repairing some stuff

This commit is contained in:
Markus Maximilian Rudolf Tripp 2026-09-21 16:44:13 +02:00
commit 844ca7a251
2 changed files with 68 additions and 61 deletions

View file

@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Throughout, we fix an arbitrary ground field $\kk$. We begin by recalling some b
Let $\SGR$ be an affine semigroup, that is, a finitely generated submonoid of $\ZZ^d$ for some $d \in \NN$. The \textbf{toric algebra} associated with $\SGR$ is the semigroup algebra Let $\SGR$ be an affine semigroup, that is, a finitely generated submonoid of $\ZZ^d$ for some $d \in \NN$. The \textbf{toric algebra} associated with $\SGR$ is the semigroup algebra
\[ R \coloneqq \kk[\SGR] = \spn_\kk \{ x^a \mid a \in \SGR \}. \] \[ R \coloneqq \kk[\SGR] = \spn_\kk \{ x^a \mid a \in \SGR \}. \]
The algebra $R$ is a finitely generated $\kk$-subalgebra of the Laurent polynomial ring~$\kk[x_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, x_d^{\pm 1}]$. In particular, it is a Noetherian domain and inherits the natural $\ZZ^d$-grading. Its Krull dimension is equal to the rank of $\gp(\SGR)$, where $\gp(\SGR)$ denotes the subgroup of $\ZZ^d$ generated by $\SGR$~\cite[Prop. 1.1.14]{Cox2011}. Consequently, $R$ is one-dimensional if and only if $\gp(\SGR) \cong \ZZ$, in which case we may assume without loss of generality that $\gp(\SGR) = \ZZ$. Every additive submonoid of $\ZZ$ is either a group, a submonoid of $\NN_0$, or a submonoid of $-\NN_0$~\cite[§ 2]{Geroldinger2025}. Hence, when $R$ is one-dimensional, $\SGR$ is, up to isomorphism of monoids, either $\ZZ$ or a submonoid of $\NN_0$. Accordingly, either $R\cong\kk[x^{\pm 1}]$ or $R \cong \kk[x^{a_1},\dots,x^{a_n}]$ for some $a_1$, \dots, $a_n \in \NN_0$. The algebra $R$ is a finitely generated $\kk$-subalgebra of the Laurent polynomial ring~$\kk[x_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, x_d^{\pm 1}]$. In particular, it is a Noetherian domain and inherits the natural $\ZZ^d$-grading. Its Krull dimension is equal to the rank of $\gp(\SGR)$, where $\gp(\SGR)$ denotes the subgroup of $\ZZ^d$ generated by $\SGR$~\cite[Prop. 1.1.14]{Cox2011}. Consequently, $R$ is one-dimensional if and only if $\gp(\SGR) \cong \ZZ$, in which case we may assume without loss of generality that $\gp(\SGR) = \ZZ$. Every submonoid of $\ZZ$ is either a group, a submonoid of $\NN_0$, or a submonoid of $-\NN_0$~\cite[§ 2]{Geroldinger2025}. Hence, when $R$ is one-dimensional, $\SGR$ is, up to isomorphism of monoids, either $\ZZ$ or a submonoid of $\NN_0$. Accordingly, either $R\cong\kk[x^{\pm 1}]$ or $R \cong \kk[x^{a_1},\dots,x^{a_n}]$ for some $a_1$, \dots, $a_n \in \NN_0$.
When $\kk$ is algebraically closed, the algebra $R=\kk[\SGR]$ is the coordinate ring of the associated affine toric variety $X = \Spec(R)$. In dimension one, the corresponding affine toric variety is either the one-dimensional torus $\Spec(\kk[x^{\pm1}]) = \A^1_\kk \setminus \{ 0 \}$, or an \textbf{affine monomial curve} $\Spec(\kk[x^{a_1},\dots,x^{a_n}])$, parametrized by When $\kk$ is algebraically closed, the algebra $R=\kk[\SGR]$ is the coordinate ring of the associated affine toric variety $X = \Spec(R)$. In dimension one, the corresponding affine toric variety is either the one-dimensional torus $\Spec(\kk[x^{\pm1}]) = \A^1_\kk \setminus \{ 0 \}$, or an \textbf{affine monomial curve} $\Spec(\kk[x^{a_1},\dots,x^{a_n}])$, parametrized by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:para-mon-curve} \begin{equation}\label{eq:para-mon-curve}
@ -117,62 +117,41 @@ For a numerical monoid $\SGR=\langle a_1,\dots, a_n\rangle \subseteq \NN_0$, the
\subsection{Normality, seminormality, and weak normality} \subsection{Normality, seminormality, and weak normality}
A domain $\Lambda$ is called \textbf{normal} if it is integrally closed in its field of fractions $\Frac(\Lambda)$, and \textbf{seminormal} if, for every $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$, the conditions $\lambda^2$, $\lambda^3 \in \Lambda$ imply $\lambda \in \Lambda$. The normalization $\overline{\Lambda}$ and the seminormalization ${}^+\Lambda$ of $\Lambda$ are the intersections of all intermediate normal and seminormal rings $\Gamma$, respectively, satisfying $\Lambda \subseteq \Gamma \subseteq \Frac(\Lambda)$. If $\Lambda$ has prime characteristic $p$, then $\Lambda$ is called \textbf{weakly normal} if, for every $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$, the condition $\lambda^p \in \Lambda$ implies $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Clearly, normality implies seminormality. In prime characteristic $p$, normality implies weak normality, and weak normality in turn implies seminormality. Indeed, suppose that $\Lambda$ is weakly normal and let $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$ satisfy $\lambda^2$, $\lambda^3 \in \Lambda$. Write $p = 2n^\prime + 3n^{\prime\prime}$ for some $n^\prime$, $n^{\prime\prime} \in \NN_0$. Then A domain $\Lambda$ is called \textbf{normal} if it is integrally closed in its field o.f fractions $\Frac(\Lambda)$, and \textbf{seminormal} if, for every $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$, $\lambda^2 \in \Lambda$ and $\lambda^3 \in \Lambda$ imply that $\lambda \in \Lambda$. The normalization~$\overline{\Lambda}$ and the seminormalization ${}^+\Lambda$ of $\Lambda$ are, respectively, the intersections of all intermediate normal and seminormal rings $\Gamma$ satisfying $\Lambda \subseteq \Gamma \subseteq \Frac(\Lambda)$ If $\Lambda$ has prime characteristic $p$, then $\Lambda$ is called \textbf{weakly normal} if, for every $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$, the condition $\lambda^p \in \Lambda$ implies $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Clearly, normality implies seminormality. In prime characteristic $p$, normality implies weak normality, and weak normality in turn implies seminormality. Indeed, suppose that $\Lambda$ is weakly normal and let $\lambda \in \Frac(\Lambda)$ satisfy $\lambda^2$, $\lambda^3 \in \Lambda$. Write $p = 2k + 3\ell$ for some $k$, $\ell \in \NN_0$. Then
\[ \[
\lambda^p = (\lambda^2)^{n^\prime}(\lambda^3)^{n^{\prime\prime}} \in \Lambda, \lambda^p = (\lambda^2)^k(\lambda^3)^\ell \in \Lambda,
\] \]
and hence $\lambda \in \Lambda$. and hence $\lambda \in \Lambda$.
