arXiv:1707.07302v3 [math.AC] 2 Aug 2017

ON THE NUMBER OF GENERATORS OF POWERS OF AN
IDEAL
JÜRGEN HERZOG, MARYAM MOHAMMADI SAEM AND NASER ZAMANI
Abstract. We study the number of generators of ideals in regular rings and ask
the question whether µ(I) < µ(I 2 ) if I is not a principal ideal, where µ(J) denotes
the number of generators of an ideal J. We provide lower bounds for the number
of generators for the powers of an ideal and also show that the CM-type of I 2 is
≥ 3 if I is a monomial ideal of height n in K[x1 , . . . , xn ] and n ≥ 3.

Introduction
Let K be a field, S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] the polynomial ring in n variables over K.
We denote by µ(I) the number of generators of a graded ideal I ⊂ S. It is well
known (see [12]) that for a graded ideal I, the function f (k) = µ(I k ), for k ≫ 0, is
a polynomial in k of degree ℓ(I) − 1, where ℓ(I) denotes the analytic spread of I,
i.e., the Krull dimension of the fiber ring F (I) of I. This fact implies in particular,
that if I is not a principal ideal, then µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1 ) for k ≫ 0. But what is the
behavior of µ(I k ) for small integers k? Is it true that µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1) for all k,
when I is not a principal ideal? This question has a positive answer if all generators
of I are of the same degree, that is, if the ideal is equigenerated. The proof of this
result is easy and relies on the fact that in the given situation, the fiber ring of the
ideal is a domain. This will be discussed in Section 1.
The problem is much harder if not all generators are of same degree, and it can
be phrased as well for an ideal in a regular local ring. It turns out that if I is not
equigenerated, then µ(I) − µ(I 2 ) may be as big as we want, as the following families
of ideals , communicated to us by Conca, show: take I = (x4 , x3 y, xy 3, y 4 ) + (x2 y 2)J
with J = (z, t)a , for example. Then I ⊂ K[x, y, z, t], I 2 = (x, y)8, and hence
µ(I 2 ) = 9, while µ(I) = 5 + a. In a preliminary version of the paper we conjectured
that n ≥ 2, and let I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a graded ideal of height n or an ideal in a
regular local ring R of dimension ≥ 2 with height I = dim R. Then µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1)
for all integers k ≥ 0. In the meantime, together with Eliahou, we found for any
integer m ≥ 6 an ideal of height 2 in K[x, y] such that µ(I) = m and µ(I 2 ) = 9.
The construction of such ideals will appear in a forthcoming paper.
One may even ask under which conditions µ(I ∩ J) ≤ µ(IJ), which would then
in particular imply that µ(I) ≤ µ(I 2 ). It is shown in Corollary 3.2 that for equigenerated monomial ideals of height 2 in K[x, y] one even has µ(I ∩ J) < µ(IJ).
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13C99; Secondary 13H05, 13H10.
Key words and phrases. Monomial ideals, powers of ideals, number of generators, CohenMacaulay type.
1

In Section 1 we observe the simple fact that if height I ≥ 2 and depth F (I) > 0,
then µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1) for all k. From this it can be deduced that if I is equigenerated, then µ(I k ) ≤ µ(I k+1 ) for all k, and that if µ(I k ) = µ(I k+1 ) for some k, then
I is a principal ideal, see Corollary 1.2. Unfortunately, depth F (I) may be zero, if
I is not equigenerated. For example, the fiber ring of I = (x8 , x7 y 2 , x6 y 5 , x2 y 7 , y 10)
has depth zero. On the other hand, Tony Puthenpurakal communicated to us that
if I ⊂ K[x, y] is an integrally closed graded ideal of height 2, then F (I) is CohenMacaulay. In addition, Conca, De Negri and Rossi give in [2, Theorem 5.1] a complete characterization of contracted ideals whose associated graded ring and hence its
fiber cone is Cohen-Macaulay. Thus these are interesting cases when µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1)
for all k.
In Theorem 1.6, it is shown that µ(IJ) ≥ µ(I)+µ(J)−1 for equigenerated graded
ideals I, J in the polynomial ring. This yields the inequalities µ(I k ) ≥ k(µ(I)−1)+1
for all k, if I is an equigenerated graded ideal in the polynomial ring. In particular,
one has for such ideals that µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1. This lower bound can be improved
if one takes under consideration the number of variables of the polynomial ring.
In the special case that I is an equigenerated monomial ideal in K[x1 , . . . , xn ], our
. The proof of the theorem is based on
Theorem 1.9 says that µ(I 2 ) ≥ ℓ(I)µ(I)− ℓ(I)
2
a well-known theorem from additive number theory, due to Freiman [4, Lemma 1.14].
Of course, the function f (k) = µ(I k ) is just the Hilbert function of the fiber ring
of I, which
to be a rational function of the form Q(t)/(1 − t)ℓ(I) , where
P is known
Q(t) = i≥0 hi ti is a polynomial. By using these facts it can be easily seen that
µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1, if and only if h2 ≥ 0, and that µ(I k ) ≥ k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all
k ≥ 1, if hi ≥ 0 for all i, see Proposition 2.1. We also observe in Proposition 2.5
2
that for a proper
 graded ideal in the polynomial ring one always has that µ(I ) =
ℓ(I)
ℓ(I)µ(I) − 2 + h2 . Thus a comparison with Theorem 1.9 yields the interesting
fact that h2 ≥ 0 for any equigenerated monomial ideal, see Corollary 2.6.
Due to the fact that µ(I 2) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1, if I is an equigenerated ideal, one may
expect that this inequality is true for any ideal of maximal height with no restrictions
on the degrees of the generators. However this is not the case. The following
example was communicated to us by Eliahou: Let I = (x6 , x5 y 2 , x4 y 3 , x2 y 4, y 6).
Then µ(I 2 ) = 8, while 2µ(I) − 1 = 9.
It is of interest to find out when equality holds in the inequality given in Theorem 1.6, that is, when µ(IJ) = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1. In Section 3, we give a complete
answer to this question, when I and J are monomial ideals in K[x, y]. It turns out
that µ(IJ) = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1, if and only if I = (xa , y a)r and J = (xa , y a)s where
a, r and s are positive integers, see Theorem 3.1. As a consequence of this theorem,
we obtain in Corollary 3.4 the result that µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for some k ≥ 2
if and only if, I = (xa , y a)r for positive integers a and r. It can also be seen that
if I is generated in degree d, then µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for some k ≥ 2, if and
only if the reduction number of I is one with respect to the ideal J = (xd , y d), see
Corollary 3.5.
In Section 4 we study monomial ideals in K[x, y] which are not necessarily equigenerated ideals. If G(I) = {xai y bi }i=1,...,m , one may assume that a1 > a2 > . . . > am ≥
2

