arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more
License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2609.18921v1 [math.AG] 16 Sep 2026

Bertini’s theorem for FF-rationality is false

Thomas Polstra Address: Department of Mathematics, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA Email address: tmpolstra@ua.edu URL: https://thomaspolstra.github.io/ and Austyn Simpson Address: Department of Mathematics, Bates College, 3 Andrews Rd, Lewiston, ME 04240 USA Email address: asimpson2@bates.edu URL: https://austynsimpson.github.io/
Abstract.

Let k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}}. We construct a nine-dimensional FF-rational affine variety XX admitting a locally closed embedding X↪ℙk19X\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}_{k}^{19} together with a dense open set U⊆(ℙ19)∨U\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{19})^{\vee} such that X∩HX\cap H is not FF-rational (or even FF-injective) for all H∈UH\in U. We also construct a nine-dimensional projective FF-rational variety 𝔛\mathfrak{X} and a closed embedding 𝔛↪ℙk29\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} under which the same conclusion holds.

1. Introduction

This article is concerned with the potential loss of FF-rationality in a general hyperplane section of a variety, a phenomenon which does not occur for rational singularities over the complex numbers. Consider for motivation the following two persistence conditions for a property 𝒫\mathcal{P} of noetherian local rings.

  1. (I)

    Let (R,𝔪)→(S,𝔫)(R,\mathfrak{m})\to(S,\mathfrak{n}) be a flat local ring homomorphism between excellent local rings. If RR satisfies 𝒫\mathcal{P} and if the closed fiber S/𝔪​SS/\mathfrak{m}S is a regular local ring, then SS satisfies 𝒫\mathcal{P}.

  2. (II)

    Let XX be an algebraic variety over an algebraically closed field kk, all of whose local rings 𝒪X,x\mathcal{O}_{X,x} satisfy 𝒫\mathcal{P}. If X↪ℙknX\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k} is a locally closed embedding, then the local rings of general hyperplane section X∩HX\cap H also satisfy 𝒫\mathcal{P}.

Over the complex numbers, the property 𝒫\mathcal{P} of having rational singularities is known to satisfy both (I) and (II). The first fact is due to Elkik in her study of deformations of rational singularities (see [8, Théorème 5]) while the second is classical: for instance, one can apply Bertini’s theorem for smoothness to a resolution and then use the projection formula (see also [18] and [3, Lemmas 2 and 3]).

In light of the connections between rational and FF-rational singularities via reduction to prime characteristic [14, 21, 26], there has been an active program for the past few decades to show that FF-rationality and other Frobenius singularities also satisfy conditions (I) and (II); see [1, 7, 9, 10, 22, 23, 25, 29]. For FF-rationality, (I) is false by [23] while (II) does hold provided an additional FF-purity assumption on XX [29]. We show that without this FF-purity assumption, Bertini’s theorem for FF-rationality can fail.

Theorem A.

Let k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}}. There exists a nine-dimensional FF-rational domain RR finitely generated over kk, a locally closed embedding X=Spec⁡R↪ℙk19X=\operatorname{Spec}R\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}, and a dense open set U⊆(ℙk19)∨U\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k})^{\vee} such that X∩HX\cap H is not FF-rational for all H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k). In fact, X∩HX\cap H is not even FF-injective.

To understand the construction of this counterexample, we recall the axiomatic connection established in [5] between the two persistence phenomena above. Consider the closure ZZ of the incidence correspondence

{(x,H)∣H∈(ℙkn)∨,x∈H}⊆ℙkn×k(ℙkn)∨.\{(x,H)\mid H\in(\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k})^{\vee},x\in H\}\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k}\times_{k}(\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k})^{\vee}.

Set Y:=X×ℙknZY:=X\times_{\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k}}Z and let η\eta be the generic point of (ℙkn)∨.(\mathbb{P}^{n}_{k})^{\vee}. To show that the version of Bertini’s theorem described in (II) holds for some property 𝒫\mathcal{P}, one might try to use (I) to pass the property from XX to Yη×κ⁡(η)LY_{\eta}\times_{\kappa(\eta)}L for finite extensions κ⁡(η)⊆L\kappa(\eta)\subseteq L. One can then attempt to spread the property from the geometric generic fiber to general hyperplane sections, thus proving (II). The examples produced in [23] were therefore promising evidence that FF-rationality could fail Bertini’s theorem, as they demonstrated the loss of FF-rationality along a purely inseparable base change R→R⊗KK1/pR\to R\otimes_{K}K^{1/p} where K=𝔽p​(t)K=\mathbb{F}_{p}(t). The challenge lies in realizing this same pathology in the generic hyperplane section of a variety over an algebraically closed field.

Our construction is built from spreading out a weighted variant of the rings produced in [23]. More precisely, we construct an FF-rational ring RR for which Spec⁡R\operatorname{Spec}R is the total space of a flat family over 𝔸𝔽¯26\mathbb{A}^{6}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{2}} whose generic fiber is FF-rational but not geometrically reduced. We then find a convenient replacement of one of the algebra generators of RR yielding an embedding under which Bertini fails. To obtain a projective counterexample, we instead construct a projective compactification of XX with explicitly controlled affine charts and a suitable closed immersion into projective space.

Theorem B.

There exists a nine-dimensional FF-rational projective variety 𝔛\mathfrak{X} over k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}}, a closed embedding 𝔛↪ℙk29\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k}, and a dense open set U⊆(ℙk29)∨U\subseteq\left(\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k}\right)^{\vee} such that for every H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), 𝔛∩H\mathfrak{X}\cap H is not FF-injective.

The projective counterexample of Theorem B is less explicit than the affine counterexample of Theorem A. The nine-dimensional variety 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is a projective compactification of XX. Its embedding into ℙk29\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} is obtained by first constructing an explicit closed immersion 𝔛↪ℙk2547\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} and then restricting the linear projection ℙk2547⇢ℙk29\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} from a general center ℙk2517⊆ℙk2547\mathbb{P}^{2517}_{k}\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}.

For comparison, using ideas from [6], Schwede and Zhang construct a projective surface that is FF-injective away from finitely many points but whose general hyperplane section is not FF-injective. This left unanswered whether such a failure can occur for a variety which is either normal or which is FF-injective everywhere; see [25, Remark 7.6 and Question 8.1]. Theorems A and B resolve both of these issues because FF-rationality implies both FF-injectivity and normality. Finally, the same examples show that Bertini’s theorem fails for FF-anti-nilpotence, a singularity condition lying strictly between FF-rationality and FF-injectivity; see for example [11, 20].

We prove Theorems A and B in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. The proof in the affine setting uses an elementary tight closure calculation, whereas in the projective case we instead use canonical modules and Frobenius duals.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Alessandro De Stefani and Wenliang Zhang for helpful discussions. Polstra was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation DMS #2502317.

AI Disclosure

These examples were found with the help of ChatGPT-5.6 Sol Pro and ChatGPT-6 Astra Pro. We include an account of how the main theorems were developed.

  1. (1)

    A prompt intended to narrow the search space was given to ChatGPT-5.6 Sol Pro which included a suggested modification of the hypersurfaces found in [23]. ChatGPT correctly identified the variety X=Spec⁡RX=\operatorname{Spec}R described in Section 3. However, the locally closed embedding claimed to witness the failure of Bertini’s theorem was a certain X↪ℙk43X\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{43}_{k}. In addition, there were several inaccuracies in the proof that a general hyperplane section with respect to the suggested embedding was not FF-injective. In the same response, ChatGPT reported failing to find a projective counterexample.

  2. (2)

    For the same X=Spec⁡RX=\operatorname{Spec}R, the authors then identified the simpler embedding X↪ℙk19X\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k} presented in Section 3 under which a general hyperplane is not FF-injective.

  3. (3)

    With the new embedding in (2), we tasked both ChatGPT-5.6 Sol Pro and ChatGPT-6 Astra Pro (after the latter was released) with finding a projective compactification 𝔛\mathfrak{X} of XX and a closed embedding 𝔛↪ℙkN\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{N}_{k} under which a general hyperplane section is not FF-injective. ChatGPT-6 Astra Pro correctly identified such an embedding with N=2547N=2547.

  4. (4)

    The authors identified the simplification of 𝔛↪ℙk29\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} via the process outlined in the introduction.

The strategy for proving that general hyperplane sections of these varieties are not FF-injective has been reworked considerably from the suggestions made by ChatGPT both for simplicity and to reflect the authors’ tastes. All writing is due to the authors, although ChatGPT-6 Astra Pro was used in several iterations of proofreading. The authors assume all responsibility for the correctness of this writeup.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Frobenius and tight closure

Let (R,𝔪)(R,\mathfrak{m}) be an FF-finite dd-dimensional Cohen–Macaulay local domain of prime characteristic p>0p>0 and let x¯=x1,…,xd\underline{x}=x_{1},\dots,x_{d} denote a system of parameters for RR. Using the Čech complex on x¯\underline{x}, recall that RR is FF-injective if the natural Frobenius map F:H𝔪d​(R)→H𝔪d​(R)F:H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)\to H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R) sending [rx1n​…​xdn]→[rpx1n​p​…​xdn​p]\left[\frac{r}{x_{1}^{n}\dots x_{d}^{n}}\right]\to\left[\frac{r^{p}}{x_{1}^{np}\dots x_{d}^{np}}\right] is injective. The ring RR is said to be FF-rational if the tight closure of zero

0H𝔪d​(R)∗={η∈H𝔪d​(R)∣there exists ​0≠c∈R​ such that ​c​Fe​(η)=0​ for all ​e≫0}\displaystyle 0^{*}_{H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)}=\{\eta\in H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)\mid\text{there exists }0\neq c\in R\text{ such that }cF^{e}(\eta)=0\text{ for all }e\gg 0\}

is the zero submodule of H𝔪d​(R)H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R).

Both of these notions may also be restated in terms of Frobenius and tight closure of ideals. Let I⊆RI\subseteq R be an ideal. Recall that the Frobenius closure of II, denoted IFI^{F}, is the ideal consisting of elements r∈Rr\in R such that rq∈I[q]r^{q}\in I^{[q]} for all q=pe≫0q=p^{e}\gg 0. The tight closure of II, denoted I∗I^{*}, comprises the elements r∈Rr\in R for which there exists 0≠c∈R0\neq c\in R such that c​rq∈I[q]cr^{q}\in I^{[q]} for all q≫0q\gg 0. Under our current hypotheses, RR is FF-injective (respectively, FF-rational) if and only if 𝔮=𝔮F\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}^{F} (respectively, 𝔮=𝔮∗\mathfrak{q}=\mathfrak{q}^{*}) for some ideal 𝔮\mathfrak{q} generated by a system of parameters; see [24, Corollary 3.9] and [17, Theorem 4.2(d)].

Note that if 𝔮⊆R\mathfrak{q}\subseteq R is a parameter ideal, then RR is FF-rational if and only if 𝔮∗𝔮\frac{\mathfrak{q}^{*}}{\mathfrak{q}} intersects the socle Soc⁡(R/𝔮)\operatorname{Soc}(R/\mathfrak{q}) only at zero.

2.2. Frobenius dual

We recall the dual description of Frobenius and its relation to FF-singularities. See [29, Section 2.2] for a more detailed discussion. Let RR be an FF-finite Cohen–Macaulay domain of characteristic p>0p>0 with a global canonical module ωR\omega_{R}. Finite duality identifies

F∗e​ωR≅HomR⁡(F∗e​R,ωR).F_{*}^{e}\omega_{R}\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{R}(F_{*}^{e}R,\omega_{R}).

Under compatible choices of these identifications, evaluation at F∗e​1F_{*}^{e}1 defines the Frobenius dual

ΦRe:F∗e​ωR⟶ωR\Phi_{R}^{e}:F_{*}^{e}\omega_{R}\longrightarrow\omega_{R}

obtained as the ωR\omega_{R}-dual of Fe:R→F∗e​RF^{e}:R\to F^{e}_{*}R. In particular, if ΦR=ΦR1\Phi_{R}=\Phi_{R}^{1}, then ΦRe+1=ΦR∘F∗​ΦRe\Phi_{R}^{e+1}=\Phi_{R}\circ F_{*}\Phi_{R}^{e}.

These maps commute with localization and completion. For a prime 𝔭⊆R\mathfrak{p}\subseteq R, put d=dimR𝔭d=\dim R_{\mathfrak{p}}. Local duality identifies the completed localization of ΦRe\Phi_{R}^{e} with the Matlis dual of

Fe:H𝔭​R𝔭d​(R𝔭)⟶F∗e​H𝔭​R𝔭d​(R𝔭).F^{e}:H^{d}_{\mathfrak{p}R_{\mathfrak{p}}}(R_{\mathfrak{p}})\longrightarrow F_{*}^{e}H^{d}_{\mathfrak{p}R_{\mathfrak{p}}}(R_{\mathfrak{p}}).

Consequently, RR is FF-injective if and only if ΦR\Phi_{R} is surjective.

For c∈Rc\in R, write

ΦRe​(F∗e​c−):F∗e​ωR⟶ωR,F∗e​η⟼ΦRe​(F∗e​(c​η)).\Phi_{R}^{e}(F_{*}^{e}c-):F_{*}^{e}\omega_{R}\longrightarrow\omega_{R},\qquad F_{*}^{e}\eta\longmapsto\Phi_{R}^{e}(F_{*}^{e}(c\eta)).

If c≠0c\neq 0 is a parameter test element, then RR is FF-rational if and only if this map is surjective for some e≥1e\geq 1; see [29, Proposition 2.3].

If kk is a perfect field of prime characteristic p>0p>0, S=k⁡[x1,x2,…,xd]S=k[x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{d}] a polynomial ring over kk, then F∗S≅S⊕pd=SpanS{F∗x1i1x2i2⋯xdid∣0≤ij<p}F_{*}S\cong S^{\oplus p^{d}}=\operatorname{Span}_{S}\{F_{*}x_{1}^{i_{1}}x_{2}^{i_{2}}\cdots x_{d}^{i_{d}}\mid 0\leq i_{j}<p\}. If ΦS:F∗​S→S\Phi_{S}:F_{*}S\to S is the dual basis element of the basis element x1p−1⋯xdp−1x_{1}^{p-1}\cdots x_{d}^{p-1}, then HomS⁡(F∗​S,S)=SpanF∗​S⁡{ΦS}\operatorname{Hom}_{S}(F_{*}S,S)=\operatorname{Span}_{F_{*}S}\{\Phi_{S}\} serves as the Frobenius dual of the polynomial ring SS. If f∈Sf\in S is a nonzerodivisor of SS, then Fedder implicitly proves ΦS​(F∗​fp−1−)\Phi_{S}(F_{*}f^{p-1}-) is a lift of the Frobenius dual of the hypersurface S/(f)S/(f), see [12, Corollary Page 465] and [27, Lemma 8.13]. The following proposition, likely known to experts, is the extension of Fedder’s observation to FF-finite Cohen-Macaulay rings with a canonical module and will allow us to explicitly examine the Frobenius dual of a quotient R/(f)R/(f) when we are able to describe the Frobenius dual of RR.