For the toric algebra $R = \kk[\SGR]$, the field of fractions in the definitions above may be replaced by $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$. Indeed, $\gp(\SGR) \cong \ZZ^{d^\prime}$ for some $d^\prime \in \NN_0$, so $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$ is isomorphic to a Laurent polynomial ring and is therefore normal. Consequently, every element of $\Frac(R)$ that is integral over $R$ already belongs to $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$.\todo{mention normality, ... for affine monoids?} For a toric algebra $R = \kk[\SGR]$, the field of fractions in the definitions above may be replaced by $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$. Indeed, $\gp(\SGR) \cong \ZZ^{d^\prime}$ for some $d^\prime \in \NN_0$, so $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$ is isomorphic to a Laurent polynomial ring and is therefore normal. Consequently, every element of $\Frac(R)$ that is integral over $R$ already belongs to $\kk[\gp(\SGR)]$.\todo{mention normality, ... for affine monoids?}
In the case of a numerical semigroup $\SGR$, the corresponding toric algebra $R$ satisfies ${}^+R=\kk[x]$. Indeed, let $n_1 > \cdots > n_k$ be the elements of $\gapset$. Since $n_1$ is the largest gap of $\SGR$, we have $(x^{n_1})^2,(x^{n_1})^3\in R\subseteq{}^+R$, and hence $x^{n_1}\in{}^+R$ by seminormality. In the case of a numerical monoid $\SGR$, the corresponding toric algebra $R$ satisfies ${}^+R=\kk[x]$. Indeed, let $n_1 > \cdots > n_k$ be the elements of $\gapset$. Since $n_1$ is the largest gap of $\SGR$, we have $(x^{n_1})^2$, $(x^{n_1})^3 \in R \subseteq{}^+R$, and hence $x^{n_1}\in{}^+R$ by seminormality.
%Since $n_1$ is the largest gap of $\SGR$, both $2n_1$ and $3n_1$ belong to $\SGR$. Hence $(x^{n_1})^2$, $(x^{n_1})^3 \in R \subseteq{}^+R$, and seminormality gives $x^{n_1}\in{}^+R$. %Since $n_1$ is the largest gap of $\SGR$, both $2n_1$ and $3n_1$ belong to $\SGR$. Hence $(x^{n_1})^2$, $(x^{n_1})^3 \in R \subseteq{}^+R$, and seminormality gives $x^{n_1}\in{}^+R$.
Repeating this argument successively for the remaining gaps shows that $x^{n_1}$, \dots, $x^{n_k} \in{}^+R$, and therefore $\kk[x] \subseteq{}^+R$. Since $\kk[x]$ is normal, hence seminormal, the reverse inclusion follows. Since $\kk[x]$ is normal, we also have $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$, and consequently $\Frac(R) = \kk(x)$. Thus, unless $\SGR=\NN_0$, the ring $R$ is neither normal nor seminormal. Repeating this argument successively for the remaining gaps shows that $x^{n_1}$, \dots, $x^{n_k} \in{}^+R$, and therefore $\kk[x] \subseteq{}^+R$. Since $\kk[x]$ is normal, hence seminormal, the reverse inclusion follows. As $\kk[x]$ is normal, it also follows that $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$, and consequently $\Frac(R) = \kk(x)$. Thus, unless $\SGR=\NN_0$, the ring $R$ is neither normal nor seminormal.
\subsection{Graded Krull–Schmidt theorem} \subsection{Graded Krull–Schmidt theorem}
The category of finitely generated $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules satisfies the \textbf{Krull--Schmidt property}. That is, every such module decomposes as a finite direct sum of $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules that are indecomposable in the graded category, and this decomposition is unique up to graded isomorphism and permutation of the summands~\cite[§ 2]{Shibuta2017}. The category of finitely generated $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules satisfies the \textbf{Krull--Schmidt property}. That is, in the graded category, every such module decomposes as a finite direct sum of indecomposable modules, uniquely up to graded isomorphism and permutation of the summands~\cite[§ 2]{Shibuta2017}.
% we are interested in the unique summands of such graded decomposition only up to shift of degrees so that we introduce the following notations (define \grcong) We are interested in the summands of such graded decompositions only up to degree shifts, and therefore introduce the following notation. Let $M$, $N$, $M_1$, \dots,~$M_k$ be $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. We write $M \grcong N$ if $M$ and $N$ are isomorphic as $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. Moreover, we write
%For $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules $M$, $M_1$, \dots, $M_k$, we write $M \cong_{\textrm{sh}} M_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k$ whenever there exist $q_i \in \QQ$ such that $M \cong M_1(d_1) \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k(d_k)$ as $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. \[ M \shcong M_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k \]
%Clearly if $M \shcong M_1 \oplus M_2$ and $M_2 \shcong M_2^\prime \oplus M_2^{\prime\prime}$, then $M \shcong M_1 \oplus M_2^\prime \oplus M_2^{\prime\prime}$. if there exist $d_i \in \QQ^d$ such that $M\grcong M_1(d_1)\oplus\cdots\oplus M_k(d_k)$, where $M_i(d_i)$ denotes the degree shift of $M_i$ by $d_i$. The notation is compatible with refinements of decompositions. If $M \shcong M_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k$ and $M_1 \shcong M_1^\prime \oplus \cdots \oplus M_\ell^\prime$, then $M \shcong M_1^\prime \oplus \cdots \oplus M_\ell^\prime \oplus M_2 \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k$.
