Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 3 references

Monomial ideals with arbitrarily high tiny powers in any number of variables

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read For any number of variables, a monomial ideal can have more generators than its first d powers

desk verdict A clean, correct construction that generalizes tiny squares to any number of variables and any finite depth; the only real defects are a sloppy abstract and two elementary facts stated without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10702 v2 pith:MH65KOCB submitted 2019-08-28 math.AC

classification math.AC MSC 13F2013A15
keywords monomialidealspowersofminimalgeneratingsetstinysquaresm-primaryanalyticspreadintegercross-sectionsgeneratorcounts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper disproves the natural expectation that a non-principal monomial ideal should have strictly more minimal generators in its square than in itself, and that powers should keep growing. It proves that for any number of variables $n \geq 2$ and any finite depth $d \geq 2$, there exists an $\mathfrak m$-primary monomial ideal $I$ (an ideal containing a power of every variable) whose minimal generating set is larger than the minimal generating sets of $I^2, I^3, \ldots, I^d$. The construction is explicit: start with a fixed 'skeleton' ideal whose power-generator counts do not depend on a scaling parameter $t$, then add many monomials from a carefully chosen middle slice of a large cube without changing any power $I^i$ for $i \geq 2$. The paper also improves a known two-variable criterion for when an ideal's square has exactly nine generators, reducing the required divisibility conditions from nine to five.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the skeleton-plus-filler construction: the skeleton $J$ has power-generator counts $|G(J^i)|$ that depend only on $n$ and $i$, not on $t$, and the filler monomials are taken from $Q = \langle \mu^2\rangle$, where $\mu = x_1^t\cdots x_n^t$. Lemma 2.1 shows $JQ \subseteq J^2$ and $Q^2 \subseteq J^2$, and Corollary 2.2 then gives $(J+Q')^i = J^i$ for every $i \geq 2$ and every $Q' \subseteq Q$. This means the added monomials are invisible in all higher powers. The monomials of $Q \setminus J$ are exactly the lattice points in $[2t,3t-1]^n$, and choosing them from a central integer cross-section of that cube keeps them mutually non-dividing. In the two-variable part, the improved tiny-square theorem uses a self-dual set of five divisibility conditions, together with a monotonicity lemma, to show that $I^2$ has at most nine generators.

What would settle it

Independently recompute $|G(J^i)|$ for the skeleton ideal at two different values of $t$ for some fixed $n$ and $d$; if the counts depend on $t$, the construction breaks. Alternatively, recompute Example 2.4: the paper predicts $|G(I)|=26$, $|G(I^2)|=9$, $|G(I^3)|=13$, $|G(I^4)|=17$, $|G(I^5)|=21$, and $|G(I^6)|=25$, so a single mismatch in a computer algebra system would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any integers $n,d \geq 2$ there is an $\mathfrak m$-primary monomial ideal $I \subset \mathbb K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $|G(I)| > |G(I^i)|$ for every $i = 2,\ldots,d$. The proof constructs $I = J + Q'$, where $J = \langle x_1^{4t},\ldots,x_n^{4t}, x_1^{2t}\mu,\ldots,x_n^{2t}\mu\rangle$ with $\mu = x_1^t\cdots x_n^t$, and $Q'$ consists of monomials on a central integer cross-section of the cube $[2t,3t-1]^n$. The key identity is $(J+Q')^i = J^i$ for all $i \geq 2$, which follows from $JQ \subseteq J^2$ and $Q^2 \subseteq J^2$ where $Q = \langle \mu^2\rangle$. Because the number of integer points on that central cross-section grows without bound as $t$ grows, $t$ can be chosen large enough that $|G(I)|$ exceeds $A(n,d) = \max_{1 \le i \le d} |G(J^i)|$, while every tested power $I^i$ has the same generator count as $J^i$. Thus the generator count can drop immediately and stay low for any prescribed finite number of powers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the central slice of the cube $[2t,3t-1]^n$ contains arbitrarily many lattice points as $t$ grows, while the skeleton's power-generator counts stay fixed; if either of those elementary facts failed, the extra generators could not be added and the inequality would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For monomial ideals in any fixed number of variables $n \geq 2$, there is no general inequality $|G(I^i)| > |G(I)|$ for any fixed small $i$.
  • The generator-count sequence $|G(I^i)|$ can begin with a strict drop of arbitrary finite length before the known asymptotic polynomial growth takes over.
  • The construction gives explicit ideals with $|G(I)|$ arbitrarily large compared to the generator counts of all powers up to a prescribed $d$.
  • In two variables, the paper provides a three-parameter family of ideals satisfying the improved five-condition criterion and therefore having exactly nine generators in their square.
  • The five-condition theorem strengthens the earlier nine-condition result, showing that several of the old conditions were redundant.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the identity $(J+Q')^i = J^i$ holds for every $i \geq 2$, the same ideal works for all $d$ simultaneously; the upper bound $d$ in the statement is only there because the proof records the maximum up to $d$.
  • Editorial inference: the skeleton-filler method may transfer to other classes of ideals where a controlled subset of generators can be made 'invisible' in powers, potentially forcing generator counts to oscillate rather than grow monotonically.
  • Editorial inference: the improved two-variable criterion suggests that self-dual divisibility conditions are the natural minimal hypothesis for pinning down the size of $I^2$, and the same dual-condition pattern might characterize other small-power generator sets.
  • Editorial inference: algorithmic work on monomial ideals that assumes generator counts grow under powering should be adjusted, since even very large finite drops are possible before the asymptotic regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the minimal number |G(I^i)| of generators of powers of a monomial ideal I. Its main theorem (Section 2) constructs, for every n,d ≥ 2, an m-primary monomial ideal I in K[x_1,...,x_n] such that |G(I)| > |G(I^i)| for 2 ≤ i ≤ d. The construction starts with a skeleton ideal J generated by x_i^{4t} and x_i^{2t}μ, where μ = x_1^t...x_n^t, and then adds s monomials all lying on a central cross-section of [2t,3t-1]^n. Lemma 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 show that adding such monomials does not change any power J^i for i ≥ 2; Lemma 2.3 identifies exactly which monomials can be added. By taking t large enough, the number s of added monomials exceeds A(n,d)-2n, where A(n,d) = max_{i≤d} |G(J^i)|, so |G(I)| = 2n+s > A(n,d) ≥ |G(I^i)| for all 2 ≤ i ≤ d. Section 3 revisits and improves a theorem of Eliahou, Herzog, and Saem on planar monomial ideals with |G(I^2)| = 9, giving a shorter set of sufficient conditions. Several explicit examples in n = 2 and n = 3 are worked out with concrete generator lists and counts.

