Stabilization of Betti Tables

Abstract: Let $I\subseteq R=\kk[x_1,...,x_n]$ be a homogeneous equigenerated ideal of degree $r$. We show here that the shapes of the Betti tables of the ideals $I^d$ stabilize, in the sense that there exists some $D$ such that for all $d\geq D$, $\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\neq 0\Leftrightarrow \betti{i}{j+rD}(I^D)\neq 0$. We also produce upper bounds for the stabilization index $\Stab(I)$. This strengthens the result of Cutkosky, Herzog, and Trung that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity $\reg(I^d)$ is eventually a linear function in $d$.

\section{Background and Results}
\subsection{Asymptotics of Regularity of $I^d$}
For an ideal $I\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_n]$, much work has been done on showing that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $I^d$ is a linear function in terms of $d$ for high powers.  The following theorem is a result of Cutkosky, Herzog and Trung:

\begin{theorem}[\bf Theorem 1.1 in \cite{MR1711319}]  Let $I$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal.  Let $r(I)$ denote the maximum degree of the homogeneous generators of $I$.  The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item There is a number $e$ such that $\text{reg}(I^d)\leq d\cdot r(I)+e$ for all $d\geq 1.$
\item $\text{reg}(I^d)$ is a linear function for all $d$ large enough.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

They provide criterion for estimating this $e$ in the case of an equigenerated ideal $I$, i.e. an ideal generated by homogeneous generators of the same degree.  This result generalizes an earlier bound by Swanson giving the existence of $k$ such that
$$\text{reg}(I^d)\leq kd$$
 for ideals generated by monomials in ~\cite{MR1428875}.

 Let $I\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_n]$ be an ideal.  The \emph{graded Betti numbers} of a homogeneous ideal $I$ are given by $\beta_{i,j}(I) = \dim_{\Bbbk} \text{Tor}_i(\Bbbk,I)_j$.  The graded Betti numbers also correspond to the ranks of the free modules in a minimal free resolution of $I$.  We organize this data into the \emph{Betti table of $I$} (in the style of Macaulay 2) displaying $\betti{i}{i+j}(R/I)$ in the $i^{\text{th}}$ column and $j^{\text{th}}$ row, as seen in Example~\ref{ex:stabs}.

We recall the definition of a singly graded equigenerated ideal.
\begin{definition}  We say that an ideal $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subset R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$ is \emph{equigenerated in degree $r$} if $\deg(f_i)=r$ for all $f_i$.
\end{definition}
Using techniques similar to those in \cite{MR1711319}, \cite{MR1895463}, and \cite{MR2604920}, we produce here a sharper result on the asymptotics of Betti tables of powers $I^d$.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization}]  Let $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_n]=R$ be an equigenerated ideal of degree $r$.  Then there exists a $D$ such that for all $d>D$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\neq 0\Longleftrightarrow \betti{i}{j+rD}(I^D)\neq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
This gives us that the shape of the Betti tables of powers of an ideal $I$ is eventually fixed, translated down by the degree $r$ of the ideal.
\begin{example}\label{ex:stabs}  Let $I={({x}_{3} {x}_{4} {x}_{5},{x}_{1} {x}_{6} {x}_{7},{x}_{3} {x}_{6} {x}_{8},{x}_{1} {x}_{5} {x}_{9},{x}_{2} {x}_{8} {x}_{9})}\subseteq \Bbbk[x_1,...,x_9].$  We consider the Betti diagrams of the resolutions of the first few powers $I^d$ of $I$.  The diagrams have been shifted to only show nonzero Betti numbers in the resolution of $I^d$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&5\&10\&9\&3\&\\
2: \&5\&\&\&\&\\
3:\&\&6\&\&\&\\
4:\&\&4\&9\&3\&\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^2$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&15\&41\&39\&12\&\\
5: \&15\&\&\&\&\\
6:\&\&33\&12\&\&\\
7:\&\&8\&27\&12\&\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\vspace{10pt}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^3$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&35\&117\&121\&39\&1\\
8: \&35\&\&\&\&\\
9:\&\&105\&67\&9\&\\
10:\&\&12\&54\&30\&1\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^4$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&70\&271\&302\&105\&5\\
11: \&70\&\&\&\&\\
12:\&\&255\&212\&45\&\\
13:\&\&16\&90\&60\&5\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\vspace{10pt}

