text:
# Depth and amplitude for unbounded complexes

## Introduction

This paper concerns the theory of depth for complexes over commutative noetherian rings. Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in such a ring $`R`$ and $`K`$ the Koszul complex on a finite set of $`n`$ generators for $`𝔞`$. It is well known that the following numbers are equal when $`M`$ is a finitely generated $`R`$-module:

* $`nsup\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(K_RM)0\}`$;
* $`inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Ext}_R^{\mathrm{}}(R/𝔞,M)0\}`$;
* $`inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{\mathrm{}}\left(M\right)0\}`$, where $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{}\left(M\right)`$ is the $`𝔞`$-local cohomology of $`M`$.

If $`R`$ is local, then this common value coincides with the length of the longest $`M`$-regular sequence in $`𝔞`$, that is to say, the $`𝔞`$-depth of $`M`$. Since each of the quantities displayed above is meaningful even when $`M`$ is a complex of $`R`$-modules, they can, and have been, taken as a starting point for building a theory of depth for complexes. These have proved to be of immense utility even in dealing with problems concerning modules alone.

The natural question arises: Do these three approaches yield the same invariant? Results of Foxby and Iyengar settle this question in the affirmative for about a third of the complexes. Namely, those whose homology is bounded above, noteworthy among these being complexes with bounded homology and that includes also all modules, finitely generated or not.

One of our main results answers the question with an unqualified: Yes.

###### Theorem I.

For any complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$ the numbers obtained from the three formulas above coincide.

Thus one may now speak of the depth of a complex without having to specify which of the preceding formulas is being used to define it. This flexibility in computing depth allows one to extend many familiar results on depth for modules to identical statements for arbitrary complexes.

For instance, calculating depth via the vanishing of Ext leads to the following theorem concerning the depth (with respect to the maximal ideal) of complexes over local rings. It is a vast generalization of the classical Auslander-Buchsbaum equality: $`\mathrm{depth}R=\mathrm{depth}_RP+\mathrm{pd}_RP`$ for any finitely generated $`R`$-module $`P`$ whose projective dimension $`\mathrm{pd}_RP`$ is finite.

###### Theorem II.

Let $`R`$ be a local ring and let $`M`$ and $`P`$ be complexes of $`R`$-modules. If $`\mathrm{pd}_RP`$ is finite and $`\mathrm{H}(P)`$ is nonzero and finitely generated, then

$$\mathrm{depth}_RM=\mathrm{depth}_R(M_R^𝐋P)+\mathrm{pd}_RP.$$

Here $`M_R^𝐋P`$ stands for $`M_RF`$, where $`F`$ is any finite free resolution of $`P`$.

Our proof of the next result makes critical use of the characterization of depth via Koszul homology and also of the preceding theorem. Recall that the amplitude of $`M`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{amp}M=sup\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(M)0\}inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(M)0\}.$$

We write $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ for the flat dimension of $`F`$ over $`R`$.

###### Theorem III.

Let $`RS`$ be a local homomorphism and $`F`$ a complex of $`S`$-modules with $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ nonzero and finitely generated. If $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ is finite, then for any complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ degreewise finite one has

$$\mathrm{amp}M\mathrm{amp}\left(M_R^𝐋F\right).$$

The first step in our proof of this theorem is a reduction to the case where $`S=R`$; this is readily accomplished by using the theory of Cohen factorizations of Avramov, Foxby, and Herzog . Now, when $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded the result we seek is precisely the amplitude inequality, proved by Iversen ; it is an avatar of Paul Roberts’ remarkable New Intersection Theorem . Thus, the new information provided by our theorem concerns unbounded complexes; the issues that come into play in proving it are of a different nature and not as involved. Nevertheless, as the following corollary demonstrates, it too has its uses.

###### Theorem IV.

Let $`QRS`$ be local homomorphisms and $`F`$ a nonzero finitely generated $`S`$-module. Assume that $`\mathrm{fd}_RF<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{fd}_QR\mathrm{fd}_QF\mathrm{fd}_QR+\mathrm{fd}_RF.$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{fd}_QR`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_QF`$ are finite simultaneously.

The inequality on the right is classical. Since regularity descends along maps of finite flat dimension, the one on the left implies that if $`R`$ is regular and $`\mathrm{fd}_QF`$ is finite, then $`Q`$ is regular. The special case where $`R=S`$ of this latter result had been discovered by Apassov .

Theorem IV yields also the following characterization of regular rings of characteristic $`p`$ that extends those of Kunz  and Rodicio . In its statement, $`{}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}F`$ denotes the $`R`$ module structure on $`F`$ induced by restriction of scalars along $`\phi ^n`$.

###### Theorem V.

Let $`R`$ be a local ring of characteristic $`p`$, and let $`\phi :RR`$ be the Frobenius endomorphism of $`R`$. The following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`R`$ is regular;
2. $`\phi ^n`$ is flat for each integer $`n0`$;
3. there exists a positive integer $`n`$ and a nonzero finitely generated $`R`$-module $`F`$ such that both $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_R({}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}F)`$ are finite.

The results in this paper have further applications to the study of the Frobenius endomorphism. These will be dealt with in  and .

Theorem IV has implications also for flat dimensions of homomorphisms. In the sequel, the flat dimension of any homomorphism $`\psi :RS`$ is the flat dimension of $`S`$ over $`R`$; it is denoted $`\mathrm{fd}\psi `$.

Consider a diagram of local homomorphisms $`Q\stackrel{𝜑}{}R\stackrel{𝜓}{}S`$. As is well known, if both $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ have finite flat dimension, then so does the composition $`\psi \phi `$. The ‘factorization problem’ for maps of finite flat dimension reads: Suppose that $`\mathrm{fd}(\psi \phi )`$ is finite. What can be said about $`\mathrm{fd}\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{fd}\psi `$? We are now in a position to give a complete answer to this question.

Indeed, if $`\mathrm{fd}\psi `$ is finite, then $`\mathrm{fd}\phi `$ is also finite; this is by Theorem IV.

On the other hand, it could happen that $`\mathrm{fd}\phi `$ is finite, but $`\mathrm{fd}\psi `$ is not: Let $`(Q,𝔪,k)`$ be a regular local ring and $`f`$ a nonzero element in $`𝔪^2`$. Then the diagram $`QQ/(f)k`$ furnishes the requisite counterexample.

Theorems I and II are proved in Section 2. That section establishes also the basic properties of depth for complexes. Most of these generalize results of Iversen, Foxby, and Iyengar. The proofs of Theorems III, IV, and V are contained in Section 3. Section 4 concerns certain results on width for complexes analogous to those on depth described in Section 2.

Most of our calculations occur in the derived category of modules for they are most transparent there. For this reason, in Section 1, we collect a few useful facts concerning the same, as well as results on local cohomology and derived completions required in this work.

We stumbled upon the main results described in this paper at the conference in Grenoble.111Between the morning and afternoon sessions. Not during. It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for inviting us, and also for giving us an opportunity to present our results in this forum.

## 1. Homological algebra

Let $`R`$ be a ring; the standing assumption in this paper is that rings are commutative and noetherian. We are concerned with complexes of the form

$$\mathrm{}M_{\mathrm{}+1}\stackrel{_{\mathrm{}+1}}{}M_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{_{\mathrm{}}}{}M_\mathrm{}1\mathrm{}$$

Given a complex $`M`$ of $`R`$-modules set

$$supM=sup\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(M)0\}\text{and}infM=inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(M)0\},$$

with the understanding that $`sup\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`inf\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$. When $`supM<\mathrm{}`$ (respectively, $`infM>\mathrm{}`$), one says that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above (respectively, bounded below). Naturally, $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded if it is bounded both above and below. We label $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ degreewise finite if the $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{H}_i(M)`$ is finitely generated for each integer $`i`$; it is labelled finite if, in addition, it is bounded.

Associated to any complex $`M`$ and integers $`i,s`$ are the truncated complexes

$`\tau _\mathrm{}i\left(M\right):\mathrm{}M_{i+2}M_{i+1}\mathrm{Ker}(_i)0,`$
$`\tau _\mathrm{}s\left(M\right):0{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{(M_{s+1})}}M_{s1}M_{s2}\mathrm{}.`$
The canonical inclusion $`\tau _\mathrm{}i\left(M\right)M`$ induces an isomorphism in homology in degrees $`i`$, whilst the map in homology induced by the surjection $`M\tau _\mathrm{}s\left(M\right)`$ is an isomorphism in degrees $`s`$. In particular, if $`iinfM`$ (respectively, $`ssupM`$), then the morphism $`\tau _\mathrm{}i\left(M\right)M`$ (respectively, $`M\tau _\mathrm{}s\left(M\right)`$) is a quasiisomorphism, that is to say, a homology isomorphism.

The $`n`$th suspension of $`M`$ is the complex $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^nM`$ with $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^nM)_i=M_{in}`$ and differential given by $`(m)=(1)^{|n|}_{in}(m)`$ for $`m(\mathrm{\Sigma }^nM)_i`$.

