Schur-Weyl duality and q-symmetric functions











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
4












Disclaimer: I'm far from an expert on any of the topics of this question. I apologize in advance for any horrible mistakes and/or inaccuracies I have made and I hope that the spirit of the question will still be clear despite them.



The (integral) representation rings of the symmetric groups can be packed together into a hopf algebra $H_1 = oplus_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ where the multiplication (resp. comultiplication) comes from induction (resp. restriction) along $Sigma_n times Sigma_k to Sigma_{n+k}$. In fact there's a further structure one can put on $H$ corresponding to the inner product of characters and a notion of positivity (all together its sometimes called a "positive self adjoint hopf algebra"), but for simplicity I will disregard this structure in what follows (of course if its not important for the answer that would be great to know).



Its well known that sending the irreducible specht modules to their corresponding schur functions induces an isomorphism of hopf algebras to the (integral) hopf algebra of symmetric functions.



Following the "$mathbb{F}_1$-philosophy" it is tempting to define a ring of "q-symmetric functions" as the hopf algebra $H_q = oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{F}_q))$ equipped with the same structures as above.




Question 1: Is there a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ which
specializes at a prime power $q=p^n$ to $H_{p^n}$ and at $q=1$ to
$H_1$ the classical ring of symmetric functions?




By schur weyl duality we also know that $H_1 cong Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{C})):= colim_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$ (at least as rings). It seems natural to ask if there's any form of schur duality going in the other direction.




Question 2: Is there any kind of relationship between the rings $Rep(Sigma_{infty}) := colim_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ and $oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$?



Question 3: Is there a $mathbb{Z}[q]$-algebra which specializes to $Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{F}_q))$ at a prime power $q = p^n$ and to $Rep(Sigma_{infty})$ at $q=1$?











share|cite|improve this question
























  • Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
    – Sam Hopkins
    4 hours ago










  • This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
    – Mark Wildon
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
    – Saal Hardali
    1 hour ago

















up vote
10
down vote

favorite
4












Disclaimer: I'm far from an expert on any of the topics of this question. I apologize in advance for any horrible mistakes and/or inaccuracies I have made and I hope that the spirit of the question will still be clear despite them.



The (integral) representation rings of the symmetric groups can be packed together into a hopf algebra $H_1 = oplus_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ where the multiplication (resp. comultiplication) comes from induction (resp. restriction) along $Sigma_n times Sigma_k to Sigma_{n+k}$. In fact there's a further structure one can put on $H$ corresponding to the inner product of characters and a notion of positivity (all together its sometimes called a "positive self adjoint hopf algebra"), but for simplicity I will disregard this structure in what follows (of course if its not important for the answer that would be great to know).



Its well known that sending the irreducible specht modules to their corresponding schur functions induces an isomorphism of hopf algebras to the (integral) hopf algebra of symmetric functions.



Following the "$mathbb{F}_1$-philosophy" it is tempting to define a ring of "q-symmetric functions" as the hopf algebra $H_q = oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{F}_q))$ equipped with the same structures as above.




Question 1: Is there a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ which
specializes at a prime power $q=p^n$ to $H_{p^n}$ and at $q=1$ to
$H_1$ the classical ring of symmetric functions?




By schur weyl duality we also know that $H_1 cong Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{C})):= colim_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$ (at least as rings). It seems natural to ask if there's any form of schur duality going in the other direction.




Question 2: Is there any kind of relationship between the rings $Rep(Sigma_{infty}) := colim_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ and $oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$?



Question 3: Is there a $mathbb{Z}[q]$-algebra which specializes to $Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{F}_q))$ at a prime power $q = p^n$ and to $Rep(Sigma_{infty})$ at $q=1$?











share|cite|improve this question
























  • Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
    – Sam Hopkins
    4 hours ago










  • This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
    – Mark Wildon
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
    – Saal Hardali
    1 hour ago















up vote
10
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
4






4





Disclaimer: I'm far from an expert on any of the topics of this question. I apologize in advance for any horrible mistakes and/or inaccuracies I have made and I hope that the spirit of the question will still be clear despite them.



