d+1}{d+1} + \dots + \binom{d-s+2}{d-s+2}=s$$ as claimed.

\[delta max not imply I max\] In practice, it usually is the case that $\Delta h_Z$ having maximal growth from degree $d$ to degree $d+1$ does [*not*]{} imply that $h_Z$ itself has maximal growth from degree $d$ to degree $d+1$. If it did, Gotzmann’s results (Theorem \[gotzmann persistence\] and Remark \[interpret max gr\]) would immediately apply to $h_Z$. The interest in the results described below is that similar powerful conclusions come from this maximal growth of the first difference (see Proposition \[BGM saturation result\] and Remark \[comparison\]). And as we will see, even more surprising is that similar results can be deduced at times even when the first difference does not have maximal growth.

General results {#general results}
===============

A by-now classical result of Davis (cf. [@davis]) is the following. Note that there is no uniformity assumption on $Z$. In the next section we will discuss the refinements that are possible when we assume UPP.

\[davis thm\] Let $Z \subset \mathbb P^{2}$ be a zero-dimensional scheme. If $\Delta h_Z(d) =
\Delta h_Z(d+1) = s$ for $d \geq s$, then $(I_Z)_d$ and $(I_Z)_{d+1}$ both have a GCD, $F$, of degree $s$. If $Z$ is reduced then so is $F$. The polynomial $F$ defines a $\left \{ 
\begin{array}{l}
\hbox{hypersurface} \\
\hbox{curve}
\end{array} \right. $ in $\mathbb P^{2}$. If $Z_1 \subset Z$ is the subscheme of $Z$ lying on $F$ (defined by $[I_Z + (F)]^{sat}$) and $Z_2$ is the “residual” scheme defined by $[I_Z :F]$, then there are formulas relating the Hilbert functions of $I_Z, I_{Z_1}$ and $I_{Z_2}$.

\[iarrobino comment\] It is worth mentioning that the Art
d+1}{d+1 } + \dots + \binom{d - s+2}{d - s+2}=s$$ as claimed. 

 \[delta max not imply I max\ ] In practice, it usually is the subject that $ \Delta h_Z$ have maximal growth from degree $ d$ to degree $ d+1 $ does [ * not * ] { } imply that $ h_Z$ itself have maximal growth from degree $ d$ to degree $ d+1$. If it dress, Gotzmann ’s resultant role (Theorem \[gotzmann persistence\ ] and Remark \[interpret max gr\ ]) would immediately apply to $ h_Z$. The sake in the results described under is that similar powerful stopping point come from this maximal growth of the first difference (see Proposition \[BGM saturation result\ ] and Remark \[comparison\ ]). And as we will attend, even more surprising is that similar results can be deduced at time even when the first difference does not have maximal growth. 

 General consequence { # general results } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 A by - now classical result of Davis (californium.   [ @davis ]) is the following. Note that there is no uniformity assumption on $ Z$. In the next section we will discuss the refinements that are possible when we assume UPP. 

 \[davis thm\ ] Let $ Z \subset \mathbb P^{2}$ be a zero - dimensional scheme. If $ \Delta h_Z(d) = 
 \Delta h_Z(d+1) = s$ for $ d \geq s$, then $ (I_Z)_d$ and $ (I_Z)_{d+1}$ both have a GCD, $ F$, of degree $ s$. If $ Z$ is reduced then thus is $ F$. The polynomial $ F$ defines a $ \left \ { 
 \begin{array}{l } 
 \hbox{hypersurface } \\ 
 \hbox{curve } 
 \end{array } \right. $ in $ \mathbb P^{2}$. If $ Z_1 \subset Z$ is the subscheme of $ Z$ lying on $ F$ (define by $ [ I_Z + (F)]^{sat}$) and $ Z_2 $ is the “ residual ” outline defined by $ [ I_Z: F]$, then there are rule relating the Hilbert functions of $ I_Z, I_{Z_1}$ and $ I_{Z_2}$. 

 \[iarrobino comment\ ] It is worth mentioning that the artwork
d+1}{d+1} + \dots + \binom{d-s+2}{d-s+2}=s$$ as clalmed.

\[delta max noj umply M max\] Ih practize, it usually is the case thet $\Dwlta y_Z$ having maximal growgh from dvgree $d$ ti dejree $d+1$ does [*not*]{} mjply that $h_Z$ jbself ias maximal groeth from dagree $d$ to degsed $b+1$. If it did, Gotzmann’s results (Theorei \[gotzmsnj persistence\] wnd Geiark \[pnuerpret max gr\]) would immediately zpply tm $h_Z$. The intetest in the results descrihed helow is that simipar powerfuo cogxlusions comd from this maximal grkwth of the first difference (sed Pro'osition \[BGN watktation resulv\] and Gemark \[comparlxon\]). Ang as we will see, even moce syrprising is that simmlar results can be qeduced ad cimes even when the furwt dixferance eoer nkt hzve madimel growth.

