ScalingStacks

0P50

Lemma 3.2.3. Let Οƒβˆˆπ”–^n\sigma\in\hat{{\mathfrak{S}}}_{n}. We have L⁑(Οƒ)=L⁑(cd​σ)L(\sigma)=L(c^{d}\sigma) for all dβˆˆπ™d\in{\mathbf{Z}} and

ℓ⁑(Οƒ)=|L~​(Οƒ)|=βˆ‘0≀i<j<n|βŒŠΟƒβ‘(j)βˆ’Οƒβ‘(i)nβŒ‹|.\ell(\sigma)=|\tilde{L}(\sigma)|=\sum_{0\leq i<j<n}\bigl|{\lfloor\frac{\sigma(j)-\sigma(i)}{n}\rfloor}\bigr|.

If (i,j)∈L⁑(Οƒ)(i,j)\in L(\sigma), then σ​si​j<Οƒ\sigma s_{ij}<\sigma.

Assume Οƒ=cd​w\sigma=c^{d}w and w=sa1β‹―salw=s_{a_{1}}\cdots s_{a_{l}} is a reduced decomposition of w∈Wnw\in W_{n}. Given 1≀r≀l1\leq r\leq l, let ir∈{1,…,n}i_{r}\in\{1,\ldots,n\} with ir+n​𝐙=ari_{r}+n{\mathbf{Z}}=a_{r}.

The set {(salβ‹―sar+1(ir),salβ‹―sar+1(ir+1))}1≀r≀l\{\bigl(s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}),s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}+1)\bigr)\}_{1\leq r\leq l} is a subset of L⁑(Οƒ)L(\sigma). This induces a bijection

{((salβ‹―sar+1(ir),salβ‹―sar+1(ir+1))}1≀r≀lβ†’βˆΌL(Οƒ)/n𝐙.\{\bigl((s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}),s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}+1)\bigr)\}_{1\leq r\leq l}\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0.0pt\to}\limits^{\sim}}L(\sigma)/n{\mathbf{Z}}.
0P51

Proof. Consider a pair (i,j)∈L⁑(Οƒ)(i,j)\in L(\sigma) with 1≀i≀n1\leq i\leq n and such that (i,jβ€²)βˆ‰L⁑(Οƒ)(i,j^{\prime}){\not\in}L(\sigma) and (jβ€²,j)βˆ‰L⁑(Οƒ)(j^{\prime},j){\not\in}L(\sigma) for i<jβ€²<ji<j^{\prime}<j. Given jβ€²j^{\prime} with i<jβ€²<ji<j^{\prime}<j, we have σ⁑(i)<σ⁑(jβ€²)<σ⁑(j)\sigma(i)<\sigma(j^{\prime})<\sigma(j), a contradiction. It follows that j=i+1j=i+1. We have

L⁑(Οƒ)=({(i,i+1)}+n​𝐙)β€‹βˆ(si,i+1,si,i+1)​(L⁑(σ​si,i+1)).L(\sigma)=\bigl(\{(i,i+1)\}+n{\mathbf{Z}}\bigr)\coprod(s_{i,i+1},s_{i,i+1})(L(\sigma s_{i,i+1})).

We deduce by induction on |L~​(Οƒ)||\tilde{L}(\sigma)| that ℓ​(Οƒ)≀|L~​(Οƒ)|\ell(\sigma)\leq|\tilde{L}(\sigma)|.

We prove the statements on {(salβ‹―sar+1(ir),salβ‹―sar+1(ir+1))}1≀r≀l\{\bigl(s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}),s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}+1)\bigr)\}_{1\leq r\leq l} by induction on ℓ⁑(Οƒ)\ell(\sigma). By induction, the statements hold for σ​sal,al+1\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1}. In particular, ℓ⁑(σ​sal,al+1)=|L~​(σ​sal,al+1)|\ell(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})=|\tilde{L}(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})|. It follows that ℓ⁑(Οƒ)=ℓ⁑(σ​sal,al+1)+1>|L~​(σ​sal,al+1)|\ell(\sigma)=\ell(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})+1>|\tilde{L}(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})|. Assume (il,il+1)βˆ‰L⁑(Οƒ)(i_{l},i_{l}+1){\not\in}L(\sigma). It follows that L⁑(σ​sal,al+1)=sal,al+1​(L⁑(Οƒ))β€‹βˆ({(il,il+1)}+n​𝐙)L(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})=s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1}(L(\sigma))\coprod\bigl(\{(i_{l},i_{l}+1)\}+n{\mathbf{Z}}\bigr), hence |L~​(Οƒ)|<|L~​(σ​sal,al+1)|=ℓ⁑(σ​sal,al+1)=ℓ⁑(Οƒ)βˆ’1|\tilde{L}(\sigma)|<|\tilde{L}(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})|=\ell(\sigma s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1})=\ell(\sigma)-1, a contradiction. It follows that (il,il+1)∈L⁑(Οƒ)(i_{l},i_{l}+1)\in L(\sigma), hence

L⁑(Οƒ)=sal,al+1​(L⁑(σ​sil,il+1))β€‹βˆ({(il,il+1)}+n​𝐙).L(\sigma)=s_{a_{l},a_{l}+1}(L(\sigma s_{i_{l},i_{l}+1}))\coprod\bigl(\{(i_{l},i_{l}+1)\}+n{\mathbf{Z}}\bigr).

The last statement of the lemma follows now by induction.

Consider now (i,j)∈L⁑(Οƒ)(i,j)\in L(\sigma). Up to translating (i,j)(i,j) diagonally by n​𝐙n{\mathbf{Z}}, we can assume there is rr such that i=salβ‹―sar+1(ir)i=s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}) and j=salβ‹―sar+1(ir+1)j=s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}+1). So Οƒsi,j=cdsa1β‹―sarβˆ’1sar+1β‹―sal\sigma s_{i,j}=c^{d}s_{a_{1}}\cdots s_{a_{r-1}}s_{a_{r+1}}\cdots s_{a_{l}}, hence σ​si,j<Οƒ\sigma s_{i,j}<\sigma. The lemma follows. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.

Andrew Manion, Raphael Rouquier

Original source: arXiv:2009.09627v2