial example of ideal J which is not of the form QR for some ideal Q in A
such that HJi (R) is supported at non-negative integers is when radical of J in R
equals that of QR. The following example is different:
Example 7.3. Let d ≥ 2 Let A = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]] or A = K[Y1 , . . . , Yd ]. Let
I = (Y1 Y2 , Y1 X1 )R. We note that there is an exact sequence
(7.3.16)

1
1
1
1
0 → H(Y
(A) ⊕ H(Y
(A) → H(Y
(A) → H(Y
(A) → 0.
1 )A
2 )A
1 Y2 )A
1 ,Y2 )A

This induces an exact sequence

2
1
1
1
(R) → 0.
(R) → H(Y
(R) → H(Y
(R) ⊕ H(Y
0 → H(Y
1 ,Y2 )R
1 Y2 )R
2 )R
1 )R

We also have an exact sequence



φ
2
1
(R)
(R)
−
→
H
0 → HI1 (R) → H(Y
(Y
Y
)R
Y
)R
1 2
1 2

Y1 X1

,

where φ is the natural localization map. Choose a non-zero element u in degree
1
zero in H(Y
(R) with the property Y1 u = 0, (this is possible by 7.3.16). Then
1 Y2 )R
1
note φ(u) = 0. Thus HI1 (R)0 6= 0. Also
√ it is√clear that HI (R) is supported at
non-negative integers. Finally note that I 6= QR for any ideal Q of A.
The following example is essentially from [2, 15.1.8].
Example 7.4. Assume m ≥ 2. Let I = (X1 ). Then HI1 (R)n is an infinitely
generated free A-module for all n ∈ Z.

26

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Finally we have the following:
Example 7.5. Assume A is a domain with a prime ideal Q of height m + 1 and
an element ξ such that (Q, ξ) = A. An explicit example will be A = K[Y1 , . . . , Yd )
m+1
with d ≥ m + 1, and Q = (Y1 , . . . , Ym+1 ) and ξ = Y1 + 1. We note HQ
(A) 6= 0.
m+1
m+1
m
So HQR (R) = HQ (A) ⊗A R 6= 0. Recall that HR+ (R)n is finitely generated free
A-module for n ≤ −m and zero for n ≥ −m + 1. Thus we have an exact sequence


φ
m+1
m
m
(R)
(R)
−
→
H
0 → HR
→ H(ξ,R
(R) → 0,
R
+
+
+)
ξ

where φ is the natural localization map. It follows that
(
0
m+1
H(ξ,R+ ) (R)j =
non-zero, finitely many copies of Aξ /A

for j ≥ −m + 1
for j ≤ −m.

We note that the ideals QR and (ξ, R+ ) are co-maximal in R. Set I = QR(ξ, R+ ).
Then it is well-known that
H m+1 (R) ∼
= H m+1 (R) ⊕ H m+1 (R).
I

QR

Thus
HIm+1 (R)j

=

(

(ξ,R+ )

0
for − m < j < 0
non-zero otherwise

Before proving Theorem 1.5 we need the following well-known notion:
Definition 7.6. Let f ∈ A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] (not necessarily homogeneous).
By content(f ) we mean the ideal in A generated by coefficients of A
We now give proof of Theorem 1.5. We restate it for the convenience of the
reader. We will make the assumption A is a domain to avoid trivial exceptions.
Theorem 7.7. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume A is a domain. Suppose J is a proper homogeneous ideal in R such that HJi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0
and HJi (R)n = 0 for all n < 0. Then there exists a proper ideal Q of A such that
J ⊆ QR.
Proof. We prove the result by proving the following steps:
Step-1: For every f ∈ J, not-necessarily homogeneous, content(f ) is a proper
ideal in A.
Step-2: There exists a proper ideal Q in A such that content(f ) ∈ Q for ALL
f ∈ J.
We note that by Step 2 we have J ⊆ QR, which proves our result.
Next we show:
Step-1 =⇒ Step-2 :
Consider:
C = {content(f ) : f ∈ J}.
C is a collection of ideals in a Noetherian ring A. So C has maximal elements.
Claim: C has a unique maximal element:
Let content(g) and content(h) be two maximal elements in C. Set
p = g + X1c+1 h

where c = total degree of g.

