Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with crystals
Search options not deleted
user 138296
3
votes
0
answers
77
views
Multiplicity relation between highest weight modules, Demazure modules, and crystals
.
$$
Similarly, we have that the crystal $B(\nu)$ appears in the tensor product of crystals $B(\lambda) \otimes B(\mu)$ with multiplicity
$$
c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu:=|\{b \in B(\mu): wt(b)=\nu-\lambda,\ … For the case of highest weight modules and highest weight crystals, I might expect to see a justification of $m_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu = c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ along the lines of a "classical limit" statement …
- 550