Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 5, 2016 at 2:18 comment added Cheng-Chiang Tsai Just corrected a mistake which I shamefully didn't understand until today. It's essential to have $H^{\vee}\subset G^{\vee}$ instead of $H\subset G$. For example, if $G=\mathrm{Sp}_4$, then the minimal orbit of $G$ will correspond to the non-trivial local system on the subregular orbit of $G^{\vee}\cong\mathrm{SO}_5$, which is not what I wanted.
Apr 5, 2016 at 2:15 history edited Cheng-Chiang Tsai CC BY-SA 3.0
Correct a fundamental mistake
Oct 19, 2015 at 1:14 vote accept Cheng-Chiang Tsai
Oct 18, 2015 at 17:08 comment added Jim Humphreys @Tsai: As Jay points out (and Lusztig suggests), there are relevant details in Lusztig's papers. The extra groups $H$ are called "pseudo-Levi subgroups" by his former student Eric Sommers, though Eric and I disagree about whether that label should include the genuine Levi subgroups of parabolic subgroups.
Oct 18, 2015 at 16:01 answer added Jay Taylor timeline score: 4
Oct 18, 2015 at 15:17 history edited Cheng-Chiang Tsai CC BY-SA 3.0
added 754 characters in body
Oct 9, 2015 at 17:03 comment added Cheng-Chiang Tsai I learned from Prof. Lusztig that this is (essentially) true, and really follows from that in the definition of $j$-induction, the minimum number $e$ so that the interested rep'n of the Weyl group appears in $\mathrm{Sym}^e(std)$ is the same as the dimension for the Springer fiber. I'll try to add reference later when I read them better.
Oct 7, 2015 at 3:25 comment added Cheng-Chiang Tsai Definitely! I think their construction showed that the assertion is true when $H$ is a Levi (e.g. via the theorem you pointed out).
Oct 7, 2015 at 3:08 history edited Cheng-Chiang Tsai CC BY-SA 3.0
added 3 characters in body
Oct 7, 2015 at 2:04 comment added wky Theorem 1.3(b) of Lusztig-Spaltenstein (Induced unipotent class) says the springer fiber of $u$ in $G$ has the same dimension as that of $u_H$ in $H$ if $H$ is a Levi of $G$. Is it going to help?
Oct 7, 2015 at 1:50 comment added Allen Knutson I don't think you want to call the highest root $\rho$ (except in $SL_3$) because that's standardly used for half the sum of the positive roots.
Oct 6, 2015 at 19:13 history asked Cheng-Chiang Tsai CC BY-SA 3.0