On a conjecture of King-Tollu-Toumazet for rectangular Kostka coefficients

The possible generic subdimension vectors are

along with \gamma=0 and \gamma=\beta.

(a) Consider the following three subdimension vectors

Let \sigma=(\sigma_0,\sigma_1,\dotsc,\sigma_n)\in\Sigma(Q,\beta). Using the description of the cone of weights \Sigma(Q,\beta) as in Theorem 2.1, the equality \sigma(\beta)=0 and the above subdimension vectors give the following

The first inequality gives \sigma_0\leq 0. We will write \sigma_0=-d with d\ge 0. If we subtract the second inequality from the equality we get \sigma_i\ge 0. Let us write a_i=\sigma_i. The third inequality says a_i\le d, and the equality gives \sum_i a_i=kd. Conversely, it is easy to check that any weight \sigma of this form lies in the cone of weights \Sigma(Q,\beta).

(b) We will only prove part (ii). The proof of part (i) is similar.

(\Longrightarrow) Taking \gamma=(1, e_i) gives \sigma(\gamma)=a_i-d<0. Hence, a_i\le d-1. If we take \gamma=(k, \mathbf 1_{\{1,\dots,n\}\smallsetminus\{i\}}), which is a proper subrepresentation, then we get \sigma(\gamma)=-kd+(kd-a_i)=-a_i<0. Hence, a_i\ge1.

(\Longleftarrow) Assume 1\leq a_i\leq d-1. For \gamma=(r,\mathbf 1_I) with 1\le r\le k-1 and |I|\le r,

For \gamma=(k,\mathbf 1_I) with I\subsetneq\lbrace1,2,\dotsc,n\rbrace, we get that \sigma(\gamma)=-kd+\sum_{i\in I}a_i=-\sum_{i\notin I}a_i<0 since some a_i\ge1.

For calculating \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\beta)_{\sigma} we will use the description from [DerkWeyBook, Section 10.4]. Let V be a representation of Q with \underline{\dim}V=\beta. Now \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\beta)_{\sigma} is the multiplicity of

in

Therefore, we get that \lambda^{(i)}=(a_i)^1 for every 1\leq i\leq n. Hence, we are looking for the multiplicity of

in

Hence, we conclude that

A tableau of content \mathbf a, with a_i=0, never uses the letter i. So, it is a tableau in the alphabet \{1,\dots,n\}\smallsetminus\{i\}. We relabel that alphabet order-preservingly as \{1,\dots,n-1\} to get the desired result.

Let \sigma=(-d,a_1,\dotsc,a_n) be the weight corresponding to the content \mathbf a. Consider the dimension vector \gamma=(1,e_i), i.e. 1 at central vertex and 1 at the i-th vertex. Since a_i=d, the content \mathbf a is not nondegenerate, i.e. \beta is not \sigma-stable. Notice that \gamma is a real Schur root and it is \sigma-stable. Moreover, the \sigma-stable decomposition of \beta will have \gamma as one of its summands, which will occur with multiplicity one since \beta=(k,1,1,\dotsc,1). Therefore, as a consequence of [CombQuivDerkWey, Theorem 3.20] we get

We have \operatorname{SI}(Q,\beta-\gamma)\cong\mathbb{K}[\operatorname{Gr}(k-1,n-1)]. Hence, the result follows since \gamma is a real Schur root and so \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\gamma)_{m\sigma}\leq 1.

Suppose (i+1,j)\in\lambda, i.e. j\le\lambda_{i+1}. Since \lambda/\mu has at most one cell per column and (i,j)\in\lambda/\mu, the cell (i+1,j) must lie in \mu, i.e. j\le\mu_{i+1}. But \mu_{i+1}\le\mu_i<j, since (i,j)\notin\mu. Contradiction.

The cells of \lambda/\mu in row r occupy the columns \mu_r+1,\dots,\lambda_r. So j'\le \lambda_{i'}\le\lambda_{i+1}\le\mu_i<j, using (4.5) in the middle.

