arxiv:math/ v1 [math.ac] 10 Mar 2005

Transcription

1 arxiv:math/ v1 [math.ac] 10 Mar 2005 STANLEY REISNER RINGS WITH LARGE MULTIPLICITIES ARE COHEN MACAULAY NAOKI TERAI AND KEN-ICHI YOSHIDA Abstrat. We prove that ertain lass of Stanley Reisner rings having suffiiently large multipliities are Cohen Maaulay using Alexander duality. 1. Introdution Throughout this paper, let S = k[x 1,...,X n ] be a homogeneous polynomial ring over a field k with degx i = 1. For a simpliial omplex on vertex set [n] = {1,...,n} (note that {i} for all i, k[ ] = k[x 1,...,X n ]/I is alled the Stanley Reisner ring of, where I is an ideal generated by all squarefree monomials X i1 X ip suh that {i 1,...,i p } /. The ring A = k[ ] is a homogeneous redued ring with the unique homogeneous maximal ideal m = (X 1,...,X n k[ ] and the Krull dimension d = dim + 1. Let e(a denote the multipliity e 0 (ma m,a m of A, whih is equal to the number of faets (i.e., maximal faes F of with dimf = d 1. Also, we frequently all it the multipliity of. Note that is alled pure if all faets of have the same dimension. See [1, 9] for more details. Take a graded minimal free resolution of a homogeneous k-algebra A = S/I over S : 0 S( j βp,j(a ϕ p ϕ 2 S( j β1,j(a ϕ 1 S A 0. j Z Then the initial degree indega (resp. the relation type rt(a of A is defined by indega = min{j Z : β 1,j (A 0} (resp. rt(a = max{j Z : β 1,j (A 0}. Also, rega = max{j i Z : β i,j (A 0} is alled the Castelnuovo Mumford regularityofa. It iseasytosee that rega indega 1, and Ahaslinear resolution if equality holds. The main purpose of this paper is to prove the following theorems: Theorem 2.1. Let A = k[ ] ( be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. n Put odima =. If e(a, then A is Cohen Maaulay. Theorem 3.1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. Put ( odima =. Suppose that is pure (i.e., A is equidimensional. If e(a n 2+1, then A is Cohen Maaulay. j Z Date: Mar.10, Mathematis Subjet Classifiation. Primary 13F55, ; Seondary 13H10. Key words and phrases. Stanley Reisner ring, Cohen Maaulay, Alexander duality, multipliity, linear resolution, initial degree, relation type. 1

2 It is easy to prove the above theorems in the ase of d = 2. When d = 2, A is Cohen Maaulay if and only if is onneted. In fat, a disonneted graph has at most ( ( n 1 2 (= n 2 (n 2 1 edges. This shows that Theorem 2.1 is true in ( this ase. Similarly, a disonneted graph without an isolated point has at most n 2 ( 2 +1(= n 2 2(n 2 edges. Indeed, suh a graph is ontained in a disjoint union of an (n i-omplete graph and an i-omplete graph for some 2 i n 2. When i = 2, the number of edges of the above union is just ( n Thus we also get Theorem 3.1 in this ase. The ase indega = d and 2 is essential in the above two theorems. In order to prove Theorems 2.1 and 3.1 in this ase, we onsider their Alexander dual versions: Theorem 2.7. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. SupposethatindegA = d. Ife(A d, thenahasd-linearresolution. Inpartiular, rt(a = d. Theorem 3.3. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. Suppose that indega = rt(a = d. If e(a 2d 1, then A has d-linear resolution. In partiular, a(a < 0. ForaStanley ReisnerringAwith indega = dima = d, ithasd-linearresolution if and only if a(r < 0. Thus the assertion of Theorem 3.3 ould be seen as an analogy of the following: Let R be a homogeneous integral domain over an algebraiallylosed field of harateristi0. If e(r 2dimR 1 and odimr 2, then a(r < 0. In the last setion, we will provide several examples related to the above results. 2. Complexes with e(k[ ] ( n In this setion, we use the following notation. Let be a simpliial omplex on V = [n], and let A = k[ ] = S/I be the Stanley Reisner ring of. Put d = dima, and = odima = n d. Note that ( [n] d denotes the family of all d-subsets of [n]. The main purpose of this setion is to prove the following theorem. Theorem ( 2.1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. n If e(a, then A is Cohen Maaulay. Let us begin the proof of this theorem with the following lemmas. ( n Lemma 2.2. If e(a, then indega d. Proof. Suppose that indega < d. Take a squarefree monomial M I with degm = d 1. Then (n d + 1 distint squarefree monomials appear among X 1 M,...,X n M; say M 1,...,M +1. Let F i ( [n] d orresponding to Mi, respetively. Then sine no F i is ontained in we have ( n e(a (+1. d This ontradits the assumption. 2

