text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Casimir effect is the vacuum fluctuation in a non-trivial geometry \[1-3\]. In the original paper , the corresponding change in the vacuum electric energy is found to attract the two perfectly conducting parallel plates. Appelquist and Chodos  have found that the attractive Casimir force could render the extra spaces in the Kaluza-Klein unified theory  to be sufficiently small to be unobserved. Since the attractiveness of the Casimir energy will push the size of the extra dimension down to the Planck scale, a natural cutoff scale of the linearized gravity was that presumably the dynamics of Planck scale, where the nonperturbative quantum gravity sets in, will stabilize the size of the extra dimensions.

In the string/M theory \[6-9\], a new available scale, noncommutativity $`\theta _{ij}`$, is found to be able to stabilize the size of the extra noncommutative spaces \[10-12\]. In the paper  Nam has tried to use the noncommutativity as a minimum scale to protect the collapse of the extra spaces. He use the one-loop Kaluza-Klein spectrum derived by Gomis, Mehen and Wise  to compute the one loop Casimir energy of an interacting scalar field in a compact noncommutative space of $`M^{1,d}\times T_\theta ^2`$, where $`1+d`$ dimensions are the ordinary flat Minkowski space and the extra two dimensions are noncommutative torus with noncommutativity $`\theta `$. The correction is found to contribute an attractive force and have a quantum instability. He therefore turns to investigate the case of vector field and find the repulsive force for $`d>5`$.

In the paper  we followed the method of  to evaluate the one-loop correction to the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein system for the $`\varphi ^3`$ model on $`M^{1,d}\times (T_\theta ^2)^L`$, where the extra dimensions are the L two-dimensional noncommutative tori . We evaluate the corrected Kaluza-Klein mass spectrum to compute the Casimir energy and found that, when $`L>1`$ the Casimir energy due to the noncommutativity could give repulsive force to stabilize the extra noncommutative tori in the cases of $`d=4n2`$, with $`n`$ a positive integral. This therefore suggests a possible stabilization mechanism for a scenario in superstring theory, where some of the extra dimensions are noncommutative.

The noncommutative fuzzy sphere, which can appear in the string/M theory \[6-9\], is known to correspond sphere D2-branes in string theory with background linear B-field . It is found that, in the presence of constant RR three-form potential, the D0-branes can expand into a noncommutative fuzzy sphere configurations . It also knows that the field theories on fuzzy sphere appear naturally from D-brane theory and matrix model with some backgrounds \[16-19\]

In the ordinary matrix model one could not find the fuzzy sphere solutions. However, adding a Chern-Simons term to the matrix model will enable us to describe the noncommutative fuzzy sphere as a classical solution. Comparing the energy in the various classical solutions one can find that the separated D0-branes will expand into a largest noncommutative fuzzy sphere to achieve minimum energy .

In this paper we will study the Casimir effect on a spacetimes with an extra two-dimensional spaces of fuzzy sphere. Our initial motivation to investigate this problem is coming from the following two simple observations. First, the presence of noncommutativity is known to be able to stabilize the size of the extra noncommutative, at least in some cases,. Second, the fuzzy sphere is known to be in the largest fuzzy sphere to achieve minimum energy, in which the radius of sphere has been fixed by the strength of the background linear B-field . Therefore, it is natural to ask a question that when there exist a noncommutative fuzzy two spheres, as an extra space, could the vacuum fluctuation give rise the sufficient repulsive force to stabilize the commutative compact space?

Following this motivation we therefore consider the quantized scalar field on the model spacetimes of $`_{FZ}^{D,d}=M^D\times T^d\times S_{FZ}`$, where $`M^D`$ is the ordinary $`D`$ dimensional flat Minkowski spacetimes , $`T^d`$ is the $`d`$ dimensional commutative torus, and $`S_{FZ}`$ is a noncommutative fuzzy two sphere with a fixed quantized radius.

In the next section, after review the appearance of the fuzzy sphere in the matrix model with a Chern-Simons term, we then quantize the scalar field on the fuzzy sphere and set up the Feynman rule.

In section III, we extend the works of Gomis, Mehen and Wise  to evaluate the one-loop correction to the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein system for the $`\varphi ^4`$ model on the spacetimes of $`_{FZ}^{D,d}`$. In section IV, the obtained spectrum is used to compute the Casimir energy and then we analyze the associated Casimir effect. We find that when $`D`$ is an even integral and $`D>4`$ then the Casimir energy could give repulsive force to stabilize the extra commutative torus if $`d=2n`$, where $`n`$ is a odd integral.

Note that according to the brane-world scenario, our four-dimensional universe might be a three brane embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime, which are assumed to arise as the fluctuations of branes in string theories. Therefore, if an extra space is a noncommutative fuzzy sphere, which can appear in the string/M theory \[6-9\] , the Casimir energy evaluated in this paper could give sufficiently repulsive force to stabilize the extra commutative compact space.

## 2 Quantized $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ Theory on Fuzzy Sphere

### 2.1 Fuzzy Sphere

In the presence of the RR 4-form background the configuration of the $`ND_0`$ can be describe by the action

$$S=T_0Tr\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{X_i}^2+\frac{1}{4}[X_i,X_j][X_i,X_j]\frac{i}{3}\lambda _Nϵ_{ijk}X_i[X_j,X_k]\right).$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`X_i,i=1,2,3`$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices and $`T_0=\sqrt{2\pi }/g_s`$ is the zero-brane tension. The constant $`\lambda _N`$ before the Chern-Simons term in the above equation is the constant RR 4-form potential in the D0-branes system . The static equations of motion of the above equation are

$$[X_j,\left([X_i,X_j]i\lambda _Nϵ_{ijk}X_k\right)]=0,$$
$`(2.2)`$
and the associated energy is

$$E=T_0Tr\left(\frac{1}{4}[X_i,X_j][X_i,X_j]\frac{i}{3}\lambda _Nϵ_{ijk}X_i[X_j,X_k]\right).$$
$`(2.3)`$
Eq.(2.2) admits commutating solutions and static fuzzy sphere solutions .

The commutating solutions are known to represent $`N`$ D0 branes and satisfy the relations

$$[X_i,X_j]=0,$$
$`(2.4)`$
which have the energy

$$E=0.$$
$`(2.5)`$
The noncommutative static fuzzy sphere solutions satisfy the equations

$$[X_i,X_j]=i\lambda _Nϵ_{ijk}X_k,$$
$`(2.6)`$
and can be described by the relations

$$X_i=\lambda _NJ_i,$$
$`(2.7)`$
$$X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2=r^2.$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ define, say, the $`N`$ dimensional irreducible representation of SU(2) and are labeled by the spin $`\alpha =N/2`$. The noncommutativity parameter $`\lambda _N`$ is of dimension length, and can be taken positive. The radius $`r_N`$ define in (2.8) is quantized in units of $`\lambda _N`$ by

$$\frac{r_N}{\lambda _N}=\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}\left(\frac{N}{2}+1\right)};N=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
$`(2.9)`$
Besides the above solution $`X_i`$ may be a direct sum of several irreducible representation of SU(2). Such a configuration could also solve the equation of motion and is described by

$$X_i=\lambda _N_{r=1}^sJ_i^{(r)},\underset{r=1}{\overset{s}{}}(2j_r+1)=N.$$
$`(2.10)`$
The energy E of these static fuzzy sphere solutions is given by

$$E=T_0\lambda ^4\frac{1}{6}\underset{r=1}{\overset{s}{}}J_r(J_r+1)(2J_r+1).$$
$`(2.11)`$
From the above relation it is clear that the ground state is the N-dimensional fuzzy sphere .

In summary, when the $`ND_0`$ branes are coupled to a constant RR 4-form potential, then the $`D_0`$branes will blow up into a fuzzy 2-sphere. And, furthermore, the fuzzy 2-sphere will evolve into in the largest fuzzy sphere to achieve minimum energy . It is important to note that the radius of sphere has been fixed by the strength of the background as shown in (2.9).

### 2.2 Quantized Scalar Field on Fuzzy Sphere

We will consider the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ living on the spacetimes of $`_{FZ}^{D,d}=M^D\times T^d\times S_{FZ}`$, where $`M^D`$ is the ordinary $`D`$ dimensional flat Minkowski spacetimes with coordinate $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`T^d`$ is the $`d`$ dimensional commutative tori with coordinate $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and have same radius $`R`$ for convenience. $`S_{FZ}`$ is a noncommutative fuzzy two sphere with coordinate $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ and has a fixed quantized radius $`r_N`$. The action we considered is described by the equation

$$S=d^D\stackrel{}{x}d^d\stackrel{}{y}_{Tr}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}_x+\mathrm{}_y+\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{g}{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right],$$
$`(2.12)`$
where $`\mathrm{}_z=_i_{z_i}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=J_i^2`$ . Note that a field on the spacetimes $`_{FZ}^{D,d}`$ is defined as an algebra $`S_N^2`$ generated by Hermitian operators $`\stackrel{}{X}=(X_1,X_2,X_3)`$ which are described in the section 2.1. The integral of a function $`FS_N^2`$ over the spacetimes $`_{FZ}^{D,d}`$ is given by

$$r_N^2d^D\stackrel{}{x}d^d\stackrel{}{y}_{Tr}F=\frac{4\pi r_N^2}{N+1}d^D\stackrel{}{x}d^d\stackrel{}{y}Tr[F(X)],$$
$`(2.13)`$
and the inner product can be defined by

$$(F_1,F_2)=d^D\stackrel{}{x}d^d\stackrel{}{y}_{Tr}F_1^{}F_2.$$
$`(2.14)`$
In this formula $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Hermitian field. To quantize it we can expand $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in terms of the modes,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y},X_i)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{L,l}{}a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{i2\pi \stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y}/R}Y_l^L,,$$
$`(2.15)`$
in which the Fourier coefficient $`a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})`$ are treated as the dynamical variables and $`Y_l^L`$ are the usual spherical harmonics.

In the path integral quantization  we shall integrate all the possible configuration of $`a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})`$. Then the $`k`$-points Green’s functions can be computed by the relation

$$a_{l_1}^{L_1}(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{n}_1)\mathrm{}a_{l_k}^{L_k}(\stackrel{}{p}_k,\stackrel{}{n}_k)=\frac{[D\mathrm{\Phi }]e^Sa_{l_1}^{L_1}\mathrm{}a_{l_k}^{L_k}}{[D\mathrm{\Phi }]e^S},$$
$`(2.16)`$
Note that the complete basis of functions on $`S_N^2`$ is given by the $`(N+1)^2`$ spherical harmonics, $`Y_l^L,(L=0,1,\mathrm{},N;LlL)`$ . They correspond to the usual spherical harmonics, however the angular momentum has an upper bound $`N`$ here. This is a characteristic feature of fuzzy sphere.

