A non-partitionable Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex, and implications for Stanley depth

Similar documents
A non-partitionable Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex

A non-partitionable Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex

A non-partitionable CM simplicial complex

Simplicial and Cellular Spanning Trees, I: General Theory

COMBINATORIAL COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRA. Fatemeh Mohammadi (University of Bristol)

SEQUENTIALLY COHEN-MACAULAY GRAPHS OF FORM θ n1,...,n k. Communicated by Siamak Yassemi. 1. Introduction

A combinatorial proof of a formula for Betti numbers of a stacked polytope

Simplicial Matrix-Tree Theorems

ON CELLULAR RESOLUTION OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

Max flow min cut in higher dimensions

FURTHER APPLICATIONS OF CLUTTER DOMINATION PARAMETERS TO PROJECTIVE DIMENSION

h-polynomials of triangulations of flow polytopes (Cornell University)

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 22 Dec 2016

SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES SATISFYING SERRE S CONDITION: A SURVEY WITH SOME NEW RESULTS

MINIMAL FREE RESOLUTIONS OF COMPLETE BIPARTITE GRAPH IDEALS

The Charney-Davis conjecture for certain subdivisions of spheres

Boolean graphs are Cohen-Macaulay

CREPANT RESOLUTIONS OF GORENSTEIN TORIC SINGULARITIES AND UPPER BOUND THEOREM. Dimitrios I. Dais

Independence complexes of well-covered circulant graphs

Toric Cohomological Rigidity of Simple Convex Polytopes

CHRISTOS A. ATHANASIADIS

arxiv: v1 [math.at] 8 Jan 2015

arxiv: v2 [math.co] 24 Aug 2016

Algebraic properties of edge ideals via combinatorial topology

arxiv: v2 [math.co] 5 Oct 2013

Triangulations of Simplicial Polytopes

STANLEY S SIMPLICIAL POSET CONJECTURE, AFTER M. MASUDA

Polytopes Course Notes

4. Simplicial Complexes and Simplicial Homology

CUBICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND LOCAL h-vectors

The important function we will work with is the omega map ω, which we now describe.

ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES arxiv: v3 [math.co] 29 Nov 2010

Gwyneth R. Whieldon. Cornell University Department of Mathematics

The space of tropically collinear points is shellable

Lecture 5: Simplicial Complex

The topology of the independence complex

EDGEWISE COHEN MACAULAY CONNECTIVITY OF PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS

arxiv: v1 [math.ac] 19 Jan 2016

The Borsuk-Ulam theorem- A Combinatorial Proof

Persistence stability for geometric complexes

ON THE COMBINATORICS OF RESOLUTIONS OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

Homology of Simplicial Complexes

Chordal Graphs and Minimal Free Resolutions

h-vectors of PS ear-decomposable graphs

Simplicial cycles and the computation of simplicial trees

Simplicial cycles and the computation of simplicial trees

PERSISTENT HOMOLOGY OF FINITE TOPOLOGICAL SPACES

Generalized Moment-Angle Complexes

A Constructive Proof of Ky Fan's Generalization of Tucker's Lemma

Exact discrete Morse functions on surfaces. To the memory of Professor Mircea-Eugen Craioveanu ( )

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 9 Dec 2015

Combinatorial Aspects of Convex Polytopes

arxiv: v1 [math.gt] 18 Nov 2015

13 A glimpse of combinatorial commutative algebra.

Torus Actions Determined by Simple Polytopes

THREE SIMPLICIAL RESOLUTIONS

Basics of Combinatorial Topology

Non-constructible Complexes and the Bridge Index

COMBINATORIC AND ALGEBRAIC ASPECTS OF A CLASS OF PLANAR GRAPHS

European Journal of Combinatorics. Homotopy types of box complexes of chordal graphs

Lecture 3A: Generalized associahedra

Boolean networks, local models, and finite polynomial dynamical systems

h -vectors, Eulerian polynomials and stable polytopes of graphs

Winning Positions in Simplicial Nim

Geometry. Every Simplicial Polytope with at Most d + 4 Vertices Is a Quotient of a Neighborly Polytope. U. H. Kortenkamp. 1.