### Koszul homology

For an element $`x`$ in the ring $`R`$ denote $`K(x)`$ the complex $`0R\stackrel{𝑥}{}R0`$ concentrated in degrees $`0`$ and $`1`$. The Koszul complex on a sequence $`𝒙=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ is the complex

$$K(𝒙)=K(x_1)_R\mathrm{}_RK(x_n).$$

In the sequel we take recourse to the following properties of Koszul complexes.

###### 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on an element $`x`$ in $`R`$ and let $`M`$ be a complex. There is a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_i(M)\stackrel{𝑥}{}\mathrm{H}_i(M)\mathrm{H}_i(K_RM)\mathrm{H}_{i1}(M)\stackrel{𝑥}{}\mathrm{}.$$

Indeed, the canonical inclusion $`R=K_0K`$ extends to a short exact sequence of complexes of free modules $`0RK\mathrm{\Sigma }R0`$. When tensored with $`M`$, this induces the exact sequence of complexes

$$0MK_RM\mathrm{\Sigma }M0.$$

The corresponding homology long exact sequence is the one we seek.

###### 1.2.

Let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a set of elements $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ in $`R`$, and set $`𝔞=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. For any complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$ one has

$$𝔞\mathrm{H}(K_RM)=0\text{and}𝔞\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))=0.$$

This follows from the fact that multiplication by $`x_i`$ is homotopic to $`0`$ on $`K(x_i)`$, and so on $`K_RM`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$. Thus, $`x_i`$ annihilates both $`\mathrm{H}(K_RM)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))`$, so the same holds for any element in $`𝔞`$.

###### 1.3.

Let $`(R,𝔪,k)`$ be a local ring, $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules, and let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a set of $`n`$ elements in $`𝔪`$. If $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite, then

(1)
$$supMsup\left(K_RM\right)supM+n;$$

(2)
$$inf\left(K_RM\right)=infM.$$

For any element $`x`$ in $`R`$, it follows from (1.1) that since $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite, so is $`\mathrm{H}(K(x)M)`$. So it suffices to verify the claim for $`K=K(x)`$. Then, invoking (1.1) once again, one deduces that $`sup(K_RM)supM+1`$ and $`inf\left(K_RM\right)infM`$. By Nakayama’s lemma, since $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite, $`\mathrm{H}_n(K_RM)=0`$ entails $`\mathrm{H}_n(M)=0`$. This yields the remaining inequalities.

### The derived category

As stated in the introduction, our arguments usually take place in $`𝒟(R)`$, the derived category of $`R`$-modules. Recall that the objects of $`𝒟(R)`$ are complexes of $`R`$-modules. We use the symbol $``$ to signal an isomorphism in $`𝒟(R)`$. A morphism of complexes (in the category of complexes of $`R`$-modules) represents an isomorphism in $`𝒟(R)`$ precisely when it is a quasiisomorphism.

The left derived functor of the tensor product functor of complexes of $`R`$-modules is denoted $`_R^𝐋`$, and the right derived functor of the homomorphisms functor is denoted $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(,)`$. Given complexes $`M`$ and $`N`$, the complexes $`M_R^𝐋N`$ and $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)`$ are defined uniquely (up to canonical isomorphism) in $`𝒟(R)`$. Set

$$\mathrm{Tor}_i^R(M,N)=\mathrm{H}_i(M_R^𝐋N)\text{and}\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(M,N)=\mathrm{H}_i(𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)).$$

When $`M`$ and $`N`$ are modules, these coincide with the classical notions. The reader can refer to Hartshorne , or Gelfand and Manin , for a thorough discussion of the construction and basic properties of the derived category and derived functors.

Given our context, it is crucial that the derived functors are defined without any boundedness restrictions imposed on the homology of the complexes involved. This is feasible thanks to the work of Spaltenstein , wherein he constructs appropriate projective and injective resolutions. For the purpose on hand, we do not need to be concerned with the precise structure of such resolutions. All that is required are the following notions.

Let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules such that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded below. Then $`M`$ admits a bounded below flat resolution, that is, a complex $`F`$ isomorphic to $`M`$ (in $`𝒟(R)`$) with each module $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ flat, and $`F_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}0`$. The flat dimension of $`M`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{fd}_RM=inf\{sup\{\mathrm{}F_{\mathrm{}}0\}F\text{a flat resolution of }M\}.$$

As is well known, when $`M`$ is a finitely generated module over a local ring $`(R,𝔪,k)`$, one has that $`\mathrm{fd}_RM=sup(k_R^𝐋M)`$; this is a direct consequence of $`M`$ having a minimal free resolution. We require the following extension, obtained by Avramov and Foxby \[2, (5.5.F)\], of this result.

###### 1.4.

Let $`\phi :(R,𝔪,k)S`$ be a local homomorphism and $`M`$ a complex of $`S`$-modules such that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is finite. Then

$$\mathrm{fd}_RM=sup(k_R^𝐋M).$$

An analogous notion is that of a projective resolution of $`M`$, and also of the projective dimension of $`M`$, which we denote $`\mathrm{fd}_RM`$.

###### 1.5.

Accounting principles. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be complexes of $`R`$-modules. The following assertions may be verified without much ado; alternatively, look into .

(1)
$$inf(M_R^𝐋N)infM+infN;$$

equality holds if $`i=infM`$ and $`j=infN`$ are finite, and $`\mathrm{H}_i(M)_R\mathrm{H}_j(N)0`$.

(2)
$$sup(M_R^𝐋N)supM+\mathrm{fd}_RN;$$

(3)
$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)supNinfM;$$

equality holds $`i=infM`$ and $`s=supN`$ are finite and $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{H}_i(M),\mathrm{H}_s(N))0`$.

(4) If $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded, then

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)sup\{sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(M),N)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}.$$

For ease of reference, we now recall a few facts concerning local cohomology and derived completions. Some of these are well known for modules, and perhaps also for bounded complexes. In the generality we desire, they are to be found in the paper of Alonso, Jeremías, and Lipman . Having said this, in what follows we refer to Lipman’s article  whenever possible.

### Local cohomology

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and $`M`$ an $`R`$-module. The $`𝔞`$-torsion submodule of $`M`$ is the $`R`$-module

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞(M)=\{mM𝔞^nm=0\text{for some integer }n\}$$

The association $`M\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞(M)`$ extends to define an additive, left exact functor on the category of complexes of $`R`$-modules; its right derived functor is denoted $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞()`$. More precisely, given a complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$, let $`I`$ be an appropriate injective resolution of $`M`$ and set $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞(I)`$. There is a natural morphism

$$𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)M\text{in}𝒟(R).$$

It is traditional to set

$$\mathrm{H}_𝔞^i\left(M\right)=\mathrm{H}_i(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right))\text{for each}i.$$

This is the $`i`$th local cohomology $`M`$ with support in $`𝔞`$. We need the following properties of local cohomology.

###### 1.6.

If $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$ then the morphism $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)M`$ is an isomorphism.

This is a special case of \[19, (3.2.1)\]. The argument runs as follows: One has a spectral sequence that lies in a rectangular strip in the left half-plane, with

$${}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{E}_{p,q}^{}=\mathrm{H}_𝔞^p\left(\mathrm{H}_q(M)\right)\text{and}{}_{}{}^{r}d_{p,q}^{}:{}_{}{}^{r}\mathrm{E}_{p,q}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\mathrm{E}_{pr,q+r1}^{},$$

and converges to $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{pq}\left(M\right)`$. For each $`q`$, since $`𝔞\mathrm{H}_q(M)=0`$, one can construct an injective resolution $`I`$ of $`\mathrm{H}_q(M)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞(I)=I`$. This yields $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^0\left(\mathrm{H}_q(M)\right)=\mathrm{H}_q(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^p\left(\mathrm{H}_q(M)\right)=0`$ for $`p0`$. Thus, the spectral sequence collapses and the edge homomorphisms $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^q\left(M\right)\mathrm{H}_q(M)`$ are isomorphisms.

###### 1.7.

For any complex of $`R`$-modules $`N`$ there is a canonical morphism

$$𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)\right)𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(N\right));$$

it is an isomorphism when $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is finite and $`\mathrm{pd}_RM<\mathrm{}`$.

Indeed, one has an inclusion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞N)`$, as is immediate from the definition of the torsion submodule. Its derived version is the morphism given above. It is evidently an isomorphism when $`M=R`$ and hence also when $`M`$ is a finitely generated projective module. When both $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{pd}_RM`$ are finite, $`M`$ can be replaced by a bounded complex of such modules; this explains the assertion about the isomorphism.

The displayed morphism is an isomorphism also when $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite and bounded below and $`\mathrm{H}(N)`$ is bounded above, and, in this generality, it contains Grothendieck’s local duality theorem; see \[8, (6.1), (6.3)\]. A sheaf theoretic analogue of the isomorphism above is given by \[1, (5.2.1)\]. With no restrictions on $`M`$ or on $`N`$, one cannot expect the morphism in (1.7) to be an isomorphism.