The propagator so obtained is

$$𝒟^1=a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})^{}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{p}^2+(2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/R)^2+L(L+1)+m^2},$$
$`(2.17)`$
in which $`a_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})^{}=(1)^la_l^L(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n})`$. We let $`r_N=1`$ and let $`M^D`$ be the Euclidean space thereafter.

The four-legs vertices so obtained is given by

$$𝒱_4=a_{l_1}^{L_1}\mathrm{}a_{l_4}^{L_4}V_4(L_1,l_1;\mathrm{};L_4,l_4),$$
$`(2.18)`$
where

$$V_4(L_1,l_1;\mathrm{};L_4,l_4)=\frac{g}{4!}\frac{N+1}{4\pi }(1)^{L_1+L_2+L_3+L_4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(2L_i+1)^{1/2}\underset{L,l}{}(1)^l(2L+1)$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L\\ l_1& l_2& l\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_4& L\\ l_3& l_4& l\end{array}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L\\ \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}L_3& L_4& L\\ \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \end{array}\right\}.$$
$`(2.19)`$
Here the first bracket is the Wigner $`3j`$-symbol and the curly bracket is the $`6j`$–symbol of $`SU(2)`$, in the standard mathematical normalization . Note that to derive the above Feynman rule we have used the following “fusion” algebra

$$Y_i^IY_j^J=\sqrt{\frac{N+1}{4\pi }}\underset{K,k}{}(1)^{2\alpha +I+J+K+k}\sqrt{(2I+1)(2J+1)(2K+1)}$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I& J& K\\ i& j& k\end{array}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}I& J& K\\ \alpha & \alpha & \alpha \end{array}\right\}Y_k^K,.$$
$`(2.20)`$
where the sum is over $`0KN,KkK`$, and $`\alpha =N/2`$ . In next section, we will use the above formula to evaluate the one-loop correction to the spectrum and then used the mass-corrected term to compute the Casimir energy of the scalar field on the model spacetime in the section 4.

## 3 Kaluza-Klein Spectrum

Using the above Feynman rule the $`1PI`$ two point function at one loop is obtained by contracting 2 legs in (2.18) using the propagator in (2.17). The planar contribution so obtained is defined by contracting the neighboring legs:

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{planar}^{(2)})_{ll^{}}^{LL^{}}=\frac{g}{4\pi }\frac{1}{3}\delta _{LL^{}}\delta _{l,l^{}}(1)^lI^P.$$
$`(3.1)`$
$$I^P=\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{2J+1}{\stackrel{}{p}^2+(2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/R)^2+J(J+1)+m^2}.$$
$`(3.2)`$
All 8 contributions are identical. Similarly by contracting non–neighboring legs, we find the non–planar contribution

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{(2)})_{ll^{}}^{LL^{}}=\frac{g}{4\pi }\frac{1}{6}\delta _{LL^{}}\delta _{l,l^{}}(1)^lI^{NP},$$
$`(3.3)`$
$$I^{NP}=\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{L+J+2\alpha }\frac{(2J+1)(2\alpha +1)}{\stackrel{}{p}^2+(2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/R)^2+J(J+1)+m^2}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & \alpha & L\\ \alpha & \alpha & J\end{array}\right\}$$
$`(3.4)`$
Again the 4 possible contractions agree.

To derive the above relations we have use the following identities of the $`3j`$ and $`6j`$ symbols, which can be found in : The $`3j`$ symbols satisfy the orthogonality relation

$$\underset{j,l}{}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& L& K\\ j& l& k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J& L& K^{}\\ j& l& k^{}\end{array}\right)=\frac{(1)^{KLJ}}{2K+1}\delta _{K,K^{}}\delta _{k,k^{}},$$
$`(3.5)`$
assuming that $`(J,L,K)`$ form a triangle. The $`6j`$ symbols satisfy the orthogonality relation

$$\underset{N}{}(2N+1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& N\\ C& D& P\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& N\\ C& D& Q\end{array}\right\}=\frac{1}{2P+1}\delta _{P,Q},$$
$`(3.6)`$
and the following sum rule

$$\underset{N}{}(1)^{N+P+Q}(2N+1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& N\\ C& D& P\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& N\\ D& C& Q\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}A& C& Q\\ B& D& P\end{array}\right\},$$
$`(3.7)`$
assuming that $`(A,D,P)`$ and $`(B,C,P)`$ form a triangle.

We now begin to evaluate $`I^P`$ and $`I^{NP}`$. After integrating the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ we can evaluate $`I^P`$ as follow.

$$I^P=\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{2J+1}{\left[(2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/R)^2+J(J+1)+m^2\right]^{1\frac{D}{2}}}$$

$$\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}(2J+1)\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\frac{(R/2\pi )^{2D}}{(\stackrel{}{n}^2)^{1\frac{D}{2}}}$$

$$=\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})(N^2+2N)Z_d(2D)(R/2\pi )^{2D}$$

$$=\pi ^{2\frac{d}{2}}(N^2+2N)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{d}{2}1)Z_d(D+d2)(R/2\pi )^{2D}.$$
$`(3.8)`$
There we have used the following approximation

$$\frac{1}{R^2}N(N+1),\frac{1}{R^2}m^2.$$
$`(3.9)`$
This means that we consider the case in which the torus radius $`R^2`$ is smaller then the values of $`1/N(N+1)`$ and $`1/m^2`$. (Note that $`JN`$.) This is a reasonable approximation as the torus will be stabilized, if it can, at small radius. (Note that we use the scale $`r_N=1`$.) The Epstein function $`Z_d[s]`$ used in the above equation is defined by

$$Z_d[s]=\underset{n_1}{}\mathrm{}\underset{n_d}{}[n_1^2+\mathrm{}+n_d^2]^{s/2},$$
$`(3.10)`$
and the reflection formula of the Epstein function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{s}{2})Z_d(s)=\pi ^{sd/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ds}{2})Z_d(ds),$$
$`(3.11)`$
has been used to obtain the final result in (3.8).

In the same way we have the relation

$$I^{NP}=\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(1)^{L+J+2\alpha }(2J+1)(2\alpha +1)}{\left[(2\pi \stackrel{}{n}/R)^2+J(J+1)+m^2\right]^{1\frac{D}{2}}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & \alpha & L\\ \alpha & \alpha & J\end{array}\right\}$$

$$\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{L+J+2\alpha }(2J+1)(2\alpha +1)\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\frac{(R/2\pi )^{2D}}{(\stackrel{}{n}^2)^{1\frac{D}{2}}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & \alpha & L\\ \alpha & \alpha & J\end{array}\right\}$$

$$=\pi ^{\frac{D}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{D}{2})(N+1)^2Z_d(2D)(R/2\pi )^{2D}$$

$$=\pi ^{2\frac{d}{2}}(N+1)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{d}{2}1)Z_d(D+d2)(R/2\pi )^{2D}.$$
$`(3.12)`$
To obtain the above results we have used the formula

$$\underset{J}{}(2J+1)(1)^{J+2\alpha }\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & \alpha & L\\ \alpha & \alpha & J\end{array}\right\}=\delta _{L,0}(2\alpha +1).$$
$`(3.13)`$
Collecting the above results the leading correction to the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein system is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=AR^{2D},$$
$`(3.14)`$
in which

$$A=\frac{g}{24}\pi ^{2\frac{d}{2}}(3N^2+6N+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2}+\frac{d}{2}1)Z_d(D+d2)(1/2\pi )^{2D}.$$
$`(3.15)`$
The result is used in the next section to evaluate the Casimir energy to investigate the stability of the commutative torus due to the vacuum fluctuation in the model spacetimes which has an extra fuzzy space.

Note that the fuzzy space we considered is the fuzzy two-sphere with a radius fixed by (2.9). The radius of fuzzy is only dependent on the strength of the background RR 4-form potential. It is important to mention that as we use the approximation $`\frac{1}{R^2}N(N+1)`$ in (3.9), we can not consider the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$. Therefore our one-loop result could not be used to discuss the case of commutative sphere.

## 4 Casimir Energy

Follow  we can evaluate the Casimir energy by summing up the energy $`\omega `$ of all the modes :

$$u=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{p}}^J$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}+J(J+1)+m^2+AR^{2D}}$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^D\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}t^{1/2}e^{t\left(\stackrel{}{p}^2+\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}+J(J+1)+m^2+AR^{2D}\right)}$$

$$=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}t^{(D+1)/2}e^{t\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}+J(J+1)+m^2+AR^{2D}\right)}$$

$$=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}+J(J+1)+m^2+AR^{2D}\right)^{\frac{D+1}{2}}$$

$$\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}+AR^{2D}\right)^{\frac{D+1}{2}},$$
$`(4.1)`$
in which we have used the approximation (3.9). Note that to obtain the above result we first use the Schwinger’s proper time $`t`$ to handle the square root, then integrate the transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ by doing a Gaussian integral, and finally integrate the Schwinger’s proper time by using the integral representation of Gamma function.

Without the one-loop correction, i.e. $`A=0`$, we have the result of tree level

$$u_{tree}=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\underset{J=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{R^2}\right)^{\frac{D+1}{2}}$$

$$=\frac{(N+1)}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})Z_d[(D+1)]\frac{1}{R^{D+1}}$$

$$=u_0\frac{1}{R^{D+1}},$$
$`(4.2a)`$
in which

$$u_0=\frac{(N+1)}{\pi ^{(3D+d3)/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+d+1}{2})Z_d[D+d+1)].$$
$`(4.2b)`$
Here we have used the reflection formula of the Epstein function in (3.11). The above result presents the well-known property that the Casimir force will become infinity attractive at small radius and it will render the extra spaces in the Kaluza-Klein unified theory to be very small.