Clearly p ∈ I and content(p) ⊇ content(g) + content(h). By maximality we have
content(g) = content(h) = content(p).

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

27

Thus our claim is proved.
Let Q be the unique maximal element in C. Then clearly content(f ) ⊆ Q for all
f ∈ J. This proves Step 2 assuming Step 1 is true:
We now give proof of Step-1:
Suppose if possible there exists f ∈ J such that content(f ) = A. Here f need not
be homogeneous.
We now do our standard procedure: Let P be a minimal prime of M0 and let
cP . Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. Set N = H i (S) ∼
B=A
= HJi (R) ⊗A B.
JS
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2 we
get that N is a graded holonmic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Furthermore
by 2.12 we get that N0 = (M0 )P 6= 0. Also note that Nj = 0 for j < 0.
As P is the minimal prime of M0 we get that N0 is supported ONLY at the
maximal ideal of B. By 4.28 we get that V = Hd (Y, N ) is a graded holonomic,
generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module with V0 6= 0. We note that Hd (Y, N )n ⊆ Nn
for all n ∈ Z. So Vn = 0 for n < 0.
Let f ∗ be the image of f in B. Notice content(f ∗ ) = B. Let f is the image of
∗
f in B/(Y)[X1 , . . . , Xm ] = K[X1 , . . . , Xm ] = T . We note that f 6= 0. Also as N
is (f ∗ )-torsion we get that V is (f )-torsion.
Let D = Am (K) the mth -Weyl algebra over K. Choose u 6= 0 with u ∈ V0 .
Consider the D-linear map ψ : D → V which maps 1 to u. Clearly ψ(D∂) = 0.
Thus ψ-factors through a D-linear map ψ : T → V which is non-zero. As T is
a simple D-module we get that T is a D-submodule of V . But V is (f )-torsion.

Therefore T is (f )-torsion. This is a contradiction.
We end this section with two questions.
Question 7.8. Does there exists a regular local ring A and an ideal L in R =
A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] such that HLi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m, HLi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0
and HLi (R) = 0 for all n with −m < n < 0.
In Example 7.5 we had to assume dim A ≥ m + 1. So our final question is
Question 7.9. Does there exists a regular ring A of dimension ≤ m and an ideal
J in R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] such that HJi (R)n 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m, HJi (R)n 6= 0 for
all n ≥ 0 and HJi (R) = 0 for all n with −m < n < 0.
Remark 7.10. I think that both Questions 7.8 and 7.9 have a negative answer.
However I have no idea how to prove it.
8. Infinite generation
In this section we prove Theorem 1.7. We will make the assumption A is a domain
to avoid trivial exceptions. For the convenience of reader we restate Theorem 1.7
Theorem 8.1. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume A is a domain. Assume
I ∩ A 6= 0. If HIi (R)c 6= 0 then HIi (R)c is NOT finitely generated as an A-module.
Proof. Set Q = I ∩ A. Suppose if possible L = HIi (R)c is a non-zero finitely
generated A-module.

28

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Let m be a maximal prime ideal in A belonging to the support of L. Notice as
cm the completion of A with respect to
L is Q-torsion we have m ⊇ Q. Let B = A
m. We note that the image of Q in B is non-zero. Set J = QB.
i
Set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that HIi (R)⊗A B ∼
(S). Set V = L⊗A B =
= HIS
i
HIS (S)c . Note V is a finitely generated B-module.
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(m) the residue
field of Am and g = heightA m. Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ), the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2
i
we get that N = HIB
(S) is a graded holonmic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module.
In particular V = Nc is a Λ-module.
Let V be generated as a R-module by v1 , · · · , vl . Each vj is killed by a power
of J. It follows that there exists n such that J n V = 0. Let n be the maximal ideal
of B. Choose p ∈ n of smallest n-order s such that pV = 0. We note that for all
i = 1, . . . , d,
δi p = pδi + δi (p),
holds in Λ. Notice pδi V = 0 since δi V ⊆ V (as V is a Λ-module). So δi (p)V = 0.
We note that if s ≥ 1 then some ∂i (p) will have n-order less than s. It follows
s = 0. Thus p is a unit. So V = 0, a contradiction as we were assuming V to
be non-zero. Thus our assumption is incorrect. Therefore HIi (R)c is NOT finitely
generated as an A-module.