We provide two examples to substantiate our claim; both involve a complete local ring $`R`$, with maximal ideal $`𝔞`$, and the injective hull $`E`$ of its residue field. For the first, we let $`M=E`$ and $`N=E`$, so that $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(N\right)=N`$. Thus, the complexes $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)`$ and $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(N\right))`$ are both isomorphic to $`R`$, and the morphism in (1.7) is the canonical morphism $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right)R`$. This last morphism is not an isomorphism unless $`R`$ happens to be zero dimensional. This example shows that one cannot do away with the degreewise finiteness of $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$.

Our second example illustrates the role of the boundedness hypothesis on $`\mathrm{H}(N)`$ when $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is not bounded. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be complexes with trivial differentials, with $`M_n=R`$ and $`N_n=E`$ for each non-negative integer $`n`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. Now, $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(N\right)=N`$ and $`M`$ is a bounded below complex of projectives, so $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)=\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)`$. This last complex has trivial differentials, so it is easy to compute its homology:

$$\mathrm{H}_n(\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N))=\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N){}_{n}{}^{}=\underset{i\mathrm{}n}{}E\text{for each integer }n\text{.}$$

In particular, the modules $`\mathrm{H}_n(\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N))`$ are not $`𝔞`$-torsion, unless $`R`$ happens to be artinian. However the homology modules of $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N)\right)`$ are all $`𝔞`$-torsion; this is a particular case of the following phenomenon: for any complex $`X`$, each local cohomology module $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^i\left(X\right)`$ is $`𝔞`$-torsion. This result is contained in the work of Dwyer and Greenlees; cf. \[7, (5.3)\].

### Derived completions

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and $`M`$ an $`R`$-module. The $`𝔞`$-adic completion of $`M`$ is the $`R`$-module

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(M)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_n(M_RR/𝔞^n).$$

The mapping $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(M)`$ extends to an additive functor on the category of complexes of $`R`$-modules. This functor admits a left derived functor that we denote $`𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞()`$ following . This is defined as follows: given a complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$, let $`F`$ be an appropriate flat resolution of $`M`$, and set $`𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)`$.

It is not entirely obvious that this construction yields a well defined functor: given two flat resolutions $`F`$ and $`G`$ of $`M`$, one has to prove that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(G)`$. This entails proving that for any complex of $`R`$-module $`X`$, if $`\mathrm{H}(X)=0`$, then $`\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(X))=0`$ as well. The latter assertion may be verified, for example, by arguments akin to those used in the last part of the proof of Theorem 4.1. There is another option: one way to define the left derived functor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞`$, and indeed, any additive functor on the category of complexes, is via projective resolutions. Then, since any two such are homotopy equivalent, it is evident that the functors thus obtained are well defined. However, for most applications it is crucial that one be able to compute the left derived functor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞()`$ via flat resolutions.

For each complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$, there is a natural morphism

$$M𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)\text{in}𝒟(R).$$

For each integer $`i`$, the $`i`$th derived completion of $`M`$ with respect to $`𝔞`$ is the $`R`$-module

$$\mathrm{H}_i^𝔞\left(M\right)=\mathrm{H}_i(𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)).$$

We require the following facts concerning derived completions.

###### 1.8.

If $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$ then the morphism $`M𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$ is an isomorphism.

Here is one justification of this assertion: By \[1, (0.3)\], see also \[19, (4.1)\], there is a natural isomorphism $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right),M)𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$. The projective dimension of $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right)`$ is finite; cf. \[8, (6.5)\]. Thus, a spectral sequence analogous to the one in (1.6) allows one to reduce the problem to the case where $`M`$ is an $`R`$-module with $`𝔞M=0`$. Then the canonical map $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞M`$ is an isomorphism so the same holds for the morphism $`M𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$, by \[12, (4.1)\].

Theorem 1.8 is valid under the far weaker assumption that for each integer $`i`$ the $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{H}_i(M)`$ is $`𝔞`$-adically complete. Similarly, Theorem 1.6 holds, more generally, whenever each $`\mathrm{H}_i(M)`$ is $`𝔞`$-torsion. A good way to understand these phenomenon is via the theory of Bousfield colocalizations and localizations; confer, for example, the article of Dwyer and Greenlees .

###### 1.9.

For any integer $`i`$, if $`𝔞\mathrm{H}_i^𝔞\left(M\right)=\mathrm{H}_i^𝔞\left(M\right)`$, then $`\mathrm{H}_i^𝔞\left(M\right)=0`$.

Indeed, this follows from \[23, (1.4)\] as in , that is, by replacing $`M`$ by an appropriate resolution $`P`$ and noting that then $`\mathrm{H}_i^𝔞\left(M\right)`$ equals $`\mathrm{H}_i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(P))`$.

###### 1.10.

For any complex of $`R`$-modules $`N`$, there is a canonical morphism

$$𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)_R^𝐋N𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M_R^𝐋N\right);$$

it is an isomorphism, if $`\mathrm{H}(N)`$ is finite and $`\mathrm{pd}_RN<\mathrm{}`$.

As noted in (1.8) above, the complexes $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right),M)`$ and $`𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$ are canonically isomorphic. The desired morphism results from the natural morphism

$$𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right),M)_R^𝐋N𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(R\right),M_R^𝐋N).$$

As to the bit about the isomorphism: It is immediate when $`N=R`$, and hence also when $`N`$ is a finitely generated projective module. This settles it, since $`N`$ is isomorphic in $`𝒟(R)`$ to a bounded complex consisting of such modules.

## 2. Depth

The following is one of our main results. It contains Theorem I discussed in the introduction, and extends results of Iyengar \[16, §6\] who operates under the additional hypothesis that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above.

###### 2.1 Theorem.

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian ring and $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules. Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a sequence of $`n`$ generators for $`𝔞`$. In this case, one has that

$`sup(K_RM)n`$ $`=sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$
$`=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M)`$
$`=sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right).`$
The proof of this theorem uses the proposition below.

In fact, this latter result can be extended so that it holds, more generally, for any $`X`$ such that $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(X\right)X`$, but justifying this last claim requires the use of sophisticated tools. The same comment applies also to (4.2). What is more, these results, and others in their vein, have implications that go beyond the present application; we plan to turn to these matters in future work.

For now, we state and prove only the weaker version below for it suffices for the present purpose and its proof is elementary.

###### 2.2 Proposition.

Let $`M`$ and $`X`$ be complexes of $`R`$-modules. If $`\mathrm{H}(X)`$ is bounded and $`𝔞^d\mathrm{H}(X)=0`$ for some positive integer $`d`$, then

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(X,M)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M)infX.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{H}(X)`$ is bounded, (1.5.4) yields the estimate

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(X,M)sup\{sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(X),M)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\}.$$

This reduces the problem to the case where $`X`$ is concentrated in degree $`0`$. By hypothesis $`𝔞^dX=0`$, so $`X`$ is in fact an $`R/𝔞^d`$-module. For any $`R/𝔞^d`$-module $`T`$, one has the isomorphism

$$𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(T,M)𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_{R/𝔞^d}(T,𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞^d,M)).$$

By (1.5.3), this implies that

($``$)
$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(T,M)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞^d,M).$$

Therefore, it suffices to prove the result in the case where $`X=R/𝔞^d`$. To do this, we resort to an induction on the integer $`d`$, the base case $`d=1`$ being tautological. Suppose that the desired estimate holds for $`X=R/𝔞^d`$ for some integer $`d1`$ . Applying $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(,M)`$ to the short exact sequence

$$0𝔞^d/𝔞^{d+1}R/𝔞^{d+1}R/𝔞^d0,$$

yields the long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{Ext}_R^m(R/𝔞^d,M)\mathrm{Ext}_R^m(R/𝔞^{d+1},M)\mathrm{Ext}_R^m(𝔞^d/𝔞^{d+1},M)\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`𝔞^d/𝔞^{d+1}`$ is an $`R/𝔞^d`$-module, ($``$) yields that $`sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(𝔞^d/𝔞^{d+1},M)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞^d,M)`$. This estimate, along with the induction hypothesis and the long exact sequence above allows us to complete the induction step, and hence the proof of the proposition. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

Since $`K`$ is a bounded complex of finitely generated free $`R`$-modules, the complexes $`K_R^𝐋M`$ and $`K_RM`$ are isomorphic. For this reason, in the ensuing discussion, we identity these two complexes; ditto for the complexes $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$.

Proof of $`sup(K_RM)n=sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$. Koszul complexes are self dual: There is an isomorphism $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }^n\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,R)`$ of complexes of $`R`$-modules and this induces the isomorphism $`K_RM\mathrm{\Sigma }^n\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$. In particular,

$$sup\left(K_RM\right)=sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)+n.$$

Proof of $`sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M)`$. Since $`\mathrm{H}(K)`$ is bounded with $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(K)=0`$, the proposition above yields the inequality

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M).$$

As to the opposite inequality, note that

$`sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))`$ $`=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R((R/𝔞)_R^𝐋K,M)`$
$`=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R({\displaystyle \underset{i\mathrm{}0}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^i(R/𝔞)^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)},M)`$
$`=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M).`$
The desired result follows from the calculation above and the fact that, by (1.5.3), $`sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$.

