Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 30 at 12:07 comment added Timothy Chow I personally agree with Pak that we should not tacitly assume that there is no ignorabimus; i.e., that there must be a combinatorial interpretation, and we just have to work harder to find it. Whether Pak's proposal that #P is the right place to draw the line is IMO debatable, but if the Kronecker coefficients are hard for a complexity class larger than #P, then that would be good to know, and might not be that hard to prove. It would mean that any combinatorial interpretation would at least have to be "exotic".
Aug 30 at 11:49 comment added Timothy Chow @PerAlexandersson Yes, Pak explains his point of view in What is a combinatorial interpretation?. See Section 9. He conjectures that the Kronecker coefficients are even harder to compute than the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. Specifically, the latter are in #P, but Pak conjectures that the Kronecker coefficients are not even in #P.
Aug 30 at 4:01 comment added Andrew Roughly the Okounkov-Vershik approach, via the Jucys-Murphy elements, exploits how the simple modules of the symmetric group behave under restriction. There is no indication that tensor products behave well under restriction, so I wouldn't expect Okounkov-Vershik to help with the Kronecker coefficients. This said, I'd be very happy to be proved wrong.
Aug 29 at 21:17 comment added Per Alexandersson I believe Igor Pak has lots of insights and/or strong opinions why one should not expect a nice answer. These coefficients are known to be hard to compute (but, so are the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients and they do have a rule, so who knows...)
Aug 29 at 12:45 answer added Nate timeline score: 9
Aug 29 at 12:30 history asked Andres Collinucci CC BY-SA 4.0