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.
Partitions, English diagrams, and conjugation
Definition
Partitions. Let be an integer. A partition of is a finite weakly decreasing sequence of positive integers with . Its entries are the parts of and is the number of parts. For the only partition is the empty partition , the empty sequence with ; for one has and . We write . Trailing zeros are not parts: a finite sequence of nonnegative integers ending in is not a partition, so the number of parts of is determined by and is a different data type from .
English Young diagrams. The (English) Young diagram of a nonempty is where numbers the rows downward and numbers the columns rightward. An element of is a node, or box, of the diagram. Row of carries nodes, and column carries nodes, a quantity that is beyond the last column (and for every when ). Since a partition is weakly decreasing, determines : if , then row of is row of , so for every and . In particular , the empty diagram.
Conjugation. The conjugate partition of a nonempty is the sequence of column heights of , with for the empty partition. This is again a partition of , and is the transpose of : for and , Outside these bounds neither diagram contains the corresponding node; for the empty partition both diagrams are empty. Conjugation is an involution, , because counts the columns of of height at least , that is, the columns with at least rows of length , which by weak decrease is exactly the set of . Thus is a bijection on the partitions of , exchanging the number of parts with the largest part for nonempty partitions.
Size zero. The symmetric group of is (The symmetric group : the bijections of a set under composition) for every , and we fix the trivial group; for the set is empty and the group acts trivially on every size-zero object below. This is the convention used whenever the constructions of this page are read at .
Remarks
-
Indexing conventions. Rows are numbered from top to bottom and columns from left to right, and the row lengths are weakly decreasing, so the diagram is left-aligned and top-aligned inside its bounding rectangle of columns and rows. This is the English convention; the French convention (rows weakly increasing downward) is not used here.
-
Conjugation transposes the diagram. The identity says that summing over the parts of is summing over the columns of : double counting the nodes of by rows gives and by columns gives , so is a partition of . A partition equal to its conjugate is self-conjugate; the diagonal nodes of are the fixed points of the transpose.
Depends on
Used by
- Conjugation and exchange symmetries of the Littlewood–Richardson coefficients Corollary
- Outer Pieri rules for a trivial or sign factor Corollary
- The horizontal Pieri rule Corollary
- The vertical Pieri rule Corollary
- Young-graph paths correspond to standard tableaux Corollary
- A disconnected removable rim set is not a border strip Counterexample
- A nonzero stable Schur function can vanish in too few variables Counterexample
- A partition with too many rows vanishes at fixed rank Counterexample
- A semistandard tableau with non-lattice reading word is not a Littlewood--Richardson tableau Counterexample
- First-row padding below the threshold is undefined Counterexample
- p-regular and p-restricted labels differ Counterexample
- Row padding need not preserve a Kronecker coefficient before stability Counterexample
- The outer multiplicity is not the semistandard skew-tableau count Counterexample
- The Plancherel measure is not uniform on partitions Counterexample
- Beta-sets, the shift, and the e-runner abacus of a partition Definition
- Column antisymmetrizers, polytabloids, and Specht modules Definition
- Column insertion Definition
- Continual diagrams, Russian profiles, and the √n-scaling of a Young diagram Definition
- Dominance order on partitions Definition
- e-regular and e-restricted partitions Definition
- First-row padding of a partition Definition
- Hecke row permutation modules and ordinary Dipper-James polytabloids Definition
- Hook, arm, leg, and hook length of a box Definition
- Littlewood--Richardson tableaux and coefficients Definition
- Nilpotent representations of the Jordan quiver Definition
- Ordered removable corners and tabloid deletion maps Definition
- p-regular and p-restricted partitions Definition
- Padded Kronecker coefficient sequences Definition
- Polynomial representations of GLᵣ and their highest weights Definition
- Removable and addable nodes Definition
- Removable border strips and their height Definition
- Residue signatures, normal, good, conormal and cogood nodes Definition
- Reverse row deletion Definition
- Row insertion and the bumping route Definition
- Schur modules and their characters Definition
- Semistandard tableaux and Kostka numbers Definition
- Shifted character observables p_ρ^# and profile moments p̃ₖ Definition
- Skew diagrams and semistandard skew tableaux Definition
- Skew Schur functions by Hall adjointness Definition
- Stable Schur functions from bialternants Definition
…and 97 more results.
Dependency tree · two levels
4 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
- Charlotte Chan, Representation Theory of Symmetric Groups - Chapter 2, printed pp. 7-10, Definitions 2.1 and 2.7 (standard reference, not scraped)
- David Craven, Groups, Geometries and Representation Theory - Section 1.4, printed p. 7 (standard reference, not scraped)