Pacific Journal of Mathematics

MONOMIAL RESOLUTIONS. Dave Bayer Irena Peeva Bernd Sturmfels

Topological Invariance under Line Graph Transformations

Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roumanie Tome 59 (107) No. 3, 2016,

However, this is not always true! For example, this fails if both A and B are closed and unbounded (find an example).

On the Partial Sum of the Laplacian Eigenvalues of Abstract Simplicial Complexes

Elementary Combinatorial Topology

Triangulations Of Point Sets

POLYTOPES. Grünbaum and Shephard [40] remarked that there were three developments which foreshadowed the modern theory of convex polytopes.

Automorphism Groups of Cyclic Polytopes

On Combinatorial Properties of Linear Program Digraphs

Michał Kukieła. Rescalings and the coreduction homology algorithm for cubical complexes. Uniwersytet M. Kopernika w Toruniu

THE BASIC THEORY OF PERSISTENT HOMOLOGY

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 23 May 2015

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 12 Aug 2018

via combinatorial topology

Line Graphs and Circulants

Suppose we have a function p : X Y from a topological space X onto a set Y. we want to give a topology on Y so that p becomes a continuous map.

THE SOFTWARE PACKAGE SpectralSequences

From affine manifolds to complex manifolds: instanton corrections from tropical disks

6.2 Classification of Closed Surfaces

ON LEIGHTON S GRAPH COVERING THEOREM. Theorem (Leighton [5]). Two finite graphs which have a common covering have a common finite covering.

arxiv:math/ v1 [math.at] 18 Oct 2005

Noncrossing sets and a Graßmann associahedron

FACE ENUMERATION FOR LINE ARRANGEMENTS IN A 2-TORUS

Counting Faces of Polytopes

Cyclotomic Polytopes and Growth Series of Cyclotomic Lattices. Matthias Beck & Serkan Hoşten San Francisco State University

On the Generic Rigidity of Bar-Frameworks

Convex body semigroups and their applications

L-CONVEX-CONCAVE SETS IN REAL PROJECTIVE SPACE AND L-DUALITY

SPERNER S LEMMA MOOR XU

SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES OF PLACEMENT GAMES

DISCRETE MORSE THEORY FOR MOMENT-ANGLE COMPLEXES OF PAIRS (D n, S n 1 )

Lecture 18: Groupoids and spaces

Negative Numbers in Combinatorics: Geometrical and Algebraic Perspectives

Transcription:

A non-partitionable Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex, and implications for Stanley depth Art Duval 1, Bennet Goeckner 2, Caroline Klivans 3, Jeremy Martin 2 1 University of Texas at El Paso, 2 University of Kansas, 3 Brown University Mathematical Congress of the Americas Special Session on Combinatorial Commutative Algebra McGill University, Montréal July 28, 2017 Adv. Math. (2016); Notices AMS (2017)

Partitionability Conjecture Richard Stanley:... a central combinatorial conjecture on Cohen-Macaulay complexes is the following. Conjecture (Stanley 79; Garsia 80) Every Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex is partitionable.

Partitionability Conjecture Richard Stanley:... a central combinatorial conjecture on Cohen-Macaulay complexes is the following. Conjecture (Stanley 79; Garsia 80) Every Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex is partitionable. Theorem (DGKM 16) No.

Partitionability Conjecture Richard Stanley:... a central combinatorial conjecture on Cohen-Macaulay complexes is the following. Conjecture (Stanley 79; Garsia 80) Every Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex is partitionable. Theorem (DGKM 16) No. Stanley: I am glad that this problem has finally been put to rest,

Partitionability Conjecture Richard Stanley:... a central combinatorial conjecture on Cohen-Macaulay complexes is the following. Conjecture (Stanley 79; Garsia 80) Every Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex is partitionable. Theorem (DGKM 16) No. Stanley: I am glad that this problem has finally been put to rest, though I would have preferred a proof rather than a counterexample.

Partitionability Conjecture Richard Stanley:... a central combinatorial conjecture on Cohen-Macaulay complexes is the following. Conjecture (Stanley 79; Garsia 80) Every Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex is partitionable. Theorem (DGKM 16) No. Stanley: I am glad that this problem has finally been put to rest, though I would have preferred a proof rather than a counterexample. Perhaps you can withdraw your paper from the arxiv and come up with a proof instead.

