Friday, 2 February 2007

rt.representation theory - Explicit computation of induced modules of semidirect products with the symmetric group

I suspect I know the answer, but I don't yet have a proof (not because I think it would be hard to prove, but because I didn't try really; when you see my guess, you'll likely want to believe it). The answer is stated not in the basis of simples, because I didn't compute the decomposition of mathbbC[Sn/Spi]mathbbC[Sn/Spi]. However, it is stated in the tensor category S_n-mod, so that given that decomposition, you can easily adjust what I write here.




Fact: Let H be a finite dimensional semi-simple Hopf algebra (e.g. H=mathbb{C}[S_n]), and let VinH-mod be an irrep. Let us regard H as an H-module via the left action. Then VotimesHcongHoplusdim(V).




The proof of this fact is given as follows (see http://www-math.mit.edu/~etingof/tenscat.pdf, or Akhil's comments below):



HomH(VotimesH,W)=HomH(H,astVotimesW)=widetildeastVotimesW



On the other hand, HomH(tildeVotimesH,W)=tildeVotimesHomH(H,W)=widetildeVotimesW,



where tildeM means we forget the module M down to a vector space, which we use as a multiplicity space (just because the direct sum decomposition I asserted originally isn't canonically given, you just know that there's this multiplicity space)



(above we took right duals since I didn't assume H is commutative or co-commutative; for C[G] there is no need to distinguish.) One could (and should) be uncomfortable that we got duals on the one hand and not on the other. However, the standard representation for Sn is special in that it is isomorphic to its own dual, by sending ei to ei (the point is that the standard rep for Sn has a basis build into its definition).



The general fact above about Hopf algebras is used to relate Frobenius-Perron dimension for representations of Hopf algebras to ordinary dimension of the underlying vector space; indeed the regular representation is the unique eigenvector which realizes the Frobenius Perron dimension as an eigenvalue.



Okay so now we are considering mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn/Spi]tomathbbC[Sn/Spi]. This is then isomorphic to (mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn])otimesSpimathbf1, where we tensor the trivial Spi-module on the right. This is because C[Sn] is a SnSpi bi-module, so that the map
mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn]tomathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn/Spi] given by right multiplying with the symmetrizer api=sumginSpig is an Sn-morphism, and allows us to identify mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn]otimesSpimathbf1 with mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Spi].
Morally, this is just because Spi acts on the right, while the other action is on the left.



[edited an error from preceding paragraph]



Together with the Fact, this implies that mathfrakhotimesmathbbC[Sn/Spi] is in fact just isomorphic to mathbbC[Sn/Spi]oplusdim(mathfrakh), which I should really write as
mathbbC[Sn/Spi]otimestildemathfrakhast.



Well, now we have this function c:mathfrakhtomathbbC. We will project mathbbC[Sn/Spi]oplusdim(mathfrakh) (or rather mathbbC[Sn/Spi]otimestildemathfrakh) to mathbbC[Sn/Spi] by just applying c to the multiplicity space.



I haven't really proved that this last paragraph is what happens, but once one has applied "Fact" above, this seems like the only natural guess. I imagine verifying it would be pretty straightforward.



Note that it doesn't seem to matter how mathbbC[Sn/Spi] decomposes into simples, since they all get lumped together.

No comments:

Post a Comment