\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^5$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&126\&545\&645\&240\&15\\
14: \&126\&\&\&\&\\
15:\&\&525\&510\&135\&\\
16:\&\&20\&135\&105\&15\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}\;\;\;\;\;\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^6$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&210\&990\&1229\&483\&35\\
17: \&210\&\&\&\&\\
18:\&\&996\&1040\&315\&\\
19:\&\&24\&189\&168\&35\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We can see the stabilized shape of the powers of $I^d$ will be:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-12,8) {$I^d$};
\draw[-,black] (-2.5,1.4)--(-0.2,1.4)--(-.2,-1.2)--(6,-1.2)--(6,-3.6)--(8,-3.6)--(8,-6.1)--(-0.2,-6.1)--(-0.2,-1.2)--(-2.5,-1.2)--cycle;
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\\
total: \&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\\
3d-1: \&$\ast$\&\&\&\&\\
3d:\&\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&\\
3d+1:\&\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\&$\ast$\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{example}
Unfortunately, Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization} does not guarantee that powers of our ideals $I^d$ will  have linear resolutions if the resolution of $I^l$ is linear for some $l$ with $d>l$.  As a counterexample, we have the following example (due to Sturmfels):
\begin{example}[\cite{Sturmfels:2000fk}]\label{ex:lineartonot}  Set $I=(def,cef,cdf,cde,bef,bcd,acf,ade)\subseteq \Bbbk[a,b,c,d,e,f]$.  The ideal $I$ has linear resolution and linear quotients with respect to the ordering given above, but $I^2$ fails to be linear.  We include the Betti tables of $I$ and $I^2$ here.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-10,6) {$I$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&0\&1\&2\&3\\
total: \&1\&8\&11\&4\\\
0: \&1\&\&\&\\
1:\&\&\&\&\\
2:\&\& 8 \& 11 \& 4 \\
};
\node at (0,-15){};
\end{tikzpicture}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2, betti/.style={
execute at begin cell=\node\bgroup,
execute at end cell=\egroup;,
execute at empty cell=\node{$\cdot$};
}]
\node at (-14,11) {$I^2$};
\matrix [betti, ampersand replacement=\&] {
-\&0\&1\&2\&3\&4\&5\&6\\
total: \&1\&36\&85\&79\&38\&10\&1\\\
0: \&1\&\&\&\&\&\&\\
1:\&\&\&\&\&\&\&\\
2:\&\&\&\&\&\&\&\\
3:\&\&\&\&\&\&\&\\
4:\&\&\&\&\&\&\&\\
5:\&\& 36 \& 84 \& 75 \&32\&6\& \\
6:\&\&\&1\&4\&6\&4\&1\\
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{example}
More generally, Conca provided a class of ideals $I_k$ which have linear quotients (and hence, linear resolutions) until the $k^{\text{th}}$ power, then have nonlinear resolutions for all powers higher than $k$ \cite{MR2184787}.  This implies that for an ideal $I$, the shapes of Betti tables of $I, I^2, \ldots, I^d$ and $I^{d+1}$ need not satisfy any chain of inclusions, though they eventually stabilize for some $I^D$.

We also provide an upper bound for the Betti numbers of powers of an equigenerated ideal $I$ in terms of the Betti numbers of the Rees ideal of $I$ as follows.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{thm:betticalculation}]  Let $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$ with $f_i$ homogeneous of degree r.  Let $\mathcal R(I)$ be the Rees algebra of $I$ in ring $S=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_0,...,w_k]$ with bigrading $\deg(x_i)=(1,0)$ and $\deg(w_i)=(0,1)$.  Then
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\leq\sum_{m=0}^d\binom{d+k-m}{d-m}\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I))$$
holds for all $i,j,d$.
\end{theorem}
The proof follows from a careful examination of the restriction of a minimal resolution of $\mathcal R(I)$ to bidegrees $(\ast, d)$.  We give the smallest $D$ for which this stabilization occurs a name:
\begin{definition}[Definition~\ref{defn:stab}]  Let $I$ be a homogeneous equigenerated ideal in polynomial ring $R$.  Let the \emph{stabilization index $\text{Stab}(I)$ of $I$} be the smallest such $D$ such that for all $d\geq D$,
\begin{equation*}
\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\neq 0\Longleftrightarrow \betti{i}{j+rD}(I^D)\neq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

Finding $\text{Stab}(I)$ in directly in terms algebraic properties of $I$ remains open, although a conjecture for edge ideals will be given in Section~\ref{sec:stabi}.  Areas of future research include producing explicit $\text{Stab}(I)$ for other classes of ideals or providing sharper bounds for $\text{Stab}(I)$ than those included here.

