0
$\begingroup$

A known result in the representation theory of the symmetric group $S_n$ says:

"Let $T_{\lambda}$ be a Young tableaux corresponding to a $\lambda \vdash n$, and let $M=M_{1} \oplus M_{2} \oplus \cdots \oplus M_{m}$ where $M_{i}$ are irreducible $\mathbb{C}S_n$-modules with character $\chi_{\lambda}$. Then $m$ is equal to the maximal number of linearly independent elements of the form $e_{T_{\lambda}}f \in M$."

Is it correct to conclude that $m = \dim \operatorname{span}\{e_{T_{\lambda}}f: f \in M\}$?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

It is know that for any Young Tableaux $T_{\lambda}$, there exists $f_1 \in M_1$ such that

\begin{equation*} M_1=\mathbb{C}S_n e_{T_{\lambda}}f_1\end{equation*}

Put $g_1=e_{T_{\lambda}}f_1$ and observe that $\sigma g_1=g_1$ for all $\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}$. On the other hand, suppose $0\neq h \in M_1$ is also stable under $R_{T_{\lambda}}$-action. Then $h=ae_{T_{\lambda}}f_1$ for some $a \in \mathbb{C}S_n$. So $\sigma ae_{T_{\lambda}}f_1=a e_{T_{\lambda}}f_1$. It follow that $b=\sigma ae_{T_{\lambda}}-a e_{T_{\lambda}} \in J \cap \mathbb{C}_{S_n}e_{T_{\lambda}}$, where $J=\{x \in \mathbb{C}S_n e_{T_{\lambda}}: xf_1=0\}$ is the left annihilator of $f_1$. By irreducibility, $J\cap \mathbb{C}S_n e_{T_{\lambda}}=0$ or $\mathbb{C}S_ne_{T_{\lambda}}$. In the last case, $J \supseteq \mathbb{C}S_n e_{T_{\lambda}}$, so $\mathbb{C}S_ne_{T_{\lambda}}f_1=0$, a contradition. It follows that $J\cap \mathbb{C}S_n e_{T_{\lambda}}=0$. Hence $b=0$ and $\sigma a e_{T_{\lambda}}=ae_{T_{\lambda}}$, for all $\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}$. Clearly, $ae_{T_{\lambda}}\tau=(-1)^{\tau}ae_{T_{\lambda}}$ for any $\tau \in C_{T_{\lambda}}$. Hence $\sigma ae_{T_{\lambda}}\tau=(-1)^{\tau}ae_{T_{\lambda}}$ for all $\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}, \tau \in C_{T_{\lambda}}$.

Now, Von Neumann's Lemma (Giambruno and Zaicev. Polynomial Identities and Asymptotic Methods. page 50) says that:

Let $\lambda\vdash n, x \in \mathbb{C}S_n$ and $\sigma x\tau=(-1)^{\tau}x$ for all $\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}, \tau \in C_{T_{\lambda}}$. Then $x=\gamma e_{T_{\lambda}}$ for some rational number $\gamma$.

So $ae_{T_{\lambda}}=\gamma e_{T_{\lambda}}$. Hence $h=\gamma g_1$.

Now put $g_1=e_{T_{\lambda}}f_1, g_2=e_{T_{\lambda}}f_1, \dots, g_m=e_{T_{\lambda}}f_m$. We have $M=M_1 \oplus M_2 \oplus \dots \oplus M_m$. Let $g \in M$ such that $\sigma g = g$ for all $\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}$. We have that $g=l_1+l_2+ \ldots + l_m$, $g_i \in M_i$. It easy see that each $l_i$ is stable under $R_{T_{\lambda}}$-action. Hence:

$g=\gamma_1 g_1 + \gamma_1 g_1 + \ldots + \gamma_m g_m$

Observe that $g_1, \ldots, g_m$ are independents and generate the vector space;

$S=\{g \in M: \sigma g=g\; \mbox{for all} \;\sigma \in R_{T_{\lambda}}\}$ So $m=dim S$.

But $S=Span\{e_{T_{\lambda}}f_i: i=1, \ldots, m\}=Span\{e_{T_{\lambda}}f: f \in M\}$. Is it right?

$\endgroup$

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.