\todo{adapt phrasinig in correspondence gap modules}
%\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:qpower-under-shift}
%Let $M$, $M^\prime$ and $M^{\prime\prime}$ be $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules, and suppose that $M \shcong M^{\prime} \oplus M^{\prime\prime}$, then $\qpower{M} \shcong \qpower{M^{\prime}} \oplus \qpower{M^{\prime\prime}}$.
%\end{lemma}
%\begin{proof}
%By assumption, there are $d^\prime$, $d^{\prime\prime} \in \QQ$ such that $M \grcong M^\prime(d^\prime) \oplus M^{\prime\prime}(d^{\prime\prime})$.
%As the construction of the pseudo-Frobenius twist respects direct sums, we have
%\[ \qpower{M} \grcong \qpower{(M^{\prime}(d^\prime))} \oplus \qpower{(M^{\prime\prime}(d^{\prime\prime}))} = (\qpower{M^{\prime}})(d^\prime/q) \oplus (\qpower{M^{\prime\prime}})(d^{\prime\prime}/q), \]
%where the last equality follows from the computation
%\begin{align*}
%\left(\qpower{(M^{\prime}(d^\prime))} \oplus \qpower{\left(M^{\prime\prime}(d^{\prime\prime})\right)}\right)_\alpha &= \bigl(M^{\prime}(d^\prime)\bigr)_{q\alpha} \oplus \bigl(M^{\prime\prime}(d^{\prime\prime})\bigr)_{q\alpha} \\
%&= (M^{\prime})_{q\alpha + d^\prime} \oplus (M^{\prime\prime})_{q\alpha + d^{\prime\prime}} \\
%&= (\qpower{M^\prime})_{\alpha + \frac{d^\prime}{q}} \oplus (\qpower{M^{\prime\prime}})_{\alpha + \frac{d^{\prime\prime}}{q}} \\
%&= \left((\qpower{M^{\prime}})(d^\prime/q) \oplus (\qpower{M^{\prime\prime}})(d^{\prime\prime}/q)\right)_\alpha.
%\end{align*}
%\end{proof}
%\begin{proposition}
%For the semigroup algebra $R = \kk[\SGR]$ of an affine semigroup $\SGR$, the category of finitely generated $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules is Krull-Schmidt.
%\end{proposition}
\section{Frobenius maps on toric algebras} \section{Frobenius maps on toric algebras}
Let $\SGR$ be an affine semigroup, i.e., a finitely generated submonoid of $\ZZ^d$ for some $d \in \NN$, and let $R \coloneqq \kk[\SGR]$ denote its semigroup algebra. Fix a positive integer $q$, and write $q^{-1}\SGR = \{ a/q \mid a \in \SGR \} \subseteq \QQ^d$ for the rescaling of $\SGR$ by the factor $1/q$. Consider the semigroup algebra Let $R = \kk[\SGR]$ be the toric algebra associated with an affine monoid $\SGR \subseteq \ZZ^d$. Fix a positive integer $q$, and write $q^{-1}\SGR = \{ a/q \mid a \in \SGR \} \subseteq \QQ^d$ for the rescaling of $\SGR$ by the factor $1/q$. Consider the semigroup algebra
\[ R^{1/q} \coloneqq \kk[q^{-1}\SGR] = \spn_\kk\{ x^{a/q} \mid a \in \SGR \} \] \[ R^{1/q} \coloneqq \kk[q^{-1}\SGR] = \spn_\kk\{ x^{a/q} \mid a \in \SGR \} \]
regarded as a subring of $\kk[\QQ^d] = \spn_\kk \{ x^\alpha \mid \alpha \in \QQ^d \}$, which carries a natural $\QQ^d$-grading. While the semigroup ring $R^{1/q}$ is defined for arbitrary $q \in \NN$ in any characteristic, the notation is motivated by the case $q = p^e$ with $\kk$ perfect of prime characteristic $p$, where $R^{1/q}$ is the ring of $q$-th roots of elements in $R$. Further, for $r = \sum_{a \in \QQ^d} k_a x^{a} \in \kk[\QQ^d]$, we set $\qpower{r} \coloneqq \sum_{a \in \QQ^d} k_a x^{qa}$, and write $\qpower{F}$ for the resulting \emph{$q$-th pseudo-Frobenius (ring) endomorphism} of $R$, which maps $r$ to $\qpower{r}$. regarded as a $\kk$-subalgebra of $\kk[\QQ^d] = \spn_\kk \{ x^\alpha \mid \alpha \in \QQ^d \}$, which carries a natural $\QQ^d$-grading. While the algebra $R^{1/q}$ is defined for arbitrary $q \in \NN$ in any characteristic, the notation is motivated by the case $q = p^e$ with $\kk$ perfect of prime characteristic $p$, where $R^{1/q}$ is the ring of $q$-th roots of elements in $R$. Further, for $r = \sum_{a \in \QQ^d} k_a x^{a} \in \kk[\QQ^d]$, we set $\qpower{r} \coloneqq \sum_{a \in \QQ^d} k_a x^{qa}$, and denote by $\qpower{F}$ the resulting $\kk$-algebra endomorphism
\[ \qpower{F} \colon R \to R, \qquad r \longmapsto \qpower{r}, \]
%of $R$ mapping $r$ to $\qpower{r}$,
referred to as the \emph{$q$-th pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism} of $R$.
\begin{remark} \begin{remark}
% PREVIOUS VERSION % Note that even in positive characteristic $p$ with $q = p^e$, the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius twist need not agree with the usual $q$-th Frobenius twist, where $R$-scalar multiplication is pulled back via the $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e \colon r \mapsto r^{p^e}$ on $R$. The two agree precisely when the underlying field $\kk$ is finite, in which case $\kk \subseteq R$ is fixed pointwise by $F^e$. % PREVIOUS VERSION % Note that even in positive characteristic $p$ with $q = p^e$, the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius twist need not agree with the usual $q$-th Frobenius twist, where $R$-scalar multiplication is pulled back via the $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e \colon r \mapsto r^{p^e}$ on $R$. The two agree precisely when the underlying field $\kk$ is finite, in which case $\kk \subseteq R$ is fixed pointwise by $F^e$.