The (integral) representation rings of the symmetric groups can be packed together into a hopf algebra $H_1 = oplus_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ where the multiplication (resp. comultiplication) comes from induction (resp. restriction) along $Sigma_n times Sigma_k to Sigma_{n+k}$. In fact there's a further structure one can put on $H$ corresponding to the inner product of characters and a notion of positivity (all together its sometimes called a "positive self adjoint hopf algebra"), but for simplicity I will disregard this structure in what follows (of course if its not important for the answer that would be great to know).



Its well known that sending the irreducible specht modules to their corresponding schur functions induces an isomorphism of hopf algebras to the (integral) hopf algebra of symmetric functions.



Following the "$mathbb{F}_1$-philosophy" it is tempting to define a ring of "q-symmetric functions" as the hopf algebra $H_q = oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{F}_q))$ equipped with the same structures as above.




Question 1: Is there a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ which
specializes at a prime power $q=p^n$ to $H_{p^n}$ and at $q=1$ to
$H_1$ the classical ring of symmetric functions?




By schur weyl duality we also know that $H_1 cong Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{C})):= colim_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$ (at least as rings). It seems natural to ask if there's any form of schur duality going in the other direction.




Question 2: Is there any kind of relationship between the rings $Rep(Sigma_{infty}) := colim_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ and $oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$?



Question 3: Is there a $mathbb{Z}[q]$-algebra which specializes to $Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{F}_q))$ at a prime power $q = p^n$ and to $Rep(Sigma_{infty})$ at $q=1$?











share|cite|improve this question















Disclaimer: I'm far from an expert on any of the topics of this question. I apologize in advance for any horrible mistakes and/or inaccuracies I have made and I hope that the spirit of the question will still be clear despite them.



The (integral) representation rings of the symmetric groups can be packed together into a hopf algebra $H_1 = oplus_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ where the multiplication (resp. comultiplication) comes from induction (resp. restriction) along $Sigma_n times Sigma_k to Sigma_{n+k}$. In fact there's a further structure one can put on $H$ corresponding to the inner product of characters and a notion of positivity (all together its sometimes called a "positive self adjoint hopf algebra"), but for simplicity I will disregard this structure in what follows (of course if its not important for the answer that would be great to know).



Its well known that sending the irreducible specht modules to their corresponding schur functions induces an isomorphism of hopf algebras to the (integral) hopf algebra of symmetric functions.



Following the "$mathbb{F}_1$-philosophy" it is tempting to define a ring of "q-symmetric functions" as the hopf algebra $H_q = oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{F}_q))$ equipped with the same structures as above.




Question 1: Is there a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ which
specializes at a prime power $q=p^n$ to $H_{p^n}$ and at $q=1$ to
$H_1$ the classical ring of symmetric functions?




By schur weyl duality we also know that $H_1 cong Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{C})):= colim_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$ (at least as rings). It seems natural to ask if there's any form of schur duality going in the other direction.




Question 2: Is there any kind of relationship between the rings $Rep(Sigma_{infty}) := colim_n Rep(Sigma_n)$ and $oplus_n Rep(GL_n(mathbb{C}))$?



Question 3: Is there a $mathbb{Z}[q]$-algebra which specializes to $Rep(GL_{infty}(mathbb{F}_q))$ at a prime power $q = p^n$ and to $Rep(Sigma_{infty})$ at $q=1$?








rt.representation-theory symmetric-groups symmetric-functions q-analogs






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago

























asked 8 hours ago









Saal Hardali

60621567




60621567












  • Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
    – Sam Hopkins
    4 hours ago










  • This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
    – Mark Wildon
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
    – Saal Hardali
    1 hour ago




















  • Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
    – Sam Hopkins
    4 hours ago










  • This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
    – Mark Wildon
    1 hour ago








  • 1




    @MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
    – Saal Hardali
    1 hour ago


















Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago




Ignoring the Hopf algebra aspects of the question, people do study the representation theory of $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ as a q-analog of the representation theory of $Sigma_n$. A thing to note immediately is that $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has many more irreps that $Sigma_n$. But $GL_n(mathbb{F}_q)$ has a particularly nice family of irreps called unipotent representations $U^{lambda}(q)$, which are indexed by partitions of $n$. And the degree of $U^{lambda}(q)$ is a polynomial in $q$ (the ``fake degree polynomial'') which at $q=1$ becomes $f^{lambda}$, the degree of the $Sigma_n$ irrep.
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago












This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
– Mark Wildon
1 hour ago






This is probably just showing my ignorance, but please could you explain the colimit you have in mind on the right hand side of $mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_infty) := mathrm{colim}_n mathrm{Rep}(Sigma_n)$? Since $oplus_n mathrm{Rep}(mathrm{GL}_n(mathbb{C}))$ is isomorphic to the ring of symmetric functions, which is an inverse limit (i.e. a limit, not a colimit), do you expect the required relationship to involve some kind of duality?
– Mark Wildon
1 hour ago






1




1




@MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
– Saal Hardali
1 hour ago






@MarkWildon I think its more a question of convention than anything else. If I write a sum over all representation ring of symmetric group that means that an element is a finite sum while if I define the ring of symmetriic functions as a limit i get series with an infinite number of terms. There are probably two ways to fix this, one is to take the product in my original definition, the other is taking some kind of colimit in the definition of symmetric functions (as is done in the wikipedia article on symmetric functions).
– Saal Hardali
1 hour ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













As Sam Hopkins says, the category of all representations of $GL_n(mathbb F_q)$ is too large to give what you want. Instead, let's consider the category of unipotent representations, i.e. those appearing in the irreducible decomposition of $mathbb Q [GL_n(mathbb F_q)/B_n(mathbb F_q)]$.



Unipotent representations are not closed under the naive induction product, but they are closed under parabolic induction $V*W = {rm Ind}_{P(n,m)}^{GL_{n+m}} V otimes W$. This gives $oplus_n {rm Rep}^{un}(GL_n(mathbb F_q))$ the structure of a monoidal category. Instead of being symmetric monoidal, it is now braided monoidal! The Grothendieck ring is a $q$ deformation of the ring of symmetric functions.



Finally, by Morita theory, unipotent representations are equivalent to representations of $mathcal H_n(q) = {rm End}_{GL_n}(mathbb Q GL_n/B_n )$, here $mathcal H_n(q)$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra which $q$-deforms the group ring of $S_n$. It is Schur-Weyl dual to representations of the quantum group $U_q(GL_infty)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
    – Sam Hopkins
    2 hours ago










  • The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
    – Phil Tosteson
    2 hours ago










  • Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
    – Saal Hardali
    2 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318785%2fschur-weyl-duality-and-q-symmetric-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













As Sam Hopkins says, the category of all representations of $GL_n(mathbb F_q)$ is too large to give what you want. Instead, let's consider the category of unipotent representations, i.e. those appearing in the irreducible decomposition of $mathbb Q [GL_n(mathbb F_q)/B_n(mathbb F_q)]$.



Unipotent representations are not closed under the naive induction product, but they are closed under parabolic induction $V*W = {rm Ind}_{P(n,m)}^{GL_{n+m}} V otimes W$. This gives $oplus_n {rm Rep}^{un}(GL_n(mathbb F_q))$ the structure of a monoidal category. Instead of being symmetric monoidal, it is now braided monoidal! The Grothendieck ring is a $q$ deformation of the ring of symmetric functions.



Finally, by Morita theory, unipotent representations are equivalent to representations of $mathcal H_n(q) = {rm End}_{GL_n}(mathbb Q GL_n/B_n )$, here $mathcal H_n(q)$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra which $q$-deforms the group ring of $S_n$. It is Schur-Weyl dual to representations of the quantum group $U_q(GL_infty)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
    – Sam Hopkins
    2 hours ago










  • The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
    – Phil Tosteson
    2 hours ago










  • Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
    – Saal Hardali
    2 hours ago















up vote
5
down vote













As Sam Hopkins says, the category of all representations of $GL_n(mathbb F_q)$ is too large to give what you want. Instead, let's consider the category of unipotent representations, i.e. those appearing in the irreducible decomposition of $mathbb Q [GL_n(mathbb F_q)/B_n(mathbb F_q)]$.