Proof of $`sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)=sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$. In the chain below, the isomorphism on the left is by (1.6), since $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))=0`$, while the one on the right is given by (1.7).

$$\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)\right)𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)).$$

This yields the equality below, while the inequality follows from (1.5.3).

$$sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right))sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right).$$

On the other hand, for each integer $`n0`$, one has that

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞^n,M)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,M)=sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M),$$

where the equality has been established already, and the inequality is provided by (2.2). Since $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^i\left(M\right)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}{}_{n}{}^{}\mathrm{Ext}_{R}^{i}(R/𝔞^n,M)`$ for each integer $`i`$, the inequalities above imply that $`sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)`$.

This completes the proof of the desired equality and of the theorem. ∎

### A compendium

As has been explained in the introduction, Theorem 2.1 may be interpreted as stating that the various ways of introducing depth for complexes: via Koszul homology and cohomology, via the Ext functor, and via local cohomology, all lead to the same invariant. Thus, there is no ambiguity in speaking of the depth of a complex. Let us record this fact.

###### 2.3 Definition.

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian ring, $`𝔞`$ an ideal in $`R`$ and $`K`$ the Koszul complex on a sequence of $`n`$ generators for $`𝔞`$. For a complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$, the $`𝔞`$-depth of $`M`$ over $`R`$ is defined by one of the following equivalent formulas:

$$\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}nsup(K_RM);\hfill & \\ inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M))0\};\hfill & \\ inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Ext}_R^{\mathrm{}}(R/𝔞,M)0\};\hfill & \\ inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{\mathrm{}}\left(M\right)0\}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

We write $`0pt𝔞M`$ for the $`𝔞`$-depth of $`M`$ when the ring $`R`$ is clear from the context. By the by, the equality above implies that in computing depth via Koszul (co)homology, one may choose any finite generating sequence for $`𝔞`$.

For a complex $`M`$ over a local ring $`(R,𝔪,k)`$, the depth of $`M`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{depth}_RM=\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔪,M).$$

This is abbreviated to $`\mathrm{depth}M`$, if omitting $`R`$ does not lead to much confusion.

In the remainder of this section we state, and prove, the fundamental properties that depth enjoys without imposing unnecessary boundedness conditions. In this process, it becomes clear that in dealing with depth no one definition can be singled out as being best suited to every purpose.

The first result subsumes Theorem II from the introduction. When $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above, it is precisely \[16, (2.1)\]; in turn that extends results in , .

###### 2.4 Theorem.

Let $`(R,𝔪,k)`$ be a local ring and $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules. Let $`P`$ be bounded complex of $`R`$-modules with $`\mathrm{H}(P)0`$ and such that $`\mathrm{fd}_RP<\mathrm{}`$.

If either $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above or $`\mathrm{H}(P)`$ is degreewise finite, then

$$\mathrm{depth}_R(M_R^𝐋P)=\mathrm{depth}_RMsup(k_R^𝐋P).$$

###### Proof.

As noted above, the case where $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above is settled by \[16, (2.1)\]; confer also \[8, (1.8)\]. That proof works with the Koszul homology characterization of depth. We give an argument that handles both parts simultaneously.

The complex of $`R`$-modules $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M)`$ is isomorphic to a graded $`k`$-vector space; for example, see . This engenders the isomorphism in the diagram below, whereas the morphism $`\theta `$ is the canonical one.

$$𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M)_k^𝐋(k_R^𝐋P)𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M)_R^𝐋P\stackrel{𝜃}{}𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M_R^𝐋P).$$

Under either hypothesis, $`\theta `$ is an isomorphism: When $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above, this is \[2, (4.4.F)\]; a similar argument also goes through when $`\mathrm{H}(P)`$ is degreewise finite. If $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded above, then $`sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M)<\mathrm{}`$, by (1.5.3). When $`\mathrm{H}(P)`$ is degreewise finite, $`\mathrm{H}(k_R^𝐋P)`$ is non-zero, by (1.5.1), so (1.5.2) yields that $`sup(k_R^𝐋P)`$ is finite. Thus, the isomorphisms above implies an equality

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M_R^𝐋P)=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(k,M)+sup(k_R^𝐋P).$$

This is the result we seek. ∎

At this point, it is expedient to record the following remarks which are handy for many of the subsequent arguments.

###### 2.5.

Let $`R`$ be a local ring, $`𝔞`$ a proper ideal in $`R`$, and let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules with $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ degreewise finite. Then

$`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$ $`supM=\mathrm{};`$
$`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$ $`supM=\mathrm{}.`$
These are immediate from (1.3.1), once we compute depth via Koszul homology.

It is crucial that $`R`$ be local, as the following example illustrates.

###### 2.6 Example.

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian ring containing a set of non-trivial ideals $`\{𝔞_n\}_{n\mathrm{}0}`$ with the property that $`𝔞_i+𝔞_j=R`$ for $`ij`$, and set

$$M=\underset{n\mathrm{}0}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^n(R/𝔞_n).$$

Then, $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite with $`supM=\mathrm{}`$, while for any non-negative integer $`n`$, one finds that $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞_n,M)=n`$ (compute via Koszul complexes).

The following lower bound for depth is well known; see  or \[16, (2.3)\].

###### 2.7.

Let $`(R,𝔪,k)`$ be a local ring and $`M`$ a complex such that $`supM=s`$ is finite. Then $`\mathrm{depth}Ms`$ and equality holds if and only if $`𝔪\mathrm{Ass}\mathrm{H}_s(M)`$.

Here is what we have to say about upper bounds for depth.

###### 2.8.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and set $`a=\mathrm{max}\{i\mathrm{H}_𝔞^j\left(R\right)0\}`$. Let $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules. From the local cohomology spectral sequence encountered in (1.6) it follows that if there are integers $`s`$ and $`d`$ such that

1. $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^d\left(\mathrm{H}_s(M)\right)0`$, whilst
2. $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{d1j}\left(\mathrm{H}_{si}(M)\right)=0`$ for $`1jd1`$, and
3. $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{d+1+j}\left(\mathrm{H}_{s+j}(M)\right)=0`$ for $`1jad1`$

then $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{E}_{d,s}^{}`$ survives to $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{E}_{d,s}^{}`$ so $`\mathrm{H}_𝔞^{ds}\left(M\right)0`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)ds`$.

Conditions (a)–(c) may seem contrived, but they hold in the following case.

###### Lemma.

Let $`(R,𝔪,k)`$ be a local ring and $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules. If there is an integer $`s`$ such that

1. $`𝔪\mathrm{Ass}\mathrm{H}_s(M)`$ and
2. $`\mathrm{H}_j(M)`$ is $`𝔪`$-torsion for each integer $`s+1js+dimR1`$ ,

then $`\mathrm{depth}_RMs`$. In particular, if $`supM=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_j(M)`$ is $`𝔪`$-torsion for all $`j0`$, then $`\mathrm{depth}_RM=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

Next we improve on \[16, (5.3)\]. The proof of *loc. cit.* uses the Auslander-Buchsbaum equality \[16, (2.1)\], which is why its validity was restricted to complexes with bounded above homology. Now, thanks to (2.4), the same argument establishes this result without any boundedness hypothesis on the complex $`M`$.

###### 2.9 Proposition.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in a noetherian ring $`R`$, and let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a finite sequence $`𝐱`$ of generators for $`𝔞`$. Let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules such that its $`𝔞`$-depth is finite. Set $`d=\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)`$ and $`s=sup(K_RM)`$.

1. The $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{H}_s(K_RM)`$ is independent of the choice of $`𝒙`$.
2. $`\{𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔞)\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭=d\}=\mathrm{Ass}_R\mathrm{H}_s(K_RM)`$.∎

The proposition below describes the local nature of depth. It builds on the proof of \[16, (5.4)\] which is good enough to handle the case when $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)>\mathrm{}`$. Thus the only situation that remains to be tackled is when $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$. This is more involved than one might suspect.

###### 2.10 Proposition.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in a noetherian ring $`R`$ and let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules. Then

$$\mathrm{depth}_R(I,M)=inf\{\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭𝔭\mathrm{V}(I)\}.$$

###### Remark.

If $`𝔞=0`$, then $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=supM`$, and the proposition reads

$$supM=inf\{\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭𝔭\mathrm{Spec}R\}.$$

This formula in conjunction with the preceding proposition explains (2.7).

###### Caveat.

Evidently, when $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)`$ is finite, the infimum is achieved at some prime $`𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔞)`$. This need not be the case if $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$, as is illustrated by the following example.

Let $`R`$ and $`M`$ be as in (2.6). Then $`0pt(0)M=supM=\mathrm{}`$, whilst $`\mathrm{H}(M_𝔭)`$ is bounded above for any prime ideal $`𝔭\mathrm{Spec}R`$, so $`\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭>\mathrm{}`$. Note that if $`𝔭_i`$ is a minimal prime in $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞_i)`$, then $`\mathrm{depth}_{R_{𝔭_i}}M_{𝔭_i}=i`$, so the infimum here is $`\mathrm{}`$, as predicted by the proposition.