0. Then 0 ≤ b1 < b2 < . . . < bm . Conversely, any two sequences like this determine
the minimal set of generators of a monomial ideal of K[x, y]. Therefore, monomial
ideals in K[x, y] are in bijection to such sequences a and b. In Proposition 4.2 we
show that µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1 if either the sequences a and b are both convex or
both concave, and in Corollary 4.6 we show that any lexsegment ideal I in K[x, y]
satisfies µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1. We also remark that corresponding statements do not
hold for more than two variables.
For G(I) = {u1 , . . . , um } and any integers with 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ m we define the safe
area of the monomial ui uj as a set Sij of monomials uk uℓ ∈ I 2 with k < i and l ≤ j,
or k = i and l < j, or k > i and j ≤ l. The monomials uk uℓ ∈ Sij (k ≤ ℓ) have
the property that ui uj does not divide uk uℓ and uk uℓ does not divide ui uj . This
concept turned out to be useful in the proof of Proposition 4.2 and Corollary 4.6.
It is also used to prove that µ(I 2 ) > µ(I) for any non-principal monomial ideal in
K[x, y] with µ(I) ≤ 7.
In the final section of this paper we discuss a special case of a question due to
Huneke [9]. An affirmative answer to Huneke’s question would imply the following
result: Let I = JL be a product of two monomial ideals in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and
suppose that height I = n, then type(S/I) ≥ n. Huneke’s theorem [9, Theorem 2]
implies that in this situation S/I is not Gorenstein, in other words that type(S/I) ≥
2. Here, in Theorem 5.1, we succeed to show that type(S/I) ≥ 3.
1. On the growth of the number of generators of a graded ideal in
a polynomial ring
L
Let I be a graded ideal in S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. We denote by R(I) = k≥0 I k tk ⊂
S[t] the Rees ring of I, andLby m = (x1 , . . . , xn ) the graded maximal ideal of S. Then
k
k k
F (I) = R(I)/mR(I) =
k≥0 (I /mI )t is called the fiber ring of I. Obviously,
F (I) is a standard graded K-algebra whose Krull dimension is by definition the
analytic spread ℓ(I) of I. The kth graded component of F (I) is I k /mI k . Hence
for the Hilbert function Hilb(k, F (I)) of F (I) we have Hilb(k, F (I)) = µ(I k ). This
explains the behavior of the function f (k) = µ(I k ) for large k.
Proposition 1.1. Let I ⊂ S be a graded ideal. If depth F (I) > 0, then µ(I k ) ≤
µ(I k+1) for all k, and if in addition height I ≥ 2, then µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1 ) for all k.
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that K is infinite. Then, since
depth F (I) > 0, there exists a linear form x ∈ F (I) which is a nonzerodivisor on
F (I). Multiplication with x induces an injective map I k /mI k → I k+1 /mI k+1 for
all k. This implies that µ(I k ) ≤ µ(I k+1) for all k. Suppose now that height I ≥ 2,
and suppose µ(I k ) = µ(I k+1 ) for some k. Then I k+1 = xI k , which implies that
height I = 1, a contradiction.

Corollary 1.2. Let I ⊂ S be an equigenerated graded ideal. Then
(a) µ(I k ) ≤ µ(I k+1) for all k ≥ 0.
(b) The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) I is a principal ideal;
(ii) µ(I k ) = µ(I k+1) for all k;
3

(iii) µ(I k ) = µ(I k+1) for some k.
Proof. Since I is equigenerated, say I = (f1 , . . . , fm ) with deg fi = d for all i, it
follows that F (I) ∼
= K[f1 , . . . , fm ] ⊂ S. In particular, depth F (I) > 0. Thus (a)
follows from Proposition 1.1.
(b) (i) ⇒ (ii) ⇒ (iii) is obvious. (iii) ⇒ (i): Assume that I is not a principal
ideal. If height I = 1, then I = f J with J 6= S an ideal with height J ≥ 2. Since
µ(I k ) = µ(J k ) for all k, we may assume that I itself has height ≥ 2. But then, by
Proposition 1.1, µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1), contradicting our assumption.

The following corollary was communicated to us by Tony Puthenpurakal.
Corollary 1.3. Let I ⊂ K[x, y] be a graded integrally closed ideal of height 2. Then
µ(I k ) < µ(I k+1 ) for all k ≥ 0.
Proof. By [14, Lemma 9.1.1], IKJx, yK is again integrally closed, and furthermore
we have µ(I k ) = µ(I k KJx, yK) for all k. Thus we may as well assume that I is an
integrally closed height 2 ideal in KJx, yK. It follows that the associated graded ring
grI (KJx, yK) is Cohen–Macaulay, see [13, Proposition 5.5], [10, Theorem 3.1]. By
[7, Theorem A, Proposition 2.6] this implies that I 2 = JI, where J is a minimal
reduction of I. It follows ([11, Theorem 1]) that F (I) is Cohen–Macaulay. Hence
the desired conclusion results from Proposition 1.1.
Let I and J be graded ideals of height ≥ 2. Is it true that µ(I ∩ J) < µ(IJ)? If,
yes, then for I = J we obtain that µ(I) < µ(I 2 ). We will show in Section 3 that
this question has a positive answer in some special cases. Here we show
Proposition 1.4. Let I and J be graded ideals of height 2 in K[x, y]. Then
µ(I ∩ J) ≤ µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.
Proof. We first begin with a few general remarks. Suppose L ⊂ S = K[x, y] is a
graded ideal of height 2. Then its minimal graded free resolution is of the form
0 → S m−1 → S m → L → 0.
The rank of the last free module in the resolution is the Cohen-Macaulay type of S/L,
see [5, Proposition A.6.6.]. Thus we have that µ(L) = type(S/L) + 1. Furthermore
type(S/L) is the smallest number r such that L = ∩ri=1 Qi , where each Qi is an
irreducible ideal, that is where each S/Qi is Gorenstein, see [6, Satz 1.33].
Tr−1
Now suppose that µ(I) = r and µ(J) = s. Then I = i=1
Qi with irreducible Qi
Ts−1 ′
Tr−1
Ts−1 ′
Qj
Qi ∩ j=1
Qj with irreducible ideals Q′j . It follows I ∩ J = i=1
and J = j=1
which implies that
µ(I ∩ J) = type(I ∩ J) + 1 ≤ (r − 1) + (s − 1) + 1 = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.

We introduce some notation that will be used in the statements and the proofs of
the next theorems. We fix a monomial order <.
Definition 1.5. Let L be a graded ideal with Ld 6= 0 and Li = 0 for i < d. We
denote by L′ the ideal generated by the monomials of degree d in in< (L).
4

Theorem 1.6. Let I, J ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be equigenerated graded ideals. Then
µ(IJ) ≥ µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.
In particular, µ(IJ) > max{µ(I), µ(J)}, if I and J are not principal.
Proof. Let I be generated in degree d1 and J generated in degree d2 . Then IJ is generated in the degree d1 + d2 . We fix a monomial order <. It follows from Macaulay’s
theorem [1, Corollary 4.2.4], that µ(I ′) = µ(I), µ(J ′ ) = µ(J) and µ((IJ)′ ) = µ(IJ).
Assume we can prove the desired inequality for equigenerated monomial ideals. Then
µ(IJ) = µ((IJ)′ ) ≥ µ(I ′J ′ ) ≥ µ(I ′) + µ(J ′ ) − 1 = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.
Here we used that I ′ J ′ ⊆ (IJ)′ .
Thus it remains to prove the theorem when I and J are monomial ideals. Let
G(I) = {u1 , . . . , ur } and G(J) = {v1 , . . . , vs }. We may assume that s ≥ r, and that
u1 < u2 < . . . < ur and v1 < v2 < . . . < vs . Then
u1 v1 < u1 v2 < u2 v2 < u2 v3 < u3 v3 < . . . < ur−1 vr−1 < ur−1 vr < ur vr
< ur vr+1 < ur vr+2 < . . . < ur vs .
These elements are pairwise distinct and of degree d1 + d2 , and hence part of a
minimal set of generators of IJ. Counting this set of elements we find that they are
(2r − 1) + (s − r) = r + s − 1 elements. This yields the desired conclusion.

