Table of Contents
Fetching ...

On minimal flat-injective presentations over local graded rings

Fritz Grimpen, Anastasios Stefanou

TL;DR

The paper develops a comprehensive framework for flat-injective presentations over local graded rings, establishing a generator-minimality criterion and showing how Matlis duality yields cogenerator-minimality, thereby enabling a robust minimality theory (Theorem 2). It introduces an associated flat-injective presentation construction for modules when $R_0 \cong k$, producing a free-cofree presentation that integrates flat and injective structures. A practical reduction algorithm is then developed, leveraging monomial matrices to represent presentations and using truncations and solution spaces $L(A,b)$ to iteratively remove redundant generators (and dually cogenerators), culminating in a minimal presentation. In the polynomial ring setting, the method yields a monomial-matrix description and a finite, algorithmic reduction procedure, offering a direct path to minimal flat-injective presentations without first computing minimal free resolutions, with potential applications to topological data analysis and other areas requiring duality-friendly combinatorial descriptions of graded modules.

Abstract

Flat-injective presentations were introduced by Miller (2020) to provide combinatorial descriptions of $\mathbb Z^n$-graded modules. We consider them in the setting of local graded rings $R$, with grading over an abelian group, and give a criterion for minimality of them. In the special case of the polynomial ring, this criterion reduces to a family of $k$-linear equations, and we are able to give an algorithmic procedure for reduction. Furthermore, we provide the description of a flat-injective presentation, which can be constructed from the scalar multiplication maps of a given finitely generated $R$-module. Thereby, we solve the construction problem for flat-injective presentations under strong finiteness assumptions.

On minimal flat-injective presentations over local graded rings

TL;DR

The paper develops a comprehensive framework for flat-injective presentations over local graded rings, establishing a generator-minimality criterion and showing how Matlis duality yields cogenerator-minimality, thereby enabling a robust minimality theory (Theorem 2). It introduces an associated flat-injective presentation construction for modules when , producing a free-cofree presentation that integrates flat and injective structures. A practical reduction algorithm is then developed, leveraging monomial matrices to represent presentations and using truncations and solution spaces to iteratively remove redundant generators (and dually cogenerators), culminating in a minimal presentation. In the polynomial ring setting, the method yields a monomial-matrix description and a finite, algorithmic reduction procedure, offering a direct path to minimal flat-injective presentations without first computing minimal free resolutions, with potential applications to topological data analysis and other areas requiring duality-friendly combinatorial descriptions of graded modules.

Abstract

Flat-injective presentations were introduced by Miller (2020) to provide combinatorial descriptions of -graded modules. We consider them in the setting of local graded rings , with grading over an abelian group, and give a criterion for minimality of them. In the special case of the polynomial ring, this criterion reduces to a family of -linear equations, and we are able to give an algorithmic procedure for reduction. Furthermore, we provide the description of a flat-injective presentation, which can be constructed from the scalar multiplication maps of a given finitely generated -module. Thereby, we solve the construction problem for flat-injective presentations under strong finiteness assumptions.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 14 sections, 9 theorems, 37 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 2.6

Let $R$ be a Noetherian local graded ring, i.e. every homogeneous ideal of $R$ is finitely generated.

Theorems & Definitions (36)

  • Definition 2.1
  • Example 2.2
  • Definition 2.3: Operators of graded modules
  • Remark 2.4
  • Example 2.5
  • Theorem 2.6: Matlis1958GotoWatanabe1978a
  • proof
  • Definition 2.7
  • Remark 2.8
  • Example 2.9
  • ...and 26 more