10
$\begingroup$

Consider the action of $G = SL(n+1)$ on $\mathbb{P}^N$, and embed $\mathbb{P}^n$ in $\mathbb{P}^N$ via the degree two Veronese embedding. Let $V\subset\mathbb{P}^N$ be the corresponding Veronese variety. Then the ideal $I(Sec_k(V))$ of the $k$-secant variety of $V$ is a $G$-module.

Now, let $f_1,\dots, f_r$ be generators of $I(Sec_k(V))$ (therefore they are polynomials of degree $k+1$), take one of them say $f_1$. Then $g\cdot f_1\in I(Sec_k(V))_{k+1}$ (the degree $k+1$ part of $I(Sec_k(V))$) for any $g\in G$, and the linear span $H$ of $G\cdot f_1$ is a subspace of $I(Sec_k(V))_{k+1}$. Do we have that $I(Sec_k(V))_{k+1} = H$ ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, I don't think so. Here $\mathbb{P}^N$ is the space of $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ symmetric matrices ($N = \binom{n+2}{2}$). The Veronese is the variety of rank one symmetric matrices. Its $k$th secant variety is the variety of rank $k$ symmetric matrices. It is defined by the vanishing of the $(k+1) \times (k+1)$ minors. If I understand correctly, you are asking whether the $G$-representation on the vector space of size $k+1$ minors of a symmetric matrix is an irreducible representation. But there is a subrepresentation spanned by the principal minors (same row and column indices). $\endgroup$ – Zach Teitler Nov 24 '17 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Do you have a reference? If instead of considering symmetric matrices you consider general matrices it seems to me that the representation of $G\times G$ should be irreducible. $\endgroup$ – J_Cole Nov 24 '17 at 18:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you write, "But there is a subrepresentation spanned by the principal minors (same row and column indices)"? When $k$ equals $1$, this span is not a subrepresentation. Note, in this case, the question is simply whether the degree $2$ graded piece of the homogeneous ideal of the Veronese variety is an irreducible representation, which it is. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Nov 24 '17 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ @J_Cole I agree that with $G \times G$ acting on general matrices, it would be irreducible. $\endgroup$ – Zach Teitler Nov 24 '17 at 19:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AbdelmalekAbdesselam. Presumably the OP wants the generators $(f_1,\dots,f_r)$ to be a minimal set of generators, which forces the elements to be homogeneous. As Zach Teitler states, the issue is whether or not the graded ideal in degree $k+1$ is an irreducible representation. A related question is Exercise 15.45, p. 230 of Fulton-Harris, "Representation Theory, A First Course." $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Nov 24 '17 at 20:02
4
+150
$\begingroup$

In the symmetric case the representation is not irreducible.

