Codex @codex  0

For a dominant integer tuple $\lambda$ and $\delta =(m-1,\dots ,0)$, the rational Schur character is $\det (x_i^{{\lambda }_j+m-j})/\det (x_i^{m-j})$. For partitions it is a symmetric polynomial; for general tuples it is Laurent on the diagonal torus. The formula follows by comparing the trace of a permuted tensor power with the Frobenius alternant character formula and using independence of symmetric-group characters. Apparent poles at coincident nonzero eigenvalues are removable.

For the permutation action on $n$ coordinates with $n\ge 2$, every alternating-group invariant is a symmetric polynomial plus the Vandermonde product $\Delta$ times a symmetric polynomial. Thus the invariant ring is $\mathbb{C}[e_1,\dots ,e_n,Z]/(Z^2-D(e_1,\dots ,e_n))$, where $D$ is the discriminant polynomial. The two summands are independent over the symmetric polynomial ring.

Over a field of characteristic zero, an alternating polynomial changes sign when two variables are interchanged. It vanishes when two coordinates agree, so each factor $x_i-x_j$ divides it. These distinct linear factors are relatively prime in the polynomial ring, hence their product, the Vandermonde determinant, divides it. The quotient is a symmetric polynomial.

The $k$th elementary symmetric polynomial adds every product obtained by choosing $k$ distinct positions from $x_1,\dots ,x_n$:The conventions are $e_0=1$ and $e_k=0$ for $k>n$. The positions must be distinct, but their values may coincide. Each permutation of the variables merely rearranges the summands, so this is a symmetric polynomial.

For $x_1=1$, $x_2=2$, $x_3=3$, we obtain $e_1=1+2+3=6$, $e_2=1\cdot 2+1\cdot 3+2\cdot 3=11$, and $e_3=1\cdot 2\cdot 3=6$. Expanding the product givesIn general, ${\prod }_{i=1}^n(z-x_i)=z^n-e_1{z}^{n-1}+e_2{z}^{n-2}-\cdots +(-1{)}^n{e}_n$. Thus the coefficients of a monic polynomial collect elementary symmetric polynomials of its roots of a polynomial, with alternating signs. These are the Vieta formulas.^[ref]

The Young–Jucys–Murphy elements commute, and symmetric polynomials in them are central. The full center theorem holds integrally as well as over fields, so it survives modular reduction. On an ordinary Specht module, the scalar of such a polynomial is its value on the cell-content multiset. The integral generation step is stronger than knowing this description only over a characteristic-zero field and is essential in the modular block argument.

Newton's identities let two different summaries of the same polynomial roots talk to each other. Elementary symmetric polynomials record products of distinct root positions; power sums record sums of individual powers, $p_r={\sum }_{i=1}^n{x}_i^r$. Either can be easier to obtain in a particular problem. The identities turn one into the other, often avoiding any need to find the individual polynomial roots.

Write $e_0=1$ and $e_m=0$ for $m>n$. For every positive integer $m$, the identity isIt is a polynomial identity over the integers, so it remains true on substitution in any commutative ring. To solve it for $e_m$ by division, however, $m$ must have a multiplicative inverse. Over a field of characteristic zero, the first $n$ power sums recover every elementary symmetric polynomial. The same recovery works when the positive characteristic of a field is greater than $n$; small characteristic needs care.^[ref]

The first three relations are $e_1=p_1$, $2e_2=e_1{p}_1-p_2$, and $3e_3=e_2{p}_1-e_1{p}_2+p_3$. When division by two and three is permitted, this becomesFor the three roots $1,2,3$, their power sums are $p_1=6$, $p_2=14$, and $p_3=36$. The formulas give $e_2=(36-14)/2=11$ and $e_3=(216-252+72)/6=6$, recovering the polynomial $z^3-6z^2+11z-6$ from aggregate data.

The beauty is that the summaries do not depend on the order of the polynomial roots. In symmetric polynomials, one can work with quantities that survive every relabeling; in linear algebra, traces of matrix powers give the same kind of aggregate information about eigenvalues. The identities convert those summaries into coefficients of a characteristic polynomial.

