5
$\begingroup$

Let us call a partition odd if all its parts are odd, and let $Odd(n)$ be the set of all odd partitions of $n$, e.g. $Odd(6)=\{(5\,1),(3\, 3),(3\,1^3),(1^6)\}$.

Let $H(n)$ denote the set of all hook partitions of $n$. I have made the following surprising observation (to me, at least): For every $\mu\in H(m)$, $$\frac{1}{2^{\ell(\nu)}}\sum_{\lambda\in H(n+m)} \chi_{\lambda\backslash\mu}(\nu)=\begin{cases} 0, \text{ if }\nu\notin Odd(n)\\ 1, \text{ if }\nu\in Odd(n),\end{cases}$$ where $\chi_{\lambda\backslash\mu}$ are skew characters of the symmetric group.

I think a proof would come from the combinatorial description of skew characters in terms of tableaux (although I didn't really develop this all the way through). My question is: is this result already in the literature somewhere?

EDIT: Upon a moment of reflection it becomes clear that my sum is indeed independent of $\mu$. So we could use any $\mu$ to compute it, even the trivial one $\mu=(0)\vdash0=m$.

However, user61318 mentioned a paper in his comment which proves precisely that $$ \frac{1}{2^{\ell(\nu)-1}}\sum_{\lambda\in H(n)} \chi_{\lambda}(\nu)=\begin{cases} 0, \text{ if }\nu\notin Odd(n)\\ 1, \text{ if }\nu\in Odd(n),\end{cases}$$ which differs from the $m=0$ case of my sum by a factor of $2$. I have checked that both formulas are right as they stand, so this difference is a puzzle.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, sorry, I forgot about the sum. $\endgroup$ – Jay Taylor Mar 7 '16 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ Hooks and characters... the following might be useful: arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3170.pdf $\endgroup$ – user61318 Mar 7 '16 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Jay Taylor Mar 7 '16 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ @JayTaylor Funny, huh? So the proof for $m> 0$ cannot rely on the $m=0$ case; it has to be a different proof... $\endgroup$ – Marcel Mar 7 '16 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ @JayTaylor: Funny I thought the Regev paper would be useful. Instead you ended up deriving results therein. Nice! $\endgroup$ – user61318 Mar 15 '16 at 1:07
5
$\begingroup$

I know you were asking for a reference, and there may be better approaches, but just to offer one proof of your statement based on the Murnaghan–Nakayama formula. Assume $m>0$ then any skew tableaux $\lambda/\mu$ has shape $(a,1^b)$ with $a+b=n$. This means $a$ boxes in the first row and $b$ boxes in the first column but the row and column are disconnected. We want to evaluate the sum

$$ \Lambda_n = \sum_{a=0}^n \chi_{(a,1^{n-a})} $$

If $1 \leqslant k \leqslant n$ then the skew partition $(a,1^b)$ has at most two $k$-hooks, one of leg length 0 if $k \leqslant a$ and one of leg length $k-1$ if $k \leqslant b$. Now assume $\nu\vdash n$ is a partition with part equal to $k$ and let $\hat{\nu} \vdash n-k$ be the partition obtained by removing this part. By the Murnaghan–Nakayama formula for skew partitions we have

\begin{align*} \Lambda_n(\nu) &= \sum_{a=0}^{k-1}\chi_{(a,1^{n-a})}(\nu) + \sum_{a=k}^{n-k}\chi_{(a,1^{n-a})}(\nu) + \sum_{a=n-k+1}^n\chi_{(a,1^{n-a})}(\nu)\\ &= \sum_{a=0}^{k-1}(-1)^{k-1}\chi_{(a,1^{n-a-k})}(\hat{\nu}) + \sum_{a=k}^{n-k}(\chi_{(a-k,1^{n-a})}(\hat{\nu}) + (-1)^{k-1}\chi_{(a,1^{n-a-k})}(\hat{\nu})) + \sum_{a=n-k+1}^n\chi_{(a-k,1^{n-a})}(\hat{\nu})\\ &= \sum_{a=0}^{n-k}\chi_{(a,1^{n-k-a})}(\hat{\nu}) + (-1)^{k-1}\sum_{a=0}^{n-k}\chi_{(a,1^{n-k-a})}(\hat{\nu})\\ &= (1+(-1)^{k-1})\Lambda_{n-k}(\hat{\nu}). \end{align*}

Hence if $k$ is even then $\Lambda_n(\nu) = 0$ and an easy induction shows that $\Lambda_n(\nu) = 2^{\ell(\nu)}$ if $\nu \in \mathrm{Odd}(n)$.

Maybe I would just add that the same argument essentially works when $m=0$. For this case let $\tilde{\chi}_{(a,1^{n-a})}$ be the irreducible character labelled by a hook partition and let $\tilde{\Lambda}_n = \sum_{a=1}^n \tilde{\chi}_{(a,1^{n-a})}$. The calculation above goes through in this case except when $\nu = (n)$ in which case we have

\begin{equation*} \tilde{\Lambda}_n(\nu) = \sum_{a=1}^n \chi_{(a,1^{n-a})}(\nu) = \sum_{a=1}^n (-1)^{n-a} \end{equation*}

which is 0 if $n$ is even and 1 if $n$ is odd. This explains why one gets $\tilde{\Lambda}_n(\nu) = 2^{\ell(\nu)-1}$ when $\nu \in \mathrm{Odd}(n)$.

EDIT: It should also be possible to show that $\Lambda_n = 2\tilde{\Lambda}_n$ directly using the fact that $\chi_{\lambda/\mu} = \sum_{\tau \vdash n} c^{\lambda}_{\mu\tau}\tilde{\chi}_{\tau}$, where $c^{\lambda}_{\mu\tau}$ is the Littlewood–Richardson coefficient.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have this otther question (232631) on the analogue of Murnaghan–Nakayama for skew zonal spherical functions. Maybe you can contribute an answer there? $\endgroup$ – Marcel Mar 8 '16 at 21:40

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.