Proposition 2.1.

Let RR be an FF-finite Cohen-Macaulay ring of prime characteristic p>0p>0, ωR\omega_{R} a global canonical module of RR, and ΦR:F∗​ωR→ωR\Phi_{R}:F_{*}\omega_{R}\to\omega_{R} an identification of the Frobenius dual of RR. Let g∈Rg\in R be a nonzero divisor and identify ωR/(g)≅ωR/g​ωR\omega_{R/(g)}\cong\omega_{R}/g\omega_{R}. Then ΦR​(F∗​gp−1−)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}g^{p-1}-) is a lift of the Frobenius dual ΦR/(g)\Phi_{R/(g)} of R/(g)R/(g).

Proof.

The claims can be checked after localization at a maximal ideal containing gg and completion. Thus we may assume that (R,𝔪)(R,\mathfrak{m}) is complete local. Put d=dimRd=\dim R, S=R/(g)S=R/(g), and identify ωS=ωR/g​ωR\omega_{S}=\omega_{R}/g\omega_{R}.

There is a commutative diagram with exact rows

0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}R\textstyle{R\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}⋅g\scriptstyle{\cdot g}F∗​gp−1\scriptstyle{F_{*}g^{p-1}}R\textstyle{R\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F\scriptstyle{F}S\textstyle{S\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F\scriptstyle{F}0\textstyle{0}0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​R\textstyle{F_{*}R\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​g\scriptstyle{F_{*}g}F∗​R\textstyle{F_{*}R\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​S\textstyle{F_{*}S\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}0.\textstyle{0.}

Since RR and SS are Cohen–Macaulay of dimensions dd and d−1d-1, respectively, local cohomology gives

0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}H𝔪d−1​(S)\textstyle{H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F\scriptstyle{F}H𝔪d​(R)\textstyle{H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}⋅g\scriptstyle{\cdot g}F∗​gp−1\scriptstyle{F_{*}g^{p-1}}H𝔪d​(R)\textstyle{H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F\scriptstyle{F}0\textstyle{0}0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}H𝔪d−1​(F∗​S)\textstyle{H^{d-1}_{\mathfrak{m}}(F_{*}S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}H𝔪d​(F∗​R)\textstyle{H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(F_{*}R)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​g\scriptstyle{F_{*}g}H𝔪d​(F∗​R)\textstyle{H^{d}_{\mathfrak{m}}(F_{*}R)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}0.\textstyle{0.}

Under the compatible local-duality and finite-duality identifications, its Matlis dual is

0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​ωR\textstyle{F_{*}\omega_{R}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}F∗​g\scriptstyle{F_{*}g}ΦR\scriptstyle{\Phi_{R}}F∗​ωR\textstyle{F_{*}\omega_{R}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ΦR​(F∗​gp−1−)\scriptstyle{\Phi_{R}(F_{*}g^{p-1}-)}F∗​ωS\textstyle{F_{*}\omega_{S}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}TrS\scriptstyle{\operatorname{Tr}_{S}}0\textstyle{0}0\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ωR\textstyle{\omega_{R}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}g\scriptstyle{g}ωR\textstyle{\omega_{R}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ωS\textstyle{\omega_{S}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}0.\textstyle{0.}

The right-hand square identifies TrS\operatorname{Tr}_{S} with the map induced by OPENΦ⁡(F∗​gp−1−))\Phi(F_{*}g^{p-1}-)), as claimed. Faithful flatness of completion and localization at all maximal ideals containing gg give the assertion for the original ring. ∎

3. The quasi-projective example

Let k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}} and consider the polynomial rings A:=k⁡[t1,…,t6]A:=k[t_{1},\dots,t_{6}] and B:=A⁡[x1,x2,x3]B:=A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}]. We label the six quadratic monomials in the xix_{i} as

(3.1) (m1,…,m6)=(x12,x22,x32,x1​x2,x1​x3,x2​x3).\displaystyle(m_{1},\ldots,m_{6})=(x_{1}^{2},x_{2}^{2},x_{3}^{2},x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{3},x_{2}x_{3}).

Let f=y2+∑i=16ti​mi2∈B⁡[y]f=y^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}t_{i}m_{i}^{2}\in B[y] and consider the nine-dimensional hypersurface S=B⁡[y](f).S=\frac{B[y]}{(f)}. The equation ff defining SS is homogeneous of degree four with respect to the relative grading deg⁡(ta)=0\deg(t_{a})=0, deg⁡(xi)=1\deg(x_{i})=1, and deg⁡(y)=2\deg(y)=2. Set RR to be the third Veronese subring

R:=S(3)=⨁n≥0S3​n⊆S.\displaystyle R:=S^{(3)}=\bigoplus\limits_{n\geq 0}S_{3n}\subseteq S.

For each q=2eq=2^{e} define the ideals

𝔮:=(t1,…,t6,x13,x23,x33)​R,𝔟q=(t1q,…,t6q,x13​q,x23​q,x33​q)​B,𝔞q:=(t1q,…,t6q)​A.\displaystyle\mathfrak{q}:=(t_{1},\ldots,t_{6},x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3})R,\quad\mathfrak{b}_{q}=(t_{1}^{q},\ldots,t_{6}^{q},x_{1}^{3q},x_{2}^{3q},x_{3}^{3q})B,\quad\mathfrak{a}_{q}:=(t_{1}^{q},\ldots,t_{6}^{q})A.

Note also that

(3.2) S=B⊕y​B and 𝔮[q]​S=𝔟q⊕y​𝔟qS=B\oplus yB\quad\text{ and }\quad\mathfrak{q}^{[q]}S=\mathfrak{b}_{q}\oplus y\mathfrak{b}_{q}

for all q=2eq=2^{e}. Let X=Spec⁡RX=\operatorname{Spec}R. In what follows, we show that XX is FF-rational and admits a locally closed immersion X↪ℙk19X\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}; we then construct a dense open set U⊆(ℙk19)∨U\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k})^{\vee} for which X∩HX\cap H is not FF-injective for all H∈UH\in U.

Notation 3.1.

Let Z=V⁡(R+)⊆XZ=V(R_{+})\subseteq X and identify Z≅𝔸k6Z\cong\mathbb{A}_{k}^{6} with coordinates t1,…,t6t_{1},\ldots,t_{6}. For a closed point τ=(τi)∈Z⁡(k)\tau=(\tau_{i})\in Z(k), choose values λi∈k\lambda_{i}\in k such that λi2=τi\lambda_{i}^{2}=\tau_{i}. Set Ti=ti+τiT_{i}=t_{i}+\tau_{i} and let

z=y+∑i=16λi​mi∈B⁡[y].z=y+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\lambda_{i}m_{i}\in B[y].

Let 𝔪τ=(T1,…,T6)+R+\mathfrak{m}_{\tau}=(T_{1},\ldots,T_{6})+R_{+} be the maximal ideal of RR corresponding to τ\tau.

3.1. XX is FF-rational

In this subsection, we show that X=Spec⁡(R)X=\operatorname{Spec}(R) is FF-rational. The proof proceeds by showing that XX is strongly FF-regular away from the set ZZ. Then we find a tightly closed ideal 𝔮⊆R\mathfrak{q}\subseteq R generated by a system of parameters, which shows that the local ring at the origin is FF-rational. A degree-preserving involution of RR then shows that XX is FF-rational on ZZ.

Lemma 3.2.

The ring RR enjoys the following properties.

  1. (a)

    The ring RR is generated over AA by the degree three component S3S_{3}; that is, by the thirteen elements

    (3.3) {x1i1x2i2x3i3∣i1+i2+i3=3,0≤ij}∪{yx1,yx2,yx3}.\{x_{1}^{i_{1}}x_{2}^{i_{2}}x_{3}^{i_{3}}\mid i_{1}+i_{2}+i_{3}=3,0\leq i_{j}\}\cup\{yx_{1},yx_{2},yx_{3}\}.
  2. (b)

    RR is a nine-dimensional Cohen–Macaulay normal domain.

  3. (c)

    For all prime ideals 𝔭∈X∖Z\mathfrak{p}\in X\smallsetminus Z, the local ring R𝔭R_{\mathfrak{p}} is strongly FF-regular.

Proof.

Since S=B⊕y​BS=B\oplus yB, we see that RR is spanned over AA by the monomials x1a1​x2a2​x3a3x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}} where a1+a2+a3≡0mod3a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}\equiv 0\bmod 3, together with y​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3yx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}} where a1+a2+a3≡1mod3a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}\equiv 1\bmod 3. Monomials of the first type are products of cubic monomials in the xix_{i}, and those of the second type are products of some y​xiyx_{i} and cubic monomials in the xix_{i}. This proves (a). It follows that RR is nine-dimensional and Cohen–Macaulay because RR is free over A⁡[x13,x23,x33]A[x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3}].

Observe that ∂∂t1​(∑j=16tj​mj2)=x14\frac{\partial}{\partial t_{1}}\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}t_{j}m_{j}^{2}\right)=x_{1}^{4} so ∑j=16tj​mj2\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}t_{j}m_{j}^{2} is not a square in Frac⁡(B)\operatorname{Frac}(B). It follows that ff is irreducible so that SS is a domain. Since

∂∂tj​f=mj2,∂∂xi​f=∂∂y​f=0,\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial t_{j}}f=m_{j}^{2},\quad\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}f=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}f=0,

we see that the singular locus of SS is given by VS​(x1,x2,x3,y)V_{S}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y). Since this has codimension three, we see that SS is normal and hence so too is RR; this proves (b). Note that R+R_{+} is prime, so (x13,x23,x33)​R=R+\sqrt{(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3})R}=R_{+} and X∖ZX\smallsetminus Z is covered by DR​(x13),DR​(x23)D_{R}(x_{1}^{3}),D_{R}(x_{2}^{3}), and DR​(x33)D_{R}(x_{3}^{3}). Finally, each S⁡[xi−1]S[x_{i}^{-1}] is regular and contains R⁡[xi−3]R[x_{i}^{-3}] as a direct summand. It follows (e.g. by [19, Theorem 3.9]) that R⁡[xi−3]R[x_{i}^{-3}] is strongly FF-regular, as claimed in (c). ∎

Lemma 3.3.

For each closed point τ∈Z⁡(k)\tau\in Z(k), we have an isomorphism of local rings R𝔪τ≅R𝔪0R_{\mathfrak{m}_{\tau}}\cong R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}.

Proof.

Note that

z2≡∑i=16Ti​mi2mod(f).z^{2}\equiv\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}T_{i}m_{i}^{2}\bmod(f).

Then the involution Φτ:B⁡[y]→B⁡[y]\Phi_{\tau}:B[y]\to B[y] defined by

Φτ​(ti)=Ti,Φτ​(xi)=xi,Φτ​(y)=z.\displaystyle\Phi_{\tau}(t_{i})=T_{i},\quad\Phi_{\tau}(x_{i})=x_{i},\quad\Phi_{\tau}(y)=z.

descends to SS since Φτ​(f)=f\Phi_{\tau}(f)=f. The stated isomorphism then follows from Φτ​(𝔪0)=𝔪τ\Phi_{\tau}(\mathfrak{m}_{0})=\mathfrak{m}_{\tau} ∎

We therefore work primarily with the local ring R𝔪0R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}} at the origin of ZZ. We next aim to show that R𝔪0R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}} is FF-rational by showing that the socle Soc⁡(R𝔪0𝔮​R𝔪0)\operatorname{Soc}\left(\frac{R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}}{\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}}\right) has trivial intersection with the tight closure (𝔮​R𝔪0)∗𝔮​R𝔪0\frac{(\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}})^{*}}{\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}}.

Definition 3.4.

Let w:=x12​x22​x32∈Bw:=x_{1}^{2}x_{2}^{2}x_{3}^{2}\in B and for each 1≤i≤61\leq i\leq 6 let wi:=wmi∈Bw_{i}:=\frac{w}{m_{i}}\in B.

Lemma 3.5.

The ideal 𝔮\mathfrak{q} is a parameter ideal, and the socle Soc⁡(R𝔮)\operatorname{Soc}\left(\frac{R}{\mathfrak{q}}\right) is a seven-dimensional kk-vector space with basis given by the classes of w,y​w1,…,y​w6.w,yw_{1},\ldots,yw_{6}. In particular, the same property is true of Soc⁡(R𝔪0𝔮​R𝔪0)\operatorname{Soc}\left(\frac{R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}}{\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}}\right).

Proof.

Note that S/𝔮​S≅E:=k⁡[x1,x2,x3,y](x13,x23,x33,y2)S/\mathfrak{q}S\cong E:=\frac{k[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]}{(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3},y^{2})}, and the projection S→RS\to R identifies R/𝔮R/\mathfrak{q} with the direct sum of the homogeneous elements of EE with degrees divisible by three. The quotient R/𝔮R/\mathfrak{q} then admits a monomial kk-basis given by

ℬ={yℓx1a1x2a2x3a3∣0≤ai≤2,ℓ∈{0,1},a1+a2+a3+2ℓ≡0mod3}.\mathcal{B}=\{y^{\ell}x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\mid 0\leq a_{i}\leq 2,\ell\in\{0,1\},a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2\ell\equiv 0\bmod 3\}.

In particular, R/𝔮R/\mathfrak{q} is artinian and 𝔮=𝔪0\sqrt{\mathfrak{q}}=\mathfrak{m}_{0}. It is straightforward to verify that ww and y​wiyw_{i} annihilate the maximal ideal of R/𝔮R/\mathfrak{q}. Conversely, reasoning by degrees, if x1a1​x2a2​x3a3∈Soc⁡(R/𝔮)∩ℬx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\in\operatorname{Soc}(R/\mathfrak{q})\cap\mathcal{B} then a1=a2=a3=2a_{1}=a_{2}=a_{3}=2. If y​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3∈Soc⁡(R/𝔮)∩ℬyx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\in\operatorname{Soc}(R/\mathfrak{q})\cap\mathcal{B} then the bounds force a1+a2+a3=4a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}=4, so the claim follows. ∎

In proving that RR is FF-rational, we’ll need the following identity.

Lemma 3.6.

For each 1≤i≤61\leq i\leq 6 and each q=2e≥2q=2^{e}\geq 2, we have (y​wi)q≡tiq/2​wqmod(𝔟q,f)​B​[y](yw_{i})^{q}\equiv t_{i}^{q/2}w^{q}\bmod(\mathfrak{b}_{q},f)B[y].

