1 Introduction
Alessandro De Stefani brought to our attention that [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Theorem 3.12] is wrong as stated, and an explicit counter-example can be found in [Reference De Stefani and SmirnovDSS20, Theorem 5.3]. The problem lays in [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Lemma 3.10], where the formula for the splitting number was written incorrectly as
while it should be instead
Below we will present a proof of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Theorem 3.12] under additional Gorenstein hypothesis. In the main case of interest, when $ \operatorname {\mathrm {s}} (R/(\underline {f}))> 0$ , this result was generalized in [Reference De Stefani and SmirnovDSS20, Theorem 5.11] to the $\mathbb Q$ -Gorenstein case.
It is also likely that the Gorenstein hypothesis is necessary for [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Questions 4.5, 4.8] to have positive answers; however, [Reference De Stefani and SmirnovDSS20, Theorem 5.11] does not provide a counter-example.
2 Continuity of F-signature
We begin by recalling the following theorem of Huneke and Leuschke.
Theorem 2.1. [Reference Huneke and LeuschkeHL02, Proof of Theorem 11] Let $(R,\mathfrak {m})$ be an F-finite local Gorenstein ring of prime characteristic $p>0$ and dimension d. Suppose $f_{1},\ldots ,f_{d}$ is a system of parameters of R and u generates the socle mod $(f_{1},\ldots ,f_{d})$ . Then for each $e\in \mathbb {N}$ ,
The following corollary is the Gorenstein version of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Lemma 3.10]
Corollary 2.2. Let $(R,\mathfrak {m})$ be a local Gorenstein F-finite ring of prime characteristic p. Let $\underline {f}$ be a regular sequence of length c. Then for any integer e, there exists an integer N such that $a_{e}(R/(\underline {f})) = a_{e}(R/(\underline {f} + \underline {\epsilon }))$ for any $\underline {\epsilon } \in ({\mathfrak {m}^{N}})^{\oplus \,c}$ .
Proof. If $\dim (R) = c$ , then $R/(f)$ is artinian and, thus, has a splitting if an only if it is a field. If we take $\underline {\epsilon } \in ({\mathfrak {m}^{2}})^{\oplus \,c}$ , then $(\underline {f}) = \mathfrak {m}$ if and only if $(\underline {f}+ \underline {\epsilon }) = \mathfrak {m}$ . So the Frobenius splitting numbers of $R/(\underline {f})$ and $R/(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon })$ will be the same, either $0$ or $[k : k^{p^{e}}]$ , the latter of which occurs if and only if $(\underline {f}) = \mathfrak {m}$ .
Suppose $\dim (R)=d+c> c$ . Let $x_{1},\ldots , x_{d}$ be a system of parameters for $R/(\underline {f})$ and let $u\in R$ generate the socle mod $(\underline {f},x_{1},\ldots , x_{d})$ . By the proof of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Corollary 3.2], there exists an integer N so that for each $\underline {\epsilon }\in (\mathfrak {m}^{N})^{\oplus \,c}$ one has that $(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon }, x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d})=(\underline {f},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d})$ and $(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon }, x^{p^{e}}_{1},\ldots ,x^{p^{e}}_{d})=(\underline {f},x^{p^{e}}_{1},\ldots ,x^{p^{e}}_{d})$ . For such choices of $\underline {\epsilon }$ the sequence $x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d}$ is a full system of parameters for $R/(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon })$ , u still generates the socle of $R/(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon },x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d})$ , and by multiple applications of Theorem 2.1
Theorem 2.3. Let $(R, \mathfrak m, k)$ be a Gorenstein F-finite ring of prime characteristic p and dimension $d+c$ . If $\underline {f}$ is a parameter sequence of length c such that $\hat {R}/(\underline {f})\hat {R}$ is reduced, then for any $\delta> 0$ , there exists an integer $N> 0$ such that for any $\underline {\epsilon } \in ({\mathfrak {m}^{N}})^{\oplus \,c}$
Proof. We may assume R is complete. By the Cohen–Gabber theorem [Reference Gabber and OrgogozoGO08], we may choose parameters $x_{1},\ldots , x_{d}\in R$ such that $x_{1},\ldots , x_{d}$ is a system of parameters for $R/(\underline {f})$ and $R/(\underline {f})$ is module finite and generically separable over the regular local ring $A:=k[[x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d}]]$ . Thus we have short exact sequence
and $0 \neq c = {\mathrm {D}}_{A} (R/(\underline {f}))$ annihilates M.
Let M and $M_{\underline {\epsilon }}$ be as in the proof of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Theorem 3.5], so that there are isomorphisms $R/(\underline {f} + \underline {\epsilon })[A^{1/p}] \cong \oplus ^{p^{d} [k : k^{p}]} (R/(\underline {f} + \underline {\epsilon }))$ and short exact sequences
Apply the exact functor $(-)^{1/p^{e}}$ to the above to get the exact sequence
By [Reference Polstra and TuckerPT18, Lemma 2.1]
or, equivalently, $ a_{e+1}(R/(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon }))\leq p^{d}[k : k^{p}]a_{e}(R/(\underline {f}+\underline {\epsilon }))+\mu ((M_{\underline {\epsilon }})^{1/p^{e}}). $ The proof of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Theorem 3.5] gives the existence of a constant C such that for all $\underline {\epsilon }\in ({\mathfrak {m}^{N}})^{\oplus \,c}$
Let L and $L_{\underline {\epsilon }}$ be as in the proof [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Theorem 3.5]. Similarly, we can also bound
and once again obtain constant C, independent of $\underline {\epsilon }$ , such that
Since $ {\mathrm {rank}} R^{1/p^{e}} = p^{ed} [k : k^{p^{e}}]$ [Reference KunzKun76, Proposition 2.3], as explained in [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Corollary 3.6], this gives us a uniform convergence statement: there exist $D, N> 0$ such that for all $\underline {\epsilon } \in ({\mathfrak {m}^{N}})^{\oplus \,c}$
The statement now follows by employing Corollary 2.2 and following the proof of [Reference Polstra and SmirnovPS, Corollary 3.7].
Acknowledgment
Polstra was supported in part by NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship DMS $\#1703856$ .