\section{Rees Algebras of Equigenerated Ideals}\label{sec:equigen}

\subsection{Rees Algebras and Degree Restrictions}\label{subsec:reesalgebras}
One common technique used in investigating powers $I^n$of an ideal $I$ involves passing to the Rees algebra of $I$.  The Rees algebra $\mathcal R(I)$ of an ideal $I$ is an object which captures the ideal $I$ and all of its powers.
\begin{definition}
Let $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$.  The \emph{Rees algebra $\mathcal R(I)$ of $I$} is
$$\mathcal R(I)=R\oplus It\oplus I^2t^2\oplus I^3t^3\oplus\cdots\oplus I^nt^n\oplus\cdots$$
This is occasionally denoted $R[It]$.
\end{definition}
In general, we will use a presentation of $\mathcal R(I)$ as a quotient module of the ring $S=R[w_0,w_1,...,w_k]=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_0,w_1,...,w_k]$.
\begin{proposition}[~\cite{MR1275840}]\label{prop:reespresentationgeneral}  Let $I=(f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$ and let $\mathcal R(I)$ be its Rees algebra.  Then $\mathcal R(I)=R[w_1,...,w_k]/L=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_0,w_1,...,w_k]/L$, with presentation ideal
\begin{equation*}
L=(f_i-w_i t : 1\leq i\leq k)S[t]\cap S.
\end{equation*}
If $S=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_1,...,w_k]$, and $\mathcal R(I)=S/L$, then $L$ is the \emph{Rees ideal of $I$}.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Resolutions and Bigradings of Rees Algebras}
Taking a resolution (with an appropriately chosen bigrading) of $L$ gives resolutions of all powers of $L$, and can be used to bound or explicitly compute Betti numbers $\betti{i}{j}(I^n)$ for all $n$.

We will assume throughout this paper that $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)$ is an equigenerated ideal of degree $r$ in $R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$.  Notationally, we set $\mathcal R(I)=S/L$ with $L$ the Rees ideal of $I$ and $S=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_0,w_1,...,w_k]$.\\
\\
We bigrade $\mathcal R(I)$ by $\deg(x_i)=(1,0)$ and $\deg(w_i)=(0,1)$ and take the minimal graded free resolution of $\mathcal R(I)$ with respect to this grading.
$${\mathcal F}:\;\;\;\mathcal R(I)\leftarrow S\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,-m)^{\betti{1}{(j,m)}}\leftarrow\cdots\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,-m)^{\betti{p}{(j,m)}}\leftarrow 0.$$
Restricting to the strand $(\ast,d)$, we obtain a (possibly nonminimal) resolution of $I^d$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reesstrand}{\mathcal F_d}:\;\;\;I^d\leftarrow S_{(\ast,d)}\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,-m)^{\betti{1}{(j,m)}}_{(\ast,d)}\leftarrow\cdots\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,m)_{(\ast,d)}^{\betti{p}{(j,m)}}\leftarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Tensoring this resolution with $\Bbbk$ and taking the homology of the maps computes us $\dim \text{Tor}^R_{i}(\Bbbk,I^d)_{j+rd}=\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)$.  This shift in the indices of $\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)$ accounts for the shift in grading to agree with that of $R$ while viewing $I^d$ as an $R$ module.\\
\\
Alternately, we could have first tensored with $S/M$ for $M=(x_1,...,x_N)$, taken homology of our maps, then restricted in degrees.  This will give us modules $\text{Tor}^S_i(S/M,\mathcal R(I))_j$, and as these two actions commute, we have that
\begin{align*}
\text{Tor}^S_i(S/M,\mathcal R(I))_{(j,d)}&=\text{Tor}^S_{i}(S/M,I^d)_j\\
&=\text{Tor}^R_{i}(\Bbbk,I^d)_{j+rd}.\\
\end{align*}
Hence we have that all Betti numbers of higher powers can be written in terms of the dimensions of the bigraded modules $\text{Tor}_i^S(S/M,\mathcal R(I))$, given by
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)=\dim\text{Tor}_i^S(S/M,\mathcal R(I))_{(j,d)}.$$