Let T'\in\operatorname{SSYT}(\lambda,\mathbf a^{\,\mathrm{mrg}}). By Lemma 4.9 the cells of T' containing \ell form a horizontal strip. We denote this horizontal strip by S:=\lambda/\mu, where \mu is the shape occupied by the letters \le m. Note that it has p+q cells. Since S is a horizontal strip, its cells lie in distinct columns. We list them in the increasing order of column index

By Lemma 4.8, cells in lower rows come earlier since they occupy strictly smaller columns.

Define \Phi(T') to be the tableau obtained from T' by relabelling

and leaving all other cells unchanged. We note that its content is (a_1,\dots,a_m,p,q) by construction.

We check semistandardness condition for rows. Only the entries in the cells of S have changed, and their labels are \ell or \ell+1, both of which are larger than every letter \le m. Hence, a row will fail the semistandardness condition only if some \ell+1 occurs strictly to the left of an \ell within the same row. We note that the cells of S occupy a set of consecutive columns within a row, namely \mu_r+1,\dots,\lambda_r in row r. Therefore, they are consecutive, and the relabeling assigns them \ell’s followed by \ell+1’s from left to right. Hence, the rows are weakly increasing.

We check semistandardness condition for columns. By Lemma 4.6, each cell of S has no cell of \lambda directly below it. Therefore, a cell of S is the bottom cell of its column. Thus, for columns to be strictly increasing, we need to check that the entry in the relabeled cell exceeds the entry in the cell directly above it, which lies in \mu. Hence, it has an entry \le m<\ell. Therefore, all columns are strictly increasing.

Finally \Phi is injective since relabelling every \ell+1 back to \ell recovers T'.

We refer to the same construction as in the proof of Lemma 4.10.

(\subseteq) If T=\Phi(T') then the cells of T carrying \ell or \ell+1 are exactly the cells of the horizontal strip S of T', and hence lie in distinct columns. Therefore, no column contains both \ell and \ell+1.

(\supseteq) Let T\in\operatorname{SSYT}((d^k),\mathbf a) have no column containing both \ell and \ell+1. Suppose \mu is the diagram occupied by the letters \le \ell-1, which we know is a partition, by Lemma 4.9. The skew diagram \lambda/\mu consists of the cells filled with letters \ell or \ell+1. Since columns are strictly increasing, each column contains at most one \ell and at most one \ell+1 and, by hypothesis, not both. Therefore, \lambda/\mu has at most one cell per column, and hence is a horizontal strip. Since \lambda=(d^k), the interlacing property in Lemma 4.5 forces \mu_i=d for i\le k-1. Hence, \lambda/\mu lies in row k and consists of the last p+q cells of that row. Since row k is weakly increasing, the letters \ell’s precede the letters \ell+1’s along this row. Since there are p of the former and q of the latter, T assigns \ell to the first p and \ell+1 to the last q cells of the horizontal strip in column order. Relabelling every \ell+1 to \ell therefore gives a semistandard tableau T' of merged content \mathbf a^{\,\mathrm{mrg}} with \Phi(T')=T.

Since the sequence is sorted, a_{n-1} and a_n are the two smallest entries. Therefore, every pair \{i,j\} with i<j satisfies a_i+a_j\ge a_{n-1}+a_n. Summing over all such \binom {n}{2} pairs, and noting that each index occurs in exactly n-1 such pairs, we get

This proves the claim.

For the equality case, note that every pair sum has to be equal to a_{n-1}+a_n. In particular, if n\ge3, and j\ne l are both distinct from some i, then we get a_i+a_j=a_i+a_l. Therefore, a_j=a_l. Letting j vary, we get that all entries are equal. For n=2 the statement is vacuously true since a_1+a_2=A.

We will use the above Lemma 4.13 with A=kd. For n\ge2k+1 we get a_{n-1}+a_n\le 2kd/n\le 2kd/(2k+1)<d. For n=2k we get a_{n-1}+a_n\le d with the stated equality case, and if all a_i=a, then 2ka=kd, so d=2a, which is even. Hence, a=d/2.

Apply Lemma 5.1 to the last two tensor factors and use that taking \operatorname{\mathrm{SL}}_2-invariants is additive over direct sums. The half-sum of (a_1,\dots,a_{n-2},j_t) is \tfrac12(2d-2t)=d-t.

