Hilbert's Syzygy theorem states that a minimal free resolution of a finitely generated graded module over a (standard graded) polynomial ring in $n$ variables $k[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ does not have more than $n+1$ terms in it. To what rings other than the polynomial ring has Hilbert's theorem been generalized? Does it hold for polynomial rings which are not standard graded? Please give me a reference if the answers to these are known.
-
2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimension – Jan 17 '14 at 15:38
-
@abx: I looked at the Wikipedia page you suggested. But it does not answer my question. I would like to ask the following: what is the global dimension of say, a nonstandard graded polynomial ring? – Carl Jan 17 '14 at 15:42
-
4The global dimension does not depend on the grading, it is defined in terms of the ring alone. – Jan 17 '14 at 15:54
-
@abx: I recommend that you post your comments as an answer. That way this question will stop appearing near the top of the list of unanswered questions. – Jan 18 '14 at 18:07
-
2(It is non-obvious, though, that the graded global dimension of a polynomial ring (computed using graded resolutions of graded modules) is the same as the ungraded one.) – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jan 18 '14 at 18:32
-
I would like to know how to see the point that @MarianoSuárez-Álvarez makes. Why is there a graded resolution of graded modules, when the grading is weighted? Can this be inferred from the straight case? I'm gonna start a bounty for this. – Guenterino Apr 15 '22 at 09:52
-
A much more general result (but more in the geometry direction than the algebraic one) says that any coherent sheaf on any smooth variety over a field can be resolved by finitely many locally free sheaves. – Aitor Iribar Lopez Apr 17 '22 at 20:47
2 Answers
As suggested by Jason I put my comments into an answer. Hilbert's theorem means that all modules over $k[x_1,\ldots ,x_n]$ have projective dimension $\leq n$ -- one says that the global dimension (aka homological dimension) of $k[x_1,\ldots ,x_n]$ is $n$. This is a property of the ring $k[x_1,\ldots ,x_n]$, it does not depend on the grading. It applies to many other rings: by a famous theorem of Serre, a local (commutative) ring has finite global dimension if and only if it is regular.
Here's a proof that the grading doesn't matter. It's actually relatively straightforward.
Let $R=k[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ with $\deg x_i = d_i$. Then the Koszul complex, which is the total complex of the tensor product of the complexes $$0\to R(-d_i)\stackrel{x_i}{\to} R\to 0,$$ forms a graded free resolution of $k$ as an $R$-module of length $n+1$.
Now let $M$ be an arbitrary graded finitely-generated $R$-module, and let $$\cdots \to F_n \to \cdots \to F_0 \to M \to 0$$ be a minimal graded free resolution, where minimal means we pick the smallest number of generators for the kernel at each step and use that to build the next module in the resolution. Now let $e_j$ be a basis element of $F_{i+1}$ and consider the image $(f_1,\cdots,f_k)\in F_i$: each of the $f$ are homogeneous by the fact our resolution is graded, and I claim none of the $f$ can be constant. To see why, if $f_1$ was constant, then the image of $e_j$ would be in the span of the other basis vectors because the images of the $e_j$ span the kernel, contradicting minimality.
What does this give us? If we apply the functor $-\otimes_R k$ to our resolution $F_\bullet$, we get a complex where every map is zero except possibly the map $F_0\otimes_R k\to M\otimes_R k$ and thus the homology is particularly simple. But now we can use the fact that Tor is symmetric to compute the rank of $\operatorname{Tor}^R_\ell(M,k)$ from resolving $M$ or resolving $k$ using the Koszul complex. Since the Tor groups vanish for $\ell > n+1$ from the Koszul complex, we see that swapping to the other resolution, $F_\ell = 0$ for $\ell >n+1$.
- 65,137
-
The Koszul Komplex part is clear. I do not really understand Tor yet, so it's kinda difficult to follow along in the last paragraph. I will try to understand that later. But just to be sure I understand the structure of the proof correctly: You are first finding a free resolution algorithmically and then you are showing that it is finite - is that correct? – Guenterino Apr 16 '22 at 23:15
-
Do you know any way to show that it works where the non-graded case is already assumed? – Guenterino Apr 16 '22 at 23:15
-
An introductory book for homological algebra will probably helpful for understanding Tor - I'd recommend Weibel, though there are certainly other options. As far as the proof, yes, I am constructing a resolution and then showing that it is finite. (I'm not sure I'd use the word algorithmically.) I'm not familiar with a good version of the graded case assuming the ungraded case - this proof strategy uses the grading in a pretty important manner, and the other strategies I'm aware of can be adapted between the two cases by just saying "graded" (or not) a few times. – KReiser Apr 16 '22 at 23:40