3 Lemma 2.3. Under the above notation, the following onditions are equivalent: (1 indega ( = d+1. n (2 e(a =. d (3 I = (X i1 X id+1 : 1 i 1 < < i d+1 n. (4 A has (d + 1-linear resolution. When this is the ase, A is Cohen Maaulay with rt(a = d+1. Proof. See, e.g., [11, Proposition 1.2]. Therefore we may assume that indega = d to prove Theorem 2.1. Lemma 2.4. Suppose n = d+1. If e(a d, then A is a hypersurfae. Proof. Suppose that A is not a hypersurfae. Then we an write I = X i1 X ip J for some monomial ideal J( R with heightj 2 sine heighti = 1. In partiular, A is not Cohen Maaulay. Thus indega d by Lemma 2.3. Then e(a = p d 1. This ontradits the assumption. Thus we may also assume that = odima 2. then let be the Alexander dual of : = {F 2 V : V \F / }. Then is a simpliial omplex on the same vertex set V of for whih the following properties are satisfied: Proposition 2.5. Under the above notation, we have (1 indegk[ ]+dimk[ ] = n. (2 rt(k[ ] = bighti, where bighti = max{heightp : p is a minimal prime divisor of I}. In partiular, is pure if and only if rt(k[ ] = indegk[ ]. (3 β 0,q (I = e(k[ ], where q = indegk[ ]. (4 ( =. Also, the following theorem is fundamental. See [3] for more details. Theorem 2.6 (Eagon Reiner [3]. k[ ] is Cohen Maaulay if and only if k[ ] has linear resolution. We want to redue Theorem 2.1 to its Alexander dual version. Let be the Alexander dual of. Then indegk[ ] = n dimk[ ] = and dimk[ ] = n indegk[ ] = n d =. Also, sine indegk[ ] = dimk[ ] =, we have ( ( e(k[ n n ] = β 0, (I = e(a Therefore, it is enough to prove the following theorem. Theorem 2.7 (Alexander dual version of Theorem 2.1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. Suppose that indega = d. If e(a d, then A has d-linear resolution. In partiular, rt(a = d. 3

4 Proof. (1 Put a(a = sup{p Z : [H d m (A] p 0}, the a-invariant of A. From the assumption we obtain that a(a+d e(a 1 d 1, where the first inequality follows from e.g. [6, Lemma 3.1]. Hene a(a < 0. On the other hand, we have that [H i m (A] j = 0 for all i and j 1 sine A is a Stanley Reisner ring. Then rega = inf{p Z : [H i m (A] j = 0 for all i+j > p} d 1 = indega 1. This means that A has d-linear resolution, as required. Now let us disuss a generalization of Theorem 2.7. Let A = S/I be an arbitrary homogeneous redued k-algebra over a field k of harateristi p > 0. The ring A is alled F-pure if the Frobenius map F: A A (a a p is pure. It is known that a Stanley Reisner ring is F-pure, and that if A is F-pure then [H i m (A] j = 0 for all j 1. Thus the proof of Theorem 2.7 involves that of the following proposition. Proposition 2.8. Let A = S/I be a homogeneous F-pure k-algebra. Put dim A = indega = d 2. If e(a d, then A has d-linear resolution. In partiular, rt(a = d and a(a < Complexes with e(k[ ] ( n 2+1 We use the same notation as in the previous setion. For a fae G in and v V, we put V \{v} = {F : v / F}, star G = {F : F G }, link G = {F : F G, F G = }. The main purpose of this setion is to prove the following theorem. Theorem 3.1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of ( Krull dimension d 2. n Put = odima. Suppose that is pure. If e(a 2 + 1, then A is Cohen Maaulay. Now suppose that = 1 (resp. indega d+1. Then the assertion follows from Lemma 2.4 (resp. Lemma 2.3. Thus we may assume that 2 and q = indega d. The following lemma orresponds to Lemma 2.2. Lemma 3.2. If e(k[ ] ( n 2+1, then indegk[ ] d 1, i.e., (1 indegk[ ] = d or (2 indegk[ ] = d 1. Proof. Suppose that indegk[ ] < d 1. Take a squarefree monomial M I with degm = d 2. Then there are ( n d+2 2 squarefree monomials in degree d in I. Note ( ( n d+2 2 = Hene ( n e(k[ ] 2. This ontradits the assumption. First, we onsider the Alexander dual version of Theorem 3.1 in the ase of indegk[ ] = d. Namely, we will prove the following theorem. 4