\section{Bounds on Betti Numbers of Powers of Ideals}\label{sec:bettibounds}
We resolve the Rees algebra $\mathcal R(I)$ and restrict to fixed $w$-degree strands to produce explicit bounds on the Betti numbers of $I^d$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:betticalculation}  Let $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq R=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$ with all $f_i$ homogeneous of degree r.  Let $\mathcal R(I)$ be the Rees algebra of $I$ in ring $S=\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N,w_0,...,w_k]$ with bigrading $\deg(x_i)=(1,0)$ and $\deg(w_i)=(0,1)$.  Then
$$\betti{i}{j+dr}(I^d)\leq\sum_{m=0}^d\binom{d+k-m}{d-m}\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I))$$
holds for all $i,j,d$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}  We take a minimal free resolution of $\mathcal R(I)$ and consider the degree restricted strand used in Section~\ref{sec:equigen}:
\begin{equation*}{\mathcal F_d}:\;\;\;I^d\leftarrow S_{(\ast,d)}\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,-m)_{(\ast,d)}^{\betti{1}{(j,m)}}\leftarrow\cdots\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}S(-j,-m)_{(\ast,d)}^{\betti{p}{(j,m)}}\leftarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
Let $T=\Bbbk[w_0,w_1,...,w_k]$ be the polynomial ring in the $w_i$-variables.  Then we can rewrite our bigraded pieces $S(-j,-m)=R(-j)\otimes T(-m)$.  Then in a fixed strand $(\ast,d)$, we have:
\begin{equation*}{\mathcal F_d}:\;\;\;I^d\leftarrow R\otimes T_d\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}R(-j)\otimes T(-m)_{d}^{\betti{1}{(j,d)}}\leftarrow\cdots\leftarrow \bigoplus_{(j,m)}R(-j)\otimes T(-m)_d^{\betti{p}{(j,d)}}\leftarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
It remains to count the dimension over $R$ of the $i^{\text{th}}$ module
$$F_i=\bigoplus_{(j,m)}R(-j)\otimes T(m)_d^{\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I))}$$
in a fixed degree $j+rd$ of the resolution.  Finally, the dimension of $T(-m)_d$ is the number of degree $d-m$ monomials in a polynomial ring in $k+1$ variables, or
$$\binom{d+k-m}{k}.$$
So we have that
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\leq\sum_{m=0}^{d}\binom{d+k-m}{k}\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I)),$$
proving the theorem.
\end{proof}
This immediately shows that the Betti diagram of $I^d$ sits inside an (appropriately degree shifted) table coming from the Betti diagram of the resolution of $\mathcal R(I)$.  This implies that the number of nonzero graded Betti numbers of $I^d$ is bounded independent of the power $d$.  We refine this rough bound in the following section.

\section{Betti Diagrams of Powers of Stanley-Reisner Ideals $I_\Delta$}\label{sec:bettidiagramsofpowers}
We are now ready to prove the main theorem:
\begin{theorem}[\bf Betti Tables of Powers of Equigenerated Ideals]\label{thm:bettistabilization}\textcolor{white}{aa}\\
Let $I=(f_0,f_1,...,f_k)\subseteq\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]=R$ be an equigenerated ideal of degree $r$.  Then there exists a $D$ such that for all $d>D$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\neq 0\Longleftrightarrow \betti{i}{j+rD}(I^D)\neq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization}]  From the calculation in Section~\ref{sec:equigen}, we have that
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)=\dim\text{Tor}_i^S(S/M,\mathcal R(I))_{(j,d)}.$$
The $\text{Tor}_i(S/M,\mathcal R(I))$ are finitely generated bigraded $S$-modules.  We decompose them into bigraded components in the following way.

Let $M_i:=\text{Tor}_i(S/M,\mathcal R(I))$ and $M_{ij}:=(M_i)_{(j,\ast)}$.  The $M_{ij}$ are finitely generated graded $T$-modules, where $T=\Bbbk[w_0,w_1,...,w_k]$ is the polynomial ring in the $w_i$-variables.  So each $M_{ij}$ has a Hilbert polynomial such that
$$P_{ij}(d):=P_{M_{ij}}(d)=\dim (M_i)_{(j,d)}$$
for all $d\geq d_{ij}$, with $d_{ij}$ the regularity of $M_{ij}$ as a $T$-module.  Hence, for all $d\geq d_{ij}$ and $P_{M_{ij}}$ not identically zero, we have $\betti{i}{j+dr}(I^d)=\dim (M_i)_{(j,d)}=P_{M_{i,j}}(d)>0$.

Note that $D=\max_{i,j}\{D_{ij}\}$ will be an upper bound for $\text{Stab}(I)$, providing such a maximum exists.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Mir}  There are only finitely many nonzero $M_{ij}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Mir}]  That only finitely many $M_j$ are nonzero follows from
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)=\dim\text{Tor}_i^S(S/M,{\mathcal R}(I))_{(j,d)}.$$
As the projective dimension of all powers $I^d$ is bounded by $N$ the number of variables in our original ring, $\text{Tor}_i^S(S/M,\mathcal R(I))=0$ for all $i>N$.\\
\\
We now consider a fixed $M_i$.  Theorem~\ref{thm:betticalculation} gave a bound on the Betti numbers of $I^d$ depending on the Betti numbers of $\mathcal R(I)$,
$$\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\leq\sum_{m=0}^{d}\binom{d+k-m}{d-m}\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I)).$$
As for a fixed $i$, the number of nonzero Betti numbers of $\mathcal R(I)$ must be finite, there can be only finitely many $j$ such that $\betti{i}{(j,m)}(\mathcal R(I))\neq 0$.  This implies that for $j$ outside of this set, $\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\leq \sum_{m=0}^d 0$ for all $d$, which implies $\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)=0$.  So $M_{ij}=0$ except for a finite number of cases.\\
\\
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}

