Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 2 results · all verified · 2 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 2 also cleared it.

Ariki Categorification and Graded Decomposition Numbers — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective. This companion page works the smallest non-semisimple block of the level-one theory on ariki-categorification-and-graded-decomposition-numbers. The example takes F=C, ξ=−1, e=2 and d=2, where the Hecke algebra is the local algebra C[t]/(t2) with t=T1+1 and deg⁡t=2; it computes the unique simple D, the unique indecomposable projective P=H2Λ, the graded composition series 0⊂tP⊂P with tP≅D{2} and hence [P]=(1+q2)[D], the graded Specht classes [S(1,1)]=[D] and [S(2)]=q[D], the Fock data G(1,1)=M1,1+qM(2) and G∗(1,1)=(M1,1+qM(2))/(1+q2), the transported identifications [P]↦G(1,1) and [D]↦G∗(1,1), and the graded Cartan values h([P],[D])=1, h([P],[P])=1+q2 against the composition multiplicity [P:D]q=1+q2. The counterexample records that specializing q to 1 identifies the distinct classes [P]=(1+q2)[D] and 2[D], and the distinct classes [S(1,1)]=[D] and [S(2)]=q[D], so the forgetful map genuinely loses the graded decomposition information, the graded Cartan entries and the shift classes. Every computation here is a finite explicit verification; both items consume the parent page and its proved suppliers, and nothing outside this pair depends on anything homed here.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Projective and simple Grothendieck classes in a small non-semisimple block

Example

Take F=C, ξ=−1 (so e=2), level one Λ0 and d=2. Then H2Λ=HC,−1(S2) with T12=−2T1−1, i.e. (T1+1)2=0; the algebra is C[t]/(t2) with t=T1+1, a local algebra whose unique simple is D=C with t acting as 0, and whose regular module is the unique indecomposable projective P=H2Λ. Both partitions of 2 have content α0+α1 in the charge-0 convention, so α0+α1 is the only nonzero block and Hα0+α1Λ=C[t]/(t2); its transported grading has deg⁡t=2 (the KLR block is the rank-two e=2 block F[t]/(t2) with deg⁡y2=2). The graded Specht modules are the one-dimensional modules S(2)=C and S(1,1)=C, both with trivial underlying action of t, and the graded composition series of P is 0⊂tP⊂P with tP≅D{2}, so [P]=(1+q2)[D]in G0gr(Hα0+α1Λ),[P]∉{[D],q±1[D],… }. The restricted label is (1,1) (since (1,1) is 2-restricted and (2) is not), the edge degrees of the two shapes are deg⁡(S(1,1))=0 and deg⁡(S(2))=1, so the graded Specht classes are [S(1,1)]=[D] and [S(2)]=q[D], and the level-one Fock data give G(1,1)=M1,1+qM(2) and G∗(1,1)=(M1,1+qM(2))/(1+q2); hence under the transported identifications of Ariki's canonical basis theorem in characteristic zero [P]⟼G(1,1)=M1,1+qM(2)=(1+q2)G∗(1,1),[D]⟼G∗(1,1). The graded Cartan pairing of The graded Cartan pairing between projective and module classes has h([P],[D])=1 and h([P],[P])=1+q2, while the graded composition multiplicity is [P:D]q=1+q2 (ungraded value 2). Thus the projective class [P] is not a simple class, and the two bases are dual to each other under h without being equal as classes. All computations are finite and explicit; choice is inherited only through the transported identifications cited.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The field C, the parameter ξ=−1, the level-one fundamental weight Λ0, and d=2.

[F1]

The level-one Hecke algebra is the finite algebra HF,ξ(S2) with T12=(ξ−1)T1+ξ, and its residue-content blocks are the eαHdΛ (prop-cyclotomic-hecke-algebras-of-level-one-are-finite-hecke-algebras, def-residue-sequence-idempotents-and-cyclotomic-hecke-blocks).

[F2]

The transported grading (nontrivial for this e=2 rank-two block, the corollary's explicit witness) and the blockwise KLR identification are supplied by cor-cyclotomic-hecke-blocks-inherit-a-nontrivial-z-grading; the KLR block satisfies the Hecke relations (lem-cyclotomic-klr-block-satisfies-the-hecke-relations).

[F3]

The graded Specht modules, their degree recursion and the degree of a standard tableau are those of The graded Specht module by homogeneous standard tableaux; the level-one transition data in the e=2 case are the recorded computation of Level-one global-basis transition polynomials in the symmetric-group convention.

[F4]

The graded Grothendieck groups, their shift action and the graded Cartan pairing h are those of Graded module and projective Grothendieck groups of the KLR and Hecke towers and The graded Cartan pairing between projective and module classes; the projective and simple classes are matched with G(1,1) and G∗(1,1) by Ariki's canonical basis theorem in characteristic zero, and the graded multiplicities by Graded decomposition numbers equal canonical-basis coefficients in characteristic zero.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1F2

The algebra and its block. With ξ=−1 the relation T12=(ξ−1)T1+ξ becomes T12=−2T1−1, i.e. (T1+1)2=0 with t=T1+1 [F1]. The algebra C[t]/(t2) is local with radical (t) and unique simple D=C; its regular module is projective and indecomposable, so P=H2Λ is the unique indecomposable projective [F1]. The nodes of (2) have residues 0,1 and those of (1,1) have residues 0,−1≡1, so both partitions lie in the block of content α0+α1=α1+α0, which is therefore the only nonzero block and equals C[t]/(t2) [F1, F2].