For an interesting class of ideals, which are not necessarily equigenerated, equality
holds in Theorem 1.6. Indeed, let R be a two dimensional polynomial ring over an
infinite field K or a two dimensional regular local ring with infinite residue class
field, and let I ⊂ R be a proper ideal which we assume to be graded if R is the
polynomial ring. According to Zariski [15], the ideal I is said to be contracted, if
there exists x ∈ m \ m2 such that I = IS ∩ R, where S = R[m/x].
We denote by o(I) the order of I, that is, the largest integer k such that I ⊆ mk .
If I is graded, then o(I) is just the least degree of a generator of I.
Contracted ideals have the following nice properties:
(i) µ(I) = o(I) + 1;
(ii) if I and J are contracted, then IJ is contracted.
The proof of (i) can be found in [8, Proposition 2.3], where it is shown that (i)
actually characterizes contracted ideals, and in the same article the proof of (ii) can
be found, see [8, Proposition 2.6].
By using (i) and (ii) and observing that o(IJ) = o(I) + o(J) we immediately
obtain
Proposition 1.7. Let R a polynomial ring over an infinite field K or two dimensional regular local with infinite residue class field, and let I, J ⊂ R be ideals of
height 2 which we assume to be graded if R is the polynomial ring. Then µ(IJ) =
µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.
5

Corollary 1.8. Let I1 , . . . , Ir be equigenerated graded ideals. Then
r
X
µ(I1 · · · Ir ) ≥
µ(Ij ) − (r − 1).
j=1

k

In particular, µ(I ) ≥ k(µ(I) − 1) + 1, for all k.
Moreover, if all the ideal Ij are contracted ideals, then equality holds for both
inequalities.
Proof. We will prove the inequality by induction on r. The case r = 1 is trivial.
Now assume that the assertion holds for r = k, we will prove it for r = k +1. Clearly
I1 · · · Ik+1 = (I1 · · · Ik )Ik+1. Then, by Theorem 1.6 and our induction hypothesis we
have
k
X
µ(Ii ) − (k − 1) + µ(Ik+1) − 1
µ(I1 · · · Ik+1 ) ≥ µ(I1 · · · Ik ) + µ(Ik+1 ) − 1 ≥
i=1

=

k+1
X

µ(Ii ) − ((k + 1) − 1),

i=1

as desired.
The statement for contracted ideals is an obvious consequence of Proposition 1.7.

Notice that for a contracted ideal, Corollary 1.8 yields
µ(I k+1) − µ(I k ) = µ(I) − 1 > 0 for all k.
Thus, since any contracted ideal is integrally closed, we have a new proof of Corollary 1.3.
Corollary 1.8 implies in particular that µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1. This lower bound is
never reached when the analytic spread of the ideal I ′ (see Definition 1.5) is ≥ 3
and I has a high number of generators. Thus for these situations we need a better
lower bound. For this purpose we recall a theorem in additive number theory, due
to Freiman [4]: Let S be a finite subset of Zn , and let A(S) be the affine hull of
the set S, that is, the smallest affine subspace of Qn containing S. The dimension
d of A(S) is called the Freiman dimension of S. The doubling of S is the set
2S = {a + b : a, b ∈ S}. Now the theorem of Freiman states that


d+1
.
|2S| ≥ (d + 1)|S| −
2
We use Freiman’s theorem to prove
Theorem 1.9. Let I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be an equigenerated graded ideal. Then
 ′ 
ℓ(I )
2
′
.
µ(I ) ≥ ℓ(I )µ(I) −
2
In particular, if I is a monomial ideal, then ℓ(I ′ ) can be replaced by ℓ(I) in the above
inequality.
6

Proof. Since µ(I) = µ(I ′ ) and µ(I 2 ) = µ(I ′2 ) we may as well assume that I is
a monomial ideal. For a monomial ideal J with unique minimal set of monomial
generators G(J), we denote by S(J) ⊂ Zn the set of exponent vectors of the elements
of G(J). Since I and I 2 are equigenerated, it follows that µ(I) = |S(I)| and µ(I 2 ) =
|S(I 2 )| = |2S(I)|. Let d be the Freiman dimension of S(I). The theorem will follow
from Freiman’s inequality once we have shown that ℓ(I) = d + 1.
Let S(I) = {c1 , . . . , cm } and C the matrix whose row vectors are c1 , . . . , cm . Then
F (I) = K[xc1 , . . . , xcm ], and hence ℓ(I) = dim F (I) = rank C, see [5, Lemma 10.3.19].
On the other hand, the affine space spanned by S(I) is of dimension rank C − 1.
This concludes the proof of the theorem.

2. The h-vector of the fiber ring
Let (R, m, K) be a Noetherian local ring or a standard graded K-algebra, I ⊂ R
a proper ideal which we assume to be graded if R is standard graded. Let d be the
analytic spread of I. Then F (I) is of Krull dimension d and
HilbF (I) (t) = Q(t)/(1 − t)d ,
where
Q(t) =

X

hi ti

i≥0

is a polynomial with h0 = 1. One calls (h0 , h1 , . . .) the h-vector of F (I).
We want to interpret Theorem 1.9 in relation to the h-vector of F (I).
Proposition 2.1. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal with ℓ(I) = 2. Then
(a) µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1, if and only if h2 ≥ 0.
(b) µ(I k ) ≥ k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 1, if hi ≥ 0 for all i.
(c) µ(I k ) = k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 1, if and only if hi = 0 for all i ≥ 2.
Proof. (a) we have
(1)

HilbF (I) (t) =

X

µ(I k )tk = Q(t)/(1 − t)2

k≥0

= (1 + h1 t + h2 t2 + · · · )(1 + 2t + 3t2 + · · · ).
It follows that µ(I) = 2 + h1 and µ(I 2 ) = 3 + 2h1 + h2 . Therefore,
µ(I 2 ) − (2µ(I) − 1) = h2 .
This yields the desired conclusion.
P
(b) By (1) we have µ(I k ) = (k + 1) + kh1 + i≥1 (k − i)hi+1 . Hence
X
X
µ(I k )−(k(µ(I)−1)+1) = (k+1)+kh1 + (k−i)hi+1 −k(h1 +1)−1 =
(k−i)hi+1 .
i≥1

P

i≥1

Since i≥1 (k − i)hi+1 ≥ 0, if all hi ≥ 0, the assertion follows.
(c) It follows from the proof of (b) that µ(I k ) = k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 1, if
hi = 0 for all i ≥ 2.
7

Conversely, suppose that µ(I k ) = k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 1. Then
X
(k(µ(I) − 1) + 1)tk = (1 + (µ(I) − 2)t)/(1 − t)2 .
HilbF (I) (t) =
k≥0

This shows that hi = 0 for i ≥ 2.