By Lemma 4.3, F(\mathbf a)=K_{(d^1),\,\mathbf a'}=K_{(d),\,\mathbf a'} where \mathbf a' deletes the i-th entry. A tableau with a single row of length d is determined by its content by writing the letters in weakly increasing order. Hence, F(\mathbf a)=1.

As a consequence of [StanVol2, Theorem 7.10.2], we assume a_1\ge a_2\ge\cdots\ge a_n\ge1. Hence, a_1\le d-1. We use induction on n.

Assume n=3. We claim F(\mathbf a)=1. By Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 5.1,

is 1 if a_1 occurs among the j_t which is equivalent to |a_2-a_3|\le a_1\le a_2+a_3 with a_1\equiv a_2+a_3\bmod 2; and 0 otherwise. Now a_1+a_2+a_3=2d is even, giving the parity condition. The inequality a_1\le a_2+a_3=2d-a_1 is equivalent to a_1\le d, which is true. Using a_2\ge a_3, we get that a_2-a_3\le a_1 is equivalent to a_2\le a_1+a_3=2d-a_2, i.e. a_2\le d, which is true. Hence, F(\mathbf a)=1=n-2.

Now we assume n\geq 4. Since k=2, by Corollary 4.14 we get,

and the second inequality is an equality only if n=4. Additionally, the first is an equality only if all a_i are equal. In other words,

We consider the following two cases according to the size of a_1+a_n.

Case A: a_1+a_n\le d-1. Consider the summand for t=0 in (5.3), whose content is \mathbf b_0=(a_1,\dots,a_{n-2},\,a_{n-1}+a_n) with half-sum d. We check the nondegeneracy of the content \mathbf b_0. All entries of \mathbf b_0 are \ge1. The entries of \mathbf b_0 are also \le d-1, since a_i\le a_1\le d-1 for i\le n-2 and a_{n-1}+a_n\le a_1+a_n\le d-1. So \mathbf b_0 is a nondegenerate content for (2,n-1,d). Hence, by induction hypothesis, F(\mathbf b_0)\ge(n-1)-2=n-3.

Now, assume a_{n-1}\ge2. Consider also the summand for t=1 whose content is \mathbf b_1=(a_1,\dots,a_{n-2},\,j_1) with j_1=a_{n-1}+a_n-2, and half-sum d-1. We check the nondegeneracy of the content \mathbf b_1. We have j_1\ge a_{n-1}+1-2\ge1. Each a_i\le a_1\le d-1-a_n\le d-2=(d-1)-1; and j_1\le a_1+a_n-2\le d-3\le (d-1)-1. So \mathbf b_1 is a nondegenerate content for (2,n-1,d-1). By induction hypothesis, we get F(\mathbf b_1)\ge n-3. Hence,

On the other hand if a_{n-1}=1, then a_n=1 as well. The hypothesis of Case A gives a_1\le d-2. We cannot have n=4. Indeed, the sorting condition gives a_1\ge a_2 and a_1+a_2=2d-2, so a_2=2d-2-a_1\ge 2d-2-(d-2)=d\ge a_1+2>a_1, a contradiction. Therefore, n\ge5. The summand for t=1 has j_1=0. Hence, by Lemma 4.1 we may delete that letter. Therefore, we get the content (a_1,\dots,a_{n-2}) with half-sum d-1, all entries in [1,d-2], i.e. a nondegenerate content for (2,n-2,d-1) with n-2\ge3 letters. By induction hypothesis, it contributes \ge (n-2)-2=n-4. Hence,

Case B: a_1+a_n\ge d. Put

Since \mathbf a is nondegenerate content, we get T\ge0. Rearranging the Case B hypothesis gives T\le a_n-1. In particular, every t with 0\le t\le T+1 satisfies t\le a_n=\min(a_{n-1},a_n), and hence contributes a summand in (5.3).

We show that for each 0\le t\le T the corresponding summand in (5.3) contributes \ge n-3. Indeed, fix such a t. The summand has content \mathbf b_t=(a_1,\dots,a_{n-2},j_t) and half-sum d-t. We check nondegeneracy.