It is not too hard to cook up another such example wherein the ring $`R`$ is local.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.10.

As mentioned before, \[16, (5.4)\] resolves the case when $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)>\mathrm{}`$. The argument is short, so it bears repeating: Utilizing the characterization of depth via either local cohomology or Koszul homology it is easy to establish the following inequalities; cf. \[16, (5.2)\].

$$\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}(𝔞_𝔭,M_𝔭)\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭.$$

Now we may assume that $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)`$ is finite, in which case Proposition 2.9 provides us with a prime $`𝔭`$ at which the inequalities above become equalities.

For the remainder of the proof $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$; in particular, $`supM=\mathrm{}`$. We have to establish that $`\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭`$ has no lower bound as $`𝔭`$ varies in $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞)`$. To this end, it is convenient to engineer ourselves into a situation where $`M`$ is supported in $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞)`$, by the following device: Let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a sequence of $`n`$ generators for $`𝔞`$. Then

$`0pt𝔞K_RM`$ $`=nsup(K_R(K_RM))`$
$`=n(2n0pt𝔞M)`$
$`=0pt𝔞Mn,`$
where the first, respectively, the second, equality is due to the fact that $`K`$, respectively, $`K_RK`$, detects depth with respect to $`𝔞`$. Thus, $`0pt𝔞K_RM=\mathrm{}`$ as well. Moreover, for any prime $`𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔞)`$, the complex $`K_𝔭`$ is minimal, so that $`sup\left(k(𝔭)_{R_𝔭}^𝐋K_𝔭\right)=n`$, where $`k(𝔭)`$ denotes the residue field of $`R_𝔭`$. In particular, Theorem 2.4 yields

$$\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}(K_𝔭_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭)=\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭n.$$

Therefore, by passing to $`K_RM`$ we may assume in addition that $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$.

Define $`V_n=\{𝔮\mathrm{V}(𝔞)nsupM_𝔮<\mathrm{}\}`$, for each integer $`n`$. These are subsets of $`\mathrm{Spec}R`$ with $`\mathrm{}V_nV_{n+1}\mathrm{}`$. There are two possibilities.

Suppose that $`V_n\mathrm{}`$ for each integer $`n`$. Fix an integer $`d0`$ and choose an element $`𝔮V_d`$, so that $`supM_𝔮=sd`$ and finite. If $`𝔭`$ is a prime associated to $`\mathrm{H}_s(M_𝔮)`$, then $`𝔞𝔭`$ because $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$. Moreover, we deduce from (2.7) that $`\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭=sd`$, which yields the desired conclusion, since $`d`$ was arbitrary.

Suppose that $`V_n=\mathrm{}`$ for some integer $`n`$. Then, since $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$ and $`supM=\mathrm{}`$, this implies that the set $`U=\{𝔮\mathrm{V}(𝔞)supM_𝔮=\mathrm{}\}`$ is non-empty. Pick an prime ideal $`𝔭`$ which is minimal in $`U`$, that is to say, $`𝔮𝔭`$ for any element $`𝔮U`$. By choice of $`𝔭`$, one has $`supM_𝔭=\mathrm{}`$, whilst for $`in`$ the $`R_𝔭`$-module $`\mathrm{H}_i(M_𝔭)`$ is supported only at the maximal ideal $`𝔭R_𝔭`$. It remains to invoke Lemma 2.8 to conclude that $`\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭=\mathrm{}`$.

This completes the proof of the proposition. ∎

The preceding proposition allows us to extend \[16, (5.5)\] to complexes which are not necessarily bounded above.

###### 2.11 Proposition.

Let $`𝔞`$ and $`𝔟`$ be ideals in a noetherian ring $`R`$, and let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules.

1. $`0pt𝔞𝔟M=0pt𝔞𝔟M=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}pt𝔞M,0pt𝔟M\}`$.
2. $`0pt𝔟M=0pt𝔞M`$ if $`\mathrm{rad}(𝔟)=\mathrm{rad}(𝔞)`$.

If $`R`$ is local and $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is degreewise finite, then

1. $`\mathrm{depth}M0pt𝔞M+dimR/𝔞.`$

###### Proof.

(1) This first equality is a corollary of (2.10) since $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞𝔟)=\mathrm{V}(𝔞𝔟)`$. As to the second, consider the equalities

$`0pt𝔞𝔟M`$ $`=\underset{𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔞𝔟)}{inf}\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭`$
$`=\mathrm{min}\{\underset{𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔞)}{inf}\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭,\underset{𝔭\mathrm{V}(𝔟)}{inf}\mathrm{depth}_{R_𝔭}M_𝔭\}`$
$`=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}pt𝔞M,0pt𝔟M\},`$
where the first and the third are by (2.10), and the middle one reflects the identity: $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞𝔟)=\mathrm{V}(𝔞)\mathrm{V}(𝔟)`$.

(2) This too follows from (2.10) since $`\mathrm{V}(𝔞)=\mathrm{V}(𝔟)`$.

(3) Thanks to (2.5), it suffices to consider the case when $`supM`$ is finite. At this point, we may refer to \[16, (5.5.4)\], but for completeness we give (a slight variant of) the argument: Since $`R`$ is local, one can find elements $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_d`$ in $`R`$ whose image under the canonical surjection $`RR/𝔞`$ forms a system of parameters for $`R/𝔞`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{rad}(𝒙,𝔞)`$ is the maximal ideal $`𝔪`$ of $`R`$, and $`d=dimR/𝔞`$. Thus, $`𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔪\left(M\right)𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(𝒙)}\left(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)\right)`$; for example, see . Since $`supM<\mathrm{}`$, one has $`sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)<\mathrm{}`$, so $`sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(𝒙)}\left(𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)\right)sup𝐑\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝔞\left(M\right)d`$, which is the inequality we seek. ∎

## 3. Amplitude inequality

This section is dedicated to the proof of the following extension of Theorem III from the introduction.

###### 3.1 Theorem.

Let $`RS`$ be a local homomorphism and let $`F`$ be a complex of $`S`$-modules with $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ non-trivial and finite. If the flat dimension of $`F`$ over $`R`$ is finite, then for any complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$ with $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ degreewise finite, one has

$$supM+infFsup\left(M_R^𝐋F\right);$$

$$infM+infF=inf\left(M_R^𝐋F\right).$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{amp}M\mathrm{amp}\left(M_R^𝐋F\right)`$.

This theorem has the following surprising (to us) corollary. It contain Theorem IV stated in the introduction; as has been explained there, this latter result is a significant generalization of \[5, Theorem R\].

###### 3.2 Theorem.

Let $`QRS`$ be local homomorphisms and let $`F`$ be a complex of $`S`$-modules such that $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ is non-trivial and finite. Assume that $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ is finite. One has

$$\mathrm{fd}_QR+infF\mathrm{fd}_QF\mathrm{fd}_QR+\mathrm{fd}_RF.$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{fd}_QR`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_QF`$ are finite simultaneously.

###### Proof.

Let $`k`$ be the residue field of $`Q`$, and let $`M=k_Q^𝐋R`$. Observe that the complexes $`M_R^𝐋F`$ and $`k_Q^𝐋F`$ are isomorphic. In particular, by (1.4), one has $`\mathrm{fd}_QR=supM`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_QF=sup(M_R^𝐋F)`$, so the inequality on the left is a consequence of the preceding theorem. The one on the right is given by (1.5.2). ∎

From the preceding result one can deduce (a complex extension of) Theorem V from the introduction. The equivalence of the first two conditions is contained in a result of Kunz \[18, (2.1)\]; that of the first and the third was discovered by Rodicio  in the special case where $`F=R`$. The reader may consult the survey article of C. Miller  in these proceedings for other developments that are inspired by the work of Kunz and Rodicio.

###### 3.3 Theorem.

Let $`R`$ be a local ring of characteristic $`p`$, and let $`\phi :RR`$ be the Frobenius endomorphism of $`R`$. The following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`R`$ is regular;
2. $`\phi ^n`$ is flat for each integer $`n0`$;
3. there exists a positive integer $`n`$ and a complex of $`R`$-modules $`F`$ with $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ finitely generated such that both $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_R({}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}F)`$ are finite.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔪`$ be the maximal ideal of $`R`$. For each natural number $`n`$, one has $`\mathrm{depth}_R({}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}R)=\mathrm{depth}_R(\phi ^n(𝔪),R)=\mathrm{depth}R`$. Indeed, the first equality is immediate from the Koszul complex characterization of depth whilst the second is given by (2.11), since $`\mathrm{rad}(\phi ^n(𝔪))=\mathrm{rad}(𝔪)`$. These equalities, coupled with equality $`sup(k_R^𝐋({}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}R))=\mathrm{fd}_R({}_{}{}^{\phi ^n}R)`$, provided by (1.4), and Theorem 2.4 yield

($``$)
$$\mathrm{fd}(\phi ^n)<\mathrm{}\mathrm{fd}(\phi ^n)=0.$$

Now for the proof of the desired equivalences.

