Situation 10.101.1. Here $R$ is a ring, and we have a complex

In other words we require $\varphi _ i \circ \varphi _{i + 1} = 0$ for $i = 1, \ldots , e - 1$.

Some of this material can be found in the paper [WhatExact] by Buchsbaum and Eisenbud.

Situation 10.101.1. Here $R$ is a ring, and we have a complex

\[ 0 \to R^{n_ e} \xrightarrow {\varphi _ e} R^{n_{e-1}} \xrightarrow {\varphi _{e-1}} \ldots \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i + 1}} R^{n_ i} \xrightarrow {\varphi _ i} R^{n_{i-1}} \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i-1}} \ldots \xrightarrow {\varphi _1} R^{n_0} \]

In other words we require $\varphi _ i \circ \varphi _{i + 1} = 0$ for $i = 1, \ldots , e - 1$.

Lemma 10.101.2. Suppose $R$ is a ring. Let

\[ \ldots \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i + 1}} R^{n_ i} \xrightarrow {\varphi _ i} R^{n_{i-1}} \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i-1}} \ldots \]

be a complex of finite free $R$-modules. Suppose that for some $i$ some matrix coefficient of the map $\varphi _ i$ is invertible. Then the displayed complex is isomorphic to the direct sum of a complex

\[ \ldots \to R^{n_{i + 2}} \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i + 2}} R^{n_{i + 1}} \to R^{n_ i - 1} \to R^{n_{i - 1} - 1} \to R^{n_{i - 2}} \xrightarrow {\varphi _{i - 2}} R^{n_{i - 3}} \to \ldots \]

and the complex $\ldots \to 0 \to R \to R \to 0 \to \ldots $ where the map $R \to R$ is the identity map.

**Proof.**
The assumption means, after a change of basis of $R^{n_ i}$ and $R^{n_{i-1}}$ that the first basis vector of $R^{n_ i}$ is mapped via $\varphi _ i$ to the first basis vector of $R^{n_{i-1}}$. Let $e_ j$ denote the $j$th basis vector of $R^{n_ i}$ and $f_ k$ the $k$th basis vector of $R^{n_{i-1}}$. Write $\varphi _ i(e_ j) = \sum a_{jk} f_ k$. So $a_{1k} = 0$ unless $k = 1$ and $a_{11} = 1$. Change basis on $R^{n_ i}$ again by setting $e'_ j = e_ j - a_{j1} e_1$ for $j > 1$. After this change of coordinates we have $a_{j1} = 0$ for $j > 1$. Note the image of $R^{n_{i + 1}} \to R^{n_ i}$ is contained in the subspace spanned by $e_ j$, $j > 1$. Note also that $R^{n_{i-1}} \to R^{n_{i-2}}$ has to annihilate $f_1$ since it is in the image. These conditions and the shape of the matrix $(a_{jk})$ for $\varphi _ i$ imply the lemma.
$\square$

In Situation 10.101.1 we say a complex of the form

\[ 0 \to \ldots \to 0 \to R \xrightarrow {1} R \to 0 \to \ldots \to 0 \]

or of the form

\[ 0 \to \ldots \to 0 \to R \]

is *trivial*. More precisely, we say $0 \to R^{n_ e} \to R^{n_{e-1}} \to \ldots \to R^{n_0}$ is trivial if either there exists an $e \geq i \geq 1$ with $n_ i = n_{i - 1} = 1$, $\varphi _ i = \text{id}_ R$, and $n_ j = 0$ for $j \not\in \{ i, i - 1\} $ or $n_0 = 1$ and $n_ i = 0$ for $i > 0$. The lemma above clearly says that any finite complex of finite free modules over a local ring is up to direct sums with trivial complexes the same as a complex all of whose maps have all matrix coefficients in the maximal ideal.

Lemma 10.101.3. In Situation 10.101.1. Suppose $R$ is a local Noetherian ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$. Assume $\mathfrak m \in \text{Ass}(R)$, in other words $R$ has depth $0$. Suppose that $0 \to R^{n_ e} \to R^{n_{e-1}} \to \ldots \to R^{n_0}$ is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$. Then the complex is isomorphic to a direct sum of trivial complexes.

**Proof.**
Pick $x \in R$, $x \not= 0$, with $\mathfrak m x = 0$. Let $i$ be the biggest index such that $n_ i > 0$. If $i = 0$, then the statement is true. If $i > 0$ denote $f_1$ the first basis vector of $R^{n_ i}$. Since $xf_1$ is not mapped to zero by exactness of the complex we deduce that some matrix coefficient of the map $R^{n_ i} \to R^{n_{i - 1}}$ is not in $\mathfrak m$. Lemma 10.101.2 then allows us to decrease $n_ e + \ldots + n_1$. Induction finishes the proof.
$\square$

Lemma 10.101.4. In Situation 10.101.1. Let $R$ be a Artinian local ring. Suppose that $0 \to R^{n_ e} \to R^{n_{e-1}} \to \ldots \to R^{n_0}$ is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$. Then the complex is isomorphic to a direct sum of trivial complexes.

