2
$\begingroup$

The verification principle for $\lambda$-rings says (if I'm understanding correctly) that if you have a $\lambda$-ring $A$, and an equation using only $\lambda$-ring operations (addition, multiplication, negation, $0$, $1$, and the $\lambda^i$ -- as well as your variables of course), then the equation is true in $A$ if and only if it is true when the variables are restricted to be sums of one-dimensional elements of $A$. An element $x$ is said to be one-dimensional if $\lambda^i(x)=0$ for all $i>1$.

I seem to keep getting false results when I try to apply this. For instance, let's consider $\Lambda$, the ring of symmetric functions. The only one-dimensional elements I have been able to find are $0$ and $1$; and while I haven't done anything that would rule out others, they certainly seem to be hard to find. If these truly were the only one-dimensional element, that would make sums of one-dimensional elements just whole numbers. But there are plenty of identities that are true for whole numbers that are not true for all elements of $\Lambda$; for instance, $2\lambda^2(x)=x^2-x$ is true for whole numbers but false when $x=e_1$.

Presumably, there are some one-dimensional elements that I'm missing here. What are they? What are the one-dimensional elements in $\Lambda$? Or am I making some other error instead?

Edit: It's the latter, as Darij Grinberg points out, but an answer to the original question -- presumably a proof that $0$ and $1$ are the only $1$-dimensional elements -- would still be nice, so I'll leave the question open.

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the verification principle is subtler than you think. It allows you to assume that your variables are sums of one-dimensional elements of some lambda-ring (not necessarily of the $A $ you started with!). $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg May 7 '16 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ But this is a nice question. I also suspect that the only one-dimensional elements of the symmetric functions are $0$ and $1$, but this does not appear obvious to me. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg May 7 '16 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ I see! Yes, that would certainly explain the error. So basically, then, it's not about checking a particular set of elements, but rather about what reasoning you have to perform to check an identity; it's more of a statement about the theory of $\lambda$-rings than about individual $\lambda$-rings. That makes sense. I'll leave the question open for the purpose you say though. $\endgroup$ – Harry Altman May 7 '16 at 16:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the verification principle is about checking identities which hold in arbitrary lambda-rings, not about checking identities which hold in a specific one. Which is why I state it in terms of natural transformations in my notes. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg May 7 '16 at 16:49
1
$\begingroup$

Here is an answer to the question that wasn't answered in the comments:

Let $\Lambda$ be the ring of symmetric functions over $\mathbb{Z}$. This is a $\lambda$-ring. I claim that the only one-dimensional elements of this $\lambda$-ring $\Lambda$ are $0$ and $1$.

Proof. It is clear that $0$ and $1$ are one-dimensional; thus, it remains to prove that every one-dimensional element of $\Lambda$ is either $0$ or $1$. So let $u$ be a one-dimensional element of $\Lambda$.

Consider $\Lambda$ as the ring of symmetric bounded-degree formal power series in the indeterminates $x_1,x_2,x_3,\ldots$.

Theorem 9.4 in my notes on lambda-rings (applied to $K = \Lambda$, $m = 1$ and $u_1 = u$) shows that the $j$-th Adams operation $\psi^j$ of $\Lambda$ satisfies $\psi^j\left(u\right) = u^j$ for each positive integer $j$. But §16.73 in Michiel Hazewinkel's Witt vectors, part 1 shows that $\psi^j$ is the $j$-th Frobenius endomorphism $\mathbf{f}_j$ of $\Lambda$ for each positive integer $j$. Thus, for each positive integer $j$, we have

(1) $u^j = \underbrace{\psi^j}_{=\mathbf{f}_j}\left(u\right) = \mathbf{f}_j\left(u\right) = u\left(x_1^j, x_2^j, x_3^j, \ldots\right)$ (by the definition of $\mathbf{f}_j$).

Now, fix a nonnegative integer $n$ and a positive integer $j$. Then, (1) specializes to

$\left(u\left(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\right)\right)^j = u\left(x_1^j,x_2^j,\ldots,x_n^j\right)$.

Now, if $a$ is any $j$-th root of unity in $\mathbb{C}$, then the polynomial $\left(u\left(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\right)\right)^j = u\left(x_1^j,x_2^j,\ldots,x_n^j\right)$ does not change when one of the $x_i$ (with $i \leq n$) is multiplied by $a$. Consequently, the polynomial $u\left(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\right)$ is multiplied by some $j$-th root of unity when one of the $x_i$ (with $i \leq n$) is multiplied by $a$. Since this holds for all $a$, we thus conclude that all monomials that occur in the polynomial $u\left(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\right)$ (with nonzero coefficient) have their exponents congruent to each other modulo $j$ (more precisely: for each $i \leq n$, the exponents of the variable $x_i$ in all of these monomials are congruent to each other modulo $j$). Since this holds for all $j$, this yields that all of these exponents are equal. In other words, the polynomial $u\left(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\right)$ has only a single monomial. By letting $n$ go to infinity, we conclude that the same holds for the symmetric function $u$. But this entails that $u$ is a constant. Now it is easy to use (1) to conclude that this constant is either $0$ or $1$. We are done.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Here is an elementary proof that even the single equation $\lambda^2(x)=0$ has as only solutions $x=0,1$ in $\Lambda\otimes\Bbb C$ (the tensor product is just to show that the integrality of coefficients is not the obstruction).

In the ring $\Lambda$ of symmetric functions, the operation $\lambda^2$ is just plethystic substitution into $e_2$, the second elementary symmetric function. Plethystic substitution of a symmetric function with non-negative integer coefficients can be defined by writing it as (infinite) sum of monomials (without coefficient, repeating a same monomial as necessary), and substituting these monomials for the (infinitely many) variables of the symmetric function in some order. The general case (with possible negative or non-integral coefficients) is defined by extending certain algebraic properties of this operation. Using such properties one can reduce everything to the case where at least one operand is a power sum symmetric function$~p_k$; note that every element of $\Lambda$ can be written uniquely as a polynomial with rational coefficients in $p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots$. Then by application of the basic definition $p_k[x]$ and $x[p_k]$ are equal for any $x\in\Lambda$, and are the result of replacing in $x$ every monomial in the basic indeterminates by its $k$-th power.

In $\Lambda\otimes\Bbb Q$, writing $e_2=\frac12(p_1^2-p_2)$ in terms of power sum symmetric functions, the fact that plethystic substitution of a given symmetric function $x$ is a ring morphism $\Lambda\to\Lambda$ means that we are looking for solutions to $p_2[x]=p_1[x]^2$, or since $p_1[x]=x$ for any$~x$, for solutions to $p_2[x]=x^2$. But such solutions must be constants by the following argument: if not, then writing $x$ as polynomial in the $p_k$ there is a highest $k$ for which $p_k$ occurs (with nonzero coefficient); but then $p_{2k}$ occurs in the expression for $p_2[x]=x[p_2]$ (it is obtained by doubling all indices in the expression for$~x$, by applying the ring morphism property to $x[p_2]$ and using $p_n[p_m]=p_{nm}$), while is does not occur in the expression for $x^2$; this contradicts $p_2[x]=x^2$. But for constant $x$ one has $p_2[x]=x$, and the equation $x^2=x$ has as only solutions $x=0,1$.

(I don't think $x=0$ ought to be called $1$-dimensional, but that's a different matter.)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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