5 Theorem 3.3 (Alexander dual version of Theorem 3.1, Case (1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. Suppose that indega = rt(a = d. If e(a 2d 1, then A has d-linear resolution. In partiular, a(a < 0. The proof of the above theorem an be redued to that of the following theorem, whih is a key result in this paper. Theorem 3.4. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 2. Suppose that rt(a d. If e(a 2d 1, then rega d 1, equivalently, H d 1 ( = 0. Proof. Put e = e(a. Let be the subomplex that is spanned by all faets of dimension d 1. Replaing with, we may assume that is pure. We use indution on d = dima 2. First suppose d = 2. The assumption shows that does not ontain the boundary omplex of a triangle. Hene H 1 ( = 0 sine e(a 3. Next suppose that d 3, and that the assertion holds for any omplex the dimension of whih is less than d 1. Assume that H d 1 ( 0. Take one whose multipliity is minimal among the multipliities of those omplexes. Then does not ontain any free fae (see [7]. That is, every fae that is not a faet is ontained in at least two faets. Indeed, suppose that ontains a free fae (say, G and put = \ {F : F G}. Then sine G is a free fae of, is homotopy equivalent to and e(k[ ] = e(k[ ] 1. In partiular, H d 1 ( = H d 1 ( 0. This ontradits the minimality of e(k[ ]. First onsider the ase of rt(a = d. Take a generator X i1 X id of I. For every j = 1,...,d, eah G j = {i 1,...,î j,...,i d } is ontained in at least two faets as mentioned above. Then e(a 2d sine those faets are different from eah other. This is a ontradition. Next we onsider the ase of rt(a < d. Take a Mayer Vietoris sequene with respet to = V \{n} star {n} as follows: H d 1 ( V \{n} H d 1 (star {n} H d 1 ( H d 2 (link {n}. Theminimalityofe(k[ V \{n} ]yieldsthat H d 1 ( V \{n} = 0sinee(k[ V\{n} ] < e(k[ ]. On the other hand, it is known that H i (star {n} = 0 for all i. Hene H d 1 ( H d 2 (link {n}. In partiular, Hd 2 (link {n} 0. Set = link {n}. Then is a omplex on V \{n} suh that dimk[ ] = d 1 and rt(k[ ] rt(k[ ] d 1. In order to apply the indution hypothesis to, wewanttosee thate(k[ ] 2d 3. In orderto dothat, we onsidere(k[ V \{n} ]. As star {n}, one an take F = {i 1,,i p,n} / for some p d 2 suh that X i1 X ip X n is a generator of I. Then G := {i 1,...,i p }, but it is not a faet of. Thus it is ontained in at least two faets of, eah of whih does not ontain n. Hene e(k[ V\{n} ] 2. Thus we get e(k[ ] = e(k[star {n}] = e(k[ ] e(k[ V \{n} ] 2d 3. By indution hypothesis, we have H d 2 (link {n} = 0. This is a ontradition. Next, we onsider the Alexander dual version of Theorem 3.1 in the ase of indegk[ ] = d 1. Namely, we must prove the following proposition. 5

