text:
# Breather lattice and its stabilization for the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation

## I Introduction

There are many physical systems where the $`1+1`$ MKdV equation  appears, e.g. phonons in anharmonic lattices , ion acoustic solitons  and van Alfvén waves in collisionless plasma , Schottky barrier transmission lines  as well as in the models of traffic congestion . A subclass of hyperbolic surfaces , slag-metallic bath interfaces , curve motion , meandering ocean jets  and other models in fluid mechanics  are also related to the MKdV equation. Furthermore, it has been shown that the dynamics of thin elastic rods can also be reduced to the MKdV equation . This equation is also of special interest due to its integrability in the context of nonlinear soliton bearing systems . From a physical perspective it is therefore important to examine novel classes of solutions of such partial differential equations and their potential relevance in this diverse class of applications.

A particularly interesting type of solution is the so called breather lattice solution. Breathers are spatially localized and temporally periodic solutions which are of significant relevance to localization type phenomena in optics, condensed matter physics and biophysics. For a representative set of reviews of the continuously increasing volume of work in this area, see e.g. . As can be seen in these investigations, typically analytical expressions for breather type solutions are unavailable and such solutions have to be traced by means of numerical methods. However, in some cases and particularly for integrable models, such solutions may exist in closed form. One such example is the breather lattice solution of the sine-Gordon equation which was presented in explicit analytic form in . Such a solution, albeit unstable, is very important because it can be stabilized in more realistic contexts of driving and damping. In addition, it is useful in extracting the asymptotic breather-breather (exponential) interaction by means of energy methods as demonstrated in .

It is naturally worthwhile to enquire whether similar extended pattern solutions are available in closed form in other models. Of particular interest are models of the MKdV (and KdV) variety not only due to an abundance of the corresponding applications but also due to the fundamental differences of such integrable models with nonlinear Klein-Gordon equations, such as sine-Gordon. The latter have Lorentz invariance that permits the breathers to be either standing or travelling. In the former case such invariances are absent and breathers can only be sustained in a travelling wave form. Furthermore, the dissipation type effects are introduced by very different operators in the two cases. Thus, for reasons of physical applicability and mathematical tractability, it is very important to identify similar solutions of the breather lattice type in models of the KdV family such as the MKdV and examine their stability. This is the main objective of the present work.

Our presentation is structured as follows. In Sec. II we present the explicit MKdV breather lattice solution in terms of elliptic functions, retrieve the well known single breather limit and analyze the algebraic and physical conditions for the existence of such a solution. In Sec. III we numerically study the stability of the unperturbed MKdV breather lattice and display its instability. In Sec. IV, we demonstrate that such a solution can be stabilized by viscous effects when combined with appropriate driving to sustain the breathers and finally in Sec. V we summarize our findings and present our conclusions.

## II Breather lattice solution

The modified Korteweg-de Vries equation for a field $`u(x,t)`$

$$u_t+6u^2u_x+u_{xxx}=0,$$
$`(1)`$
can be transformed into

$$(1+\varphi ^2)(\varphi _t+\varphi _{xxx})+6\varphi _x(\varphi _x^2\varphi \varphi _{xx})=0,$$
$`(2)`$
where

$$u=v_x,\varphi =\mathrm{tan}(v/2),andv0as|x|\mathrm{}.$$
$`(3)`$
The single breather solution of MKdV is known to be

$$u(x,t)=2\frac{}{x}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{c\mathrm{sin}(ax+bt+a_0)}{a\mathrm{cosh}(cx+dt+c_0)}\right),$$
$`(4)`$
with

$$b=a(a^23c^2),d=c(3a^2c^2),$$
$`(5)`$
and $`a_0`$, $`c_0`$ are arbitrary constants.

Let us now try to obtain the breather lattice solution of the MKdV equation. To that end, we start with the ansatz

$$u(x,t)=2\frac{}{x}\mathrm{tan}^1\varphi (x,t),$$
$`(6)`$
with

$$\varphi (x,t)=\alpha sn(ax+bt+a_0,k)dn(cx+dt+c_0,m),$$
$`(7)`$
where $`sn(x,k)`$ and $`dn(x,m)`$ are Jacobi elliptic functions with modulus $`k`$ and $`m`$, respectively. This ansatz is inspired by the derivative relationship between a single breather solution of the sine-Gordon equation and that of MKdV \[Eq. (4)\] as well as by the functional similarity of the sine-Gordon breather lattice solution . Substituting the ansatz (7) in Eq. (2) and upon lengthy algebraic manipulations, we find that Eq. (7) is indeed the MKdV breather lattice solution, provided that

$$a^4k=c^4(1m),\alpha =\frac{c}{a},$$
$`(8)`$
$$b=a[a^2(1+k)3c^2(2m)],d=c[3a^2(1+k)(2m)c^2].$$
$`(9)`$
As expected, in the limit $`m1,k0`$, the breather lattice solution (7) reduces to the single breather solution (4) and the relations between $`c`$ and $`d`$ as well as between $`a`$ and $`b`$ reduce to the ones given by Eq. (5).

On physical grounds (i.e., to have solutions with a definite spatial periodicity), it is natural to demand that the periods of the $`sn(x,k)`$ and $`dn(x,m)`$ functions must be spatially commensurate, i.e., in addition to conditions (8) and (9), we must also demand that

$$4K(k)/a=2K(m)/c,$$
$`(10)`$
where K(k) is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. Note, however, that since the MKdV breather is always moving, it need not have temporal commensurability. Combining conditions (8) and (10) yields

$$16kK^4(k)=(1m)K^4(m),$$
$`(11)`$
implying thereby that $`m`$ and $`k`$ are not independent. For example, note that as expected with $`m1`$, $`k0`$ the breather lattice solution reduces to the single breather solution (4). However, as $`m0`$, $`dn(x,m)=1`$ and then it is easily shown that an exact (nonlinear) travelling wave solution is given by

$$\varphi (x,t)=\sqrt{k}sn(ax+a^3t[1+k6\sqrt{k}]+a_0,k).$$
$`(12)`$
Summarizing, since there are four relations among the six parameters $`a,b,c,d,k,m`$, we have obtained a two-parameter family of breather lattice solutions. A plot of the (exact) breather lattice of Eq. (6) for $`m=0.5`$, $`c=1`$ is given in the top left panel of Fig. 1.

## III Numerical methods and evolution of the breather lattice

Based on the breather lattice simulations for the sine-Gordon case  it may be natural to expect that the MKdV breather lattice configuration is also unstable. In the numerical simulation of the MKdV problem, we have found that the direct center-difference discretization does a poor job in adequately following the MKdV equation (and in conserving the corresponding integrals of motion). While one can also use the integrable scheme of Ablowitz-Ladik (see e.g.,  and references therein), we have followed a different path here in spatially discretizing the partial differential equation and following the integrable discretization scheme of  for KdV and adapting it to the case of the MKdV. In particular, the spatially discrete version of our equation reads (with lattice spacing $`h`$):

$$\dot{u}_n=\frac{1}{2h^3}\left(u_{n+2}2u_{n+1}+2u_{n1}u_{n2}\right)\frac{1}{3h}\left[u_{n+1}^2\left(u_{n+2}+u_{n+1}+u_n\right)u_{n1}^2\left(u_n+u_{n1}+u_{n2}\right)\right].$$
$`(13)`$
The time integration has been performed by means of a 4th order Runge-Kutta scheme. We used periodic boundary conditions and the initial condition contained an exact breather lattice configuration, matching the periodicity of the finite domain. Hence, the only perturbation to the exact solution came from the numerical discretization of the problem. It should also be noted that in the results mentioned below, the accuracy of the numerical method was monitored by probing the conservation of two quantities, $`_nu_n`$ and $`_nu_n^2`$, which emulate the discrete analogs of the mass and the momentum, respectively. Typically the former is conserved (at worst) to 1 part in $`10^7`$, while the latter to 1 part in $`10^3`$.

We found that, as can be seen in the top right panel of Fig. 1, the numerical discretization perturbation grows and eventually destroys the breather lattice configuration in all the cases considered. Various snapshots of the solution $`u(x,t)`$ are depicted in the bottom panel of Fig. 1.

To further understand the instability, we performed runs for different values of the two relevant parameters of the solution, namely $`c`$ and $`m`$. Three typical cases are shown in Fig. 2. The particular numerical experiments are chosen to illustrate the characteristic dependences of the instability. We expect from the experience of other nonlinear wave equations with interacting breather structure (see e.g.,  for sine-Gordon and  for nonlinear Schrödinger type models) that the instability is caused by the interaction between the breathers, which is exponential in their separation. From Eq. (10), the separation between the breathers is given by $`S=2K(m)/c`$. The top panels of Fig. 2 correspond to two cases with different $`c`$ and $`m`$ but with the same $`SS_0`$. Clearly the instability develops at very similar times and verifies the dependence of the growth rate on the inter-breather separation $`S_0`$. The bottom panel shows a case with $`S=2S_0`$. Notice that these typical results have been verified by additional numerical experiments. Furthermore, the ratio of the breather separations in the cases of the top right panel of Fig. 1, top panels of Fig. 2 and the bottom panel of Fig. 2 is 1:2:4 while the corresponding (approximate) instability onset times have a ratio of 2.5:16:150, clearly hinting an exponential dependence of the instability onset on $`S`$.