Corollary 2.2. Let I ⊂ K[x, y] be an equigenerated graded ideal. Then h2 ≥ 0.
Proof. We may assume that I is not a principal ideal, because otherwise the statement is trivial. If height(I) = 1, then I = f J where J is an equigenerated ideal of
height 2. By Corollary 1.8 we have µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1. Since ℓ(I) = ℓ(J) = 2, it
follows from Proposition 2.1 that h2 ≥ 0.

Example 2.3. If I is not equigenerated, then the inequality µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1 may
fail. The following example was communicated to us by Eliahou.
Let I = (x6 , x5 y 2 , x4 y 3 , x2 y 4 , y 6). Then µ(I 2 ) = 8, while 2µ(I) − 1 = 9.
With CoCoA it can be checked that
F (I) ∼
= K[z1 , . . . , z5 ]/(z1 z5 , z2 z5 , z42 − z3 z5 , z1 z4 , z2 z4 , z1 z3 ).
P
The series 1 + k≥1(3k + 2)tk is the Hilbert series of F (I). It follows that
µ(I k ) = k(µ(I) − 2) + 2 < k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 2.

One can also check that dim F (I) = 2 and depth F (I) = 1, and so F (I) is not
Cohen–Macaulay. The situation is much better if F (I) is Cohen–Macaulay, as the
next result shows.
Corollary 2.4. Let I ⊂ R be an ideal with ℓ(I) = 2, and assume that F (I) is
Cohen–Macaulay. Then µ(I k ) ≥ k(µ(I) − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 1.
Proof. If F (I) is Cohen–Macaulay, then hi ≥ 0 for all i, see [1, Corollary 4.1.10].
Thus the desired conclusion follows from Proposition 2.1.

The next proposition gives an interpretation of the difference between the right
side and left side term in the inequality of Theorem 1.9.
Proposition 2.5. Let I ⊂ R be a proper ideal. Then


ℓ(I)
2
+ h2 .
µ(I ) = ℓ(I)µ(I) −
2
Proof. For the fiber ring of the ideal I we have
(1 + h1 t + h2 t2 + . . .)
HilbF (I) (t) =
(1 − t)ℓ(I)


ℓ(I) + 1 2
t + . . .)
= (1 + h1 t + h2 t + . . .)(1 + ℓ(I)t +
2


ℓ(I) + 1
+ h2 )t2 + . . . .
= 1 + (h1 + ℓ(I))t + (h1 ℓ(I) +
2

It follows that µ(I) = h1 + ℓ(I) and µ(I 2 ) = h1 ℓ(I) + ℓ(I)+1
+ h2 , which yields the
2
desired result.

2

8

Comparing Theorem 1.9 with Proposition 2.5, we obtain
Corollary 2.6. Let I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] be an equigenerated monomial ideal. Then
h2 ≥ 0.
3. Equigenrated Monomial ideals in K[x, y]
In this section we consider in more details the case that I is a monomial ideal in
two variables, and classifies those ideals among them which have the property that
equality holds in the inequalities given in Theorem 1.6 and Corollary 1.8.
Let K be a field and I ⊂ K[x, y] be a monomial ideal. The unique minimal set of
monomial generators will be denoted by G(I). Let G(I) = {xai y bi }i=1,...,m . We may
assume a1 > a2 > . . . > am ≥ 0. Then 0 ≤ b1 < b2 < . . . < bm . Conversely, given
sequences of integers
(2)

a1 > a2 > . . . > am ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ b1 < b2 < . . . < bm ,

they define the monomial ideal I with G(I) = {xai y bi }i=1,...,m . Therefore, monomial
ideals in K[x, y] are in bijection to sequences as in (2).
We will always assume that m > 1. We are interested in the number of generators
of I k . Since I = xam y b1 J, where J is a monomial ideal of height 2 containing the pure
powers xa1 −am and y bm −b1 , and since µ(I k ) = µ(J k ) for all k, for most statements to
follow, it is not an restriction to assume that height(I) = 2.
If I is an equigenerated ideal generated in degree d, then
G(I) = {xai y d−ai }i=1,...,m

with d = a1 > a2 > . . . > am = 0.

This case is significantly simpler than the general case, since only one sequence of
integers determines the ideal.
More generally, let A = {a1 , a2 , . . . , am } be a set of non-negative integers, d a
positive integer with ai ≤ d for all i, and let I = (xa1 y d−a1 , . . . , xam y d−am ). Then
G(I) = {xa1 y d−a1 , . . . , xam y d−am } and µ(I) = m.
Let I and J be equigenerated monomial ideals in S = K[x, y]. We know from
Theorem 1.6 that µ(IJ) ≥ µ(I) + µ(J) − 1. The following result tells us when we
have equality.
Theorem 3.1. Let I, J ⊂ K[x, y] be equigenerated monomial ideals. The following
conditions are equivalent:
(i) µ(IJ) = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1;
(ii) There exist positive integers a, r and s such that I = (xa , y a )r and J =
(xa , y a)s .
Proof. Let us assume that I is generated in degree d1 and J is generated in degree
d2 . Observe that
(3)

G(IJ) ⊇ xd2 G(I) ∪ G(J)y d1

(4)

xd2 G(I) ∩ G(J)y d1 = {xd2 y d1 }.

Proof of (3): We first notice that the elements of xd2 G(I) and the elements of
G(J)y d1 are monomials of degree d1 + d2 in IJ. Since the monomials of xd2 G(I) are
9

pairwise different it follows that xd2 G(I) ⊆ G(IJ). The same argument holds for
G(J)y d1 .
Proof of (4): All elements of xd2 G(I) are of the form xd2 +a y d1 −a and all elements
of G(J)y d1 are of the form xb y d2 −b+d1 with b ≤ d2 . It follows xd2 +a y d1 −a = xb y d2 −b+d1
if and only if b = d2 + a. Since b ≤ d2 , this is only possible if b = d2 and a = 0.
Now we prove the equivalence of (i) and (ii).
(i) ⇒ (ii): Let G(I) = {xai y d1 −ai }i=0,...,r with a0 = 0 < a1 < . . . < ar = d1
and G(J) = {xbj y d2 −bj }j=0,...,s with b0 = 0 < b1 < . . . < bs = d2 . Since µ(IJ) =
µ(I) + µ(J) − 1, it follows from (3) that
G(IJ) = {xai +d2 y d1 −ai }i=0,...,r ∪ {xbj y d1 +d2 −bj }j=0,...,s ,
and we have
(5)

b0 < b1 < . . . < bs = d2 < d2 + a1 < . . . < d2 + ar = d1 + d2 .