6 Proposition 3.5 (Alexander dual version of Theorem 3.1, Case (2. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring ( of Krull dimension d 2. Suppose that n indega = rt(a = d 1. If µ(i 2d+3, then A has (d 1-linear d 1 resolution with e(a = 1. Proof. First we show that e(a = 1. Now suppose that e(a 2. Then there exist at least two faets F 1 and F 2 with #(F 1 = #F(F 2 = d. This implies that f d 2 ( 2d 1. However, by the assumption, we have f d 2 ( = ( n d 1 β 0,d 1 (I = ( n d 1 µ(i 2d 3. This is a ontradition. Hene we get e(a = 1. In order to prove that A has (d 1-linear resolution, it is enough to show that β i,j (A = 0 for all i and j i + d 1 by [8, Theorem 5.2]. Also, it suffies to show that H d 1 ( = H d 2 ( = H d 2 ( W = 0 for all subsets W V with #(W = n 1 by virtue of Hohster s formula on the Betti numbers: β i,j (A = dim k Hj i 1 ( W ;k. W V #(W=j Claim 1. Hd 1 ( = H d 2 ( = 0. Sinert(A d 1 dande(a = 1 2d 1,wehave H d 1 ( = 0byTheorem 3.4. Now let F = {1,2,...,d} be the unique faet with #(F = d. Consider a simpliial subomplex := \{F,G} where G = {1,2,...,d 1}. Then dimk[ ] = d 1 and e(k[ ] 2d 4 2(d 1 1. Also, sine rt(k[ ] rt(k[ ] d 1, applying Theorem 3.4 to, we obtain that H d 2 ( = H d 2 ( = 0, as required. Claim 2. Hd 2 ( W = 0 for all subsets W V with #(W = n 1. Let W be a subset of V suh that #(W = n 1. Put {a} = V \W. If a is not ontained in F, then H d 2 ( W = 0 by the similar argument as in the proof of the previous laim. So we may assume that a F. Then dimk[ W ] = d 1 and e(k[ W ] (d 3+1 = d 2 2(d 1 1. Also, sine rt(k[ W ] d 1, we have H d 2 ( W = 0 by Theorem 3.4 again. Hene k[ ] has (d 1-linear resolution, as required. Example 3.6. Let ρ, d be an integers with 0 ρ d 3. Let be a simpliial omplex on V = [n] spanned by F = {1,2,...,d}, any distint ρ elements from ( [n] ( d 1 \ [d] ( d 1 andallelementsof [n] d 2. Then dimk[ ] = d, indegk[ ] = rt(k[ ] = d 1. Also, we have ( ( n n µ(i = β 0,d 1 (I = ρ d 2d+3. d 1 d 1 Hene satisfies the assumption of the above proposition. On the other hand, we have no results for F-pure k-algebras orresponding to Theorem 3.3. But we remark the following. 6

7 Remark 3.7. As mentioned in the introdution, if A is a homogeneous integral domain over an algebraially losed field of hark = 0 with odima 2 and e(a 2d 1 then one has a(a < 0. In fat, it is known that an inequality e(a 1 a(a+d odim A holds; see e.g., the remark after Theorem 3.2 in [6]. Moreover, Professor Chikashi Miyazaki told us that this inequality is also true in positive harateristi. Question 3.8. Let A = k[a 1 ] be a homogeneous F-pure, equidimensional k-algebra. Put dima = indega = d 2. If e(a 2d 1, then does a(a < 0 hold? 4. Buhsbaumness A Stanley Reisner ring A = k[ ] is Buhsbaum if and only if is pure and k[link {i}] is Cohen Maaulay for every i [n]. As an appliation of Theorem 3.1, we an provide suffiient onditions for k[ ] to be Buhsbaum. Proposition 4.1. Let A = k[ ] be a Stanley Reisner ring of Krull dimension d 3. Suppose that is pure, indega = d and e(a ( n 2. Then (1 e(k[link {i}] ( n 1 2 for all i. (2 If height[i ] d S 2, then A is Buhsbaum. (3 If rt(a = d, then A is Buhsbaum. Proof. We may assume that 2, e(a = ( n 2, and that star {i} for every i [n]. Put Γ i = link {i} for eah i [n]. (1 We first show the following laim. { (n 1 } Claim: e(a ( n d d 1 e(k[γi ] for every i [n]. Also, equality holds if and only if i F holds for all F ( [n] \. { Put W i = that F ( [n] d d : i F / star {i}}. Then #(W i #( n i=1 W i implies ( ( n 1 n e(k[γ j ] e(a, d 1 d as required. Also, equality holds if and only if W i = n \. i=1 W i, that is, i F holds for all F ( [n] d Now suppose that e(k[γ i ] ( n 1 d for some i [n]. Then the laim implies that e(a ( n d 2 1, whih ontradits the assumption. Thus we get (1. (2 Suppose that height[i ] d S 2. Then there is no element i [n] for whih i F holds for all F ( [n] d \. Thus the laim yields that ( ( n n 2 = e(a d d [( ] n 1 e(k[γ i ] 1, d 1 that is, e(k[γ i ] ( n 1 d for every i [n]. Also, we note that Γi is pure and indegk[γ i ] = dimk[γ i ] = d 1. Applying Theorem 3.1 to k[γ i ], we obtain that k[γ i ] is Cohen Maaulay. Therefore A is Buhsbaum sine is pure. 7

