In the paper, a set $L$ associated to an element $w$ in a Coxeter group $W$ is defined as follows. Let $w=s_{i_1} \cdots s_{i_m}$ be a reduced expression. Define $L=\{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_m\}$, where \begin{align} & \beta_1 = \alpha_{i_1}, \\ & \beta_k = s_{i_1} \cdots s_{i_{k-1}}(\alpha_{i_k}), k=2,3,\ldots,m. \end{align} The set $L$ is denoted by $R_w$. If $w$ is reduced, $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_m$ are different from each other. I think that the following is true. If $w=s_{i_1} \cdots s_{i_m}$ is not reduced, then there are two elements $\alpha, -\alpha$ in $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_m$ whose sum is $0$. Is this true? Are there some references about this?

In the case of type $A_2$, for $w= s_1 s_2 s_1 s_2$ which is not reduced, we have \begin{align} \beta_1 = \alpha_1, \beta_2 = \alpha_1+\alpha_2, \beta_3 = \alpha_2, \beta_4=-\alpha_1. \end{align} We have $\alpha_1+(-\alpha_1)=0$. Thank you very much.


This is a standard observation in Lie theory: if you let the Weyl group act on the root system on the left, $\beta_k$ is the unique root such that $s_{i_k}\cdots s_{i_1}\beta_k$ is negative and $s_{i_{k-1}}\cdots s_{i_1}\beta_k$ is positive. That is, for a positive root $\gamma$, the number of times it appears as $\pm \beta_k$ is the number of times that $s_{i_k}\cdots s_{i_1}\gamma$ changes sign as $k$ goes from 0 to $m$, and it's $\beta_k$ if the change is positive to negative, and $-\beta_k$ if the change is negative to positive.

An expression is unreduced if and only if there is a positive root that changes sign twice, so the places where this sign change happens gives the cancelling $\beta$'s.

  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much. For the word $w=s_1s_2s_1s_2$, what is the positive root which changes sign twice? $\endgroup$ Mar 15 '17 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JianrongLi You calculated it above: $\alpha_1$; that's the positive root that's kept positive by $s_2s_1s_2s_1$, but not by $s_1s_2s_1$. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Mar 15 '17 at 15:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is indeed even a standard observation in Coxeter theory, there is nothing special about Weyl types here. $\endgroup$ Mar 15 '17 at 15:23

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.