9. Bass numbers
9.1. Setup: Let A be a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero. Let
R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standardL
graded. Let T be a graded Lyubeznik functor on
∗
M od(R) and set M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn .
By example 7.4 it is possible that µi (P, Mn ) the ith -Bass number of Mn with
respect to P can be infinite for some prime ideal P of A. Surprisingly we have the
following dichotomy:
Theorem 9.2. (with hypotheses as in 9.1). Let P be a prime ideal in A. Fix j ≥ 0.
EXACTLY one of the following hold:
(i) µj (P, Mn ) is infinite for all n ∈ Z.
(ii) µj (P, Mn ) is finite for all n ∈ Z. In this case EXACTLY one of the following
holds:
(a) µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(b) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ∈ Z.
(c) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n < 0.
(d) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m and µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n > −m.
(e) µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m, µj (P, Mn ) 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and
µj (P, Mn ) = 0 for all n with −m < n < 0.
We will need the following Lemma from [7, 1.4].
Lemma 9.3. Let B be a Noetherian ring and let N be a B-module (N need not be
finitely generated). Let P be a prime ideal in B. If (HPj (N ))P is injective for all
j ≥ 0 then µj (P, N ) = µ0 (P, HPj (N )) for all j ≥ 0.
The following result shows that the hypothesis of Lemma 9.3 is satisfied in our
case:

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

29

Proposition 9.4. (with hypotheses as in 9.1). Let P be a prime ideal in A. Let
N = Mc and let P be a prime ideal in A. Then (HPj (N ))P is injective for all j ≥ 0
Proof. Fix j ≥ 0. We note that HPj R ◦T is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(R).
Also notice HPj (N ) = (HPj R (T (R)))c . Finally note that either HPj (N )P = 0 or P
is a minimal prime of HPj (N ).
cP .
We have nothing to show if HPj (N )P = 0. So assume HPj (N ) 6= 0. Let B = A
j
Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that by 2.6 the functor G(−) = B ⊗A HP R ◦
T (−) is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(S).
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2 we
get that L = G(R) is a graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Notice
by 2.12 we get that Lc = NP 6= 0.
As P is the minimal prime of Mc we get that Lc is supported ONLY at the
maximal ideal of B. By 4.27 we get that Lc = EB (K)α where EB (K) is the
injective hull of K as a B-module (and α some ordinal possibly infinite). But we
have
EB (K) ∼
= EA (A/P ) as A-modules.
= EAP (κ(P )) ∼
Thus (HPj (N ))P is an injective A-module.



The following result is an essential ingredient to prove Theorem 9.2.
L
Proposition 9.5. Let M = n∈Z Mn be a graded holonomic Am (K)-module. If
dimK Mc < ∞ for some c ∈ Z then dimK Mn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
Proof. We prove it by induction on m. We first assume m = 1. We have an exact
sequence
(9.5.17)

0 → H1 (∂1 , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂1 , M )j → 0.

As M is holonomic we have that dimK Hl (∂1 , M ) < ∞ for l = 0, 1. In particular dimK Hl (∂1 , M )j < ∞ for all j ∈ Z and l = 0, 1. By 9.5.17 we get that
dimK Mc+1 < ∞. Iterating we get dimK Mj < ∞ for all j ≥ c. Again by 9.5.17 we
get that dimK Mc−1 < ∞. Iterating we get dimK Mj < ∞ for all j ≤ c. The result
follows.
We now assume that m ≥ 2 and the result is known for m − 1. We have an exact
sequence
(9.5.18)

0 → H1 (∂m , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂m , M )j → 0.

As M is holonomic we have that Hl (∂m , M ) is holonomic Am−1 (K)-module for
l = 0, 1. By 9.5.18 we get that dimK H1 (∂m , M )c−1 < ∞ and dimK H0 (∂m , M )c <
∞. By induction hypothesis we get that dimK Hl (∂m , M )j < ∞ for all j ∈ Z and
l = 0, 1. By 9.5.18 we get that dimK Mc+1 < ∞. Iterating we get dimK Mj < ∞
for all j ≥ c. Again by 9.5.18 we get that dimK Mc−1 < ∞. Iterating we get
dimK Mj < ∞ for all j ≤ c. The result follows.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 9.2. Let P be a prime ideal in A. Fix j ≥ 0. Suppose if possible
µj (P, Mc ) < ∞ for some c ∈ Z. We show that µj (P, Mn ) < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.