First, we check the lower bound on j_t: since t\le T,

using a_1+a_{n-1}\ge a_1+a_n\ge d twice. The other entries are \ge1 by hypothesis. Next, we check the upper bound on the a_i: a_i\le a_1=d-1-T\le d-1-t=(d-t)-1. Finally, we check the upper bound on j_t: j_t\le(d-t)-1 is equivalent to a_{n-1}+a_n\le d-1+t. For t\ge1 this follows from (?). For t=0 it follows from (?) unless n=4 and all a_i are equal. We handle this exceptional case separately below. Therefore, apart from the exceptional case, each such \mathbf b_t is a nondegenerate content for (2,n-1,d-t), and contributes F(\mathbf b_t)\ge n-3 by induction hypothesis.

Suppose n=4 and a_1=a_2=a_3=a_4=:a, so d=2a. Then the summand for t=0 has content (a,a,2a) with half-sum 2a. Its last entry equals its half-sum, so F=1 by Lemma 5.4. Since n-3=1, we see that the summand still contributes at least n-3, as required. For 1\le t\le T=a-1 the arguments above apply verbatim.

Now consider t=T+1=d-a_1\le a_n. Its content is \mathbf b_{t}=(a_1,\dots,a_{n-2},j_{t}) with j_{t}=j_T-2\ge0 and half-sum d-t=a_1. The entry a_1 equals the half-sum, so F(\mathbf b_{t})=1 by Lemma 5.4.

Adding up the T+1 summands with 0\le t\le T and the summand for t=T+1,

using T+1\ge1 and n-3\ge1.

Without loss of generality we assume a_1\ge a_2\ge\cdots\ge a_6\ge1. Since \mathbf a is nondegenerate content and a_5+a_6\leq d-1, notice that d\geq 3. Set

We have d\ge d-1, and d-1\ge d-a_5-a_6+1 because a_5+a_6\ge2. Moreover, since a_5+a_6\le d-1, we have \mu_3=d-a_5-a_6+1\ge2. Hence, we conclude that \mu is a partition with three rows.

We check the dominance condition \mu\trianglerighteq(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4). For this we check the three nontrivial inequalities.

Using the fact that a_1\le d-1, a_1+a_2\le 2d-2, and \lvert\mu\rvert=a_1+\cdots+a_4\ge a_1+a_2+a_3 gives the first, second, and third inequalities above, respectively. The fourth condition is the equality of sizes: we have \lvert\mu\rvert=3d-a_5-a_6=a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4.

By Theorem 5.9 there is a semistandard tableau U of shape \mu in the letters \{1,2,3,4\} with content (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4). Now define T^\ast of shape (d^3) in the following way:

1. on the cells of \mu, put the entries of U;

2. in cell (2,d), put 5;

3. in the cells (3,\,d-a_5-a_6+2),\ \dots,\ (3,\,d-a_6), put 5. There are a_5-1 such cells;

4. in the cells (3,\,d-a_6+1),\ \dots,\ (3,d), put 6. There are a_6 such cells.

We check the row lengths. Row 1 has \mu_1=d cells; row 2 has \mu_2+1=d; row 3 has \mu_3+(a_5-1)+a_6=d. So the shape is the rectangle (d^3), and the content is (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6)=\mathbf a.

We check the semistandardness of rows. Row 1 is a row of U. Row 2 is a row of U (entries \le4) followed by a 5. Row 3 is a row of U (entries \le4), then a_5-1 copies of 5, then a_6 copies of 6. All weakly increasing.

We check the semistandardness of columns. Let j be a column index. If j\le\mu_3, all three cells of column j belong to \mu and carry the entries of U, which satisfies the strictly increasing column condition. If \mu_3<j\le d-1, then rows 1 and 2 of column j lie in \mu (indeed j\le d-1=\mu_2\le\mu_1) and carry entries \le4, strictly increasing; row 3 carries 5 or 6, which is larger. Finally, if j=d, the column reads U_{1,d}, then 5, then 6. Since U_{1,d}\le4<5<6, the column is strictly increasing.