Unipotent representations are not closed under the naive induction product, but they are closed under parabolic induction $V*W = {rm Ind}_{P(n,m)}^{GL_{n+m}} V otimes W$. This gives $oplus_n {rm Rep}^{un}(GL_n(mathbb F_q))$ the structure of a monoidal category. Instead of being symmetric monoidal, it is now braided monoidal! The Grothendieck ring is a $q$ deformation of the ring of symmetric functions.



Finally, by Morita theory, unipotent representations are equivalent to representations of $mathcal H_n(q) = {rm End}_{GL_n}(mathbb Q GL_n/B_n )$, here $mathcal H_n(q)$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra which $q$-deforms the group ring of $S_n$. It is Schur-Weyl dual to representations of the quantum group $U_q(GL_infty)$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
    – Sam Hopkins
    2 hours ago










  • The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
    – Phil Tosteson
    2 hours ago










  • Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
    – Saal Hardali
    2 hours ago













up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









As Sam Hopkins says, the category of all representations of $GL_n(mathbb F_q)$ is too large to give what you want. Instead, let's consider the category of unipotent representations, i.e. those appearing in the irreducible decomposition of $mathbb Q [GL_n(mathbb F_q)/B_n(mathbb F_q)]$.



Unipotent representations are not closed under the naive induction product, but they are closed under parabolic induction $V*W = {rm Ind}_{P(n,m)}^{GL_{n+m}} V otimes W$. This gives $oplus_n {rm Rep}^{un}(GL_n(mathbb F_q))$ the structure of a monoidal category. Instead of being symmetric monoidal, it is now braided monoidal! The Grothendieck ring is a $q$ deformation of the ring of symmetric functions.



Finally, by Morita theory, unipotent representations are equivalent to representations of $mathcal H_n(q) = {rm End}_{GL_n}(mathbb Q GL_n/B_n )$, here $mathcal H_n(q)$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra which $q$-deforms the group ring of $S_n$. It is Schur-Weyl dual to representations of the quantum group $U_q(GL_infty)$.






share|cite|improve this answer














As Sam Hopkins says, the category of all representations of $GL_n(mathbb F_q)$ is too large to give what you want. Instead, let's consider the category of unipotent representations, i.e. those appearing in the irreducible decomposition of $mathbb Q [GL_n(mathbb F_q)/B_n(mathbb F_q)]$.



Unipotent representations are not closed under the naive induction product, but they are closed under parabolic induction $V*W = {rm Ind}_{P(n,m)}^{GL_{n+m}} V otimes W$. This gives $oplus_n {rm Rep}^{un}(GL_n(mathbb F_q))$ the structure of a monoidal category. Instead of being symmetric monoidal, it is now braided monoidal! The Grothendieck ring is a $q$ deformation of the ring of symmetric functions.



Finally, by Morita theory, unipotent representations are equivalent to representations of $mathcal H_n(q) = {rm End}_{GL_n}(mathbb Q GL_n/B_n )$, here $mathcal H_n(q)$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra which $q$-deforms the group ring of $S_n$. It is Schur-Weyl dual to representations of the quantum group $U_q(GL_infty)$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Phil Tosteson

673146




673146












  • Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
    – Sam Hopkins
    2 hours ago










  • The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
    – Phil Tosteson
    2 hours ago










  • Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
    – Saal Hardali
    2 hours ago


















  • Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
    – Sam Hopkins
    2 hours ago










  • The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
    – Phil Tosteson
    2 hours ago










  • Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
    – Saal Hardali
    2 hours ago
















Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
– Sam Hopkins
2 hours ago




Does the category being braided monoidal mean that the product "q-commutes"?
– Sam Hopkins
2 hours ago












The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
– Phil Tosteson
2 hours ago




The product is still commutative, because the braiding still gives an isomorphism between the two products. One difference is that the Grothendieck ring won't naturally be a lambda ring anymore.
– Phil Tosteson
2 hours ago












Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
– Saal Hardali
2 hours ago




Could you elaborate please on the last point. What does it mean that they are dual to the representations of the quantum group? What kind of object is it? Is it a hopf algebra over $mathbb{Z}[q]$ specializing at $q=1$ to the hopf algebra of the general linear group?
– Saal Hardali
2 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318785%2fschur-weyl-duality-and-q-symmetric-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei