Let $G$ be a reflection group acting on $\mathbb{K}^n$ (where $\mathbb{K}$ is a field of characteristic zero). Then $G$ induces an action on the ring of polynomials $\mathbb{K}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ by acting linearly on the $x_i$. Chevalley's theorem says that there are $n$ polynomials $f_1, \ldots, f_n$ which are invariant under the action of $G$ such that the space of all $G$ invariant polynomials can be written as $$\mathbb{K}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^G = \mathbb{K}[f_1, \ldots, f_n].$$ A further version of this theorem (see Humphreys "Reflection Groups and Coxeter Groups", Proposition 3.13) says that the alternating polynomials under the $G$-action can be written as $$Alt_G[x_1, \ldots, x_n] = \mathbb{K}[f_1, \ldots, f_n] \cdot J$$ where $J$ is the Jacobian determinant $J = det ( \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_j} )_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}$. That is, a polynomial $f$ is alternating iff it can be written as a product of an invariant polynomial and $J$.

I'm interested in the case $G = S_n$. Now simply plugging $S_n$ in for $G$ one can calculate $J$ to be the Vandermonde determinant $\prod_{1 \leq i < j \leq n}{x_j - x_i}$ and the $f_i$ can be chosen to be either the elementary symmetric polynomials or for example $f_i = x_1^{i+1} + \cdots + x_n^{i+1}$ (which makes the calculation of $J$ easier).

The symmetric group $S_n$ however, also acts on $\mathbb{K}^{n-1}$ (since the action of $S_n$ on the subspace generated by $(1, \ldots, 1)$ is trivial). The space of invariant polynomials under this action can then be expressed as $$\mathbb{K}[f_2, \ldots, f_n]$$ where $f_2, \ldots, f_n$ are the $2^{\text{nd}}$ to $n^{\text{th}}$ elementary symmetric polynomials in $n$ variables. But how can I calculate the alternating polynomials under this action?

I mean, one can't just plug in $f_2, \ldots, f_n$ in the formula for $J$ cause these are $n-1$ polynomials in $n$ variables ($\rightarrow$ non-square matrix).

Suggestions: There are two ways to proceed that I can think of but I'm not sure which one leads to the right answer.

  1. Just take $J$ to be the Vandermonde determinant as above and write the alternating polynomials under the $S_n$ action on $\mathbb{K}^{n-1}$ as $$\mathbb{K}[f_2, \ldots, f_n] \cdot J.$$ I have no idea if this is true or not and why...

  2. Proceed as Humphreys does in his Example 3.12: The action of $S_n$ on $\mathbb{K}^{n-1}$ induces an action on $\mathbb{K}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ by permuting $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ subject to the relation $x_n = -(x_1 + \cdots + x_n)$.He then uses the $n-1$ polynomials $$g_i := x_1^{i+1} + \cdots + x_n^{i+1} \hspace{2mm} (1 \leq i \leq n-1)$$ and calculates the corresponding determinant $$J = det ( \frac{\partial g_i}{\partial x_j} )_{1 \leq i,j \leq n-1} = (n+1)! \prod_{1 \leq i,j \leq n-1}(x_j - x_i) \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(x_i+z)$$ where $z := x_1 + \cdots + x_{n-1}$. So far, so good, but what do I get in the end? Are the alternating polynomials something like $$\mathbb{K}[g_1(x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}, -z), \ldots, g_{n-1}(x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}, -z)] \cdot J \hspace{1mm}?$$


What is going on is that you restrict the reflection representation of $S_n$ on $K^n$ to the hyperplane given by $x_1+\cdots+x_n=0$. This hyperplane is stable under all reflections of the representation, and not itself a reflection hyperplane. It is then sufficient to apply the projection of $K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ to $K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/I$ where $I$ is the ideal generated by $x_1+\cdots+x_n$. That generator was the first elementary symmetric function$~f_1$, so it simple disappears in the quotient; all other things are replaced by their image in the quotient (which quotient is clearly isomorphic to $K[x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}]$).

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! So if I understand you correctly you would just mod out $I$ in my first approach to get $(K[f_2, \ldots, f_n] \cdot J)/I$ where $J$ is the usual vandermonde determinant? But then I would actually get something with a relation which seems to contradict the theorems I stated above? Or can the result be reformulated to something not involving a relation (i.e. a free algebra times $J$)? $\endgroup$ – Tom Bombadil Dec 13 '16 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ I would prefer to write it $K[\overline{f_2},\ldots,\overline{f_n}]\cdot\overline J$ where the overlines indicate the image in the quotient. Since the images of $f_2,\ldots,f_n$ are algebraically independent, that is a free algebra time $\overline J$. So I don't see any contradiction, though I imagine that the Jacobi determinant might end up being a scalar multiple of $\overline J$. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Dec 14 '16 at 6:12
  • $\begingroup$ So, clearly you can identify $K[\bar{f_2}, \ldots, \bar{f_n}]$ with $K[f_2, \ldots, f_n]$ (since you essentially just mod out $f_1$ and $f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_n$ are algebraically independent). But how do you know that $\bar{J}$ is just a scalar multiple of $J$? If this were indeed the case then we could identify $K[\bar{f_2}, \ldots, \bar{f_n}] \cdot \bar{J}$ with $K[f_2, \ldots, f_n] \cdot J$ and we'd be done, right? $\endgroup$ – Tom Bombadil Dec 14 '16 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ I think I got it after all: It looks like my comment above is correct, I found an argument why $\bar{J}$ is a scalar multiple of $J$. $\endgroup$ – Tom Bombadil Dec 19 '16 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ Just recording what I believe to be unjustly silenced: The main fact being used in this answer is that if $G$ is a finite group and $M$ and $N$ are two representations of $G$ over $\mathbb{K}$ and $f : M \to N$ is a surjective $G$-equivariant homomorphism, then $f$ is surjective on each isotypic component (i.e., for each irreducible representation $\rho$ of $G$, the restriction of $f$ to the $\rho$-isotypic component of $M$ is a surjective homomorphism onto the $\rho$-isotypic component of $N$). This follows fairly ... $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Nov 25 '18 at 22:58

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.