Note that even in positive characteristic $p$ with $q = p^e$, the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$ need not agree with the usual $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e \colon R \to R$, mapping $r$ to $r^{q}$. %The two agree precisely when the underlying field $\kk$ is finite of order $p^f$ with $f \mid e$, in which case $\kk \subseteq R$ is fixed pointwise by $F^e$. Note that even in prime characteristic $p$ with $q = p^e$, the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$ need not agree with the usual $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e \colon R \to R$, mapping $r$ to $r^{q}$. %The two agree precisely when the underlying field $\kk$ is finite of order $p^f$ with $f \mid e$, in which case $\kk \subseteq R$ is fixed pointwise by $F^e$.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{proposition} \begin{proposition}
Assume that $\kk$ is a field of prime characteristic $p$ and that $q = p^e$. Then the $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e$ and the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$ agree precisely when $\kk$ is finite of order $p^f$ with $f \mid e$. Assume that $\kk$ is a field of prime characteristic $p$ and that \mbox{$q = p^e$}. Then the $e$-times iterated Frobenius endomorphism $F^e$ and the $q$-th pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$ agree precisely when $\kk$ is finite of order $p^f$ with $f \mid e$.
\end{proposition} \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
@ -184,7 +163,7 @@ where the last equality is a standard identity; see, for example,~\cite[Example
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{definition} \begin{definition}
Let $M$ be a $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-module. The \textbf{$q$-th pseudo-Frobenius twist} of $M$, denoted $\qpower{M}$, is the $R$-module obtained by restricting scalars along the \mbox{$q$-th} pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$. That is, $\qpower{M}$ is the $R$-module with the same underlying abelian group as $M$, but with $R$-action given by~$r \qmult m \coloneqq \qpower{r}m$ Let $M$ be a $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-module. The \textbf{$q$-th pseudo-Frobenius twist} of $M$, denoted $\qpower{M}$, is the $R$-module obtained by restricting scalars along the \mbox{$q$-th} pseudo-Frobenius endomorphism $\qpower{F}$. That is, $\qpower{M}$ is the $R$-module with the same underlying abelian group as $M$, but with $R$-action given by~$r \qmult m \coloneqq \qpower{r} \cdot m$
% EXPLICIT DECLARATION % \[ \Bigl( \sum_{a \in S} k_a x^a \Bigr) \cdot_q \; m \coloneqq \bigl( \sum_{a \in S} k_a x^{aq} \bigr) m \] % EXPLICIT DECLARATION % \[ \Bigl( \sum_{a \in S} k_a x^a \Bigr) \cdot_q \; m \coloneqq \bigl( \sum_{a \in S} k_a x^{aq} \bigr) m \]
for all $r \in R$ and $m \in M$. for all $r \in R$ and $m \in M$.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
@ -202,18 +181,34 @@ defined by $r = \sum_{a \in \SGR} k_a x^{a/q} \mapsto \qpower{r} = \sum_{a \in \
\end{lemma} \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
By abuse of notation, we also denote by $\qpower{F}$ the map $R^{1/q} \to \qpower{R}$ defined above. This map is clearly additive, bijective and preserves the $\QQ^d$-grading. To verify that it is compatible with the respective $R$-module structures, let $r = \sum_{a \in \SGR} k_a x^a \in R$ and $m = \sum_{a \in \SGR} l_a x^{a/q} \in R^{1/q}$. Then By abuse of notation, we also denote by $\qpower{F}$ the map $R^{1/q} \to \qpower{R}$ defined above. This map is clearly additive, bijective and preserves the $\QQ^d$-grading. To verify that it is compatible with the respective $R$-module structures, let $r = \sum_{a \in \SGR} k_a x^a \in R$ and $m = \sum_{a \in \SGR} \ell_a x^{a/q} \in R^{1/q}$. Then
\[ \qpower{F}(rm) = \qpower{F}\Bigl(\sum_{a, b \in \SGR} k_a l_b x^{a + \frac{b}{q}}\Bigr) = \sum_{a, b \in \SGR} k_a l_b x^{qa + b}, \] \[ \qpower{F}(rm) = \qpower{F}\Bigl(\sum_{a, b \in \SGR} k_a \ell_b x^{a + \frac{b}{q}}\Bigr) = \sum_{a, b \in \SGR} k_a \ell_b x^{qa + b}, \]
which is precisely $r \qmult \qpower{F}(m)$ in $\qpower{R}$. which is precisely $r \qmult \qpower{F}(m)$ in $\qpower{R}$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:qpower-under-shift}
Let $M$, $M_1$, \dots, $M_k$ be $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. If it holds that \mbox{$M \shcong M_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus M_k$}, then $\qpower{M} \shcong \qpower{M_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus \qpower{M_k}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For simplicity of notation, we prove the result only for $k =2$. By assumption, there are $d_1$, $d_2 \in \QQ^d$ such that $M \grcong M_1(d_1) \oplus M_2(d_2)$. As the construction of the pseudo-Frobenius twist respects direct sums, we have
\[ \qpower{M} \grcong \qpower{(M_1(d_1))} \oplus \qpower{(M_2(d_2))} = (\qpower{M_1})(d_1/q) \oplus (\qpower{M_2})(d_2/q), \]
where the last equality follows from the computation
\[ \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt} \begin{array}{rcccc}
\left(\qpower{(M_1(d_1))} \oplus \qpower{(M_2(d_2))}\right)_\alpha & = & \bigl(M_1(d_1)\bigr)_{q\alpha} & \oplus & \bigl(M_2(d_2)\bigr)_{q\alpha} \\
& = & (M_1)_{q\alpha+d_1} & \oplus & (M_2)_{q\alpha+d_2} \\
& = & (\qpower{M_1})_{\alpha+\frac{d_1}{q}} & \oplus & (\qpower{M_2})_{\alpha+\frac{d_2}{q}} \\
& = & \left((\qpower{M_1})(d_1/q)\right)_\alpha & \oplus & \left((\qpower{M_2})(d_2/q)\right)_\alpha.
\end{array} \]
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} \begin{definition}
We say that $R$ is \textbf{$q$-split} if the pseudo-Frobenius map $\qpower{F} \colon R \to \qpower{R}$ splits as a map of $R$-modules, that is, if there exists an $R$-module homomorphism $\sigma \colon \qpower{R} \to R$ such that $\sigma \circ \qpower{F} = \id_R$. Moreover, we call $R$ \textbf{$q$-weakly normal} if, for every $r \in \kk[\gp(\SGR)]$, $\qpower{r} \in R$ implies $r \in R$. We say that $R$ is \textbf{$q$-split} if the pseudo-Frobenius map $\qpower{F} \colon R \to \qpower{R}$ splits as a map of $R$-modules, that is, if there exists an $R$-module homomorphism $\sigma \colon \qpower{R} \to R$ such that $\sigma \circ \qpower{F} = \id_R$. Moreover, we call $R$ \textbf{$q$-weakly normal} if, for every $r \in \kk[\gp(\SGR)]$, $\qpower{r} \in R$ implies $r \in R$.
\end{definition} \end{definition}
\begin{remark} \begin{remark}
%Recall that $R$ is $q$-split if and only if $R$ is a direct summand of $\qpower{R}$; see, for example,~\cite[§ 10, Prop. 26]{Dummit2004}. %Recall that $R$ is $q$-split if and only if $R$ is a direct summand of $\qpower{R}$; see, for example,~\cite[§ 10, Prop. 26]{Dummit2004}.
By~\cite[Prop. 2.3.1]{Nastasescu2004}, the map $\qpower{F}$ splits as an $R$-module homomorphism if and only if it splits in the category of $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. In other words, whenever $\qpower{F}$ splits, the splitting map $\sigma$ may be chosen to be $\QQ^d$-graded. Hence, $R$ is $q$-split if and only if it is a graded direct summand of $\qpower{R}$, that is, if there exists a $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-module $N$ such that $\qpower{R}\cong R \oplus N$ as $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. By~\cite[Prop. 2.3.1]{Nastasescu2004}, the map $\qpower{F}$ splits as an $R$-module homomorphism if and only if it splits in the category of $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-modules. In other words, whenever $\qpower{F}$ splits, the splitting map $\sigma$ may be chosen to be $\QQ^d$-graded. Hence, $R$ is $q$-split if and only if it is a graded direct summand of $\qpower{R}$, that is, if there exists a $\QQ^d$-graded $R$-module $N$ such that $\qpower{R}\grcong R \oplus N$.
\end{remark} \end{remark}
%\begin{remark} %\begin{remark}
@ -251,7 +246,7 @@ $R$ is normal if and only if $R$ is $q$-weakly normal for all $q \in \NN$ if and
\end{corollary} \end{corollary}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
By~\cite[Prop. 1]{Hochster1972}, the semigroup algebra $R = \kk[\SGR]$ is normal if and only if $\SGR$ is normal, that is, if for every $a \in \gp(\SGR)$ and $q \in \NN$, the condition $qa \in \SGR$ implies $a \in \SGR$. This is precisely the semigroup-theoretic formulation of $R$ being $q$-weakly normal for all $q \in \NN$. By the previous proposition, this is equivalent to $R$ being $q$-weakly normal for every $q \in \NN$. By~\cite[Prop. 1]{Hochster1972}, the toric algebra $R = \kk[\SGR]$ is normal if and only if $\SGR$ is normal, that is, if for every $a \in \gp(\SGR)$ and $q \in \NN$, the condition $qa \in \SGR$ implies $a \in \SGR$. This is precisely the monoid-theoretic formulation of $R$ being $q$-weakly normal for all $q \in \NN$. By the previous proposition, this is equivalent to $R$ being $q$-weakly normal for every $q \in \NN$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\textnormal{\cite[Lemma 5.0.3]{Blickle2013}}\label{lemma:q-split} \begin{lemma}\textnormal{\cite[Lemma 5.0.3]{Blickle2013}}\label{lemma:q-split}
@ -269,7 +264,7 @@ Finally, fix $(\ell_1, \dots, \ell_k) \in \NN_0^k$, and set $q^\prime \coloneqq
\section{$R$-module decomposition of $R^{1/q}$} \section{$R$-module decomposition of $R^{1/q}$}
We now specialize to the case where $\SGR = \langle a_1, \dots, a_n \rangle \subseteq \NN_0$ %= \{ c_1a_1 + \cdots + c_na_n \mid c_i \in \NN_0\} \subseteq \NN_0 \} We now specialize to the case where $\SGR = \langle a_1, \dots, a_n \rangle \subseteq \NN_0$ %= \{ c_1a_1 + \cdots + c_na_n \mid c_i \in \NN_0\} \subseteq \NN_0 \}
is a numerical semigroup and $R = \kk[\SGR]$ is the corresponding semigroup algebra. Following Shibuta~\cite{Shibuta2017}, we sketch, for a fixed $q \in \NN$, how $R^{1/q} = \kk[x^{a_1/q}, \dots, x^{a_n/q}]$ decomposes as a~$\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded $R$-module. Observe that is a numerical monoid and $R = \kk[\SGR]$ is the corresponding toric algebra. Following Shibuta~\cite{Shibuta2017}, we sketch, for a fixed $q \in \NN$, how $R^{1/q} = \kk[x^{a_1/q}, \dots, x^{a_n/q}]$ decomposes as a~$\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded $R$-module. Observe that
\[ \[
\Gamma_q \coloneqq \left\{ \bigl( x^{a_1/q} \bigr)^{e_1} \cdots \bigl( x^{a_n/q} \bigr)^{e_n} \mid e_i \in \intval{0,q-1} \right\} \Gamma_q \coloneqq \left\{ \bigl( x^{a_1/q} \bigr)^{e_1} \cdots \bigl( x^{a_n/q} \bigr)^{e_n} \mid e_i \in \intval{0,q-1} \right\}
\] \]
@ -278,7 +273,7 @@ $a/q$ with $a \in \NN_0$, this amounts to grouping elements by the residue of $a
\[ \[
\Gamma_q = \Gamma_{q,0} \sqcup \Gamma_{q,1} \sqcup \cdots \sqcup \Gamma_{q,q-1}, \Gamma_q = \Gamma_{q,0} \sqcup \Gamma_{q,1} \sqcup \cdots \sqcup \Gamma_{q,q-1},
\] \]
where $\Gamma_{q,r} \coloneqq \{ x^{a/q} \in \Gamma_q \mid a \equiv r \pmod{q}\}$. Let $I_{q,r}$ be the $R$-submodule of $\kk[\QQ_{\geq 0}] \coloneqq \kk[x^q \mid q \in \QQ_{\geq 0}]$ where $\Gamma_{q,r} \coloneqq \{ x^{a/q} \in \Gamma_q \mid a \equiv r \pmod{q}\}$. Let $I_{q,r}$ be the $R$-submodule of $\kk[\QQ_{\geq 0}] = \kk[x^q \mid q \in \QQ_{\geq 0}]$