**Proof.**
This is a special case of Lemma 10.101.3 because an Artinian local ring has depth $0$.
$\square$

Below we define the rank of a map of finite free modules. This is just one possible definition of rank. It is just the definition that works in this section; there are others that may be more convenient in other settings.

Definition 10.101.5. Let $R$ be a ring. Suppose that $\varphi : R^ m \to R^ n$ is a map of finite free modules.

The

*rank*of $\varphi $ is the maximal $r$ such that $\wedge ^ r \varphi : \wedge ^ r R^ m \to \wedge ^ r R^ n$ is nonzero.We let $I(\varphi ) \subset R$ be the ideal generated by the $r \times r$ minors of the matrix of $\varphi $, where $r$ is the rank as defined above.

Lemma 10.101.6. In Situation 10.101.1, suppose the complex is isomorphic to a direct sum of trivial complexes. Then we have

the maps $\varphi _ i$ have rank $r_ i = n_ i - n_{i + 1} + \ldots + (-1)^{e-i-1} n_{e-1} + (-1)^{e-i} n_ e$,

for all $i$, $1 \leq i \leq e - 1$ we have $\text{rank}(\varphi _{i + 1}) + \text{rank}(\varphi _ i) = n_ i$,

each $I(\varphi _ i) = R$.

**Proof.**
We may assume the complex is the direct sum of trivial complexes. Then for each $i$ we can split the standard basis elements of $R^{n_ i}$ into those that map to a basis element of $R^{n_{i-1}}$ and those that are mapped to zero (and these are mapped onto by basis elements of $R^{n_{i + 1}}$ if $i > 0$). Using descending induction starting with $i = e$ it is easy to prove that there are $r_{i + 1}$-basis elements of $R^{n_ i}$ which are mapped to zero and $r_ i$ which are mapped to basis elements of $R^{n_{i-1}}$. From this the result follows.
$\square$

Lemma 10.101.7. In Situation 10.101.1. Suppose $R$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$. Suppose that $0 \to R^{n_ e} \to R^{n_{e-1}} \to \ldots \to R^{n_0}$ is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$. Let $x \in \mathfrak m$ be a nonzerodivisor. The complex $0 \to (R/xR)^{n_ e} \to \ldots \to (R/xR)^{n_1}$ is exact at $(R/xR)^{n_ e}, \ldots , (R/xR)^{n_2}$.

**Proof.**
Denote $F_\bullet $ the complex with terms $F_ i = R^{n_ i}$ and differential given by $\varphi _ i$. Then we have a short exact sequence of complexes

\[ 0 \to F_\bullet \xrightarrow {x} F_\bullet \to F_\bullet /xF_\bullet \to 0 \]

Applying the snake lemma we get a long exact sequence

\[ H_ i(F_\bullet ) \xrightarrow {x} H_ i(F_\bullet ) \to H_ i(F_\bullet /xF_\bullet ) \to H_{i - 1}(F_\bullet ) \xrightarrow {x} H_{i - 1}(F_\bullet ) \]

The lemma follows. $\square$

Lemma 10.101.8 (Acyclicity lemma). Let $R$ be a local Noetherian ring. Let $0 \to M_ e \to M_{e-1} \to \ldots \to M_0$ be a complex of finite $R$-modules. Assume $\text{depth}(M_ i) \geq i$. Let $i$ be the largest index such that the complex is not exact at $M_ i$. If $i > 0$ then $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_{i-1})/\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(M_{i + 1} \to M_ i)$ has depth $\geq 1$.

**Proof.**
Let $H = \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(M_ i \to M_{i-1})/\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(M_{i + 1} \to M_ i)$ be the cohomology group in question. We may break the complex into short exact sequences $0 \to M_ e \to M_{e-1} \to K_{e-2} \to 0$, $0 \to K_ j \to M_ j \to K_{j-1} \to 0$, for $i + 2 \leq j \leq e-2 $, $0 \to K_{i + 1} \to M_{i + 1} \to B_ i \to 0$, $0 \to K_ i \to M_ i \to M_{i-1}$, and $0 \to B_ i \to K_ i \to H \to 0$. We proceed up through these complexes to prove the statements about depths, repeatedly using Lemma 10.71.6. First of all, since $\text{depth}(M_ e) \geq e$, and $\text{depth}(M_{e-1}) \geq e-1$ we deduce that $\text{depth}(K_{e-2}) \geq e - 1$. At this point the sequences $0 \to K_ j \to M_ j \to K_{j-1} \to 0$ for $i + 2 \leq j \leq e-2 $ imply similarly that $\text{depth}(K_{j-1}) \geq j$ for $i + 2 \leq j \leq e-2$. The sequence $0 \to K_{i + 1} \to M_{i + 1} \to B_ i \to 0$ then shows that $\text{depth}(B_ i) \geq i + 1$. The sequence $0 \to K_ i \to M_ i \to M_{i-1}$ shows that $\text{depth}(K_ i) \geq 1$ since $M_ i$ has depth $\geq i \geq 1$ by assumption. The sequence $0 \to B_ i \to K_ i \to H \to 0$ then implies the result.
$\square$

Proposition 10.101.9. In Situation 10.101.1, suppose $R$ is a local Noetherian ring. The following are equivalent

$0 \to R^{n_ e} \to R^{n_{e-1}} \to \ldots \to R^{n_0}$ is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$, and

for all $i$, $1 \leq i \leq e$ the following two conditions are satisfied:

$\text{rank}(\varphi _ i) = r_ i$ where $r_ i = n_ i - n_{i + 1} + \ldots + (-1)^{e-i-1} n_{e-1} + (-1)^{e-i} n_ e$,

$I(\varphi _ i) = R$, or $I(\varphi _ i)$ contains a regular sequence of length $i$.

**Proof.**
If for some $i$ some matrix coefficient of $\varphi _ i$ is not in $\mathfrak m$, then we apply Lemma 10.101.2. It is easy to see that the proposition for a complex and for the same complex with a trivial complex added to it are equivalent. Thus we may assume that all matrix entries of each $\varphi _ i$ are elements of the maximal ideal. We may also assume that $e \geq 1$.

Assume the complex is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$. Let $\mathfrak q \in \text{Ass}(R)$. Note that the ring $R_{\mathfrak q}$ has depth $0$ and that the complex remains exact after localization at $\mathfrak q$. We apply Lemmas 10.101.3 and 10.101.6 to the localized complex over $R_{\mathfrak q}$. We conclude that $\varphi _{i, \mathfrak q}$ has rank $r_ i$ for all $i$. Since $R \to \bigoplus _{\mathfrak q \in \text{Ass}(R)} R_\mathfrak q$ is injective (Lemma 10.62.19), we conclude that $\varphi _ i$ has rank $r_ i$ over $R$ by the definition of rank as given in Definition 10.101.5. Therefore we see that $I(\varphi _ i)_\mathfrak q = I(\varphi _{i, \mathfrak q})$ as the ranks do not change. Since all of the ideals $I(\varphi _ i)_{\mathfrak q}$, $e \geq i \geq 1$ are equal to $R_{\mathfrak q}$ (by the lemmas referenced above) we conclude none of the ideals $I(\varphi _ i)$ is contained in $\mathfrak q$. This implies that $I(\varphi _ e)I(\varphi _{e-1})\ldots I(\varphi _1)$ is not contained in any of the associated primes of $R$. By Lemma 10.14.2 we may choose $x \in I(\varphi _ e)I(\varphi _{e - 1})\ldots I(\varphi _1)$, $x \not\in \mathfrak q$ for all $\mathfrak q \in \text{Ass}(R)$. Observe that $x$ is a nonzerodivisor (Lemma 10.62.9). According to Lemma 10.101.7 the complex $0 \to (R/xR)^{n_ e} \to \ldots \to (R/xR)^{n_1}$ is exact at $(R/xR)^{n_ e}, \ldots , (R/xR)^{n_2}$. By induction on $e$ all the ideals $I(\varphi _ i)/xR$ have a regular sequence of length $i - 1$. This proves that $I(\varphi _ i)$ contains a regular sequence of length $i$.

Assume (2)(a) and (2)(b) hold. We claim that for any prime $\mathfrak p \subset R$ conditions (2)(a) and (2)(b) hold for the complex $0 \to R_\mathfrak p^{n_ e} \to R_\mathfrak p^{n_{e - 1}} \to \ldots \to R_\mathfrak p^{n_0}$ with maps $\varphi _{i, \mathfrak p}$ over $R_\mathfrak p$. Namely, since $I(\varphi _ i)$ contains a nonzero divisor, the image of $I(\varphi _ i)$ in $R_\mathfrak p$ is nonzero. This implies that the rank of $\varphi _{i, \mathfrak p}$ is the same as the rank of $\varphi _ i$: the rank as defined above of a matrix $\varphi $ over a ring $R$ can only drop when passing to an $R$-algebra $R'$ and this happens if and only $I(\varphi )$ maps to zero in $R'$. Thus (2)(a) holds. Having said this we know that $I(\varphi _{i, \mathfrak p}) = I(\varphi _ i)_\mathfrak p$ and we see that (2)(b) is preserved under localization as well. By induction on the dimension of $R$ we may assume the complex is exact when localized at any nonmaximal prime $\mathfrak p$ of $R$. Thus $\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(\varphi _ i)/\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(\varphi _{i + 1})$ has support contained in $\{ \mathfrak m\} $ and hence if nonzero has depth $0$. As $I(\varphi _ i) \subset \mathfrak m$ for all $i$ because of what was said in the first paragraph of the proof, we see that (2)(b) implies $\text{depth}(R) \geq e$. By Lemma 10.101.8 we see that the complex is exact at $R^{n_ e}, \ldots , R^{n_1}$ concluding the proof. $\square$

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like `$\pi$`

). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

## Comments (0)