8 (3 Now suppose that A is not Buhsbaum. Then sine height[i ] d S = 1, one an take i [n] for whih i F holds for all F ( [n] d \. We may assume i = n. Then {1,...,î,...,d+1} for all i [d+1] beause n 1 d+1. This means that X 1 X d+1 is a generator of I ; thus rt(a = d Examples Throughout this setion, let, d be given integers with, d 2. Set n = +d. Example 5.1. Put F i,j = {1,2,...,î,...,d,j} for eah i = 1,...,d;j = d + 1,...,n. For a given integers e with 1 e d, we hoose e faes (say, F 1,...,F e from {F i,j : 1 i d, d+1 j n}, whih is a simpliial join of 2 [d] \{[d]} and points. Let be a simpliial omplex spanned by F 1,...,F e and all elements of ( [n] d 1. Then k[ ] is a d-dimensional Stanley Reisner ring with indegk[ ] = rt(k[ ] = d and e(k[ ] = e. In partiular, when e 2d 1, k[ ] has d-linear resolution by Theorem 3.3. Thus Also, the Alexander dual omplexes of them provide examples satisfying hypothesis of Theorem 3.1. The following example shows that the assumption e(a 2d 1 is optimal in Theorem 3.3. Example 5.2. There exists a omplex on V = [n] (n = d+2 for whih k[ ] does not have d-linear resolution with dimk[ ] = indegk[ ] = rt(k[ ] = d and e(k[ ] = 2d. In fat, put n = d + 2. Let 0 be a omplex on V = [n] suh that k[ 0 ] is a omplete intersetion defined by (X 1 X d,x d+1 X d+2. Also, let be a omplex on V that is spanned by all faets of 0 and all elements of ( [n] d 1 : I = (X 1 X d S +(X i1 X id 2 X d+1 X d+2 : 1 i 1 < < i d 2 ds. Then H d 1 (k[ ] = H d 1 (k[ 0 ] 0 sine a(k[ 0 ] = 0. Hene k[ ] does not have linear resolution. Remark 5.3. The above example is obtained by onsidering the ase = 2, e = 2d in Example 5.1. The next example shows that the assumption rt(a = d is not superfluous in Theorem 3.3. Example 5.4. Suppose that d + 1 e ( n d 1. There exists a simpliial omplex on V = [n] suh that dimk[ ] = indegk[ ] = d, rt(k[ ] = d+1 and e(k[ ] = e. In partiular, k[ ] does not have d-linear resolution. In fat, put F = ( ( [n] d \ [d+1] d. Let 0 be a simpliial omplex on V suh that I 0 = (X 1 X d X d+1 S +(X i1 X id : {i 1,...,i d } FS. Then dimk[ 0 ] = indegk[ 0 ] = d, rt(k[ 0 ] = d+1, and e(k[ 0 ] = d+1. For a given integer e whih satisfies above ondition, one obtains the required simpliial omplex by adding any (e d 1 distint d-subsets of 2 [n] that is not ontained in ( [d+1] d to 0. 8