## IV Stabilization

While the results of the previous section indicate that very long-lived breather lattice configurations can be achieved by appropriate parameter selection, it is natural to enquire whether by mechanisms of ac driving and damping it is possible to fully stabilize such configurations. We have thus examined the following driven-damped MKdV equation

$$u_t+u_{xxx}+6u^2u_x=\beta u_{xx}+F_0\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{K(m)}(cx+\omega t)\right),$$
$`(14)`$
where the “viscosity” coefficient was fixed to $`\beta =5`$ while $`F_0`$ was varied. Notice that the periodicity of the driver was chosen to match one of the unperturbed breather lattice configurations. For small values of $`F_0`$, the viscosity damps the breather amplitude. However, for sufficiently large driving amplitudes (such as the one used in Fig. 3) the driver can lead to the stabilization of an asymmetric lattice configuration. We also note that the ac drive was motivated by earlier studies, e.g.  (and the references therein). In addition, we point out that lattice configurations propagating in the opposite direction can be stabilized if the velocity of the driver is reversed (results not shown here).

We note that the value of the viscosity coefficient $`\beta =5`$ and the amplitude of the driver $`F_0=5`$ used in Fig. 3 to stabilize the breather lattice are relatively large. In this sense the stabilized (numerical) breather lattice in Fig. 3 is different from the exact solution of the MKdV equation given in Eqs. (6) and (7). Thus the physical origin of the stabilized solution may be different from the original solution of the MKdV equation.

We should also remark that variation of the value of $`\beta `$ will not significantly modify the results. I.e., even for much smaller values of $`\beta `$ the multi-breather configuration is destroyed at a finite time and the resulting profile does not closely resemble the initial condition. However, the relaxation time to the final state depends considerably on the exact value of the viscosity coefficient and is longer for smaller $`\beta `$.

## V Conclusion

Inspired by the exact breather lattice solution of the sine-Gordon equation  we used an ansatz to find a corresponding solution of the modified Korteweg-de Vries equation. We determined the conditions under which the ansatz becomes an exact solution of MKdV and showed how it degenerates to the single MKdV breather solution in the appropriate limit. We then used this exact expression to derive additional lattices of nonlinear travelling waves. The MKdV breather lattice is a genuinely propagating solution in constrast to the sine-Gordon solution which can be static. Our numerical experiments (by means of a novel numerical scheme) indicated that the MKdV breather lattice solution is unstable; however, it can be stabilized by inclusion of damping and ac driving. The results presented here may be relevant to numerous physical phenomena such as jamming in traffic flow , fluid dynamics  and collisionless plasmas .

This research is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36 and in part by NSF under DMS-0204585.


format: text

text:
# References

On the local factor of the zeta function of quadratic orders

Masanobu Kaneko

## Abstract

We prove by an elementary method the Riemann hypothesis for the local Euler factor of the zeta function of quadratic orders.

footnotetext: 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 11R42; Secondary 11M38. Key Words and Phrases: zeta function, Riemann hypothesis.

Let $`K`$ be a quadratic number field, $`𝒪_K`$ its ring of integers, and $`𝒪_f`$ for each integer $`f1`$ the order of conductor $`f`$ in $`𝒪_K=𝒪_1`$. As shown in  and , the zeta function $`\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)`$ of $`𝒪_f`$, which is defined by

$$\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)=\underset{𝔞}{}\frac{1}{N(𝔞)^s},$$

where the sum extends over all proper ideals $`𝔞`$ of $`𝒪_f`$ with norm $`N(𝔞)`$, has the following form:

$$\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)=\zeta _K(s)\underset{p|f}{}\frac{(1p^s)(1\chi (p)p^s)p^{n_p12n_ps}(1p^{1s})(\chi (p)p^{1s})}{(1p^{12s})}.$$

Here, $`\zeta _K(s)`$ is the Dedekind zeta function of $`K`$, the product is over the prime factors $`p`$ of the conductor $`f`$, with $`n_p`$ being the exact power of $`p`$ in $`f`$, and $`\chi `$ is the Dirichlet character corresponding to the extension $`K/𝐐`$.

The main purpose of this short note is to provide proofs of the following properties, including the “Riemann hypothesis,” for the local factor

$$\epsilon _{f,p}(s):=\frac{(1p^s)(1\chi (p)p^s)p^{n_p12n_ps}(1p^{1s})(\chi (p)p^{1s})}{(1p^{12s})}$$

of $`\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)/\zeta _K(s)`$:

Theorem. 1)  The function $`\epsilon _{f,p}(s)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`2n_p`$ in $`p^s`$ and satisfies the functional equation

$$\epsilon _{f,p}(1s)=p^{n_p(12s)}\epsilon _{f,p}(s).$$

2)  All the zeros of $`\epsilon _{f,p}(s)`$ lie on the line $`\text{Re}(s)=1/2`$.

Proof. Setting $`u=p^s`$ and $`n=n_p`$, we rewrite $`\epsilon _{f,p}(s)`$ as the function $`P_n(u)`$, given as follows:

$`P_n(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1u)(1\chi (p)u)p^{n1}u^{2n}(1pu)(\chi (p)pu)}{1pu^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1p^{n+1}u^{2(n+1)}(1+\chi (p))u(1p^nu^{2n})+\chi (p)u^2(1p^{n1}u^{2(n1)})}{1pu^2}}.`$
The numerator of this expression vanishes if we set $`u=\pm 1/\sqrt{p}`$ and hence is divisible by the denominator $`1pu^2`$. Thus $`P_n(u)`$ is indeed a polynomial of degree $`2n`$. By direct division, we find

$$P_n(u)=1(1+\chi (p))u+\mathrm{}p^{n1}(1+\chi (p))u^{2n1}+p^nu^{2n}.$$

The functional equation can be verified straightforwardly. This ends the proof of assertion 1).

To prove the Riemann hypothesis 2), put $`s=1/2+it/\mathrm{log}p`$. Then we have $`u=p^{1/2}e^{it}`$ and

$$P_n(u)=\frac{1e^{2(n+1)it}(1+\chi (p))p^{1/2}e^{it}(1e^{2nit})+\chi (p)p^1e^{2it}(1e^{2(n1)it})}{1e^{2it}}.$$

Then, using the relation

$$\frac{1e^{2mit}}{1e^{2it}}=\frac{e^{mit}}{e^{it}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}mt}{\mathrm{sin}t},$$

we obtain

$$P_n(u)=\frac{e^{nit}}{p}\left(p\frac{\mathrm{sin}(n+1)t}{\mathrm{sin}t}\sqrt{p}(1+\chi (p))\frac{\mathrm{sin}nt}{\mathrm{sin}t}\chi (p)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(n1)t}{\mathrm{sin}t}\right).$$

We have to show that if the right-hand side of this is zero then $`t`$ is real. Recall that, for any integer $`m0`$, the quotient $`\mathrm{sin}(m+1)t/\mathrm{sin}t`$ is a polynomial of degree $`m`$ in $`x=\mathrm{cos}t`$, which is referred to as the Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind, denoted by $`U_m(x)`$. The first several of these are as follows:

$$U_0(x)=1,U_1(x)=2x,U_2(x)=4x^21,U_3(x)=8x^34x.$$

Note that the function $`U_m(x)`$ can also be defined for $`m<0`$; in particular, we have $`U_1(x)=0`$ and $`U_2(x)=1`$. Using the $`U_m(x)`$, the proof is reduced to showing that all the roots of the polynomial (of degree $`n`$)

$$Q_n(x):=pU_n(x)\sqrt{p}(1+\chi (p))U_{n1}(x)+\chi (p)U_{n2}(x)(n1)$$

are in the real interval $`[1,1]`$.

