Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

One variant of Fulton's K-saturation conjecture is as follows:

$K_{\lambda/\mu,w} > 0 \Leftrightarrow K_{n\lambda/n\mu,n w} > 0$ for any integer $n>0.$

Here $K_{\lambda/\mu,w}$ denotes the Kostka numbers (number of skew SSYT of shape $\lambda/\mu$ and weight $w.$

This has been proved in various ways, (Knutson, Tao), so it is no longe a conjecture, but to me the proofs are quite involved. The proof shows the similar statement for Littlewood-Richardson coefficients, using K-hives and the above follows as a corollary.

Question: Is there an elementary proof of the above statement? Could one expect a short proof of this?

share|improve this question
    
To my mind, the elementary reason that saturation might be true for ordinary (not skew) Kostka numbers is that the ring $\oplus_n (V_{n\lambda})[w$ weight space$]$ might be generated in degree $1$. Moreover, that would explain Fulton's conjecture (that if the degree $1$ piece is $1$-d, then so is every piece), which we also proved. But in general this ring is not generated in degree $1$! I forget Fulton's counterexample in which the degree $2$ part is larger than $sym^2$ of the degree $1$ part, or something like that, but there is one. –  Allen Knutson May 6 '13 at 3:52
    
Oops, that's supposed to be the $[nw$ weight space$]$. –  Allen Knutson May 6 '13 at 3:53
    
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the non-skew version, $K_{\lambda,w}>0$ iff $\lambda \geq_d w$ in dominance order. And I suppose that $\lambda \geq_d w \Leftrightarrow n\lambda \geq_d nw$ is easy to show... –  Per Alexandersson May 6 '13 at 8:12
    
You're right, I was confusing myself. Anyway perhaps the simplest, or at least best-motivated, proof is that saturation is equivalent to Horn's conjecture (this is a simple, but great, observation of Belkale) and Horn's conjecture has a very natural proof due to Purbhoo and Sottile. –  Allen Knutson May 6 '13 at 13:43
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

I answer this question here.

The proof is of combinatorial nature and quite short, using quite elementary arguments.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.