(a) $``$ (b): Since $`R`$ is regular, $`\mathrm{fd}\phi ^n`$ is finite, and hence $`\mathrm{fd}\phi ^n=0`$, by ($``$).

(b) $``$ (c): Pick a positive integer $`n`$ and set $`F=R`$.

(c) $``$ (a): Applied to the diagram $`R\stackrel{𝜑}{}R\stackrel{\phi ^{n1}}{}R`$, Theorem 3.2 entails $`\mathrm{fd}(\phi )<\mathrm{}`$. From this inequality, ($``$) allows us to draw the stronger conclusion that $`\mathrm{fd}\phi =0`$. It remains to invoke \[18, (2.1)\]. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.1.

If $`\mathrm{H}(M)=0`$, then $`\mathrm{H}(M_R^𝐋F)=0`$, and the desired (in)equalities are immediate. For the rest of the proof it is assumed that $`\mathrm{H}(M)0`$.

Let $`𝔪`$ be the maximal ideal of $`R`$ and set $`k=R/𝔪`$. Let $`\phi `$ denote the homomorphism $`RS`$. The first step is to reduce to the case where $`\phi `$ is surjective; then $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ would be finite over $`R`$ itself.

Let $`\widehat{S}`$ denote the completion of $`S`$ at its maximal ideal, and set $`\widehat{F}=F_S\widehat{S}`$. Since the $`S`$-module $`\widehat{S}`$ is faithfully flat, $`\mathrm{H}(\widehat{F})\mathrm{H}(F)_S\widehat{S}`$; hence $`\mathrm{H}(\widehat{F})`$ is degreewise finite over $`\widehat{S}`$. For the same reason, for each complex of $`R`$-modules $`X`$, one has

$$sup\left(X_R^𝐋\widehat{F}\right)=sup\left(X_R^𝐋F\right)\text{and}inf\left(X_R^𝐋\widehat{F}\right)=inf\left(X_R^𝐋F\right).$$

Thus, it suffices to establish the (in)equalities we seek with $`\widehat{F}`$ in place of $`F`$. Moreover, the special case $`X=k`$ of the equality above concerning the suprema, in conjunction with (1.4), yields: $`\mathrm{fd}_R\widehat{F}=\mathrm{fd}_RF`$. Hence the flat dimension of $`\widehat{F}`$ over $`R`$ is finite. So, passing to $`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\widehat{F}`$, one can assume that $`S`$ is complete.

By \[3, (1.1)\], the homomorphism $`\phi `$ has a factorization $`R\stackrel{\dot{\phi }}{}R^{}\stackrel{\phi ^{}}{}S`$ such that the $`R`$-module $`R^{}`$ is flat, the ring $`R^{}/𝔪R^{}`$ is regular, and the map $`\phi ^{}`$ is surjective. Set $`M^{}=M_RR^{}`$. Then, $`M^{}_R^{}^𝐋FM_R^𝐋F`$, and, since $`\dot{\phi }`$ is faithfully flat, $`supM^{}=supM`$ and $`infM^{}=infM`$. Furthermore, it follows from arguments analogous to \[3, (3.2)\] that the flat dimension of $`\mathrm{fd}_R^{}F`$ is finite. Thus, replacing $`R`$ and $`M`$ by $`R^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ respectively, one can assume that $`\phi `$ is a surjective homomorphism.

From this point onwards the ring $`S`$ plays no role in the picture.

The homomorphism $`\phi `$ is surjective, so $`\mathrm{H}(F)`$ is finite over $`R`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{fd}_RF`$ is finite. Thus, $`F`$ is isomorphic to a complex $`F^{}`$ of finitely generated, free modules with $`F_i^{}=0`$ for $`i\mathrm{fd}_RF+1`$. Replacing $`F`$ by $`F^{}`$, one can assume henceforth that $`F`$ is of this form. In particular, $`M_R^𝐋FM_RF`$.

Proof that $`supM+infFsup\left(M_RF\right)`$. If $`supM=\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{depth}M=\mathrm{}`$ by (2.5), so $`\mathrm{depth}(M_RF)=\mathrm{}`$, by the Auslander-Buchsbaum formula (2.4); another application of (2.5) yields $`sup(M_RF)=\mathrm{}`$. Now we may assume that $`supM`$ is finite. The next step is to reduce to case where $`infM`$ is also finite, so that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded.

Set $`s=sup(M_RF)`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{}<s<\mathrm{}`$.

Indeed, since $`supM<\mathrm{}`$ and $`F`$ is finite free, $`s<\mathrm{}`$; see (1.5.2). By (2.5), the inequality $`supM>\mathrm{}`$ implies $`\mathrm{depth}M<\mathrm{}`$, and hence, by (2.4), that $`\mathrm{depth}(M_RF)<\mathrm{}`$. Another appeal to (2.5) yields that $`s>\mathrm{}`$.

Set $`M^{}=\tau _\mathrm{}u\left(M\right)`$, where $`u=s\mathrm{pd}_RF2`$. The following equalities hold.

1. $`supM^{}=supM`$;
2. $`sup(M^{}_RF)=sup(M_RF)`$.

To see this, note that the canonical inclusion $`M^{}M`$ induces the morphism of complexes $`M^{}_RFM_RF`$. This map is the identity in degrees $`s1`$ and higher so that $`\mathrm{H}_n(M^{}_RF)=\mathrm{H}_n(M_RF)`$ for $`ns`$; this contains $`(2)`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{H}(M^{})0`$ and hence $`usupM`$; thus $`supM^{}=supM`$.

At this point, we substitute $`M^{}`$ for $`M`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ is bounded. In view of , the result of Iversen \[14, (3.2)\] gives $`\mathrm{amp}(M)\mathrm{amp}(M_RF)`$. Unravelling this inequality, keeping in mind that $`infM+infF=inf(M_RF)`$, by (1.5.1), yields the desired inequality.

This completes the justification of the inequality concerning the suprema.

Proof that $`infM+infF=inf\left(M_RF\right)`$. When $`infM`$ is finite, (1.5.1) provides the desired equality. Suppose that $`infM=\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a finite generating set for $`𝔪`$. For any complex of $`R`$-modules $`X`$ with $`\mathrm{H}(X)`$ degreewise finite, $`inf\left(K_RX\right)=infX`$; this follows from (1.1). In particular, $`inf\left(K_RM\right)=\mathrm{}`$; moreover,

$$inf\left(M_RF\right)=\mathrm{}inf\left((K_RM)_R^𝐋F\right)=\mathrm{}.$$

So, substituting $`K_RM`$ for $`M`$, one can assume that the $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{H}_i(M)`$ has finite length; see (1.2). Let $`E`$ be the injective hull of $`k`$ \- the residue field of $`R`$ \- and set $`M^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,E)`$. Then $`\mathrm{H}_i(M^{})`$ has finite length, and in particular, finitely generated, and $`supM^{}=infM=\mathrm{}`$. This explains the equality in the calculation below; the inequality is by the already established part of the theorem, since $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(F,R)`$ is finite free.

$$sup\left(M^{}_R\mathrm{Hom}_R(F,R)\right)supM^{}+inf\mathrm{Hom}_R(F,R)=\mathrm{}.$$

The complexes $`M^{}_R\mathrm{Hom}_R(F,R)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(F_RM,E)`$ are isomorphic, since $`F`$ is finite free. So $`sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(F_RM,E)=\mathrm{}`$; this entails $`inf\left(M_RF\right)=\mathrm{}`$.

This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

## 4. Width

In this section we prove the following result; its statement parallels that of Theorem 2.1. It extends the result of Frankild  that treats the case of complexes with bounded below homology.

###### 4.1 Theorem.

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian ring and $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules. Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and $`K`$ the Koszul complex on a finite generating sequence for $`𝔞`$. Then

$$inf(K_RM)=inf((R/𝔞)_R^𝐋M)=inf𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right).$$

The proof becomes more transparent with the following result on hand.

###### 4.2 Proposition.

Let $`M`$ and $`X`$ be complexes of $`R`$-modules. If $`\mathrm{H}(X)`$ is bounded and $`𝔞^d\mathrm{H}(X)=0`$ for some positive integer $`d`$, then

$$inf\left(X_R^𝐋M\right)inf\left(R/𝔞_R^𝐋M\right)+infX.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`E`$ be a faithfully injective $`R`$-module. Then from Proposition 2.2, applied to the complexes of $`R`$-modules $`𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,E)`$ and $`X`$, and adjointness one obtains that

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(X_R^𝐋M,E)sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞_R^𝐋M,E)infX.$$

This gives the desired result as $`sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(L,E)=infL`$ for any complex $`L`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1.

As before, we identify $`K_R^𝐋M`$ and $`K_RM`$.

Proof of $`inf\left(K_R^𝐋M\right)=inf\left((R/𝔞)_R^𝐋M\right)`$. Let $`E`$ be a faithfully injective $`R`$-module. Then $`infL=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(L,E)`$ for any complex $`L`$; thus, by adjointness, the desired equality is equivalent to

$$sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,E))=sup𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(R/𝔞,𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,E)).$$

This is a special case of (2.1).

