Young diagrams, Borel subalgebras and Cayley graphs

Assume m, n are coprime and \stackrel{{\rm o}}{\mathfrak{g}} = \mathfrak{sl}(m|n) there is a \mathfrak T_{iso}-equivariant bijection [X \times {\mathbb Z}]\longrightarrow\mathcal{B} such that [\emptyset, 0] corresponds to \mathfrak{b}.

If m, n are coprime, there is a \mathfrak T_{iso}-equivariant bijection x:[X \times {\mathbb Z}] \longrightarrow{\bf O} such that x(\emptyset, 0) = \Lambda_0.

If \alpha = \epsilon_i-\delta_{j}, the following are equivalent

• (a) \mathfrak{B}(\alpha) is an inner corner of \lambda, that is \lambda\in X_{-\alpha}.

• (b) \lambda_{n+1-i} = j and \lambda'_{j} = n+1-i .

If these conditions hold then

If \alpha = \epsilon_i-\delta_{j}, the following are equivalent

• (a) \mathfrak{B}(\alpha) is an outer corner of \lambda, that is \lambda\in X_{\alpha}.

• (b) \lambda_{n+1-i} = j-1 and \lambda'_{j} = n-i.

If these conditions hold then

There is a bijection between \zeta:{\bf{Sh}} \longrightarrow X defined as follows: for a shuffle \sigma we draw a path in R, where the k^{th} step is {\operatorname{d}} if \sigma(k) \le n and {\operatorname{r }} otherwise. Then the Young diagram \lambda= \zeta(\sigma) consists of the boxes below the path.

We have a commutative diagram of bijections.

The maps from (?) restrict to bijections

and we have a commutative diagram.

We have {\bf{sh}}(p_\beta(w)) =r_\beta({\bf{sh}}(w)) for w\in \mathtt{W}(\beta).

• (a) \lambda \in X({\operatorname{r.full}}) iff \mathtt{w}(\lambda)= \mathtt{x}\mathtt{d} (for some sub-word \mathtt{x}). In this case \mathtt{w}(\lambda^{-_\mathtt{r}})= \mathtt{d} \mathtt{x}.

• (b) \lambda \in X({\operatorname{r.empty}}) iff \mathtt{w}(\lambda)= \mathtt{d}\mathtt{x}. In this case \mathtt{w}(\lambda^{+_\mathtt{r}})= \mathtt{x}\mathtt{d} .

• (c) \lambda \in X({\operatorname{c.full}}) iff

  \mathtt{w}(\lambda)= \mathtt{r}\mathtt{x}. In this case \mathtt{w}(\lambda^{-_\mathtt{c}})= \mathtt{x}\mathtt{r} .

• (d) \lambda \in X({\operatorname{c.empty}}) iff \mathtt{w}(\lambda)= \mathtt{x}\mathtt{r}. In this case \mathtt{w}(\lambda^{+_\mathtt{c}})= \mathtt{r}\mathtt{x}.

We have disjoint unions

• (a) X =X({\operatorname{r.empty}}) \cup X({\operatorname{c.full}}).

• (b) X =X({\operatorname{c.empty}}) \cup X({\operatorname{r.full}}).

• (a) If the first letter in w_i is \mathtt{r}, then \lambda_{i+1}=\lambda_{i}^{-_\mathtt{c}}.

• (b) If the first letter in w_i is \mathtt{d}, then \lambda_{i+1}=\lambda_{i}^{+_\mathtt{r}}.

Thus by Lemma 2.8 w_{i+1} is obtained from w_{i} by moving the first letter to the end.

Suppose that y\sim z with y,z \in Y(\alpha) implies H(\rho_\alpha)(y)\sim H(\rho_\alpha) (z) \in Y(-\alpha). Then there is a well-defined action of \mathfrak T_{iso} on the set of equivalence classes [Y] via a functor {\mathbb H}:\mathfrak T_{iso}\longrightarrow S([Y]). It is given by {\mathbb H}(\alpha)= [Y(\alpha)] and

where z \in [y] \cap Y(\alpha).

Assume Hypothesis 3.2 holds.

• (a) If \beta\in \Delta_{1}^+, \mu\in {\mathbb X}_{-\nu\beta}\;\cap \in {\mathbb X}({\operatorname{r.empty}}) and {\mu}^{+_\mathtt{r}} \in {\mathbb X}_{-\beta}, then {H(\rho_{-\nu\beta})(\mu)}\in {\mathbb X}({\operatorname{r.empty}}) and

  ({H(\rho_{-\nu\beta})(\mu)})^{+_\mathtt{r}} = H(\rho_{-\beta})({\mu}^{+_\mathtt{r}}).

• (b) If \beta\in \Delta_{1}^+, \mu\in {\mathbb X}_{-\eta\beta}\;\cap \in {\mathbb X}({\operatorname{c.empty}}) and {\mu}^{+_\mathtt{c}} \in {\mathbb X}_{-\beta}, then {H(\rho_{-\eta\beta})(\mu)}\in {\mathbb X}({\operatorname{c.empty}}) and

  ({H(\rho_{-\eta\beta})(\mu)})^{+_\mathtt{c}} = H(\rho_{-\beta})({\mu}^{+_\mathtt{c}}).

If the functor H satisfies Hypothesis 3.2, then

• (a) There is a functor {\mathbb H}:\mathfrak T_{iso}\longrightarrow \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{X}) given by {\mathbb H}(\alpha) = \mathcal{X}_\alpha

  and

  {\mathbb H}(\rho_\alpha)[\lambda, in+jm] = [H(\rho_{\eta^{i}\nu^{j}\alpha})(\lambda),in+jm] \mbox{ for } (\lambda, in+jm)\in (X_{ \eta^{i}\nu^{j}\alpha},in+jm ) .