generated by $\Gamma_{q,r}$. As a $\kk$-vector space, generated by $\Gamma_{q,r}$. As a $\kk$-vector space,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ind-summand-as-vector-space} \begin{equation}\label{eq:ind-summand-as-vector-space}
I_{q,r} = \spn_\kk \{ x^{a/q} \mid a \in \SGR, \, a \equiv r \pmod{q} \}, I_{q,r} = \spn_\kk \{ x^{a/q} \mid a \in \SGR, \, a \equiv r \pmod{q} \},
@ -311,7 +306,7 @@ means $\beta - \alpha \in \SGR$. We write
\[ \Min(\SGR) \coloneqq \{ A \subseteq \gapset \mid A \text{ is minimal with respect to } \preceq_\SGR \}. \] \[ \Min(\SGR) \coloneqq \{ A \subseteq \gapset \mid A \text{ is minimal with respect to } \preceq_\SGR \}. \]
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{corollary} \begin{corollary}\label{cor:indec-summ}
Every $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded indecomposable summand of $R^{1/q}$ is, up to a shift in degree, isomorphic to a gap module. Every $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded indecomposable summand of $R^{1/q}$ is, up to a shift in degree, isomorphic to a gap module.
\end{corollary} \end{corollary}
@ -343,26 +338,25 @@ For simplicity, set $Q \coloneqq \Frac(R) = \kk(x)$ and fix $A \in \Min(\SGR)$.
For the second part, each $I(A)$ with $A \in \Min(\SGR)$ is an $\NN_0$-graded $R$-submodule of $\overline{R}$, so the map is well-defined. To prove injectivity, suppose that $\varphi \colon I(A) \to I(B)$ is an $R$-module isomorphism for some $A$, $B \in \Min(\SGR)$. Localizing at $(0)$ yields an isomorphism of $Q$-vector spaces $\varphi_{(0)}\colon I(A)_{(0)} \to I(B)_{(0)}$, where both source and target are equal to $Q$. Hence $\varphi$, and thus also $\varphi_{(0)}$, is given by multiplication by some $g_0 \in Q$, so $\varphi(f) = g_0f$ for all $f \in I(A)$. A simple degree argument shows that $g_0 \in \kk \setminus \{ 0 \}$. Therefore, For the second part, each $I(A)$ with $A \in \Min(\SGR)$ is an $\NN_0$-graded $R$-submodule of $\overline{R}$, so the map is well-defined. To prove injectivity, suppose that $\varphi \colon I(A) \to I(B)$ is an $R$-module isomorphism for some $A$, $B \in \Min(\SGR)$. Localizing at $(0)$ yields an isomorphism of $Q$-vector spaces $\varphi_{(0)}\colon I(A)_{(0)} \to I(B)_{(0)}$, where both source and target are equal to $Q$. Hence $\varphi$, and thus also $\varphi_{(0)}$, is given by multiplication by some $g_0 \in Q$, so $\varphi(f) = g_0f$ for all $f \in I(A)$. A simple degree argument shows that $g_0 \in \kk \setminus \{ 0 \}$. Therefore,
\[ I(B) = \varphi(I(A)) = g_0 \cdot I(A) =I(A). \] \[ I(B) = \varphi(I(A)) = g_0 \cdot I(A) =I(A). \]
Since $A$ and $B$ are both minimal with respect to $\preceq_\SGR$, it follows that $A = B$. Now, let $I \subseteq \overline{R}$ be an arbitrary $\NN_0$-graded $R$-submodule. Because $R$ is Noetherian and $\overline{R}$ is finitely generated as an $R$-module, $I$ is finitely generated, i.e, $I = \langle x^\beta \mid \beta \in B\rangle_R$ for some finite subset $B \subseteq \NN_0$. Define $m \coloneqq \min(B)$ and $A^\prime \coloneqq \{ \beta - m \mid \beta \in B \} \setminus \{ 0 \}$. Consequently, $I = x^m \cdot I(A^\prime)$, which implies that $I \cong I(A^\prime)$. The claim then follows from the fact that $I(A^\prime)=I(A)$, where $A$ denotes the set of minimal elements of $A^\prime \cap (\gapset)$ with respect to $\preceq_\SGR$. Since $A$ and $B$ are both minimal with respect to $\preceq_\SGR$, it follows that $A = B$. We now prove that the assignment is surjective. Let $I \subseteq \overline{R}$ be an arbitrary $\NN_0$-graded $R$-submodule. Because $R$ is Noetherian and $\overline{R}$ is finitely generated as an $R$-module, $I$ is finitely generated, i.e, $I = \langle x^\beta \mid \beta \in B\rangle_R$ for some finite subset $B \subseteq \NN_0$. Define $m \coloneqq \min(B)$ and $A^\prime \coloneqq \{ \beta - m \mid \beta \in B \} \setminus \{ 0 \}$. Consequently, $I = x^m \cdot I(A^\prime)$, which implies that $I \cong I(A^\prime)$. Surjectivity then follows from the equality $I(A^\prime)=I(A)$, where $A$ is the set of elements of $A^\prime \cap \gapset$ that are minimal with respect to $\preceq_\SGR$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
\begin{remark} \begin{remark}
We now present another perspective on the gap modules $I(A)$. For $A \in \Min(\SGR)$, the $R$-module $I(A)$ admits the $\kk$-vector space description We now present another perspective on the gap modules $I(A)$. For $A \in \Min(\SGR)$, the $R$-module $I(A)$ admits the $\kk$-vector space description
\[ I(A)=\spn_\kk \{x^\alpha \mid \alpha\in \SGR_A \}, \] \[ I(A)=\spn_\kk \{x^\alpha \mid \alpha\in \SGR_A \}, \]
where $\SGR_A\coloneqq (A \cup \{ 0 \}) +\SGR$. The set $\SGR_A$ is a normalized relative ideal of $\SGR$, that is, a subset of $\NN_0$ containing $0$ that is closed under addition by elements of $\SGR$. One readily checks that $A \mapsto \SGR_A$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of $\Min(\SGR)$ and the normalized relative ideals of $\SGR$. where $\SGR_A\coloneqq (A \cup \{ 0 \}) +\SGR$. The set $\SGR_A$ is a normalized relative ideal of $\SGR$, that is, a subset of $\NN_0$ containing $0$ that is closed under addition by elements of $\SGR$. One readily checks that $A \mapsto \SGR_A$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of $\Min(\SGR)$ and the normalized relative ideals of $\SGR$.
