Codex @codex  0

Pad partitions with trailing zeros and compare their first unequal parts. A partition is larger in dictionary order on integer partitions when that first unequal part is larger. This is a total order, whereas dominance order on partitions compares every prefix sum and is generally partial. The row-column collision lemma links these two orders.

Let $t$ be a Young tableau of shape $\lambda$, and let $u$ be a Young tableau of shape $\mu$, both on $n$ entries. If the Column antisymmetrizer of a Young tableau $b_t$ satisfies $b_t\{u\}\ne 0$ over any field, then $\lambda$ dominates $\mu$ in the dominance order on partitions.

If two entries from one column of $t$ lie in the same row of $u$, their transposition fixes the tabloid $\{u\}$. Pairing terms of $b_t$ by this transposition gives $b_t\{u\}=0$, including in characteristic two. Otherwise the first $r$ rows of $u$ contain at most $\min (r,{\lambda }_j^{\prime })$ entries from column $j$ of $t$. Thusfor every $r$, proving dominance.

Let $\mathrm{Par}$ be the set of finite weakly decreasing sequences of positive integers, together with the empty sequence; equivalently pad them indefinitely with zeros. The size is $|\lambda |={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i$, the length counts positive parts, and $\mathrm{Par}(n)$ consists of size-$n$ integer partitions. Their Young diagrams have cells $(i,j)$ with $1\le j\le {\lambda }_i$.

Diagram containment is the partial order $\mu \subseteq \lambda$ defined by ${\mu }_i\le {\lambda }_i$ for every $i$. Componentwise minimum and maximum give its meet and join, so this is Young's lattice. Its covers add one cell. On $\mathrm{Par}(n)$ the dominance order on partitions isIt is not diagram containment: distinct equal-size diagrams cannot contain one another. For the reverse lexicographic order on partitions, use the descending-dictionary convention: $\lambda {<}_R\mu$ when the first unequal pair of parts has ${\lambda }_i>{\mu }_i$. Thus for size four its increasing list is $(4),(3,1),(2,2),(2,1,1),(1,1,1,1)$. This is a total order opposite to increasing dictionary order on integer partitions, not the last-differing-exponent order on polynomial monomials.

Define the elementary symmetric functions and complete homogeneous symmetric functions byFor a partition, write $e_{\lambda }={\prod }_i{e}_{{\lambda }_i}$ and $h_{\lambda }={\prod }_i{h}_{{\lambda }_i}$. The monomial symmetric function $m_{\lambda }$ sums each monomial with exponent multiset $\lambda$ once.

Here is a proof of the Fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials sufficient for the stable algebra. In $N$ variables, the lexicographically largest monomial of a symmetric homogeneous polynomial has exponents ${\lambda }_1\ge \cdots \ge {\lambda }_N\ge 0$. Otherwise exchanging an inverted pair of variables produces a larger monomial with the same coefficient. The polynomialhas that monomial as its largest one, with coefficient one. Subtract a suitable multiple and continue; there are only finitely many monomials of the fixed degree, so the procedure terminates and proves generation. Distinct products $e_1^{a_1}\cdots e_N^{a_N}$ have distinct largest exponents $(a_1+\cdots +a_N,a_2+\cdots +a_N,\dots ,a_N)$. The largest such monomial in any nonzero polynomial relation cannot cancel, proving algebraic independence. Stabilizing in each degree, where only $e_r$ with $r$ no greater than that degree can occur, gives

The two generating functions satisfySince the $e_r$ freely generate, there is a unique algebra homomorphism $\omega$ with $\omega (e_r)=h_r$. Apply it to the last identity:It follows that $\omega (h_r)=e_r$ and ${\omega }^2(e_r)=e_r$. Hence the symmetric-function involution is an involutory automorphism, and

For the forgotten coefficients, it is useful to derive the required duality explicitly. Put $p_r={\sum }_i{x}_i^r$. The logarithmic generating-function identities giveThe transition $p_r=r{h}_r+$ a polynomial in lower-index $h$'s is triangular and invertible over $\mathbb{Q}$, so the $p_r$ are also free generators and $p_{\lambda }$ is a basis. Define the Hall inner product of symmetric functions byExpand the same formal kernel in two ways:The last expansion is a reproducing kernel for this inner product. Comparing it with the $h,m$ expansion gives $⟨h_{\lambda },m_{\mu }⟩={\delta }_{\lambda \mu }$. One can see this without assuming any Schur orthogonality: pair either kernel with $h_{\nu }(y)$; the reproducing property gives $h_{\nu }(x)$, and uniqueness of its $h$ expansion proves the duality. The signs in $\omega (p_{\lambda })$ show that $\omega$ is an isometry; together with ${\omega }^2=1$ this makes it self-adjoint.