Note that for i = 0, . . . , s − 1,
xbi +a1 y d1 +d2 −(bi +a1 ) = (xbi y a2 −bi )(xa1 y d1 −a1 )
belongs to G(IJ).
Since 0 < b0 + a1 < b2 + a1 < . . . < bs−1 + a1 < d2 + a1 , in comparison with
(5) shows that bj = bj−1 + a1 for j = 0, . . . , s − 1. This implies that bj = ja1 for
j = 0, . . . , s. In particular, we have b1 = a1 . By symmetry we also have ai = ib1 for
i = 0, . . . , r. Hence if we set a = a1 = b1 , we finally get bj = ja for j = 1, . . . , s and
ai = ia for i = 0, . . . , r.
(ii) ⇒ (i): By assumption IJ = (xa , y a )r+s . Therefore,
µ(IJ) = r + s + 1 = (r + 1) + (s + 1) − 1 = µ(I) + µ(J) − 1.

Corollary 3.2. Let I and J be equigenerated monomial ideals of height 2 in K[x, y].
Then µ(I ∩ J) < µ(IJ).
Proof. By Proposition 1.4 and Theorem 3.1 we have
µ(I ∩ J) ≤ µ(I) + µ(J) − 1 ≤ µ(IJ).
Suppose µ(I ∩ J) = µ(IJ). Then there exist positive integers a, r and s. such that
I = (xa , y a )r and J = (xa , y a )s . We may assume that r ≤ s. Then I ∩ J = (xa , y a )s
and IJ = (xa , y a)r+s . It follows that µ(I ∩ J) = s + 1 and µ(IJ) = r + s + 1, a
contradiction.

All assumptions given in Corollary 3.2 are required to guarantee that the inequality µ(I ∩ J) < µ(IJ) is indeed strict. The strict inequality fails, if the ideals I
and J are not equigenerated. For example, if I = (x2 , y) and J = (x, y 2), then
I ∩ J = (x2 , xy, y 2) and IJ = (x3 , xy, y 3). Therefore µ(I ∩ J) = µ(IJ). On the
other hand, if both of the ideals are equigenerated, but not of height 2, the strict
inequality will fail again. For example, let I = (x3 , xy 2) and J = (x2 y, y 3), then
I ∩ J = (x3 y, x2 y 2, xy 3 ) and IJ = (xy 5 , x3 y 3, x5 y). Hence µ(I ∩ J) = µ(IJ).
10

We do not know whether µ(I ∩ J) ≤ µ(IJ) for any two graded ideals in K[x, y],
even if both of them are equigenerated.
Corollary 3.3. Let I1 , . . . , Ir be equigenerated monomial ideals in S = K[x, y] with
height Ij = 2 for j = 1, . . . , r. Then
µ(I1 . . . Ir ) ≥

r
X

µ(Ij ) − (r − 1).

j=1

Equality holds if and only if either r = 1 or r > 1 and there exist positive integers a
and sj such that Ij = (xa , y a )sj for j = 1, . . . , r.
Proof. We will prove the inequality by induction on r. The case r = 1 is trivial.
Now assume that the assertion holds for r = k, we will prove it for r = k +1. Clearly
I1 . . . Ik+1 = (I1 . . . Ik )Ik+1 . Then, by Theorem 1.6 and our induction hypothesis we
have,
µ(I1 . . . Ik+1 ) ≥ µ(I1 . . . Ik ) + µ(Ik+1 ) − 1 ≥

k
X

µ(Ii ) − (k − 1) + µ(Ik+1) − 1

i=1

=

k+1
X

µ(Ii ) − ((k + 1) − 1),

i=1

as desired.
Now we prove the second part of the corollary. For r = 1 the assertion is trivial. For r = 2 the statement follows from Theorem 3.1(b). Now assume that the
statement holds for r = k with k ≥ 2. By our assumption and Theorem 3.1(a), we
have
k+1
X
µ(Ij ) − k = µ((I1 . . . Ik )Ik+1 ) ≥ µ(I1 . . . Ik ) + µ(Ik+1 ) − 1.
j=1

P
It follows that µ(I1 , . . . , Ik ) ≤ kj=1 µ(Ij ) − (k − 1). Since the opposite inequality
always holds, we get
k
X
µ(Ij ) − (k − 1) = µ(I1 . . . Ik ).
j=1

So by induction hypothesis there exist positive integers a, sj for j = 1, . . . , k such
that Ij = (xa , y a)sj . Similarly if we write I1 . . . Ik+1 = I1 (I2 . . . Ik+1 ) then, by the
same argument as above we see that there exists sk+1 such that Ik+1 = (xa , y a)sk+1 .

As an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.3, we have
Corollary 3.4. Let I ⊂ S = K[x, y] be an equigenerated monomial ideal with
µ(I) = m and height I = 2. Then
(a) µ(I k ) ≥ k(m − 1) + 1;
(b) The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for some k ≥ 2.
11

(ii) µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for all k ≥ 2.
(iii) There exist positive integers a and r such that I = (xa , y a)r .
A result corresponding to (b)(i) ⇐⇒ (ii) is no longer valid for more than two
variables. In other words,
ideal of height n,
 if I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is a monomial
n
2
a
a r
then µ(I ) = nµ(I) − 2 does not imply that I = (x1 , . . . , xn ) for some positive
integers a and r. For example, if I = (x, y, z)3 , then µ(I) = 10 and µ(I 2 ) = 28 >
3 · 10 − 32 = 27.
The following corollary gives another characterization for ideal whose powers
achieve the lower bound for the number of generators.

Corollary 3.5. Let I ⊂ S = K[x, y] be a monomial ideal generated in degree d with
µ(I) = m and height I = 2. Let J = (xd , y d). Then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(i) µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for some k ≥ 2.
(ii) I 2 = JI.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii): By Corollary 3.4, our hypothesis implies that µ(I 2 ) = 2(m−1)+1.
By (3) we have G(I 2 ) ⊇ xd G(I) ∪ G(J)y d , and therefore (4) implies that |xd G(I) ∪
G(J)y d | = 2(m − 1) + 1. It follows that I 2 = xd I + Iy d = JI.
(ii) ⇒ (i): The assumption implies that I 2 = xd I + Iy d, and hence G(I 2 ) ⊆
d
x G(I) ∪ G(I)y d. By (3), G(I 2 ) ⊇ xd G(I) ∪ G(I)y d , and hence equality holds. Thus
together with (4) it follows that µ(I 2 ) = 2(m − 1) + 1.

Corollary 3.5 says that µ(I k ) = k(m − 1) + 1 for some k ≥ 2 if and only if the
reduction number of I is equal to 1.
We conclude this section with a result which says that the powers of equigenerated
ideals of same degree can be exchanged with their sums.
Proposition 3.6. Let I1 , . . . , Ir be equigenerated monomial ideals in S = K[x, y],
all generated in degree d such that height Ij = 2 for all j = 1, . . . , r and I1 +. . .+Ir =
(x, y)d . Then (I1 + . . . + Ir )k = I1k + . . . + Irk for all k ≥ 1.
Proof. We will prove the statement by induction on k. For k = 1 the assertion is
trivial. Let k ≥ 2. Let xa y kd−a ∈ (x, y)kd, and let us first assume that a ≥ d.
We have xa y kd−a = xd (xa−d y kd−a ). By induction hypothesis I1k−1 + . . . + Irk−1 =
(x, y)(k−1)d . Therefore xa−d y kd−a ∈ Ijk−1 for some j = 1, . . . , r. Moreover, xd ∈ Ij .
This implies that xa y kd−a ∈ Ijk . On the other hand, if a < d, then kd − a ≥ d.
Therefore, xa y kd−a = y d (xa y (k−1)d−a ). By similar argument as before we see that
xa y kd−a ∈ Ijk , for some j.

