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.
The e-core is independent of the rim hook removal order
Statement
Let and let with -abacus configurations as in Beta-sets, the shift, and the e-runner abacus of a partition and the top-packed set of The e-core, the e-quotient, and the e-weight. For every -set of the partition is the same, so the -core is a well-defined -core partition, and it is exactly the terminal partition reached by successively removing removable border strips of size from until none is left (Removable border strips and their height, Hooks of a partition correspond bijectively to removable border strips). In particular every maximal sequence of such removals gives the same terminal partition , each removed strip has size exactly , and the terminal partition contains no hook of length . Moreover any two normalised beta-sets () give the same ordered quotient and weight.
No choice principle is used.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An integer , a partition , and a -set of with runner label sets , counts and top-packed set as in The e-core, the e-quotient, and the e-weight.
Hooks correspond to bead-gap pairs with length ; deleting the corresponding rim strip replaces by . If the length is divisible by , the relocation stays on the same runner (Hooks are bead-gap pairs on the abacus).
The top-packed set has runner occupied in rows , and . The ordered quotient is computed from the partitions of the runner row-label sets of a normalised beta-set (The e-core, the e-quotient, and the e-weight).
Every beta-set of is for a unique , and . Thus, after interchanging two beta-sets if necessary, the larger one is a shift of the smaller one (Beta-sets, the shift, and the e-runner abacus of a partition).
The hook/rim-strip correspondence is a bijection preserving size (Removable border strips and their height, Hooks of a partition correspond bijectively to removable border strips).
Proof
Fix a -set of a partition and write its elements as . By [F1] the hooks of length of correspond bijectively to the beads with and , the correspondence sending such a bead to the rim strip attached to the node with , and removal of that strip replaces by , a -set for of the same size . In particular has no hook of length exactly when no bead of has a gap in the position labels above it on its own runner.
Compute the shift directly. For , its runner sets are and for : the last runner wraps to runner one row lower, and the shift adds the bead at . Its counts are . Packing with these counts gives , so by [F3]. Iteration proves core independence for all beta-sets of . After shifts, every runner row-label set has undergone one beta-set shift by , so its partition is unchanged. Normalised beta-sets differ by a multiple of , proving independence of the ordered quotient and its total size.
Call a bead of movable when the position labels above it on its runner is a gap, so that by step 1.1 the movable beads are exactly the hooks of length of ; moving a bead up one row replaces by a -set of minus that hook, and the counts of beads on each runner are unchanged. A configuration is top-packed precisely when it has no movable bead: a top-packed runner carries beads in the rows , so the row above a bead is a bead again (and row has no row above it), while if some runner is not top-packed there are a gap in row and a bead in a row on that runner; choosing minimal among the bead rows larger than , the row is a gap, so the bead in row is movable.
Every sequence of moves of steps 1.1 and 2.1 is finite: the quantity is the total of the row labels of all beads, and each move replaces a bead's row label by , so decreases by exactly and is a nonnegative integer. A sequence is maximal exactly when it stops at a configuration with no movable bead, that is, by step 2.1, exactly when it stops at the top-packed configuration of the counts ; and that configuration is unique, since a runner with beads has exactly one top-packed state, the rows . Hence every maximal sequence of moves starting from ends at the same configuration, namely , and therefore at the same terminal partition .
By step 1.2 the partition does not depend on the chosen -set , so is well-defined; by step 3.1 it is the common terminal partition of all maximal sequences of e-hook removals, and by step 2.1 a terminal configuration is top-packed, hence carries no movable bead, hence its partition has no hook of length by step 1.1; thus is an -core. Every strip removed along such a sequence corresponds to a node hook of length exactly and so has size by [F4]. This proves all the asserted properties.
Depends on
Used by
- Equal removable-hook counts do not replace the core test Counterexample
- Level-one global-basis transition polynomials in the symmetric-group convention Definition
- The complete weight-one decomposition matrix for S3 at p=3 Example
- The three-core and three-quotient of (6,5,2,1³) by abacus Example
- The three-core of (4,3,2,1) by two removal orders Example
- Charged core height matrices: hub-preserving descent and minimal switch connectivity Lemma
- Multipartitions with fixed component cores are cyclotomic Jantzen-connected Lemma
- The core-quotient size formula defines the weight Proposition
- Nakayama block classification for symmetric groups Theorem
- q-Schur Weyl modules are in the same block iff their labels have the same e-core Theorem
- The weight-one block decomposition pattern Theorem
Cited to discharge well-definedness by The e-core, the e-quotient, and the e-weight.
Dependency tree · two levels
10 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
- Stacey Law (lecturer), notes by Leonard Tomczak, Representation Theory of Symmetric Groups, Cambridge Part III Michaelmas 2022 lecture notes, complete 76-page PDF (standard reference, not scraped)
- Andrew Mathas, Hecke algebras and Schur algebras of the symmetric group, complete 79-page prepublication manuscript (1998; expanded AMS University Lecture Series 15 edition, 1999) (standard reference, not scraped)