30

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

By Lemma 9.4 and Proposition 9.3 we get that µj (P, Mn ) = µ0 (P, HPj (Mn )) for
all n ∈ Z. We note that (HPj R ◦ T )(R)n = HPj (Mn ) for all n ∈ Z. Furthermore
HPj R ◦ T is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(R).
cP . Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that by 2.6 the functor
Let B = A
G(−) = B ⊗A HPj R ◦ T (−) is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(S).
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set Dm = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 4.2 we
get that L = G(R) is a graded holonmic, generalized Eulerian Dm -module. Notice
by 2.12 we get that Ln = (HPj (Mn ))P for all n ∈ Z.
Note that either (HPj (Mn ))P = 0 OR P is the minimal prime of (HPj (Mn )).
Thus we get that Ln is supported ONLY at the maximal ideal of B for all n ∈ Z.
By 4.27 we get that Ln = EB (K)αn where EB (K) is the injective hull of K as a
B-module (and α some ordinal possibly infinite). We note that
(1) αn = µj (P, Mn ).
(2) αc < ∞.
By 4.28 we get that V = Hd (Y, L) is a graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian
Am (K)-module with Vn = Hd (Y, L)n = K αn for all n ∈ Z.
Now dimK Vc = αc < ∞. By Proposition 9.5 we get dimK Vn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
It follows that µj (P, Mn ) = dimK Vn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z. Finally we note that the
assertions (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) follow from Theorems 5.1 6.1 and 6.2.

10. Proof of Theorem 1.9
In this section we give a proof of Theorem 1.9. The following result is crucial.
L
Lemma 10.1. Let M =
n∈Z Mn be a graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian
A1 (K)-module. Then dimK Mn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
Proof. By Proposition 9.5 it suffices to show dimK M0 < ∞. Let D =PA1 (K) =
K < X, ∂ > /(∂X −X∂ −1). An element d of D is uniquely expressed as αij X i ∂ j
with αij ∈ K and αij = 0 for all but finitely many i, j. Thus if d ∈ D0 the degree
zero component of D, then d is a finite linear sum of {X i ∂ i ; i ≥ 0}.
Let E = X∂ be the Eulerian operator. Then it is well-known that X i ∂ i can be
expressed as a polynomial in E. In fact by [16, Lemma 1.3.1] for j ≥ 2 we have
X j ∂ j = E(E − 1) . . . (E − j + 1).

It follows that D0 = K[E].
Let V be a D0 -submodule of M0 . It is easy to prove that (DV ) ∩ M0 = V .
Claim: M0 is a finitely generated D0 -module.
Let
V1 ⊆ V2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ Vl ⊆ Vl+1 ⊆ · · · ,
be an ascending chain of D0 -submodules of M0 . Then we have an ascending chain
of D-submodules of M ;
DV1 ⊆ DV2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ DVl ⊆ DVl+1 ⊆ · · · .

As M is a Noetherian D-module there exists r such that DVj = DVr for all j ≥ r.
It follows that
Vj = (DVj ) ∩ M0 = (DVr ) ∩ M0 = Vr ;

for all j ≥ r.

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

31

Thus M0 is a Noetherian D0 -module. In particular it is finitely generated as a
D0 -module.
Let M0 be generated as a D0 -module by {u1 , . . . , us }. Now M is a generalized
Eulerian D-module. In particular there exists ri such that
(E)ri ui = (E − |ui |)ri ui = 0

Let r = max{ri }. Let v ∈ M0 . Then

u = α1 u1 + · · · + αs us

for all i.

where αi ∈ K[E].

It follows that E r u = 0. Thus M0 is a finitely generated k[E]/(E r )-module. In
particular dimK M0 < ∞.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 1.9. We do the same construction as in the proof of Theorem
9.2. By Lemma 10.1 we get αn = dimK Vn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z. It follows that
µj (P, Mn ) < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.

11. Growth of Bass numbers
In this section we prove Theorems 1.11 and Theorem 1.12. To prove Theorem
1.11 we need to prove the following result:
L
Theorem 11.1. Let M = n∈Z Mn be a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian
Am (K)-module with dimK Mn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z. Then there exists polynomials
PM (z), QM (z) ∈ Q[z] of degree ≤ m − 1 such that
PM (n) = dimK Mn for all n ≪ 0, and

QM (n) = dimK Mn for all n ≫ 0.