Stanley depth Definition (Stanley) Let S = k[x 1,..., x n ], and let M be a Z n -graded S-module. Then sdepth M denotes the Stanley depth of M. Conjecture (Stanley 82) sdepth M depth M

Stanley depth Definition (Stanley) Let S = k[x 1,..., x n ], and let M be a Z n -graded S-module. Then sdepth M denotes the Stanley depth of M. Conjecture (Stanley 82) sdepth M depth M Theorem (Herzog, Jahan, Yassemi 08) If I is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a Cohen-Macaulay complex, then the inequality sdepth S/I depth S/I is equivalent to the partitionability of. Corollary (DGKM 16) Our counterexample disproves this conjecture as well.

Simplicial complexes Definition (Simplicial complex) Let V be set of vertices. Then is a simplicial complex on V if: 2 V ; and if σ τ implies τ. Higher-dimensional analogue of graph.

Simplicial complexes Definition (Simplicial complex) Let V be set of vertices. Then is a simplicial complex on V if: 2 V ; and if σ τ implies τ. Higher-dimensional analogue of graph. Definition (f -vector) f i = f i ( ) = number of i-dimensional faces of. The f -vector of (d 1)-dimensional is Example f ( ) = (f 1, f 0, f 1,..., f d 1 ) 4 3 f ( ) = (1, 5, 9, 6) 2 5 1

Cohen-Macaulay complexes Definition (Stanley-Reisner face-ring) Assume has vertices 1,..., n. Define x F = j F x j. Define I to be the ideal I = x F : F. The Stanley-Reisner face-ring is k[ ] = k[x 1,..., x n ]/I.

Cohen-Macaulay complexes Definition (Stanley-Reisner face-ring) Assume has vertices 1,..., n. Define x F = j F x j. Define I to be the ideal I = x F : F. The Stanley-Reisner face-ring is k[ ] = k[x 1,..., x n ]/I. Definition (Cohen-Macaulay ring) A ring R is Cohen-Macaulay when dim R = depth R. In our setting dim k[ ] = dim k[x 1,..., x n ]/I = d. Definition (Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex) A simplicial complex is Cohen-Macaulay when k[ ] is.

Cohen-Macaulay complexes Definition (Stanley-Reisner face-ring) Assume has vertices 1,..., n. Define x F = j F x j. Define I to be the ideal I = x F : F. The Stanley-Reisner face-ring is k[ ] = k[x 1,..., x n ]/I. Definition (Cohen-Macaulay ring) A ring R is Cohen-Macaulay when dim R = depth R. In our setting dim k[ ] = dim k[x 1,..., x n ]/I = d. Definition (Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complex) A simplicial complex is Cohen-Macaulay when k[ ] is. Remark (Munkres 84) Being Cohen-Macaulay is topological, depends only on, geometric realization of (and on the field k).

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α = d 1 i= 1 f i t i+1 (1 t) i+1

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α = d 1 i= 1 f i t i+1 (1 t) i+1 = d k=0 h kt k (1 t) d

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α = This means d f i 1 t d i = i=0 d 1 i= 1 f i t i+1 d (1 t) i+1 = k=0 h kt k (1 t) d d h k (t + 1) d k. k=0 The h-vector of is h( ) = (h 0, h 1,..., h d ). Coefficients not always non-negative

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α = This means d f i 1 t d i = i=0 d 1 i= 1 f i t i+1 d (1 t) i+1 = k=0 h kt k (1 t) d d h k (t + 1) d k. k=0 The h-vector of is h( ) = (h 0, h 1,..., h d ). Coefficients not always non-negative, but they are for CM complexes.

h-vector F (k[ ], λ) = α Z n dim k (k[ ] α )t α = This means d f i 1 t d i = i=0 d 1 i= 1 f i t i+1 d (1 t) i+1 = k=0 h kt k (1 t) d d h k (t + 1) d k. k=0 The h-vector of is h( ) = (h 0, h 1,..., h d ). Coefficients not always non-negative, but they are for CM complexes. Example 2 4 f ( ) = (1, 5, 9, 6), and 5 3 1 1t 3 +5t 2 +9t+6 = 1(t+1) 3 +2(t+1) 2 +2(t+1) 1 +1 so h( ) = (1, 2, 2, 1).