1.2F2F4

The graded composition series. Multiplication by t raises the degree by deg⁡t=2 in the transported grading, so tP≅D{2} and P≅D⊕D{2} as graded vector spaces; hence the graded composition series is 0⊂tP⊂P with [P]=(1+q2)[D] in G0gr(Hα0+α1Λ), which is not a shift of [D] [F2, F4].

1.3F3

Specht degrees and Fock data. The unique tableau of shape (2) has degree dA(2)=1 (the addable 1-node (2,1) lies strictly below the removable node (1,2), and there is no removable 1-node below it), and the unique tableau of (1,1) has degree 0; hence [S(2)]=q[D] and [S(1,1)]=[D] [F3]. The recorded e=2 Fock computation gives G(1,1)=M1,1+qM(2) and G∗(1,1)=(M1,1+qM(2))/(1+q2), so G(1,1)=(1+q2)G∗(1,1) [F3].

2.1F3F4step 1.2

The identifications and the pairing. By [F4] the projective class [P] corresponds to G(1,1) and the simple class [D] to G∗(1,1), giving [P]=(1+q2)[D]↦G(1,1) and [D]↦G∗(1,1) under the transported identifications. The graded Cartan pairing is read from Hom⁡0(P,D)=C and gdim⁡HOM⁡(P,P)=1+q2 (endomorphisms are the identity and multiplication by t, of degree 2), so h([P],[D])=1 and h([P],[P])=1+q2; the graded composition multiplicity is [P:D]q=1+q2 with ungraded value 2 [F4]. Hence the projective class is not a simple class, and the projective and simple families are dual but not equal [F4].

3.1F4given∎

Choice. The computation uses the explicit two-dimensional algebra, its two partitions and the recorded e=2 polynomials; no family of nonempty sets is selected, so choice is inherited only through the transported identifications cited in [F4].

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Specializing the grading variable to one forgets graded decomposition information

Statement refuted

Assume inherited AC The Axiom of Choice for the Fock/global-basis and graded-decomposition identifications used below; the explicit finite block and polynomial calculations make no additional choices.

The claim under refutation is that specializing the grading variable q to 1 determines the graded decomposition data: that the forgetful map is injective on the graded Grothendieck classes of the block, or equivalently that the graded transition polynomials, graded Cartan entries and shift classes are recovered from their values at q=1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Assume the inherited AC above. Use the example's field C, Hecke parameter ξ=−1, level-one weight Λ0 and rank 2, so e=2 and the block has content α0+α1. The symbol q is the formal grading variable, distinct from the numerical Hecke parameter ξ.

[F1]

In the example's block [P]=(1+q2)[D], [S(1,1)]=[D] and [S(2)]=q[D], with the graded Cartan pairing and shift action there recorded (Projective and simple Grothendieck classes in a small non-semisimple block).

[F2]

The level-one transition polynomials in the e=2 case are d(1,1),(1,1)(q)=1 and d(1,1),(2)(q)=q (Level-one global-basis transition polynomials in the symmetric-group convention).

[F3]

The graded decomposition theorem identifies the graded multiplicities with the transition polynomials (Graded decomposition numbers equal canonical-basis coefficients in characteristic zero).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1

The polynomials and the class [P]. In Z[q,q−1] the elements 1+q2 and 2 differ (their difference q2−1 is nonzero) while (1+q2)∣q=1=2; multiplying by the nonzero class [D] gives distinct classes [P]=(1+q2)[D] and 2[D] in the free A-module G0gr(Hα0+α1Λ), whose images under the forgetful map ζ (which satisfies ζ(qm)=ζ(m)) both equal 2[D] Graded module and projective Grothendieck groups of the KLR and Hecke towers [F1].

1.2F1F2

The Specht classes and the transition polynomials. The example computes [S(1,1)]=[D] and [S(2)]=q[D], which are distinct because q≠1; the forgetful map sends both to [D]. The corresponding transition polynomials are d(1,1),(1,1)(q)=1 and d(1,1),(2)(q)=q in the recorded e=2 Fock computation, distinct in Z[q,q−1] and equal at q=1 (Projective and simple Grothendieck classes in a small non-semisimple block, Level-one global-basis transition polynomials in the symmetric-group convention) [F2].

2.1F1F2F3∎

Conclusion. By the graded decomposition theorem the classes are read through the transition polynomials, so the failure above is exactly the statement that the specialization q↦1 loses the graded multiplicities and shift data (Graded decomposition numbers equal canonical-basis coefficients in characteristic zero). The displayed finite block and polynomial computations introduce no new choice; AC is inherited only through the invoked Fock/global-basis and graded-decomposition identifications.

Sources