19
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a finite dimensional complex vector space.

According to the Peter-Weyl theorem there is a decomposition $\mathcal O(\mathrm{GL}(V)) \cong \bigoplus_\lambda V_\lambda \otimes V_\lambda^\ast$ of the algebraic coordinate ring of $\mathrm{GL}(V)$ into a direct sum indexed by partitions, where $V_\lambda$ denotes the representation of highest weight $\lambda$.

According to Schur-Weyl duality there is a decomposition $T(V) \cong \bigoplus_{\lambda} V_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda$ of the tensor algebra on $V$, where $\sigma_\lambda$ now denotes the Specht module associated to a partition $\lambda$.

The two statements look very similar. Is there a direct relation between the commutative ring $\mathcal O(\mathrm{GL}(V))$ and the associative algebra $T(V)$? E.g. a map between them that behaves nicely w.r.t. the decompositions?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is the Specht module associated to lambda? $\endgroup$ – Claudio Gorodski Apr 18 '17 at 17:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Is it too obvious to note that each of $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{GL}(V))$ and $V^{\otimes n}$ carry distinct commuting group actions? Namely the first one has induced actions from both the left and right group multiplication of $\mathrm{GL}(V)$ on itself, while the $V^{\otimes n}$ summand of $T(V) = \bigoplus_{n=0 }^\infty V^{\otimes n}$ is acted on by $\mathrm{GL}(V)$ and $S_n$, where the former the former is the obvious action on the tensor product and the latter permutes the tensor factors. $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Apr 18 '17 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ @ClaudioGorodski There is a bijection between irreducible representations of $S_n$ in characteristic zero and partitions $\lambda \vdash n$. The representation corresponding to a partition $\lambda$ is called a Specht module. $\endgroup$ – Dan Petersen Apr 19 '17 at 5:33
20
$\begingroup$

Yes. In combinatorics this is known as Robinson-Schensted-Knuth vs. just Robinson-Schensted. (Properly speaking the latter is about a yet smaller duality, $\mathbb C[S_n] = \bigoplus_{\lambda\vdash n} \sigma_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda^*$.)

First, shrink the Peter-Weyl result from $\mathcal O(GL(n))$ (you overuse $V$, I feel) to the slightly smaller $\mathcal O(M_n)$. Then the RHS shrinks to $\oplus_\lambda V_\lambda \otimes V_\lambda^*$, where $\lambda$ now runs over partitions $(\lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \lambda_n \geq 0)$ instead of all dominant weights $(\lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \lambda_n)$.

Then generalize to other matrix spaces, not just square matrices, obtaining $\mathcal O(M_{a\times b}) \cong \bigoplus_\lambda V^a_\lambda \otimes (V^b_\lambda)^*$, the sum now over partitions of height $\leq \min(a,b)$.

(The combinatorial statement, RSK, is a bijective proof of two different character formulae for this representation. The obvious weight basis is given by monomials in the matrix entries, equivalently listed as $M_{a\times b}(\mathbb N)$. On the RHS we have pairs of same-shape SSYT. Under the bijection the row and column sums of the matrix in $M_{a\times b}(\mathbb N)$ go to the contents, i.e. entry multiplicities, of the two SSYT.)

Now, consider functions on $M_{a\times b}$ of weight $(1,1,\ldots,1)$ under the $T^a \leq GL(a)$ action. Since that's $S_a$-invariant and $S_a$ normalizes $T^a$, this weight space will have a $S_a \times GL(b)$ action.

The LHS will be made of functions that are multilinear in the rows, i.e. $(\mathbb C^b)^{\otimes a}$. The representation $V^a_\lambda$ has a $(1,1,\ldots,1)$ weight space iff $\lambda$ is a partition of $a$, and in that case, the $S_a$ action on it is the Specht irrep $\sigma_\lambda$ of $S_a$. Which is to say, the RHS has become $\oplus_{\lambda \vdash a} \sigma_\lambda \otimes (V_\lambda)^*$ like you wanted. QED.

(Now we're insisting that the row sums are all $1$. On the RHS, one of the SSYT is an SYT. If you go further and ask that the column sums be all $1$ also, then the LHS becomes just permutation matrices, the RHS pairs of same-shape SYT, and the correspondence is just Robinson-Schensted no Knuth.)