Partitionability 1t 3 + 5t 2 + 9t + 6 = 1(t + 1) 3 + 2(t + 1) 2 + 2(t + 1) 1 + 1 124 134 234 125 135 235 14 24 12 34 13 23 15 25 35 4 1 2 3 5 O/

Partitionability 1t 3 + 5t 2 + 9t + 6 = 1(t + 1) 3 + 2(t + 1) 2 + 2(t + 1) 1 + 1 124 134 234 125 135 235 14 24 12 34 13 23 15 25 35 4 1 2 3 5 Definition (Partitionable) When a simplicial complex can be partitioned like this, into Boolean intervals whose tops are facets, we say the complex is partitionable. O/

Key to construction: Relative complexes Definition If Γ are simplicial complexes, then (, Γ) is a relative simplicial complex (this representation is not unique); think of with Γ removed.

Key to construction: Relative complexes Definition If Γ are simplicial complexes, then (, Γ) is a relative simplicial complex (this representation is not unique); think of with Γ removed. We can extend CM to define relative CM complexes.

Key to construction: Relative complexes Definition If Γ are simplicial complexes, then (, Γ) is a relative simplicial complex (this representation is not unique); think of with Γ removed. We can extend CM to define relative CM complexes. Remark We found a relative CM complex, Q 5 = (X 5, A 5 ) that is not partitionable. (Inside Ziegler s 3-dimensional non-shellable ball; dim X 5 = 3 and X 5 has 5 facets.)

Key to construction: Relative complexes Definition If Γ are simplicial complexes, then (, Γ) is a relative simplicial complex (this representation is not unique); think of with Γ removed. We can extend CM to define relative CM complexes. Remark We found a relative CM complex, Q 5 = (X 5, A 5 ) that is not partitionable. (Inside Ziegler s 3-dimensional non-shellable ball; dim X 5 = 3 and X 5 has 5 facets.) Question If we glue together two copies of X 5 along A 5, is it partitionable?

Key to construction: Relative complexes Definition If Γ are simplicial complexes, then (, Γ) is a relative simplicial complex (this representation is not unique); think of with Γ removed. We can extend CM to define relative CM complexes. Remark We found a relative CM complex, Q 5 = (X 5, A 5 ) that is not partitionable. (Inside Ziegler s 3-dimensional non-shellable ball; dim X 5 = 3 and X 5 has 5 facets.) Question If we glue together two copies of X 5 along A 5, is it partitionable? Maybe. Some parts of A 5 might help partition one copy of X 5, while other parts of A 5 help partition the other copy of X 5.

Pigeonhole principle Recall our example (X, A) is: relative Cohen-Macaulay not partitionable Remark If we glue together many copies of X along A, at least one copy will be missing all of A!

Pigeonhole principle Recall our example (X, A) is: relative Cohen-Macaulay not partitionable Remark If we glue together many copies of X along A, at least one copy will be missing all of A! How many is enough?

Pigeonhole principle Recall our example (X, A) is: relative Cohen-Macaulay not partitionable Remark If we glue together many copies of X along A, at least one copy will be missing all of A! How many is enough? More than the number of all faces in A. Then the result will not be partitionable.

Pigeonhole principle Recall our example (X, A) is: relative Cohen-Macaulay not partitionable Remark If we glue together many copies of X along A, at least one copy will be missing all of A! How many is enough? More than the number of all faces in A. Then the result will not be partitionable. Remark But the resulting complex is not actually a simplicial complex because of repeats.

Pigeonhole principle Need our example (X, A) to be: relative Cohen-Macaulay not partitionable A vertex-induced (minimal faces of (X, A) are vertices) Remark If we glue together many copies of X along A, at least one copy will be missing all of A! How many is enough? More than the number of all faces in A. Then the result will not be partitionable. Remark But the resulting complex is not actually a simplicial complex because of repeats. To avoid this problem, we need to make sure that A is vertex-induced. This means every face in X among vertices in A must be in A as well. (Minimal faces of (X, A) are vertices.)

