Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Cellular decomposition matrices are unitriangular for the cell order

Statement

Let F be a field, A a finite-dimensional cellular F-algebra with cellular basis (C,Λ) and cell modules Cλ, Dλ=Cλ/rad Cλ (Cellular bases and cell modules, Nonzero cell heads classify the simple modules of a cellular algebra). For λ,μ∈Λ with Dμ≠0 let dλμ:=[Cλ:Dμ] be the multiplicity of Dμ as a composition factor of Cλ (well defined by Jordan–Hölder theorem for modules and Composition series and length of a module). Then dμμ=1anddλμ≠0 ⟹ λ⊵μ, i.e. a nonzero off-diagonal entry can occur only in the allowed direction of the cell order ⊵ (larger cell first). Order the labels by a linear extension from smaller to larger. The square submatrix whose rows and columns both have nonzero D is lower unitriangular; the full rectangular matrix has the same labelled diagonal and the stated vanishing region. This determines only the diagonal and the vanishing region: no off-diagonal entry is computed by cellularity.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field F, a finite-dimensional unital cellular F-algebra A with cellular basis (C,Λ), cell modules Cλ and cell forms ⟨ , ⟩λ (Cellular bases and cell modules).

[F1]

Classification (Nonzero cell heads classify the simple modules of a cellular algebra): Dλ≠0 if and only if rad Cλ≠Cλ if and only if ⟨−,−⟩λ is not identically zero; in that case Dλ is simple and rad Cλ is its unique maximal submodule, and {Dλ:Dλ≠0} is a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic simple A-modules.

[F2]

Cell-form calculus (The cell form is associative and its radical is a submodule): cusκctvκ≡⟨csκ,ctκ⟩κcuvκ(modA⊳κ) for a fixed label κ; x cuvκ=⟨x,cuκ⟩κcvκ for x∈Cκ; and rad Cκ={x:⟨x,−⟩κ=0} is the kernel of x↦⟨x,−⟩κ.

[F3]

Cellular axioms (Cellular bases and cell modules): A⊳λ is the span of the cuvμ with μ⊳λ, A⊵λ is the span with μ⊵λ; condition (ii) reads cstλa≡∑vrvcsvλ(modA⊳λ) and its i-image reads acstλ≡∑uru′cutλ(modA⊳λ).

[F4]

Composition multiplicities are additive in short exact sequences and well defined by Jordan-Hölder (Composition series and length of a module, Jordan–Hölder theorem for modules).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenF2F3algebra

Annihilation: if λ,ν∈Λ with λ⋭ν, then A⊵ν⋅Cλ=0. Indeed A⊵ν and A⊵λ are two-sided ideals by [F3], and their intersection is spanned by the cγ with γ⊵ν and γ⊵λ; no such γ equals λ, since γ=λ would give λ⊵ν, so the intersection lies in A⊳λ. Hence A⊵νA⊵λ⊆A⊵ν∩A⊵λ⊆A⊳λ and, since cttλ∈A⊵λ, every product cttλb with b∈A⊵ν lies in A⊳λ; the right action of b on Cλ is read off from cttλb≡∑vrvctvλ(modA⊳λ) with unique coefficients, so b acts as the zero operator on Cλ.

1.2givenF1F2algebra

Nontrivial action: if Dμ≠0 then some element of A⊵μ acts nontrivially on Dμ. Since rad Cμ≠Cμ by [F1], there is t∈T(μ) with ctμ∉rad Cμ, and by [F2] there is u∈T(μ) with ⟨ctμ,cuμ⟩μ≠0; then the element cutμ∈A⊵μ satisfies ctμ⋅cutμ=⟨ctμ,cuμ⟩μctμ by [F2], so on Dμ it sends the nonzero class of ctμ to its nonzero multiple ⟨ctμ,cuμ⟩μ[ctμ]≠0.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2F4

Off-diagonal vanishing: suppose dλμ≠0 with Dμ≠0. If λ⋭μ, then step 1.1 gives A⊵μ⋅Cλ=0; an element of A acting as zero on a module acts as zero on each of its submodules and quotients, hence on every subquotient of Cλ, so A⊵μ annihilates the composition factor Dμ of Cλ. This contradicts step 1.2. Hence λ⊵μ.

2.2step 1.2F1F2F4

Diagonal: dμμ=1 for every μ with Dμ≠0. The form radical gives the subquotient Dμ=Cμ/rad Cμ, and additivity of composition multiplicities [F4] gives dμμ=[Cμ:Dμ]=[Cμ/rad Cμ:Dμ]+[rad Cμ:Dμ]=1+[rad Cμ:Dμ], because Cμ/rad Cμ=Dμ is simple by [F1]. The span of the cuvμ annihilates rad Cμ: for x∈rad Cμ and all u,v one has x cuvμ=⟨x,cuμ⟩μcvμ=0 by [F2]. Hence every element of this span acts as zero on rad Cμ and on all its subquotients, so Dμ is not a composition factor of rad Cμ; otherwise step 1.2 would produce an element of span{cuvμ}⊆A⊵μ acting nontrivially on it. Therefore [rad Cμ:Dμ]=0 and dμμ=1.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2∎

Assembly: order the labels by a linear extension from smaller to larger, and restrict both rows and columns to labels with nonzero form quotient. Step 2.1 puts every nonzero entry on or below the diagonal of this square submatrix, and step 2.2 gives diagonal entries 1. For the full rectangular matrix retain the label comparison λ⊵μ; deleting zero-quotient columns need not leave the labelled diagonal on the numerical matrix diagonal. These statements determine only the diagonal and the vanishing region.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

15 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources