Chris Bowman
|
Registered User
|
|
|
May 17 |
comment |
The Jantzen-Schaper theorem So, is there some obvious way of passing from non-dominant weights to dominant weights? Is this similar to the cancellation one sees close to the walls when using the generic patterns for Weyl modules? For example, in the SL_3 case I think these are mentioned in papers of Doty (and perhaps Sullivan). Would it be fair to say that James and Mathas' formulation is easier to work with (for a given example) in the GL_n case, than Jantzen's own formulation? |
|
May 16 |
comment |
The Jantzen-Schaper theorem Sorry $\Delta=V$, I swapped notation half-way through |
|
May 16 |
comment |
The Jantzen-Schaper theorem Thanks Jim! I'll have a look at that. I was looking at $V(4,1)$ for $SL_3$ in characteristic 3. I know that I should be able to rewrite the sum $\sum_{i>0}V^i(4,1)$ as V(3,0)+V(0,3)+V(0,0) But I couldn't get from Delta(4,1) to Delta(0,0) using a single reflection in the geometry, I had to take 3 reflections and compose. Is my problem that I'm focussing on SL_3, rather than GL_3? |
|
May 15 |
asked | The Jantzen-Schaper theorem |
|
Jan 24 |
comment |
Reference for Clifford theory (of algebras) That's perfect. Thank you very much. |
|
Jan 23 |
asked | Reference for Clifford theory (of algebras) |
|
Jan 3 |
asked | Littlewood Richardson rule and seminormal basis of Specht modules |