We now consider the one-loop correction to the spectrum. If $`D3`$ then $`AR^{2D}`$ will become very large as $`R1`$. In this case we can use the formula of large Q expansion

$$\pi ^{s/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{s}{2})\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_d}{}\left[\left(\frac{Q}{\pi }\right)^2+\left(\frac{n_1}{R}\right)^2+\mathrm{}+\left(\frac{n_d}{R}\right)^2\right]^{s/2}$$

$$=\frac{Q^{ds}R^d}{\pi ^{\left(ds\right)/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{sd}{2})\left[1+O(1/Q)\right].$$
$`(4.3)`$
to calculate (4.1). The Casimir energy can therefore be expressed as

$$u_{oneloop}=u_1\frac{1}{R^{(\frac{D}{2}1)(D+d+1)d}},$$
$`(4.4a)`$
in which

$$u_1=\frac{N}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\pi ^{d+D+1}}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}A^{\frac{d+D+1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+d+1}{2}).$$
$`(4.4b)`$
Using the one-loop Casimir energy we now begin to analyze the Casimir effect. From (4.4b) we see that if $`D`$ and $`d`$ satisfy the relations

$$D=2n,nintegral,$$

$$d=2\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{n}oddintegral.$$
$`(4.5)`$
then $`u_1`$ is positive. Also, comparing (4.2a) with (4.4a) we see that if

$$(\frac{D}{2}1)(D+d+1)d>D+1,D>4.$$
$`(4.6)`$
then at the small values of $`R`$ the casimir energy $`u_{oneloop}`$ will dominate over $`u_{tree}`$. Thus the Casimir energy due to vacuum fluctuation in the our model spacetime, which has an extra fuzzy two sphere space, could give rise a repulsive force to stabilize the commutative torus. The stable radius of torus so obtained is

$$R_{stable}=\left[\frac{u_1}{u_0}\frac{(\frac{D}{2}1)(D+d+1)d}{D+1}\right]^{\frac{1}{(\frac{D}{2}2)(D+d+1)d}}.$$
$`(4.7)`$
This is our final result.

## 5 Conclusions

Let us make some comments to conclude this paper:

(1) We have studied the Casimir effect on a Kaluza-Klein spacetime in which the higher dimensions are commutative $`d`$ tori and an extra two-dimension noncommutative fuzzy sphere. We have used the $`\zeta `$ function regularization method to evaluate the vacuum fluctuation in our model spacetime. When the radius of torus is small we can find the analyzed formula of the Casimir energy. From the result we have found the possibility of the stabilization of the torus in presence of the extra fuzzy space. This thus suggests a possible stabilization mechanism for a scenario in Kaluza-Klein theory, where some of the extra dimensions are commutative compact space and fuzzy sphere.

(2) During our evaluation we have used the approximation of (3.9): $`\frac{1}{R^2}N(N+1),\frac{1}{R^2}m^2`$ . This means that the Casimir energy obtained in (4.2) and (4.4) only useful for the case in which the torus radius $`R`$ is smaller then the values of $`1/N(N+1)`$ and $`1/m^2`$. Therefore the stable radius of torus obtained in (4.7) could be reliable on if $`R_{stable}1`$. (Note that we have used the scale $`r_N=1`$ and, as shown in (2.9), $`r_N`$ is a quantized value which only depend on the $`N`$ and strength of the background RR three-form. ) Under this approximation our result cannot be used to discuss the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ in which the fuzzy sphere becomes a commutative sphere.

(3) Note that when $`D`$ or $`d`$ is an odd number, then the divergence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function in (4.4b) will lead the Casimir energy to be infinite. This may mean that our regularization method is broken down in these cases. The reason may be traced to the lack of a reflection formula to regularize (4.1). (Note that the reflection formula (3.1) has been used to regularize $`u_0`$ to obtain the finite result (4.2).) This problem is deserved to be investigated furthermore.

(4) The Casimir effect is null in the supersymmetry system, as the contribution of boson field is just canceled by that of the fermion field . However, some mechanisms are proposed to break the supersymmetry to describe the physical phenomena. Thus the remaining Casimir effect may be used to render the compact space stable. An interesting mechanism to break the supersymmetry is the temperature effect, which is the scenario in the early epoch of the universe. Therefore it is useful to investigate the finite-temperature Casimir effect on our model spacetimes. It also remains to see the Casimir effect in the more general system including the Fermion and vector field in our model spacetimes. These investigations will be presented in elsewhere.

1. H.B.G. Casimir,“On the Attraction Between Two Perfectly Conducting Plates”, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet, 51 (1948) 793; C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
2. J. Ambjorn and S. Wolfram, Ann. Phys. 147 (1983) 1.
3. G. Pluien, B. Müller, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. 134 (1986) 87;
V.M. Mostepanenko and N.N. Trunov, “The Casimir Effect and its Applications”, Oxford Univ. Press, 1997.
4. T. Appelquist and A. Chodos, Phys. Rev. Lett.50 (1983) 141; Phys. Rev. D28 (1983) 772.
5. Th. Kaluza, Situngsber. d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissen. z. Berlin, Phys.-Math. Klasse (1921) 966; O. Klein, Z. F. Physik 37 (1926) 895;
T. Appelquist, A. Chodos, and P.G.O. Freund,“Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories”, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, 1987.
6. A. Connes, M. R. Douglas and A. Schwarz, “Noncommutative Geometry and Matrix Theory: Compactification on Tori”, JHEP 9802:003 (1998), hep-th/9711162;
B. Morariu and B. Zumino, “Super Yang-Mills on the Noncommutative Torus”, hep-th/9807198;
C. Hofman and E. Verlinde, “U-duality of Born-Infeld on the Noncommutative Two-Torus”, JHEP 9812, 010 (1998), hep-th/9810116 .
7. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry”, JHEP 9909, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142.
8. N. A. Obers and B. Pioline, Phys. Rep. 318 (1999) 113, hep-th/9809039.
9. J. Polchinski, String Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
10. S. Nam, “Casimir Force in Compact Noncommutative Extra Dimensions and Radius Stabilization”, hep-th/0008083.
11. W. H. Huang, ”Casimir Effect on the Radius Stabilization of the Noncommutative Torus”, Phys.Lett. B497 (2001) 317, hep-th/0010160;
W. H. Huang, ”Finite-Temperature Casimir Effect on the Radius Stabilization of Noncommutative Torus”, JHEP 0011 (2000) 041, hep-th/0011037.
12. M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Presnajder, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, A. Tureanu, ”Quantum Theories on Noncommutative Spaces with Nontrivial Topology: Aharonov-Bohm and Casimir Effects”, Nucl.Phys. B611 (2001) 383, hep-th/0101209.
13. J. Gomis, T. Mehen and M.B. Wise, “Quantum Field Theories with Compact Noncommutative Extra Dimensions”, JHEP 0008, 029 (2000). hep-th/0006160.
14. A. Y. Alekseev, A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus, “Non-commutative world-volume geometries: Branes on su(2) and fuzzy sphere” JHEP 9909 (1999) 023 \[hep-th/9908040\]; “Brane dynamics in background fluxes and non-commutative geometry,” JHEP 0005 (2000) 010 \[hep-th/0003187\].
15. R. C. Myers, “Dielectric-branes,” JHEP 9912 (1999) 022 \[hep-th/9910053\].
16. Pei-Ming Ho, “Fuzzy Sphere from Matrix Model” JHEP 0012 (2000) 015 \[hep-th/0010165\].
17. C. Bachas, M. Douglas and C. Schweigert, “Flux stabilization of D-branes,” JHEP 0005 (2000) 048 \[hep-th/0003037\].
18. K. Hashimoto and K. Krasnov, “D-brane Solutions in Non-Commutative Gauge Theory on Fuzzy Sphere”, Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 046007 \[hep-th/0101145\]; S. Iso, Y. Kimura, K. Tanaka, and K. Wakatsuki, “Noncommutative Gauge Theory on Fuzzy Sphere from Matrix Model”, Nucl. Phys. 604(2001) 121 \[hep-th/0101102\].
19. Y. Kimura, “Noncommutative Gauge Theory on Fuzzy Sphere and fuzzy torus from Matrix Model”, Prog. theor. Phys. 106(2001) 445 \[hep-th/0103192\].
20. D. P. Jatkar, G. Mandal, S. R. Wadia, K. P. Yogendran ” Matrix dynamics of fuzzy spheres”, JHEP 0201 (2002) 039, hep-th/0110172.
21. H. Grosse, C. Klimcik and P. Presnajder, “Towards finite quantum field theory in noncommutative geometry,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 231 (1996) \[hep-th/9505175\].
22. S. Vaidya, “Perturbative dynamics on fuzzy $`S^2`$ and $`RP^2`$,” Phys.Lett. B512, 403 (2001) \[hep-th/0102212\];
C. Chu, J. Madore and H. Steinacker, “Scaling Limits of the fuzzy sphere at one loop”, JHEP 0108, 038 (2001) \[hep-th/0106205\];
B. P. Dolan, D. O’Connor and P. Presnajder, “Matix $`\varphi ^4`$ models on the fuzzy sphere and their continuum limits”, \[hep-th/0109084\];
W. H. Huang, ”Effective Potential on Fuzzy Sphere”, hep-th/0203051.
23. D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev and V. K. Khersonsky, “Quantum Theory Of Angular Momentum: Irreducible Tensors, Spherical Harmonics, Vector Coupling Coefficients, 3nj Symbols,” , Singapore: World Scientific (1988) 514p.


format: text

text:
# On multiplicities of graded sequences of ideals

## Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a regular local ring of dimension $`n`$. A graded sequence of ideals in $`R`$ is a set of ideals $`𝐚_{}=\{𝐚_m\}_m`$ such that for all $`p`$, $`q`$, we have $`𝐚_p𝐚_q𝐚_{p+q}`$. The trivial example is given by the powers of a fixed ideal. A more interesting case is that of the symbolic powers of a given ideal. Geometric examples arise as follows: let $`X`$ be a smooth variety and $`L`$ a line bundle on $`X`$. If $`R=𝒪_{X,Z}`$, for some irreducible, closed $`ZX`$, and if $`𝐚_m`$ defines in $`R`$ the base locus of the complete linear system $`|L^m|`$, then $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals.

In \[ELS1\], Ein, Lazarsfeld and Smith have introduced the volume and the multiplicity of a graded sequence $`𝐚_{}`$ of zero-dimensional ideals. The volume is defined by

$$\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_m)}{m^n},$$

while the multiplicity is given by

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)}{m^n},$$

where for a zero-dimensional ideal $`I`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{e}(I)`$ the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity of $`R`$ along $`I`$. It was proved in \[ELS1\] that under a certain condition on $`𝐚_{}`$ (see below for details), we have $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})`$. The proof was based on the theory of asymptotic multiplier ideals, so it required the restriction to characteristic zero. This result was applied to study Abhyankar valuations.