Because of the recurrence of the Chebyshev polynomials

$$U_n(x)=2xU_{n1}(x)U_{n2}(x),$$

the polynomials $`Q_n(x)`$ satisfy the same recurrence:

$$Q_n(x)=2xQ_{n1}(x)Q_{n2}(x)(n2),$$

with $`Q_0(x)=p\chi (p)`$. We show that the $`n`$ roots of $`Q_n(x)`$ are all in the interval $`(1,1)`$ by making use of the theorem of Sturm (cf. \[2, §92\]), utilizing the fact that $`Q_n(x),Q_{n1}(x),\mathrm{},Q_0(x)`$ forms a “Strum sequence”. Because $`U_n(1)=n+1`$ and $`U_n(1)=(1)^n(n+1)`$, we have

$`Q_n(1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(n+1)\sqrt{p}(1+\chi (p))n+\chi (p)(n1)`$
$`=`$ $`(\sqrt{p}1)(\sqrt{p}\chi (p))n+p\chi (p)>0`$
and

$`Q_n(1)`$ $`=`$ $`p(1)^n(n+1)\sqrt{p}(1+\chi (p))(1)^{n1}n+\chi (p)(1)^{n2}(n1)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^n\left\{p(n+1)+\sqrt{p}(1+\chi (p))n+\chi (p)(n1)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^n\left\{(\sqrt{p}+1)(\sqrt{p}+\chi (p))n+p\chi (p)\right\}.`$
The sign of the last expression is $`(1)^n`$, and hence the number of “variations,” as defined in \[2, §92\], is $`n`$. Then, noting the theorem of Sturm, we conclude that $`Q_n(x)`$ has $`n`$ roots in the interval $`(1,1)`$. (Note that, since the degree of $`Q_n(x)`$ is $`n`$, condition 4 of \[2, §92\] need not to be verified.)

Remarks and questions. 1) It is amusing that the properties stated in the above theorem are precisely those enjoyed by the congruence zeta function (or, rather, its essential part) of a curve of genus $`n=n_p`$ over the prime field $`𝐅_p`$. This naturally leads us to wonder if $`\epsilon _{f,p}(s)`$ admits a cohomological (or any other “nice”) interpretation and if the above theorem can be proved “conceptually” using such an interpretation.

2) The theorem proved here shows in particular that the quotient $`\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)/\zeta _K(s)`$ is entire and that the Riemann hypothesis holds for $`\zeta _{𝒪_f}(s)`$ only if it holds for $`\zeta _K(s)`$. It is known that for a Galois extension $`k^{}/k`$ of number fields, the quotient of the Dedekind zeta functions $`\zeta _k^{}(s)/\zeta _k(s)`$ is entire. Thus the zeta function of the over field is divisible by that of the base field. On the contrary, in the case considered above, the zeta function of the subring $`𝒪_f`$ is divisible by that of the over ring. What is the reason for this?

3) The generating function of the polynomials $`P_n(x)`$ takes the simple form

$$F(u,X):=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n(u)X^n=\frac{(1uX)(1\chi (p)uX)}{(1X)(1pu^2X)},$$

and the functional equation for $`P_n(u)`$, which is written as

$$p^nu^{2n}P_n(\frac{1}{pu})=P_n(u),$$

is encoded as

$$F(\frac{1}{pu},pu^2X)=F(u,X).$$

4) For another zeta function

$$\zeta _{𝒪_f}^{}(s)=\underset{𝔞}{}\frac{1}{N(𝔞)^s},$$

where $`𝔞`$ runs over all (not necessarily proper) ideals of $`𝒪_f`$, the Euler product is (cf. )

$$\zeta _K(s)\underset{p|f}{}\frac{1p^{(n_p+1)(12s)}\chi (p)p^s(1p^{n_p(12s)})}{1p^{12s}}.$$

It can be shown similarly that the local factor

$$\frac{1p^{(n_p+1)(12s)}\chi (p)p^s(1p^{n_p(12s)})}{1p^{12s}}$$

possesses the same properties as in the theorem.

5) It would be nice to have a generalization of our theorem to the zeta functions of orders of number fields of higher degree.

Acknowledgment. The author is grateful to Christopher Deninger for his interest in the present work, without which this paper would not have been written.

Graduate School of Mathematics, Kyushu University 33,
Fukuoka, 812-8581 JAPAN
mkaneko@math.kyushu-u.ac.jp


text:
# On the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of connected curves

## 0. Introduction

Let $`S=𝕂[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ where $`𝕂`$ is an algebraically closed field, and let $`M`$ be a (graded) module over $`S`$. We say that $`M`$ is $`r`$-regular if the $`i`$-th syzygy module of $`M`$ is generated in degrees less than or equal to $`r+i`$ for all $`i`$. The regularity of $`M`$, denoted $`\mathrm{reg}(M)`$, is defined to be the infimum of all $`r`$’s such that $`M`$ is $`r`$-regular. If $`X`$ is a subscheme of $`_𝕂^n`$ then we define the regularity of $`X`$, denoted $`\mathrm{reg}(X)`$, to be the regularity of the (saturated homogeneous) ideal of $`X`$, $`I_X`$.

In , Eisenbud and Goto conjectured that if $`X`$ is a reduced nondegenerate connected in codimension 1 subscheme of $`_𝕂^n`$ then the regularity of $`X`$ should be no more than the degree of $`X`$ minus the codimension of $`X`$ plus 1. Various weakenings of this conjecture are known to be true in low dimension, (see, for example, , , , , , , ), but the main conjecture is still open. In this paper we prove that this conjecture is true when $`X`$ is a curve.

###### Main Theorem.

Let $`C`$ be a connected reduced curve in $`_𝕂^n`$. Then

(1)
$$\mathrm{reg}(C)\mathrm{deg}(C)\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C))+2$$

In , Gruson, Lazarsfeld, and Peskine proved this result in the case when $`C`$ is assumed to be irreducible. We prove our theorem by using their theorem as a base case and inducting on the number of irreducible components of $`C`$. The main lemma that allows this to work is a result of G. Caviglia .

We also study the connected curves for which the Eisenbud-Goto bound is optimal. In , Gruson, Lazarsfeld, and Peskine gave a complete classification of such curves in the irreducible case. They proved that, except for a few low degree exceptions, all such curves are smooth, rational, and have a secant line of degree equal to the regularity of the curve. The existence of such a secant guarantees that the ideal of the curve will require a generator of degree equal to the regularity of the curve, so, at least for these curves, the regularity has to appear at the first step in a resolution for the ideal.

In the connected case, it turns out that there are curves of maximal regularity which have arbitrarily high degree in $`_𝕂^n`$, $`n4`$ and which do not have such a secant. A picture of such a curve of degree 9 in $`_𝕂^4`$ follows. (The labels of the various parts of the picture will be explained in section 3.)

The ideal of this curve, however, requires a generator of degree equal to the regularity, and we are still unsure as to whether the ideal of any curve of maximal regularity, except for a few low degree exceptions, requires a generator of degree equal to the regularity of the curve.

In the final section we prove some structure theorems about connected curves of maximal regularity. The first result that we prove here is that the irreducible components of such a curve have to be fairly well spaced apart. To be precise, if $`C`$ is a connected curve that is the union of two connected curves $`D`$ and $`E`$ having no common components then we are able to show that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(D)\mathrm{Span}(E))2`$. Using this fact, we split our analysis of these curves into three cases depending on whether $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(D)\mathrm{Span}(E))`$ equals 0, 1, or 2. As a result of this analysis we are able to prove that any connected curve of maximal regularity in $`_𝕂^3`$ of degree $`5`$ having no linear components has an extremal secant. We are also able to show that any connected subcurve of a connected curve of maximal regularity is either a line or has maximal regularity.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank his advisor, David Eisenbud, for suggesting he work on this problem, as well as for many useful conversations without which this paper would not be here today.

## 1. Notation

Throughout this paper we follow the following conventions:

* $`𝕂`$ is an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic.
* $`S=𝕂[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, $`𝔪=(x_0,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, and $`_𝕂^n=\mathrm{Proj}(S)`$.
* All ideals and modules over $`S`$ are assumed to be graded.
* By a *curve* we mean a reduced one-dimensional scheme embedded in $`_𝕂^n`$ for some $`n`$.

## 2. Proof of the Main Theorem

To prove the main theorem, we take any reducible connected curve and write it as the union of two nonempty connected curves, $`C`$ and $`D`$, which meet each other in a finite set of points. By induction on the number of irreducible components in the curves, we may assume that $`C`$ and $`D`$ satisfy the inequality (1), so we need only show that this implies that $`CD`$ does. We will break the proof that $`CD`$ satisfies (1) into three cases depending on the dimension of $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. The following theorem of G. Caviglia allows us to bound the regularities of certain sums and intersections of ideals:

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`I`$, $`JS`$ be ideals and assume that $`\mathrm{dim}(S/(I+J))1`$. Then $`\mathrm{reg}(I+J)\mathrm{reg}(I)+\mathrm{reg}(J)1`$, and $`\mathrm{reg}(IJ)\mathrm{reg}(I)+\mathrm{reg}(J)`$.

###### Proof.

See . ∎

In order to simplify some of the statements that follow, we define $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$ to be $`\mathrm{deg}(C)\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C))+2`$ for any curve $`C`$. With this definition the inequality (1) of the Main Theorem becomes

(2)
$$\mathrm{reg}(C)\mathrm{\Xi }(C).$$

The above theorem tells us, among other things, how the regularity of a union of two curves depends on the regularity of each of the component curves. The following lemma, whose proof we leave to the reader, does the same thing for $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be curves with no common component. Then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)+\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))2`$ where we take the dimension of the empty scheme to be $`1`$.