For instance, consider a $4\times 4$ symmetric matrix $Z^{+}$ with entries $z_{i,j}$. Then $\wedge^{2}Z^{+}$ is given by $$ \left(\begin{array}{cccccc} z_{0,0}z_{1,1}-z_{0,1}^2 & z_{0,0}z_{1,2}-z_{0,1}z_{0,2} & z_{0,0}z_{1,3}-z_{0,1}z_{0,3} & z_{0,1}z_{1,2}-z_{1,1}z_{0,2} & z_{0,1}z_{1,3}-z_{1,1}z_{0,2} & z_{0,2}z_{1,3}-z_{1,2}z_{0,3}\\ z_{0,0}z_{1,2}-z_{0,2}z_{0,1} & z_{0,0}z_{2,2}-z_{0,2}^2 & z_{0,0}z_{2,3}-z_{0,2}z_{0,3} & z_{0,1}z_{2,2}-z_{1,2}z_{0,2} & z_{0,1}z_{2,3}-z_{1,2}z_{0,3} & z_{0,2}z_{2,3}-z_{2,2}z_{0,3}\\ z_{0,0}z_{1,3}-z_{0,3}z_{0,1} & z_{0,0}z_{2,3}-z_{0,3}z_{0,2} & z_{0,0}z_{3,3}-z_{0,3}^2 & z_{0,1}z_{2,3}-z_{1,3}z_{0,2} & z_{0,1}z_{3,3}-z_{1,3}z_{0,3} & z_{0,2}z_{3,3}-z_{2,3}z_{0,3}\\ z_{0,1}z_{1,2}-z_{0,2}z_{1,1} & z_{0,1}z_{2,2}-z_{0,2}z_{1,2} & z_{0,1}z_{2,3}-z_{0,2}z_{1,3} & z_{1,1}z_{2,2}-z_{1,2}^2 & z_{1,1}z_{2,3}-z_{1,2}z_{1,3} & z_{1,2}z_{2,3}-z_{2,2}z_{1,3}\\ z_{0,1}z_{1,3}-z_{0,3}z_{1,1} & z_{0,1}z_{2,3}-z_{0,3}z_{1,2} & z_{0,1}z_{3,3}-z_{0,3}z_{1,3} & z_{1,1}z_{2,3}-z_{1,3}z_{1,2} & z_{1,1}z_{3,3}-z_{1,3}^2 & z_{1,2}z_{3,3}-z_{2,3}z_{1,3}\\ z_{0,2}z_{1,3}-z_{0,3}z_{1,2} & z_{0,2}z_{2,3}-z_{0,3}z_{2,2} & z_{0,2}z_{3,3}-z_{0,3}z_{2,3} & z_{1,2}z_{2,3}-z_{1,3}z_{2,2} & z_{1,2}z_{3,3}-z_{1,3}z_{2,3} & z_{2,2}z_{3,3}-z_{2,3}^2 \end{array}\right)$$ Let us interpret this matrix as a quadric on $\mathbb{P}(\bigwedge^2V)$. Fix homogeneous coordinates $[x_0:\dots:x_5]$ on $\mathbb{P}(\bigwedge^2V)$. Then we may write the quadric corresponding to $\wedge^{2}Z^{+}$ as $$Q_{\wedge^{2}Z^{+}}(x_0,\dots,x_5) = \sum_{0\leq i \leq 5}(\wedge^{2}Z^{+})_{(i,i)}x_i^2+2\sum_{0\leq i < j \leq 5}(\wedge^{2}Z^{+})_{(i,j)}x_ix_j$$ Note that the entries of $\wedge^{2}Z^{+}$ satisfy the relation $$(\wedge^{2}Z^{+})_{(0,5)}-(\wedge^{2}Z^{+})_{(1,4)}+(\wedge^{2}Z^{+})_{(2,3)} = z_{0,2}z_{1,3}-z_{1,2}z_{0,3}-z_{0,1}z_{2,3}+z_{1,2}z_{0,3}+z_{0,1}z_{2,3}-z_{1,3}z_{0,2}=0$$ and indeed $x_{0}x_5-x_{1}x_{4}+x_{2}x_{3}=0$ is the Pl\"ucker equation cutting out $\mathcal{G}(1,3)$ in $\mathbb{P}(\bigwedge^2V)$. The vector space $Sym^2(\bigwedge^2V)$ admits a decomposition $$Sym^2(\bigwedge^2V) = \left\langle x_{0}x_5-x_{1}x_{4}+x_{2}x_{3}\right\rangle\oplus H_{2}$$ into two irreducible representations of $SL(4)$, where $H_2\cong H^0(\mathcal{G}(1,3),\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{G}(1,3)}(2))$ is the linear span of the $SL(4)$-orbit of $z_{2,2}z_{3,3}-z_{2,3}^2$ in $Sym^2(\bigwedge^2V)$.

More generally, there is always a splitting

$$Sym^2(\bigwedge^{k+1}V)\cong I(\mathcal{G}(k,n))_2\oplus H_{k+1}$$

where $I(\mathcal{G}(k,n))_2$ is the degree two part of the ideal of the Grassmannian of $k$-planes in $\mathbb{P}^n$ in its Plucker embedding.

You may find all the details for instance in Section 4 of the this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09161

$\endgroup$

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.