Our main result is that the equality $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})`$ holds for an arbitrary graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals. The main idea of the proof is to reduce the assertion to the case of a graded sequence of monomial ideals. In particular, the proof is purely algebraic, so it applies to any regular ring containing a field (of arbitrary characteristic).

As a byproduct of our proof, we obtain a useful result, which is new even in the case of one ideal. Suppose that $`IR=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ is an ideal supported at the origin. Fix a monomial order and let $`𝐚_m=\mathrm{in}_>(I^m)`$. We obtain as a corollary the following formula:

(1)
$$\mathrm{e}(I)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)}{m^n}.$$

We apply this result to give an easier proof of the inequality from \[FEM\] between the log canonical threshold $`\mathrm{lc}(I)`$ and the multiplicity $`\mathrm{e}(I)`$ (see \[FEM\] for motivation in the context of birational geometry). More precisely, we show that if $`I`$ is a zero-dimensional ideal in an $`n`$-dimensional local ring of a smooth complex variety, then we have

$$\mathrm{e}(I)\frac{n^n}{\mathrm{lc}(I)^n}.$$

The main point is that $`(\text{1})`$ reduces the statement to the case of a monomial ideal, when the inequality is easy to check.

We explain now in more detail the idea of the proof and how it relates to the approach in \[ELS1\] based on multiplier ideals. A few words about these ideals: they have been introduced in the analytic setting by Demailly, Nadel and Siu, but they have found striking applications in algebraic geometry, as well, in the work of Ein and Lazarsfeld and Kawamata (see, for example, \[EL\], \[Ka\] and \[Siu\]). Multiplier ideals, and especially their asymptotic version, have turned out to be a powerfull tool also in the study of graded sequences of ideals in an algebraic setting (see \[ELS2\], where they are used to relate the symbolic powers and the usual powers of an ideal).

The asymptotic ideals of a graded sequence $`𝐚_{}`$ form a family $`𝐛_{}=\{𝐛_m\}_m^{}`$ of ideals such that $`𝐚_m𝐛_m`$ for all $`m`$ and which satisfy a property which is “opposite” to the defining property of $`𝐚_{}`$: for every $`p`$ and $`q`$, $`𝐛_{p+q}𝐛_p𝐛_q`$ (this is the Subadditivity Theorem of \[DEL\]). In particular, for every $`m`$ and $`p`$, we have the inclusions

$$𝐚_m^p𝐚_{mp}𝐛_{mp}𝐛_m^p.$$

Very loosely, one could say that $`𝐛_{}`$ can be used to compensate the failure of $`𝐚_{}`$ to be the sequence of powers of an ideal.

Suppose now that $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals. One can define as above the invariants $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$ and $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})`$ and it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$. The result in \[ELS1\] is that if the graded sequence of colon ideals $`\{𝐚_m:𝐛_m\}_m`$ has multiplicity zero, then $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. This condition is satisfied, for example, by the sequence defined by an Abhyankar valuations, as in \[ELS1\], or by the sequence defining the base loci of the powers of a big line bundle.

We show that if $`𝐚_{}`$ consists of monomial ideals in a polynomial ring over a field, then $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. Note that in this case, multiplier ideals can be introduced in terms of Newton polyhedra (this is a result from \[Ho\]) and the main property, subadditivity, can be easily proved directly. What we show, in fact, is that a sequence of ideals closely related to $`𝐚_{}`$ satisfies the criterion in \[ELS1\] and that this is enough to give $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$.

By deforming an arbitrary graded sequence of ideals to a monomial sequence, we deduce that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})`$ in general. Moreover, we show that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=0`$ if and only if there is $`p^{}`$ such that $`𝐚_q𝐦^{[q/p]}`$, for all $`q`$, where $`𝐦`$ is the maximal ideal of $`R`$. When we are in a situation where multiplier ideals are defined, this means that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})=0`$.

We do not know whether we always have $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$ (assuming, of course, that $`𝐛_{}`$ is defined). We show, however, that if instead of multiplicity we consider the log canonical threshold, then we have equality: $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$ (see §3 for definitions).

A few words about the structure of the paper: in the first section we discuss the definition of multiplicity and volume, and reduce the statement of the main theorem to the case of monomial ideals. In the next section, we treat monomial ideals: we discuss asymptotic multiplier ideals, and prove that $`e(𝐚_{})=e(𝐛_{})`$ in this case. The last section applies the previous ideas to discuss another invariant, the log canonical threshold for graded sequences of ideals. In particular, we prove that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$. We also apply our main result to deduce the inequality involving the multiplicity and the log canonical threshold.

### 0.1. Acknowledgements

This work was motivated by the article \[ELS1\]. We are grateful to Lawrence Ein, Robert Lazarsfeld and Karen Smith for providing us an early version of their manuscript, without which the present paper would not exist. Moreover, discussions with Lawrence Ein on this material have been of invaluable help.

Work on the paper has been done while the author was visiting Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis and Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences. We are grateful to both institutions for providing an excellent working environment.

## 1. Volume versus multiplicity

Let $`(R,𝐦)`$ be a regular local ring containing a field, with $`dim(R)=n`$. Recall that a graded sequence of ideals in $`R`$ is a set of ideals $`𝐚_{}=\{𝐚_m\}_m`$ such that $`𝐚_p𝐚_q𝐚_{p+q}`$ for every $`p`$, $`q`$.

The following definition for the volume of $`𝐚_{}`$ appears in \[ELS1\].

###### Definition 1.1.

Suppose that $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals in $`R`$, i.e., $`dim(R/𝐚_m)0`$ for all $`m`$. The volume of $`𝐚_{}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_m)}{m^n}.$$

###### Remark 1.2.

In \[ELS1\] one considers more general families of ideals, indexed by an ordered semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, one makes the additional assumption that $`𝐚_p𝐚_q`$ if $`pq`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this case, one can always reduce the computation of volumes and multiplicities to families indexed by $``$ (see \[ELS1\] for details).

Our main result expresses the volume as a limit of Hilbert-Samuel multiplicities of the ideals $`𝐚_m`$. If $`I`$ is a zero-dimensional ideal of $`R`$, we will denote by $`\mathrm{e}(I)`$ the Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity of $`R`$ along $`I`$. We start with the following easy lemmas which allow us to define the multiplicity of $`𝐚_{}`$.

###### Lemma 1.3.

For every graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals $`𝐚_{}`$, and every $`p`$, $`q`$, we have

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{p+q})^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)^{1/n}+\mathrm{e}(𝐚_q)^{1/n}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded system of ideals, we have $`𝐚_p𝐚_q𝐚_{p+q}`$, hence $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{p+q})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p𝐚_q)`$. The assertion in the lemma follows from this and Teissier’s inequality (see \[Te\]):

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p𝐚_q)^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)^{1/n}+\mathrm{e}(𝐚_q)^{1/n}.$$

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`\{\alpha _m\}_m`$ be a sequence of real numbers, with $`\alpha _m0`$ for every $`m`$. If $`\alpha _{p+q}\alpha _p+\alpha _q`$ for all $`p`$, $`q`$, then $`lim_m\mathrm{}\frac{\alpha _m}{m}`$ exists and it is equal to $`inf_m^{}\frac{\alpha _m}{m}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`L=inf_m^{}\frac{\alpha _m}{m}`$ and $`ϵ>0`$. We show that $`\frac{\alpha _q}{q}L+ϵ`$ for $`q0`$.

We can find $`m1`$ such that $`\alpha _m/m<L+ϵ/2`$. For every integer $`p`$ with $`0p<m`$ and every $`k`$, we have $`\alpha _{km+p}k\alpha _m+\alpha _p`$, hence

$$\frac{\alpha _{km+p}}{km+p}\frac{km(L+ϵ/2)+\alpha _p}{km+p}.$$

When $`k`$ goes to infinity, the right hand side of the above inequality goes to $`L+ϵ/2`$. Hence for $`k0`$ we get $`\frac{\alpha _{km+p}}{km+p}L+ϵ`$. Since this holds for every integer $`p`$, with $`0p<m`$, we are done. ∎

By combining the previous lemmas, we deduce the following

###### Corollary 1.5.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded system of zero-dimensional ideals, then $`lim_m\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)}{m^n}`$ exists and it is equal to $`inf_m^{}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)}{m^n}`$.

###### Definition 1.6.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals, then the multiplicity of $`𝐚_{}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)}{m^n}.$$

It is clear that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})_+`$.

For a real number $`x`$, we denote by $`[x]`$ the integral part of $`x`$, i.e., the largest integer $`m`$ such that $`mx`$. The following is our main result.

###### Theorem 1.7.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals.

1. We have $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$.
2. $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})>0`$ if and only if there is $`q^{}`$ such that $`𝐚_p𝐦^{[p/q]}`$ for all $`p`$.

###### Remark 1.8.

Over a field of characteristic zero, this was proved in \[ELS1\] under the assumption that if $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then $`𝐚_{}`$ is close to $`𝐛_{}`$ in a suitable sense (we recall the precise statement in Lemma 2.8 below). Under this extra hypothesis it is shown that, in fact, the multiplicity of $`𝐚_{}`$ can be computed as the multiplicity $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$ of $`𝐛_{}`$. We do not know whether this also holds for an arbitrary sequence $`𝐚_{}`$, but we will show in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ that the assertion is true for graded sequences of monomial ideals. Note also that the second assertion in the above theorem can be interpreted as saying that for arbitrary $`𝐚_{}`$, we have $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$ if one of these invariants is zero (see §2 for details).

The equality in Theorem 1.7 $`(1)`$ allows us to deduce a generalization to volumes of Teissier’s inequality for multiplicities. The idea is the same as in \[ELS1\], but now we get the result for arbitrary graded sequences of ideals.

Recall that if $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}`$ are graded sequences of ideals, then their intersection $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$ is defined by $`\{𝐚_m𝐛_m\}_m`$. Similarly, their product $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$ is defined by $`\{𝐚_m𝐛_m\}_m`$. It is clear that both $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$ and $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$ are graded sequences of ideals. Moreover, if $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}`$ are sequences of zero-dimensional ideals, then so are $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$ and $`𝐚_{}𝐛_{}`$.