Proof.

Fix 1≤i≤61\leq i\leq 6. When j≠ij\neq i, the monomial mj​wim_{j}w_{i} is divisible by some xr3x_{r}^{3}. Note then that

(y​wi)q\displaystyle(yw_{i})^{q} ≡∑j=16tjq/2​(mj​wi)qmodf​B​[y]\displaystyle\equiv\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}t_{j}^{q/2}(m_{j}w_{i})^{q}\bmod fB[y]
≡tiq/2​(mi​wi)qmod𝔟q\displaystyle\equiv t_{i}^{q/2}(m_{i}w_{i})^{q}\bmod\mathfrak{b}_{q}
=tiq/2​wq.∎\displaystyle=t_{i}^{q/2}w^{q}.\qed
Lemma 3.7.

Let 0≠g∈B0\neq g\in B and let (α0,α1,…,α6)∈k7∖{0}(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{6})\in k^{7}\smallsetminus\{0\}. Then for all sufficiently large q=2e≫0q=2^{e}\gg 0, we have

(3.4) g​wq​(α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2)∉𝔟q.gw^{q}\left(\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\right)\not\in\mathfrak{b}_{q}.
Proof.

First choose q=2e≫0q=2^{e}\gg 0 so that degti⁡(g)<q2\deg_{t_{i}}(g)<\frac{q}{2} and degxj⁡(g)<q2\deg_{x_{j}}(g)<\frac{q}{2} for each 1≤i≤61\leq i\leq 6 and each j=1,2,3j=1,2,3. We may therefore write

(3.5) g=∑0≤a1,a2,a3<qha1​a2​a3​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3g=\sum\limits_{0\leq a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}<q}h_{a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}}x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}

where at least one ha1​a2​a3∈Ah_{a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}}\in A is nonzero. Suppose towards a contradiction the left-hand side of (3.4) was contained in 𝔟q\mathfrak{b}_{q}. Since 𝔟q\mathfrak{b}_{q} is a monomial ideal, we see that

(𝔟q:wq)=(t1q,…,t6q,x1q,x2q,x3q)​B(\mathfrak{b}_{q}:w^{q})=(t_{1}^{q},\ldots,t_{6}^{q},x_{1}^{q},x_{2}^{q},x_{3}^{q})B

so that

(3.6) g⁡(α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2)∈(t1q,…,t6q,x1q,x2q,x3q)​B.g\left(\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\right)\in(t_{1}^{q},\ldots,t_{6}^{q},x_{1}^{q},x_{2}^{q},x_{3}^{q})B.

Observe that the images of the monomials

{x1a1x2a2x3a3∣0≤a1,a2,a3<q}\{x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\mid 0\leq a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}<q\}

form a free A/𝔞qA/\mathfrak{a}_{q}-basis for B(t1q,…,t6q,x1q,x2q,x3q)\frac{B}{(t_{1}^{q},\ldots,t_{6}^{q},x_{1}^{q},x_{2}^{q},x_{3}^{q})}. It then follows from (3.6) that

(3.7) ha1​a2​a3​(α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2)∈𝔞qh_{a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}}\left(\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\right)\in\mathfrak{a}_{q}

for every 0≤a1,a2,a3<q0\leq a_{1},a_{2},a_{3}<q. Consider now the kk-basis of monomials

{t1b1⋯t6b6∣0≤bi<q/2}\{t_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots t_{6}^{b_{6}}\mid 0\leq b_{i}<q/2\}

for A¯:=A𝔞q/2\overline{A}:=\frac{A}{\mathfrak{a}_{q/2}}. Letting a1,a2,a3a_{1},a_{2},a_{3} be such that h:=ha1​a2​a3≠0h:=h_{a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}}\neq 0, it follows from the degree bound degti⁡(h)<q/2\deg_{t_{i}}(h)<q/2 that the image of hh in A¯\overline{A} is nonzero. We now divide into cases according to whether α0=0\alpha_{0}=0.

When α0≠0\alpha_{0}\neq 0, (3.7) shows that α0q​h∈𝔞q/2\alpha_{0}^{q}h\in\mathfrak{a}_{q/2} which contradicts the previous paragraph. Now suppose α0=0\alpha_{0}=0 and choose i0i_{0} so that αi0≠0\alpha_{i_{0}}\neq 0. Consider the ideal

I:=(ti0q,tiq/2∣i≠i0).I:=(t_{i_{0}}^{q},t_{i}^{q/2}\mid i\neq i_{0}).

Note that 𝔞q⊆I\mathfrak{a}_{q}\subseteq I and

α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2≡αi0q​ti0q/2modI\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\equiv\alpha_{i_{0}}^{q}t_{i_{0}}^{q/2}\bmod I

so we obtain by (3.7) that h∈(I:Ati0q/2)=𝔞q/2h\in(I:_{A}t_{i_{0}}^{q/2})=\mathfrak{a}_{q/2} which again contradicts degti⁡(h)<q/2\deg_{t_{i}}(h)<q/2. ∎

Theorem 3.8.

The parameter ideals 𝔮⊆R\mathfrak{q}\subseteq R and 𝔮​R𝔪0\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}} are tightly closed. Moreover, RR is FF-rational.

Proof.

Let η=α0​w+∑i=16αi​y​wi∈B⁡[y]\eta=\alpha_{0}w+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}yw_{i}\in B[y] represent a nonzero element of Soc⁡(R/𝔮)\operatorname{Soc}(R/\mathfrak{q}), and use the same notation for its image in RR. Suppose that η∈𝔮∗⊆R\eta\in\mathfrak{q}^{*}\subseteq R. Then there exists 0≠c∈R0\neq c\in R such that c​ηq∈𝔮[q]c\eta^{q}\in\mathfrak{q}^{[q]} for all q=2e≫0q=2^{e}\gg 0. Write c=c0+y​c1c=c_{0}+yc_{1} where at least one cj∈Bc_{j}\in B is nonzero. By Lemma 3.6 we see

(3.8) ηq≡wq​(α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2)mod(𝔟q,f)​B​[y]\eta^{q}\equiv w^{q}\left(\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\right)\bmod(\mathfrak{b}_{q},f)B[y]

so in particular both sides of (3.8) may be viewed as elements of BB. From (3.2) it then follows that for j=0,1j=0,1 we have

cj​wq​(α0q+∑i=16αiq​tiq/2)∈𝔟q.c_{j}w^{q}\left(\alpha_{0}^{q}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\alpha_{i}^{q}t_{i}^{q/2}\right)\in\mathfrak{b}_{q}.

This contradicts Lemma 3.7 and since R/𝔮R/\mathfrak{q} is artinian we conclude that 𝔮∗=𝔮\mathfrak{q}^{*}=\mathfrak{q}. Since tight closure commutes with localization for parameter ideals (see for example [16, Proposition 4.14]), it follows that (𝔮​R𝔪0)∗=(𝔮​R𝔪0)(\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}})^{*}=(\mathfrak{q}R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}}) so that R𝔪0R_{\mathfrak{m}_{0}} is FF-rational. Then R𝔪τR_{\mathfrak{m}_{\tau}} is FF-rational for all closed points τ∈Z⁡(k)\tau\in Z(k) by Lemma 3.3. Since FF-rationality localizes, R𝔭R_{\mathfrak{p}} is FF-rational whenever 𝔭⊆𝔪τ\mathfrak{p}\subseteq\mathfrak{m}_{\tau} for some τ∈Z⁡(k)\tau\in Z(k). Finally, R𝔭R_{\mathfrak{p}} is strongly FF-regular for all 𝔭∈X∖Z\mathfrak{p}\in X\smallsetminus Z by Lemma 3.2 so that RR is FF-rational. ∎

3.2. X∩HX\cap H is not FF-injective for general H⊆ℙk19H\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}

We first modify the generating set for RR to produce a locally closed embedding in ℙk19\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k} that is a counterexample to Bertini’s Theorem for FF-rationality. Label the generators in (3.3) for RR as an AA-algebra as g1,…,g13g_{1},\ldots,g_{13}, distinguishing g1=x1​x2​x3g_{1}=x_{1}x_{2}x_{3} and g11=y​x1g_{11}=yx_{1}, g12=y​x2g_{12}=yx_{2}, g13=y​x3g_{13}=yx_{3}. Considering RR as a kk-algebra, we then replace t6t_{6} with the generator

(3.9) θ:=t6+t12​x1​x2​x3+t22​y​x1+t32​y​x2+t42​y​x3.\theta:=t_{6}+t_{1}^{2}x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+t_{2}^{2}yx_{1}+t_{3}^{2}yx_{2}+t_{4}^{2}yx_{3}.

Take homogeneous coordinates [Z0:⋯:Z19][Z_{0}:\cdots:Z_{19}] for ℙk19\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k} and consider the embedding

ιθ:\displaystyle\iota_{\theta}: X↪ℙk19\displaystyle X\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}
x↦[1:t1(x):⋯:t5(x):θ(x):g1(x):⋯:g13(x)].\displaystyle x\mapsto[1:t_{1}(x):\cdots:t_{5}(x):\theta(x):g_{1}(x):\cdots:g_{13}(x)].

Let [a0:⋯:a19][a_{0}:\cdots:a_{19}] be the corresponding homogeneous coordinates on the dual space (ℙk19)∨(\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k})^{\vee} so that [a][a] parametrizes the hyperplane Ha=V⁡(a0​Z0+⋯+a19​Z19)⊆ℙk19H_{a}=V(a_{0}Z_{0}+\cdots+a_{19}Z_{19})\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}. Now define the open set

U:={[a0:⋯:a19]∈(ℙk19)∨∣a6≠0}.\displaystyle U:=\{[a_{0}:\cdots:a_{19}]\in(\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k})^{\vee}\mid a_{6}\neq 0\}.

We will show that ιθ−1​(Ha)\iota_{\theta}^{-1}(H_{a}) is not FF-injective for every [a]∈U[a]\in U.

Theorem 3.9.

For every hyperplane H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), the hyperplane section ιθ−1​(H)=X∩H\iota_{\theta}^{-1}(H)=X\cap H is not FF-injective.

Proof.

We show in fact that for every H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), there exists an affine line ΓH⊆Z∩(X∩H)\Gamma_{H}\subseteq Z\cap(X\cap H) such that the local ring 𝒪X∩H,x\mathcal{O}_{X\cap H,x} is not FF-injective for every closed point x∈ΓHx\in\Gamma_{H}. Let [a]∈U[a]\in U and write Ha=V⁡(∑j=019aj​Zj)H_{a}=V\left(\sum\limits_{j=0}^{19}a_{j}Z_{j}\right). Let bi=aia6b_{i}=\frac{a_{i}}{a_{6}} for 0≤i≤60\leq i\leq 6. One checks that restricting HaH_{a} to XX under ιθ\iota_{\theta} gives the element

(3.10) L=h1+h2+(t12+α0)​x1​x2​x3+∑i=13(ti+12+αi)​y​xi\displaystyle L=h_{1}+h_{2}+(t_{1}^{2}+\alpha_{0})x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(t_{i+1}^{2}+\alpha_{i})yx_{i}

where

h1:=b0+∑j=16bj​tj,h2:=∑j=210dj​gj\displaystyle h_{1}:=b_{0}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}b_{j}t_{j},\quad h_{2}:=\sum\limits_{j=2}^{10}d_{j}g_{j}

for some dj∈kd_{j}\in k. Let ri+1=αir_{i+1}=\sqrt{\alpha_{i}} for 0≤i≤30\leq i\leq 3 and define the affine line

ΓHa:=VZ​(t1−r1,t2−r2,t3−r3,t4−r4,h1).\displaystyle\Gamma_{H_{a}}:=V_{Z}(t_{1}-r_{1},t_{2}-r_{2},t_{3}-r_{3},t_{4}-r_{4},h_{1}).

Fix a closed point τ∈ΓHa​(k)\tau\in\Gamma_{H_{a}}(k). Let λj=τj\lambda_{j}=\sqrt{\tau_{j}} and consider the change of coordinates

Tj=tj−τj,Y=y+∑j=16λj​mj.\displaystyle T_{j}=t_{j}-\tau_{j},\quad Y=y+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}\lambda_{j}m_{j}.

Note that Y2=∑j=16Tj​mj2Y^{2}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}T_{j}m_{j}^{2} and (3.10) may be rewritten as

(3.11) L=h~1+h2+T12​x1​x2​x3+∑i=13Ti+12​(Y+∑j=16λj​mj)​xi\displaystyle L=\widetilde{h}_{1}+h_{2}+T_{1}^{2}x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}T_{i+1}^{2}\left(Y+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}\lambda_{j}m_{j}\right)x_{i}

where h~1=∑j=1bj​Tj\widetilde{h}_{1}=\sum\limits_{j=1}b_{j}T_{j}. Now let 𝔫=(T1,…,T6)​R+R+⊆R\mathfrak{n}=(T_{1},\ldots,T_{6})R+R_{+}\subseteq R and denote D:=R𝔫/L​R𝔫D:=R_{\mathfrak{n}}/LR_{\mathfrak{n}}. Note that the degree zero term h~1\widetilde{h}_{1} of LL is nonzero, so DD is an eight-dimensional Cohen–Macaulay local ring by Lemma 3.2(b). Consider the ideals

J\displaystyle J :=(T1,…,T5,x13,x23,x33)​D\displaystyle:=(T_{1},\dots,T_{5},x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3})D
I\displaystyle I :=(T1,…,T5,x13,x23,x33,L)​R\displaystyle:=(T_{1},\dots,T_{5},x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3},L)R

and note that R/IR/I is supported at 𝔫/I\mathfrak{n}/I so that D/J≅(R/I)𝔫/ID/J\cong(R/I)_{\mathfrak{n}/I}. We aim to show that JJ is a parameter ideal of DD. By pigeonhole we have ((x1,x2,x3)​B)7⊆(x13,x23,x33)​B((x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})B)^{7}\subseteq(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3})B, so in particular h2​m62∈(x13,x23,x33)​Bh_{2}m_{6}^{2}\in(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3})B. It follows that

S/I​S\displaystyle S/IS ≅k⁡[T6,x1,x2,x3,Y](T6+h2,x13,x23,x33,Y2+T6​m62)\displaystyle\cong\frac{k[T_{6},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},Y]}{(T_{6}+h_{2},x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3},Y^{2}+T_{6}m_{6}^{2})}
≅k⁡[x1,x2,x3,Y](x13,x23,x33,Y2+h2​m62)\displaystyle\cong\frac{k[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},Y]}{(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3},Y^{2}+h_{2}m_{6}^{2})}
≅k⁡[x1,x2,x3,Y](x13,x23,x33,Y2)=:E.\displaystyle\cong\frac{k[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},Y]}{(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{3},x_{3}^{3},Y^{2})}=:E.