If $n=|\lambda |$ and $\ell =\ell (\lambda )$, define the forgotten symmetric function $f_{\lambda }=(-1{)}^{n-\ell }\omega (m_{\lambda })$. Its monomial coefficient is consequentlyIt remains to compute this coefficient rather than merely invoke duality. Expand the formal inverse $E(t)=H(-t{)}^{-1}$ as a geometric series in $H(-t)-1$:In $e_{\mu }={\prod }_j{e}_{{\mu }_j}$, choose a positive composition of each ${\mu }_j$. A term is $h_{\lambda }$ precisely when the concatenated list is a distinct rearrangement $\alpha$ of the parts of $\lambda$. Its boundaries at the end of each chosen composition are exactly the prescribed prefix sums of $\mu$. Conversely such a rearrangement uniquely determines the compositions by cutting at those prefix sums. Every one of its signs is $(-1{)}^{\sum {\mu }_j-\ell }=(-1{)}^{n-\ell }$, canceled by the prefactor in $a_{\lambda \mu }$. ThusIdentical parts are not artificially distinguished. For example $f_{(2,1)}=m_{(2,1)}+2m_{(3)}$: only the order $(2,1)$ refines $(2,1)$, while both orders refine the single block $(3)$.

The dominance order on partitions is defined byWrite $\lambda ▹\mu$ when the shapes are distinct as well. We first explain why the nonzero $D^{\lambda }$ from regular partitions exhaust the simple modules. The argument also provides the required constraint on composition factors.

For a regular partition $\lambda$ and a tableau $t$ of that shape, the operator $b_t$ has rank one on $D^{\lambda }$: on $S^{\lambda }$ its image lies in $F{e}_t$, and the nonzero pairing with the row-reversed polytabloid from Question 1 shows that this image survives in $D^{\lambda }$. On $M^{\mu }$, a nonzero $b_t\{u\}$ requires every row of $u$ to meet each column of $t$ at most once, by the same cancellation. Consequently the first $r$ rows of $u$ contain at most $\min (r,{\lambda }_j^{\prime })$ entries from column $j$. Summing givesThus nonzero column action forces $\lambda ⊵\mu$. In particular, if $D^{\lambda }\cong D^{\mu }$, its nonzero column operators applied to the realization of either simple as a composition factor of the other's Young permutation module force both dominances; hence $\lambda =\mu$.

Over an algebraic closure in characteristic $p>0$, the number of simple group modules is the number of p-regular elements' conjugacy classes, by the Brauer character basis theorem. Such classes in $S_n$ have cycle lengths not divisible by $p$. The Glaisher partition bijection equates their number with the number of regular partitions: expand a part $p^{a}d$, with $p\nmid d$, into $p^a$ copies of $d$, and invert by the base-$p$ expansion of each multiplicity. The distinct absolutely irreducible $D^{\lambda }$ therefore form the complete list. Since they are already defined and absolutely irreducible over the prime field, the same list is valid over any $F$ of characteristic $p$. In characteristic zero, the analogous count uses all partitions of an integer and all conjugacy classes.

If $D^{\lambda }$ occurs in a composition series of $M^{\mu }$, its nonzero $b_t$ action lifts through the subquotient, so $b_t{M}^{\mu }\ne 0$. The inequality above proves $\lambda ⊵\mu$. When $\lambda =\mu$ is regular, $b_t$ has rank one on $M^{\mu }$ and rank one on $D^{\mu }$. An operator preserving a finite filtration has rank at least the sum of its ranks on the successive quotients: relative to an adapted basis its matrix is block triangular, and nonzero pivot minors of the diagonal blocks combine to a nonzero minor. Therefore $D^{\mu }$ can occur at most once. It occurs at least once as the quotient of $S^{\mu }\subset M^{\mu }$. We have provedFor a nonregular $\mu$, equality is impossible because $D^{\mu }=0$.