Finally, column d contains both 5 (in row 2) and 6 (in row 3).

Without loss of generality we assume a_1\ge a_2\ge\cdots\ge a_6\ge1. We consider the following two cases.

Case A: a_5+a_6\le d-1. The merged content \mathbf a^{\,\mathrm{mrg}}=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,\,a_5+a_6) is a nondegenerate content for (3,5,d). Indeed, the merged content has five entries summing to 3d. Its first four entries lie in [1,d-1] since \mathbf a is a nondegenerate content for (3,6,d), and the fifth entry is a_5+a_6, which is \ge2 and \le d-1 by hypothesis. So it is a nondegenerate content for (3,5,d). Therefore, we get

The first inequality follows from Lemma 4.10, and by using duality of \operatorname{Gr}(2,5) and \operatorname{Gr}(3,5) and Proposition 5.5, we get K_{(d^3),\,\mathbf a^{\,\mathrm{mrg}}}\ge3.

Therefore, by Proposition 4.12 the image of the merging injection \Phi contains at least 3 tableaux, all of which have no column containing both 5 and 6. By Proposition 5.10 there is at least one more tableau of the same content which does have such a column, and hence lies outside the image of \Phi. Therefore, K_{(d^3),\,\mathbf a}\ge 3+1=4.

Case B: a_5+a_6\ge d. We have (k,n)=(3,6), so n=2k. By using Lemma 4.13 and Corollary 4.14, we conclude d is even and a_1=\cdots=a_6=d/2. We write d=2a with a\geq 1, and \mathbf a=(a,a,a,a,a,a).

We will use Lemma 5.8 and exhibit four multichains. For a pair (A,B) of complementary 3-subsets of \{1,\dots,6\} with A\le B, the sequence

is a multichain of length 2a=d, and each letter lies in exactly a of its members, namely in the a copies of whichever of A,B contains it. So its content is (a^6)=\mathbf a. Distinct A’s give distinct multichains.

We have at least four valid choices:

Hence K_{(d^3),\,\mathbf a}=K_{(d^3),\,(a^6)}\ge4.

Let (k_1,n_1)>(k_2,n_2)>\cdots be a strictly decreasing chain. The integers k_i are non-increasing and bounded below by 2, and hence has to be eventually constant. Say k_i=k for i\ge i_0. For i\ge i_0 the integers n_i has to be strictly decreasing while remaining bounded below by k+2, contradiction.

Let the sets D,E, and N be as above. For (k,n)\in E, the result follows from Proposition 5.5, and by using the duality of the Grassmannians \operatorname{Gr}(2,5) and \operatorname{Gr}(3,5).

For (k,n)\in N, let \mathcal{P}(k,n) be the statement: for every d\ge1 and every nondegenerate content \mathbf a for (k,n,d) one has K_{(d^k),\,\mathbf a}\ge4. In order to prove the statement \mathcal{P} on all of N, by Lemma 6.1 and well-founded induction, it suffices to prove that for each x\in N, if \mathcal{P}(y) holds for every y\in N with y<_{\mathrm{lex}}x, then \mathcal{P}(x) holds.

Fix x=(k,n)\in N and assume

Let d\ge1 and let \mathbf a be a nondegenerate content for (k,n,d). Without loss of generality we may assume a_1\ge a_2\ge\cdots\ge a_n. We will show K_{(d^k),\,\mathbf a}\ge4 by considering the following cases:

Let k=2. Since (2,4),(2,5)\notin N, we have n\ge6. Proposition 5.5 gives

Let k=3. If (k,n)=(3,6), then Theorem 5.11 gives K_{(d^3),\mathbf a}\ge4. Therefore, assume n\ge7. By Corollary 4.14,

so a_{n-1}+a_n\le d-1. Hence, \mathbf a^{\mathrm{mrg}} has a_i\in[1,d-1] for i\leq n-2, and merged entry a_{n-1}+a_n\in[2,d-1]. We see that it is a nondegenerate content for (3,n-1,d). Since n-1\geq 6, we have (3,n-1)\in N. Moreover (3,n-1)<_{\text{lex}}(3,n). Therefore, by Lemma 4.10 and induction hypothesis, we get

For the rest of the proof we assume k\geq 4. We will consider n in different ranges: n\ge2k+1, n=2k, and k+2\le n\le2k-1.