• (b) The injective map {\mathbb X}\longrightarrow \mathcal{X}, \lambda\longrightarrow [\lambda,0] is compatible with the \mathfrak T_{iso}-action. If \lambda \in X_{\alpha}, then {\mathbb H}(\rho_{\alpha})[\lambda,0]= [H(\rho_{\alpha})(\lambda),0].

Thus the action of \mathfrak T_{iso} on {\mathbb X} extends to an action on [{\mathbb X}\times Z].

If \lambda\in X({\operatorname{r.full}})\cap X_{\beta}, then {\lambda}^{-_\mathtt{r}} \in X_{\nu\beta}, {t_{\beta}(\lambda)}\in X({\operatorname{r.full}}) and

We have

• (a) {\lambda}^{-_\mathtt{r}} =\zeta({\sigma}^{-_\mathtt{r}}).

• (b) {\bf{sh}}(w)^{-_\mathtt{r}}= {\bf{sh}}(w^{-_\mathtt{r}}),

• (c) Suppose \beta =\epsilon_i-\delta_j and r_{\beta}(\sigma) = (i,j')\sigma is obtained from \sigma using the odd reflection r_{\beta}. Then

  ({r_\beta\sigma})^{-_\mathtt{r}}= r_{\nu\beta}({\sigma}^{-_\mathtt{r}}).

The functor H satisfies Hypothesis 3.2.

• (a) If ({\mathbb X}, H) are as in (?), there is a well-defined functor {\mathbb H}:\mathfrak T_{{\operatorname{iso}}}\longrightarrow \mathfrak S[X\times {\mathbb Z}].

• (b) We have a commutative diagram.

  \xymatrix@C=2pc@R=1pc{ &&\mathfrak T_{iso}\ar@{<->}_{{\mathbb F}} [dd]&& \mathfrak T_{iso} \ar@{<->}_{=}[ll]\ar@{<->}_{{{\mathbb G}}}[dd]&& \mathfrak T_{iso}\ar@{<->}_{{\mathbb B}} [dd]\ar@{<->}_{=}[ll]&&&\\ \\ &&\mathcal{S}[X \times {\mathbb Z} ]&&\mathcal{S}[\mathtt{W} \times {\mathbb Z} ] \ar@{<->}^{{\cong}}[ll]& & \ar@{<->}^{{\cong}}[ll] \mathcal{S}[{\stackrel{{\rm o}}{\mathcal{B}}}\times {\mathbb Z} ]\ar@{<-}[ll] &}

\deg({\lambda}^{-_\mathtt{r}},k+m)=\deg(\lambda,k) if \lambda_1=m.

• (a) If \alpha =\epsilon_n-\delta_1 and { \boldsymbol \lambda} \subseteq \lambda, then \alpha is not an outer corner of \lambda, but \nu\alpha = \epsilon_1-\delta_1 is an outer corner of {\lambda}^{-_\mathtt{r}} and \eta^{}\alpha=\epsilon_n -\delta_m is an outer corner of {\lambda}^{-_\mathtt{c}}.

• (b) If \alpha =\epsilon_1-\delta_m and \lambda \in X^{{\operatorname{red}}}, then \alpha is not an inner corner of \lambda, but \nu^{-1}\alpha=\epsilon_n -\delta_m is an inner corner of {\lambda}^{+_\mathtt{r}} and \eta^{-1}\alpha=\epsilon_1 -\delta_1 is an inner corner of {\lambda}^{+_\mathtt{c}}.

If E_{j} = \{(w_i,k_i)| i \in \mathcal{E}_{j}\}, then E = \bigcup_{i=0}^{m-1} E_j is the decomposition of E into \approx-equivalence classes.

• (a) E contains a representative of the form (w,\ell) such that m divides \ell.

• (b) The set of representatives as in (a) forms an equivalence class of under \approx.

• (c) Suppose that (w_0, k_0) has the property in (a), and [w_0, k_0] \longrightarrow p [w_0, k_0] is a positive edge of the Cayley graph \Gamma[\mathtt{W}\times {\mathbb Z}] then p has a representative of the form (w_0, k_0)\longrightarrow (p_\gamma (w_0), k_0) or (w_0, k_0)\longrightarrow (p_\gamma (w_0), k_0+m).

There is a \mathfrak T_{{\operatorname{iso}}}-equivariant bijection [X\times m{\mathbb Z}]_\approx \longrightarrow [X\times {\mathbb Z}] given by

A minimal realization of A^0 is given by (\stackrel{\rm o}{\mathfrak{h}}, \stackrel{{\rm o}}{\Pi}, \stackrel{\rm o}{\Pi^\vee}). We have \stackrel{{\rm o}}{\mathfrak{g}} \cong \mathfrak{g}(A^0, \tau^0).

With the above notation, \widehat{L}(\stackrel{{\rm _o}}{\mathfrak{g}}) \cong \mathfrak{g}(A,\tau). This algebra is generated by e_0, e_1, \ldots, e_r, f_0, f_1, \ldots, f_r and \mathfrak{h}.

There is well defined an equivariant bijection x:{[\stackrel{{\rm o}} {\mathcal{B}}} \times {\mathbb Z}] \longrightarrow \mathcal{B} where [{\stackrel{{\rm o}}{\mathfrak{b}}}{}(\sigma),k] maps to the Borel subalgebra of \mathfrak{g} extended from {\stackrel{{\rm o}}{\mathfrak{b}}}{}(\sigma,k).

The groupoid \mathfrak T_{iso} acts on \mathcal{B} by odd reflections and we have a commutative diagram