###### Corollary 1.9.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}`$ are graded sequences of zero-dimensional ideals, then

$$\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}𝐛_{})^{1/n}\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}𝐛_{})^{1/n}\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})^{1/n}+\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})^{1/n}.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐚_m𝐛_m𝐚_m𝐛_m`$ for all $`m`$, we have a corresponding inequality between multiplicities. The first inequality follows by dividing by $`m^n`$, taking the limit, and applying Theorem 1.7.

For the second one, by Theorem 1.7, it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}𝐛_{})^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})^{1/n}+\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})^{1/n}`$. For every $`m`$, Teissier’s inequality (see \[Te\]) gives $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)^{1/n}+\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)^{1/n}`$. Dividing by $`m`$ and taking the limit, we get our inequality. ∎

We show now the easy inequality $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$ and use it to reduce the statement of Theorem 1.7 to the case of a graded sequence of monomial ideals. The proof of that case will be given in the next section.

###### Lemma 1.10.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals, then $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to prove that for every $`p`$, we have

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_m)}{m^n}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)}{p^n}.$$

To see this, we show that for every integer $`k`$, with $`0k<p`$ we have

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp+k})}{(mp+k)^n}\frac{\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)}{p^n}.$$

Since $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence, we have $`𝐚_p^m𝐚_k𝐚_{mp+k}`$. If $`𝐚_p=R`$, then this implies $`\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp+k})\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_k)`$ for every $`m`$, hence

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp+k})}{(mp+k)^n}=0,$$

and we are done.

If $`a_pR`$, then we can find $`r`$ such that $`𝐚_p^r𝐚_k`$. We deduce

$$\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp+k})}{(mp+k)^n}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p^{m+r})}{(m+r)^n}\frac{(m+r)^n}{(mp+k)^n},$$

for every $`m`$. Since the right hand side has limit $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)/p^n`$ when $`m`$ goes to infinity, we are done by taking $`lim\; sup`$ in the above inequality. ∎

###### Remark 1.11.

It follows from Theorem 1.7 that for every $`p`$, $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=lim\; sup_m\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp})}{(mp)^n}`$. Indeed, this is obvious since $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$ is a limit. If we assume that $`𝐚_p𝐚_q`$ for $`p>q`$, then this can be easily proved directly (see \[ELS1\], Lemma 3.8).

Once we know that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=lim\; sup_m\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{mp})}{(mp)^n}`$, the proof of the above lemma becomes even easier since $`𝐚_p^m𝐚_{pm}`$ implies

$$\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_{pm})}{(pm)^n}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p^m)}{p^nm^n}$$

for all $`m`$. Taking $`lim\; sup`$ with respect to $`m`$, we deduce $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)/p^n`$.

###### Lemma 1.12.

If Theorem 1.7 is known to be true for every graded sequence $`𝐚_{}`$ of zero-dimensional monomial ideals in a polynomial ring over a field, then the theorem is true in general.

###### Note.

We have given all the definitions for a regular local ring $`R`$. When we work with $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, we refer to the corresponding statements for the localization at $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$. However, since in this case all our ideals are supported at the origin, this should cause no confusion, and we will simplify in this way the notation.

###### Proof.

Let $`\widehat{R}`$ be the completion of $`R`$ at $`𝐦`$. If $`𝐚_m^{}=𝐚_m\widehat{R}`$ for all $`m`$, it is clear that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{})`$. Moreover, since $`𝐚_p𝐦^q`$ if and only if $`𝐚_p^{}(𝐦\widehat{R})^q`$, it is clear that Theorem 1.7 is true for $`𝐚_{}`$ if and only if it is true for $`𝐚_{}^{}`$.

On the other hand, since $`R`$ is regular and contains a field, if $`K=R/𝐦`$, then $`\widehat{R}K[[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]]`$. Reversing the previous argument, we see that it is enough to prove the theorem when $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ and $`𝐚_p`$ are ideals supported at the origin.

We consider now a deformation of $`𝐚_{}`$ to a sequence of monomial ideals. For example, pick a monomial order $`>`$ on $`R`$ and let $`𝐚_m^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{in}_>(𝐚_m)`$ for all $`m`$ (see, for example, \[Ei\], Chapter 15, for initial monomial ideals). If $`u=\mathrm{in}_>(f)`$ and $`v=\mathrm{in}_>(g)`$ for $`f𝐚_p`$ and $`g𝐚_q`$, then $`uv=\mathrm{in}_>(fg)`$ and $`fg𝐚_{p+q}`$. Therefore $`𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals, which are clearly supported at the origin.

Moreover, we have $`\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p)=\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{e}(𝐚_p)`$. The equality of lengths is well-known, while the inequality between multiplicities can be seen as follows: since $`(𝐚_p^{\prime \prime })^m\mathrm{in}_>(𝐚_p^m)`$, we have $`\mathrm{l}(R/(𝐚_p^{\prime \prime })^m)\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p^m)`$ for all $`m`$. Dividing by $`m^n`$ and taking the limit with respect to $`m`$ gives the inequality.

We deduce $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$. Using Lemma 1.10, we have

$$\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime }).$$

Since assertion $`(1)`$ in the theorem is true for $`𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime }`$, we deduce this assertion for $`𝐚_{}`$.

For the proof of $`(2)`$, note that one implication is trivial. Namely, if $`𝐚_p𝐦^{[p/q]}`$ for all $`p`$, then

$$\mathrm{l}(R/𝐚_p)\mathrm{l}(R/𝐦^{[p/q]})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[p/q]+n1}{n}\right).$$

Dividing by $`p^n`$ and taking $`lim\; sup`$ gives $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})(1/q)^n>0`$.

For the converse, once we know the theorem for $`𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime }`$, it is enough to show that we can make the deformation from $`𝐚_{}`$ to $`𝐚_{}^{\prime \prime }`$ such that for every $`p`$ and $`r`$, $`𝐚_p𝐦^r`$ if $`𝐚_p^{\prime \prime }𝐦^r`$. This is clear if $`𝐚_m`$ is homogeneous for every $`m`$. In the general case, consider the graded sequence of ideals $`\stackrel{~}{𝐚}_m=(l(f)f𝐚_m)`$ where $`l(f)`$ is the sum of the terms in $`f`$ of smallest degree. It is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐚}_{}`$ is a graded system of homogeneous ideals such that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{vol}(\stackrel{~}{𝐚}_{})`$ and $`𝐚^p𝐦^r`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{𝐚}_p𝐦^r`$. Since we know $`(2)`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{𝐚}_{}`$, we deduce it for $`𝐚_{}`$, and this completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

It follows from the above proof that the computation of $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$ can be reduced to the case of a graded sequence of monomial ideals. We state this as a separate corollary.

###### Corollary 1.13.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be a graded sequence of monomial ideals in $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, supported at the origin. If $`>`$ is a monomial order on the monomials in $`R`$, and if $`𝐚_m^{}=\mathrm{in}_>(𝐚_m)`$ for all $`m`$, then $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{})`$. In particular, for every ideal $`IR`$ supported at the origin, we have

$$\mathrm{e}(I)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{e}(\mathrm{in}_>(I^m))}{m^n}.$$

## 2. Graded sequences of monomial ideals

In this section we finish the proof of Theorem 1.7, by proving it for graded sequences of monomial ideals. In this case, we prove a stronger statement involving the asymptotic multiplier ideals of $`𝐚_{}`$. More precisely, we prove that the full conclusion of Proposition 3.11 in \[ELS1\] remains true for an arbitrary graded sequence of zero-dimensional monomial ideals.

Note that since we work over a field of arbitrary characteristic, the usual results concerning multiplier ideals do not apply. On the other hand, since in this section we are concerned only with monomial ideals, the characteristic of the field does not play any role and we could always reduce ourselves to a field of characteristic zero. However, in order to underline the elementary nature of the arguments, we will define directly in this case multiplier ideals and deduce the basic property that we need, the subadditivity, directly from definition. We start with some general considerations. Recall that we work in a ring $`R`$ which is either a regular local ring or a polynomial ring over a field.

###### Definition 2.1.

A reverse-graded sequence of ideals is a family of ideals $`𝐛_{}=\{𝐛_m\}_m^{}`$ such that

1. If $`p>q`$, then $`𝐛_p𝐛_q`$.
2. $`𝐛_{p+q}𝐛_p𝐛_q`$, for every $`p`$, $`q^{}`$.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals, then we say that $`𝐛_{}`$ dominates $`𝐚_{}`$ if $`𝐚_m𝐛_m`$ for every $`m^{}`$.

We have the following lemma, which plays an analogous role with Lemma 1.4.

###### Lemma 2.2.

If $`\{\beta _m\}_m^{}`$ is a non-decreasing sequence of non-negative real numbers, such that $`\beta _{mp}m\beta _p`$ for all $`m`$ and $`p`$, then $`lim_m\mathrm{}\beta _m/m=sup_m\beta _m/m`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M=sup_m\beta _m/m`$. Suppose that $`M<\mathrm{}`$, the case $`M=\mathrm{}`$ being analogous. For every $`ϵ>0`$, pick $`p`$ such that $`\beta _p/pMϵ/2`$. It is enough to show that for every integer $`q`$, with $`0q<p`$, we have $`\beta _{mp+q}/(mp+q)Mϵ`$ for $`m0`$. Since we have

$$\frac{\beta _{mp+q}}{mp+q}\frac{\beta _{mp}}{mp+q}\frac{m\beta _p}{mp+q}(Mϵ/2)\frac{mp}{mp+q},$$

and since the right hand side goes to $`Mϵ/2`$ when $`m`$ goes to infinity, it follows that for $`m0`$ we have $`\beta _{mp+q}/(mp+q)^nMϵ`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3.

If $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals, then $`lim_m\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)/m^n=sup_m\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)/m^n`$.

