Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $d \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $I$ be a set. Let $\omega : I^d \times I^d \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function, denoted by $(a_1,\dotsc,a_d,b_1,\dotsc,b_d) \mapsto a_1 \cdots a_d | b_1 \cdots b_d$, with the following properties:

  • It is antisymmetric in the first $d$ variables, e.g. $a_1 a_2 \cdots a_d | \cdots = - a_2 a_1 \cdots a_d | \cdots$.
  • It is also antisymmetric in the last $d$ variables.
  • For all elements $a_1,\dotsc,a_{d-1}$ and $b_0,\dotsc,b_d$ of $I$ we have $$\sum_{k=0}^{d} (-1)^k a_1 \cdots a_{d-1} b_k | b_0 \cdots \widehat{b_k} \cdots b_n=0.$$

One might call $\omega$ a Plücker function because these relations resemble the Plücker relations.

Claim. $a_1 \cdots a_d | b_1 \cdots b_d = b_1 \cdots b_d |a_1 \cdots a_d$ for all $(a,b) \in I^d \times I^d$.

For $d=1$ it is clear. Here is a proof for the case $d=2$: Using the relation $ab|cd- ac|bd + ad|bc=0$ four times, we get

$$ab|cd = ac|bd - ad|bc=da|bc-ca|bd = db|ac-dc|ab-cb|ad+cd|ab$$ $$=bc|ad-bd|ac+2 cd|ab = ba|cd + 2 cd|ab ~ \Longrightarrow ~ 2 ab|cd = 2 cd|ab ~~~\square$$

In the case $d=3$, a long calculation shows $abc|def=ade|bcf-adf|bce+aef|bcd$. So this already puts $bc$ on the right, but I don't know how to do this with $a$ without destroying this.

There is some background for the claim, coming from categorified Grassmannians, but I won't explain this here because it is not necessary to understand the question, I think. It maybe that the claim is false, but then I am pretty sure (but have no proof) that a weaker version of it holds, but it needs even more variables and relations. I will add this in case someone asks.

Perhaps one can ask a computer algebra software to do the whole work? I have tried it with SAGE, but it didn't work out because non-commutative quotient rings are only available in conjunction with a representing system.

share|cite|improve this question

The claim is true.

I find it convenient to state the problem in a "Boolean hypercube" form . The variables will be the $\binom{2d}{d}$ strings of length $2d$ over the alphabet $\{L,R\}$ with exactly $d$ Rs. For any string $x\in\{L,R\}^{2d}$ with exactly $d+1$ $R$'s, let $\partial(x)$ denote the sum of the variables labelled by strings obtained by replacing one $R$ in $x$ by an $L$. For example $\partial(LRLRRR)= LLLRRR+LRLLRR+LRLRLR+LRLRRL$.

Claim 2: $L^dR^d-(-1)^d R^dL^d$ is a linear combination of expressions of the form $\partial(x)$.

To relate this to your problem, fix $2d$ elements $e_1,\dots,e_{2d}\in I$. Consider a string $x\in\{L,R\}^{2d}$ with $d$ Rs. We can label the $i$'th L as $L_i$ and the $i$'th $R$ as $R_i$, so for example we annotate $LRLLRR$ as $L_1R_1L_2L_3R_2R_3$. For each $1\leq i\leq d$ let $l_i$ be the position of $L_i$, and let $r_i$ be the position of $R_i$. (So $l_i$ and $r_i$ are integers from $1$ to $2d$.) We map $x$ to $(-1)^{\sigma(x)}e_{l_1}\dots e_{l_d}|e_{r_1}\dots e_{r_d}$, where $(-1)^{\sigma(x)}$ is the sign of the permutation $\pi_x$ of $\{L_1,\dots,L_d,R_1,\dots,R_d\}$ sending the $i$'th letter of $L_1\dots L_dR_1\dots R_d$ to the $i$'th letter of the annotated version of $x$. (Equivalently, $\sigma(x)$ is the minimum number of transpositions between $x$ and $L^dR^d$.)

For example $LRLLRR$ maps to $e_1e_3e_4|e_2e_5e_6$ while $LRLRLR$ maps to $(-1)e_1e_3e_5|e_2e_4e_6$.

$\partial (L^{d-1}R^{d+1})$ gets mapped to $$ \sum_{k=0}^{d} (-1)^k e_{1} \cdots e_{d-1} e_{d+k} | e_{d} \cdots \widehat{e_{d+k}} \cdots e_{2d} $$ The mapping for other $\partial(x)$ terms is similar but much more cumbersome to write down.

Proof of Claim 2: we will argue that $$L^dR^d-(-1)^d R^dL^d=\sum_{k=1}^d (-1)^{k+1}\frac{(k-1)!(d-k)!}{d!} \sum_{x,y} \partial (xy)\tag{*}$$ where $x$ ranges over strings of length $d$ with exactly $k$ Rs, and $y$ ranges over strings of length $d$ with exactly $d-k+1$ Rs.