Examples 3.7. (a) Proposition 3.6 is no longer valid if height Ij 6= 2 for some j. For
example, let I1 = (x2 , y 2) and I2 = (xy). Then I1 +I2 = (x, y)2 , but I12 +I22 6= (x, y)4.
(b) Proposition 3.6 is no longer valid in a polynomial ring with more than two
variables, as the following example shows. Let
I = (x5 , y 5, z 5 , xyz 3 , xy 2 z 2 , x2 y 3 , x2 z 3 , x3 y 2, x3 yz, x3 z 2 )
12

and
J = (x5 , y 5, z 5 , x2 y 2z, x2 yz 2 , xz 4 , xy 3 z, yz 4 , y 2z 3 , y 3 z 2 , y 4z, xy 4 , x4 z, x4 y).
Then I + J = (x, y, z)5 , but x3 y 3 z 4 ∈
/ I 2 + J 2.
4. Monomial ideals in K[x, y] which are not necessarily
equigenerated
In the previous sections we assumed that I is equigenerated. For such ideals we
had that µ(I 2 ) ≥ 2µ(I) − 1. But we have seen in Example 2.3 that this inequality
is in general no longer true if I is not equigenerated. We now give conditions on the
exponents on the generators of I which guarantee that µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1.
For the rest of this section we assume I ⊂ S = K[x, y] is a monomial ideal with
G(I) = {u1 , . . . , um}, where ui = xai y bi for i = 1, . . . , m with a1 > a2 > . . . > am = 0
and 0 = b1 < b2 < . . . < bm .
The generators of I 2 can be displayed in the following triangle T (I). Of course this
set of monomials displayed in this triangle is usually not minimal set of generators.
u21 u1 u2 u1 u3 . . . u1 um−1 u1 um
u22 u2 u3 . . . u2 um−1 u2 um
u23 . . . u3 um−1 u3 um
..
..
..
.
.
.
u2m−1 um−1 um
u2m
The multi-degrees of the generators in this diagram are displayed in the next diagram.
(2a1 , 0) (a1 + a2 , b2 ) . . .
(a1 + am−1 , bm−1 )
(a1 , bm )
(2a2 , 2b2 ) . . . (a2 + am−1 , b2 + bm−1 )
(a2 , b2 + bm )
..
..
..
.
.
.
(2am−1 , 2bm−1 )
(am−1 , bm−1 + bm )
(0, 2bm )
For k = 2, . . . , 2m we call the set of monomials
Dk = {ui uj : 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ m and i + j = k}
the kth diagonal of T (I). It is hard to predict where the minimal generators of I 2
are distributed in T (I). We will mark the elements of G(I 2 ) in T (I) by bold letters.
Example 4.1. (1) Let G(I) = {x7 , x6 y 2 , x5 y 3, x3 y 4, y 7 }. Then we have the following
triangle for the generators of I 2 :
(14, 0) (13, 2) (12, 3) (10, 4) (7, 7)
(12, 4) (11, 5) (9, 6) (6, 9)
(10, 6) (8, 7) (5, 10)
(6, 8) (3, 11)
(0, 14)
13

As one can see, the elements in the diagonal D7 whose multi-degrees are (8, 7)
and (6, 9) do not belong to G(I 2 ).
(2) Let G(I) = {x7 , x6 y 4, x4 y 5 , x3 y 6 , y 8}. Then T (I) is
(14, 0) (13, 4) (11, 5) (10, 6) (7, 8)
(12, 8) (10, 9) (9, 10) (6, 12)
(8, 10) (7, 11) (4, 13)
(6, 12) (3, 14)
(0, 16)
This example shows that in general it is not the case that in each row of T (I)
there is an element of G(I 2 ). The elements of the second row, whose elements have
multi-degree (12, 8), (10, 9), (9, 10) and (6, 12) do not belong to G(I 2 ).
For each 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ m, we can consider an area Sij for the element ui uj in T (I)
which we call the safe area for ui uj . It has the property that for all uk ul ∈ Sij one
has: uk ul does not divide ui uj , and ui uj does not divide uk ul . It is easy to see that
Sij = {uk ul : k < i and l ≤ j, or k = i and l < j, or k > i and j ≤ l}.
In Figure 1, the shadowed area shows the safe area of ui uj .
j

i

Figure 1. Safe Area
We say that a sequence of integers c1 , c2 , . . . , cm is concave resp. convex, if 2ci ≤
ci−1 + ci+1 resp. 2ci ≥ ci−1 + ci+1 for i = 2, . . . , m − 1. The first inequalities imply
that
(6)

ci+k + cj−k ≤ ci + cj

for all k with 0 ≤ k ≤ (j − i)/2.

We obtain similar inequalities in the convex case.
In contrast to Example 4.1(1), we have Dk ∩ G(I 2 ) 6= ∅ for k = 2, . . . , 2m for
monomial ideals I as described in the next result.
Proposition 4.2. Let a : a1 > a2 > · · · > am = 0 and b : 0 = b1 < b2 < · · · < bm
be integer sequences, and let G(I) = {xai y bi }i=1,...,m . Suppose that the sequences a
and b either are both convex or both concave. Then each diagonal of T (I) contains
exactly one generator of I 2 . In particular, µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1. More precisely, we
have
G(I 2 ) = {u21 , . . . , u2m , u1 u2 , u2u3 , . . . , um−1 um },
14

if a and b are concave, and
G(I 2 ) = {u21 , u1u2 , . . . , u1 um , u2um , . . . , u2m },
if a and b are convex.
Proof. Let us assume that a and b are concave sequences. The case that a and b
are convex sequences is treated similarly.
Let 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ m. In the first step we show that ui uj is divisible by u2(i+j)/2 if
i + j is even, and ui uj is divisible by u(i+j−1)/2 u(i+j+1)/2 if i + j is odd.
Indeed, if i + j is even, then u2(i+j)/2 = x2a(i+j)/2 y 2b(i+j)/2 . Since the sequences
a and b are concave, (6) implies that 2a(i+j)/2 ≤ ai + aj and 2b(i+j)/2 ≤ bi + bj .
This implies that it follows that u2(i+j)/2 divides ui uj . If i + j is odd, then by using
again the concavity condition, (6) implies that a(i+j−1)/2 + a(i+j+1)/2 ≤ ai + aj and
b(i+j−1)/2 + b(i+j+1)/2 ≤ bi + bj . It follows that u(i+j−1)/2 u(i+j+1)/2 divides ui uj . Thus
we have shown that
G(I 2 ) ⊆ {u21, . . . , u2m , u1 u2 , u2u3 , . . . , um−1 um }.
Each monomial v of the set S on the righthand side has a property that all the other
monomials of S are in the safe area of v. This shows that G(I 2 ) = S.

