I believe you are referring to: MR1252939 (95a:17023) Wambst, Marc Complexes de Koszul quantiques. [Quantum Koszul complexes] Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 43 (1993), no. 4, 1089--1156.

@Scott - fair enough. [BTW, I do not know how to put this politely, but I am not particularly crazy about my first name being misspelled.]

Ah, you mean infinite-dimensional extensions? The ambiguity your title creates is mildly annoying.

What do you mean by an "infinite field of algebraic numbers"? Class field theory, as usually understood, studies abelian extensions of algebraic number fields.

@Andrew (and Kevin) - whilst I can see your point here, I still think that rgrig's question is not particularly irrelevant, as he is not asking for educators' opinions on how to teach kids, but rather for mathematicians' opinions on the matter... and for a question that an author intends for mathematicians, there is no other expert to answer but a mathematician :-) It's true that asking that on a maths blog etc. would be better, but this is the cost of MO popularity: now everyone knows that to have many mathematicians notice a question, it makes sense to get it posted on MO! :-)

You are right about that. I am not sure about the more general case of an equation though - and do not have Graham's book on Ramsey theory at hand to check it.

@Mariano: one could not put it better!

That's a very good point! By the way, something that you probably thought too obvious to mention when revealing this remarkable analogy, is that for GL_n(F_p), maximal unipotent subgroups ARE Sylow subgroups :-)

I believe this paper by Bar-Natan is mentioned in the paper of R.Thomas linked in the original post, with a comment that there is an equivalence there, not an independent proof...

You might want to check Hermann Weyl's "The classical groups: their invariants and representations".

@Noah: your last statement is false, as explained by Richard Stanley here: mathoverflow.net/questions/10487/… - what you mean to say is that every irreducible occurs as a summand in a tensor power (that was discussed here: mathoverflow.net/questions/10126/…), which is not literally the same.