MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. 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

Let $S$ be a finite set. Now $\mathop{End}(S)$ is a monoid, and we may build a ring $R$ by allowing formal sums of functions.

Preliminary questions, since $R$ is surely well-known: What is it called? In a general category, what is the name of the construction that builds a ring out of the endomorphisms of an object?

My real question is about $A = R \otimes \mathbb{C}$. Restricting to the subalgebra generated by the automorphisms of $S$, it is clear that understanding the representation theory of symmetric groups is a prerequisite for understanding $A$. Are the symmetric groups on sets of size smaller than $| S |$ responsible for all nontrivial properties of $A$? If so, what suitably strong formulation of inclusion/exclusion is at work?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

The monoid of all maps on $n$ letters is denoted $T_n$ and called the full transformation monoid. Your intuition is both right and wrong. The irreducible representations of $T_n$ are in bijection with irreducible representations of all symmetric groups of degree at most $n$. The character table is block upper triangular with diagonal blocks character tables of symmetric groups of degree at most $n$. Thus inverting the table, which is how you decompose characters into irreducibles, is a sort of generalized inclusion-exclusion. Putcha computed the character table, although Hewitt and Zuckermann stated a portion of the result without a complete proof in 1957. But this is only the semisimple part of the story.

The algebra of $T_n$ is not semisimple. For example, nobody knows what the projective indecomposables look like in general. The algebra is quasihereditary and so has finite global dimension. Putcha computed a lot of information about the quiver. Ponizovsky showed $T_1,T_2,T_3$ has finite representation type, Ringel showed $T_4$ has finite representation type and Putcha showed the representation type is infinite in all other cases. I think this part of the representation theory is not completely controlled by symmetric groups.

Update 1/15. In case you are still interested I just put up a paper computing the global dimension of this algebra. From the paper you can get a very precise idea of how the representations of the symmetric groups of different degrees interact to control the Ext spaces between simple modules in a non trivial way. Also the paper gives a more accurate survey of the representation theory of this algebra than my answer.

share|cite|improve this answer
Here is a link to Putcha's paper. I think it will answer to a certain extent your question. – Benjamin Steinberg Jun 27 '11 at 3:22
This is great! I have often wondered about these homological questions since the answers should have influence over certain representation stability phenomena. – John Wiltshire-Gordon Feb 4 '15 at 16:56
I agree. Things are tougher than in the case of the category of injective mappings because the category of all mappings is not EI. I do think this algebra should be studied in greater detail. – Benjamin Steinberg Feb 4 '15 at 17:12

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.