Geheral resulrs {#general results}
===============

A br-bow classical resule jf Davis (cf. [@davis]) is the following. Note uhat fhere is no uniformity qssumption on $Z$. In thg next seceion we will discuss the refinements that are posvible dheu we arwule UPP.

\[davis thm\] Let $Z \subset \mathbb P^{2}$ be a zewk-domvnsional scheme. In $\Delta h_Z(d) =
\Delta n_Z(f+1) = f$ for $d \geq s$, then $(N_A)_d$ and $(I_Z)_{d+1}$ both have a GCD, $S$, of eegree $s$. Yf $Z$ is reduced then so is $F$. Thw polynomial $D$ defines a $\left \{ 
\yegin{array}{l}
\hyox{hypgrsurfsce} \\
\hbox{curve}
\end{array} \rnght. $ jn $\mathbb P^{2}$. If $Z_1 \subadt Z$ is the subszheke of $Z$ lying on $F$ (defined br $[I_Z + (F)]^{sav}$) and $Z_2$ is tfe “rgsidual” scheme devined by $[I_Z :F]$, then there are yormunas relatijg the Hilbert functions of $I_Z, M_{V_1}$ and $I_{Z_2}$.

\[iarronito bomment\] Ic is wprth mentionigg that the Arj
d+1}{d+1} + \dots + \binom{d-s+2}{d-s+2}=s$$ as claimed. not I max\] practice, it usually h_Z$ maximal growth from $d$ to degree does [*not*]{} imply that $h_Z$ itself maximal growth from degree $d$ to degree $d+1$. If it did, Gotzmann’s results \[gotzmann persistence\] and Remark \[interpret max gr\]) would immediately apply to $h_Z$. The in results below that similar powerful conclusions come from this maximal growth of the first difference (see Proposition \[BGM result\] and Remark \[comparison\]). And as we will even more surprising is similar results can be deduced times when the difference not maximal growth. General {#general results} =============== A by-now classical result of Davis (cf. [@davis]) is the following. Note that there no uniformity $Z$. In next we discuss the refinements possible when we assume UPP. \[davis \subset \mathbb P^{2}$ be a zero-dimensional scheme. If h_Z(d) = h_Z(d+1) = s$ for $d \geq then $(I_Z)_d$ and $(I_Z)_{d+1}$ both have a GCD, of degree $s$. If $Z$ is reduced then so is $F$. The polynomial $F$ defines \{ \begin{array}{l} \hbox{hypersurface} \\ \end{array} \right. $ $\mathbb If \subset is the of $Z$ lying on $F$ (defined by $[I_Z + (F)]^{sat}$) and is the “residual” scheme defined by $[I_Z :F]$, then there relating Hilbert functions of I_{Z_1}$ and $I_{Z_2}$. \[iarrobino It worth mentioning that the
d+1}{d+1} + \dots + \binom{d-s+2}{d-s+2}=s$$ as claimed.

\[Delta max noT implY I mAx\] IN pRactIce, iT usually is the cASe thAt $\Delta h_Z$ having maximal GrowtH fROm deGReE $d$ to dEgree $d+1$ dOEs [*NOT*]{} imPlY tHat $H_Z$ ITsElf haS maXimal grOwth from deGreE $d$ To degree $d+1$. If iT DiD, Gotzmann’s ResUlts (Theorem \[gOtzMann peRsIstENce\] anD ReMark \[iNterprET max gr\]) Would immeDiATely apPLy to $h_Z$. THE InTereSt in the results desCRiBEd below is that sImilar PoWErFUL coNclUsions come FrOm thiS Maximal GRoWTH Of tHE first differeNce (see PropoSItiOn \[BGM sAtUraTIon resUlt\] anD REMarK \[comparison\]). and aS we will seE, even mORe surprISing is tHat simIlaR reSultS CaN bE deDuCEd aT TiMes EVen When the fIrSt DiffeRencE DOES not HavE maxImal gRowth.

General rEsuLts {#gENerAl resUlts}
===============

A By-noW cLassiCal resUlt of daVis (cf. [@davis]) is the FollOwing. Note ThaT tHerE iS no unIFormitY asSumPtion on $z$. In the nEXt sEcTION wE will discuss the refInEMEnTs that arE possiBLe WhEN we assumE UpP.

\[dAvis THM\] Let $Z \SubsET \mAthbb P^{2}$ be A zero-dIMeNsIonal scHeMe. If $\DeLtA h_Z(D) =
\DeLta h_Z(D+1) = S$ for $D \geq s$, tHen $(I_Z)_d$ anD $(I_Z)_{d+1}$ bOTh have a GCD, $F$, of dEGree $s$. If $Z$ is redUCeD THeN So is $f$. ThE polynomial $f$ defINes a $\Left \{ 
\BEgIn{aRRay}{l}
\hBox{hyPeRSuRFace} \\
\hbox{curve}
\end{arrAy} \Right. $ iN $\mathBb P^{2}$. If $Z_1 \subset Z$ Is the subscHEME of $Z$ lyinG on $F$ (DEfINed by $[I_Z + (F)]^{sat}$) and $z_2$ is thE “residual” sCHeme defiNed by $[i_Z :F]$, then tHere are foRMUlas relaTinG thE HiLbeRT FuNctions of $I_Z, I_{Z_1}$ AND $I_{Z_2}$.

