This is the culmination of about 11 years of research but after I discovered it I found a proof that was extremely trivial, so I'm wondering if it's already known.

Let $(a,b)$ with $a < b$ positive integers denote the transpositions in the symmetric group. Turn them into a vector space with the relation $$(a,b)+(b,c)=(a,c)$$ (This is the root system thinly disguised.) Let $F$ be the tensor algebra on this vector space. For an element $w\in S_{\infty}$ define $$T_w = \sum_{\substack{(a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_n,b_n) = w\\\ell((a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_i,b_i))=i}} (a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_n,b_n)$$ Then the elements $T_w$ are linearly independent. Define $$T_{w/u} = \sum_{\substack{u(a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_m,b_m) = w\\\ell(u(a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_i,b_i))=\ell(u)+i}} (a_1,b_1)\cdots (a_m,b_m)$$ Then $$T_{w/u}=\sum_{v}{c_{u,v}^wT_v}$$ where $c_{u,v}^w$ is the structure constant in the cohomology ring of the complete flag variety.

So the question is: is this already known?

  • $\begingroup$ Looks like the "Monk's/Chevalley's rule" way of defining Schubert polynomials... $\endgroup$ – Sam Hopkins Oct 27 '18 at 21:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sam Do you have a reference? I'm aware these are dual to Schubert polynomials in a nice way, and you can get a formula for Schubert polynomials in terms of the degree 1 Schubert polynomials by inverting their coefficient matrix. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Oct 27 '18 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ In general that there are two approaches to defining Schubert polynomials: a "top-down" approach where you start by defining $\mathfrak{S}_{w_0} = x_1^{n-1}x_2^{n-2}\cdots x_{n-1}$ and use divided difference operators to get smaller $w$'s from bigger ones going down along edges of the weak order; and a "bottom-up" approach where you start by defining $\mathfrak{S}_{\mathrm{id}}=1$ and use Monk's rule (or maybe more precisely Lascoux's transition formula, see Theorem 3.4 of pi.math.cornell.edu/~allenk/schubnotes.pdf) to get bigger $w$'s from smaller along edges of the strong order. $\endgroup$ – Sam Hopkins Oct 27 '18 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ You are summing over paths from the identity to $w$ in the strong order, so it looks like the bottom-up approach to me. But can't say more precisely than that. $\endgroup$ – Sam Hopkins Oct 27 '18 at 23:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your result could be the same as Theorem 2 of arxiv.org/pdf/math/0202090.pdf. $\endgroup$ – Richard Stanley Oct 28 '18 at 17:36

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.