Since the projection S→RS\to R is RR-linear and restricts to the identity on RR, we have I​S∩R=IIS\cap R=I and an induced injection R/I↪ER/I\hookrightarrow E where EE is a finite dimensional kk-vector space. It follows that R/IR/I and its localization D/JD/J are both artinian so that JJ is a parameter ideal of DD.

Let βj=bj\beta_{j}=\sqrt{b_{j}} and denote ξ=Y​∑j6βj​wj∈D\xi=Y\sum\limits_{j}^{6}\beta_{j}w_{j}\in D. Note that each Y​wjYw_{j} has degree six, so ξ∈R\xi\in R. We claim that ξ∈JF∖J\xi\in J^{F}\smallsetminus J. To see that ξ∉J\xi\not\in J, simply note that the term Y​x12​x2​x3Yx_{1}^{2}x_{2}x_{3} appears with nonzero coefficient. We next show that ξ2∈J[2]\xi^{2}\in J^{[2]}. In the hypersurface SS, we have the identity

ξ2\displaystyle\xi^{2} =Y2​∑j=16bj​wj2\displaystyle=Y^{2}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}b_{j}w_{j}^{2}
=∑i=16∑j=16Ti​bj​(mi​wj)2\displaystyle=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{6}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}T_{i}b_{j}(m_{i}w_{j})^{2}
(3.12) =h~1​w2+∑i≠j6Ti​bj​(mi​wj)2.\displaystyle=\widetilde{h}_{1}w^{2}+\sum\limits_{i\neq j}^{6}T_{i}b_{j}(m_{i}w_{j})^{2}.

For i≠ji\neq j write mi=x1a1​x2a2​x3a3m_{i}=x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}} and mj=x1e1​x2e2​x3e3m_{j}=x_{1}^{e_{1}}x_{2}^{e_{2}}x_{3}^{e_{3}} where a1+a2+a3=e1+e2+e3=2a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}=e_{1}+e_{2}+e_{3}=2. Choose an index rr for which ar>era_{r}>e_{r} and write in RR

mi​wj\displaystyle m_{i}w_{j} =∏ℓ=13xℓ2+aℓ−eℓ\displaystyle=\prod\limits_{\ell=1}^{3}x_{\ell}^{2+a_{\ell}-e_{\ell}}
(3.13) =xr3​mi​wjxr3.\displaystyle=x_{r}^{3}\frac{m_{i}w_{j}}{x_{r}^{3}}.

Note that the expression in (3.13) is valid in RR because the second factor is cubic in the xix_{i}. It follows that

(3.14) ∑i≠j6Ti​bj​(mi​wj)2∈(x16,x26,x36)​R.\sum\limits_{i\neq j}^{6}T_{i}b_{j}(m_{i}w_{j})^{2}\in(x_{1}^{6},x_{2}^{6},x_{3}^{6})R.

Using (3.11) we also observe (in the ring DD) the identity

h~1​w2=h2​w2+T12​g1​w2+∑i=13Ti+12​(Y+∑j=16λj​mj)​xi​w2.\displaystyle\widetilde{h}_{1}w^{2}=h_{2}w^{2}+T_{1}^{2}g_{1}w^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}T_{i+1}^{2}\left(Y+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}\lambda_{j}m_{j}\right)x_{i}w^{2}.

One verifies at once that h2​w2∈(x16,x26,x36)​Rh_{2}w^{2}\in(x_{1}^{6},x_{2}^{6},x_{3}^{6})R, so that by (3.12) and (3.14) we have

ξ2≡T12​g1​w2+∑i=13Ti+12​(Y+∑j=16λj​mj)​xi​w2mod(x16,x26,x36)​D.\displaystyle\xi^{2}\equiv T_{1}^{2}g_{1}w^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}T_{i+1}^{2}\left(Y+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{6}\lambda_{j}m_{j}\right)x_{i}w^{2}\bmod(x_{1}^{6},x_{2}^{6},x_{3}^{6})D.

It follows that

ξ2∈(T12,T22,T32,T42,x16,x26,x36)​D⊆J[2]\displaystyle\xi^{2}\in(T_{1}^{2},T_{2}^{2},T_{3}^{2},T_{4}^{2},x_{1}^{6},x_{2}^{6},x_{3}^{6})D\subseteq J^{[2]}

as claimed, hence DD is not FF-injective by [24, Corollary 3.9]. ∎

4. The Projective Example

4.1. FF-rational charts

To simplify the indexing in what follows, consider the seven-element set

Λ:={c=(c1,c2,c3,d)∈ℤ≥04∣c1+c2+c3+2​d=2}.\Lambda:=\{c=(c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},d)\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{4}\mid c_{1}+c_{2}+c_{3}+2d=2\}.

Let k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}} and for each a∈Λa\in\Lambda consider the polynomial rings Aa:=k⁡[tb∣b∈Λ∖{a}]A_{a}:=k[t_{b}\mid b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}] and Ba:=Aa​[x1,x2,x3,y]B_{a}:=A_{a}[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]. For each a=(a1,a2,a3,b)∈Λa=(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},b)\in\Lambda let

ma=x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb,fa=ma2+∑b∈Λ∖{a}tb​mb2,and ​Ca=Ba/(fa).m_{a}=x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b},\quad f_{a}=m_{a}^{2}+\sum_{b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}}t_{b}m_{b}^{2},\quad\mbox{and }C_{a}=B_{a}/(f_{a}).

We assign the variables x1,x2,x3x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} degree 11, yy degree 22, and for each a∈Λa\in\Lambda, tat_{a} the degree 00. For each n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} let ℰ𝓃={x1α1​x2α2​x3α3​yβ∣α1+α2+α3+2​β=n}\mathcal{E_{n}}=\{x_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}x_{3}^{\alpha_{3}}y^{\beta}\mid\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}+2\beta=n\}, the collection of degree nn monomials in the variables x1,x2,x3,yx_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y. The set Λ\Lambda labels the exponent vectors of the monomials in ℰ2\mathcal{E}_{2} and

{mb∣b∈Λ}={y,x12,x1​x2,x1​x3,x22,x2​x3,x32}=ℰ2\{m_{b}\mid b\in\Lambda\}=\{y,x_{1}^{2},x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{3},x_{2}^{2},x_{2}x_{3},x_{3}^{2}\}=\mathcal{E}_{2}

consists of seven quadratic monomials in BaB_{a} for every a∈Λa\in\Lambda. Moreover, faf_{a} is homogeneous of degree 44 and for each a∈Λa\in\Lambda we let Ra=(Ca)(3)R_{a}=(C_{a})^{(3)}, the third Veronese of CaC_{a}. If a=(0,0,0,1)a=(0,0,0,1), then X=Spec⁡(R(0,0,0,1))X=\operatorname{Spec}(R_{(0,0,0,1)}) is the affine variety of Section 3 that admits a locally closed embedding into ℙk19\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k} so that if HH is a general hyperplane of ℙk19\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k}, then X∩HX\cap H is not FF-injective.

Lemma 4.1.

For each a∈Λa\in\Lambda, the ring RaR_{a} enjoys the following properties:

  1. (a)

    Let ζ∈k\zeta\in k be a primitive third root of unity and μ3=⟨ζ⟩={1,ζ,ζ2}\mu_{3}=\langle\zeta\rangle=\{1,\zeta,\zeta^{2}\}. Then RaR_{a} is the invariant ring of a μ3\mu_{3}-action on CaC_{a} with the properties ζ×xi↦ζ​xi\zeta\times x_{i}\mapsto\zeta x_{i}, ζ×y↦ζ2​y\zeta\times y\mapsto\zeta^{2}y, and ζ×tb=tb\zeta\times t_{b}=t_{b} for all b∈Λ∖{a}b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}.

  2. (b)

    RaR_{a} is a nine-dimensional Cohen–Macaulay normal domain.

  3. (c)

    For every 𝔭∈Spec⁡(Ra)∖V⁡((Ra)+)\mathfrak{p}\in\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a})\smallsetminus V((R_{a})_{+}), the scheme Spec⁡(Ra)\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a}) is smooth over kk at 𝔭\mathfrak{p}.

  4. (d)

    ωRa≅⊕n∈ℕ(Ca)3​n−1\omega_{R_{a}}\cong\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}(C_{a})_{3n-1} is a canonical module of RaR_{a}.

  5. (e)

    Let ΦBa:F∗​Ba→Ba\Phi_{B_{a}}:F_{*}B_{a}\to B_{a} denote the Frobenius dual of BaB_{a} with respect to the pp-basis

    {tb∣b∈Λ∖{a}}​⋃{x1,x2,x3,y}\{t_{b}\mid b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}\}\bigcup\{x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y\}

    Let ΦCa\Phi_{C_{a}} be the Frobenius dual of CaC_{a} obtained as the restriction of ΦBa​(F∗​fa−)\Phi_{B_{a}}(F_{*}f_{a}-) to the quotient CaC_{a}. Identify ⊕n∈ℕ(Ca)3​n−1\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}(C_{a})_{3n-1} as the canonical module ωRa\omega_{R_{a}} of RaR_{a}.

    • •

      For every n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N},

      ΦCa​((F∗​ωRa)n)⊆(ωRa)n.\Phi_{C_{a}}((F_{*}\omega_{R_{a}})_{n})\subseteq(\omega_{R_{a}})_{n}.
    • •

      The restriction of the domain of the Frobenius dual map ΦCa:F∗​Ca→Ca\Phi_{C_{a}}:F_{*}C_{a}\to C_{a} to ΦCa:F∗​ωRa→ωRa\Phi_{C_{a}}:F_{*}\omega_{R_{a}}\to\omega_{R_{a}} is the Frobenius dual of RaR_{a}.

  6. (f)

    RaR_{a} is FF-rational.

Proof.

Consider the μ3\mu_{3}-action on BaB_{a} defined by ζ×xi↦ζ​xi\zeta\times x_{i}\mapsto\zeta x_{i}, ζ×y↦ζ2​y\zeta\times y\mapsto\zeta^{2}y, and ζ×tb=tb\zeta\times t_{b}=t_{b} for all b∈Λ∖{a}b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}. Then ζ×fa=ζ4​fa\zeta\times f_{a}=\zeta^{4}f_{a} and there is an induced action on Ca=Ba/(fa)C_{a}=B_{a}/(f_{a}) as claimed. The action of ζ\zeta on (Ca)d(C_{a})_{d} is multiplication by ζd\zeta^{d}. Therefore RaR_{a} is the invariant ring of the μ3\mu_{3}-group action on CaC_{a}. The hypersurface CaC_{a} is nine-dimensional and Cohen-Macaulay. The map Ra→CaR_{a}\to C_{a} is finite, therefore RaR_{a} is nine-dimensional. By [15, Proposition 13], RaR_{a} is Cohen-Macaulay.

To show RaR_{a} is normal it suffices to show CaC_{a} is normal since invariant rings of a finite group action on a normal domain are normal. For each b∈Λ∖{a}b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\},

∂fa∂tb=mb2\frac{\partial f_{a}}{\partial t_{b}}=m_{b}^{2}

and Ba/((fa)+(mb2∣b∈Λ∖{a}))B_{a}/((f_{a})+(m_{b}^{2}\mid b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\})) is six-dimensional. The height three ideal (mb2∣b∈Λ∖{a})​Ca\left(m_{b}^{2}\mid b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}\right)C_{a} defines the singular locus of Spec⁡(Ca)\operatorname{Spec}(C_{a}). Therefore CaC_{a} is a normal domain by Serre’s criterion for normality.

We next verify if 𝔭∈Spec⁡(Ra)∖V⁡((Ra)+)\mathfrak{p}\in\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a})\setminus V((R_{a})_{+}) then Spec⁡(Ra)\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a}) is smooth at 𝔭\mathfrak{p} over kk. Equivalently, (Ra)𝔭(R_{a})_{\mathfrak{p}} is a regular local ring as kk is perfect. For such a prime 𝔭\mathfrak{p}, either xi3∉𝔭x_{i}^{3}\not\in\mathfrak{p} for some 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3 or y3∉𝔭y^{3}\not\in\mathfrak{p}. If 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3, c∈Cac\in C_{a} is homogeneous, then there exists 0≤r<30\leq r<3 so that c=(c​xi−r)​xirc=(cx_{i}^{-r})x_{i}^{r} and c​xi−rcx_{i}^{-r} has degree divisible by three. Therefore Ca​[xi−1]≅Ra​[xi−3]​[U]/(U3−xi−3)C_{a}[x_{i}^{-1}]\cong R_{a}[x_{i}^{-3}][U]/(U^{3}-x_{i}^{-3}). Similarly, for homogeneous c∈Cac\in C_{a} there exists 0≤r<30\leq r<3 so that c=(c​y−r)​yrc=(cy^{-r})y^{r}, c​y−r∈Ra​[y−3]cy^{-r}\in R_{a}[y^{-3}], and Ca​[y−1]≅Ra​[y−3]​[U]/(U3−y−3)C_{a}[y^{-1}]\cong R_{a}[y^{-3}][U]/(U^{3}-y^{-3}). Therefore the finite maps Ra​[xi−3]⊆Ca​[xi−1]R_{a}[x_{i}^{-3}]\subseteq C_{a}[x_{i}^{-1}] and Ra​[y−3]⊆Ca​[y−1]R_{a}[y^{-3}]\subseteq C_{a}[y^{-1}] are faithfully flat and étale. The algebras Ca​[xi−1]C_{a}[x_{i}^{-1}] and Ca​[y−1]C_{a}[y^{-1}] are regular by the Jacobian criterion, hence R𝔭R_{\mathfrak{p}} is regular for every 𝔭∈Spec⁡(Ra)∖V⁡((Ra)+)\mathfrak{p}\in\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a})\setminus V((R_{a})_{+}).

As an AaA_{a}-algebra, BaB_{a} is generated by the four positive degree elements x1,x2,x3,yx_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y of degrees 1,1,1,21,1,1,2 respectively. Therefore ωBa=Ba​(−(1+1+1+2))=Ba​(−5)\omega_{B_{a}}=B_{a}(-(1+1+1+2))=B_{a}(-5), see [4, §3.6]. The element fa∈Baf_{a}\in B_{a} is homogeneous of degree 44, hence ωCa=Ca​(4−5)=Ca​(−1)\omega_{C_{a}}=C_{a}(4-5)=C_{a}(-1). By [13, Corollary 3.1.3], ωRa≅(ωCa)(3)\omega_{R_{a}}\cong(\omega_{C_{a}})^{(3)}. In particular, (ωRa)n=Ca​(−1)3​n=(Ca)3​n−1(\omega_{R_{a}})_{n}=C_{a}(-1)_{3n}=(C_{a})_{3n-1}.