\todo{reference for this terminology?}
\end{remark} \end{remark}
\begin{corollary} \begin{corollary}
For each $A \in \Min(\SGR)$, the gap module $I(A)$ is maximal Cohen--Macaulay. For each $A \in \Min(\SGR)$, the gap module $I(A)$ is maximal Cohen--Macaulay. In particular, $R^{1/q}$ is maximal Cohen--Macaulay.
\end{corollary} \end{corollary}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
By the Cohen--Seidenberg theorems, $\dim(R) = \dim(\overline{R}) = \dim(\kk[x]) = 1$. Fix $A \in \Min(\SGR)$ and a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $R$. Since $R$ is a domain of Krull dimension $1$, every maximal ideal has height $1$; in particular $\dim(R_\mathfrak{m}) = \hgt(\mathfrak{m}) = 1$. The localization By the Cohen--Seidenberg theorems, $\dim(R) = \dim(\overline{R}) = \dim(\kk[x]) = 1$. Fix $A \in \Min(\SGR)$ and a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $R$. Since $R$ is a domain of Krull dimension $1$, every maximal ideal has height $1$; in particular $\dim(R_\mathfrak{m}) = \hgt(\mathfrak{m}) = 1$. The localization
$I(A)_\mathfrak{m}$ is a non-zero $R_\mathfrak{m}$-submodule of $\kk(x)$, hence torsion-free, so $1 \leq \depth(I(A)_\mathfrak{m}) \leq \dim(R_\mathfrak{m}) = 1$. Hence, $I(A)$ is maximal Cohen--Macaulay. $I(A)_\mathfrak{m}$ is a non-zero $R_\mathfrak{m}$-submodule of $\kk(x)$, hence torsion-free, so $1 \leq \depth(I(A)_\mathfrak{m}) \leq \dim(R_\mathfrak{m}) = 1$. Hence, $I(A)$ is maximal Cohen--Macaulay.
\end{proof}
\todo{add direct sums are Cohen--Macaulay (Bruns/Herzog, 1993, Prop. 1.2.9)} By the depth lemma~\cite[Prop.~1.2.9]{Bruns1993}, the depth of a finite direct sum is the minimum of the depths of its summands. Hence, a finite direct sum of maximal Cohen--Macaulay modules is again maximal Cohen--Macaulay. By Corollary~\ref{cor:indec-summ}, the module $R^{1/q}$ decomposes as a finite direct sum of gap modules $I(A)$, and the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \begin{lemma}
For $q \in \NN$, it holds that $\qpower{\overline{R}} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$. For $q \in \NN$, it holds that $\qpower{\overline{R}} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$.
@ -370,7 +364,7 @@ For $q \in \NN$, it holds that $\qpower{\overline{R}} \shcong \overline{R}^{\opl
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
First, note that First, note that
\[ \overline{R}^{1/q} = \kk[x^{1/q}] = \bigoplus_{r \in [0,q-1]} x^{r/q} \cdot \kk[x] \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus q} \] \[ \overline{R}^{1/q} = \kk[x^{1/q}] = \bigoplus_{r \in \intval{0,q-1}} x^{r/q} \cdot \kk[x] \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus q} \]
as $R$-modules. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:cannonc-isom}, $\overline{R}^{1/q}$ and $\qpower{\overline{R}}$ are isomorphic as $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded modules over $\overline{R}$, and hence, by restriction of scalars along $R \subseteq \overline{R}$, also as $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded modules over $R$. as $R$-modules. By Lemma~\ref{lemma:cannonc-isom}, $\overline{R}^{1/q}$ and $\qpower{\overline{R}}$ are isomorphic as $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded modules over $\overline{R}$, and hence, by restriction of scalars along $R \subseteq \overline{R}$, also as $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded modules over $R$.