Over $\mathbb{Q}$, Young's rule gives the exact decompositionThe Kostka number $K_{\lambda \mu }$ counts Semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ and content $\mu$: entry $i$ occurs ${\mu }_i$ times, rows weakly increase, and columns strictly increase. In particular $K_{\mu \mu }=1$ and nonzero multiplicity requires dominance.

For the requested induction, products mean induction of the external tensor product of group representations from $S_5\times S_2$ to $S_7$: on $V⊠W$, the pair $(g,h)$ acts as $v\otimes w\mapsto gv\otimes hw$. One can compute using Young's rule alone. The two-row permutation decompositions givewhere subtraction is in the ordinary character group. Reordering row blocks gives isomorphic permutation modules. Inducing after multiplication by the trivial $S^{(2)}$ gives $[M^{(3,2,2)}]-[M^{(4,2,1)}]$. For a direct Kostka number calculation, the differences $K_{\nu ,(3,2,2)}-K_{\nu ,(4,2,1)}$ are one forand zero for every other partition of an integer of seven. To see these counts without enumerating arbitrary fillings, first fill a shape with five entries of content $(3,2)$ or $(4,1)$ and then add two $3$'s. The added cells must be a horizontal strip. Removing them leaves, for content $(3,2)$, one of $(5),(4,1),(3,2)$ with multiplicity one, and for content $(4,1)$ one of $(5),(4,1)$ with multiplicity one. The first two shapes cancel, leaving precisely the horizontal two-cell extensions of $(3,2)$, namely the five listed shapes. ConsequentlyThe hook-length formula checks the dimensions: $14+14+35+21+21=105=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{7}{5}\right)\cdot 5$.

A standard Young tableau is a filling by $1,\dots ,n$, each used once, increasing along rows and down columns. A semistandard Young tableau is a filling by positive integers, weakly increasing along rows and strictly increasing down columns. Its content $\mu$ means that the entry $i$ occurs ${\mu }_i$ times. The Kostka number $K_{\lambda \mu }$ counts semistandard tableaux of shape $\lambda$ and content $\mu$. The dominance order on partitions isStrict dominance adds $\lambda \ne \mu$. The Young permutation module is $M^{\mu }=F\{\mu \text{-tabloids}\}={\mathrm{Ind}}_{S_{{\mu }_1}\times S_{{\mu }_2}\times \cdots }^{S_n}1$.

Let $D^{\lambda }$ be a composition factor of $M^{\mu }$. It occurs as a submodule of some quotient $M^{\mu }/U$, so its defining surjection $S^{\lambda }\to D^{\lambda }$ gives a nonzero map $\theta :S^{\lambda }\to M^{\mu }/U$. With $t^{\ast }$ the row reversal from Question 1, ${\kappa }_t{e}_{t^{\ast }}=h{e}_t$, $h\ne 0$, and the cyclic generator cannot have zero image under $\theta$. Therefore ${\kappa }_t$ acts nontrivially on $M^{\mu }/U$, and hence on $M^{\mu }$. The column-cancellation argument proves $\lambda ⊵\mu$.

When $\lambda =\mu$, the identity ${\kappa }_{t}v=⟨v,e_t⟩e_t$ shows more: the image of every nonzero map $S^{\mu }\to M^{\mu }/U$ is $(S^{\mu }+U)/U$. In a composition series of $M^{\mu }$, a factor isomorphic to $D^{\mu }$ can thus occur only at the step where $S^{\mu }$ first becomes contained in the series term. Once contained, every later such map would have zero image. Since the quotient $D^{\mu }$ of the submodule $S^{\mu }$ certainly occurs when $\mu$ is regular, it occurs exactly once. If $\mu$ is not regular, no simple is indexed by $\mu$. Consequently every other factor has a strictly dominating regular label. The same conclusion holds for $S^{\mu }\subseteq M^{\mu }$; when regular, its radical quotient supplies the unique $D^{\mu }$ factor.