Consider the natural ℤ​12\mathbb{Z}\frac{1}{2}-grading of F∗​ωRaF_{*}\omega_{R_{a}} given by (F∗​ωRa)n2=F∗​((ωRa)n)=F∗​((Ca)3​n−1)(F_{*}\omega_{R_{a}})_{\frac{n}{2}}=F_{*}((\omega_{R_{a}})_{n})=F_{*}((C_{a})_{3n-1}). After lifting ΦCa\Phi_{C_{a}} to ΦBa​(F∗​fa−)\Phi_{B_{a}}(F_{*}f_{a}-) in HomBa⁡(F∗​Ba,Ba)\operatorname{Hom}_{B_{a}}(F_{*}B_{a},B_{a}) by degree considerations,

ΦCa​(F∗​((Ca)3​n−1))⊆{(Ca)3​n2−1,if n is even,0,if n is odd.\Phi_{C_{a}}\bigl(F_{*}((C_{a})_{3n-1})\bigr)\subseteq\begin{cases}(C_{a})_{\frac{3n}{2}-1},&\text{if $n$ is even},\\ 0,&\text{if $n$ is odd}.\end{cases}

Hence there is a well-defined restriction of the Frobenius dual map ΦCa:F∗​Ca→Ca\Phi_{C_{a}}:F_{*}C_{a}\to C_{a} to a map ΦRa:=ΦCa:F∗​ωRa→ωRa\Phi_{R_{a}}:=\Phi_{C_{a}}:F_{*}\omega_{R_{a}}\to\omega_{R_{a}}. To identify this restricted map with the canonical Frobenius dual on RaR_{a}, let 𝔪∈MaxSpec⁡(Aa)\mathfrak{m}\in\operatorname{MaxSpec}(A_{a}) and put 𝔫C=𝔪​Ca+(Ca)+\mathfrak{n}_{C}=\mathfrak{m}C_{a}+(C_{a})_{+} and 𝔫R=𝔪​Ra+(Ra)+.\mathfrak{n}_{R}=\mathfrak{m}R_{a}+(R_{a})_{+}. The Veronese decomposition and the Čech complexes give a natural isomorphism

H𝔫R9​(Ra)≅(H𝔫C9​(Ca))(3).H^{9}_{\mathfrak{n}_{R}}(R_{a})\cong\left(H^{9}_{\mathfrak{n}_{C}}(C_{a})\right)^{(3)}.

This isomorphism commutes with Frobenius. Indeed, Frobenius sends relative degree 3​d3d to relative degree 6​d6d. By local duality, the Matlis duals of these modules are the completions of the localized canonical modules ωRa\omega_{R_{a}} and ωCa\omega_{C_{a}}, respectively, and the dual of Frobenius is the canonical Frobenius dual. Since ΦCa\Phi_{C_{a}} is the canonical Frobenius dual on CaC_{a}, its restriction to F∗​ωRaF_{*}\omega_{R_{a}} is the canonical Frobenius dual on RaR_{a}. Under the compatible canonical-module identifications, functorial local duality identifies the completed localization of the restricted map with the completed canonical Frobenius dual. By faithful flatness of completion, the two maps agree after localization at 𝔫R\mathfrak{n}_{R}. Since ωRa\omega_{R_{a}} is torsion-free over the domain RaR_{a}, the map

ωRa⟶(ωRa)𝔫R\omega_{R_{a}}\longrightarrow(\omega_{R_{a}})_{\mathfrak{n}_{R}}

is injective. Therefore the two globally defined maps F∗​ωRa→ωRaF_{*}\omega_{R_{a}}\to\omega_{R_{a}} agree.

Let m=x1​x2​x3​y​∏b∈Λ∖{a}tb∈Bam=x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}y\prod_{b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}}t_{b}\in B_{a}. We note that ΦBa​(F∗​m)=1\Phi_{B_{a}}(F_{*}m)=1 and if m′m^{\prime} is a reduced monomial in BaB_{a} properly dividing the monomial mm, then ΦBa​(F∗​m′)=0\Phi_{B_{a}}(F_{*}m^{\prime})=0. If b∈Λ∖{a}b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}, then

fa​mtb=ma2​mtb+mb2​m+∑c∈Λ∖{a,b}tc​mc2​mtbf_{a}\frac{m}{t_{b}}=m_{a}^{2}\frac{m}{t_{b}}+m_{b}^{2}m+\sum_{c\in\Lambda\setminus\{a,b\}}t_{c}m_{c}^{2}\frac{m}{t_{b}}

and

ΦBa​(F∗​fa​mtb)=mb.\Phi_{B_{a}}\left(F_{*}f_{a}\frac{m}{t_{b}}\right)=m_{b}.

Similarly,

fa​m=ma2​m+∑b∈Λ∖{a}tb​mb2​mf_{a}m=m_{a}^{2}m+\sum_{b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}}t_{b}m_{b}^{2}m

and

ΦBa​(F∗​fa​m)=ma.\Phi_{B_{a}}\left(F_{*}f_{a}m\right)=m_{a}.

The seven elements {mb∣b∈Λ}\{m_{b}\mid b\in\Lambda\} generate ωRa=⊕n∈ℕ(Ca)3​n−1\omega_{R_{a}}=\oplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}(C_{a})_{3n-1} as an RaR_{a}-module. The monomials mm and mtb\frac{m}{t_{b}} for b∈Λb\in\Lambda are multiples of x1​x2​x3∈(Ra)1=(Ca)3x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}\in(R_{a})_{1}=(C_{a})_{3}. Therefore ΦRa​(F∗​x1​x2​x3−):F∗​ωRa→ωRa\Phi_{R_{a}}(F_{*}x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}-):F_{*}\omega_{R_{a}}\to\omega_{R_{a}} is surjective. The ring (Ra)x1​x2​x3(R_{a})_{x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} is strongly FF-regular by the above. Hence there is n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N} so that (x1​x2​x3)n(x_{1}x_{2}x_{3})^{n} is a parameter test element of RaR_{a}. Let e0∈ℕe_{0}\in\mathbb{N} be chosen so that 2e0−1≥n2^{e_{0}}-1\geq n and let ΦRae0∈HomRa⁡(F∗e0​ωRa,ωRa)\Phi_{R_{a}}^{e_{0}}\in\operatorname{Hom}_{R_{a}}(F^{e_{0}}_{*}\omega_{R_{a}},\omega_{R_{a}}) the e0e_{0}th iterate of the Frobenius dual map. Then ΦRae0​(F∗e0​(x1​x2​x3)2e0−1−):F∗e0​ωRa→ωRa\Phi^{e_{0}}_{R_{a}}(F^{e_{0}}_{*}(x_{1}x_{2}x_{3})^{2^{e_{0}}-1}-):F^{e_{0}}_{*}\omega_{R_{a}}\to\omega_{R_{a}} is surjective. Consequently, RaR_{a} is FF-rational, see [29, Proposition 2.3]. ∎

Lemma 4.2.

Let k=𝔽2¯k=\overline{\mathbb{F}_{2}} and A=k⁡[t1,…,t6]A=k[t_{1},\ldots,t_{6}]. Let q1,…,q6q_{1},\ldots,q_{6} be an ordering of x12,x1​x2,x1​x3,x22,x2​x3,x32x_{1}^{2},x_{1}x_{2},x_{1}x_{3},x_{2}^{2},x_{2}x_{3},x_{3}^{2}, f=y2+∑i=16ti​qi2f=y^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}t_{i}q_{i}^{2} a degree 44 element of A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y], C=A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]/(f)C=A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]/(f), and R=(C)(3)R=(C)^{(3)}. Let h∈Ah\in A be a nonzero linear form in the six variables t1,…,t6t_{1},\ldots,t_{6}, 𝔫=(t1,t2,…,t6,x1,x2,x3,y)​C\mathfrak{n}=(t_{1},t_{2},\ldots,t_{6},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y)C, and 𝔪=𝔫∩R\mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{n}\cap R. Then for every ϵ∈𝔫[2]∩R\epsilon\in\mathfrak{n}^{[2]}\cap R, R/(h+ϵ)R/(h+\epsilon) is not FF-injective.

Proof.

Identify ωR=⊕n≥1C3​n−1\omega_{R}=\oplus_{n\geq 1}C_{3n-1} as in the proof of Lemma 4.1 and identify the Frobenius dual ΦR∈HomR⁡(F∗​ωR,ωR)\Phi_{R}\in\operatorname{Hom}_{R}(F_{*}\omega_{R},\omega_{R}) as the Frobenius dual of CC with the restricted domain. We will first show R𝔪/h​R𝔪R_{\mathfrak{m}}/hR_{\mathfrak{m}} is not FF-injective. Let Φ\Phi denote the standard Frobenius dual of A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y] with respect to the pp-basis {t1,…,t6,x1,x2,x3,y}\{t_{1},\ldots,t_{6},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y\}. By Proposition 2.1, the Frobenius dual of R/(h)R/(h) lifts to ΦR​(F∗​h−):F∗​ωR→ωR\Phi_{R}(F_{*}h-):F_{*}\omega_{R}\to\omega_{R}. If g∈A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]g\in A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y] is the lift of an element of ωR\omega_{R}, then ΦR​(F∗​g)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}g) lifts to Φ⁡(F∗​f​g)=y​Φ​(F∗​g)+∑i=16qi​Φ​(F∗​ti​g)\Phi(F_{*}fg)=y\Phi(F_{*}g)+\sum_{i=1}^{6}q_{i}\Phi(F_{*}t_{i}g). In particular, the lift of an element ΦR​(F∗​h​g)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg) in A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y] is of the form

ΦR​(F∗​h​g)\displaystyle\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg) =y​Φ​(F∗​h​g)+∑i=16qi​Φ​(F∗​ti​h​g).\displaystyle=y\Phi(F_{*}hg)+\sum_{i=1}^{6}q_{i}\Phi(F_{*}t_{i}hg).

By the grading, the coefficients on the right belong to A​[x1,x2,x3,y](3)A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]^{(3)}, so their classes modulo (f)(f) belong to RR.

As vector space over R/𝔪R/\mathfrak{m}, ωR/𝔪​ωR\omega_{R}/\mathfrak{m}\omega_{R} is seven-dimensional with basis {y¯,q1¯,…,q6¯}\{\overline{y},\overline{q_{1}},\ldots,\overline{q_{6}}\}. If φ:A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]→k\varphi:A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]\to k is the evaluation at the origin map, then the image of ΦR​(F∗​h​g)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg) in ωR/𝔪​ωR\omega_{R}/\mathfrak{m}\omega_{R} is

ΦR​(F∗​h​g)¯=φ⁡(Φ⁡(F∗​h​g))​y¯+∑i=16φ⁡(Φ⁡(F∗​ti​h​g))​qi¯.\overline{\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg)}=\varphi(\Phi(F_{*}hg))\overline{y}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\varphi(\Phi(F_{*}t_{i}hg))\overline{q_{i}}.

Assume that h=∑i=16δi​tih=\sum_{i=1}^{6}\delta_{i}t_{i} and let λ:ωR/𝔪​ωR→k\lambda:\omega_{R}/\mathfrak{m}\omega_{R}\to k be the linear transformation defined by y¯↦0\overline{y}\mapsto 0 and qi¯↦δi\overline{q_{i}}\mapsto\sqrt{\delta_{i}}. Then

λ⁡(ΦR​(F∗​h​g)¯)\displaystyle\lambda\left(\overline{\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg)}\right) =∑i=16φ⁡(Φ⁡(F∗​ti​h​g))​δi\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{6}\varphi(\Phi(F_{*}t_{i}hg))\sqrt{\delta_{i}}
=φ⁡(Φ⁡(F∗​∑i=16δi​ti​h​g))\displaystyle=\varphi\left(\Phi\left(F_{*}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\delta_{i}t_{i}hg\right)\right)
=φ⁡(Φ⁡(F∗​h2​g))\displaystyle=\varphi(\Phi(F_{*}h^{2}g))
=φ⁡(h​Φ​(F∗​g))\displaystyle=\varphi(h\Phi(F_{*}g))
=0.\displaystyle=0.

Therefore for every g∈ωRg\in\omega_{R}, ΦR​(F∗​h​g)¯\overline{\Phi_{R}(F_{*}hg)} belongs to the kernel of λ:ωR/𝔪​ωR→k\lambda:\omega_{R}/\mathfrak{m}\omega_{R}\to k and hence ΦR​(F∗​h−)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}h-) is not surjective. Equivalently, R/(h)R/(h) is not FF-injective.

Let ϵ∈𝔫[2]∩R\epsilon\in\mathfrak{n}^{[2]}\cap R and abuse notation and let ϵ∈𝔫[2]∩(A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y])(3)\epsilon\in\mathfrak{n}^{[2]}\cap(A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y])^{(3)} denote a lift of ϵ\epsilon in A⁡[x1,x2,x3,y]A[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]. Since ΦR​(F∗​(ϵ​ωR))⊆𝔪​ωR\Phi_{R}(F_{*}(\epsilon\omega_{R}))\subseteq\mathfrak{m}\omega_{R}, we can repeat the above analysis with h+ϵh+\epsilon to find that for any g∈ωRg\in\omega_{R},

λ⁡(ΦR​((h+ϵ)​g)¯)=λ⁡(ΦR​(h​g)¯)=0,\lambda(\overline{\Phi_{R}((h+\epsilon)g)})=\lambda(\overline{\Phi_{R}(hg)})=0,

i.e., ΦR​((h+ϵ)​g)¯∈ker⁡(λ)\overline{\Phi_{R}((h+\epsilon)g)}\in\operatorname{ker}(\lambda) and ΦR​(F∗​h+ϵ−)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}h+\epsilon-) cannot be surjective. Because hh is a linear form in t1,…,t6t_{1},\ldots,t_{6}, h+ϵh+\epsilon is regular on RR, by Proposition 2.1, ΦR​(F∗​h+ϵ−)\Phi_{R}(F_{*}h+\epsilon-) is the lift of the Frobenius dual of R/(h+ϵ)R/(h+\epsilon) and R/(h+ϵ)R/(h+\epsilon) is not FF-injective. ∎

4.2. Projective Compactification

We continue using the notation of Section 4.1 in addition to the following notation and assigned bigrading.

  • •

    𝒜=k⁡[Ta∣a∈Λ]\displaystyle\mathcal{A}=k[T_{a}\mid a\in\Lambda] with TaT_{a} variables of degree (1,0)(1,0).

  • •

    ℬ=𝒜⁡[x1,x2,x3,y,z]\displaystyle\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{A}[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y,z] with x1,x2,x3x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} variables of degree (0,1)(0,1), yy a variable of degree (0,2)(0,2), and zz a variable of degree (1,3)(1,3).