By Lemma~\ref{lem:Mir}, we have that the maximum
$$D={\displaystyle \max_{i,j}\biggl\{D_{ij}\biggr\}}$$
exists.  Hence, we have that
$$\dim\text{Tor}_i(S/M,\mathcal R(I)))_{(\ast,d)}=P_{M_i}(d)$$
is a polynomial function for all $d>D$.  We note that for all $d>D$,
$$\betti{i}{j+dr}(I^d)=\dim (M_i)_{(j,d)}=P_{M_{i,j}}(d)>0$$
if and only if
$$\betti{i}{j+Dr}(I^D)=\dim (M_i)_{(j,D)}=P_{M_{i,j}}(D)>0,$$
completing the proof.
\end{proof}
The techniques used throughout the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization} were similar to those seen in \cite{MR2604920}, \cite{MR1711319}, and \cite{MR1428875}, but extend their results to a classification of all possible nonzero graded Betti numbers of powers of an equigenerated ideal $I$.

\section{Stabilization Index of $I$}\label{sec:stabi}
The bound $D$ produced in Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization} is not sharp, and finding the smallest such $D$, which we will call the \emph{stabilization index of $I$} $\text{Stab}(I)$, in terms of combinatorial data of $I$ is a subject of future research.
\begin{definition}\label{defn:stab}  Let $I$ be a homogeneous ideal equigenerated in degree $r$ in polynomial ring $R$.  Let $\text{Stab}(I)$ be the smallest such $D$ such that for all $d\geq D$,
\begin{equation*}
\betti{i}{j+rd}(I^d)\neq 0\Longleftrightarrow \betti{i}{j+rD}(I^D)\neq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
While this is unknown in general, we conjecture here a formula for $\text{Stab}(I_G)$ for edge ideal $I_G$.
\begin{conjecture}Let $I_G=(m_0,m_1,...,m_k)\subseteq\Bbbk[x_1,...,x_N]$ be a square-free monomial ideal with $\cup_i{\text{{\bf supp}}}(m_i)=\{x_1,...,x_N\}$.  Then
$$\text{Stab}(I_G)=\min\{n:\text{there exists an ${\bf m}\in I_G^n$ such that $x_i^2|{\bf m}$ for all i.}\}$$
\end{conjecture}
This seems to be related to the Stanley-Reisner complexes of polarization of the powers of the edge ideal, but a clear proof that the Betti diagrams stabilize from the existence of such a generator is still unknown.  Finding a formula for $\text{Stab}(I)$ of other monomial ideals $I$ remains open.
\subsection{Areas of Future Research}
We would like to answer the following questions in subsequent work on these stabilization indices:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Do formulas for $\text{Stab}(I)$ exist for squarefree monomial ideals?  Do they relate to the dimensions of the facet complex or the Stanley-Reisner complex?
\item Does $\text{Stab}(I_{\Delta})$ have a topological interpretation in terms of $\Delta_{\text{pol}(I^n)}$, the Stanley-Reisner complex of the polarization of $I^n$?
\item Does there exist a class of ideals for which the $D$ produced in Theorem~\ref{thm:bettistabilization} is the sharp bound, i.e. $D=\text{Stab}(I)$?
\end{enumerate}
Aside from the stabilization index, the shapes of chain of Betti tables leading up to the stabilized Betti table appear fairly interesting.  Generally, the shapes of Betti tables of powers of homogeneous equigenerated ideals seem to be unimodal, in the following sense:
\begin{conjecture}  Let $I\subseteq R$ be an equigenerated homogeneous ideal generated in degree $r$.  Then for each pair of indices $(i,j)$ there exist $1\leq D_1\leq D_2\leq \infty$ such that for all $d$ with $D_1\leq d\leq D_2$,
$$\betti{i}{j+dr}(I^d)\neq 0$$
and for all $d<D_1$ or $D_2<d$,
$$\betti{i}{j+dr}(I^d)=0.$$
\end{conjecture}
Proving this conjecture would require a better understanding of the modules $M_{ij}$ described above.  These $M_{ij}$ seem to carry interesting structure, and investigating the connections between $M_{ij}$ and the geometry of the ideal $I$ and its Rees algebra $\mathcal R(I)$ is another area of future interest.
\medskip

\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
The author would like to thank her advisor, Mike Stillman, for his many helpful conversations and comments throughout the course of this work.  This paper would not have been possible without his many suggestions.

\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}

Stabilization of Betti Tables


The error in an alternating series

Abstract: We give a new proof of Johnsonbaugh's refined error estimates of an alternating series based on an idea of R. M. Young. We also give a new proof of the error estimate and convergence of the Euler transform.