Combining Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 we obtain the following corollary, which completes the proof of the inequality (2) for $`CD`$ assuming that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))2`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be curves with no common component, both satisfying (2). Suppose that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))2`$. Then $`CD`$ satisfies (2).

The second case we deal with is the case when $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$. To do this we need the following lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be finite subschemes of $`_𝕂^n`$. Then $`\mathrm{deg}(XY)=\mathrm{deg}(X)+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(XY)`$.

###### Proof.

There is an exact sequence

$$0S_{XY}S_XS_YS/(I_X+I_Y)0.$$

The result follows as $`S/(I_X+I_Y)`$ is isomorphic to $`S_{XY}`$ in high degrees. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

If $`C`$ is a curve satisfying (2) then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)2`$.

###### Proof.

If $`C`$ is a line, then

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=\mathrm{deg}(C)\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C))+2=11+2=2.$$

If $`C`$ is not a line, then

$$2\mathrm{reg}(C)\mathrm{\Xi }(C).\mathit{}$$

###### Definition 2.6.

We define the *saturation degree*, denoted $`\mathrm{sat}(I)`$, of an ideal $`IS`$ to be $`\mathrm{reg}(I^{sat}/I)+1`$. Equivalently it is the infimum of all $`d`$ for which $`I_e=I_e^{sat}`$ for all $`ed`$.

Notice that for any ideal $`IS`$,

(3)
$$\mathrm{reg}(I)=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(I^{sat}),\mathrm{sat}(I)\}.$$

This follows from the long exact sequence in local cohomology coming from the short exact sequence

$$0II^{sat}I^{sat}/I0$$

after observing that $`\mathrm{H}_𝔪^0(I^{sat})=\mathrm{H}_𝔪^1(I^{sat})=\mathrm{H}_𝔪^i(I^{sat}/I)=0`$ for all $`i1`$. Also notice that if $`I`$ and $`J`$ are ideals of $`S`$ then

(4)
$$\mathrm{sat}(IJ)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{sat}(I),\mathrm{sat}(J)\}$$

as $`(IJ)^{sat}=I^{sat}J^{sat}`$.

We can now prove the following proposition which completes the proof of the inequality (2) for $`CD`$ assuming that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting curves with no common component both satisfying (2). Suppose that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$. Then $`CD`$ satisfies (2).

###### Proof.

Let $`L_1=\mathrm{Span}(C)`$, $`L_2=\mathrm{Span}(D)`$, and $`L=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. We separate the argument into two cases:

Case a: $`L`$ is not a component of either $`C`$ or $`D`$.

Let $`J_1=I_C+I_L`$ and $`J_2=I_D+I_L`$. Notice that

$$J_1+J_2=I_C+I_D+I_L=(I_C+I_{L_1})+(I_D+I_{L_2})=I_C+I_D$$

as $`I_{L_1}I_C`$ and $`I_{L_2}I_D`$. Therefore, from the exact sequence

$$0J_1J_2J_1J_2J_1+J_2=I_C+I_D0$$

we deduce that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)1,\mathrm{reg}(J_1),\mathrm{reg}(J_2)\}.$$

By equation (3) and inequality (4),

$$\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat}),\mathrm{reg}(J_1),\mathrm{reg}(J_2)\}.$$

By Theorem 2.1,

$`\mathrm{reg}(J_1)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(C)`$
$`\mathrm{reg}(J_2)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(D).`$
Therefore,

(5)
$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat})1,\mathrm{reg}(C),\mathrm{reg}(D)\}.$$

The ideal of $`(CL)(DL)`$ is $`(J_1J_2)^{sat}`$. Since a finite scheme on a line has regularity equal to its degree,

$$\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat})=\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL)).$$

By Lemma 2.4,

$$\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL))\mathrm{deg}(CL)+\mathrm{deg}(DL)\mathrm{deg}(CDL).$$

Since $`C`$ and $`D`$ are assumed to intersect, and must do so in $`L`$,

$$\mathrm{deg}(CDL)1.$$

Since a scheme cannot have a secant of higher degree than its regularity,

$`\mathrm{deg}(CL)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(C)`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(DL)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(D).`$
Therefore,

$$\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat})\mathrm{reg}(C)+\mathrm{reg}(D)1.$$

Combining this with equation (5) it follows that

(6)
$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{reg}(C)+\mathrm{reg}(D)2.$$

From equation (6) and the exact sequence

$$0I_{CD}I_CI_DI_C+I_D0$$

it follows that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{reg}(C)+\mathrm{reg}(D)1.$$

Because $`C`$ and $`D`$ both satisfy (2),

$$\mathrm{reg}(C)+\mathrm{reg}(D)1\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)$$

by Lemma 2.2. Therefore $`CD`$ satisfies (2).

Case b: $`L`$ is a component of one of $`C`$ or $`D`$.

Without loss of generality, we assume that $`L`$ is a component of $`C`$. In this case $`I_CI_L`$ and therefore

$$I_C+I_D=I_L+I_D$$

as $`I_LI_C+I_D`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)=\mathrm{reg}(I_L+I_D)\mathrm{reg}(D)$$

by Theorem 2.1. From this and the exact sequence

$$0I_{CD}I_CI_DI_C+I_D0$$

we deduce that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(C),\mathrm{reg}(D)+1\}.$$

Because $`C`$ and $`D`$ both satisfy (2), this implies that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D)+1\}.$$

We conclude that $`CD`$ satisfies (2) by Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.2. ∎

The final case we need to deal with to complete the proof of the main theorem is the case when $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=0`$. (Notice that we cannot have $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$ as $`C`$ and $`D`$ must intersect.) We do this in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting curves with no common component both satisfying (2). Suppose that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=0`$. Then $`CD`$ satisfies (2).

###### Proof.

Let $`L_1=\mathrm{Span}(C)`$, $`L_2=\mathrm{Span}(D)`$, and $`P=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. As in case a of Proposition 2.7,

$$I_P=I_{L_1}+I_{L_2}I_C+I_DI_{CD}.$$

However, $`CD`$ is nonempty, so its ideal cannot strictly contain a prime of dimension 1. Therefore $`I_P=I_C+I_D`$. From the exact sequence

$$0I_{CD}I_CI_DI_C+I_D=I_P0$$

we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(C),\mathrm{reg}(D),2\}.$$

Because $`C`$ and $`D`$ both satisfy (2), this implies that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D),2\}.$$

We conclude that $`CD`$ satisfies (2) by Lemma 2.5 and Lemma 2.2. ∎

## 3. Curves of Maximal Regularity: Introduction and Examples

In this section we partially classify those curves for which the Eisenbud-Goto bound is optimal. Such a curve is said to have *maximal regularity*. The irreducible case is handled by Theorems 2.1 and 3.1 of . Their result is stated in terms of extremal secant lines which we define here.

###### Definition 3.1.

A linear subspace $`L_𝕂^n`$ is said to be an *extremal secant* of a curve $`C_𝕂^n`$ if $`CL`$ is finite and $`\mathrm{reg}(CL)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$.

By Corollary 3.10 of , if a connected curve $`C`$ has an extremal secant of dimension $`i`$ then $`S/I_C`$ has a minimal $`i`$-th syzygy of degree $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+i`$. Hence, only curves of maximal regularity can have extremal secants. What Gruson, Lazarsfeld, and Peskine showed is that essentially all irreducible curves of maximal regularity have extremal secant lines, and it follows from their classification that all irreducible curves of maximal regularity have extremal secant hyperplanes.

We will prove that all connected curves which either have an extremal secant line or satisfy $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=3`$ have maximal regularity, but, unlike in the irreducible case, we will show how to construct connected curves of maximal regularity in $`_𝕂^n`$ with no extremal secant line for any value of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)4`$ and any $`n4`$. It would be interesting to know whether any such curves exist in $`_𝕂^3`$. As we will see below, the construction we give necessitates $`n4`$.

We have already shown that if a connected curve $`C`$ has an extremal secant line then it has maximal regularity. We prove in Proposition 3.3 that all connected curves of regularity at most 2 have $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$, so a connected curve with $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=3`$ must have regularity at least 3 hence exactly 3. Before proving this we need to define the following term which is used in the statement of the proposition.

###### Definition 3.2.

We inductively define a *linearly normal tree of rational curves*, shortened to *tree* in the sequel. A linearly normal tree of rational curves with one component is defined to be a rational normal curve. A linearly normal tree of rational curves with $`k`$ components, $`k2`$, is defined to be a curve $`C`$ in $`_𝕂^n`$ such that $`C=C_0D`$ where $`C_0`$ is a linearly normal tree of rational curves with $`k1`$ components, $`D`$ is a rational normal curve and $`CD=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$ is a single point.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`C`$ be a connected curve in $`_𝕂^n`$. Then the following statements are equivalent:

* (i) $`C`$ is a tree.
* (ii) $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$.
* (iii) $`\mathrm{reg}(C)2`$.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of conditions (i) and (ii) follows directly from Xambó’s classification of connected in codimension 1 algebraic sets of minimal degree in . The fact that (ii) implies (iii) follows directly from the main theorem, so we need only prove that (iii) implies (ii).