###### Proof.

Apply the above lemma to the sequence $`\beta _m=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)^{1/n}`$, noting that $`𝐛_{mp}𝐛_p^m`$ implies $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{mp})\mathrm{e}(𝐛_p)m^n`$. ∎

###### Definition 2.4.

If $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals, then the volume of $`𝐛_{}`$ is defined by the same formula as $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})`$:

$$\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{}):=\underset{m}{lim\; sup}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_m)}{m^n}.$$

The multiplicity of $`𝐛_{}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{e}(b_m)}{m^n}.$$

###### Lemma 2.5.

If $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals, then we have $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})=lim\; sup_m\mathrm{}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp})}{(mp)^n}`$, for every $`p^{}`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})L:=lim\; sup_m\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp})}{(mp)^n}`$. For the reverse inequality we use again the standard argument: for $`ϵ>0`$, let $`m_0`$ be such that $`\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp})}{(mp)^n}L+ϵ/2`$ for all $`mm_0`$. It is enough to prove that for every integer $`q`$, with $`0q<p`$, we have $`\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp+q})}{(mp+q)^n}L+ϵ`$ for all $`m0`$. Since $`𝐛_{(m+1)p}𝐛_{mp+q}`$, we have

$$\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp+q})}{(mp+q)^n}\frac{n!\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{(m+1)p})}{(m+1)^np^n}\frac{(mp+p)^n}{(mp+q)^n}.$$

We are done if $`m\mathrm{max}\{m_0,m_1\}`$, where $`m_1`$ is such that $`(mp+p)^n/(mp+q)^n(L+ϵ)/(L+ϵ/2)`$ for $`mm_1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals and let $`𝐛_{}`$ be a reverse-graded sequence dominating $`𝐚_{}`$. We have the following inequalities:

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}).$$

###### Proof.

Since we have proved in Lemma 1.10 that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$ and since $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})`$ follows trivially from $`𝐚_m𝐛_m`$ for all $`m`$, it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})`$.

Fix $`p`$. Since $`𝐛_{mp}𝐛_p^m`$ for all $`m`$, we deduce $`\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_{mp})\mathrm{l}(R/𝐛_p^m)`$. Multiplying by $`n!/(mp)^n`$ and taking $`lim\; sup`$ when $`m`$ goes to infinity, we deduce by Lemma 2.5 that $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐛_p)/p^n`$. Since this holds for every $`p`$, we get $`\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})sup_p\mathrm{e}(𝐛_p)/p^n=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.7.

Since $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})=sup_m\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)/b^m`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})=0`$ if and only if $`𝐛_m=R`$ for every $`m`$.

To check equality in Lemma 2.6 we will use the following criterion from \[ELS1\]. Suppose that $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals and $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence which dominates $`𝐚_{}`$. It is easy to check that the set of colon ideals $`\{𝐚_m:𝐛_m\}_m`$ forms a graded sequence of ideals, which we denote by $`𝐚_{}:𝐛_{}`$. Note that since $`𝐚_m`$ is zero-dimensional, so is $`𝐚_m:𝐛_m`$.

###### Lemma 2.8.

(\[ELS1\], 3.11) With the above notation, if $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}:𝐛_{})=0`$, then

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}).$$

###### Proof.

We recall the proof for completeness. By Lemma 2.6, it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. Let $`𝐜_m=𝐚_m:𝐛_m`$. Since we have $`𝐛_m𝐜_m𝐚_m`$ for all $`m`$, using Teissier’s inequality \[Te\], we deduce

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m𝐜_m)^{1/n}\mathrm{e}(𝐛_m)^{1/n}+\mathrm{e}(𝐜_m)^{1/n}.$$

If we divide by $`m`$ and take the limit when $`m`$ goes to infinity, the hypothesis implies $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. ∎

As in \[ELS1\], the sequence $`𝐛_{}`$ we use is given by the asymptotic multiplier ideals of $`𝐚_{}`$. From now on we fix a graded sequence $`𝐚_{}`$ consisting of monomial ideals in $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, which are supported at the origin. If $`u=(u_i)_i^n`$, we use the notation $`X^u=_iX_i^{u_i}`$.

###### Definition 2.9.

Let $`𝐚R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ be a monomial ideal and $`P_𝐚`$ its Newton polyhedron, i.e., $`P_𝐚`$ is the convex hull of $`\{u^n|X^u𝐚\}`$. If $`\lambda _+^{}`$, then the multiplier ideal of $`𝐚`$ with coefficient $`\lambda `$ is the monomial ideal

$$(\lambda 𝐚):=(X^u|u^n,u+e\mathrm{Int}(\lambda P_𝐚)),$$

where $`e=(1,\mathrm{},1)^n`$.

###### Remark 2.10.

The usual definition of multiplier ideals is different (see §3), and it is a theorem of Howald from \[Ho\] that for a monomial ideal we have this expression.

Suppose now that $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals in $`R`$. It is clear that if $`\lambda _+^{}`$, and if $`p`$, $`q^{}`$, then

$$(\lambda /p𝐚_p)(\lambda /pq𝐚_{pq}).$$

Indeed, this follows since $`P_{𝐚_p}(1/q)P_{𝐚_q}`$, as $`qP_{𝐚_p}P_{𝐚_p^q}P_{𝐚_{pq}}`$. It is clear from this that the set $`\{(\lambda /p𝐚_p)\}_p`$ has a unique maximal element, called the asymptotic multiplier ideal of $`𝐚_{}`$ with coefficient $`\lambda `$, and denoted by $`(\lambda 𝐚_{})`$.

Given the graded sequence $`𝐚_{}`$, we take $`𝐛_m=(m𝐚_{})`$. We then have the following

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be a graded sequence of monomial ideals. With the above definition, $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence of ideals dominating $`𝐚_{}`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from definition that $`𝐚_m(𝐚_m)𝐛_m`$. Moreover, it is clear that if $`\lambda <\mu `$, then $`(\mu 𝐚)(\lambda 𝐚)`$ for every $`𝐚`$. This immediately implies $`𝐛_q𝐛_p`$ for $`p<q`$.

The last property we need for $`𝐛_{}`$ follows from the general subadditivity theorem (see \[DEL\]). In the case of monomial ideals it is very easy to give a direct proof. Note that it is a formal consequence of the following assertion: if $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐚^{}`$ are monomial ideals, and if $`\lambda _+^{}`$, we have

$$(\lambda (𝐚𝐚^{}))(\lambda 𝐚)(\lambda 𝐚^{}).$$

In order to prove this, suppose that $`X^u(\lambda (𝐚𝐚^{}))`$, i.e., $`u+e\mathrm{Int}(\lambda (P_𝐚+P_𝐚^{}))`$. This means that we can write $`u+e=\lambda (v+w)`$, where we may assume, for example, that $`v\mathrm{Int}(P_𝐚)`$ and $`wP_𝐚^{}`$.

For $`x`$, denote by $`\{x\}`$ the smallest integer $`m`$ such that $`m>x`$. Note that $`\{x\}x+1`$. If $`\alpha =(\alpha _i)_i^n`$, we put $`\{\alpha \}=(\{\alpha _i\})_i`$.

Take $`w^{}=\{\lambda w\}e`$ and $`v^{}=uw^{}`$. Therefore we have $`u=v^{}+w^{}`$. By definition, we have $`X^w^{}(\lambda P_𝐚^{})`$. Moreover, we have $`X^v^{}(\lambda P_𝐚)`$. Indeed, $`e+v^{}=(\lambda w+e\{\lambda w\})+\lambda v`$, and the first term is in $`_+^n`$, while $`\lambda v\mathrm{Int}(\lambda P_𝐚)`$. This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

The following is the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 2.12.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be a graded sequence of zero-dimensional monomial ideals. If $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐛_{})=\mathrm{vol}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}).$$

Granted this, we can finish the proof of the result we have stated in the previous section.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.7.

By Lemma 1.12, we may assume that all $`𝐚_m`$ are monomial ideals in $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$. The assertion in $`(1)`$ follows from the more precise statement in Theorem 2.12 above. Moreover, we have seen in the proof of Lemma 1.12 that the only nontrivial implication in $`(2)`$ is that if $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})>0`$, then there is $`q^{}`$ such that $`𝐚_p𝐦^{[p/q]}`$ for all $`p`$.

By Theorem 2.12 above, $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})>0`$ implies $`\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})>0`$, i.e., there is $`q`$ such that $`𝐛_q𝐦=(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$. Since this implies

$$𝐚_p𝐛_p𝐛_{q[p/q]}𝐛_q^{[p/q]}𝐦^{[p/q]},$$

we are done. ∎

Before giving the proof of Theorem 2.12, we need some preparation. We start by interpreting $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})`$ in terms of the polyhedra involved. If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional monomial ideals, let $`Q_m`$ be the closure of $`_+^nP_{𝐚_m}`$ (if $`𝐚_m=R`$, then we take $`Q_m=\{0\}`$). It is clear that $`Q_m`$ is compact for every $`m`$. Moreover, the condition that $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals implies

(2)
$$Q_{p+q}Q_p+Q_q,$$

for every $`p`$ and $`q`$. In particular, $`(1/p)Q_p(1/q)Q_q`$ if $`q`$ divides $`p`$.

Indeed, if $`u_+^nP_{𝐚_{p+q}}`$, and if $`vP_{𝐚_p}Q_p`$ is such that $`uv_+^n`$, then $`uvQ_q`$. Note that we can choose such $`v`$, unless $`uQ_p`$, in which case we have $`uQ_p+Q_q`$ trivially. We deduce now equation (2), since the right hand side is closed.

Let $`Q:=_m^{}(1/m)Q_m`$. It is clear that $`Q`$ is compact. Recall the well-known fact that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_m)=n!\mathrm{vol}(Q_m)`$. The following lemma implies the analogous equality for a graded sequence: $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=n!\mathrm{vol}(Q)`$.

###### Lemma 2.13.

For every neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`Q`$, we have $`(1/m)Q_mU`$ for $`m0`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{vol}(Q)=lim_m\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(Q_m)}{m^n}`$, hence $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚)=n!\mathrm{vol}(Q)`$.

###### Proof.

Fix an open neighbourhood $`W`$ of $`Q`$ such that $`\overline{W}`$ is compact and contained in $`U`$. Moreover, since $`\lambda QQ`$ for every $`\lambda `$ with $`0\lambda 1`$, we may assume that $`W`$ also has this property.

Since all $`Q_m`$ are closed and lie in a bounded domain, we can find $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_k`$ such that $`_{1ik}(1/m_i)Q_{m_i}W`$. If we pick $`m_0`$ such that $`m_0`$ is divisible by $`m_i`$ for $`1ik`$, it follows that $`(1/m)Q_mW`$ if $`m_0`$ divides $`m`$. In order to finish, it is enough to show that for every integer $`q`$, with $`0<q<m_0`$, we have $`(1/lm_0+q)Q_{lm_0+q}U`$ for $`l0`$.

