Timeline for Validating a result on evaluating Jack polynomials
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1 at 19:07 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | @NathanLindzey: you link is broken, can you give an alternative link? | |
| Apr 24, 2023 at 7:57 | comment | added | J. M. isn't a mathematician | It's unfortunate if the $C_{\lambda\mu}$ are not quite well-determined as the paper has presented them. Just now, I tried to use their method for computing larger Jack polynomials, and it's not immediately apparent which value of $C_{\lambda\mu}$ in cases of ambiguity. | |
| Apr 20, 2023 at 20:21 | comment | added | Brian Hopkins | I found the Sogo article "[5]" cited as the source of Theorem 1 in hopes it could clarify what's going on, but the authors here have done quite a bit of processing to get to their statement of his work. | |
| Apr 19, 2023 at 17:51 | comment | added | Nathan Lindzey | Not an answer, but quite recently explicit combinatorial expressions for the Jack polynomials were worked out in the power sum basis: irif.fr/_media/users/bendali/jackpositivity.pdf | |
| Apr 18, 2023 at 15:27 | comment | added | Brian Hopkins | I'm not sure that $C_{\lambda\mu}$ is well-defined. Your computation is based on $\lambda = (2,2)$ and $\mu = R^1_{13}(2,2) = (2,1,1)$ with $i = 1$ and $j=3$. But if one uses $\mu = R^1_{23}(2,2) = (2,1,1)$ with $i=2$ and $j=3$, then $C_{\lambda\mu} = (2-0)\binom{2}{2} = 2$. | |
| Apr 18, 2023 at 10:04 | history | asked | J. M. isn't a mathematician | CC BY-SA 4.0 |