If $`\mathrm{reg}(C)=1`$ then $`C`$ is a line which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$, so assume that $`\mathrm{reg}(C)=2`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`C`$ is nondegenerate in $`_𝕂^n`$. (Otherwise replace $`_𝕂^n`$ with $`\mathrm{Span}(C)`$.) From the exact sequence

$$0_C𝒪_{_𝕂^n}𝒪_C0$$

we see that the map on global sections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_{_𝕂^n}(n))\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_C(n))`$ is surjective for all $`n1`$. Since $`C`$ is connected it is surjective when $`n=0`$. Therefore $`C`$ is projectively normal which implies $`C`$ is ACM as $`C`$ is a curve. Therefore, if $`Z=HC`$ is a generic hyperplane section then

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_{Z/H})=\mathrm{reg}(I_Z)=\mathrm{reg}(I_C)=2.$$

From the exact sequence

$$0_{Z/H}𝒪_H𝒪_Z0$$

we see that the map on global sections

$$𝕂^{n1+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_H(1))\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒪_Z(1))𝕂^{\mathrm{deg}(Z)}=𝕂^{\mathrm{deg}(C)}$$

is surjective. Therefore $`n\mathrm{deg}(C)`$. Since $`C`$ is nondegenerate, $`\mathrm{deg}(C)n`$ by Lemma 2.5. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`C`$ be a connected curve in $`_𝕂^n`$. If $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=3`$ then $`C`$ is a curve of maximal regularity.

We now construct examples of connected curves of maximal regularity with no extremal secant lines. By Proposition 4.2, an example in $`_𝕂^4`$ gives rise to examples in $`_𝕂^n`$ for all $`n4`$. Therefore we shall give the construction in $`_𝕂^4`$. In fact, for the curves we construct in $`_𝕂^4`$ we will even show that they have no higher dimensional extremal secants as well.

###### Construction.

Let $`m4`$. Pick three 2-planes $`L`$, $`M`$, and $`N`$ such that $`M`$ and $`N`$ meet $`L`$ in lines, but meet each other in a single point. Pick a line $`K`$ in $`L`$ meeting $`M`$ and $`N`$ in distinct points $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Pick a conic $`F`$ in $`M`$ which meets $`L`$ in a double point whose reduced structure is contained in $`K`$ and a conic $`G`$ in $`N`$ which meets $`L`$ in a double point whose reduced structure lies in $`K`$. Pick a curve $`E`$ in $`L`$ of degree $`m3`$ not meeting either $`P`$ or $`Q`$ and not containing $`K`$. Set $`C=EFGK`$. (See the introduction for an example with $`m=7`$.)

The span of $`C`$ is all of $`_𝕂^4`$ so the regularity of $`C`$ is at most $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=m3+54+2=m`$ as $`\mathrm{deg}(C)=m3+5`$. We will show that $`I_C`$ requires a generator of degree at least $`m`$, hence has regularity at least $`m`$, and so exactly $`m`$.

To prove this it suffices to show that any form $`fI_C`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(f)m1`$ vanishes on the divisor $`2KL`$. Under the map $`𝕂[x_0,\mathrm{},x_4]𝕂[y_0,y_1,y_2]`$ defining the embedding of $`L`$ in $`_𝕂^4`$, $`f`$ must map to an element, which we also call $`f`$, of $`I_{CL/L}`$. Let $`g`$ be the generator of $`I_{E/L}`$. Then since $`ECL`$, we must have that $`g|f`$. Let $`h=f/g`$. Let $`D=FGK`$. We can see that $`hI_{DL/L}`$ as it still must vanish on $`K`$ and $`f`$ and $`h`$ differ only by a unit locally at $`P`$ and $`Q`$. We can also see that $`h`$ is either zero or has degree at most $`2`$. In either case it must be a multiple of $`k^2`$ where $`k`$ is the linear form defining $`K`$ as this is the only nonzero element of degree at most 2 in $`I_{DL/L}`$ up to scalar multiples. Therefore $`f`$ must vanish on $`2KL`$.

We must now prove that $`C`$ does not have an $`m`$-secant line. To do this, let $`H`$ be any line in $`_𝕂^4`$ not contained in $`C`$. Suppose that $`H`$ does not lie in $`LMN`$. Then it can meet $`LMN`$ in a scheme of length at most 3, hence it can be at most a 3-secant to $`C`$. Since $`m4`$, such an $`H`$ is not an extremal secant to $`C`$. Suppose that $`H`$ lies in $`M`$ but not in $`L`$. Then it can meet $`LC`$ in a scheme of length at most 3, hence it can be at most a 3-secant to $`C`$. Again this implies that such an $`H`$ is not an extremal secant to $`C`$. By symmetry the same applies to any line which lies in $`N`$ but not $`L`$, so suppose that $`H`$ lies in $`L`$. Suppose that $`H`$ does not meet either $`P`$ or $`Q`$. Then $`HC=H(KE)`$ so $`H`$ is an $`m2`$-secant to $`C`$. Again, such an $`H`$ is not an extremal secant to $`C`$, so suppose that $`H`$ passes through either $`P`$ or $`Q`$. It cannot pass through both $`P`$ and $`Q`$ as then it would be equal to $`K`$, so it passes through exactly one of them which we may assume by symmetry is $`P`$. Since $`CL`$ has, locally at $`P`$, the structure of a line union a double point not in that line, $`HC`$ has degree 2 locally at $`P`$. Elsewhere, $`H`$ meets $`C`$ only in $`E`$. It must meet $`E`$ exactly $`m3`$ times, so $`H`$ is an $`m1`$ secant to $`C`$. Again, such an $`H`$ is not an extremal secant to $`C`$, so $`C`$ has no extremal secant lines.

We now show that $`C`$ does not have an extremal secant 2-plane. Suppose, to the contrary, that $`H`$ is such an extremal secant 2-plane. By Lemma 4.6, the degree of $`CH`$ is at most $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=m4`$, Lemma 4.7 implies that there must be some line $`M`$ in $`H`$ such that $`M(CH)`$ has degree $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$. But such an $`M`$ would be an extremal secant line to $`C`$ which we have already shown does not exist. Therefore $`C`$ does not have an extremal secant 2-plane.

Finally we need to show that $`C`$ does not have an extremal secant hyperplane. To do this we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`X`$ be a finite subscheme of $`_𝕂^3`$ lying in a plane $`O`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(X)2`$. Let $`Y`$ be a finite subscheme of $`_𝕂^3`$ of degree 2 which does not meet $`O`$. Then $`\mathrm{reg}(XY)\mathrm{reg}(X)`$.

###### Proof.

The result follows from the exact sequence

$$0I_{XY}I_XI_YI_X+I_Y0$$

after observing that $`I_X+I_Y`$ is either $`𝔪`$ or $`x_0^2,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ under a suitable choice of coordinates. ∎

Suppose that $`C`$ has an extremal secant hyperplane $`H`$. If $`H`$ passed through both $`P`$ and $`Q`$, it would contain $`K`$, which cannot happen as $`HC`$ is finite. By symmetry we may assume it does not contain $`Q`$. In this case,

$$HC=(H(EFK))(HG).$$

Applying Lemma 3.5 with $`X=H(EFK)`$ and $`Y=HG`$, we see that $`H\mathrm{Span}(EFK)`$ is an extremal secant 2-plane to $`C`$. Since we have already shown that these don’t exist, we have a contradiction. Therefore $`C`$ has no extremal secants. ∎

## 4. Curves of Maximal Regularity: Structure Theorems

Despite the example above, it turns out that many connected curves of maximal regularity do have an extremal secant line. One way one might try to show this is by breaking a connected curve into smaller connected components and seeing how they can fit together. The following corollary, which follows from Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.2, says, in essence, that these components have to be fairly well separated.

###### Corollary 4.1.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`CD`$ has maximal regularity. Then $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))2`$.

This corollary allows us to split our analysis of connected curves of maximal regularity into three major cases depending on $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))`$ where $`CD`$ is the curve we are analyzing. In case $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=0`$, we have a complete classification which is the content of the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=0`$, and assume, without loss of generality, that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$. Then $`CD`$ has maximal regularity if and only if $`C`$ is a tree of rational normal curves and $`D`$ is either a line or has maximal regularity. Moreover, $`CD`$ has an extremal secant line if and only if $`D`$ is either a line or has an extremal secant line.