Another class of ideals I for which the equation µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1 holds, is
the class of lexsegment ideals. Recall that an ideal I ⊂ K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is called a
lexsegment ideal, if for all monomial u ∈ I and all monomials v with deg v = deg u
and v > u in the lexicographical order, it follows that v ∈ I.
The lexsegment ideals in K[x, y] can be described as follows. Let d ≥ a ≥ 1 be
integers, and let Id,a be the lexsegment ideal with
G(Id,a ) = (xd−i y i )i=0,...,a .
Lemma 4.3. Let I ⊂ K[x, y] be a monomial ideal. The following conditions are
equivalent:
(i) I is a lexsegment ideal;
(ii) There exist integers 0 ≤ a1 < a2 < . . . < ar such that
I = Id,a1 + Id+1,a2 + . . . + Id+r−1,ar ;
(iii) There exist integers 0 < b1 < . . . < bs such that
I = (xd , xd−1 y b1 , . . . , xd−s y bs ).
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) follows from the fact that each Id+i−1,ai is a lexsegment ideal, that
(x, y)Id+i−1,ai ⊂ Id+i,ai+1 and that
(7)

(x, y)k Id,a = Id+k,a+k

for all k.

(ii) ⇒ (iii): It follows from (7) that I = (xa , xa−1 y b1 , . . . , xa−s y bs ) where the
b-sequence is the set of integers
[0, a1 ] ∪ [a1 + 2, a2 ] ∪ [a2 + 2, a3 ] ∪ . . . ∪ [ar−1 + 2, ar ],
in the natural order with suitable ai . Here [a, b] = ∅ if b < a and [a, b] = {i ∈
N : a ≤ i ≤ b}.
15

(iii) ⇒ (i): It is enough to show that for all u ∈ G(I) and all monomials v with
deg(v) = deg(u) and v > u, we have v ∈ I. So let u = xd−i y bi and for some
v = xd−(i−j) y bi −j for some integer j > 0. Since bi − j ≥ bi−j , we have
v = xd−(i−j) y bi −j = y (bi −j)−bi−j (xd−(i−j) y bi−j ) ∈ I,
as desired.



In the following we consider a class of ideals which is more general than lexsegment
ideals.
Theorem 4.4. Let a be a positive integer and I1 , . . . , Ir ⊂ S = k[x, y] be monomial
ideals with G(Ij ) = {xia y bi,j }j=sj ,...,tj , where 0 ≤ sj ≤ tj . Then there exists integers
ci such that
G(I1 · · · Ir ) = {xia y ci }i=s,...,t ,
where s = s1 + . . . + sr and t = t1 + . . . + tr .
Proof. First note that bi,j > bi+1,j for all i and j. It is clear that
ci = min{bi1 ,1 + . . . + bir ,r : i1 + . . . + ir = i}.
This set is a minimal set of generators of I1 · · · Ir if and only if ci > ci+1 , for
i = s, . . . , t − 1. The case s = t1 + · · · + tr is clear. Now suppose that 0 < s <
t1 + · · · + tr . By the definition of cs there exist i1 , · · · , ir such that s = i1 + · · · + ir
and cs = bi1 + · · · + bir , where 0 < ij < tj for some j = 1, · · · , r. So s + 1 =
i1 + · · · + (ij + 1) + · · · + ir . Therefore
cs = bi1 + · · · + bij + · · · + bir > bi1 + · · · + bij +1 + · · · + bir = cs+1 .
Hence cs > cs+1 , as desired.



Corollary 4.5. With the notation and the assumptions of the Theorem 4.4, we have
r
X
µ(I1 . . . Ir ) =
µ(Ij ) − (r − 1).
j=1

In particular, if I is a monomial ideal with G(I) = {xia y bi }i=s,...,t , then µ(I k ) =
k(t − s) + 1.
As a consequence of Lemma 4.3 and Corollary 4.5, we obtain
Corollary 4.6. If I is a lexsegment ideal, then µ(I 2 ) = 2µ(I) − 1.
We would like to remark that this result also follows from Proposition 1.7, since
lexsegment ideals are contracted, see [3, Proposition 3.3].
Corollary 4.6 cannot be extended to lexsegment ideals in more than two variables.
Indeed, the lexsegment ideal given in the example after Corollary 3.4 shows this.
Remark 4.7. Let I ⊂ K[x, y] be a non-principal monomial ideal, and let G(I) =
{ui : i = 1, . . . , m} be as before. The safe area argument shows that if m ≥ 3,
then no ui uj different from the monomials u21 , u1 u2 , um−1 um and u2m divides any one
of them, and they do not divide each other. Therefore, {u21 , u1 u2 , um−1 um , u2m } ⊆
G(I 2 ). In particular, µ(I 2 ) ≥ 4 for m ≥ 3.
16

Let S be a nonempty subset of T (I). We set S̄ =

T

ui uj ∈S

Sij .

Lemma 4.8. Let ∅ =
6 S ⊆ T (I). If S̄ 6= ∅, then S is not a set of generators of I 2 .
Proof. Since S̄ 6= ∅, there exist k ≤ ℓ such that uk uℓ ∈ S̄. By the definition of the
safe area it follows that no monomial in S can divide uk uℓ . Therefore S can not be
a set of generator of I 2 .

Even though we don’t have µ(I 2 ) > µ(I) for non-principal ideals, we can show
Proposition 4.9. Let I ⊂ K[x, y] be a non-principal monomial ideal with µ(I) ≤ 7.
Then µ(I 2 ) > µ(I).
Proof. As before we may assume that G(I) = {ui : i = 1, . . . , m} where ui = xai y bi ,
a1 > a2 > . . . > am−1 > am = 0 and 0 = b1 < b2 < . . . < bm . If µ(I) = 2,
then µ(I 2 ) = 3, and if µ(I) = 3 the assertion holds by the Remark 4.7. Now let
4 ≤ µ(I) ≤ 6, and choose S ⊂ T (I) with |S| = µ(I). The reader can check that
S̄ 6= ∅. Therefore, Lemma 4.8 implies that S is not a system of generators of I 2 .
Hence µ(I 2 ) > µ(I) for µ(I) = 4, 5 or 6.
Finally, let µ(I) = 7. Then the only set S with |S| = 7 and S̄ = ∅ is the set
S = {u21 , u1u2 , u22 , u26 , u1u7 , u6 u7 , u27 }.
But again this can not be a set of generators of I 2 because otherwise, we have the
following relations,
2a2 ≤ a1 + a6 ,

2a6 ≤ a5

and a1 ≤ a5 + a6 ,

which implies that a2 ≤ a5 , a contradiction.