Significance. If the result is correct, and the referee finds no error in the central derivation, the paper settles a natural question in the negative: the expected growth |G(I^2)| > |G(I)|, and more generally |G(I^i)| growing with i, fails in every number of variables for arbitrarily high i. This generalizes the two-variable counterexample of [1] to arbitrary n. The main construction is explicit and self-contained: the key containment (J+Q')^i ⊆ J^i is proved by elementary divisibility, and the antichain conditions on the added monomials are checked carefully. The worked examples confirm the claimed counts. The paper also gives a cleaner, more symmetric set of conditions for the two-variable 'tiny squares' theorem. The only unproved supporting facts are two elementary assertions about the skeleton J and the central cross-section; both are true and easily supplied. This is a useful, citable contribution to the study of powers of monomial ideals.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says the construction gives |G(I)| > |G(I^i)| for all i ≤ d, but this cannot hold for i = 1. The body of the paper correctly states the conclusion for 2 ≤ i ≤ d; please adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Section 2] After defining J, the paper asserts that the number of generators of J^i depends only on i and n, not on t. This fact is used to define A(n,d), so it is load-bearing. Please add the one-line justification: multiplying every exponent vector by t gives an order-preserving bijection on the exponent vectors of generators, so the minimal generators of J_t^i are in bijection with those of J_1^i.
  3. [Section 2] The paper asserts that the number of integer points on a central cross-section of [2t,3t-1]^n can be made arbitrarily large for fixed n ≥ 2. This is also used in the construction. Please add a sentence explaining that this number is the central coefficient of (1+x+...+x^{t-1})^n and grows polynomially in t of degree n-1, hence is unbounded.
  4. [Section 2, Corollary 2.2] The notation 'Q' ⊆ Q' is informal: Q is an ideal, while Q' is later taken to be a set of monomials. Please clarify that Q' denotes the ideal generated by the chosen monomials, or state explicitly that (J+Q')^i means the sum of ideals.
  5. [Section 2, Lemma 2.3] In the ⊇ direction of the proof, 'every minimal generator of J has an exponent greater than or equal to 3t' is ambiguous: the generator x_i^{2t}μ has exponent t in other coordinates. What is meant is that each minimal generator has at least one exponent ≥ 3t, which is the property needed to prevent divisibility of monomials in [2t,3t-1]^n.
  6. [Section 3, Theorem 3.4] The proof concludes that |G(I^2)| ≤ 9 and cites [1] for the lower bound |G(I^2)| ≥ 9. Since the hypotheses here are weaker than those of [1], please state explicitly that the lower-bound argument in [1] does not use the additional conditions, or give a direct argument that the nine displayed monomials are incomparable.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, for example 'att raction' in the abstract, 'the m back' in Example 2.5, and irregular spacing in 'w ill' and other words. A careful proofreading pass would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction and proofs are self-contained, with all cited results external prior work.

