Constructing monomial ideals with a given minimal resolution

DOI10.1216/RMJ-2017-47-6-1963MaRDI QIDQ1683398zbMATH OpenFDO

Authors Sonja Mapes, Lindsay C. Piechnik

Publication date 8 December 2017

Published in Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06298, https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.rmjm/1511254960

zbMATH Keywords

cellular resolutionlcm-latticeminimal free resolutionmonomial idealscarf ideal

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Syzygies, resolutions, complexes and commutative rings (13D02) Commutative rings defined by monomial ideals; Stanley-Reisner face rings; simplicial complexes (13F55)

Abstract: This paper gives a description of various recent results which construct monomial ideals with a given minimal free resolution. We show that these are all instances of coordinatizing a finite atomic lattice as defined by Mapes. Subsequently, we explain how in some of these cases (in one case work by Faridi, and in another work by Floystad), where questions still remain, this point of view can be applied. We also prove an equivalence in the case of trees between the notion of maximal defined by Floystad and a notion of being maximal in a Betti stratum.

Review text

A theme of recent research has been to construct a monomial ideal with a specific minimal free resolution. For example: (1) The Nearly Scarf construction of a monomial ideal \(M_{\Delta}\) from a simplicial complex \(\Delta\), from [\textit{I. Peeva} and \textit{M. Velasco}, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 363, 2029--2046 (2011; Zbl 1221.13024)]; (2) Faridi's alternative Scarf constriction that associates an acyclic complex \(\Delta\) to an ideal that has a resolution supported on \(\Delta\) [\textit{S. Faridi}, J. Commut. Algebra 6, No. 3, 347--361 (2014; Zbl 1330.13016)]; (3) Fløystad's construction from [\textit{G. Fløystad}, J. Commut. Algebra 1, No. 1, 57--89 (2009; Zbl 1184.13037)] that associates a maximal monomial ideal \(M_T\) to every tree \(T\). The paper under review demonstrates that each of these three constructions is a \textit{coordinatization} of a finite atomic lattice (Section 4, Lemma 4.2, Theorem 5.7). A coordinatization of a lattice \(P\) is an labeling \(\mathcal{M}\) of some elements of \(P\) with non-trivial monomials in a way such that the ideal \(M_{\mathcal{M}}\) produced by this labeling has an lcm-lattice that is isomorphic to \(P\) itself. The authors suggest that this point of view is valuable, because the lcm lattice encodes data that may not be evident when only looking at the original cell structures. In addition to proving the construction results, the authors show that every monomial ideal can be obtained via a certain coordinatization of its lcm lattice (Prop 2.3) and provide necessary and sufficient conditions to say when a labeling is a coordinatization (Prop 3.2).

Recommendations

• Finite atomic lattices and resolutions of monomial ideals
• Minimal free resolution of monomial ideals by iterated mapping cone
• The lcm-lattice in monomial resolutions
• Lcm-lattice, Taylor bases and minimal free resolutions of a monomial ideal
• Resolutions and lattices

Cited in

(9)

• Minimal free resolution of monomial ideals by iterated mapping cone
• Finite atomic lattices and their monomial ideals
• LCM lattices supporting pure resolutions
• Frames and degenerations of monomial resolutions
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 5322296 (Why is no real title available?)
• Finite atomic lattices and resolutions of monomial ideals
• Monomial resolutions supported by simplicial trees
• Linear quotients and multigraded shifts of Borel ideals
• Scarf lattice ideals

This page was built for publication: Constructing monomial ideals with a given minimal resolution

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1683398)