As an example, consider the case $d=2$. Then $$LLRR-RRLL = (\partial(RLRR)+ \partial(LRRR) - \partial(RRLR) - \partial(RRRL))/2.$$ The coefficient of LLRR on the right-hand-side is $(1+1)/2$, and the coefficient of RRLL is $(-1-1)/2$. The coefficient of LRLR is $(1-1)/2$ - the contributions come from LRRR and RRLR. The other coefficients can also be checked directly, but the following symmetry argument shows that this is unnecessary.

The group $S_d\times S_d$ acts on strings of length $2d$ by $(\pi,\pi')*(x,x')=\pi(x)\pi'(x')$, where $x,x'\in\{L,R\}^d$. The left-hand-side and right-hand-side of (*) are manifestly invariant under this group (technically, the induced action of $S_d\times S_d$ on the vector space generated by strings of length $2d$).

So it suffices to check the coefficients of the terms $L^kR^{d-k}L^{d-k}R^k$ match, for $0\leq k\leq d$. We get contributions from $\partial(x)$ where $x$ is obtained by replacing one L in $L^kR^{d-k}L^{d-k}R^k$ by an R. So there are two types of contributions: $k$ contributions from the terms $\partial(xL^{d-k}R^k)$ where $x$ is obtained by replacing one L in $L^kR^{d-k}$ by an R, and $d-k$ contributions from the terms $\partial(L^kR^{d-k}y)$ where $y$ is obtained by replacing one L in $L^{d-k}R^k$ by an R. The coefficient of $L^kR^{d-k}L^{d-k}R^k$ is therefore $$(-1)^{k+1}k\frac{(k-1)!(d-k)!}{d!}+(-1)^{k+2}(d-k)\frac{k!(d-k-1)!}{d!}$$ with the convention $0\cdot \infty=0$, i.e. ignore the first term if $k=0$, and ignore the second term if $k=d$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! "Solving ... gives ...", is this the result of a computation which you have left out, or is this obvious? And does the other direction also work, i.e. is it a solution? – Martin Brandenburg Jan 28 '13 at 23:43
I believe it is a solution. The computation is solving $(d-k)c_{k+1}+kc_k=0$ for $1\leq k< d$, and $c_1=1/d$ and $c_d=(-1)^{d+1}/d$. – Colin McQuillan Jan 29 '13 at 0:02
For me these equations come out of the blue. Can you explain them? There are many $x$ and $y$, so how can we compute the right hand side? Also, could you explain the sign issue in your notation? Does $RRLL$ mean $x_3 x_4 x_1 x_2$ or $x_4 x_3 x_1 x_2$ etc. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 29 '13 at 0:44
Ok, I did the computation more explicitly, and explained the signs. – Colin McQuillan Jan 29 '13 at 11:58
Thanks a lot. In the formula for the image of $\partial(L^{d-1} R^{d+1})$ I think it should be $d+k$ instead of $d-1+k$. And we don't use antisymmetry. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 29 '13 at 15:23

You can definitely get a computer algebra system to do this for fixed $d$: It's just linear algebra! Notice that, if you can prove this for $|I|=2d$, then it follows for all larger $I$. Specifically, if you can show that $123 \cdots d|(d+1)(d+2) \cdots (2d) = (d+1)(d+2) \cdots (2d) | 12 \cdots d$, then it follows for any $2d$ elements by replacing $(1,2,3,\ldots, d, d+1, \ldots, 2d)$ by $(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_d, b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_d)$.

For fixed $d$, you are asking whether a set of linear equations implies another one.

Here's hackish Mathematica code:

g[A_, B_] := Signature[A]* Signature[B] *f[Sort[A], Sort[B]]
rr[A_, B_] := Sum[(-1)^(k - 1)* g[Append[A, B[[k]]], Drop[B, {k}]], 
                    {k, 1, Length[B]}]
relations[d_] := Map[(rr[#, Complement[Range[2 d], #]] == 0) &, 
                         Subsets[Range[2 d], {d - 1}]]
vars[d_] := Map[f[#, Complement[Range[2 d], #]] &, Subsets[Range[2 d], {d}]]
DoStuff[d_] := f[Range[d], Range[d + 1, 2 d]] - f[Range[d + 1, 2 d], Range[d]] /.
                         Solve[relations[d], vars[d]]

If DoStuff[d] outputs {0}, the claim is true for $d$. I checked the claim for $d$ up to $6$ (at which point we are solving $792$ equations in $924$ variables). I'm sure that intelligent coding could make this much faster, but I don't care to work that hard.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks a lot! For my real application unfortunately it is not enough to know that it is true for all values of $a_i,b_i$. Instead, I need a formal proof which is valid for all $a_i,b_i$ at once (like the one for $d=2$). That's also the reason why I wanted to use Sage (or rather the methods from Singular): lift(I,x) gives the coefficients of x when representated as a linear combination of the generators of the ideal I. But this is only implemented in the commutative case. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 28 '13 at 22:53

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.