Timeline for Sum of skew characters over hooks and "odd" partitions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 8:23 | comment | added | Jay Taylor | @user61318 Well it was useful because I wouldn't have thought about the general case without it, so thanks for sharing it! For clarity, I should say that we are talking about the paper here arxiv.org/abs/1603.03914 which uses the techniques in the answer below to give a new proof of the results in the above mentioned paper of Regev. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 1:07 | comment | added | user35313 | @JayTaylor: Funny I thought the Regev paper would be useful. Instead you ended up deriving results therein. Nice! | |
| Mar 8, 2016 at 12:38 | vote | accept | Marcel | ||
| Mar 8, 2016 at 9:40 | answer | added | Jay Taylor | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 7, 2016 at 20:15 | comment | added | Marcel | @JayTaylor Funny, huh? So the proof for $m> 0$ cannot rely on the $m=0$ case; it has to be a different proof... | |
| Mar 7, 2016 at 19:48 | comment | added | Jay Taylor | Your formula is independent of $\mu$ so long as $m > 0$. I think there is a difference when $m=0$ due to the way that hooks are computed in the skew diagram versus a proper Young diagram. For instance a hook Young diagram of a partition of $n$ has a hook of length $n$ but a hook skew diagram whose shape is a partition of $n$ has no hook of length $n$. The Murnaghan–Nakayama formula indicates that these situations are therefore different. | |
| Mar 7, 2016 at 19:04 | history | edited | Marcel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
included information provided in a comment
|
| Mar 7, 2016 at 17:05 | comment | added | user35313 | Hooks and characters... the following might be useful: arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3170.pdf | |
| Mar 7, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | Jay Taylor | Yeah, sorry, I forgot about the sum. | |
| Mar 7, 2016 at 13:38 | history | asked | Marcel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |