Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Oct 28, 2011 at 13:01 history edited Jacques Carette CC BY-SA 3.0
clarify question
Oct 28, 2011 at 8:09 comment added Bruce Westbury The Grothendieck ring of finite dimensional representations of $SL(2)$ is isomorphic to the polynomial ring. The monomial basis is given by taking tensor powers of the fundamental representation. A more natural basis are the irreducible representations (which happen to be the symmetric powers of the fundamental representation). The irreducible representations then correspond to the Chebychev polynomials; so this example, which you mention, is studied.
Oct 28, 2011 at 7:06 comment added Andrew Stacey I'm unclear as to what you would want to be able to do with a basis-free description of polynomials. My inner category theorist wants to know what you would consider to be the morphisms between spaces of polynomials - if there are any: my experience (which isn't much) is that we tend to think of spaces of polynomials one at a time, whereas we work with lots of vector spaces at the same time. Plethories are more like rings: the right way to move between them is via bimodules. If that's the sort of thing you want, then maybe they are the right description for you.
Oct 28, 2011 at 1:52 history edited Jacques Carette
fix tag
Oct 27, 2011 at 23:37 comment added Gjergji Zaimi There is a tag "polynomials" already in use...
Oct 27, 2011 at 23:14 answer added Qiaochu Yuan timeline score: 5
Oct 27, 2011 at 22:59 comment added Jacques Carette @Jim: there were not real tags, until now... I welcome suggestions on that front.
Oct 27, 2011 at 22:21 comment added Jim Humphreys Is "plethory" a real tag? Or "polynomial" for that matter? Too many tags to keep track of.
Oct 27, 2011 at 22:07 history asked Jacques Carette CC BY-SA 3.0