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 geometric-representation-theory
Search options not deleted
user 80467
1
vote
1
answer
221
views
Two different formulations of the Bott–Samelson resolution
There seem to be two formulations of the Bott–Samelson resolution flowing around. For concreteness, let $ G = \mathrm{GL}_{n} ( \mathbb{C} ) $ with the Borel subgroup $ B \subset G $ of upper triangul …
- 295
0
votes
Accepted
Two different formulations of the Bott–Samelson resolution
I was being stupid. Of course, as @LSpice also remarks, the real map is
\begin{align*}
B\backslash P_{i_1} \times^B \dotsb \times^B P_{i_k}/B
& \longrightarrow
\bigl( G/B \times_{G/P_{i_1}}\dotsb \tim …
- 295
1
vote
0
answers
200
views
Visualizing the affine Bruhat decomposition for $\operatorname{SL}_2$
$
\newcommand\Fl{\mathcal{F}\!\ell}
\newcommand\numC{\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand\numZ{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand\ringO{\mathbb{O}}
\newcommand\ringK{\mathbb{K}}
\newcommand\power{\num …
- 295