5. On the Cohen-Macaulay type of a product of monomial ideals
A result of Huneke [9] says that if I is a graded Gorenstein ideal in the polynomial
ring S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] with height(I) ≥ 2, then I is not a product of two proper
ideals. This theorem implies that if n ≥ 2 and height I ≥ 2, then the CohenMacaulay type of S/I 2 is greater than or equal to 2. Recall that the Cohen-Macaulay
type type(M) of a graded Cohen-Macaulay S-module M, is by definition the Kvector space dimension of ExtdS (K, M). It is known that if
0 → Fp → · · · → F0 → M → 0
is the minimal graded free S-resolution of M, then type(M) = rank(Fp ).
In the case that M = S/I with height(I) = n, type(S/I) is the smallest number
r such that I = Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ . . . ∩ Qr , where each Qi is an irreducible ideal. In the
case that I is a monomial ideal, irreducible ideals in this intersection are all of the
form (xa11 , xa22 , . . . , xann ).
In the following very special case we can improve Huneke’s lower bound for the
Cohen–Macaulay type as follows.
Theorem 5.1. Let K be a field, S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ] the polynomial ring with n ≥ 2
variables and let I, J be monomials ideal of height n. Then type(S/IJ) ≥ 3 if either
n ≥ 3, or else n = 2 and max{µ(I), µ(J)} ≥ 3.
17

Before proving this theorem, we give a rough lower bound of the number of generators of IJ. We first show
Lemma 5.2. Let I, J ⊂ S = K[x, y] be monomial ideals of height 2. Then µ(IJ) ≥
3. Moreover, if max{µ(I), µ(J)} ≥ 3, then µ(IJ) ≥ 4.
Proof. Let G(I) = {xa1 , y a2 , . . .} and G(J) = {xb1 , y b2 , . . .}. Then,
IJ = (xa1 +b1 , y a2 +b2 , xa1 y b2 , xb1 y a2 , . . . ).
Now suppose that µ(IJ) = 2. So G(IJ) = {xa1 +b1 , y a2 +b2 }, which is impossible
because xa1 y b2 ∈
/ (xa1 +b1 , y a2 +b2 ).
Next suppose that max{µ(I), µ(J)} ≥ 3. We may assume that µ(I) ≥ 3. Further
we may assume that G(I) = {u1 , . . . , um }, m ≥ 3, with u1 = xa1 , um = y a2 and
G(J) = {v1 , . . . , vn }, n ≥ 2, with v1 = xb1 , vn = y b2 .
Now assume that |G(IJ)| < 4. So |G(IJ)| = 3 by the first part of the proof.
Then, G(IJ) = {u1v1 , um vn , ui vj }, where ui vj 6= u1 v1 , um vn . Since m ≥ 3, there
exists k 6= j such that ui vk 6= u1 v1 , umvn . This is clear that ui vj ∤ ui vk . Also
u1 v1 , umvn do not divide ui vk , because ui vk is not a pure power. This shows that
G(IJ) 6= {u1 v1 , umvn , ui vj }, contradiction.


Proposition 5.3. Let I, J ⊂ S be as in Theorem 5.1. Then, µ(IJ) ≥ n + n2 .

Proof. Let i and j be integers with the property 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n, and let φij :
S → K[xi , xj ] be the K-algebra homomorphism with φij (xk ) = 0 if k 6= i, j and
φij (xi ) = xi and φij (xj ) = xj . Let G(I) = {xa11 , xa22 . . . , xann , . . .} and G(J) =
a
b
{xb11 , xb22 . . . , xbnn , . . .}. Then φij (I) = (xai i , xj j , . . .) and φij (J) = (xbi i , xjj , . . .). Now
we apply Lemma 5.2 and obtain
a +bj

φij (IJ) = φij (I)φij (J) = (xiai +bi , xj j

, uij , . . .),

where uij ∈ K[xi , xj ].
Since G(φij (IJ)) ⊂ G(IJ), it follows that
G(IJ) = {x1a1 +b1 , . . . , xann +bn , {uij }1≤i<j≤n , . . .}.
This yields the desired inequality.



Proof of Theorem 5.1. Suppose type(S/IJ) < 3. If type(S/IJ) = 1, then I is an
irreducible ideal and hence is generated by n elements. This contradicts Proposition 5.3. Let us assume that type(S/IJ) = 2. Then IJ = Q1 ∩ Q2 with
Q1 = (xc11 , . . . , xcnn ) and Q2 = (xd11 , . . . , xdnn ). We may assume that ci > di for
1 ≤ i ≤ r, ci < di for r + 1 ≤ i ≤ s and ci = di for s + 1 ≤ i ≤ n. It follows that
c

d

r+1
G(IJ) = {xc11 , . . . , xcrr , xr+1
, . . . , xdnn } ∪ {xdi i yj j : i = 1, . . . , r and j = r + 1, . . . , s}.

Therefore,
µ(IJ) = n + r(s − r). On the

 other hand, by Proposition 5.3, µ(IJ) ≥
n + n2 . This implies that r(s − r) ≥ n2 . For given value of s the maximal value

of r(s − r) is s2 /4, and since s ≤ n, we have r(s − r) ≤ n2 /4. Since n2 /4 < n2 if
n ≥ 3, we get a contradiction.
18

In the case that n = 2 we assume that max{µ(I), µ(J)} ≥ 3. Then Lemma 5.2
implies that µ(IJ) ≥ 4. Let m = µ(IJ). Since n = 2, the minimal free resolution
of S/IJ is given by
0 → S m−1 → S m → S → S/IJ → 0.
This implies that type(S/IJ) = m − 1 ≥ 3.

19



References
[1] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Studies in advanced mathematics
textbf39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998.
[2] A. Conca, E. De Negri and M.E. Rossi, Contracted ideals and the Gröbner fan of the rational
normal curve, Algebra & Number theory, 1, (2007) 239–268.
[3] A. Conca, E. De Negri, A.V. Jayanthan and M.E. Rossi, Graded rings associated with contracted ideals, J. Algebra, 284, (2005) 593–626.
[4] G.A. Freiman, Foundations of a structural theory of set addition, Translations of mathematical
monographs 37, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1973
[5] J. Herzog and T. Hibi, Monomial ideals. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, 2011.
[6] J. Herzog and E. Kunz, eds. Der kanonische Modul eines Cohen-Macaulay-rings. Lecture Notes
in Mathematics 238. Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[7] S. Huckaba, T. Marley, Depth properties of Rees algebras and associated graded ring, J.
Algebra 156, (1993) 259–271.
[8] C. Huneke, Complete ideals in two-dimensional regular local rings, in: Commutative Algebra,
Berkeley, CA, 1987, in: Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 15, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989,
pp. 325–338.
[9] C. Huneke, Ideals defining Gorenstein rings are (almost) never products. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 135, (2007) 2003–2005.
[10] C. Huneke and J. Sally, Birational extension in dimension two and integrally closed ideals, J.
Algebra 115 (1988) 481–500.
[11] K. Shah, On the Cohen-Macaulayness of the Fiber Cone of an Ideal, J. Algebra 143, (1991)
156–172.
[12] V. Kodiyalam, Homological invariants of powers of an ideal. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 118,
(1993) 757–764.
[13] J. Lipman and B. Teissier, Pseudo-rational local rings and a theorem of Briançon-Skoda about
integral closures of ideals, Michigan Math. J. 28, (1981) 977–116.
[14] I. Swanson and C. Huneke, Integral closure of ideals, rings, and modules, London Mathematical
Society Lecture Note Series 336. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[15] O. Zariski, P. Samuel, Commutative Algebra, vol. 2, Univ. Ser. Higher Math., Van Nostrand,
Princeton, NJ, 1960.
Jürgen Herzog, Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Campus
Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany
E-mail address: juergen.herzog@uni-essen.de
Maryam Mohammadi Saem, Faculty of Science, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, P.O. Box 179, Ardabil, Iran
E-mail address: m.mohammadisaem@yahoo.com
Naser Zamani, Faculty of Science, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, P.O. Box
179, Ardabil, Iran
E-mail address: naserzaka@yahoo.com

20

