A combinatorial lemma on tableaux.
Let T be a Young tableau of shape . We will denote entries of
using the notation of matrices. For example if
is the following tableau :
Then and
. We will say that two numbers
are collinear in
if they appear in a same row in
and co-columnar in
if they appear in the same column of
(these definitions come from a set of lecture notes I found on Bob Howlett’s webpage, which seems to follow the treatment in Nathan Jacobson’s Basic Algebra II). For a tableau
, we form two subgroups of
:
In other words, if has rows
and columns
, then
and
. For example, if we take
to be the tableau pictured at the start of this post, then
(Recall that for a set,
denotes the group of bijections of
). Note that a tabloid
is nothing else than
, the orbit of
in the set of all
tableaux under the action of the subgroup
.
First, we investigate how the groups and
we just defined behave with respect to the action of
on tableaux:
Lemma 1: Let be a tableau of shape
and let
. Then
and
.
Proof: We have by definition of
(recall that
denotes the tabloid associated to
). This is equivalent to
so we find
, i.e.,
. The reverse inclusion is just the same steps reversed and the statement for
is similar. QED
We now introduce a total order on the set of partitions of and thus on the set of Young diagrams with
boxes. Let
and
be partitions of
. Then
if, for some index
, we have
for
and
. This is called the lexicographic order, it is the order you would find the partitions in if they were in a dictionnary. For example, this gives
and this corresponds to the diagrams
The next combinatorial result is crucial to the treatment we follow of the representation theory of the symmetric group:
Lemma 2: Let and
be tableaux with
boxes of shape
and
respectively. Suppose that
. If no two numbers are collinear in
and co-columnar in
, then
and there are
such that
.
Proof: Suppose and
. Since
, we have
and
for all
. In particular, the number of entries in the first row of
is smaller or equal to the number of entries in the first row of
, ie.
. Suppose this inequality was strict. Then since the number of columns in a tableau is, by construction, equal to the number of entries in its first row, this would mean that the number of columns of
(i.e.
) is smaller than the number of entries in the first row of
(i.e.
). But then two entries of the first row of
have to occur in the same column in
, contrary to our hypothesis. Hence both diagrams have the same number of entries in their first row, i.e.
. Since the entries of the first row of
occur in different columns of
, there is a
such that these entries are the same as the entries of the first row of
.
We now apply the same reasoning to the second row: and
have the same number of entries in the second row and we can take
, not moving the entries of the first row, such that the entries of the second row of
are the entries of the second row of
. By induction, we see that
and that there is a
such that the entries of each row of
are exactly the entries of the corresponding row in
. Hence there also exists a
such that
This tells us that where the last equality is lemma 1. We can thus choose
such that
so we find
and
QED
Trackbacks & Pingbacks