Let $`U_0`$ be an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ such that $`\overline{W}+U_0U`$. If we choose $`\mu >0`$ such that $`\mu (1/q)Q_qU_0`$ and if $`l_0`$ is such that $`q/(l_0m_0+q)<\mu `$, then it follows from the inclusion $`(\text{2})`$ and our conditions on $`W`$, $`U_0`$, $`l_0`$ and $`m_0`$ that $`(1/lm_0+q)Q_{lm_0+q}U`$ for all $`ll_0`$. ∎

For the proof of Theorem 2.12 we will use Lemma 2.8. Note however that, as the following example shows, an arbitrary graded sequence of monomial ideals does not satisfy the hypothesis of that lemma.

###### Example 2.14.

Let $`𝐚_{}`$ be the graded sequence in $`R=K[x,y]`$ defined by $`𝐚_m=(x^m,y^m)`$. It is easy to see that $`𝐛_m=(x,y)^{m1}`$. Since $`(xy)^p𝐛_{2p+1}`$, it follows that $`(𝐚_{2p+1}:𝐛_{2p+1})(x^{p+1},y^{p+1})`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{2p+1}:𝐛_{2p+1})(p+1)^2`$ for all $`p`$, hence $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}:𝐛_{})1/4`$.

We show now how to associate to a graded sequence of monomial ideals $`𝐚_{}`$ another closely related such sequence $`𝐚_{}^{}`$, which satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 2.8.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals and if $`m`$ is fixed, then consider the family of ideals $`\{𝐚_{m,r}^{}\}_r`$, where $`𝐚_{m,r}^{}=(X^u|u^n(1/r)P_{𝐚_{mr}})`$. It is clear that if $`r`$ divides $`p`$, then $`𝐚_{m,r}^{}𝐚_{m,p}^{}`$. Since $`R`$ is Noetherian, it follows that there is a unique maximal element among $`\{𝐚_{m,r}^{}\}_r`$, which we denote by $`𝐚_m^{}`$. It is clear that $`𝐚_{}^{}`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals such that $`𝐚_m𝐚_m^{}`$ for all $`m`$.

###### Lemma 2.15.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐚_{}^{}`$ are as above, and if $`𝐛_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}^{}`$ are the corresponding sequences of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then $`𝐛_{}=𝐛_{}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐚_m𝐚_m^{}`$ for every $`m`$, it is clear that $`𝐛_m𝐛_m^{}`$ for every $`m`$. For the reverse inclusion, we have to prove that $`(1/p𝐚_{pm}^{})(m𝐚_{})`$ for every $`p`$ and $`m`$. Suppose that $`q`$ is such that $`𝐚_{pm}^{}=𝐚_{pm,q}^{}`$. If $`X^u(1/p𝐚_{pm}^{})`$, then $`u+e(1/p)\mathrm{Int}(P_{𝐚_{pm}^{}})`$, hence $`pq(u+e)\mathrm{Int}(P_{𝐚_{pmq}})`$. It follows from definition that $`X^u(1/pq𝐚_{pmq})(m𝐚_{})`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.16.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional monomial ideals, then we have, with the above notation, $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We use Lemma 2.13. With the notation in that lemma, it is enough to prove that if $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ are the compact sets corresponding to these two graded sequences of ideals, we have $`Q(_+^{})^n=Q^{}(_+^{})^n`$. Since $`𝐚_m𝐚_m^{}`$ for every $`m`$, we clearly have $`Q^{}Q`$. We show now that $`Q(_+^{})^nQ^{}(_+^{})^n`$. Suppose that $`uQ(_+^{})^n`$, but $`uQ^{}`$. Then there is $`m`$ such that $`u(1/m)\mathrm{Int}(P_{𝐚_m^{}})`$. Let $`p`$ be such that $`𝐚_m^{}=𝐚_{m,p}^{}`$. Since $`pP_{𝐚_{m,p}^{}}P_{𝐚_{pm}}`$, we deduce $`u(1/mp)\mathrm{Int}(P_{𝐚_{mp}})^nQ`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Definition 2.17.

We say that a graded sequence of monomial ideals $`𝐚_{}`$ is saturated if $`𝐚_{}=𝐚_{}^{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.18.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals, then $`𝐚_{}^{}`$ is saturated.

###### Proof.

We have to prove that for every $`p`$ and $`m`$, if $`u^n`$ is such that $`puP_{𝐚_{mp}^{}}`$, then $`X^u𝐚_m^{}`$. Let $`r`$ be such that $`𝐚_{mp}^{}=𝐚_{mp,r}^{}`$. By definition, $`puP_{𝐚_{mp,r}^{}}`$ implies $`rpuP_{𝐚_{mpr}}`$, hence $`X^u𝐚_{m,pr}^{}𝐚_m^{}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.19.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a saturated graded sequence of zero-dimensional monomial ideals, and if $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then we have $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}:𝐛_{})=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝐜_m=(𝐚_m:𝐛_m)`$, and we first show that $`X^e_m𝐜_m`$. If $`X^u𝐛_m`$, and if $`p`$ is such that $`𝐛_m=((1/p)𝐚_{pm})`$, we have in particular $`u+e(1/p)P_{𝐚_{pm}}`$. Therefore $`X^eX^u𝐚_{m,p}^{}𝐚_m^{}=𝐚_m`$, since $`𝐚_{}`$ is saturated. Hence $`X^e𝐜_m`$.

It is now easy to see that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐜_{})=0`$. Indeed, let us consider for every $`i`$, the polynomial ring $`R_i=K[X_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{X_i},\mathrm{},X_n]`$ for every $`i`$, and let $`𝐜_{m,i}=𝐜_mR_i`$. It is clear that $`𝐜_{,i}`$ is a graded sequence of monomial ideals in $`R_i`$. Moreover, there is a constant $`C`$ depending only on $`n`$ such that

$$\mathrm{e}(R/𝐜_m)C\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{e}(R_i/𝐜_{m,i})+1\right),$$

for every $`m`$. Dividing by $`m^n`$ and taking the limit when $`m`$ goes to infinity gives $`\mathrm{e}(𝐜_{})=0`$, since $`dim(R_i)=n1`$ for every $`i`$. ∎

We can give now the proof of Theorem 2.12

###### Proof of Theorem 2.12.

By Lemma 2.6, it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{})`$. Using Lemmas 2.15 and 2.16, we see that it is enough to prove that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{}^{})=\mathrm{e}(𝐛_{}^{})`$, where $`𝐛_{}^{}`$ is the sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals corresponding to $`𝐚_{}^{}`$. Therefore, by Lemma 2.18, we may assume that $`𝐚`$ is saturated. Lemma 2.19 shows that $`𝐚_{}`$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 2.8, so we are done. ∎

###### Question 2.20.

A basic question is whether the assertion in Theorem 2.12 remains true for arbitrary graded sequences of zero-dimensional ideals (assuming that we are in a setting where we have available the theory of multiplier ideals). We will see in Theorem 3.6 that the analogous assertion is true if we replace the multiplicity by the log canonical threshold: we have $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$.

## 3. The log canonical threshold of a graded system of ideals

We apply now the ideas used in the previous sections to the study of log canonical thresholds. We suppose that we are in a geometric situation: let $`X`$ be a smooth variety over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero, and let $`R`$ be the local ring of $`X`$ at a (not necessarily closed) point.

We recall briefly the definition of multiplier ideals, and refer for details and basic properties to \[La\]. Let $`𝐚R`$ be a non-zero ideal and $`V(𝐚)X=\mathrm{Spec}R`$, the subscheme defined by $`𝐚`$. Let $`f:X^{}X`$ be a log resolution for $`(X,V(𝐚))`$, i.e., a proper, birational morphism, with $`X^{}`$ smooth, and such that $`f^1(V(𝐚))\mathrm{Ex}(f)`$ is a divisor with simple normal crossings ($`\mathrm{Ex}(f)`$ denotes the exceptional locus of $`f`$). Let $`K_{X^{}/X}`$ be the relative canonical divisor of $`f`$.

If $`\lambda _+^{}`$, and if $`D=[\lambda f^1(V(𝐚))]`$, then the multiplier ideal of $`𝐚`$ with coefficient $`\lambda `$ is

$$(\lambda 𝐚):=f_{}(𝒪_X^{}(K_{X^{}/X}D)).$$

One shows that the definition does not depend on the particular resolution, and this fact can be conveniently expressed as follows. Suppose that $`E`$ is a divisor with center on $`X`$, i.e., it is a divisor on some smooth model $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ over $`X`$. We identify $`E`$ with the corresponding discrete valuation ring $`𝒪_{X^{},E}`$ and $`\mathrm{ord}_E`$ will denote the induced valuation. If $`𝐚^{}`$ is an ideal in $`R`$, then we put $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚^{}):=inf\{\mathrm{ord}_E(u)u𝐚^{}\}`$. With this notation, if $`uR`$, then $`u(\lambda 𝐚)`$ if and only if for every $`E`$ as above, we have

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(u)>\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚)\mathrm{ord}_E(K_{X^{}/X})1.$$

Going from multiplier ideals to asymptotic multiplier ideals involves the same process as the one we sketched in the previous section (see \[La\] for details). As before, we put $`𝐛_m=(m𝐚_{})`$. It follows from the Subadditivity Theorem (see \[DEL\]) that $`𝐛_{}`$ is a reverse-graded sequence of ideals dominating $`𝐚_{}`$.

For a non-zero ideal $`𝐚R`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)`$ the log canonical threshold of the subsubscheme $`V(𝐚)`$ (see \[Ko\] for basic facts about log canonical thresholds). It is defined as follows. If $`f`$ is a log resolution for $`(X,V(𝐚))`$, as above, we write $`f^1(V(𝐚))=_i\alpha _iE_i`$ and $`K_{X^{}/X}=_i\gamma _iE_i`$, and then

$$\mathrm{lc}(𝐚):=\underset{i}{inf}\frac{\gamma _i+1}{\alpha _i}.$$

In terms of multiplier ideals, we have

$$\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)=sup\{\lambda >0(\lambda 𝐚)=R\}.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)_+^{}`$, for every non-zero ideal $`𝐚`$.