###### Proof.

Inspecting the proof of Proposition 2.8, if $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)3`$, then we see that there is equality throughout the chain of inequalities we proved if and only if $`\mathrm{reg}(D)=\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$. If $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)=2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)=2`$, so by Proposition 3.3 it follows that $`CD`$ has maximal regularity and $`D`$ is either a line or has maximal regularity. In either of these cases it follows from Proposition 3.3 that $`C`$ is a tree. Therefore $`C`$ is a tree and $`D`$ is either a line or has maximal regularity.

If $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)=2`$, then, by the above, $`CD`$ is a tree distinct from a line hence it has an extremal secant line. Also, $`D`$ is either a line or has an extremal secant line. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)3`$. If $`D`$ has an extremal secant line, then that same line is an extremal secant for $`CD`$ as $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$. Suppose that $`CD`$ has an extremal secant line $`L`$. If $`L`$ did not lie in either $`\mathrm{Span}(C)`$ or $`\mathrm{Span}(D)`$, then $`L`$ can intersect $`CD`$ in at most a scheme of length 2, so $`L`$ must lie in one of $`\mathrm{Span}(C)`$ or $`\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. Notice that

$`(CD)`$ $`\mathrm{Span}(C)=C`$
$`(CD)`$ $`\mathrm{Span}(D)=D`$
so if $`L`$ lay in $`\mathrm{Span}(C)`$ it would intersect $`CD`$ in a scheme of length at most 2. Therefore $`L`$ must lie in $`\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. It follows that

$$L(CD)=LD$$

and $`L`$ is an extremal secant for $`D`$. ∎

I like to think of this proposition as saying that one can add or remove “feelers” to or from a connected curve without changing whether it is a curve of maximal regularity where, by “feelers”, I mean trees whose spans intersect the span of the rest of the curve in a single point. Notice that this allows us to take the example constructed above and push it into any $`_𝕂^n`$, $`n4`$ by adding these “feelers” to it.

Next suppose $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$. This case splits naturally into two subcases depending on whether the line that is the intersection of the spans is contained in $`CD`$ or not. We (partially) deal with the second case in the next proposition.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$. Let $`L=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$, and assume that $`LCD`$. If neither $`C`$ nor $`D`$ is a tree, then $`CD`$ has maximal regularity if and only if $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`CD`$. Moreover, in this case $`C`$ and $`D`$ meet in a single point and $`L`$ is an extremal secant to both $`C`$ and $`D`$.

###### Proof.

If $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`CD`$, then $`CD`$ is a curve of maximal regularity. So we need only prove the opposite direction.

Assume that $`\mathrm{reg}(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$. We use the notation from case a of Proposition 2.7. Looking at the end of the proof of that theorem we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1$$

implies that

$$\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D),\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)+1\}=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1.$$

Since both $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$ are greater than or equal to 2 this implies that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)2.$$

Looking further up the proof, we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL))1,\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D)\}.$$

Since neither $`C`$ nor $`D`$ is a tree, Proposition 3.3 implies that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$ are both at least $`3`$, so

(7)
$$\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL))=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

It follows that $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`CD`$ as

$$(CL)(DL)(CD)L.$$

Furthermore, since, by Lemma 2.4,

$$\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL))=\mathrm{deg}(CL)+\mathrm{deg}(DL)\mathrm{deg}(CD)$$

it follows from equation (7) that

$`\mathrm{deg}(CL)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(DL)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(CD)`$ $`=1.`$
Therefore $`C`$ and $`D`$ meet in a single point and $`L`$ is an extremal secant to both $`C`$ and $`D`$. ∎

In one sense this proposition is more satisfactory than Proposition 4.2, and in another it is less so. It is more satisfactory in the sense that if you have a curve that splits in this way, then you immediately deduce that the curve has an extremal secant without analyzing the subcurves any further. It is less satisfactory because of the “neither $`C`$ nor $`D`$ is a tree” condition. However, this condition cannot be removed. If we break up the curve $`C`$ constructed at the end of the previous section as $`F(GEK)`$ then the intersection of the spans is a line not contained in $`C`$ even though $`C`$ doesn’t have an extremal secant line.

In fact, given any nonplanar connected curve $`D`$ with an extremal secant and any tree $`C`$, one can put these together in such a way that the intersection of their spans is a line which is not an extremal secant to $`CD`$ even though $`CD`$ has extremal secant lines. The following example demonstrates this.

###### Construction.

Let $`N`$ be a 3-plane in $`_𝕂^4`$ and let $`D`$ be a twisted cubic in $`N`$. Let $`L`$ be a secant to $`D`$ and let $`M`$ be a line which intersects $`D`$ and $`L`$, but which is not a secant to $`D`$. (This is actually true for every line other than $`L`$ that passes through $`D`$ and $`L`$ and does so in distinct points.) Let $`C`$ be a conic not contained in $`N`$ whose span contains $`M`$ and which intersects both $`D`$ and $`L`$. A picture of such a configuration of curves follows.

$`L`$ is a 3-secant line to $`CD`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1=3$$

so $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`CD`$. However by applying Lemma 4.6 to the 2-plane spanned by $`L`$ and $`M`$, which is the intersection of the spans of $`C`$ and $`D`$, we see that $`M`$ is only a 2-secant to $`CD`$, hence not an extremal secant. ∎

The next proposition deals, (again, only partially), with the case when $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$ and $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)CD`$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=1`$. Let $`L=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$, and assume that $`LC`$. Then $`CD`$ has maximal regularity if and only if $`C`$ is a tree and $`LD`$ has maximal regularity. Moreover, if $`LD`$ has maximal regularity, then so does $`D`$.

###### Proof.

First of all, suppose that $`C`$ is a tree and $`LD`$ has maximal regularity. Then we can write $`C=L_{i=1}^kC_i`$ where the $`C_i`$’s are the connected components of $`\overline{CL}`$. By Proposition 3.3, all the $`C_i`$’s are trees and

$`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(L{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}}C_i)\mathrm{Span}(C_{j+1}))=0,0jk1.`$
Since $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)=L`$, it follows that

$`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(DL{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}}C_i)\mathrm{Span}(C_{j+1}))=0,0jk1.`$
By Proposition 4.2 and induction on $`j`$, it follows that $`DL_{i=1}^jC_i`$ has maximal regularity for all $`j`$, $`0jk`$. In particular, $`CD`$ has maximal regularity.

Now assume that $`CD`$ has maximal regularity. From the proof of case b of Proposition 2.7, it follows that

$$\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D)+1\}=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)1.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)2`$, this implies that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=2`$. By Proposition 3.3 this implies that $`C`$ is a tree.

To see that $`LD`$ has maximal regularity, we let $`C=L_{i=1}^kC_i`$ where the $`C_i`$’s are the connected components of $`\overline{CL}`$. As in the first part of this proof, all the $`C_i`$’s are trees and

$`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(DL{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}}C_i)\mathrm{Span}(C_{j+1}))=0,0jk1.`$
Therefore, by Proposition 4.2 and reverse induction on $`j`$, $`DL_{i=1}^jC_i`$ has maximal regularity for all $`j`$, $`0jk`$. In particular, $`LD`$ has maximal regularity.

Now suppose that $`LD`$ has maximal regularity. By Theorem 2.1, the regularity of $`LD`$ is at most 1 more than the regularity of $`D`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }(LD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(D)+1`$, it follows that $`D`$ must have maximal regularity. ∎

To finish the analysis we would need to answer the question, “When can one add line to a curve of maximal regularity such that the resulting curve has maximal regularity?” It might be tempting to guess that you have to add this line in such a way that it passes through an extremal secant line in a point that the original curve did not as this will always cause the resulting curve to have maximal regularity. This is not the case as one can see from the example at the end of the last section by choosing $`F`$ to be the union of two lines $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ and splitting $`C`$ up as $`Y(ZGEK)`$.

The last case is $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=2`$. We break this case into subcases depending on whether $`CD`$ has components in $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$ or not. We first deal with the case when no component of $`CD`$ lies in $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. Before proceeding we need a few lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`C_𝕂^n`$ be a connected nondegenerate curve. Let $`H`$ be a hyperplane containing no components of $`C`$. Then $`CH`$ is nondegenerate in $`H`$.

###### Proof.

There is a commutative diagram with exact rows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{_𝕂^n})& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{_𝕂^n}(1))& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_H(1))& & 0\\ & & \alpha & & \beta & & \gamma & & \\ 0& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_C)& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_C(1))& & \mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{CH}(1))\end{array}$$

$`C`$ being nondegenerate is equivalent to the statement that $`\beta `$ is injective. $`C`$ being connected is equivalent to the statement that $`\alpha `$ is surjective. It follows from the snake lemma that $`\gamma `$ is injective. This says precisely that $`CH`$ is nondegenerate in $`H`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`C_𝕂^n`$ be a connected nondegenerate curve. Let $`L`$ be a linear subspace containing no components of $`C`$. Then

$$\mathrm{deg}(CL)\mathrm{deg}(C)n+1+\mathrm{dim}(L)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{dim}(L)1.$$

###### Proof.

Choose a hyperplane $`H`$ containing $`L`$ but not containing any component of $`C`$, and consider the following commutative triangle.