  • •

    F=∑a∈ΛTa​ma2∈ℬF=\sum_{a\in\Lambda}T_{a}m_{a}^{2}\in\mathcal{B}, a homogeneous equation of degree (1,4)(1,4).

  • •

    𝒞=ℬ(F)\displaystyle\mathcal{C}=\frac{\mathcal{B}}{(F)}.

  • •

    ℛ=⨁n∈ℕ𝒞(3​n,6​n)\displaystyle\mathcal{R}=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{C}_{(3n,6n)}.

Lemma 4.3.

ℛ\mathcal{R} is a standard graded kk-algebra.

Proof.

Consider a monomial term ∏a∈ΛTνa​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb​zd\prod_{a\in\Lambda}T^{\nu_{a}}x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}z^{d} of degree n≥2n\geq 2. Then ∑a∈Λνa+d=3​n\sum_{a\in\Lambda}\nu_{a}+d=3n and a1+a2+a3+2​b+3​d=6​na_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2b+3d=6n. If d≥2d\geq 2, then (∏a∈ΛTaνa​x1a1)​x2a2​x3a3​yb​zd\left(\prod_{a\in\Lambda}T^{\nu_{a}}_{a}x_{1}^{a_{1}}\right)x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}z^{d} is divisible by a monomial Ta​z2∈(ℛ)1T_{a}z^{2}\in\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1}. If d=1d=1 then a1+a2+a3+2​b=6​n−3≥3a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2b=6n-3\geq 3 and a1+a2+a3+2​ba_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2b is odd. Therefore x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​ybx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b} is divisible by a monomial in m∈ℰ3m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}. By degree considerations, the monomial ∏a∈ΛTνa​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb​zd\prod_{a\in\Lambda}T^{\nu_{a}}x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}z^{d} is divisible by a monomial Ta​Tb​z​mT_{a}T_{b}zm for some a,b∈Λa,b\in\Lambda and m∈ℰ3m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}. Lastly, if d=0d=0 then x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​ybx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b} is divisible by a monomial in ℰ6\mathcal{E}_{6} and ∏a∈ΛTνa​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb\prod_{a\in\Lambda}T^{\nu_{a}}x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b} is divisible by a monomial of the form Ta​Tb​Tc​mT_{a}T_{b}T_{c}m for some a,b,c∈Λa,b,c\in\Lambda and m∈ℰ6m\in\mathcal{E}_{6}. This shows every monomial element of (ℛ)n\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{n} with n≥2n\geq 2 is divisible by a monomial term of (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1}. Therefore ℛ\mathcal{R} is indeed standard graded over kk. ∎

Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}) denote the corresponding projective variety. We next prove that 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is FF-rational and there is a closed immersion 𝔛↪ℙk2547\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} so that the intersection of a general hyperplane HH of ℙk2547\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} with 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is not FF-injective. This is accomplished by identifying 25482548 monomial elements VV of (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1} so that the associated linear system is very ample. Before this, we collect some observations about the affine charts 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))≅(ℛ⁡[W−1])0≅(𝒞⁡[W−1])(0,0)\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W))\cong\left(\mathcal{R}[W^{-1}]\right)_{0}\cong\left(\mathcal{C}[W^{-1}]\right)_{(0,0)} where W∈(ℛ)1W\in\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1} is a monomial.

Remark 4.4.

Let W∈(ℛ)1W\in\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1} be a monomial. Then WW is divisible by TaT_{a} for some a∈Λa\in\Lambda. The affine section ring 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) is realized as a homogeneous localization of an algebra that adjoins fractions to 𝒞⁡[Ta−1]\mathcal{C}[T_{a}^{-1}]. For every b∈Λb\in\Lambda set tb=TbTat_{b}=\frac{T_{b}}{T_{a}}. Then F=Ta​(ma2+∑b∈Λ∖{a}tb​mb2)F=T_{a}\left(m_{a}^{2}+\sum_{b\in\Lambda\setminus\{a\}}t_{b}m_{b}^{2}\right), TaT_{a} is a unit of 𝒞⁡[Ta−1]\mathcal{C}[T_{a}^{-1}], and so

𝒞⁡[Ta−1]≅Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1]\mathcal{C}[T_{a}^{-1}]\cong C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1}\right]

where CaC_{a} is the hypersurface ring from Section 4.1. The bidegree of 𝒞\mathcal{C} persists through the isomorphism. For each b∈Λb\in\Lambda, the bidegree of tbt_{b} is (0,0)(0,0), x1,x2,x3x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} have bidegree (0,1)(0,1), yy has bidegree (0,2)(0,2), and zz has bidegree (1,3)(1,3). Therefore for every monomial W∈(ℛ)1W\in\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1}, if TaT_{a} divides WW, we make an identification of the corresponding affine chart

(ℛ⁡[W−1])0≅(𝒞⁡[W−1])(0,0)≅(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,W−1])(0,0).\left(\mathcal{R}[W^{-1}]\right)_{0}\cong\left(\mathcal{C}[W^{-1}]\right)_{(0,0)}\cong\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},W^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}.
Lemma 4.5.

Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}) and

V′={Ta​z2∣a∈Λ}∪{Ta3​y3∣a∈Λ}∪{Ta3​xi6∣a∈Λ​ and ​1≤i≤3}.V^{\prime}=\{T_{a}z^{2}\mid a\in\Lambda\}\cup\{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}\mid a\in\Lambda\}\cup\{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}\mid a\in\Lambda\mbox{ and }1\leq i\leq 3\}.

Then V′V^{\prime} is a collection of monomials of (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1} whose associated linear system is base point free.

Proof.

It is clear each element of V′V^{\prime} belongs to (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1}. Let n≥1n\geq 1 and W∈(ℛ)n=𝒞(3​n,6​n)W\in\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{n}=\mathcal{C}_{(3n,6n)} a monomial. In addition to being divisible by some TaT_{a}, a monomial of degree (3​n,6​n)(3n,6n) is divisible by z,y,z,y, or some xix_{i} with 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3. Therefore a large enough power of a monomial of degree (3​n,6​n)(3n,6n) with n≥1n\geq 1 is divisible by a monomial of degree (3,6)(3,6) of the form Ta​z2,Ta3​y3T_{a}z^{2},T_{a}^{3}y^{3} or Ta3​xi6T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6} for some a∈Λa\in\Lambda and 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3. It follows that the projective variety XX is covered by the affine open sets defined by the non-vanishing of the collection degree (3,6)(3,6) elements in V′V^{\prime}. Equivalently, the associated linear system of V′V^{\prime} is base point free. ∎

Corollary 4.6.

Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}).

  1. (a)

    For each closed point x∈𝔛x\in\mathfrak{X}, the embedding dimension dimk(𝔪x/𝔪x2)≤20\dim_{k}(\mathfrak{m}_{x}/\mathfrak{m}_{x}^{2})\leq 20.

  2. (b)

    The projective variety 𝔛\mathfrak{X} is FF-rational.

Proof.

Let V′V^{\prime} be the collection of monomials (ℛ)1(\mathcal{R})_{1} of Lemma 4.5 defining a base point free linear system. We will show that for each W∈V′W\in V^{\prime}, the associated affine chart 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) is a finitely generated kk-algebra generated by at most 2020 elements and 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) is FF-rational.

Suppose first that W=Ta​z2W=T_{a}z^{2} so that by Remark 4.4

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))≅(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,(Ta​z2)−1])(0,0)=(Ca​[z,z−1,Ta,Ta−1])(0,0),\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2}))\cong\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},(T_{a}z^{2})^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}=\left(C_{a}\left[z,z^{-1},T_{a},T_{a}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)},

Let uu be a homogeneous element of CaC_{a} of degree (0,α)(0,\alpha) and suppose u​zβ1​Taβ2uz^{\beta_{1}}T_{a}^{\beta_{2}} with β1,β2∈ℤ\beta_{1},\beta_{2}\in\mathbb{Z} has bidegree (0,0)(0,0). Then β1+β2=0\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}=0 and α+3​β1=0\alpha+3\beta_{1}=0. Therefore there exists n≥0n\geq 0 so that α=3​n\alpha=3n and u​zβ1​Taβ2uz^{\beta_{1}}T_{a}^{\beta_{2}} is of the form u​(Taz)nu\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{n} and u∈(Ca)(0,3​n)u\in(C_{a})_{(0,3n)}.

Let n≥1n\geq 1 and consider a monomial of bidegree (0,0)(0,0) takes the form

x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb​(Taz)c,a1+a2+a3+2​b−3​c=0.x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{c},\quad a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2b-3c=0.

Given such a term, x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​ybx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b} has weighted degree divisible by three. Factor out powers of y3​(Taz)2y^{3}\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{2}. If the remaining yy-exponent is 11, factor out y​xi​Tazyx_{i}\frac{T_{a}}{z} for some 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3; if a remaining yy-exponent is 22, factor out (y​xi)​(y​xj)​(Taz)2(yx_{i})(yx_{j})\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{2}, allowing the possibility that i=ji=j. The remaining xx-monomial has degree divisible by three, so it factors into cubic monomials. Therefore as an AaA_{a}-algebra, 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2})) is generated by the monomials

{x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​Taz∣a1+a2+a3=3}​⋃{y3​(Taz)2}​⋃{y​xi​Taz∣1≤i≤3}.\left\{x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\frac{T_{a}}{z}\mid a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}=3\right\}\bigcup\left\{y^{3}\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{2}\right\}\bigcup\left\{yx_{i}\frac{T_{a}}{z}\mid 1\leq i\leq 3\right\}.

Combined with the six variables generating AaA_{a} over kk, 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2})) is a kk-algebra generated by 6+10+1+3=206+10+1+3=20 elements.

Let uu be a bidegree homogeneous element of CaC_{a} of degree (0,α)(0,\alpha) and suppose u​zβ1​Taβ2uz^{\beta_{1}}T_{a}^{\beta_{2}} with β1,β2∈ℤ\beta_{1},\beta_{2}\in\mathbb{Z} has bidegree (0,0)(0,0). Then u​zβ1​Taβ2uz^{\beta_{1}}T_{a}^{\beta_{2}} is of the form u​(Taz)nu\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{n} and u∈(Ca)(0,3​n)u\in(C_{a})_{(0,3n)}. It follows that 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))≅Ra\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2}))\cong R_{a} with the isomorphism identifying a degree (0,0)(0,0) element u​(Taz)nu\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{n} with u∈Rau\in R_{a}. By Lemma 4.1(f), 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2})) is FF-rational.

Next consider the case W=Ta3​y3W=T_{a}^{3}y^{3} for some a∈Λa\in\Lambda. By Remark 4.4 we identify

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​y3))≅(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,(Ta​y3)−1])(0,0)=(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])(0,0).\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}y^{3}))\cong\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},(T_{a}y^{3})^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}=\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}.

The algebras (Ca)y(C_{a})_{y} and (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right) are regular, the latter of which admits (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} as a direct summand. Hence (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} is strongly FF-regular and therefore FF-rational.

We next bound the number of generators of (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} as a kk-algebra. Consider a monomial of bidegree (0,0)(0,0) that is of the form

x1α1​x2α2​x3α3​yβ​zγ1​Taγ2x_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}x_{3}^{\alpha_{3}}y^{\beta}z^{\gamma_{1}}T_{a}^{\gamma_{2}}

with α1,α2,α3,γ1≥0\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3},\gamma_{1}\geq 0 and β,γ2∈ℤ\beta,\gamma_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}. Then γ1+γ2=0\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}=0. Hence the monomial is of the form

x1α1​x2α2​x3α3​yβ​(zTa)γx_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}x_{3}^{\alpha_{3}}y^{\beta}\left(\frac{z}{T_{a}}\right)^{\gamma}

with α1,α2,α3,γ≥0,β∈ℤ\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3},\gamma\geq 0,\beta\in\mathbb{Z}, and α1+α2+α3+3​γ+2​β=0\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}+3\gamma+2\beta=0.

This implies the total number of factors of x1,x2,x3,zTax_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\frac{z}{T_{a}} is even. We can therefore group two at a time, with corresponding power of y−1y^{-1}, and identify relative positive degree monomial generators over AaA_{a} as the set

{xi​xjy∣1≤i≤j≤3}​⋃{z​xiTa​y2∣1≤i≤3}​⋃{z2Ta2​y3}.\left\{\frac{x_{i}x_{j}}{y}\mid 1\leq i\leq j\leq 3\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{zx_{i}}{T_{a}y^{2}}\mid 1\leq i\leq 3\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{z^{2}}{T_{a}^{2}y^{3}}\right\}.

Therefore (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,y−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},y^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} is a kk-algebra generated by at most 6+6+3+1=166+6+3+1=16 elements.

Finally consider the case W=Ta3​xi6W=T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6} for some a∈Λa\in\Lambda and 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3. Then

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​xi6))≅(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−6])(0,0)=(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0).\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}))\cong\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-6}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}=\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}.

Similar to the previous case, Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1]C_{a}[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}] is strongly FF-regular, (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} is a direct summand of Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1]C_{a}[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}], and hence 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​xi6))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6})) is FF-rational.

We next bound the number of generators of (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} as a kk-algebra. Consider a monomial of bidegree (0,0)(0,0) of the form x1α1​x2α2​x3α3​yβ​zγ1​Taγ2​(1xi)δx_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}x_{3}^{\alpha_{3}}y^{\beta}z^{\gamma_{1}}T_{a}^{\gamma_{2}}\left(\frac{1}{x_{i}}\right)^{\delta} belonging to the chart. Then γ1+γ2=0\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}=0, implying the monomial is of the form

x1α1​x2α2​x3α3​yβ​(zTa)γ​(1xi)δx_{1}^{\alpha_{1}}x_{2}^{\alpha_{2}}x_{3}^{\alpha_{3}}y^{\beta}\left(\frac{z}{T_{a}}\right)^{\gamma}\left(\frac{1}{x_{i}}\right)^{\delta}

with α1,α2,α3,β,γ,δ≥0\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3},\beta,\gamma,\delta\geq 0 and α1+α2+α3+2​β+3​γ−δ=0\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}+2\beta+3\gamma-\delta=0. It follows that over AaA_{a}, (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0).\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}. is generated by the set of monomials

{xjxi∣j≠i}​⋃{yxi2,zTa​xi3}.\left\{\frac{x_{j}}{x_{i}}\mid j\not=i\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{y}{x_{i}^{2}},\frac{z}{T_{a}x_{i}^{3}}\right\}.

Therefore as a kk-algebra, (Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0)\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)} is generated by 6+2+2=106+2+2=10 elements. ∎

Lemma 4.7.