Suppose n\ge2k+1. Identical to the case above, with

we see that \mathbf a^{\mathrm{mrg}} is a nondegenerate content for (k,n-1,d). We have (k,n-1) in N because n-1\ge2k\ge k+2 and k\ge4 excludes E, and is lexicographically smaller. So

Next, we suppose n=2k. If a_{n-1}+a_n\le d-1, then merging gives a nondegenerate content for (k,2k-1,d). We have (k,2k-1)\in N because 2k-1\ge k+2 (k\ge3) and k\ge4 and is lexicographically smaller. So

On the other hand, if a_{n-1}+a_n\ge d, then by Corollary 4.14 we get that d is even and

with d\ge2. If we merge the last two letters, then we get the content \bigl((d/2)^{2k-2},d\bigr), which has an entry equal to d. Using Lemma 4.10 and Lemma 4.3, we get

The content \bigl((d/2)^{2k-2}\bigr) has 2k-2 entries summing to (k-1)d, each equal to d/2\in[1,d-1]. Therefore, it is a nondegenerate content for (k-1,2k-2,d). Moreover, (k-1,2k-2)\in N; indeed 2k-2\ge(k-1)+2 since k\ge3, and (k-1,2k-2)\notin E since k-1\ge3. In the boundary case k-1=3, one has 2k-2=6\ne5. It is lexicographically smaller since k-1<k. Hence, the induction hypothesis gives \ge4.

Finally, we suppose k+2\le n\le2k-1. By Lemma 4.2,

and \mathbf a^\vee is nondegenerate for (n-k,n,d). We have (n-k,n)\in N. Indeed, n-k\ge2 because n\ge k+2, and n\ge(n-k)+2 because k\ge2. Additionally, since n\ge k+2\ge6, we have (n-k,n)\notin E. Since n-k\le k-1<k, it is lexicographically smaller. Hence, the induction hypothesis gives \ge4.

A tableau of shape (d,d) is determined by its two rows, and each row is determined by its multiset of entries since rows are weakly increasing. So T is determined by (x_1,\dots,x_5), equivalently by (X_1,\dots,X_5) with X_5=d; the conditions 0\le x_j\le a_j are the middle inequalities in (7.1).

Now we will check the column strictness condition. The entry of row 1 in column p of the tableau T is \min\{j:X_j\ge p\} and the entry of row 2 in column p is \min\{j:Y_j\ge p\}. Column strictness means that the row-2 entry exceeds the row-1 entry in every column. For fixed j, the columns whose row-2 entry is \le j are exactly p=1,\dots,Y_j and for each of these we need the row-1 entry to be \le j-1, i.e., p\le X_{j-1}. Hence column strictness is equivalent to Y_j\le X_{j-1} for all j, which is A_j-X_j\le X_{j-1}. This is the last family of inequalities in (7.1). Conversely, these inequalities give column strictness.

Every extreme point p of \mathcal P_{\mathbf a} is the unique solution of a pair of constraints from (C1)–(C9) whose normal vectors are linearly independent.

The normal vectors occurring in Definition 7.3 are

and every right-hand side is an integer. If a pair of independent normals has determinant \pm1, then by Cramer’s rule we get an integral solution. Inspecting all pairs, we get determinant of absolute value 2 only for the following two pairs

All other pairs hav determinant \pm1 or are parallel.

Consider the pair (C4),(C6). Solving u+v=A_3 and v-u=a_3 gives

If this point lies in \mathcal P_{\mathbf a} then (C1) gives \tfrac{a_1+a_2}{2}\ge a_1, i.e., a_2\ge a_1, and (C2) gives \tfrac{a_1+a_2}{2}\ge a_2, i.e., a_1\ge a_2. Hence a_1=a_2. Therefore, u=a_1\in\mathbb{Z} and v=a_1+a_3\in\mathbb{Z}.