Proof of  $`inf(K_RM)=inf𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)`$. We may assume that one of the two quantities in consideration is not $`\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`inf𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)>\mathrm{}`$. By (1.8), since $`𝔞\mathrm{H}(K_RM)=0`$, one has the the first of the following isomorphisms, whilst the second is a special case of (1.10), since $`K`$ is finite and free.

$$K_RM𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(K_RM\right)K_R𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right).$$

This entails $`inf(K_RM)=inf(𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right))`$, by (1.9) and (1.5.1).

Suppose now that $`inf\left(K_RM\right)=i>\mathrm{}`$. We know now that this is equivalent to $`inf\left(R/𝔞_R^𝐋M\right)=i`$. By (4.2), this implies that

($``$)
$$inf\left(R/𝔞^n_R^𝐋M\right)i\text{for each integer }n1.$$

By definition, $`𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)`$, where $`F`$ is an appropriate flat resolution of $`M`$. The complex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)`$ is defined by the exactness of the sequence of complexes

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)((R/𝔞^n)_RF)\stackrel{𝜃}{}((R/𝔞^n)_RF)0,$$

where the degree $`\mathrm{}`$th component of $`((R/𝔞^n)_RF)`$ is $`((R/𝔞^n)_RF_{\mathrm{}})`$, and $`\theta (f_n)=(f_n\pi ^{n+1}(f_{n+1}))`$, with $`\pi ^{n+1}:(R/𝔞^{n+1})_RF(R/𝔞^n)_RF`$ the canonical surjection. The inverse system $`\{(R/𝔞^n)_RF\}_{n0}`$ being surjective, the map $`\theta `$ in the diagram above is surjective. For each integer $`n`$, since $`(R/𝔞^n)_RFR/𝔞^n_R^𝐋M`$, inequality ($``$) ensures that $`inf((R/𝔞^n)_RF)`$ is at least $`i`$. Therefore, from the homology long exact sequence arising from the short exact sequence of complexes above we deduce that $`inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞(F)i1`$, that is to say, $`inf𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)i1`$. In particular, $`inf𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔞\left(M\right)>\mathrm{}`$, which brings us back to preceding case.

This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### 4.3 Definition.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and $`K`$ the Koszul complex on $`𝔞`$. For a complex of $`R`$-modules $`M`$, the $`𝔞`$-width of $`M`$ over $`R`$ is defined by one of the following equivalent formulas:

$$\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}inf(K_RM);\hfill & \\ inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{Tor}_{\mathrm{}}^R(R/𝔞,M)0\};\hfill & \\ inf\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}^𝔞\left(M\right)0\}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

For a complex $`M`$ over a local ring $`(R,𝔪,k)`$, the width of $`M`$ is the number

$$\mathrm{width}_RM=\mathrm{width}_R(𝔪,M).$$

For complexes whose homology is bounded below, width was introduced by Yassemi in  over local rings. In full generality, width for complexes was studied by Christensen, Foxby and Frankild, who defined it via Kozsul homology .

Next we establish a tight relation between $`𝔞`$-depth and $`𝔞`$-width.

###### 4.4 Proposition.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and $`M`$ a complex of $`R`$-modules. Let $`E`$ a faithful injective $`R`$-module and set $`M^{}=𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,E)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M^{})\text{and}\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M^{}).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`K`$ be the Koszul complex on a finite sequence of generators for $`𝔞`$. Since $`K`$ is bounded and degreewise finite and free, $`K_RM^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)^{}`$ are isomorphic (see, for example, the proof of \[2, (4.4)\] ). This gives the second equality below, whereas the first is due to the equality $`supL=inf(L^{})`$, which holds for any complex $`L`$.

$$sup\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M)=inf\mathrm{Hom}_R(K,M){}_{}{}^{}=inf\left(K_RM^{}\right).$$

So $`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M^{})`$; the proof of the other equality is analogous. ∎

The preceding proposition allows us to obtain many a results concerning width from those on depth. For instance, the following observation is a immediate consequence of (2.5).

###### 4.5.

Let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal in $`R`$ and let $`M`$ be a complex of $`R`$-modules with $`\mathrm{H}(M)`$ degreewise finite. Then

$`\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$ $`infM=\mathrm{};`$
$`\mathrm{width}_R(𝔞,M)=\mathrm{}`$ $`infM=\mathrm{}.`$
One can translate also (2.4) - the Auslander-Buchsbaum formula - into a statement concerning width. We end this section with the formula for the width of the derived tensor product, and the derived homomorphisms, of a pair of complexes.

###### 4.6 Proposition.

Let $`(R,𝔪,k)`$ be a noetherian local ring, and let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be complexes of $`R`$-modules.

$`\mathrm{width}_R(M_R^𝐋N)`$ $`=\mathrm{width}_RM+\mathrm{width}_RN;`$
$`\mathrm{depth}_R(𝐑\mathrm{Hom}_R(M,N))`$ $`=\mathrm{width}_RM+\mathrm{depth}_RN.`$
###### Proof.

The associativity formula $`(M_R^𝐋N)_R^𝐋k(M_R^𝐋k)_k(k_R^𝐋N)`$ leads to the first equality below, while the second holds since $`k`$ is a field.

$$inf\left((M_R^𝐋N)_R^𝐋k\right)=inf\left((M_R^𝐋k)_k(k_R^𝐋N)\right)=inf(M_R^𝐋k)+inf(k_R^𝐋N).$$

This establishes the first formula; the argument for the second one is similar. ∎


format: text

text:
# Some remarks on Bell’s Inequality tests

## 1 Introduction

In a classical paper , Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen presented an argument which led them to infer that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory. They believed that the quantum mechanical description of a physical system could be improved supplementing it by new variables that can make quantum mechanics a local, realistic, complete and hopefully even deterministic theory. Postulating the existence of hidden variables, Bell proved an inequality (discussed in the next section) that must be satisfied by the local realistic theories but that is not fulfilled by the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics . This inequality was generalized by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt , giving room to decisive tests between Quantum Mechanics ($`QM`$) and Local Hidden Variable ($`LHV`$) theories.

After some contradictory results  , between 1980 and 1982, Aspect et al.   verified that in some experiments the results were correctly predicted by quantum theory and that in some configurations Bell’s inequality was actually violated. At our knowledge all experiments so far support quantum theory .

However these results have been the subject of several criticisms, pointing out that there are “experimental loopholes”   in Aspect’s like experiments, divided essentially into two main classes: “locality” and “detection efficiency” loopholes, which might turn out to be responsible for the result. For example Franson  published a paper showing that the timing constraint in one of these experiments was not adequate to confirm that locality was violated. In a test with pairs of entangled photons meeting polarizers, a good measurement apparatus will rule out any possibility of subluminal communication which might inform the photon or the detector on one side about which measurement will be performed on the other side. For that purpose it has been suggested that the orientation of the polarizers must be determined by a purely random physical process and the photons must be registered with accurate time tags separately at each detector before any information can be communicated from the other side. Recently Weihs et al.  have finally claimed to have close the locality loophole.

Other authors insist that all experiments so far have detected only a small subset of all pairs created , while Rowe et al  have recently performed an experiment without this problem. Later we will briefly comment about this loophole.

Moreover the existence of some “selection effect” which influences the detection probabilities has been suspected, so that Aspect’s experiments would not actually test Bell’s inequality . So far no experiment aiming at testing Bell’s inequality seems to be simultaneously free by all possible loopholes .

Recently, additional motivations to investigate quantum non-locality have arisen, based on the potential applications of the fascinating field of quantum information processing: all of quantum computation and communication is based on the assumption that quantum systems can be entangled and that the entanglement can be maintained over long times and distances .

In this paper, starting from an ideal apparatus description, we review and emphasize some potential critical points of a real measurement system, in an information theory fashion. In particular we propose some examples in which the noise plays a role in Bell’s inequality tests and we consider the selection effect due to the choice of the sample of N particle pairs, independently of the detection efficiency.

## 2 Bell’s Inequality

Let us consider an ensemble of correlated pairs of particles moving so that one enters apparatus $`I`$ and the other the apparatus $`II`$. There are adjustable apparatus parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$. Each apparatus performs a measurement, giving in output the signals $`A(a)`$ and $`B(b)`$, respectively, where $`A,B\{,+\}`$.

We distinguish between two cases.

In the $`LHV`$ case we assume a statistical correlation between the measurement results due to the information carried by and localized within each object. This information is part of the content of a set of hidden variables, denoted collectively by $`\lambda `$. So, owing to locality the joint probability on $`I`$ and $`II`$ is

$$P(A(a,\lambda ),B(b,\lambda ))=P(A(a,\lambda ))P(B(b,\lambda ))$$
(1)
mediated over $`\lambda `$.

In QM  “one can define entangled quantum states of two particles in such a way that their global state is perfectly defined, whereas the states of the separate particles remain totally undefined”. In this case the joint probability cannot be factored.

