8
$\begingroup$

As a follow-up of Allen's question Coxeter exchanges in non-reduced words, I wonder whether it is known that the Demazure product is well-defined in Artin groups. This is:

Let $(W,S)$ be a Coxeter system with corresponding Artin system $A(W)$ which is the group of words in $S$ up to the braid relations in $(W,S)$.

The Demazure product (or greedy product) $Dem(T)$ of a word $T$ in $S$ is given by the element in $W$ obtained by starting at the indentity $e \in W$ and going through $T$ from left to right, going upwards in weak order while skipping the letters that would take you downward. (Example: $stuutut$ in $\{s=(12),t=(23),u=(34)\}$ in $S_4$ is mapped to $Dem(stuutut) = stu\_t\_\_ \in S_4$ where the skips are underlined.)

Question: Has anyone seen the statement that the Demazure product is well-defined in Artin groups? I.e., is $Dem(T) = Dem(T')$ if $T$ and $T'$ differ in a braid move?

The following was a false belief, see my comment: (I am rather sure I can prove that by showing that it only depends on the inversion sequence of a word, which is invariant under braid moves. But my impression would be that this is likely to be known.)

One immediate application would be that this would be another map $A(W) \rightarrow W$ (beside the "evaluation" map). For a finite Coxeter system, both would coincide as the identity map in the interval $[e,w_\circ] \subseteq A(W)$, while the Demazure map would have the advantage that it preserves the weak order as $T \leq_S T' \Rightarrow Dem(T) \leq_S Dem(T')$. This is obviously not the case for the evaluation map. E.g., $ss >_S s$ in $Weak(A(W))$ while for the evaluation $ss = e <_S s$ in $Weak(W)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An alternative definition (in the Coxeter group case) is $Dem(T) = $ the unique Bruhat-maximal element of $\{\prod Q\ :\ Q \subseteq T\}$. I don't know a combinatorial proof in the Coxeter case that there is a unique maximum, but I doubt it's hard, and perhaps could be extended to the Artin case. (In the Weyl case, the geometric proof is that the Bott-Samelson manifold is irreducible, hence its image in $G/B$ must be a $B$-orbit closure, whose $T$-fixed points have a unique Bruhat maximum.) $\endgroup$ – Allen Knutson Nov 12 '15 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ Great, starting from your comment, it is actually trivial to get that the Demazure product is stable under braid moves: replace a consecutive substring $stst...$ of length $m(s,t)$ by $tsts...$ to get $T'$. For any subword $Q$ I pick in $T$, I can pick the same subword in $T'$ as long as I have not used all of $stst...$. But if that is the case, I can as well have picked $tsts...$ in $T'$, and I am done. (I don't see an immediate combinatorial argument for your claim either at the moment, though.) $\endgroup$ – Christian Stump Nov 12 '15 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ Trivial counterexample to the belief that the greedy product only depends on the inversion set: $inv(sstt) = inv(ttss)$ in $A_2$, but $Dem(sstt) = st \neq ts = Dem(ttss)$. $\endgroup$ – Christian Stump Nov 17 '15 at 13:31
1
$\begingroup$

A complete combinatorial proof using Allen's comment:

Let $(W,S)$ be a Coxeter system, and let $Dem(T) \in W$ be the Demazure product or greedy product of a word $T$ in $S$.

Claim: $Dem(T)$ is the unique Bruhat maximal element in the set $\big\{ \prod Q : Q \subseteq T\big\}$ (where $Q\subseteq T$ means that $Q$ is a subsequence of $T$, and where $\prod Q$ means the product of the entries of $Q$ in the order in which they appear in $Q$).

The idea for the proof is to start with a subword $Q$ of $T$ and compare it with the subword $D$ of $T$ picked by the greedy product (you find the formal proof below). You scan through $Q$ from left to right and if you see a letter that is picked in $D$ but not in $Q$, you insert it into $Q$. If this goes up in Bruhat order, we are fine in doing so, and if you go down in Bruhat order, you find by the exchange condition a letter to its right that you can remove in exchange for the inserted letter. By this procedure, you only go up in Bruhat order and we are done.