\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}{-3.5ex plus -1ex minus
			  -.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\large\bf}}
\def\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}{-3.25ex plus -1ex
			  minus -.2ex}{1.5ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\makeatother

\newcommand{\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}

\renewcommand{\geq}{\geqslant}
\renewcommand{\leq}{\leqslant}

\newcommand{\Dl}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\x}{\times}

\newcommand{{\mathchoice{\thalf}{\thalf}{\shalf}{\shalf}}}{{\mathchoice{\thalf}{\thalf}{\shalf}{\shalf}}}
\newcommand{\shalf}{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}
\newcommand{\thalf}{\tfrac{1}{2}}

\newcommand{\hideqed}{\renewcommand{\qed}{}}

\newcommand{\word}[1]{\quad\mbox{#1}\quad}

\renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

Mathematicians have studied the alternating series
\begin{equation}
\label{A}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n-1} a_n = a_1 - a_2 + a_3 - a_4 +\cdots
\end{equation}
since the dawn of analysis.  In January of 1714, the great
Gottfried Leibniz wrote a letter to
Johann Bernoulli
in which he explicitly stated his famous criterion for the convergence
of~\eqref{A} as well as the corresponding error estimate
\cite[p.~33]{Ferraro}.

\begin{thm}
If $a_n \geq 0$ for $n = 0,1,\dots$ and if the sequence $(a_n)$
decreases monotonically to zero, then the series~\eqref{A} converges.
Let $L$ be its sum.  Moreover, let
\begin{align}
\label{Sn}
S_n &:= a_1 - a_2 + a_3 - a_4 +\cdots+ (-1)^{n-1} a_n,
\\
R_n &:= L - S_n,
\nonumber
\end{align}
denote its $n^\mathit{th}$ partial sum and remainder, respectively.
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{E}
|R_n| \leq a_{n+1},
\end{equation}
and $R_n$ has the sign~$(-1)^n$.
\end{thm}

It is amazing that the  error estimate~\eqref{E} remained virtually
unimproved for almost 250~years! Then, in 1962,
Philip Calabrese, a sophomore (!) at the University of
Illinois, proved the following significant refinement~\cite{Cal}.

\begin{thm}
Let $\Dl a_n := a_n - a_{n+1}$. If, additionally, the sequence
$(\Dl a_n)$ converges monotonically to zero, then
\begin{equation}
\label{E2}
\frac{a_{n+1}}{2} < |R_n| < \frac{a_n}{2} \,.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

Calabrese's refined error estimate allowed him to prove the very pretty result that the \emph{first} partial sum of Leibniz's series
$$\ln 2=1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\cdots$$which approximates $\ln 2$ with four decimal places of accuracy is $S_{10000}$.

Seventeen years later, in~1979, Richard Johnsonbaugh
published the following refinement~\cite{John} of Calabrese's result.

\begin{thm}
Let
$\Dl^r a_n := \Dl^{r-1} a_n - \Dl^{r-1} a_{n+1}$ for
$r = 1,2,3,\dots,k$. If all the sequences $(\Dl^r a_n)$ for
$r=1,2,3,\dots,k$  decrease monotonically to zero, then
\begin{equation}
\label{E3}
\frac{a_{n+1}}{2} + \frac{\Dl a_{n+1}}{2^2}
+\cdots+ \frac{\Dl^{k} a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}}
< |R_n| < \frac{a_n}{2} - \biggl\{
\frac{\Dl a_n}{2^2} +\cdots+ \frac{\Dl^k a_n}{2^{k+1}} \biggr\}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

For example, Johnsonbaugh uses  the sharper upper bound estimate \eqref{E3} with $k=2$ to prove the remarkably precise result that the \emph{first} partial sum, $S_n$, of the series
$$\frac{\pi}{4}=1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\cdots$$that approximates $\frac{\pi}{4}$ with four decimal places of accuracy is $S_{5000}.$  Here the precision means that although $4999$ terms of the series do not give four decimal places of accuracy, subtracting just one more term, $\dfrac{1}{9999}$, \emph{does} give it.  This underlines the slowness of the convergence of Leibniz's formula for $\pi$.  However, we will show below how to spectacularly accelerate the convergence of this same series.

The \emph{lower} bound for $|R_n|$ in Johnsonbaugh's theorem (and, in
particular, in Calabrese's) had already been found by
L.\,D. Ames in 1901 \cite{Ames}, but the upper bound is~new.

Finally, in 1985, Robert M. Young \cite{Young} used
Cantor's theorem on nested intervals to give an elegant new
proof of Calabrese's refinement which makes the error estimates almost
intuitive.

It does not seem to have been noticed that Young's method can be
adapted to give a new and transparent proof of Johnsonbaugh's
refinement.

We elaborate such a proof in this note.