We define the correlation as

$$E(a,b)=P_{+,+}(a,b)+P_,(a,b)P_{+,}(a,b)P_{,+}(a,b)$$
(2)
The aim of the ideal experiment is to test the so called Bell-CHSH Inequality, stating that the sum

$$S=|E(a,b)E(a,d)|+|E(c,b)+E(c,d)|$$
(3)
is $`2`$ in $`LHV`$ case, while QM predicts a violation of this inequality till the value $`S=2\sqrt{2}`$ is reached.

### 2.1 Noise makes QM difficult to support

Each real measurement apparatus may exhibit a wrong measurement result. We model this as the classical BSC (Binary Symmetrical Channel) : the signal is the correct one with probability $`1\epsilon `$ and it is altered by noise with probability $`\epsilon `$, where $`0\epsilon 1`$.

Let $`P(A)`$ be the probability of $`A`$ in an ideal apparatus. Given

$$P(A)+P(\overline{A})=1$$
(4)
where the overline means the opposite result, the probability of $`A`$ in a noisy apparatus is

$$P_\epsilon (A)=P(A)(1\epsilon )+P(\overline{A})\epsilon =P(A)(12\epsilon )+\epsilon $$
(5)
As also evidenced by Aspect  by no means we can consider the noise on $`I`$ and $`II`$ to be equal and independent of the apparatus parameters. So, in the $`LHV`$ case the joint probability on $`I`$ and $`II`$ is

$$P_\epsilon (A(a,\lambda ),B(b,\lambda ))=(P(A(a,\lambda ))(12\epsilon _1)+\epsilon _1))(P(B(b,\lambda ))(12\epsilon _2)+\epsilon _2))=$$

$$=P(A(a,\lambda ))P(B(b,\lambda ))(12\epsilon _1)(12\epsilon _2)+P(A(a,\lambda ))(12\epsilon _1)\epsilon _2$$

$$+P(B(b,\lambda ))(12\epsilon _2)\epsilon _1+\epsilon _1\epsilon _2$$
(6)
and

$$P_\epsilon (A(a),B(b))=P(A(a),B(b))(1\epsilon _1)(1\epsilon _2)+P(\overline{A}(a),B(b))\epsilon _1(1\epsilon _2)+$$

$$+P(A(a),\overline{B}(b))(1\epsilon _1)\epsilon _2+P(\overline{A}(a),\overline{B}(b))\epsilon _1\epsilon _2$$
(7)
in the QM case.

It is easy to verify that in both cases the resulting noisy correlation is related to the ideal one by

$$E_\epsilon (a,b)=(12\epsilon _1)(12\epsilon _2)E(a,b)$$
(8)
In this way $`S`$ becomes

$$S_\epsilon =|(12\epsilon _1)\left[(12\epsilon _2)E(a,b)(12\epsilon _4)E(a,d)\right]|+$$

$$+|(12\epsilon _3)\left[(12\epsilon _2)E(c,b)+(12\epsilon _4)E(c,d)\right]|$$
(9)
The noise parameters have a non trivial role. For example assuming all such parameters to be equal to $`\epsilon `$, $`S_\epsilon `$ is certainly lower than 2 $`\epsilon >0.15`$ in both $`LHV`$ and $`QM`$ cases.

### 2.2 Noise makes LHV difficult to support, too

In testing Bell’s inequality we need to compare the results at the two ends $`I`$ and $`II`$ of the apparatus. Since the measurement apparatus is a whole, the changing of one parameter has effects on the whole system. While in most cases this leads to a (3)’s value reduction, different results can be shown, as we will see in the following Gedankenexperiment.

Let us consider an example originally given by Bell . A saw cuts a coin down the middle, so that the head and the cross are separated. The two halves (Half Head ($`H`$) and Half Cross ($`C`$)) are sent to the $`I`$ and $`II`$ buckets, respectively (see Figure 1).

Over each bucket we place two cameras the first two to detect the head, the latter two to detect the cross. If there is detection, a signal is set to on in the circuit of Figure 2, otherwise it remains off. The circuit is made up of four stages $`L_1,L_2,L_3,L_4`$ each one including a counter of the concordance between each couple of incoming signals. Let the camera signals be represented as $`A(a)`$, $`A(c)`$, $`B(b)`$, and $`B(d)`$, each of which equals $`+`$ or $``$ according with the observation result, and where $`a,b,c,`$ and $`d`$ are adjustable parameters.

Each stage has two inputs. Each input signal is sent to a stage on a separate channel subject to noise. The particular conditions and the choice of $`a,b,c,d`$ allow potentially a perfect recognition.

The probabilities of the camera signals are as reported in Table 1.

Now let us assume the channel noises negligible except for $`A(a)`$ to $`L_2`$. For example $`A(a)`$ may be not well connected to $`L_2`$ and the signal falls a certain percentage of times. This kind of error of misidentification is not so far from the reality of many experiments. For example Rowe et al. admit that in their experiment a bright ion is misidentified $`2\%`$ of the time as being dark.

Let us see the probabilities and correlation in the counter system, as reported in Table 2.

It is easy to verify that the Einstein-Bell locality has been preserved, but, by collecting the results in tables we have

$$|E_\epsilon (a,b)E_\epsilon (a,d)|+|E_\epsilon (c,b)+E_\epsilon (c,d)|=2+\epsilon $$
(10)
The result is that a macroscopic system can violate the Bell’s inequality $`\epsilon >0`$. In the light of this example the violation of Bell’s inequality could be a good test to verify the existence of faulty instruments in a classical complex system.

### 2.3 Low Detection Efficiency may lead to unrepresentative results

Between the known loopholes in Bell’s Inequality testing, the problem of the detection efficiency was identified as long ago as 1970, and it is also called the Enhancement Loophole. It arises because only a small subset of the pairs emitted are actually detected, so certain highly model-dependent assumptions have to be made about the statistical sampling.

We can model this fact by erasure channel : the particle is detected with probability $`1\delta `$ and it is not detected by with probability $`\delta `$, where $`0\delta 1`$. So the probability of simultaneous detection is the product of the detection probability of each apparatus $`I`$ and $`II`$, and only a fraction $`(1\delta (A(a)))(1\delta (B(b)))`$ of the correlated pairs is actually detected. When $`\delta `$’s parameters grow we would have to assume that the sample of pairs registered is not a faithful representative of the whole ensemble emitted.

For example let us consider a sample of $`N`$ particle pairs belonging to two distinct classes $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ such that $`E_{C_1}(a,b)=1`$, $`E_{C_2}(a,b)=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\#}C_1=\mathrm{\#}C_2`$. Then $`E(a,b)=0`$. Of the $`N`$ couples we detect only a fraction $`\varphi `$. Then the probability of an equilibrate sampling between the two classes is just

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N/2}{N\varphi /2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N/2}{N\varphi /2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{N\varphi }$$

This corresponds to the introduction of free parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`S`$, leading to

$$S_\delta =|\mathrm{\Delta }_1E(a,b)\mathrm{\Delta }_2E(a,d)|+|\mathrm{\Delta }_3E(c,b)+\mathrm{\Delta }_4E(c,d)|$$
(11)
where $`\frac{1}{E(a_i,b_i)}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\frac{1}{E(a_i,b_i)}`$

So we agree with Weihs et al.  that “an ultimate experiment should also have higher detection/collection efficiency, of the common $`5\%`$ of actual experiments”, and that this loophole makes still possible “unlikely, local realistic or semi classical interpretations”.

### 2.4 Ideal Detection Efficiency may lead to unrepresentative results, too

Even in the case of a perfect efficiency of the detectors (the Rowe’s experiment is the first to point in this direction), some problems might occur with the sample of N particles pairs used during the test.

Let us consider a Rowe et al. like experiment , involving four sets of phase angles chosen to apply the CHSH inequality. If we assume that hidden variables are in fact involved and the hidden variables of the $`N_1`$ pairs of the first set of phases are different from the $`N_2`$ of the second set, then the CHSH inequality becomes $`S4`$  and we cannot discriminate between QM and LHV.

In order to avoid this problem, we can calculate the probability to have the values $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ of the first set $`N_1`$ equal to the $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ of $`N_2`$. For example if $`N_1=N_2=n`$ and if $`\lambda `$ can assume a discrete number of values $`N_{TOT}`$ in the interval $`0\lambda 2\pi `$ with an isotropic distribution (in the continuum case we would have $`\rho (\lambda )=1/2\pi `$), we obtain

$$P=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{ni}{N_{TOT}i}$$
(12)
In the case of Rowe et al. experiment $`n=20000`$ but nobody knows $`N_{TOT}`$. If $`N_{TOT}\mathrm{}`$ we have $`P0`$ and the experiment cannot discriminate between QM and LHV.

## 3 Conclusions

Bell’s inequality tests necessitate major improvements of technology in order to finally, after more than 15 years, go significantly beyond the 1982 experiment of Aspect et al. . While expecting that any improved experiment will also agree with quantum theory, actually the final answer to the eternal question: “Is the moon there, when nobody looks?”, is certainly up to our judgement capability. But sometime also the question ”Is the moon there when we look at it by a noisy telescope?” appears very hard to address.