Remark 11.2. By our convention degree of the zero polynomial is −∞.
Proof of Theorem 11.1. We prove the result by induction on m. We first assume
m = 1.
We have an exact sequence
(11.2.19)

0 → H1 (∂1 , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂1 , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 we get that for l = 0, 1; Hl (∂1 , M ) is concentrated in degree −1. So by
11.2.19 it follows that
Mj ∼
= M−1 for all j ≤ −1.
Set PM (z) = dimK M−1 .
We also have an exact sequence
(11.2.20)

0 → H1 (X1 , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (X1 , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 we get that for l = 0, 1; Hl (X1 , M ) is concentrated in degree 0. So by
11.2.20 it follows that
Mj ∼
= M0 for all j ≥ 0.
Set QM (z) = dimK M0 . Thus we have the result for m = 1.
Assume m ≥ 2 and the result is known for m − 1. We have an exact sequence
(11.2.21)

0 → H1 (∂m , M )j → Mj+1 → Mj → H0 (∂m , M )j → 0.

By 3.20 Hl (∂m ; M )(−1) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module for l = 0, 1.
Furthermore dimK Hl (∂m ; M )j < ∞ for all j ∈ Z and l = 0, 1. So by induction

32

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

hypothesis it follows that there exists polynomials f (z), g(z) of degree ≤ m − 2 such
that for all n ≪ 0,
f (n) = dimK H1 (∂m ; M )n and g(n) = dimK H0 (∂m ; M )n .
By 11.2.21 we have
dimK Mn+1 − dimK Mn = f (n) − g(n) for all n ≪ 0.
It follows that the function n → dimK Mn (with n < 0) is of polynomial type of
degree ≤ m − 1.
We also have an exact sequence
0 → H1 (Xm , M )j → Mj−1 → Mj → H0 (Xm , M )j → 0.

(11.2.22)

By 3.20 Hl (Xm ; M ) is generalized Eulerian Am−1 (K)-module for l = 0, 1. Furthermore dimK Hl (Xm ; M )j < ∞ for all j ∈ Z and l = 0, 1. So by induction
hypothesis it follows that there exists polynomials h(z), t(z) of degree ≤ m − 2 such
that for all n ≫ 0,
h(n) = dimK H1 (Xm ; M )n and t(n) = dimK H0 (Xm ; M )n .
By 11.2.22 we have
dimK Mn − dimK Mn−1 = t(n) − h(n) for all n ≫ 0.
It follows that the function n → dimK Mn (with n > 0) is of polynomial type of
degree ≤ m − 1.

We now give
Proof of Theorem 1.11. By Lemma 9.4 and Proposition 9.3 we get that
µj (P, Mn ) = µ0 (P, HPj (Mn )) for all n ∈ Z. We note that (HPj R ◦T )(R)n = HPj (Mn )
for all n ∈ Z. We note that HPj R ◦ T is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(R).
cP . Also set S = B[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. We note that by 2.6 the functor
Let B = A
G(−) = B ⊗A HPj R ◦ T (−) is a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(S).
By Cohen-structure theorem B = K[[Y1 , . . . , Yg ]] where K = κ(P ) the residue
field of AP and g = heightA P . Let Λ be the ring of K-linear differential operators
on B and set D = Am (Λ) the mth -Weyl algebra over Λ. Then by Theorem 3.6 and
Theorem 4.2 we get that L = G(R) is a graded holonomic, generalized Eulerian
D-module. Notice by 2.12 we get that Ln = (HPj (Mn ))P for all n ∈ Z.
Note that either (HPj (Mn ))P = 0 OR P is the minimal prime of (HPj (Mn )).
Thus we get that Ln is supported ONLY at the maximal ideal of B for all n ∈ Z.
By 4.27 we get that Ln = EB (K)αn where EB (K) is the injective hull of K as a Bmodule (and αn some ordinal possibly infinite). By 4.28 we get that V = Hd (Y, L)
is a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian Am (K)-module with Vn = Hd (Y, L)n =
K αn for all n ∈ Z. We note that that αn = µj (P, Mn ) < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
The result now follows from Theorem 11.1.