9 Remark 5.5. Now let be a simpliial omplex on V = [n]. Set A = k[ ]. Suppose that dima = indega = d 2. Then one an easily see that d rt(a d+1; rt(a = d (resp. d+1 if 1 e(a d (resp. e(a = ( n d. So we put rtk[ ] = d+1 for all (d 1-dimensional f(n,d = min m Z : omplexes on V with indegk[ ] = d and e(k[ ] m Then f(n,d d + 1 by Example 5.1. From the definition of f(n,d, one an easily see that there exists a simpliial omplex whih satisfies rt(k[ ] = d and e(k[ ] = e for eah e with d + 1 e f(n,d 1. On the other hand, by virtue of Example 5.4, one an also find a simpliial omplex whih satisfies rt(k[ ] = d+1 and e(k[ ] = e for eah e with d+1 e ( n d 1. It seems to be diffiult to determine f(n,d in general. Let T(n,p,k be the so-alled Turan number. Then we have ( n f(n,d = T(n,d+1,d. d In partiular, we get (5.1 f(n,2 = { n , if n is even; n , otherwise by Turan s theorem (e.g., [2, Theorem 7.1.1] However, no formula is known for T(n,4,3; see [5, pp.1320]. In the rest of this setion, we show that the purity of is very strong ondition in Theorem 3.3. Proposition 5.6. Then the following onditions are equivalent: (1 There exists a d-dimensional Stanley Reisner ring k[ ] suh that is pure, indegk[ ] = d and e(k[ ] = e 2d 1. (2 n = d+2, d 5 and (d,e is one of the following pairs: (2,2, (2,3, (3,4, (3,5, (4,6, (4,7, (5,9. To prove the proposition, we need the following lemma. Lemma 5.7. Let A = k[ ] be a d-dimensional Stanley Reisner ring whih is not a hypersurfae. Suppose that is pure and indega = d 3. Then there exists a vertex i [n] suh that e(k[ V \{i} ] 2. Proof. Note that n d + 2 by the assumption. Put e = e(a. Suppose that e(k[ V\{i} ] = 1 for all i. Then sine there exist (e 1 faets ontaining i for eah i [n], we have (d+2(e 1 n(e 1 de; hene e d+2 2. On the other hand, by ounting the number of subfaets (i.e., the maximal faes among all faes exept faets of we get ( n de d 1 9

10 sine indega = d and is pure. It follows from these inequalities that ( ( ( d(d+2 n d+2 d+2 de =. 2 d 1 d 1 3 Hene d 2. This is a ontradition. Proof of Proposition 5.6. We first show (1 = (2. Let A = k[ ] be a d- dimensional Stanley Reisner ring for whih is pure, indega = d, and e = e(a 2d 1. We may assume that d 3. Sine is pure, any subfaet is ontained in some d-subset of. By ounting the number of subfaets that ontain n, we obtain that ( n 1 ( e e(k[ V\{n} ] (d 1 (e 2(d 1, d 2 where the last inequality follows from Lemma 5.7. Now let us see that n = d+2. Suppose that n d+3. Then we get ( ( d+2 n 1 (e 2(d 1 (2d 3(d 1 4 d 2 by the assumption. This implies that d 4. First we onsider the ase of d = 4. Then n = d+3 = 7, e = 2d 1 = 7. Let {F 1,...,F 7 } be the set of faets of. Sine e(k[ V\{7} ] = 2, we may assume that 7 F if and only if 1 i 5. Note that F i ontains only one subfaet that does not ontain 7 for eah 1 i 5. On the other hand, one an find at most 4 2 subfaets as faes of F 6 or F 7. Therefore the total number of subfaets that do not ontain 7 is at most 13. However the number of all subfaets whih do not ontain 7 is ( = 20 sine indega = 4. This is a ontradition. By the similar observation as in the ase of d = 4, one an prove that the ase of d = 3 does not our. Therefore we onlude that n = d+2. Under the assumption that n = d + 2, let us determine (d,e. Let be the Alexander dual of and put R = k[ ]. Then R is a two-dimensional Stanley Reisner ring with indegr = 2. Also, rt(r = indegr = 2 sine is pure. Thus by virtue of Turan s theorem (see Eq. 5.1, we have ( d+2 e = e(r f(d+2,2 1 = 2 (d+2 2 where a denotes the maximum integer that does not exeed a. Namely, we have (d+1 2 2d 1 e. 4 It immediately follows from here that (d,e is one of the pairs listed above. Conversely, in order to prove (2 = (1, it is enough to find (n,e -graphs (i.e., 1-dimensional simpliial omplexes Γ on [n] with e edges whih does not ontain any triangle for eah (n,e = (4,4, (4,3, (5,6, (5,5, (6,9, (6,8, (7,12. Those omplexes will be given in the following example. Example 5.8. There exists a 1-dimensional simpliial onneted omplex Γ on [n] with with e(k[γ] = e and rt(k[γ] = 2 for eah (n,e = (4,4, (4,3, (5,6, (5,5, 10 4,