\section{Proof of Johnsonbaugh's Theorem}

Young points out that the crux of Leibniz's original proof of his
theorem is this: if the numbers $S_1,S_2,\dots$ satisfy the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{Young}
S_{n+1} - S_n = (-1)^n a_{n+1},
\end{equation}
then, since the sequence $a_{n+1}$ decreases to zero, the sequence of
closed intervals
$$
[S_2,S_1], \quad [S_4,S_3], \quad [S_6,S_5],\ \cdots
$$
is~\emph{nested}. Therefore, Cantor's theorem on nested intervals
shows that there is a number~$L$ common to all these intervals, and
that
$$
L = \lim_{n\to\infty} S_n,
$$
whereby Leibniz's error estimate is immediate.

To prove Calabrese's theorem, Young defines
\begin{equation}
\label{Tn}
T_n := S_n + (-1)^n \cdot \frac{a_{n+1}}{2} \,.
\end{equation}
Then
$$
T_{n+1} - T_n = (-1)^n \Dl a_{n+1},
$$
which has the same form as~\eqref{Young}. We note that
$$
[S_{2r}, S_{2r-1}] \supseteq [T_{2r}, T_{2r-1}]
\word{for} r = 1,2,\dots
$$
Since $\Dl a_{n+1}$ decreases to zero, Cantor's theorem on nested
intervals shows that there is a number, $L_1 = L$, common to all the
intervals
$$
[T_2,T_1], \quad [T_4,T_3], \quad [T_6,T_5],\ \cdots
$$
and that
$$
L=\lim_{n\to\infty} T_n.
$$
Now
$$
T_n - S_n
= (-1)^n \cdot \frac{a_{n+1}}{2}
$$
and
\begin{align*}
T_{n-1} - S_n
&= S_{n-1} + (-1)^{n-1} \cdot \frac{a_n}{2} - S_n
\\
&= (-1)^{n-1} \cdot \frac{a_n}{2} - (-1)^{n-1} a_n
= (-1)^n a_n.
\end{align*}
Therefore, if $n$ is \emph{even},
\begin{align*}
L - S_n &\geq T_n - S_n = \frac{a_{n+1}}{2} \,,
\\
L - S_n &\leq T_{n-1} - S_n = \frac{a_n}{2} \,,
\end{align*}
which are Calabrese's inequalities. A similar argument holds if $n$
is~\emph{odd}.

To prove Johnsonbaugh's theorem, we have to suitably
generalize~\eqref{Tn}. Let
\begin{align*}
T_n   &:= S_n + (-1)^n \cdot \frac{a_{n+1}}{2} \,,
\\
T'_n  &:= T_n + (-1)^n \cdot \frac{\Dl a_{n+1}}{2^2} \,,
\\
T''_n &:= T'_n + (-1)^n \cdot \frac{\Dl^2 a_{n+1}}{2^3} \,,
\\
\vdots &\hspace*{5em} \vdots
\\
T^{(k)}_n
&:= T^{(k-1)}_n + (-1)^n \cdot \frac{\Dl^k a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}} \,.
\end{align*}
Now we apply the reasoning we had already applied to $S_n$ and~$T_n$.
We note that
$$
[S_{2r}, S_{2r-1}] \supseteq [T_{2r}, T_{2r-1}]
\supseteq [T'_{2r}, T'_{2r-1}]
\supseteq\cdots\supseteq [T^{(k)}_{2r}, T^{(k)}_{2r-1}]
$$
for $r = 1,2,\dots\,$.

Since $\Dl^k a_{n+1}$ decreases to zero, Cantor's theorem on nested
intervals shows that there is a number, $L_k = L$, common to all the
intervals
$$
[T^{(k)}_2, T^{(k)}_1], \quad [T^{(k)}_4, T^{(k)}_3], \quad
[T^{(k)}_6, T^{(k)}_5],\ \cdots
$$
and that
$$
L=\lim_{n\to\infty} T^{(k)}_n.
$$
Substituting recursively in the definitions of $T^{(r)}_n$ for
$r = 1,2,\dots$, some simple algebra leads us to the equations
\begin{align*}
T^{(k)}_n - S_n
&= (-1)^n \biggr( \frac{a_{n+1}}{2} + \frac{\Dl a_{n+1}}{2^2}
+\cdots+ \frac{\Dl^k a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}} \biggr),
\\
T^{(k)}_{n-1} - S_n
&= (-1)^n \biggr( \frac{a_{n}}{2} - \frac{\Dl a_{n}}{2^2}
-\cdots- \frac{\Dl^k a_{n}}{2^{k+1}} \biggr).
\end{align*}

Therefore, if $n$ is \emph{even},
\begin{align*}
L - S_n &\geq T^{(k)}_n - S_n
= \frac{a_{n+1}}{2} + \frac{\Dl a_{n+1}}{2^2}
+\cdots+ \frac{\Dl^k a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}} \,,
\\
L - S_n &\leq T^{(k)}_{n-1} - S_n
= \frac{a_{n}}{2} - \frac{\Dl a_{n}}{2^2}
-\cdots- \frac{\Dl^k a_{n}}{2^{k+1}} \,,
\end{align*}
which are Johnsonbaugh's inequalities. A similar argument holds for
$n$~\emph{odd}. This completes the proof.
\qed

