PRIMES

There is a new program called PRIMES for high school students in the Boston area. There are lots of high school math programs out there, but this one is fairly unique in offering a research experience. (RSI is the only one I know of, and PRIMES is based on it.) Also, unlike most of the others, it is during the school year as well–that’s why it’s only for kids in Boston.

Anyway, it looks like a very nice idea, and the mentor-in-charge, Pavel Etingof, has a fair bit of experience with this sort of thing. So if you’re a high school student in the area, apply! Or if you know one, tell them about it.

 

Categories parametrized by schemes and representation theory in complex rank

[Minor corrections made, 6/21]

I’d now like to discuss my paper “Categories parametrized by schemes and representation theory in complex rank.” My RSI project was rather-open ended: to investigate the categories of representation theory in complex rank. Pavel Etingof told me that it would be expected that they would behave similar in some ways to the integral case (at least if “there was justice in the world”). For instance, we know that Deligne’s has a comibnatorial parametrization of simple objects similar to the classical case. However, as I discovered when I got there, I don’t actually know representation theory. I had looked through some material on finite groups, and knew (in outline, not usually proofs) the basic facts about the symmetric group. I certainly didn’t know anything about Hecke algebras (the literature of which seems rather inaccessible to beginners), and I don’t think I could define a semisimple Lie algebra. Anyway, so what I did was therefore was the easy case: representation theory in transcendental rank. I sort of ended up stumbling into this by accident, so I’ll try to reconstruct the story below, somewhat. I apologize in advance to readers that know algebraic geometry and will probably find this post rather slow-moving (it’s really addressed with a younger version of myself in mind). Readers may wish, however, to review my earlier posts on this topic.

 

Representation theory in complex rank

We have now discussed some of the basic properties of Deligne’s categories , and some of the rich structure that they have. It turns out, as I have already mentioned, that Deligne did the same for representation categories of the other classical groups.

Knop described how to do it for the wreath products, obtaining categories for ; here the central object is the “standard representation” of -invariant functions , which has a natural action of . The representation is faithful, and again one uses its tensor powers and a combinatorial parametrization of its morphisms to interpolate. For the details in much more generality, see Knop’s paper; he actually constructs tensor categories via the calculus of relations out of arbitrary “regular categories.” (My paper has a brief exposition of how things play out in the special case of .) These categories, like Deligne’s, are semisimple symmetric tensor categories.

It turns out, however, that many families of algebraic objects of interest in representation theory depend on a parameter , and are built out of the corresponding (i.e., depending on ) classical groups (i.e. symmetric, orthogonal, etc.). One example is the family of algebras for an associative algebra. This is a rather simple one; a more complicated one is given by the family of Hecke algebras. The additional relations and generators corresponding to the part of these objects not in the classical groups can, however, often be stated in a uniform, categorical manner independent of .

Using this, Etingof proposed a program of studying the representation categories of these objects in complex rank, which he constructed out of Deligne’s categories. I will briefly explain what this is all about. Consider the example of the family of semidirect product algebras; it’s simpler than what Etingof focuses on, but I’d be horrendously unqualified to really say anything about any of them.

 

The ideology of a long top row: Or, why you shouldn’t be surprised about the irreducibles in Rep(S_t)

[This post, a continuation of the series on representation theory in complex rank, discusses the irreducibles in Deligne’s category for and what one can do with them.]

OK, so we now know that Deligne’s categories are semisimple when . But, this is a paradox. Deligne’s categories, a family of categories constructed to interpolate the semisimple categories of representations of are semisimple precisely at the complement of the nonnegative integers!

The problem is, when , is not equivalent to the ordinary category . The problem is that not all relations correspond to actual morphisms. Deligne in fact shows that the ordinary category can be obtained as a quotient of his (via the tensor ideal of “neglligible morphisms”) but this isn’t really important for the story I’m telling.

1. Motivation and remarks

Today, I want to talk about what the simple objects in , look like. We know what the simple -representations are; they are the Specht modules, parametrized by the Young diagrams of size . It turns out that the simple objects in are parametrized by the Young diagrams of arbitrary size. There is an interesting way of thinking about this that Etingof explains in his talk, and which I will try to motivate here now.

OK. So, just as we defined a filtration on Deligne’s categories yesterday, let’s define a filtration on the ordinary representation categories . Namely, we let denote the category generated by for the regular representation. When is large enough, this becomes the full category, so we will always pretend that is really really large relative to (which is kinda ironic when you think about the notation…).

Anyhow, we want to look at the simple objects in . Well, these are going to have to correspond to some Young diagrmas of size , but the question is which ones?

I claim that the Young diagrams that arise are precisely those where the rows below the top have boxes.

In particular, as gets large, the top row must get really long, but the number of simple objects stays bounded.

 

Deligne’s category Rep(S_t) for t not necessarily an integer

[Updated, 6/12; various errors fixed]

I’ve just uploaded to arXiv my paper (submitted to J. of Algebra) “Categories parametrized by schemes and representation theory in complex rank,” an outgrowth of my RSI project started last summer, where I worked with Pavel Etingof and Dustin Clausen.  I will devote this post to talking about some of the story surrounding it. In short, the project is about looking at this program of studying representation theory when the dimension is complex (admittedly nobody has ever seen a vector space of dimension ; I will explain this precisely below) in the simplest possible case.  But the categories of interest in the project are built out of certain symmetric tensor categories that Deligne defined back in 2004, and I’ll talk a bit about those today. I could have just jumped straight into my paper, but I figured this would make things potentially more accessible, and would be more fun.

I also recommend looking at these posts of David Speyer and Noah Snyder, which talk about some of Deligne’s work as well (and which I learned a lot from). Also, cf. this talk of Pavel Etingof.  The talk goes further (into the non-semisimple analogs of Deligne’s categories) that I will cover in a later post. Finally, the paper of Deligne is available here.

1. Motivation

The whole story behind this starts with the representation theory of the classical groups—these are objects like , etc. And in particular, I’m going to zoom in on the symmetric group—or more precisely, the family of symmetric groups .

The symmetric group is a very complicated object (indeed, any finite group is a subgroup of a symmetric group, by Cayley’s theorem), but its representation theory has been understood for 100 years and has many interesting combinatorial facets.

In the modern language, we can package the entire representation theory of into a category (depending on the nonnegative integer ). This is a very interesting category for several reasons. The first, and most obvious, part of its structure is that it is a -linear abelian category.

More interestingly, it’s semisimple: every exact sequence splits. This is because the group algebra is semisimple, by Maschke’s theorem. In addition, it is a tensor category: we can define the tensor product of any two representations of a group in a natural way, and is no exception. It is even a symmetric tensor category because we have a nice isomorphism for any two representations .

Technically, all this works for any finite group. What’s special about the symmetric group is, for instance, the very nice way the simple objects of (i.e. irreducible representations) are parametrized. Namely, (as for every finite group) they are in bijection with the conjugacy classes of , but (unlike for other groups) we have an explicit map between such conjugacy classes and irreducible representations. Since each conjugacy class of corresponds to a partiton of (a well-known fact easily seen because any permutation can be written as a product of disjoint cycles),

The whole idea behind Deligne’s work is that, while there isn’t any such thing as a symmetric group on elements, there is nevertheless a category (or more generally for ) that has much of the same structure. Deligne constructed these categories via an interpolation procedure.

2. Interpolation