11 (6,9, (6,8, (7,12. Put S 4,4 = {[12],[14],[23],[34]}, S 4,3 = {[12],[23],[34]}, S 5,6 = {[12],[14],[23],[25],[34],[45]}, S 5,5 = {[12],[14],[23],[34],[45]}, S 6,9 = {[14],[15],[16],[24],[25],[26],[34],[35],[36]}, S 6,8 = {[12],[14],[23],[25],[34],[36],[45],[56]}, S 7,12 = {[15],[16],[17],[25],[26],[27],[35],[36],[37],[45],[46],[47]]}, where [i 1 i 2 i p ] means {i 1,i 2,...,i p }. Let Γ n,e be a simpliial omplex spanned by S n,e. Then k[γ n,e ] is a twodimensionalcohen MaaulayStanley Reisnerringwithe(k[Γ] = e andrt(k[γ] = 2. Note that when e = f(n,2 1, Γ n,e is the so-alled Turan graph T 2 (n, that is, it is the unique omplete bipartite graph on [n] whose two partition sets differ in size by at most 1. Let d,e be the Alexander dual omplex of Γ n,e where d = n 2 and e = ( d+2 2 e. Namely, d,e is the omplex spanned by T d,e, respetively: T 2,2 = {[13],[24]}, T 2,3 = {[13],[23],[24]}, T 3,4 = {[124],[135],[234],[245]}, T 3,5 = {[124],[134],[135],[234],[245]}, T 4,6 = {[1234],[2345],[3456],[4561],[5612],[6123]}, T 4,7 = {[1235],[1246],[1345],[1356],[2345],[2346],[2456]}, T 5,9 = {[12345],[12346],[12347],[12567],[13567],[14567],[23567], [24567],[34567]}. Then A = k[ d,e ] is a d-dimensional equidimensional Stanley Reisner ring with indega = d and e(a = e for eah (d,e = (2,2, (2,3, (3,4, (3,5, (4,6, (4,7, (5,9. Corollary 5.9. Let A = k[ ] be a d-dimensional Buhsbaum Stanley Reisner ring whih is not a hypersurfae. Suppose that indega = d 3. Then d = 3 and is isomorphi to a simpliial omplex spanned by {[124],[134],[135],[235],[245]}. Proof. Sine A is Buhsbaum and indega = d we have e = e(a +d ( +d 2 d d 2 by [11, Proposition 2.1]. Also, n = d+2 by Proposition 5.6 sine is pure. Thus 2d 1 e d+2 ( d = (d+2(d 1. d d 2 2 This implies that d 3, and thus d = 3 and e = 5. Then one an easily see that is isomorphi to the omplex spanned by {[124],[134],[135],[235],[245]}, whih is the Alexander dual omplex of a 1-dimensional onneted omplex spanned by {[12],[23],[34],[45]}. 11

12 Referenes [1] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen Maaulay Rings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Sydney, [2] R. Diestel, Graph theory. Seond edition Graduate Texts in Mathematis, 173, Springer- Verlag, New York, [3] J. A. Eagon and V. Reiner, Resolutions of Stanley Reisner rings and Alexander duality, J. Pure and Applied Algebra 130 (1998, [4] D. Eisenbud and S. Goto, Linear free resolutions and minimal multipliity, J. Algebra 88 (1984, [5] P. Frankl, Extremal set systems, Handbook of ombinatoris, Vol. 1, 2, , Elsevier, Amsterdam, [6] L. T. Hoa and C. Miyazaki, Bounds on Castelnuovo Mumford regularity for generalized Cohen Maaulay graded rings, Math. Ann. 301 (1995, [7] J. F. P. Hudson, Pieewise Linear Topology, University of Chiago Leture Notes prepared with the assistane of J. L. Shaneson and J. Lees, W.A.Benjamin, In., New York Amsterdam [8] P. Shenzel, Appliations of Koszul homology to numbers of generators and syzygies, J. Pure and Applied Algebra. 114 (1997, [9] R. P. Stanley, Combinatoris and Commutative Algebra, Seond Edition, Birkhaeuser, Boston/Basel/Stuttgart, [10] J. Stükrad and W. Vogel, Buhsbaum Rings and Appliations, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, [11] N. Terai and K. Yoshida, Buhsbaum Stanley Reisner rings with minimal multipliity, (to appear in Pro. Amer. Math. So.. [12] W. V. Vasonelos, Cohomologial degrees of graded modules, in Six Letures on Commutative Algebra (eds. J.Elias et.al, Birkhäuser, Department of Mathematis, Faulty of Culture and Eduation, Saga University, Saga , Japan address: Graduate Shool of Mathematis, Nagoya University, Nagoya , Japan address: 12