Recall the characterization of multiplier for monomial ideals, due to Howald, which we have used in the previous section. It follows from that description that if $`𝐚`$ is a monomial ideal with Newton polyhedron $`P_𝐚`$, and if $`e=(1,\mathrm{},1)`$, then

$$1/\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)=inf\{\mu >0\mu eP_𝐚\}.$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`𝐚`$ is a graded sequence of ideals, then for every $`p`$ and $`q`$, we have $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{p+q})}\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_p)}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_q)}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐚_p𝐚_q𝐚_{p+q}`$, we deduce $`1/\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{p+q})1/\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_p𝐚_q)`$. The statement of the lemma follows once we show that for arbitrary ideals $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, we have the following analogue of Teissier’s inequality:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚𝐛)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐛)}.$$

Indeed, suppose that $`f:X^{}X=\mathrm{Spec}(R)`$ is a log resolution for $`(X,V(𝐚)V(𝐛))`$. If we write $`f^1(V(𝐚))=_i\alpha _iE_i`$, $`f^1(V(𝐛))=_i\beta _iE_i`$ and $`K_{X^{}/X}=_i\gamma _iE_i`$, then $`f^1(\mathrm{𝐚𝐛})=_i(\alpha _i+\beta _i)E_i`$, and

$$\underset{i}{sup}\frac{\alpha _i+\beta _i}{\gamma _i+1}\underset{i}{sup}\frac{\alpha _i}{\gamma _i+1}+\underset{i}{sup}\frac{\beta _i}{\gamma _i+1},$$

which is precisely our assertion. ∎

###### Definition 3.2.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals in $`R`$, we define the log canonical threshold of $`𝐚_{}`$ by $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{}):=lim_m\mathrm{}m\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_m)`$. By Lemma 3.1, we may apply Lemma 1.4 to the sequence $`\{1/\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_m)\}_m`$ to see that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})`$ exists in $`_+^{}\{\mathrm{}\}`$, and it is equal to $`sup\{m\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_m)m^{}\}`$.

###### Remark 3.3.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals as above, then

$$\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=sup\{\lambda _+^{}|(\mu 𝐚_{})=R\text{for all}\mu <\lambda \}.$$

Indeed, we have $`(\mu 𝐚_{})=R`$ if and only if there is some $`p`$ such that $`(\mu /p𝐚_p)=R`$, which means that $`\mu <p\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_p)`$.

###### Remark 3.4.

It follows from the above remark that if $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals in $`R`$, and if $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`𝐛_m=R`$ for all $`m`$. Recall that if $`𝐚_m`$ is zero-dimensional for every $`m`$, then Theorem 1.7 shows that this is the case if and only if $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=0`$.

###### Definition 3.5.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals in $`R`$, and if $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then we define the log canonical threshold of $`𝐛_{}`$ by $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{}):=lim_m\mathrm{}m\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)`$. It follows from Lemma 2.2 applied for $`\beta _m=1/\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)`$ that $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$ exists in $`_+\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and it is equal to $`inf\{m\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)m^{}\}`$.

The following result shows that with respect to the log canonical threshold, the sequences $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}`$ grow in the same way.

###### Theorem 3.6.

If $`𝐚_{}`$ is a graded sequence of ideals and if $`𝐛_{}`$ is the corresponding sequence of asymptotic multiplier ideals, then $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$.

###### Proof.

For every $`m`$, we have $`𝐚_m𝐛_m`$, hence $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_m)\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)`$. Multiplying by $`m`$ and taking the limit, gives $`\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_{})`$.

On the other hand, for fixed $`m`$, let $`p`$ be such that $`𝐛_m=((1/p)𝐚_{mp})`$. Lemma 3.7 below gives

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)}\frac{1}{p\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{mp})}1.$$

Dividing by $`m`$ and using $`mp\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{mp})\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)`$, gives

$$\frac{1}{m\mathrm{lc}(𝐛_m)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})}\frac{1}{m}.$$

Taking the limit when $`m`$ goes to infinity, gives the other inequality that we need. ∎

###### Lemma 3.7.

For every non-zero ideal $`𝐚R`$, and every $`\lambda >0`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}((\lambda 𝐚))}\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)}1.$$

###### Proof.

We prove first the following general fact: for every ideal $`𝐚R`$, and every $`\lambda `$, $`\mu >0`$, we have

$$()\overline{(\mu (\lambda 𝐚))^{1/(\mu +1)}}(\frac{\lambda \mu }{\mu +1}𝐚)).$$

Recall that for an ideal $`IR`$ and for $`\alpha >0`$,

$$\overline{I^\alpha }=\{uR\mathrm{ord}_E(u)\alpha \mathrm{ord}_E(I),\text{for all}E\},$$

where $`E`$ ranges over all divisors over $`X=\mathrm{Spec}R`$.

To prove $`()`$, let $`u`$ be an element in the left hand side, and let $`E`$ be a divisor over $`X`$. We pick a smooth model $`X^{}`$ on which $`E`$ is a divisor and denote by $`K`$ the relative canonical divisor of $`X^{}`$ over $`X`$. By the definition of multiplier ideals, we have

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(u)>(1/(\mu +1))\left(\mu \left(\lambda \mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚)\mathrm{ord}_E(K)1\right)\mathrm{ord}_E(K)1\right).$$

An easy computation gives

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(u)>\frac{\lambda \mu }{\mu +1}\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚)\mathrm{ord}_E(K)1,$$

hence $`u(\lambda \mu /(\mu +1)𝐚)`$.

It follows from $`()`$ that if $`\mu <\mathrm{lc}((\lambda 𝐚))`$, then $`\lambda \mu <(\mu +1)\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)`$. Since we may assume $`\lambda >\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)`$ (otherwise the statement of the lemma is trivial), we deduce $`\mathrm{lc}((\lambda 𝐚))\mathrm{lc}(𝐚)/(\lambda \mathrm{lc}(𝐚)),`$ which immediately gives the assertion in the lemma. ∎

###### Remark 3.8.

There are other invariants that one can associate to $`𝐚_{}`$ and $`𝐛_{}`$. For example, fix a divisor $`E`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}R`$. Then the sequence of numbers $`\{\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_m)\}_m`$ satisfies the hypothesis in Lemma 1.4, hence we may define

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_m)}{m}=\underset{m}{inf}\frac{\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_m)}{m}.$$

Similarly, by Lemma 2.2, we may define

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_{}):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_m)}{m}=\underset{m}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_m)}{m}.$$

It is easy to show that $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_{})=\mathrm{ord}(𝐛_{})`$. Indeed, since $`𝐚_m𝐛_m`$, we have $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_m)\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_m)`$, hence $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_{})\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_{})`$.

For the reverse inequality, fix a model $`X^{}`$ over $`X=\mathrm{Spec}R`$ on which $`E`$ is a divisor, and let $`K`$ be the relative canonical divisor of $`X^{}/X`$. It follows from the definition of multiplier ideals that

$$\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_m)>\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_m)\mathrm{ord}_E(K)1.$$

Dividing by $`m`$ and taking the limit gives $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐛_{})\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_{})`$.

Consider, for example, the case when $`E`$ is the exceptional divisor of the blowing-up of $`X`$ at the maximal ideal $`𝐦`$. For any ideal $`𝐚`$ of $`R`$, we have $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚)=\mathrm{max}\{p𝐚𝐦^p\}`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{ord}_E(𝐚_{})`$ is denoted by $`\nu (𝐚_{})`$ and is called the Lelong number of $`𝐚_{}`$.

Note that if $`𝐚_m`$ is zero-dimensional for all $`m`$, then we clearly have $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})\nu (𝐚_{})^n`$ and Theorem 1.7 implies that $`\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})=0`$ if and only if $`\nu (𝐚_{})=0`$.

The following theorem gives an inequality beween the multiplicity and the log canonical threshold of a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals. In the case of one ideal, this appeared in \[FEM\], generalizing the corresponding inequality due to Corti, for the case of surfaces (see \[Co\]). Generalizing from one ideal to a graded sequence is straightforward. However, the main point is that our results on graded sequences can be used to simplify the proof even in the case of one ideal. Note that the proof in \[FEM\] also used deformation to monomial ideals, but needed a more careful analysis of the monomial case, to get a similar inequality between the length and the log canonical threshold.

###### Theorem 3.9.

If $`𝐚`$ is a graded sequence of zero-dimensional ideals in $`R`$, then

$$\mathrm{e}(𝐚_{})n^n/\mathrm{lc}(𝐚_{})^n.$$

###### Proof.

It is enough to prove that for every zero-dimensional ideal $`IR`$, we have $`\mathrm{e}(I)n^n/\mathrm{lc}(I)^n`$. Indeed, if we apply this inequality for $`𝐚_m`$, divide by $`m^n`$ and take the limit, we get the assertion of the theorem.

Since $`R`$ is smooth, it is standard to reduce the problem to an ideal in a polynomial ring. We may therefore suppose that $`I`$ is an ideal in $`R=K[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ which is supported at the origin ($`K`$ might not be algebraically closed, but this does not cause any problems). We first assume that we know the inequality in the case of a monomial ideal.

Fix a monomial order and apply Corollary 1.13 to get $`\mathrm{e}(I)`$ in terms of multiplicities of monomial ideals: $`\mathrm{e}(I)=lim_m\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}(\mathrm{in}_>(I^m))/m^n`$. On the other hand, it follows from the semicontinuity property of log canonical thresholds (see \[DK\] or \[Mu\]) that $`\mathrm{lc}(I)/m=\mathrm{lc}(I^m)\mathrm{lc}(\mathrm{in}_>(I^m))`$. Since we have

$$\mathrm{e}(\mathrm{in}_>(I^m))n^n/\mathrm{lc}(\mathrm{in}_>(I^m))m^nn^n/\mathrm{lc}(I)^n,$$

it is enough to divide by $`m^n`$ and take the limit.

We have therefore reduced the assertion to the case when $`I`$ is a monomial ideal. In this case we have the following direct argument that we have learned from Lawrence Ein.

Let $`P=P_I`$ be the Newton polyhedron of $`I`$ and $`c=\mathrm{lc}(I)`$. We know that $`(1/c)(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ lies on the boundary of $`P`$. Fix a facet of $`P`$ with equation $`_iX_i/a_i=1`$, which contains this point. We therefore have $`c=_i1/a_i`$. On the other hand, we have $`\mathrm{e}(I)=n!\mathrm{vol}(P)_ia_i`$. Therefore the inequality between the arithmetic and the geometric mean of the numbers $`\{1/a_i\}_i`$ gives our inequality. ∎