Since $`CH`$ is nondegenerate in $`H`$, the map $`\alpha `$ is injective. Since $`CLL`$,

$$\mathrm{dim}_𝕂(\mathrm{ker}(\beta ))\mathrm{dim}(H)\mathrm{dim}(L).$$

Therefore

$$\mathrm{dim}_𝕂(\mathrm{ker}(\gamma ))\mathrm{dim}(H)\mathrm{dim}(L).$$

Since $`CH`$ is a finite scheme, $`\gamma `$ is surjective. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{deg}(CL)& =\mathrm{dim}_𝕂(\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{CL}(1)))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{dim}_𝕂(\mathrm{H}^0(𝒪_{CH}(1)))\mathrm{dim}_𝕂(\mathrm{ker}(\gamma ))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{deg}(C)(n1)+\mathrm{dim}(L).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`X_𝕂^2`$ be a finite scheme of degree $`d`$. Then $`\mathrm{reg}(X)d`$. Moreover, if $`\mathrm{reg}(X)=d`$ then $`X`$ lies on a line, $`M_𝕂^2`$. If $`\mathrm{reg}(X)=d1`$ and $`d4`$, then there exists a line $`M_𝕂^2`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(MX)=d1`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 3.7 and Corollary 3.9 of , if

$$0\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}S(b_i)\stackrel{𝑀}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{t+1}{}}S(a_i)S$$

is a free resolution of $`S_X`$ with $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{t+1}`$ and $`b_1\mathrm{}b_t`$, and if we let $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ denote the degrees of the entries on the principal diagonals of $`M`$, then for all $`i`$,

$`e_i1`$, $`f_i1`$,

$`f_ie_i`$, $`f_ie_{i+1}`$,

$`a_i=_{j<i}e_j+_{ji}f_j`$,

$`b_i=a_i+e_i`$, for $`1it`$ and $`_{i=1}^tb_i=_{i=1}^{t+1}a_i`$,

$`d=_{ij}e_if_j`$.

Notice that this implies that

$$b_11=a_1+e_11a_1.$$

Therefore,

$$\mathrm{reg}(X)=\mathrm{max}\{a_1,b_11\}=b_11=a_1+e_11=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_11.$$

Suppose that $`t2`$. Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_11\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}e_1f_t<\underset{ij}{}e_if_j=d.$$

Suppose that $`t=1`$. Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_11=f_1+e_11e_1f_1=d.$$

Therefore $`\mathrm{reg}(X)d`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{reg}(X)=d`$. By the above argument, $`t=1`$ and one of $`e_1`$ or $`f_1`$ equal to 1. Since $`f_1e_1`$ this implies that $`e_1=1`$. Therefore $`a_2=1`$ and there is some line $`M_𝕂^2`$ such that $`XM`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{reg}(X)=d1`$ and $`d4`$. If $`d=3`$ we are done as $`X`$ has a degree 2 subscheme which must then lie on a line. Therefore we may assume that $`d5`$. By the above argument, either $`t=1`$ and $`e_1=f_1=2`$, or $`t2`$ and

(8)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}e_1f_t+1=\underset{ij}{}e_if_j.$$

In the first case we would have $`d=e_1f_1=4`$ which we already ruled out by assuming $`d5`$. Therefore we must be in the second case. In this case, equation (8) implies that

$$e_1=1t=2e_2=f_2=1.$$

Also, we must have that $`b_1=d`$ since $`\mathrm{reg}(X)=b_11`$. Therefore

$$a_1=b_1e_1=d1a_2=e_1+f_2=2.$$

$`X`$ cannot lie on a line as then it would have regularity $`d`$. Therefore $`a_32`$, so $`a_3=2`$ as $`2=a_2a_3`$. Also,

$$d+b_2=b_1+b_2=a_1+a_2+a_3=d1+2+2=d+3$$

so $`b_2=3`$. Therefore the free resolution of $`S_X`$ has the form:

$$0S(d)S(3)S(d+1)S(2)S(2)S.$$

Let $`f`$, $`g`$, and $`h`$ form a generating set for $`I_X`$ with $`f`$ and $`g`$ of degree 2 and $`h`$ of degree $`d1`$. If $`f`$ is a nonzerodivisor modulo $`g`$, then $`Z((f,g))`$ would be a complete intersection of degree 4 containing $`X`$. This is a contradiction to the assumption that $`\mathrm{deg}(X)5`$, so $`f`$ must be a zerodivisor modulo $`g`$. The only way this can happen is if $`f=ml_1`$ and $`g=ml_2`$ for some linear forms $`m`$, $`l_1`$, and $`l_2`$ with $`l_1l_2`$. If $`h(m)`$ then the line $`M`$ defined by $`m`$ would lie inside of $`X`$. Therefore $`h`$ is a nonzerodivisor modulo $`m`$ and $`Z((h,m))=MX`$ is a finite scheme of degree $`d1`$. ∎

We return to the case $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=2`$ and no component of $`CD`$ lies in $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. Like Proposition 4.3, it turns out that such a curve of maximal regularity must have an extremal secant without looking any further at subcurves. In this case we don’t have the restriction that neither of the components be trees.

###### Proposition 4.8.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`L=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$ has dimension $`2`$, and assume that no component of either $`C`$ or $`D`$ lies in $`L`$. Then $`CD`$ has maximal regularity if and only if there is some line $`ML`$ which is an extremal secant for $`CD`$.

###### Proof.

If $`CD`$ has an extremal secant lying in $`L`$ then it has maximal regularity, so we need only prove the reverse direction.

Assume that $`\mathrm{reg}(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$. Then from the exact sequence

$$0I_{CD}I_CI_DI_C+I_D0$$

we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}(CD)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(C),\mathrm{reg}(D),\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)+1\}.$$

By the Main Theorem we have that $`\mathrm{reg}(C)\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(D)\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$, so from Lemma 2.2 we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)1.$$

By Theorem 2.1

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{reg}(C)+\mathrm{reg}(D)1\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)1.$$

Therefore

(9)
$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)1.$$

Now let $`J_1=I_C+I_L`$ and $`J_2=I_D+I_L`$. Since $`I_LI_C+I_D`$, we see that $`J_1+J_2=I_C+I_D`$. From the exact sequence

$$0J_1J_2J_1J_2J_1+J_2=I_C+I_D0$$

it follows that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(J_1),\mathrm{reg}(J_2),\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)1\}.$$

By Theorem 2.1 and the Main Theorem

(10) $`\mathrm{reg}(J_1)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(C)\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$
(11) $`\mathrm{reg}(J_2)`$ $`\mathrm{reg}(D)\mathrm{\Xi }(D).`$
Therefore

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{\Xi }(C),\mathrm{\Xi }(D),\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)1\}.$$

By equation (9), this implies that

$$\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

By Theorem 2.1 this inequality can’t be strict, so

(12)
$$\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

By equation (3),

$$\mathrm{reg}(J_1J_2)=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat}),\mathrm{sat}(J_1J_2)\}.$$

From this, inequalities (4), (10), and (11), and equation (12) we see that

$$\mathrm{reg}((J_1J_2)^{sat})=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

The ideal of $`(CL)(DL)`$ is $`(J_1J_2)^{sat}`$. Since $`(CL)(DL)`$ lies in $`(CD)L`$,

$$\mathrm{deg}((CL)(DL))\mathrm{deg}((CD)L).$$

By Lemma 4.6

$$\mathrm{deg}((CD)L)\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)+1.$$

Therefore $`(CL)(DL)`$ is a finite subscheme of a 2-plane, $`L`$, of degree at most $`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)+1`$ and regularity exactly $`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$. Furthermore,

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D)4$$

so either the degree of $`(CL)(DL)`$ is exactly equal to its regularity, or it is at least 5 and the difference between them is 1. In either case, Lemma 4.7 implies that there is a line $`ML`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(M((CL)(DL)))=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

This implies that the length of $`M(CD)`$ is at least $`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$, hence $`M`$ is an extremal secant line to $`CD`$. ∎

We now turn our attention to the case when $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D))=2`$ and there are components of $`CD`$ that lie in $`\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$. We need two lemmas about subschemes of $`_𝕂^2`$.