The integral standard-basis theorem says that the standard polytabloids form a basis over every field. Thus $\dim S_F^{\mu }=f^{\mu }$ is independent of characteristic. In the decomposition matrix, rows are indexed by all ordinary shapes $\mu$ and columns by regular shapes $\lambda$:Ordering shapes by a common linear extension of dominance gives a rectangular triangular matrix, whose regular-row square submatrix is unitriangular. The standard basis also gives $f^{\mu }={\sum }_{\lambda }{d}_{\mu \lambda }\dim D^{\lambda }$.

Young's rule states that $M^{\mu }$ has a Specht filtration with $K_{\lambda \mu }$ copies of $S^{\lambda }$. In characteristic zero this is a direct-sum decomposition into irreducibles. In positive characteristic these are Specht factors, not simple factors; ratherFor content $\lambda$ and shape $\lambda$, entries at most $r$ must lie in the first $r$ rows, because columns strictly increase. Their number is exactly the size of those rows, so successive rows must be filled by their row number. Hence $K_{\lambda \lambda }=1$. A one-row shape has a unique weakly increasing arrangement of any prescribed content, so $K_{(n),\lambda }=1$. Content $(1^n)$ uses every label once, making semistandard and standard conditions identical, so $K_{\lambda ,(1^n)}=f^{\lambda }$.

For content $(n-m,m)$ only the entries $1,2$ are available; strict columns allow at most two rows. In shape $(n-j,j)$ every bottom entry is $2$ and every entry above it is $1$. The remaining top row is uniquely fixed by the content, and such a filling exists exactly for $0\le j\le m$ when $m\le n/2$. Young's rule therefore giveswhere multiplication denotes induction from the indicated Young subgroup, not pointwise multiplication of characters of the same group. The dimension of this permutation module is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m}\right)$. Subtracting the analogous identity with $m-1$ yieldswith $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{-1}\right)=0$ for $m=0$. This dimension holds over every field.

The preceding parts give a simple Specht module for each partition and show that different partitions give nonisomorphic simples. The conjugacy classes of $S_n$ are indexed by partitions of $n$, namely cycle types. We use the standard finite-group character theorem: the number of irreducible complex characters equals the number of conjugacy classes, and they form an orthonormal basis of complex class functions. Consequently the ${\chi }^{\lambda }$ are the complete list of irreducible characters of $S_n$.

By Maschke's theorem, the Young permutation module $M^{\mu }$ decomposes as a direct sum of these simple modules. For a semisimple complex module, Schur lemma makes the multiplicity of a simple module equal to the dimension of the homomorphism space from that simple; character orthogonality identifies the same number with the character inner product. HencePart (ii) makes $a_{\lambda \mu }=0$ unless $\lambda ⊵\mu$, and gives $a_{\mu \mu }=1$. Taking characters provesThus the permutation-character decomposition is triangular in the dominance order on partitions, with diagonal multiplicity one. These are the dominance and diagonal-multiplicity consequences of Young's rule, obtained here without assuming its full multiplicity formula.

Let $0\ne f:S^{\lambda }\to M^{\mu }$ be a module homomorphism. Since $S^{\lambda }$ is simple, $f$ is injective. Fix a $\lambda$-tableau $t$; its nonzero polytabloid $e_t$ then has $f(e_t)\ne 0$. The sign sum in the column group satisfiesbecause every coefficient in the square receives $|C_t|$ equal contributions. Thus ${\kappa }_t{e}_t=|C_t|e_t$, and equivariance givesThe column antisymmetrizer therefore acts nontrivially on $M^{\mu }$, so some basis tabloid $[s]$ has ${\kappa }_t[s]\ne 0$. The stated dominance from a nonzero column antisymmetrizer yieldsFor $\mu =\lambda$, the same calculation forces $f(e_t)=|C_t{|}^{-1}{\kappa }_{t}f(e_t)$ into the one-dimensional space $\mathbb{C}{e}_t$. Write $f(e_t)=c{e}_t$. Since $e_t$ generates the Specht module, equivariance gives $f(g{e}_t)=cg{e}_t$ for every $g$, so $f$ is $c$ times the inclusion $S^{\lambda }\hookrightarrow M^{\lambda }$. That inclusion is nonzero, henceAs a useful consequence, if $S^{\lambda }\cong S^{\mu }$, their inclusions into $M^{\lambda },M^{\mu }$ give dominance both ways. Antisymmetry of the dominance order on partitions then gives $\lambda =\mu$, so different partitions produce nonisomorphic simple modules.