Corollary: The Demazure product is well-defined in Artin groups. This is, let $T$ be a word of $S$ and let $T'$ be obtained from $T$ by a braid move. Then $Dem(T) = Dem(T')$.

Proof of corollary: $T'$ is obtained from $T$ by replacing a consecutive substring $x = stst\ldots$ of length $m(s,t)$ by $y = tsts\ldots$. For any subword $Q$ of $T$, one can now choose the same subword in $T′$ as long as $Q$ does not contain all of $x$. But if this is the case, one can choose the subword $Q'$ of $T'$ where $Q'$ is obtained from $Q$ by using $y$ instead of $x$. $\square$

Proof of Claim: This is a consequence of the following lifting property in Bruhat order as described in Proposition 2.2.7 of Björner-Brenti's Combinatorics of Coxeter groups

Lemma 1 (lifting property): Let $u < w$ in Bruhat order, and let $s$ be a right descent of $w$ but not of $u$. (Here, a right descent of an element $v \in W$ means a $t \in S$ satisfying $vt < v$.) Then $us \leq w$.

(Proof in Björner-Brenti, at least for the analogous statement about left descents; apply it to $u^{-1}$ and $w^{-1}$.)

Lemma 2: Let $u \leq w$ in Bruhat order, and let $s$ be a right ascent of $w$. (Here, a right ascent of an element $v \in W$ means a $t \in S$ satisfying $vt > v$.) Then $us \leq ws$.

Proof: Since $u \leq w$, we have that a reduced expression $a$ for $u$ which is a subword of a reduced expression $b$ for $w$. But since now $bs$ is a reduced expression for $ws$, it contains the expression $as$ (which might or might not be reduced) and we are done. $\square$

Final induction to prove the Claim: Let $T = t_1\cdots t_m$. The case $m \in \{0,1\}$ is trivial, so assume $m>1$, let $T' = t_1\cdots t_{m-1}$ and we know that $Dem(T')$ is the unique Bruhat maximal element in $\{ \prod Q : Q \subseteq T'\}$.

Let $Q$ be a subword of $T$. If $Q$ is a subword of $T'$ we are done since by assumption $\prod Q \leq Dem(T') \leq Dem(T)$, so we only treat the case that $Q$ uses the last letter $t_m$.

We have $Q \setminus t_m$ is a subword of $T'$ so $\prod \left(Q\setminus t_m\right) \leq Dem(T')$ by induction.

If $Dem(T) > Dem(T')$, we are in the situation of Lemma 2 and conclude $$\prod Q \leq Dem(T') \cdot t_m = Dem(T).$$

If $Dem(T) = Dem(T')$, we are in the situation of Lemma 1 and conclude $$\prod Q \leq Dem(T') = Dem(T). \quad \square$$

(As usual with MO proofs, please let me know if something is unclear or plainly wrong.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note: Your Lemma 1 also follows from Corollary 2.5 (a) in Lusztig's arXiv:math/0208154v2, applied to $y = u^{-1}$ and $z = w^{-1}$. Notice that the requirement that $s$ not be a right descent of $u$ is not needed. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Apr 15 '16 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I think that when you say you're using Lemma 1, you actually use the more general version where $s$ is allowed to be a right descent of $u$ and where the condition $u < w$ is replaced by $u \leq w$ (because you apply it to $u = \prod \left(Q \setminus t_m\right)$ and $w = Dem(T')$). This version easily follows from your Lemma 1 (indeed, it is easy to prove $us \leq w$ both in the case $u=w$ and in the case $us<u$), but unless you replace Lemma 1 by this version I think you cannot claim that "we are in the situation of Lemma 1". $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Apr 15 '16 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ (Note that the more general version of Lemma 1 directly follows from Lusztig's Corollary 2.5 (a), whereas Björner-Brenti's Proposition 2.2.7 only gives the weaker version; things like this make Lusztig my go-to place for lemmas about Coxeter groups.) Other than this, thanks for the nice proof! It sort-of proves the claim of mathoverflow.net/questions/81539 as well, I believe. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Apr 15 '16 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, thanks for pointing that out -- I was implicitly excluding the other cases $s$ being a right descent of $w$ and $u = w$, but should make that explicit. $\endgroup$ – Christian Stump Apr 17 '16 at 9:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.