\section{Euler's transformation}

We saw that Leibniz's series for $\log 2$ and $\dfrac{\pi}{4}$, while esthetically pleasing,  are useless for practical computation because of the slowness of convergence.  To rectify this situation, Euler stated the following important transformation formula:
\begin{thm}

If all the sequences $(\Dl^r a_n)$ for
$r=1,2,3,\dots$  decrease monotonically to zero, then the  ``Euler transform series" \begin{equation}\label{E}
\frac{a_1}{2}+\frac{\Dl a_1}{2^2}+\frac{\Dl^2 a_1}{2^3}+\frac{\Dl^3 a_1}{2^4}+\cdots
\end{equation}of the alternating series $a_1-a_2+a_3-+\cdots $ also converges and, indeed, to the same sum, $L$. If \begin{equation}
\label{En}
E_n: = \frac{a_1}{2}+\frac{\Dl a_1}{2^2}+\frac{\Dl^2 a_1}{2^3}+\frac{\Dl^3 a_1}{2^4}+\cdots+\frac{\Dl^{n-1} a_1}{2^{n}}
\end{equation}be the $n$-th partial sum, then the error, $r_n:=L-E_n$, in the approximation $L\approx E_n$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{rn}
0<r_n\leq \frac{\Dl^n a_1}{2^n}.
\end{equation}which, shows that $E_n$ underestimates $L$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
A simple computation shows that that \begin{equation*}
\label{Tk}
T_{n+1}^{(k)}-T_{n}^{(k)}=(-1)^n\frac{\Dl^{k+1}a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}}.
\end{equation*}By Cantor's theorem the intervals with end-points $T_{n}^{(k)}$ and $T_{n+1}^{(k)}$, in that or opposite order depending on the parity of $n$, close down on $L$, and in particular, $L$ is in all of them.   Therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
|L-T_{n}^{(k)}|<\frac{\Dl^{k+1}a_{n+1}}{2^{k+1}}.
\end{equation}

Taking $n=0$ and then $k=n-1$, we obtain the inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{K}
\frac{a_1}{2}+\frac{\Dl a_1}{2^2}+\cdots+\frac{\Dl^{n-1} a_1}{2^{n}}<L<\frac{a_1}{2}+\frac{\Dl a_1}{2^2}+\cdots+\frac{\Dl^{n-1} a_1}{2^{n}}+\frac{\Dl^{n}a_{1}}{2^{n}},
\end{equation}But, the left-hand side is $E_n$, and therefore the error estimate \eqref{rn} is valid.

\end{proof}

As an example of Euler's transformation let's compute $\dfrac{\pi}{4}$ with four decimal digit accuracy from Leibniz's series.  We already know that the first partial sum of the Leibniz series that achieves this accuracy is $S_{5000}$.  If we  compute the differences in the Euler transformation we find that
$$\Dl^n a_1=2^n\frac{1\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdots n}{1\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdots 2n+1}.$$The error estimate shows that $n$ must satisfy
$$\frac{1\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdots n}{1\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdots 2n+1}\leq \frac{1}{20000}$$and the first value of $n$ which works is $n=13$ with an upper bound for the error given by $2.91*10^{-5}$.  Therefore, our theorem states that
\begin{align*}
E_{13}=&\frac{1}{2}\left\{1+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1\cdot 2}{3\cdot 5}+\cdots +\frac{1\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdots 12}{1\cdot 3\cdot 5\cdots 25}\right\}\\
           =&\frac{1314078208}{1673196525}\\
           =&0.78536991...
\end{align*}approximates $\dfrac{\pi}{4}$ with an error no larger than $2.91*10^{-5}$.  In fact the true error is $2.852*10^{-5}$ which is impresively close to the predicted upper bound for the error.  Moreover \emph{one only needs $13$ summands} instead of $5000$ to reach the desired accuracy, an extraordinary acceleration of the rate of convergence.

In practice one normally computes a partial sum of the series exactly, and then uses the Euler transform to compute the remainder.  For example if we compute $S_{10}$ exactly and apply Euler's transform to the next $11$ summands we obtain $0.785398163$ which is correct to \emph{nine} decimal places!

We note that the inequality \eqref{K} appears as a problem (without a solution) on p.$270$ of \cite{Knopp}.

\subsection*{Acknowledgment}

We thank the referees for suggestions which substantially improved the style and content of this paper.  In particular we thank a referee for suggesting the relation of our method of proof to Euler's transformation. Support from the Vicerrector\'ia de Investigaci\'on of the
University of Costa Rica is gratefully acknowledged.

The error in an alternating series