11.3. Before proving Theorem 1.12 we need the following preliminaries.
L
(1) Let T = K[X1 , . . . , Xm ] = n≥0 Tn . Then it is well-known that


n+m−1
dimK Tn =
for all n ≥ 0.
m−1

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

33

(2) Let n = (X1 , . . . , Xm ). Then Hnm (T ) = E(m) where E is the ∗-injective
hull of n as a R-module. Using for instance the Grothendieck-Serre formula
[3, 4.4.3] we get


m−1 n + m − 1
m
for all n ≤ −m.
dimK Hn (T )n = (−1)
m−1
The following result is an essential ingredient in proving Theorem 1.12.
L
Proposition 11.4. Let M = n∈Z Mn be a graded holonomic generalized Eulerian
Am (K)-module. Suppose Mc = 0 for some c but M 6= 0. Then one of the following
holds:
(1) dimK M0 is finite and non-zero,


n+m−1
dimK Mn = dimK M0 ·
for all n ≥ 0
m−1
and Mn = 0 for all n < 0.
(2) dimK M−m is finite and non-zero,


n+m−1
for all n ≤ −m
dimK Mn = dimK M−m · (−1)m−1
m−1
and Mn = 0 for all n > −m.

Proof. We first note by Proposition 9.5 we get that dimK Mn < ∞ for all n ∈ Z.
By Theorem 6.1 and Theorem 6.2 we also get that we have one of the following two
cases:
(i) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≥ 0 and Mn = 0 for all n < 0.
(ii) Mn 6= 0 for all n ≤ −m and Mn = 0 for all n > −m.
Thus all we have to show is the result regarding dimensions of graded components
of M . For convenience set D = Am (K). Also we consider T = K[X1 , . . . , Xm ]
with its unique maximal homogeneous ideal n = (X1 , . . . , Xm ). Furthermore let
E = D/Dn be the injective hull of K = T /n as a T -module. We note that E(m) is
an Eulerian D-module.
(1) Let p = dimK M0 and let u1 , . . . , up be a K-basis of M0 . We consider the map
ψ : Dp → M which maps ei to ui . Notice that ψ((D∂)p ) = 0. So ψ factors through
a map ψ : T p → M . Thus we have an exact sequence of generalized Eulerian
holonomic D-modules
ψ

0 → K → Tp −
→M →C→0

where K = ker ψ, and C = coker ψ.

We note that by construction, Kj = Cj = 0 for j < 1. By Theorem 6.1 it follows
that K = C = 0. Thus M = T p . The result now follows from 11.3(1).
(2) Let q = dimK M−m and let v1 , . . . , vq be a K-basis of M−m . We consider
the map φ : Dq → M which maps ei to vi . Notice that φ((Dn)q ) = 0. So φ factors
through a map φ : E(m)q → M . Thus we have an exact sequence of generalized
Eulerian holonomic D-modules
φ

0 → K ′ → E(m)q −
→ M → C′ → 0

where K ′ = ker φ, and C ′ = coker φ.

We note that by construction, Kj′ = Cj′ = 0 for j > −m − 1. By Theorem 6.1
it follows that K ′ = C ′ = 0. Thus M = E(m)q . The result now follows from
11.3(2).

We now give

34

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Proof of Theorem 1.12. The proof proceeds on the same lines as proof of Theorem
1.11. We only note that in this case we have V = Hd (Y, L) 6= 0 with Vc = 0 for for
some c. The result now follows from Proposition 11.4.

12. Associate Primes
In this section we prove Theorem 1.13. To prove this theorem we need to generalize an exercise problem from Matsumura’s classic text [10, Exercise 6.7].
Proposition 12.1. Let f : A → B be a homomorphism of Noetherian rings. Let
M be an B-module. Then
AssA M = {P ∩ A | P ∈ AssB M }.

In particular if AssB M is a finite set then so is AssA M .

Remark 12.2. Matsumura’s exercise is to prove the above result for finitely generated B-modules. We assume that the reader has done this exercise. We also
believe that Proposition 12.1 is known to the experts. We give a proof for reader’s
convenience.
Proof of Proposition 12.1. It can be easily proved that
{P ∩ A | P ∈ AssB M } ⊆ AssA M.