For each n∈ℕn\in\mathbb{N}, let ℰn={x1a​x2b​x3c​yd∣a+b+c+2​d=n}\mathcal{E}_{n}=\{x_{1}^{a}x_{2}^{b}x_{3}^{c}y^{d}\mid a+b+c+2d=n\}. Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}) and consider the sets

V1={Taz2∣a∈Λ},V2={Ta2zm∣a∈Λ and m∈ℰ3},V3={Ta2Tbm∣a,b∈Λ and m∈ℰ6}.\displaystyle V_{1}=\{T_{a}z^{2}\mid a\in\Lambda\},\quad V_{2}=\{T_{a}^{2}zm\mid a\in\Lambda\mbox{ and }m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}\},\quad V_{3}=\{T_{a}^{2}T_{b}m\mid a,b\in\Lambda\mbox{ and }m\in\mathcal{E}_{6}\}.

Then V:=V1∪V2∪V3V:=V_{1}\cup V_{2}\cup V_{3} is a collection of 25482548 monomials in (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1} that define a very ample linear system.

Proof.

It is clear that each element of VV is a monomial of (ℛ)1\left(\mathcal{R}\right)_{1}, that |V1|=7|V_{1}|=7, |V2|=7×13=91|V_{2}|=7\times 13=91, |V3|=49×50=2450|V_{3}|=49\times 50=2450, and |V|=7+91+2450=2548|V|=7+91+2450=2548. Let V′V^{\prime} be the collection of monomials described in Lemma 4.5. Then V′⊆VV^{\prime}\subseteq V and hence VV defines a base point free linear system.

Let φV:𝔛→ℙk|V|−1=ℙk2547\varphi_{V}:\mathfrak{X}\to\mathbb{P}^{|V|-1}_{k}=\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} be the associated morphism of VV. It remains to check φV\varphi_{V} is a closed immersion; to do so, it suffices to show that for each W∈V′W\in V^{\prime}, 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))=k⁡[UW∣U∈V]\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W))=k\left[\frac{U}{W}\mid U\in V\right]. Indeed, for each W∈V′W\in V^{\prime} let ZWZ_{W} be the corresponding coordinate of ℙk2547\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}. Assuming that for each W∈V′W\in V^{\prime} that 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) is generated by the sections UW\frac{U}{W} as UU varies in VV implies D+​(W)⊆D+​(ZW)D_{+}(W)\subseteq D_{+}(Z_{W}) is a closed immersion. Hence φV\varphi_{V} defines a closed immersion in the open set ⋃W∈V′D+​(ZW)⊆ℙk2547\bigcup_{W\in V^{\prime}}D_{+}(Z_{W})\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}. But φV:𝔛→ℙk2547\varphi_{V}:\mathfrak{X}\to\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} is proper, hence its image is closed, so φV:𝔛↪ℙk2547\varphi_{V}:\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} is a closed immersion as needed.

It remains to check for every W∈V′W\in V^{\prime} the sections {UW∣U∈V}\{\frac{U}{W}\mid U\in V\} generate 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) as a kk-algebra. First suppose W=Ta​z2W=T_{a}z^{2} for some a∈Λa\in\Lambda. In the proof of Corollary 4.6, we identified the generators of 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(W))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(W)) as an AaA_{a}-algebra to be

{x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​Taz∣a1+a2+a3=3}​⋃{y3​(Taz)2}​⋃{y​xi​Taz∣1≤i≤3}.\left\{x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}\frac{T_{a}}{z}\mid a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}=3\right\}\bigcup\left\{y^{3}\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{2}\right\}\bigcup\left\{yx_{i}\frac{T_{a}}{z}\mid 1\leq i\leq 3\right\}.

If b∈Λb\in\Lambda then

tb=Tb​z2Ta​z2andTb​z2∈V1.t_{b}=\frac{T_{b}z^{2}}{T_{a}z^{2}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{b}z^{2}\in V_{1}.

If a1+a2+a3+2​b=3a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+2b=3, then

x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb​Taz=Ta2​z​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​ybTa​z2andTa2​z​x1a1​x2a2​x3a3​yb∈V2.x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}\frac{T_{a}}{z}=\frac{T_{a}^{2}zx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}}{T_{a}z^{2}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{2}zx_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}x_{3}^{a_{3}}y^{b}\in V_{2}.

The final generator is

y3​(Taz)2=Ta3​y3Ta​z2andTa3​y3∈V3,y^{3}\left(\frac{T_{a}}{z}\right)^{2}=\frac{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}{T_{a}z^{2}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{3}y^{3}\in V_{3},

so

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta​z2))=k⁡[UTa​z2∣U∈V]\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}z^{2}))=k\left[\frac{U}{T_{a}z^{2}}\mid U\in V\right]

as needed.

We now show that if a∈Λa\in\Lambda, then 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​y3))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}y^{3})) is a kk-algebra generated by the sections {UTa3​y3∣U∈V}\left\{\frac{U}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\mid U\in V\right\}. We again use the AaA_{a}-algebra generators of 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​y3))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}y^{3})) from the proof of Corollary 4.6,

{xi​xjy∣1≤i≤j≤3}​⋃{z​xiTa​y2∣1≤i≤3}​⋃{z2Ta2​y3}.\left\{\frac{x_{i}x_{j}}{y}\mid 1\leq i\leq j\leq 3\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{zx_{i}}{T_{a}y^{2}}\mid 1\leq i\leq 3\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{z^{2}}{T_{a}^{2}y^{3}}\right\}.

If b∈Λb\in\Lambda, then

tb=Ta2​Tb​y3Ta3​y3andTa2​Tb​y3∈V3.t_{b}=\frac{T_{a}^{2}T_{b}y^{3}}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{2}T_{b}y^{3}\in V_{3}.

If 1≤i≤j≤31\leq i\leq j\leq 3 then

xi​xjy=Ta3​xi​xj​y2Ta3​y3andTa3​xi​xj​y2∈V3.\frac{x_{i}x_{j}}{y}=\frac{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}x_{j}y^{2}}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{3}x_{i}x_{j}y^{2}\in V_{3}.

If 1≤i≤31\leq i\leq 3 then

z​xiTa​y2=Ta2​z​y​xiTa3​y3andTa2​z​y​xi∈V2.\frac{zx_{i}}{T_{a}y^{2}}=\frac{T_{a}^{2}zyx_{i}}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{2}zyx_{i}\in V_{2}.

The final generator

z2Ta2​y3=Ta​z2Ta3​y3andTa​z2∈V1.\frac{z^{2}}{T_{a}^{2}y^{3}}=\frac{T_{a}z^{2}}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}z^{2}\in V_{1}.

This completes the argument that

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​y3))=k⁡[UTa3​y3∣U∈V]\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}y^{3}))=k\left[\frac{U}{T_{a}^{3}y^{3}}\mid U\in V\right]

The final class of charts we need to check is a chart of the form

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​xi6))≅(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−6])(0,0)=(Ca​[z,Ta,Ta−1,xi−1])(0,0).\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}))\cong\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-6}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}=\left(C_{a}\left[z,T_{a},T_{a}^{-1},x_{i}^{-1}\right]\right)_{(0,0)}.

Again by the proof of Corollary 4.6, we have AaA_{a}-algebra generators of 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​xi6))\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6})) given by

{xjxi∣j≠i}​⋃{yxi2,zTa​xi3}.\left\{\frac{x_{j}}{x_{i}}\mid j\not=i\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{y}{x_{i}^{2}},\frac{z}{T_{a}x_{i}^{3}}\right\}.

If b∈Λb\in\Lambda then

tb=Ta2​Tb​xi6Ta3​xi6andTa2​Tb​xi6∈V3.t_{b}=\frac{T_{a}^{2}T_{b}x_{i}^{6}}{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{2}T_{b}x_{i}^{6}\in V_{3}.

If j≠ij\not=i,

xjxi=Ta3​xi5​xjTa3​xi6andTa3​xi5​xj∈V3.\frac{x_{j}}{x_{i}}=\frac{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{5}x_{j}}{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{5}x_{j}\in V_{3}.

As for the final two generators

yxi2=Ta3​xi4​yTa3​xi6andTa3​xi4​y∈V3\frac{y}{x_{i}^{2}}=\frac{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{4}y}{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{4}y\in V_{3}

and

zTa​xi3=Ta2​z​xi3Ta3​xi6andTa2​z​xi3∈V2.\frac{z}{T_{a}x_{i}^{3}}=\frac{T_{a}^{2}zx_{i}^{3}}{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{a}^{2}zx_{i}^{3}\in V_{2}.

Therefore 𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta3​xi6))=k⁡[UTa3​xi6∣U∈V]\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}))=k\left[\frac{U}{T_{a}^{3}x_{i}^{6}}\mid U\in V\right] as needed to complete the proof. ∎

Theorem 4.8.

Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}) and identify 𝔛\mathfrak{X} with its image under the closed immersion into ℙk2547\mathbb{P}_{k}^{2547} associated with the closed embedding of the very ample linear system associated to VV of Lemma 4.7. There exists a dense open subset U⊆(ℙk2547)∨U\subseteq(\mathbb{P}_{k}^{2547})^{\vee} such that, for every H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), the hyperplane section 𝔛∩H\mathfrak{X}\cap H is not FF-injective.

Proof.

Put a0=(0,0,0,1)a_{0}=(0,0,0,1) and Λ′=Λ∖{a0}\Lambda^{\prime}=\Lambda\setminus\{a_{0}\}. On the affine open set D+​(Ta0​z2)D_{+}(T_{a_{0}}z^{2}), if we identify ta=TaTa0t_{a}=\frac{T_{a}}{T_{a_{0}}} then

𝒪𝔛​(D+​(Ta0​z2))≅Ra0=Ca0(3)\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{X}}(D_{+}(T_{a_{0}}z^{2}))\cong R_{a_{0}}=C_{a_{0}}^{(3)}

is the affine ring of Section 3 and Ca0=Aa0​[x1,x2,x3,y](y2+∑a∈Λ′ta​ma2)C_{a_{0}}=\frac{A_{a_{0}}[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y]}{(y^{2}+\sum_{a\in\Lambda^{\prime}}t_{a}m_{a}^{2})}.

Under the chart identification, a general hyperplane HH restricts to the equation L=0L=0, where

L=∑a∈Λδa​ta+∑a∈Λm∈ℰ3εa,m​ta2​m+∑a,b∈Λm∈ℰ6γa,b,m​ta2​tb​m.L=\sum_{a\in\Lambda}\delta_{a}t_{a}+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}\end{subarray}}\varepsilon_{a,m}t_{a}^{2}m+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a,b\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{6}\end{subarray}}\gamma_{a,b,m}t_{a}^{2}t_{b}m.

To simplify notation, label the following four elements of ℰ3\mathcal{E}_{3}: m0=x1​x2​x3,m1=x1​y,m2=x2​ym_{0}=x_{1}x_{2}x_{3},m_{1}=x_{1}y,m_{2}=x_{2}y, and m3=x3​ym_{3}=x_{3}y. Also denote

h:=∑a∈Λδa​ta,ℓi:=∑a∈Λεa,mi​ta​ for ​0≤i≤3.\displaystyle h:=\sum_{a\in\Lambda}\delta_{a}t_{a},\quad\ell_{i}:=\sum_{a\in\Lambda}\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a,m_{i}}}t_{a}\text{ for }0\leq i\leq 3.

Choose a labeling of the six elements a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4},a_{5},a_{6} of Λ′\Lambda^{\prime}. For each hyperplane HH and associated restriction L=0L=0, let MH,NHM_{H},N_{H} be the 5×65\times 6 matrices

MH:=(δa1δa2⋯δa6εa1,m0εa2,m0…εa6,m0εa1,m3εa2,m3⋯εa6,m3)andNH:=(δa12δa22⋯δa62εa1,m0εa2,m0…εa6,m0εa1,m3εa2,m3⋯εa6,m3).M_{H}:=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_{a_{1}}&\delta_{a_{2}}&\cdots&\delta_{a_{6}}\\ \sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{1},m_{0}}}&\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{2},m_{0}}}&\ldots&\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{6},m_{0}}}\\ \vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\ \sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{1},m_{3}}}&\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{2},m_{3}}}&\cdots&\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{6},m_{3}}}\end{pmatrix}\quad\mbox{and}\quad N_{H}:=\begin{pmatrix}\delta_{a_{1}}^{2}&\delta_{a_{2}}^{2}&\cdots&\delta_{a_{6}}^{2}\\ {\varepsilon_{a_{1},m_{0}}}&{\varepsilon_{a_{2},m_{0}}}&\ldots&{\varepsilon_{a_{6},m_{0}}}\\ \vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\ {\varepsilon_{a_{1},m_{3}}}&{\varepsilon_{a_{2},m_{3}}}&\cdots&{\varepsilon_{a_{6},m_{3}}}\end{pmatrix}.

Let U⊆(ℙk2547)∨U\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k})^{\vee} be the open subset consisting of hyperplanes HH so that the associated 5×65\times 6 matrix NHN_{H} has maximal rank 55. Equivalently, if H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), then the linear parts of h,ℓ0,ℓ1,ℓ2,ℓ3h,\ell_{0},\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\ell_{3} are linearly independent. Writing t→=(ta1,…,ta6)𝖳\vec{t}=(t_{a_{1}},\ldots,t_{a_{6}})^{\mathsf{T}} and letting c→H∈k5\vec{c}_{H}\in k^{5} be the vector of constant terms, the equations defining the vanishing locus V⁡(h,ℓ0,ℓ1,ℓ2,ℓ3)V(h,\ell_{0},\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\ell_{3}) are

MH​t→=−c→H.M_{H}\vec{t}=-\vec{c}_{H}.

The linear map MH:k6→k5M_{H}:k^{6}\to k^{5} is surjective, so this system has a solution τ→∈k6\vec{\tau}\in k^{6}. Moreover, dimkker⁡(MH)=1\dim_{k}\operatorname{ker}(M_{H})=1. Consequently,

ΓH:=V⁡(h,ℓ0,ℓ1,ℓ2,ℓ3)=τ→+ker⁡(MH)≅𝔸k1\Gamma_{H}:=V(h,\ell_{0},\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\ell_{3})=\vec{\tau}+\operatorname{ker}(M_{H})\cong\mathbb{A}_{k}^{1}

is a nonempty affine line in Spec⁡(Aa0)≅𝔸k6\operatorname{Spec}(A_{a_{0}})\cong\mathbb{A}_{k}^{6}. Identify ΓH\Gamma_{H} with its image in V⁡((Ra0)+)⊆𝔛V((R_{a_{0}})_{+})\subseteq\mathfrak{X}, then L−h∈(Ra0)+L-h\in(R_{a_{0}})_{+} and hh vanishes on ΓH\Gamma_{H}. Hence the restriction of LL to ΓH\Gamma_{H} is zero. Thus ΓH⊆𝔛∩H\Gamma_{H}\subseteq\mathfrak{X}\cap H.