\end{proof} \end{proof}
@ -415,24 +409,24 @@ generates $R^{1/q} = \kk[x^{3/q},x^{4/q}]$ as an $R$-module. For $q =2$, this ho
\[ R^{1/2} = \langle 1, x^2 \rangle_R \oplus x^{3/2} \cdot \langle 1, x^2 \rangle_R \shcong I(\{2 \})^{\oplus 2} \] \[ R^{1/2} = \langle 1, x^2 \rangle_R \oplus x^{3/2} \cdot \langle 1, x^2 \rangle_R \shcong I(\{2 \})^{\oplus 2} \]
For $q = 4$, a direct computation shows $R^{1/4} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 4}$. Using the $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded isomorphism between $R^{1/q}$ and $\qpower{R}$, we compute For $q = 4$, a direct computation shows $R^{1/4} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 4}$. Using the $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded isomorphism between $R^{1/q}$ and $\qpower{R}$, we compute
\[ R^{1/8} \grcong \qpower[8]{R} = \qpower[2]{(\qpower[4]{R})} \grcong \qpower[2]{(R^{1/4})}. \] \[ R^{1/8} \grcong \qpower[8]{R} = \qpower[2]{(\qpower[4]{R})} \grcong \qpower[2]{(R^{1/4})}. \]
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:qpower-under-shift}, it holds that $R^{1/8} \shcong (\qpower[2]{\overline{R}})^{\oplus 4}$. The preceding lemma then yields $R^{1/8} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 8}$. By induction, we obtain that $R^{1/2^e} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 2^e}$ for all $e \geq 2$. Consequently, there exist summands appearing in the $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded direct sum decomposition of $R^{1/2^e}$ for some $e \in \NN$ that do \emph{not} appear in the decomposition of $R^{1/2^\ell}$ for large $\ell$. This stands in contrast to the case where $\SGR$ is a normal affine semigroup and $R=\kk[\SGR]$ is a normal toric algebra~\cite{Bruns2005}. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:qpower-under-shift}, it holds that $R^{1/8} \shcong (\qpower[2]{\overline{R}})^{\oplus 4}$. The preceding lemma then yields $R^{1/8} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 8}$. By induction, we obtain that $R^{1/2^e} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus 2^e}$ for all \mbox{$e \geq 2$}. Consequently, there exist summands appearing in the $\QQ_{\geq 0}$-graded direct sum decomposition of $R^{1/2^e}$ for some $e \in \NN$ that do \emph{not} appear in the decomposition of $R^{1/2^\ell}$ for large $\ell$. This stands in contrast to the case where $\SGR$ is a normal affine monoid and $R=\kk[\SGR]$ is a normal toric algebra~\cite{Bruns2005}.
\end{example} \end{example}
% NOTE: next proposition holds when q \in \SGR % NOTE: next proposition holds when q \in \SGR
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:asy-behav} \begin{proposition}\label{prop:asy-behav}
It holds that $q \in \SGR$ if and only if every indecomposable summand of $R^{1/q}$ is isomorphic to the normalization $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$ of $R$, that is, $R^{1/q} \cong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$. In particular, this holds for all sufficiently large $q$. It holds that $q \in \SGR$ if and only if every $\QQ^d$-graded indecomposable summand of $R^{1/q}$ is, up to a degree shift, isomorphic to the normalization $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$ of $R$, that is, if $R^{1/q} \shcong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$. In particular, this holds for all sufficiently large $q$.
%For $q \in \SGR$, every indecomposable summands of $R^{1/q}$ is isomorphic to the normalization $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$ of $R$. That is, $R^{1/q} \cong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$. In particular, this holds for all sufficiently large $q$. %For $q \in \SGR$, every indecomposable summands of $R^{1/q}$ is isomorphic to the normalization $\overline{R} = \kk[x]$ of $R$. That is, $R^{1/q} \cong \overline{R}^{\oplus q}$. In particular, this holds for all sufficiently large $q$.
\end{proposition} \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
Assume that $q \in SGR$, and fix $r \in \intval{0,q-1}$. For simplicity, set Assume that $q \in \SGR$, and fix $r \in \intval{0,q-1}$. For simplicity, set
\[ \supp(I_{q,r}) \coloneqq \{ a/q \mid a \in \SGR, \, a \equiv r \pmod{q} \} \] \[ \supp(I_{q,r}) \coloneqq \{ a/q \mid a \in \SGR, \, a \equiv r \pmod{q} \} \]
and observe that $\supp(I_{q,r}) \subseteq \{ m_{q,r}/q + n \mid n \in \NN_0\}$, where $m_{q,r}/q$ is the minimum of $\supp(I_{q,r})$. Conversely, for each $n \in \NN_0$, the choice of $q$ ensures $nq \in \SGR$, and hence $m_{q,r} + nq \in \SGR$. Since $m_{q,r}+nq \equiv r \pmod q$, we and observe that $\supp(I_{q,r}) \subseteq \{ \frac{m_{q,r}}{q} + \alpha \mid \alpha \in \NN_0\}$, where $\frac{m_{q,r}}{q}$ is the minimum of $\supp(I_{q,r})$. Conversely, for each $\alpha \in \NN_0$, the choice of $q$ ensures $\alpha q \in \SGR$, and hence $m_{q,r} + \alpha q \in \SGR$. Since $m_{q,r}+ \alpha q \equiv r \pmod q$, we
obtain $m_{q,r}/q + n \in \supp(I_{q,r})$, and altogether obtain $\frac{m_{q,r}}{q} + \alpha \in \supp(I_{q,r})$, and altogether
\[ \supp(I_{q,r}) = \{ m_{q,r}/q + n \mid n \in \NN_0\}. \] \[ \supp(I_{q,r}) = \{ \frac{m_{q,r}}{q} + \alpha \mid \alpha \in \NN_0\}. \]
It now follows from~\eqref{eq:ind-summand-as-vector-space} that It now follows from~\eqref{eq:ind-summand-as-vector-space} that
\[ I_{q,r} = \spn_\kk \{ x^{m_{q,r}/q + n} \mid n \in \NN_0 \} = x^{m_{q,r}/q} \cdot \spn_\kk\{ x^n \mid n \in \NN_0 \} \cong k[x] . \] \[ I_{q,r} = \spn_\kk \{ x^{m_{q,r}/q + \alpha} \mid \alpha \in \NN_0 \} = x^{\frac{m_{q,r}}{q}} \cdot \spn_\kk\{ x^\alpha \mid \alpha \in \NN_0 \} \cong k[x] . \]
\end{proof} \end{proof}

View file

@ -208,3 +208,16 @@ urldate = {2026-09-16},
date = {2009}, date = {2009},
langid = {english}, langid = {english},
} }
@book{Bruns1993,
location = {Cambridge [England] ; New York},
title = {Cohen-Macaulay rings},
isbn = {978-0-521-41068-7},
series = {Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics},
pagetotal = {403},
number = {39},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
author = {Bruns, Winfried and Herzog, Jürgen},
date = {1993},
keywords = {Cohen-Macaulay rings},
}