full rationale

The central construction in Section 2 is not circular. The ideal I = J + Q' is built from an explicit skeleton J and extra monomials on a central cross-section of [2t, 3t-1]^n. Corollary 2.2 derives (J + Q')^i = J^i for i ≥ 2 directly from JQ ⊆ J^2 and Q^2 ⊆ J^2, both proved in Lemma 2.1. The extra monomials are chosen from Q \ J, so they add new minimal generators without changing higher powers. The threshold A(n,d) is computed from the skeleton J and is used only to choose t large enough; it is not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The two facts stated without proof—that |G(J^i)| is independent of t and that the central cross-section has arbitrarily many points—are elementary, true, and not equivalent to the theorem's conclusion. Section 3 explicitly attributes the original theorem and the lower bound |G(I^2)| ≥ 9 to [1], which is external prior work; the improved conditions are proved independently from divisibility relations and Lemma 3.3 from [1]. There is no self-citation chain and no input is renamed as an output. The only notable defect is a verbal inconsistency in the abstract, which says |G(I)| > |G(I^i)| for all i ≤ d, whereas the body correctly states and proves the strict inequality only for i ≥ 2; this is a correctness/typographical issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard monomial ideal facts, two elementary scaling and combinatorial facts stated without proof, and one lemma plus a lower bound borrowed from [1]. No invented entities and no fitted parameters; the auxiliary parameter t is a construction choice, not a data fit.

free parameters (1)
  • t (scaling parameter) = chosen sufficiently large (e.g., t=22 in Example 2.4)
    The exponent scale t controls the size of the central cross-section and therefore the number of added generators; it is introduced ad hoc to force |G(I)| above A(n,d). It is not fitted to data and no single value is required by the theorem.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The minimal monomial generating set G(I) of a monomial ideal is unique.
    Used throughout to count |G(I^i)|; standard background, not proven in the paper.
  • standard math For fixed n, |G(J^i)| does not depend on the scaling parameter t.
    Stated in Section 2 without proof; used to compute A(n,d) at t=1. It follows because every generator exponent is multiplied by t, so the poset of exponent vectors is invariant under scaling.
  • standard math The central coefficient of (1+x+...+x^{t-1})^n grows without bound as t increases.
    Used in Section 2, step 3, to guarantee enough added monomials. Stated without proof; follows from the Θ(t^{n-1}) growth of the central coefficient.
  • standard math Lemma 3.3 from [1]: if f(v) divides f(v1) and f(v2) with v1 ≤ v2, then f(v) divides f(v') for all v1 ≤ v' ≤ v2.
    Borrowed from [1] and used throughout the proof of Theorem 3.4; no proof is reproduced in the paper.
  • standard math For the ideals in Theorem 3.4, |G(I^2)| ≥ 9.
    The paper proves only the upper bound |G(I^2)| ≤ 9 and cites [1] for the lower bound, so the full equality rests on a cited result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monomial ideals with arbitrarily high tiny powers in any number of variables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MH65KOCB

@misc{pith2026190810702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monomial ideals with arbitrarily high tiny powers in any number of variables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MH65KOCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10702}
}
abstract

Powers of (monomial) ideals is a subject that still calls attraction in various ways. Let $I\subset \mathbb K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be a monomial ideal and let $G(I)$ denote the (unique) minimal monomial generating set of $I$. How small can $|G(I^i)|$ be in terms of $|G(I)|$? We expect that the inequality $|G(I^2)|>|G(I)|$ should hold and that $|G(I^i)|$, $i\ge 2$, grows further whenever $|G(I)|\ge 2$. In this paper we will disprove this expectation and show that for any $n$ and $d$ there is an $\mathfrak m$-primary monomial ideal $I\subset \mathbb K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $|G(I)|>|G(I^i)|$ for all $i\le d$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. monomials in Q\J, n = 2. Now we know that any subset of monomials from [2t, 3t−1]n satisfies the first condition. It is also quite obvious that any subset of monomials from [2t, 3t−1]n satisfies the second condition. The only thing to be taken care of is that the chosen monomials from [2t, 3t−1]n do not divide each other. The most natural way to do so is to choose monomials of the same degree. To get as many of them… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. generators of I 2 . 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustration of the proof of Theorem 3.4. Case 0 (self-dual): i = 2, j = m − 1. We are done by condition (A). Case 1: (1, 3) ≤ (1, j) ≤ (1, m−2). Conditions (B) and (C), together with Lemma 3.3, imply u 2 2 |u1uj for all 3 ≤ j ≤ m − 2. Case 1* (dual to Case 1): (3, m) ≤ (i, m) ≤ (m − 2, m). By the dual argument (that is, using conditions (B*) and (C*)) and Lemma 3.3 we conclude that u 2 m−1 |uium for all 3 ≤ i ≤ m −… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

3 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eliahou, J

    S. Eliahou, J. Herzog, and M. M. Saem , Monomial ideals with tiny squares , Journal of Algebra, 514 (2018), pp. 99–112

  2. [3]

    Herzog, M

    J. Herzog, M. M. Saem, and N. Zamani , The number of generators of the powers of an ideal, International Journal of Algebra and Computation, 29 (2019), pp. 827–847. 9

  3. [2]

    Herzog and T

    J. Herzog and T. Hibi , Monomial ideals , in Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 260, Springer, 2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.