Let τ=(τa1,τa2,…,τa6)∈ΓH\mathbf{\tau}=(\tau_{a_{1}},\tau_{a_{2}},\ldots,\tau_{a_{6}})\in\Gamma_{H}. Consider the change of variables defined by tai¯=tai+τai\overline{t_{a_{i}}}=t_{a_{i}}+\tau_{a_{i}} and y¯=y+∑i=16τai​mai\overline{y}=y+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\sqrt{\tau_{a_{i}}}m_{a_{i}}. Under the change of variables, the hypersurface equation defining Ca0C_{a_{0}} becomes

y2+∑i=16tai​mai2=y2+∑i=16tai¯​mai2+∑i=16τai​mai2=y¯2+∑i=16tai¯​mai2.y^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}t_{a_{i}}m_{a_{i}}^{2}=y^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\overline{t_{a_{i}}}m_{a_{i}}^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\tau_{a_{i}}m_{a_{i}}^{2}=\overline{y}^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\overline{t_{a_{i}}}m_{a_{i}}^{2}.

The point τ∈ΓH\mathbf{\tau}\in\Gamma_{H} is chosen so that h⁡(τ)=ℓ0​(τ)=ℓ1​(τ)=ℓ2​(τ)=ℓ3​(τ)=0h(\mathbf{\tau})=\ell_{0}(\mathbf{\tau})=\ell_{1}(\mathbf{\tau})=\ell_{2}(\mathbf{\tau})=\ell_{3}(\mathbf{\tau})=0. Therefore under the change of coordinates, the functions h,ℓ0,ℓ1,ℓ2,ℓ3h,\ell_{0},\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\ell_{3} have 00 constant term. Explicitly using ta0=1t_{a_{0}}=1,

h=∑i=06δai​tai=δa0+∑i=16δai​tai¯+∑i=16δai​τai=∑i=16δai​tai¯h=\sum_{i=0}^{6}\delta_{a_{i}}t_{a_{i}}=\delta_{a_{0}}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\delta_{a_{i}}\overline{t_{a_{i}}}+\sum_{i=1}^{6}\delta_{a_{i}}\tau_{a_{i}}=\sum_{i=1}^{6}\delta_{a_{i}}\overline{t_{a_{i}}}

and for each 0≤j≤30\leq j\leq 3,

ℓj=∑i=06εai,mj​tai=∑i=16εai,mj​tai¯.\ell_{j}=\sum_{i=0}^{6}\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{i},m_{j}}}\,t_{a_{i}}=\sum_{i=1}^{6}\sqrt{\varepsilon_{a_{i},m_{j}}}\,\overline{t_{a_{i}}}.

Consider the translation of LL under the change of variables. The initial sum ∑a∈Λδa​ta\sum_{a\in\Lambda}\delta_{a}t_{a} defining LL is hh. The middle sum ∑a∈Λm∈ℰ3εa,m​ta2​m\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}\end{subarray}}\varepsilon_{a,m}t_{a}^{2}m expands to

∑a∈Λm∈ℰ3εa,m​ta2​m=ℓ02​m0+ℓ12​m1+ℓ22​m2+ℓ32​m3+∑a∈Λm∈ℰ3∖{m0,m1,m2,m3}εa,m​ta2​m.\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}\end{subarray}}\varepsilon_{a,m}t_{a}^{2}m=\ell_{0}^{2}m_{0}+\ell_{1}^{2}m_{1}+\ell_{2}^{2}m_{2}+\ell_{3}^{2}m_{3}+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{3}\setminus\{m_{0},m_{1},m_{2},m_{3}\}\end{subarray}}\varepsilon_{a,m}t_{a}^{2}m.

The monomials of ℰ3∖{m0,m1,m2,m3}\mathcal{E}_{3}\setminus\{m_{0},m_{1},m_{2},m_{3}\} are the nine monomials of degree three in x1,x2,x3x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} other than x1​x2​x3x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}. The last sum defining LL, namely ∑a,b∈Λm∈ℰ6γa,b,m​ta2​tb​m\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}a,b\in\Lambda\\ m\in\mathcal{E}_{6}\end{subarray}}\gamma_{a,b,m}t_{a}^{2}t_{b}m is a polynomial over Aa0A_{a_{0}} in the variables x1,x2,x3,yx_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y of degree 66. Therefore the change of variables gives LL the form

L=h+∑i=03ℓi2​gi+w+PL=h+\sum_{i=0}^{3}\ell_{i}^{2}g_{i}+w+P

where

  • •

    hh is a nonzero linear form in the 66 variables ta1¯,…,ta6¯\overline{t_{a_{1}}},\ldots,\overline{t_{a_{6}}};

  • •

    gi∈Aa0​[x1,x2,x3,y]g_{i}\in A_{a_{0}}[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},y] is homogeneous of degree three;

  • •

    ww is an Aa0A_{a_{0}}-linear combination of cubic monomials in x1,x2,x3x_{1},x_{2},x_{3} other than x1​x2​x3x_{1}x_{2}x_{3};

  • •

    PP is homogeneous of degree 66.

If 𝔫\mathfrak{n} is the maximal ideal of the origin of Ca0C_{a_{0}}, then ∑i=03ℓi2​gi+w+P∈𝔫[2]∩Ra0\sum_{i=0}^{3}\ell_{i}^{2}g_{i}+w+P\in\mathfrak{n}^{[2]}\cap R_{a_{0}}. Thus, LL satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 4.2 and Ra0/(L)R_{a_{0}}/(L) is not FF-injective. ∎

Theorem 4.9.

Let 𝔛=Projk⁡(ℛ)\mathfrak{X}=\operatorname{Proj}_{k}(\mathcal{R}). There exists a closed immersion 𝔛↪ℙk29\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} and a dense open subset U⊆(ℙk29)∨U\subseteq\left(\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k}\right)^{\vee} so that for every H∈U⁡(k)H\in U(k), 𝔛∩H\mathfrak{X}\cap H is not FF-injective.

Proof.

Let φV:𝔛↪ℙk2547\varphi_{V}:\mathfrak{X}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} the closed embedding of the very ample linear system associated to VV of Lemma 4.7, and U⊆(ℙk2547)∨U\subseteq\left(\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}\right)^{\vee} the dense open subset of Theorem 4.8 so that for each H∈UH\in U, 𝔛∩H\mathfrak{X}\cap H is not FF-injective. Since dim𝔛=9\dim\mathfrak{X}=9, the secant variety of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} has dimension at most 2⋅9+1=192\cdot 9+1=19, see [2, § 1.1] Consequently, a general linear subspace ℒ≅ℙk2527⊆ℙk2547\mathcal{L}\cong\mathbb{P}^{2527}_{k}\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k} is disjoint from the secant variety. Projection from ℒ\mathcal{L} therefore induces a morphism 𝔛→ℙk19\mathfrak{X}\to\mathbb{P}^{19}_{k} that separates distinct closed points.

For each x∈𝔛x\in\mathfrak{X} let 𝕋x​𝔛\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathfrak{X} be the embedded projective tangent space of x∈𝔛x\in\mathfrak{X}. A fiber of

{(x,p)∈𝔛×ℙkN∣p∈𝕋x​𝔛}→𝔛\{(x,p)\in\mathfrak{X}\times\mathbb{P}^{N}_{k}\mid p\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathfrak{X}\}\to\mathfrak{X}

has dimension at most 2020 by Corollary 4.6. By [28, Tag 02JS],

dim⋃x∈𝔛𝕋x​𝔛¯≤dim(𝔛)+20=9+20=29.\dim\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\mathfrak{X}}\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathfrak{X}}\leq\dim(\mathfrak{X})+20=9+20=29.

Therefore a general linear subspace ℒ≅ℙk2547−30\mathcal{L}\cong\mathbb{P}^{2547-30}_{k} is disjoint from ⋃x∈𝔛𝕋x​𝔛¯\overline{\bigcup_{x\in\mathfrak{X}}\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathfrak{X}} and projection from such an ℒ\mathcal{L} induces a morphism 𝔛→ℙk29\mathfrak{X}\to\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} that separates tangent directions.

Let ℒ≅ℙk2547−30\mathcal{L}\cong\mathbb{P}^{2547-30}_{k} be a general linear subspace of ℙk2547\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k}. Projection from ℒ\mathcal{L} induces a morphism ψ:𝔛→ℙk29\psi:\mathfrak{X}\to\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k} whose associated linear system separates points and tangent vectors, i.e., ψ\psi is a closed immersion. The linear subspace ℒ⟂≅(ℙk29)∨⊆(ℙk2547)∨\mathcal{L}^{\perp}\cong(\mathbb{P}^{29}_{k})^{\vee}\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{2547}_{k})^{\vee} parameterizing hyperplanes containing ℒ\mathcal{L} meets UU. Thus U∩ℒ⟂U\cap\mathcal{L}^{\perp} is a nonempty dense open subset of ℒ⟂\mathcal{L}^{\perp}. The corresponding hyperplane sections under ψ\psi agree scheme-theoretically with those under φV\varphi_{V}. Consequently, a general hyperplane section of ψ⁡(𝔛)\psi(\mathfrak{X}) is not FF-injective. ∎

References

  • [1] Ian. Aberbach “Extension of weakly and strongly F-regular rings by flat maps” In J. Algebra 241.2, 2001, pp. 799–807 DOI: 10.1006/jabr.2001.8785
  • [2] Bjørn Ådlandsvik “Joins and higher secant varieties” In Math. Scand. 61.2, 1987, pp. 213–222 DOI: 10.7146/math.scand.a-12200
  • [3] Michel Brion “Positivity in the Grothendieck group of complex flag varieties” Special issue in celebration of Claudio Procesi’s 60th birthday In J. Algebra 258.1, 2002, pp. 137–159 DOI: 10.1016/S0021-8693(02)00505-7
  • [4] Winfried Bruns and Jürgen Herzog “Cohen-Macaulay rings” 39, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. xii+403
  • [5] Caterina Cumino, Silvio Greco and Mirella Manaresi “An axiomatic approach to the second theorem of Bertini” In J. Algebra 98.1, 1986, pp. 171–182 DOI: 10.1016/0021-8693(86)90020-7
  • [6] Caterina Cumino, Silvio Greco and Mirella Manaresi “Hyperplane sections of weakly normal varieties in positive characteristic” In Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106.1, 1989, pp. 37–42 DOI: 10.2307/2047371
  • [7] Rankeya Datta and Takumi Murayama “Permanence properties of FF-injectivity” In Math. Res. Lett. 31.4, 2024, pp. 985–1027 DOI: 10.4310/mrl.241118233550
  • [8] Renée Elkik “Singularités rationnelles et déformations” In Invent. Math. 47.2, 1978, pp. 139–147 DOI: 10.1007/BF01578068
  • [9] Florian Enescu “On the behavior of F-rational rings under flat base change” In J. Algebra 233.2, 2000, pp. 543–566 DOI: 10.1006/jabr.2000.8430
  • [10] Florian Enescu “Local cohomology and F-stability” In J. Algebra 322.9, 2009, pp. 3063–3077 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2009.04.025
  • [11] Florian Enescu and Melvin Hochster “The Frobenius structure of local cohomology” In Algebra Number Theory 2.7, 2008, pp. 721–754 DOI: 10.2140/ant.2008.2.721
  • [12] Richard Fedder “FF-purity and rational singularity” In Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278.2, 1983, pp. 461–480 DOI: 10.2307/1999165
  • [13] Shiro Goto and Keiichi Watanabe “On graded rings. I” In J. Math. Soc. Japan 30.2, 1978, pp. 179–213 DOI: 10.2969/jmsj/03020179
  • [14] Nobuo Hara “A characterization of rational singularities in terms of injectivity of Frobenius maps” In Amer. J. Math. 120.5, 1998, pp. 981–996 DOI: 10.1353/ajm.1998.0037
  • [15] M. Hochster and John. Eagon “Cohen-Macaulay rings, invariant theory, and the generic perfection of determinantal loci” In Amer. J. Math. 93, 1971, pp. 1020–1058 DOI: 10.2307/2373744
  • [16] Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke “Tight closure, invariant theory, and the Briançon-Skoda theorem.” In J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3.1, 1990, pp. 31–116 DOI: 10.2307/1990984
  • [17] Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke “FF-regularity, test elements, and smooth base change” In Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 346.1, 1994, pp. 1–62 DOI: 10.2307/2154942
  • [18] János Kollár “Singularities of pairs” In Algebraic geometry—Santa Cruz 1995 62, Part 1, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 221–287 DOI: 10.1090/pspum/062.1/1492525
  • [19] Linquan Ma and Thomas Polstra “FF-singularities: a commutative algebra approach” In preprint, 2025 URL: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ma326/F-singularitiesBook.pdf
  • [20] Linquan Ma and Pham Quy “Frobenius actions on local cohomology modules and deformation” In Nagoya Math. J. 232, 2018, pp. 55–75 DOI: 10.1017/nmj.2017.20
  • [21] V.. Mehta and V. Srinivas “A characterization of rational singularities” In Asian J. Math. 1.2, 1997, pp. 249–271 DOI: 10.4310/AJM.1997.v1.n2.a4
  • [22] Zsolt Patakfalvi, Karl Schwede and Wenliang Zhang “FF-singularities in families” In Algebr. Geom. 5.3, 2018, pp. 264–327 DOI: 10.14231/AG-2018-009
  • [23] Eamon Quinlan-Gallego, Austyn Simpson and Anurag. Singh “Flat morphisms with regular fibers do not preserve FF-rationality” In Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 40.5, 2024, pp. 1989–2001 DOI: 10.4171/rmi/1497
  • [24] Pham Quy and Kazuma Shimomoto “FF-injectivity and Frobenius closure of ideals in Noetherian rings of characteristic p>0p>0” In Adv. Math. 313, 2017, pp. 127–166 DOI: 10.1016/j.aim.2017.04.002
  • [25] Karl Schwede and Wenliang Zhang “Bertini theorems for FF-singularities” In Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 107.4, 2013, pp. 851–874 DOI: 10.1112/plms/pdt007
  • [26] Karen. Smith “FF-rational rings have rational singularities” In Amer. J. Math. 119.1, 1997, pp. 159–180 DOI: 10.1353/ajm.1997.0007
  • [27] Axel Stäbler “VV-filtrations in positive characteristic and test modules” In Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368.11, 2016, pp. 7777–7808 DOI: 10.1090/tran/6632
  • [28] The Stacks project authors “The Stacks project”, https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2025
  • [29] Alessandro Stefani, Thomas Polstra and Austyn Simpson “Bertini’s theorem for FF-rational FF-pure singularities”, 2025 arXiv:2509.04433 [math.AG]