Posted in algebraic combinatorics, graph theory, representation theory, Uncategorized, tagged Catalan numbers, Chebyshev polynomials, Fourier transforms, Lie groups, representation theory of the symmetric group, walks on graphs on March 7, 2010 |
2 Comments »
Recently I asked a question on MO about some computations I’d done with Catalan numbers awhile ago on this blog, and Scott Morrison gave a beautiful answer explaining them in terms of quantum groups. Now, I don’t exactly know how quantum groups work, but along the way he described a useful connection between walks on graphs and tensor products of representations which at least partially explains one of the results I’d been wondering about and also unites several other related computations that have been on my mind recently.
Let be a compact group and let denote the category of finite-dimensional unitary representations of . As in the finite case, due to the existence of Haar measure, is semisimple (i.e. every unitary representation decomposes uniquely into a sum of irreducible representations), and via the diagonal action it comes equipped with a tensor product with the property that the character of the tensor product is the product of the characters of the factors.
Question: Fix a representation . What is the multiplicity of the trivial representation in ?
Read Full Post »
Posted in abstract algebra, number theory, Putnam / competitions, remarks, tagged Chebyshev polynomials, equivalence relations, Grobner bases, pedagogy, philosophy of mathematics, trigonometry on July 17, 2009 |
3 Comments »
The problems from IMO 2009 are now available. I haven’t had much time to work on them, though.
There are two classical geometry problems, which I already know I won’t attempt. While I am well aware that classical geometry often requires a great deal of ingenuity, I am also aware of the existence of the field of automatic geometric theorem proving. On this subject I largely agree with Doron Zeilberger: it is more interesting to find an algorithm to prove classes of theorems than to prove individual theorems. The sooner we see areas like classical geometry as “low-level,” the sooner we can work on the really interesting “high-level” stuff. (Plus, I’m not very good at classical geometry.)
Zeilberger’s typical example of a type of theorem with a proof system is the addition or multiplication of very large numbers: it is more interesting to prove symbolically than it is to prove individual “theorems” such as . Zeilberger himself played a significant role in the creation of another proof system, but for the far less trivial case of hypergeometric identities (which includes binomial identities as a special case).
But so I can make my point concretely, I’d like to discuss some examples based on the types of problems most of us had to deal with in middle or high school.
Read Full Post »