###### Lemma 4.9.

Let $`X=DY`$ be a subscheme of $`_𝕂^2`$ where $`D`$ is a curve of degree $`d`$ and $`Y`$ is a finite scheme. If

$$0\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}S(b_i)\stackrel{𝑀}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{t+1}{}}S(a_i)S$$

is a free resolution of $`S_X`$ with $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{t+1}`$ and $`b_1\mathrm{}b_t`$, and if we let $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ denote the degrees of the entries on the principal diagonals of $`M`$, then for all $`i`$,

$`e_i1`$, $`f_i1`$,

$`f_ie_i`$, $`f_ie_{i+1}`$,

$`a_i=_{j<i}e_j+_{ji}f_j+d`$,

$`b_i=a_i+e_i`$, for $`1it`$ and $`_{i=1}^tb_i+d=_{i=1}^{t+1}a_i`$,

$`H_{S_X}(n)=dn+1(d1)(d2)/2+_{ij}e_if_j`$.

The proof of this lemma is analogous to Proposition 3.7 and Corollary 3.9 of  and we do not repeat it here. The main difference is that the generators of the ideal are not the maximal minors of $`M`$ but rather the maximal minors of $`M`$ multiplied by the equation of $`D`$ which is where you get all the “$`+d`$” terms above as well as the difference in the Hilbert polynomial.

###### Lemma 4.10.

Let $`\mathrm{}D_𝕂^2`$ be a curve of degree $`d`$ and let $`Y_𝕂^2`$ be a finite scheme. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}(DY)d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY).$$

Moreover, if we have equality and $`\mathrm{deg}(DY)=1`$, then there is some line, $`M_𝕂^2`$, such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(M(DY))=d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)1.$$

###### Proof.

If $`YD`$ then everything is trivial, so we may assume that $`YD`$. From the exact sequence

$$0S_{DY}S_DS_YS/(I_D+I_Y)0$$

and the fact that $`S/(I_D+I_Y)`$ agrees with $`S_{DY}`$ in high degrees we see that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_{S_{DY}}(n)& =H_{S_D}(n)+H_{S_Y}(n)H_{S_{DY}}(n)\hfill \\ & =dn+1(d1)(d2)/2+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY).\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, using the notation from Lemma 4.9 applied to $`DY`$,

$$\underset{ij}{}e_if_j=\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY).$$

Also,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{reg}(DY)& =\mathrm{max}\{a_1,b_11\}=b_11\hfill \\ & =a_1+e_11=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_1+d1.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`t2`$, then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_1+d1\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}e_1f_t+d<\underset{ij}{}e_if_j+d=d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY).$$

If $`t=1`$, then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}f_t+e_1+d1=f_1+e_1+d1e_1f_1+d=d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY).$$

Therefore $`\mathrm{reg}(DY)d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)\mathrm{deg}(DY)`$.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{deg}(DY)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(DY)=d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)1`$. By the above argument, this implies that $`t=1`$ and one of $`e_1`$ or $`f_1`$ equal to 1. Since $`f_1e_1`$ this implies that $`e_1=1`$. Therefore $`a_2=d+e_1=d+1`$. Also, we must have that $`b_1=d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)`$, so the free resolution of $`S_{DY}`$ is

$$0S((d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)))S((d+\mathrm{deg}(Y))+1)S((d+1))S$$

Let $`g`$ be the equation of $`D`$. Then the above says that the minimal generators of $`I_{DY}`$ have the form $`gm`$ and $`gh`$ where $`m`$ is some linear form and $`h`$ is a form of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(Y)1`$. Moreover, $`mh`$ as otherwise $`gh`$ wouldn’t be a minimal generator. Therefore, if $`mg`$, then $`Z((gh,m))=M(DY)`$ is a finite scheme of degree $`d+\mathrm{deg}(Y)1`$ where $`M`$ denotes the line defined by $`m`$.

Suppose that $`m|g`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}(DY)=1`$ and $`YD`$, it follows that $`Y`$ must be a double point not lying in $`D`$ whose reduced point is a nonsingular point of $`D`$ lying on $`M`$. In this case, $`h`$ is a linear form which does not divide $`g`$. Therefore, as above, $`h`$ defines a line which intersects $`DY`$ in a finite scheme of length $`d+1`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.11.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components such that $`L=\mathrm{Span}(C)\mathrm{Span}(D)`$ has dimension $`2`$. Assume that no component of $`C`$ lies in $`L`$ and that $`DL`$. Then $`CD`$ has maximal regularity if and only if there is some line $`ML`$ which is an extremal secant for $`CD`$.

###### Proof.

If $`CD`$ has an extremal secant lying in $`L`$ then it has maximal regularity, so we need only prove the reverse direction.

Assume that $`\mathrm{reg}(CD)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$. Then exactly as in the proof of Proposition 4.8, we have that

$$\mathrm{reg}(I_C+I_D)=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)1.$$

Let $`J=I_C+I_L`$. Since $`I_LI_C+I_D`$, we see that $`J+I_D=I_C+I_D`$. Again, as in the proof of Proposition 4.8, from the exact sequence

$$0JI_DJI_DJ+I_D=I_C+I_D0$$

we deduce that

$$\mathrm{reg}((JI_D)^{sat})=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

Since $`Z((JI_D)^{sat})=D(CL)`$, Lemma 4.10 implies that

(13)
$$\mathrm{deg}(CD)\mathrm{deg}(D)+\mathrm{deg}(CL)\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

By Lemma 4.6,

(14)
$$\mathrm{deg}(CL)\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+1.$$

Also,

$`\mathrm{\Xi }(D)`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}(D)`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }(CD)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)+\mathrm{\Xi }(D).`$
Therefore $`\mathrm{deg}(CD)=1`$. Moreover, we must have equality in (13) and (14) and thus by Lemma 4.10, there is a line $`ML`$, such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(M(D(CL)))=\mathrm{\Xi }(CD).$$

Since

$$D(CL)(CD)L$$

$`M`$ is an extremal secant to $`CD`$. ∎

These results allow us to prove that many of the curves of maximal regularity in $`_𝕂^3`$ have extremal secants.

###### Theorem 4.12.

Let $`C_𝕂^3`$ be a connected curve with no linear components. Then $`C`$ has maximal regularity if and only if either $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=3`$ or $`C`$ has an extremal secant.

###### Proof.

We have already proved the “if” part of this theorem, so assume that $`C`$ has maximal regularity. If $`C`$ is planar then $`C`$ has an extremal secant.

Assume that $`C`$ is nondegenerate in $`_𝕂^3`$. If $`C`$ is irreducible, then we are done by Theorems 2.1 and 3.1 of .

Assume that $`C`$ is reducible. We can find two connected curves with no common components, $`D`$ and $`E`$, such that $`C=DE`$. In fact, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are planar components of $`C`$ lying in the same plane then we can (and do) ensure that $`A`$ and $`B`$ either both lie in $`D`$ or both lie in $`E`$. If $`D`$ is nondegenerate in $`_𝕂^3`$ and $`E`$ is planar then Proposition 4.11 implies that $`C`$ has an extremal secant in the plane that $`E`$ spans.

Assume that $`D`$ and $`E`$ are both planar and the intersection of their spans, $`L`$, is a line lying in neither of them. If neither $`D`$ nor $`E`$ is a conic then Proposition 4.3 implies that $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`C`$.

Assume that $`D`$ is a conic. If $`\mathrm{deg}(DE)=1`$, then

$$\mathrm{deg}((DL)(EL))=\mathrm{deg}(D)+\mathrm{deg}(E)1=\mathrm{\Xi }(C).$$

Since

$$(DL)(EL)CL$$

this implies that $`L`$ is an extremal secant to $`C`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{deg}(DE)2`$. Since $`D`$ is a conic, $`\mathrm{deg}(DL)=2`$, so $`\mathrm{deg}(DE)=2`$. Notice that $`I_D+I_E`$ contains $`I_L`$. It also contains a polynomial, $`f`$, of degree 2 which defines $`D`$ in its span. However, $`I_L+(f)`$ is the (saturated) homogeneous ideal of a scheme of length 2 on $`L`$. Therefore, since $`DE`$ is a subscheme of this scheme and also has length 2, we must have equality and $`I_D+I_E=I_{DE}`$. In particular, since $`D`$, $`E`$, and $`DE`$ are all ACM, $`C`$ is ACM. We now let $`H`$ be any plane such that $`Z=CH`$ is finite. Since $`C`$ is ACM, $`\mathrm{reg}(Z)=\mathrm{reg}(C)`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(C)=4`$, then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(C)=3`$ and we are done.

Assume that $`\mathrm{deg}(C)5`$. Then $`\mathrm{deg}(Z)5`$, and Proposition 4.7 implies that there is some line $`M`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(MZ)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{deg}(MC)=\mathrm{\Xi }(C)`$ and $`M`$ is an extremal secant to $`C`$. This finishes the proof. ∎

Finally, we mention the following corollaries of the analysis in this section.

###### Corollary 4.13.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be intersecting connected curves in $`_𝕂^n`$ having no common components, and suppose that $`CD`$ has maximal regularity. Then $`C`$ and $`D`$ are both either lines or curves having maximal regularity.

###### Corollary 4.14.

Any connected subcurve of a curve of maximal regularity is either a line or has maximal regularity.