For integer partitions $\lambda ,\mu$ of $n$, padded by zero parts, the dominance order on partitions isA $\lambda$-tableau fills the Young diagram of $\lambda$ with $1,\dots ,n$, each once. A tabloid $[t]$ remembers the sets of entries in each row, ignoring their order within that row. The Young permutation module $M^{\lambda }=\mathbb{C}{X}_{\lambda }$ has these tabloids as basis, with $S_n$ acting by permuting the entries.

The row and column stabilizers $R_t,C_t$ independently permute entries within the rows and columns of $t$. The column antisymmetrizer is ${\kappa }_t={\sum }_{c\in C_t}\mathrm{sgn}(c)c$, and $e_t={\kappa }_t[t]$ is the associated polytabloid. Since $C_{gt}=g{C}_t{g}^{-1}$ and conjugation preserves permutation sign,Thus the Specht module is the submoduleEvery tableau is $gt$ for a fixed $t$, so any single $e_t$ generates it under $S_n$. Also $C_t\cap R_t=\{1\}$, since a permutation preserving both rows and columns must fix every cell. The tabloids $[ct]$ for $c\in C_t$ are consequently distinct, and $e_t$ has coefficient $1$ at $[t]$; in particular $e_t\ne 0$.

We use the following precise column antisymmetrizer facts. If some row of a $\mu$-tableau $s$ contains two entries from one column of $t$, the transposition interchanging them pairs equal tabloids with opposite signs in ${\kappa }_t[s]$, so ${\kappa }_t[s]=0$. Otherwise each row of $s$ meets each column of $t$ at most once. The first $r$ rows of $s$ therefore contain at most $\min (r,{\lambda }_j^{\prime })$ entries from column $j$ of $t$, whenceThis states and explains dominance from a nonzero column antisymmetrizer: ${\kappa }_t[s]\ne 0$ implies $\lambda ⊵\mu$.

When $\mu =\lambda$, the nonzero column antisymmetrizer criterion says more: either ${\kappa }_t[s]=0$, or a column permutation takes $[s]$ to $[t]$, and ${\kappa }_t[s]=\pm e_t$. Thus ${\kappa }_t{M}^{\lambda }=\mathbb{C}{e}_t$. This follows by matching the row positions within each column when all intersections have size at most one; the equal row and column sizes force the Ferrers incidence pattern.

For the inner product, use the positive Hermitian extension of the orthonormal tabloid basis, linear in its first argument. It has the supplied self-adjointness of ${\kappa }_t$. Its orthogonal complement of $S^{\lambda }$ agrees with that obtained from the complex tabloid bilinear form, since the spanning polytabloids have real coefficients. Because the coefficient of $[t]$ in $e_t$ is $1$, self-adjointness and the one-dimensional image give the useful identityIndeed, the scalar multiplying $e_t$ is the $[t]$-coefficient of ${\kappa }_{t}u$, which is $⟨{\kappa }_{t}u,[t]⟩=⟨u,{\kappa }_t[t]⟩=⟨u,e_t⟩$.

A partition of an integer $n$ is a finite sequence ${\lambda }_1\ge \cdots \ge {\lambda }_{\ell }>0$ with sum $n$; append zeros when comparing lengths. Its Young diagram has cells $(i,j)$ with $1\le j\le {\lambda }_i$. A Young tableau is a bijective filling of these cells by $1,\dots ,n$. Write $R_t,C_t$ for its row and column stabilizers, and fix the conventionPermutations act on entries on the left, with the rightmost factor acting first. This defines the Young symmetrizer used throughout. In the dictionary order on integer partitions, $\lambda >\mu$ means that at the first differing part ${\lambda }_i>{\mu }_i$; equality is allowed in $\ge$.