Eureka! By computer search, we found that if Z is Ziegler s non-shellable 3-ball, and B = Z restricted to all vertices except 1,5,9 (B has 7 facets), then Q = (Z, B) satisfies all our criteria!

Eureka! By computer search, we found that if Z is Ziegler s non-shellable 3-ball, and B = Z restricted to all vertices except 1,5,9 (B has 7 facets), then Q = (Z, B) satisfies all our criteria! Also Q = (X, A), where X has 14 facets, and A is 5 triangles: 5 0 2 6 1 9 4 8 7 1249 1269 1569 1589 1489 1458 1457 4578 1256 0125 0256 0123 1234 1347 3

Putting it all together Since A has 24 faces total (including the empty face), we know gluing together 25 copies of X along their common copy of A, the resulting (non-relative) complex C 25 is CM, not partitionable.

Putting it all together Since A has 24 faces total (including the empty face), we know gluing together 25 copies of X along their common copy of A, the resulting (non-relative) complex C 25 is CM, not partitionable. In fact, computer search showed that gluing together only 3 copies of X will do it. Resulting complex C 3 has f -vector (1, 16, 71, 98, 42).

Putting it all together Since A has 24 faces total (including the empty face), we know gluing together 25 copies of X along their common copy of A, the resulting (non-relative) complex C 25 is CM, not partitionable. In fact, computer search showed that gluing together only 3 copies of X will do it. Resulting complex C 3 has f -vector (1, 16, 71, 98, 42). Later we found short proof by hand to show that C 3 works.

Stanley Decompositions Definition Let S = k[x 1,..., x n ]; µ S a monomial; and A {x 1,..., x n }. The corresponding Stanley space in S is the vector space µ k[a] = k- span{µν : supp(ν) A}. Let I S be a monomial ideal. A Stanley decomposition of S/I is a family of Stanley spaces D = {µ 1 k[a 1 ],..., µ r k[a r ]} such that S/I = r µ i k[a i ]. i=1

Stanley Decompositions Definition Let S = k[x 1,..., x n ]; µ S a monomial; and A {x 1,..., x n }. The corresponding Stanley space in S is the vector space µ k[a] = k- span{µν : supp(ν) A}. Let I S be a monomial ideal. A Stanley decomposition of S/I is a family of Stanley spaces D = {µ 1 k[a 1 ],..., µ r k[a r ]} such that S/I = r µ i k[a i ]. i=1 (And all of this works more generally for S-modules.)

Stanley Depth Two Stanley decompositions of R = k[x, y]/ x 2 y : y y x x Definition The Stanley depth of S/I is sdepth S/I = max min{ A i }. D where D runs over all Stanley decompositions of S/I.

Depth Conjecture Conjecture (Stanley 82) For all monomial ideals I, sdepth S/I depth S/I. Theorem (Herzog, Jahan, Yassemi 08) If I is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a Cohen-Macaulay complex, then the inequality sdepth S/I depth S/I is equivalent to the partitionability of. Corollary Our counterexample disproves this conjecture as well.

Depth Conjecture Conjecture (Stanley 82) For all monomial ideals I, sdepth S/I depth S/I. Theorem (Herzog, Jahan, Yassemi 08) If I is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a Cohen-Macaulay complex, then the inequality sdepth S/I depth S/I is equivalent to the partitionability of. Corollary Our counterexample disproves this conjecture as well. Remark (Katthän) Katthän computed (using an algorithm developed by Ichim and Zarojanu) that sdepth C 3 = 3 (and depth C 3 = 4 since it is CM).

Depth Conjecture Conjecture (Stanley 82) For all monomial ideals I, sdepth S/I depth S/I. Theorem (Herzog, Jahan, Yassemi 08) If I is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of a Cohen-Macaulay complex, then the inequality sdepth S/I depth S/I is equivalent to the partitionability of. Corollary Our counterexample disproves this conjecture as well. Remark (Katthän) Katthän computed (using an algorithm developed by Ichim and Zarojanu) that sdepth C 3 = 3 (and depth C 3 = 4 since it is CM). Similarly, sdepth k[q 5 ] = 3; depth k[q 5 ] = 4. So that is a much smaller counterexample to the Depth Conjecture (for modules).