As I recently learned from Martin Kassabov, you can run this in reverse: take two copies of the Schur-Weyl isomorphism, reverse one, and tensor them together over $\mathbb C[S_n]$ to get the Peter-Weyl (for matrices) result. So it's a matter of taste deciding which one is the more fundamental.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, this is really helpful! So what you're saying is that $(\mathbb C^b)^{\otimes a} = \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash a} \sigma_\lambda \otimes (\mathbb C^b)_\lambda$ sits inside of $\mathcal O(M_{a \times b}) = \bigoplus_{\lambda} (\mathbb C^a)_\lambda \otimes (\mathbb C^b)^\ast_\lambda$ in a nice and conceptual way that respects the decompositions. Is there a statement that also relates the multiplication in the tensor algebra and the multiplication in the coordinate ring? $\endgroup$ – Dan Petersen Apr 19 '17 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ I added a different answer to the question - if you have any input it would be appreciated! $\endgroup$ – Dan Petersen Apr 19 '17 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ For the tensor algebra, you need to combine different $a$. Then, you're asking for a statement on $\bigoplus_a \mathcal O(M_{a\times b})$, as in why should that thing have another, noncommutative, multiplication. What seems more reasonable is that it have a comultiplication, i.e. $\coprod_a M_{a\times b}$ has a monoid operation "concatenate vertically". $\endgroup$ – Allen Knutson Apr 20 '17 at 10:58
5
$\begingroup$

Allen's nice answer led me in a slightly different direction. Let me try to give another answer to the question.

Let's start from the Cauchy identities, $$ \prod_{i,j \geq 0} (1-x_i y_j)^{-1} = \sum_\lambda s_\lambda(x)s_\lambda(y) $$ which is an equality between bisymmetric functions in infinitely many variables $\{x_i\}$ and $\{y_i\}$.

Now recall that there is a correspondence between symmetric functions of degree $n$, representations of $S_n$, and polynomial functors $\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb C}\to\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb C}$ of degree $n$. Passing to the completion of the ring of symmetric functions wrt degree gives instead a correspondence between (completed) symmetric functions, sequences of representations of $S_n$ (i.e. "tensorial species") and analytic functors $\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb C}\to\mathrm{Vect}_{\mathbb C}$.

Using this we can give three different interpretations of the Cauchy identities:

(1) Consider both the $x$- and $y$-variables as corresponding to representations of the symmetric groups. The Cauchy identities become $$ \bigoplus_{n \geq 0} \mathbb C[S_n] = \bigoplus_{\lambda} \sigma_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda,$$ i.e. the Peter-Weyl theorem for $S_n$.

(2) Consider the $x$-variables as corresponding to an analytic functor and the $y$-variables as corresponding to a sequence of representations. Then the left hand side becomes the analytic functor $V \mapsto T(V)$ and the right hand side becomes $V \mapsto \bigoplus_\lambda V_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda$.

(3) Consider both $x$- and $y$-variables as corresponding to analytic functors. The left hand side becomes the analytic functor $(V,W) \mapsto \mathcal O(V\otimes W)$ and the right hand side becomes $(V,W) \mapsto \bigoplus_\lambda V_\lambda \otimes W_\lambda$.

Specializing to $W = V^\ast$ in (3) gives the coordinate ring of the matrix space as in Allen's answer.

The three interpretations of the Cauchy identities can be seen as equalities between sequences of representations of $S_n \times S_n$, sequences of polynomial functors of degree $n$ into $S_n$-representations, and analytic functors of two variables, respectively. But in all cases there is also an obvious multiplication on the left hand side: given by the inclusion $\mathbb C[S_n] \otimes \mathbb C[S_m] \to \mathbb C[S_{n+m}]$, the multiplication in the tensor algebra, and the multiplication in the coordinate ring, respectively. This is because in all three cases we have a commutative algebra object in the respective symmetric monoidal category, and the structure of commutative algebra object gets transferred along the different equivalences of categories. For example, a commutative algebra object in the category of tensorial species is what's usually called a twisted commutative algebra, so we are saying that the tensor algebra $T(V)$ is a twisted commutative algebra (even though the multiplication in $T(V)$ is certainly not commutative), and so on. So the multiplication in $T(V)$ is in a precise sense "the same" as the multiplication in the coordinate ring of $V \otimes W$!

PS - I certainly hope all the above is correct. But I am confused about the fact that what appears is $\sigma_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda$ in case (1), rather than $\sigma_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda^\ast$ which would be more expected. (Of course $\sigma_\lambda \cong \sigma_\lambda^\ast$, but I would still like the dual to be there!)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually I guess the dual should be there because in all three cases we have commuting left and right actions. Then to be consistent one should also write the Schur-Weyl duality as $V^{\otimes n} = \bigoplus_{\lambda \vdash n} V_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda^\ast$. $\endgroup$ – Dan Petersen Apr 19 '17 at 11:18

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.