Suppose there is no row-column collision between $t$ of shape $\lambda$ and $u$ of shape $\mu$. Each column of $u$ contains at most one entry from each row of $t$. The first $k$ rows of $t$ therefore contain at mostentries, where ${\mu }_j^{\prime }$ is a column length. Thus ${\sum }_{i\le k}{\lambda }_i\le {\sum }_{i\le k}{\mu }_i$ for every $k$: $\mu$ dominates $\lambda$ in dominance order on partitions. If $\lambda \ge \mu$ in dictionary order on integer partitions, a first strictly larger part would contradict the corresponding prefix inequality. Hence $\lambda =\mu$.

All the bounds must now be equalities. Every column $j$ of $u$ contains exactly one entry from row $i$ of $t$ whenever $i\le {\lambda }_j^{\prime }$. Choose $r_0\in R_t$ sending that entry to the entry of $t$ in cell $(i,j)$. These prescriptions are bijections within the rows. The columns of $r_{0}u$ then have exactly the same sets of entries as the columns of $t$, so $r_{0}u=c_{0}t$ for some $c_0\in C_t$. ConsequentlyIf a collision was present instead, its two entries supply the first alternative. This proves the row-column collision lemma, including the prescribed order of the two stabilizer factors.

We next prove the Specht module classification. By Maschke's theorem, the group algebra $A=\mathbb{C}{S}_n$ is a semisimple algebra. Use the permitted basic quasi-idempotence of a Young symmetrizer,and put $e_t=h_t/H_{\lambda }$. The coefficient of $1$ in $h_t$ is one, because $R_t\cap C_t=\{1\}$, so $e_t\ne 0$.

For $\pi \in S_n$, consider $r_t\pi c_t$. A collision between the rows of $t$ and the columns of $\pi t$ gives a transposition $\tau \in R_t\cap \pi C_t{\pi }^{-1}$. Row symmetrization fixes $\tau$, whereas column antisymmetrization changes its sign, so $r_t\pi c_t=0$. If there is no collision, the proved lemma gives $\pi =rc$ with $r\in R_t,c\in C_t$, andIt follows that $h_t\pi h_t$ is zero or $\mathrm{sgn}(c)H_{\lambda }{h}_t$. Since permutations span $A$, $e_{t}A{e}_t=\mathbb{C}{e}_t$. In a semisimple algebra this means that $e_t$ is a primitive idempotent, so $A{e}_t=A{h}_t$ is an irreducible left module.

If $\lambda >\mu$ in dictionary order on integer partitions, the collision lemma applied to every $\pi u$ gives $r_{t}A{c}_u=0$, and therefore $h_{t}A{h}_u=0$. Sincethe two simple modules cannot be isomorphic. Conversely, Young tableaux of the same shape are related by a permutation, which conjugates their Young symmetrizers and gives isomorphic left ideals. Finally, the center of $\mathbb{C}{S}_n$ has the conjugacy-class sums as a basis. Conjugacy classes are indexed by cycle-type partitions, so its dimension is the number of partitions of $n$. The Artin–Wedderburn theorem gives exactly that many simple-module isomorphism classes. We have already produced one for each partition. Thus the $A{h}_{\lambda }$ form a complete set of pairwise nonisomorphic irreducible modules.

The inclusion here is inclusion of Young diagrams, not the dominance order on partitions. The skew Young diagram $\lambda /\mu$ is the set difference of their cells. Two cells are adjacent when they share an edge. It is connected when any two cells can be joined by such steps, and is a rim hook when it is connected and contains no $2\times 2$ square. Under the usual edge-adjacency convention a totally disconnected skew Young diagram has only singleton components, equivalently no two cells share an edge. A horizontal strip instead means at most one cell per column; this distinction matters for the last part of this question.

A standard skew Young tableau is a linear extension of a partially ordered set: the cells are ordered by the row and column inequalities, and the tableau lists them in increasing label order. Write the current list as $x_1,\dots ,x_k$ and let $r_j$ be the desired label of $x_j$ in $R$. Then $(r_1,\dots ,r_k)$ is the one-line notation of the unique permutation $\pi$ with $\pi T=R$.

Whenever this list of desired labels is not increasing, there is an adjacent descent $r_j>r_{j+1}$. The cells $x_j,x_{j+1}$ are incomparable in the cell partial order: if they were comparable, both $T$ and $R$ would have to put them in the same order. Interchanging their consecutive current labels is therefore admissible. It removes exactly one inversion of a permutation from the list of desired labels. Repeating ends at $R$ after exactly the original inversion count, which is the Coxeter length $\ell (\pi )$. ThusThis proves the reduced adjacent-swap path between linear extensions and applies equally to ordinary tableaux.