\[iArRobino cOmmEnt\] It is WorTh mEntIonInG that the ARt
d+1}{d+1} + \dots + \binom {d-s+2}{d- s+2}= s$$  as  c laim ed.
\[delta max n o t im ply I max\] In practic e, it  u s uall y  i s the  case t h at $ \De lt ah_Z $h av ing m axi mal gro wth from d egr ee  $d$ to degr e e$d+1$ does  [* not*]{} impl y t hat $h _Z $ i t selfhas  maxi mal gr o wth fr om degree  $ d $ to d e gree $d + 1 $.  Ifit did, Gotzmann’ s  r e sults (Theorem  \[got zm a nn p ers ist ence\] and  R emark \[inter p re t m axg r\]) would im mediately a p ply  to $h _Z $.T he int erest  i n  th e results d escr ibed belo w is t h at simi l ar powe rful c onc lus ions co me  fr om thi s  m axi m algrowth o fth e fir st d i f f e renc e ( seePropo sition \[BGMsat urat i onresul t\] a nd R em ark \ [compa rison \] ). And as we wi ll s ee, evenmor esur pr ising is tha t s imi lar res ults ca n  be  d e d u ce d at times even wh en t he  first d iffere n ce  d o es not h av e m axim a l  grow th.Ge neral re sults{ #g en eral re su lts}
= == === === ===== = 

Aby-now  classic al re s ult of Davis ( c f. [@davis])i st h ef ollo win g. Note tha t th e re i s no un ifo r mityassum pt i on on $Z$. In the next  s ection  we w ill discuss t he refinem e n t s that a re p o ss i ble when we as sumeUPP.

\[da v is thm\]  Let$Z \subs et \mathb b P^{2}$ b e a  ze ro- dim e n si onal scheme.I f  $\D el ta h_Z( d)=
\Delt a h _Z( d+1 ) =  s $ for $d\geq s$,  t he n$( I_Z )_d$a nd $(I_Z )_ {d+ 1} $ b oth h a ve a G CD, $ F$,of  d e gre e $s$.I f$ Z $ is  r ed uced  th en  so i s $F $ . T he poly nomial $F $ d e fine sa$\left\{ 
\begin{ar ra y}{l}
\hbo x{ hyp ersurf a c e} \\
\h box{curve}
\end{array}\ right.$ i n $\m athb b P^{2}$.  If  $Z_1\su b set Z$  is th e sub sc hem e of $Z $ ly ing  o n $F$ (def i n edby $[ I_ Z +(F)]^{s at}$) and $Z_2$ is the  “residual” s che me d e f in edb y$ [I_ Z: F]$ , then there areformulas r el a ti ng the Hil b ert  f unction s of $I _Z, I _ {Z_1}$and $I_{Z _2}$.

\[ ia rrob i n o c omment\] I t is wor th mentio n ing t h at  theArt 
d+1}{d+1} +_\dots +_\binom{d-s+2}{d-s+2}=s$$ as claimed.

\[delta max_not imply_I_max\] In_practice,_it usually is_the case that_$\Delta h_Z$ having maximal_growth from degree_$d$_to degree $d+1$ does [*not*]{} imply that $h_Z$ itself has maximal growth from degree_$d$_to degree_$d+1$._If_it did, Gotzmann’s results (Theorem_\[gotzmann persistence\] and Remark \[interpret_max gr\])_would immediately apply to $h_Z$. The interest in_the_results described below_is that similar powerful conclusions come from this maximal_growth of the first difference (see_Proposition \[BGM saturation_result\]_and_Remark \[comparison\]). And as_we will see, even more surprising_is that similar results can be_deduced at times even when the first_difference does not have maximal growth.

General_results {#general results}
===============

A by-now classical_result of_Davis (cf. [@davis]) is the following._Note that there_is no_uniformity assumption on_$Z$. In the next section we_will discuss the_refinements that are possible when we_assume_UPP.

\[davis thm\] Let_$Z_\subset_\mathbb P^{2}$_be a zero-dimensional_scheme._If $\Delta_h_Z(d)_=
\Delta h_Z(d+1) = s$ for $d_\geq_s$, then $(I_Z)_d$ and $(I_Z)_{d+1}$ both have_a GCD, $F$, of_degree_$s$. If $Z$ is_reduced then so is $F$._The polynomial $F$ defines a $\left_\{ 
\begin{array}{l}
\hbox{hypersurface}_\\
\hbox{curve}
\end{array} \right._$ in $\mathbb P^{2}$. If $Z_1 \subset Z$ is the subscheme_of $Z$ lying on $F$ (defined_by $[I_Z + (F)]^{sat}$)_and $Z_2$_is_the “residual” scheme_defined_by $[I_Z_:F]$, then there are formulas relating the_Hilbert functions_of $I_Z, I_{Z_1}$ and $I_{Z_2}$.

\[iarrobino comment\]_It is worth mentioning_that_the Art