Let q ∈ AssA M . So q = (0 : t) for some non-zero t ∈ M . Let N = Bt. Note
that N is a finitely generated B-module and q ∈ AssA N . As the assertion of the
Proposition is true for finitely generated B-modules, there exists P ∈ AssB N with
P ∩ A = q. As N ⊆ M we also have P ∈ AssB M .

12.3. We note that P ∈ AssA V if and only if µ0 (P, V ) > 0. We now state and
prove a result which implies Theorem 1.13.
Theorem 12.4. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Further assume that either A is local
or a smooth affine algebra over a field K of characteristic
zero. Let T be a graded
L
Lyubeznik functor of ∗ M od(R). Set M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn . Then
S
(1) n∈Z AssA Mn is a finite set.
(2) AssA Mn = AssA Mm for all n ≤ −m.
(3) AssA Mn = AssA M0 for all n ≥ 0.
Proof. We first show that under our assumptions AssR T (R) is finite.
If A is a smooth affine algebra over K then so is R = A[X1 , . . . , Xm ]. In this case
if G is any Lyubeznik functor on M od(R) (not necessarily graded) then AssR G(R)
is finite, see [7, 3.7].
Now assume A is local with maximal ideal n. Let M = (n, X1 , . . . , Xm ) be the
maximal homogeneous ideal of R. As T (R) is a graded R-module all its associate
primes are homogeneous (see [3, 1.5.6]) and so are contained in M. Thus we have
an isomorphism AssR (T (R)) → AssRM (T (R)M ). But T (R)RM = G(RM ) for a
Lyubeznik functor G on M od(RM ), see 2.3. However RM is regular local. Thus
the result follows from [7, 3.3].
Thus we have proved that under our assumptions AssR T (R) is finite.
(1) This follows from Proposition 12.1.
For (2), (3) let
[
AssA Mn = {P1 , . . . , Pl }.
n∈Z

GRADED COMPONENTS OF LOCAL COHOMOLOGY MODULES

35

(2) Let P = Pi for some i. Let r ≤ −m. Then by Theorem 1.8 it follows that
µ(P, Mr ) > 0 if and only if µ(P, M−m ) > 0. The result follows.
(3)Let P = Pi for some i. Let s ≥ 0. Then by Theorem 1.8 it follows that
µ(P, Ms ) > 0 if and only if µ(P, M0 ) > 0. The result follows.

We now state a more general result which essentially has the same proof as of
Theorem 12.4. First we make the following notation: Let m be a maximal ideal of
A. If N is an A-module, set
Assm
A (N ) = {P ∈ AssA N | P ⊆ m}.
Theorem 12.5. (with hypotheses as in 1.1). Let m be a maximal
L ideal in A Let T
be a graded Lyubeznik functor of ∗ M od(R). Set M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn . Then
S
(1) n∈Z Assm
A Mn is a finite set.
m
(2) Assm
M
n = AssA Mm for all n ≤ −m.
A
m

(3) AssA Mn = Assm
A M0 for all n ≥ 0.
13. Dimension of Support and injective dimension
13.1. Setup For the convenience of the reader we recall our basic assumptions.
A will denote a regular ring containing a field of characteristic zero. Let R =
A[X1 , . . . , Xm ] be standard graded with deg A = 0 and deg Xi = 1 for all i. We
also assume mL≥ 1. Let T (−) be a graded Lyubeznik functor on ∗ M od(R). Set
M = T (R) = n∈Z Mn .
Let E be an A-module. Let injdimA E denotes the injective dimension of E. Also
SuppA E = {P | EP 6= 0 and P is a prime in A} is the support of an A-module E.
By dimA E we mean the dimension of SuppA E as a subspace of Spec(A).
We first show
Lemma 13.2. (with hypotheses as in 13.1). Let c ∈ Z. Then
injdim Mc ≤ dim Mc .

Proof. Let P be a prime ideal in A. Then by Proposition 9.4 and Lemma 9.3 we
get
µj (P, Mc ) = µ(P, HPj (Mc )).
By Grothendieck vanishing theorem HPj (Mc ) = 0 for all j > dim Mc , see [2, 6.1.2].
So µj (P, Mc ) = 0 for all j > dim Mc . The result follows.

