Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am reading the paper Cherednik Algebras, Macdonald Polynomials, and Combinatorics by Mark Haiman.

The definition (2.7) of the braid group $\mathcal{B}(W)$ seems to be the same as the definition of the Weyl group except that the relations $T_i^2 = 1$ are no longer included. Is there anything else that makes it distinct?

What is the motivation for introducing a new construction so similar to the Weyl group? Any intuition would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
Do you know the usual braid group? It corresponds to the case where the Weyl group is simply the symmetric group. The omission of the relations T^2 = 1 really changes the structure of the group... – PseudoNeo May 1 '13 at 18:31
Thanks PseudoNeo! I just wanted to make sure that was the only difference in definition. – user67771 May 1 '13 at 18:48
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Are you familiar with the braid groups associated to the symmetric groups (often just called the braid groups)? They are not so similar to the symmetric groups! For one thing, they're much prettier. The braid groups have many applications; for example, they occur as mapping class groups and as the fundamental groups of configuration spaces. Moreover they can be used to write down knot invariants. See Kassel and Turaev's Braid Groups for much more.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not too familiar with braid groups -- thanks for the references! – user67771 May 1 '13 at 18:49

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.