ScalingStacks

0P51

Proof. Consider a pair (i,j)∈L⁡(σ)(i,j)\in L(\sigma) with 1≤i≤n1\leq i\leq n and such that (i,j′)∉L⁡(σ)(i,j^{\prime}){\not\in}L(\sigma) and (j′,j)∉L⁡(σ)(j^{\prime},j){\not\in}L(\sigma) for i<j′<ji<j^{\prime}<j. Given j′j^{\prime} with i<j′<ji<j^{\prime}<j, we have σ⁡(i)<σ⁡(j′)<σ⁡(j)\sigma(i)<\sigma(j^{\prime})<\sigma(j), a contradiction. It follows that j=i+1j=i+1. We have

L⁡(σ)=({(i,i+1)}+n​𝐙)​∐(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~​(σ)||\tilde{L}(\sigma)| that ℓ​(σ)≤|L~​(σ)|\ell(\sigma)\leq|\tilde{L}(\sigma)|.

We prove the statements on {(sal⋯sar+1(ir),sal⋯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⁡(σ)\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⁡(σ)=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)∉L⁡(σ)(i_{l},i_{l}+1){\not\in}L(\sigma). It follows that L⁡(σ​sal,al+1)=sal,al+1​(L⁡(σ))​∐({(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~​(σ)|<|L~​(σ​sal,al+1)|=ℓ⁡(σ​sal,al+1)=ℓ⁡(σ)−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⁡(σ)(i_{l},i_{l}+1)\in L(\sigma), hence

L⁡(σ)=sal,al+1​(L⁡(σ​sil,il+1))​∐({(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⁡(σ)(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=sal⋯sar+1(ir)i=s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}) and j=sal⋯sar+1(ir+1)j=s_{a_{l}}\cdots s_{a_{r+1}}(i_{r}+1). So σsi,j=cdsa1⋯sar−1sar+1⋯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<σ\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