The search session has expired. Please query the service again.

The search session has expired. Please query the service again.

Displaying similar documents to “Face numbers and nongeneric initial ideals.”

Moment-angle complexes from simplicial posets

Zhi Lü, Taras Panov (2011)

Open Mathematics

Similarity:

We extend the construction of moment-angle complexes to simplicial posets by associating a certain T m-space Z S to an arbitrary simplicial poset S on m vertices. Face rings ℤ[S] of simplicial posets generalise those of simplicial complexes, and give rise to new classes of Gorenstein and Cohen-Macaulay rings. Our primary motivation is to study the face rings ℤ[S] by topological methods. The space Z S has many important topological properties of the original moment-angle complex Z K associated...

Quaternionic geometry of matroids

Tamás Hausel (2005)

Open Mathematics

Similarity:

Building on a recent paper [8], here we argue that the combinatorics of matroids are intimately related to the geometry and topology of toric hyperkähler varieties. We show that just like toric varieties occupy a central role in Stanley’s proof for the necessity of McMullen’s conjecture (or g-inequalities) about the classification of face vectors of simplicial polytopes, the topology of toric hyperkähler varieties leads to new restrictions on face vectors of matroid complexes. Namely...

Macaulay posets.

Bezrukov, Sergei L., Leck, Uwe (2004)

The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics [electronic only]

Similarity:

Stanley depth of monomial ideals with small number of generators

Mircea Cimpoeaş (2009)

Open Mathematics

Similarity:

For a monomial ideal I ⊂ S = K[x 1...,x n], we show that sdepth(S/I) ≥ n − g(I), where g(I) is the number of the minimal monomial generators of I. If I =νI′, where ν ∈ S is a monomial, then we see that sdepth(S/I) = sdepth(S/I′). We prove that if I is a monomial ideal I ⊂ S minimally generated by three monomials, then I and S/I satisfy the Stanley conjecture. Given a saturated monomial ideal I ⊂ K[x 1,x 2,x 3] we show that sdepth(I) = 2. As a consequence, sdepth(I) ≥ sdepth(K[x 1,x 2,x...