We now state and prove a result which implies Theorem 1.14.
Theorem 13.3. (with hypotheses as in 13.1). Let M = T (R) =
we have
(1) injdim Mc ≤ dim Mc for all c ∈ Z.
(2) injdim Mn = injdim M−m for all n ≤ −m.
(3) dim Mn = dim M−m for all n ≤ −m.
(4) injdim Mn = injdim M0 for all n ≥ 0.
(5) dim Mn = dim M0 for all n ≥ 0.
(6) If m ≥ 2 and −m < r, s < 0 then
(a) injdim Mr = injdim Ms and dim Mr = dim Ms .
(b) injdim Mr ≤ min{injdim M−m , injdim M0 }.
(c) dim Mr ≤ min{dim M−m , dim M0 }.

L

n∈Z Mn .

Then

36

TONY. J. PUTHENPURAKAL

Proof. (1) This follows from Lemma 13.2.
For (2), (3) let P be a prime ideal in A. Let c ≤ −m.
(2) Fix j ≥ 0. By Theorem 9.2 we get that µj (P, Mc ) > 0 if and only if
µj (P, M−m ) > 0. The result follows.
(3) We note that T (−)P is a graded Lyubeznik functor on
∗
M od(AP [X1 , . . . , Xm ]). By Theorem 6.3 it follows that (M−m )P 6= 0 if and only
if (Mc )P 6= 0. The result follows.
(4), (5), 6(a) follow with similar arguments as in (2), (3).
For 6(b),(c) let P be a prime ideal in A.
6(b) By Theorem 9.2 we get that if µj (P, Mr ) > 0 then µj (P, M−m ) > 0 and
µj (P, M0 ) > 0. The result follows.
6(c) We note that T (−)P is a graded Lyubeznik functor on
∗
M od(AP [X1 , . . . , Xm ]). By Theorem 6.3 it follows that (Mr )P 6= 0 implies
(M−m )P 6= 0 and (M0 )P 6= 0 . The result follows.

References
[1] J.-E. Björk, Rings of differential operators, North-Holland Math. Library 21, North Holland,
Amsterdam, 1979.
[2] M. P. Brodmann and R. Y. Sharp, Local cohomology: an algebraic introduction with geometric applications, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 60, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[3] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Edition, vol. 39, Cambridge studies in
advanced mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
[4] S. D. Cutkosky and J. Herzog, Failure of tameness for local cohomology, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 211 (2007), no. 2, 428-432.
[5] C. Huneke and R. Sharp, Bass Numbers of Local Cohomology Modules, AMS Transactions
339 (1993), 765-779.
[6] T. Y. Lam, A first course in noncommutative rings, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 131.
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991
[7] G. Lyubeznik, Finiteness Properties of Local Cohomology Modules (an Application of Dmodules to Commutative Algebra), Inv. Math. 113 (1993), 41-55.
, F-modules: applications to local cohomology and D-modules in characteristic p¿0,
[8]
J. Reine Angew. Math. 491 (1997), 65-130.
[9] L. Ma and W. Zhang, Eulerian graded D-modules, Math. Res. Lett. 21 (2014), no. 1, 149167.
[10] H. Matsumura, Commutative ring theory, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[11] T. J. Puthenpurakal, De Rham cohomology of local cohomology modules, Preprint.arXiv:
1302.0116v1 to appear in Advances in Algebra and its Applications: Aligarh, India, December
2014; Editors: S. Tariq Rizvi, Asma Ali and Vincenzo De Filippis .
[12] T. J. Puthenpurakal, De Rham cohomology of local cohomology modules-The graded case,
Nagoya Math. J. 217 (2015), 1-21.
[13] T. J. Puthenpurakal and R. B. T. Reddy, de Rahm Cohomology of Local Cohomology modules
II, Preprint: arXiv:1308.0165
1 (R) where V (f ) is a
[14] T. J. Puthenpurakal, R. B. T. Reddy, de Rham cohomology of H(f
)
n
smooth hypersurface in P , Preprint: arXiv:1310.4654
[15] T. J. Puthenpurakal and J. Singh, On derived functors of Graded local cohomology modules,
Preprint.arXiv:1612.02968
[16] M. Saito, B. Sturmfels and N. Takayama, Gröbner deformations of hypergeometric differential
equations, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, 6. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
Department of Mathematics, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076
E-mail address: tputhen@math.iitb.ac.in