Now consider the pair (C4),(C5). Solving u+v=A_3 and v=u gives u=v=\tfrac{A_3}{2}. Since 2d=A_3+a_4+a_5 we have d-a_4=\tfrac{A_3+a_5-a_4}{2} and d-a_5=\tfrac{A_3+a_4-a_5}{2}. If the point lies in \mathcal P_{\mathbf a} then (C7) gives \tfrac{A_3}{2}\ge\tfrac{A_3+a_5-a_4}{2}, i.e., a_4\ge a_5, and (C8) gives a_5\ge a_4. Hence a_4=a_5. So A_3=2d-2a_4 is even and u=v=d-a_4\in\mathbb{Z}.

In both cases the point is integral whenever it belongs to \mathcal P_{\mathbf a}, or otherwise it is not a vertex. Hence all vertices are integral.

Since \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}^{\,\operatorname{Gr}(2,5)}_{(d;\mathbf a)}=3, the lattice polytope \mathcal{P}_{\mathbf a} is either a line segment or a triangle with 3 lattice points. The result follows.

Let Q be the subspace quiver with n arms and \beta=(k,1,1,\dots,1), so that \operatorname{SI}(Q,\beta) is the homogeneous coordinate ring of \operatorname{Gr}(k,n), and let \sigma=(-d,\,a_1,\dots,a_n) be the weight associated with the content \mathbf a. Since \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\beta)_\sigma=3\ne0 we have \sigma\in\Sigma(Q,\beta), i.e. \beta is \sigma-semistable. Write

so that \sigma_0 is an indivisible weight. Let

be the \sigma_0-stable decomposition of \beta, with the \alpha_i distinct. Since \beta=(k,1,1,\dots,1), we conclude that all c_i=1 and

Moreover, notice that \operatorname{SI}(Q,\alpha_i) is the homogeneous coordinate ring of \operatorname{Gr}(k_i,|S_i|). The weight is the restriction of \sigma itself, whose value at the central vertex is still -d. Hence, by Proposition 3.4 the number of rows is k_i, the number of letters is |S_i|, and the content is the restriction \mathbf a|_{S_i}=(a_j)_{j\in S_i}. Using \sigma_0(\alpha_i)=0 we get

Additionally, a_j\leq d. So \mathbf a|_{S_i} is indeed a content for (k_i,|S_i|,d).

Applying [CombQuivDerkWey, Theorem 3.20] to the indivisible weight \sigma_0 and using c_i=1, we get

Substituting m=eM gives, for every integer M\ge1,

Take M=1. Since 3 is prime, we get that there is exactly one index i with \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\alpha_{i})_\sigma=3, all other factors having dimension 1, and by Fulton’s property [CombQuivDerkWey, Appendix] these factors stay 1-dimensional on scaling by M. Write \alpha_{i}=(k',\mathbf 1_{S}) with S\coloneqq S_{i} and n'\coloneqq\lvert S\rvert. Since \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\alpha_{i})_\sigma=3>1, we conclude that k'\geq 2 and n'\geq k'+2 by Remark 6.3. Additionally, since \alpha_i is \sigma_0-stable, and hence \sigma-stable, by using Proposition 3.1(b)(ii) we get

i.e. \mathbf a|_{S} is a nondegenerate content for (k',n',d).

We have \dim_{\mathbb{K}}\operatorname{SI}(Q,\alpha_{i})_\sigma=3<4. Therefore, by using Theorem 6.2 we conclude that

The result is true for \operatorname{Gr}(2,5) by Corollary ?, ?, and for \operatorname{Gr}(3,5) via duality of Grassmannians \operatorname{Gr}(2,5) and \operatorname{Gr}(3,5). In this case, we get the dimension of the scaled weight space as \binom{M+2}{2}. If (k',n')=(2,4), then the dimension vector \alpha_i is an isotropic Schur root. Hence, as a consequence of [UFDPaqPraWeh, Section 3.2 & Proposition 3.2.6], we conclude that \sigma=2\chi+\mathrm{rem}(\sigma), and gives the result for \operatorname{Gr}(2,4). In this case, we get the dimension of the scaled weight space as 2M+1.

Hence, for every integer M\geq 1 we get that