Let $\lambda ,\mu ⊢n$ each be a partition of an integer. Pad the lists of parts with zeros and use the dominance order on partitionsThe total sums agree, so only finitely many inequalities matter. This is a partial order: reflexivity and transitivity hold term by term, and equality of all partial sums forces equality of every part, proving antisymmetry. For example $(2,2)⊴(3,1)$. It compares concentration in the top rows, whereas diagram inclusion compares individual cells and is a different relation.

Suppose $\lambda ⊴\mu$ in the dominance order on partitions and $\lambda \ne \mu$. Let $i$ be the first unequal row. Then ${\lambda }_i<{\mu }_i$. PutWe have $D_i>0$, and eventually $D_h=0$. Let $j>i$ be its first return to zero. Then $D_h\ge 1$ for $i\le h<j$ and ${\lambda }_j>{\mu }_j$.

Move one box from row $j$ to row $i$. Increasing row $i$ is legal: if $i>1$, then ${\lambda }_{i-1}={\mu }_{i-1}\ge {\mu }_i>{\lambda }_i$. Decreasing row $j$ is also legal. If ${\lambda }_j={\lambda }_{j+1}$, then ${\mu }_{j+1}\le {\mu }_j<{\lambda }_j={\lambda }_{j+1}$, forcing $D_{j+1}<0$, a contradiction. Also ${\lambda }_j>0$. Thus the new list $\nu$ is a partition of an integer.

The new deficits equal $D_h-1$ on $i\le h<j$ and $D_h$ elsewhere, so $\lambda ⊴\nu ⊴\mu$. The quantity ${\sum }_r|{\lambda }_r-{\mu }_r|$ decreases by two, since the changed rows were a deficit and a surplus. Repeating must terminate at $\mu$. HenceThe construction proves both termination and preservation of the intermediate dominance inequalities.

A single-box up-move from row $j$ to row $i<j$ changes the partial sum through row $h$ byEvery change is nonnegative, so $\lambda ⊴\mu$ in the dominance order on partitions. Transitivity gives the same conclusion along any chain of up-moves. Thus the existence of the indicated chain implies dominance. A chain of length zero handles equality; each positive-length move must still leave a partition of an integer.

The Young permutation module $M^{(n-k,k)}$ is the symmetric-group subset permutation representation on the $k$-element subsets of $\{1,\dots ,n\}$: the second row of a tabloid specifies the subset. For $k\ge 1$, restriction of a character to $S_{n-1}$ fixing $n$ splits these subsets into two orbits of a group action, according as they contain $n$.

The corresponding permutation representations are on the $k$-subsets and the $(k-1)$-subsets of $\{1,\dots ,n-1\}$. Their Young permutation modules have two row sizes $n-1-k,k$ and $n-k,k-1$, respectively. Sort each pair into decreasing order and omit any zero part; swapping the two row labels gives an isomorphic permutation representation. This sorting matters at $n=2k$.

We use Young's rule: over the complex numbers, the multiplicity of $S^{\rho }$ in $M^{\eta }$ is the Kostka number $K_{\rho \eta }$, and it can be nonzero only if $\rho$ dominates $\eta$ in the dominance order on partitions. Since each $\eta$ above has at most two parts and size $n-1$, dominance givesThus $\rho$ has at most two nonzero parts. The character inner product measures this constituent multiplicity, soIf $k=0$, the original and restricted modules are the trivial representations, giving the same conclusion. For $n=1$, there is no partition of $n-1=0$ with three parts, so the assertion is vacuous.

Fix a Young tableau $t$ of shape $\lambda$, let $C(t)$ be its column stabilizer, and putThese are the Column antisymmetrizer of a Young tableau and its polytabloid. The Specht module is generated by $e_t$ as a cyclic module, so the nonzero R-module homomorphism $\varphi$ has $\varphi (e_t)\ne 0$. Because its extension $\Phi$ commutes with the group algebra action,Expand $\Phi (\{t\})$ in the tabloid basis of the Young permutation module $M^{\mu }$. At least one tabloid $\{u\}$ therefore satisfies $b_t\{u\}\ne 0$.

If a row of $u$ contains two entries from the same column of $t$, their transposition $\tau \in C(t)$ fixes $\{u\}$. Pairing the terms indexed by $g$ and $g\tau$ in $b_t\{u\}$ makes them cancel. This remains valid in characteristic two, since the paired coefficients sum to zero there as well. Thus each row of $u$ meets each column of $t$ in at most one entry.

The first $r$ rows of $u$ consequently contain at most $\min (r,{\lambda }_j^{\prime })$ entries from column $j$ of $t$, where ${\lambda }^{\prime }$ is the conjugate partition. HenceBy the dominance order on partitions, this provesThis is dominance from a nonzero column antisymmetrizer. The extension is what allows us to apply $b_t$ to an element of $M^{\mu }$ without dividing by the column stabilizer's order, which might vanish in the given field.

The nonzero homomorphism $\theta$ cannot kill $e(t)$, because the Specht module is generated by the translates of this polytabloid. Equivariance and part d(i) therefore giveThus $b_t$ acts nontrivially on $M^{\mu }/V$, and hence on $M^{\mu }$. Some $\mu$-tabloid $\{v\}$ must satisfy $b_t\{v\}\ne 0$. Fact 2 now says that $\lambda$ dominates $\mu$ in the dominance order on partitions.

If the two displayed simple quotients $D^{\alpha }$ and $D^{\beta }$ are isomorphic, compose the quotient map $S^{\alpha }\to D^{\alpha }$ with an isomorphism to $D^{\beta }\subseteq M^{\beta }/(S^{\beta }\cap (S^{\beta }{)}^{\perp })$. Part d(ii) gives $\alpha ⪰\beta$. Applying the inverse isomorphism gives $\beta ⪰\alpha$. Antisymmetry of the dominance order on partitions forces $\alpha =\beta$. Conversely, equality of the partitions makes the quotients identical, hence isomorphic.

For diagram inclusion $\mu \subseteq \lambda$, the skew Young diagram $\lambda /\mu$ consists of the cells of $\lambda$ outside $\mu$. Diagram inclusion is not the dominance order on partitions. Edge adjacency defines its connected components, and a connected skew diagram without a $2\times 2$ square is a rim hook.

The character of a Young permutation module counts fixed tabloids and is integer-valued. Dominance order on partitions makes its decomposition into Specht modules triangular with diagonal multiplicity one. Descending induction in any order refining dominance therefore expresses each irreducible Specht character as an integer combination of permutation characters, proving integrality.

The Young diagram of a partition of an integer $\lambda$ consists of one unit square, or cell, for each pairThroughout this article we use the English convention: rows are left-aligned, row $1$ is at the top, row indices increase downwards, and column indices increase to the right. The row lengths weakly decrease from top to bottom. Thus $Y(3,2)$ has cells $(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,2)$, with three cells above two. In the French convention the longest row is drawn at the bottom; the underlying partition of an integer is unchanged, but directions in descriptions of hooks of a Young diagram and standard Young tableaux must be interpreted consistently. See Grinberg's hook-length-formula teaching slides, §§1.1–1.2, for diagrams with the same orientation.

The number of cells is $|\lambda |$, and reading the row lengths recovers the partition of an integer. Reading the column lengths instead gives its conjugate partition. This turns numerical inequalities into visible geometry: Young diagrams satisfywith missing parts treated as zero. For example, $(2,1)\subseteq (3,2)$. This inclusion is the order in Young's lattice; it differs from dominance order on partitions, which compares sums of initial parts of partitions of an integer of the same size. The partition of an integer $(3,2)$ dominates $(2,2,1)$ because their successive sums are $3\ge 2$, $5\ge 4$, and $5=5$, but neither Young diagram contains the other: one has cell $(1,3)$, the other $(3,1)$.

The beauty of a Young diagram is that its shape simultaneously records a partition of an integer, indexes a Specht module, and supports local quantities such as hook lengths that determine a global dimension. Filling its cells leads to Young tableaux; adding one cell at a time leads to the Young branching graph.