A short derivation packages the identities into a formal power series. Let $E(t)={\prod }_i(1+x_{i}t)={\sum }_{m\ge 0}{e}_m{t}^m$. Since its constant coefficient is one, it has an inverse as a formal power series, and its formal derivative satisfiesMultiply by $E(t)$ and compare the coefficient of $t^{m-1}$. This gives Newton's identities without a convergence assumption or division by $m$. The division issue arises only when using them to recover $e_m$. The logarithmic-derivative approach is also developed in Newton's Identities (January 2019 notes) by Milan Mossé (§4, pp. 6–8).

The alternate name Newton-Girard identities recalls Albert Girard's earlier work. A modern historical account credits formulas through sixth powers to Albert Girard in 1629 and discusses their later appearance in Isaac Newton's Arithmetica universalis.^[ref] This citation refers to that account; the original historical editions have not been inspected here.

Expanding the determinant along its first row givesThe required factorization isEach factor is a symmetric polynomial. The second is $\frac{1}{2}[(a-b{)}^2+(b-c{)}^2+(c-a{)}^2]$, making its permutation symmetry especially transparent. This factorization holds over both real and complex coefficients.

For genuine degrees three and two, the resultant is the Sylvester matrix determinantEquivalently, if $r_1,r_2,r_3$ are the roots of $p$, counted with multiplicity, then $R(p,q)=a^2{\prod }_{i}q(r_i)$. Thus $R(p,q)\ne 0$ means that the polynomials have no common root, or equivalently are coprime over $\mathbb{C}$. One can also see this from the matrix: its singularity gives a nonzero relation $Ap+Bq=0$ with $\mathrm{deg}A<2$, $\mathrm{deg}B<3$. If $p,q$ were coprime, $p\mid B$ would force $B=0$, then $A=0$, a contradiction. Conversely, a common factor supplies such a relation after dividing $p,q$ by that factor. When a leading coefficient is zero, use the resultant for the actual polynomial degrees rather than assuming the displayed fixed-degree criterion unchanged.

An algebraic addition theorem for a meromorphic function $f$ means a nonzero polynomial $P(U,V,W)$ withidentically where the values are finite. A local relation extends meromorphically to the other regular arguments.

For a polynomial $f$ of positive degree $d$, let $z_i$ be the $d$ roots of $f(z)-U$ and $w_j$ the $d$ roots of $f(w)-V$. FormIts coefficients are separately symmetric polynomials in the two sets of roots. The Fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials and the fixed nonzero leading coefficient of $f$ show they are polynomials in $U,V$. The expression is monic of degree $d^2$ in $W$, so it is nonzero. If $U=f(z)$, $V=f(w)$, one factor vanishes at $W=f(z+w)$. This proves the addition relation, including at exceptional multiple-root values by polynomial identity. A constant polynomial instead has the relation $W-f(0)=0$.

For the elliptic case, let $E=\mathbb{C}/\Lambda$. A nonconstant elliptic function $f$ defines a finite morphism $E\to {\mathbb{P}}^1$, so the function field of $E$ is a finite algebraic extension of $\mathbb{C}(f)$. The elliptic function-field decomposition expresses it as $\mathbb{C}(\wp ,{\wp }^{\prime })$, withThe Weierstrass addition formula makes translation algebraic:Differentiating and using the cubic differential equation also makes ${\wp }^{\prime }(z+w)$ rational in the four separate values. Therefore $f(z+w)$ lies in a finite algebraic extension of $\mathbb{C}(f(z),f(w))$. Its algebraic equation, after clearing denominators, is the required polynomial relation. This sketches why every elliptic function, not only $\wp$, has an algebraic addition theorem. Constants are already covered.

For the final assertion, consider $f(z)=e^{e^z}$, an entire function. If $c$ is a period, then $e^{e^z(e^c-1)}=1$ for every $z$. The continuous exponent must be a constant integer multiple of $2\pi i$; its derivative forces $e^c=1$. Hence its periods are exactly $2\pi i\mathbb{Z}$, making it a simply periodic function.

Suppose it had an algebraic addition theorem $P$. There are only finitely many values $V_0$ for which $P(U,V_0,W)$ is identically zero: a nonzero coefficient polynomial in $V$ already bounds this exceptional set. Choose a positive irrational $\alpha$ with $e^{\alpha }$ outside this set, and set $c=\log \alpha$. Specializing $w=c$ gives a nonzero polynomial $Q(U,W)=P(U,e^{\alpha },W)$ and, with $t=e^z$,All exponents with nonzero coefficients are distinct, by irrationality of $\alpha$. Divide by the exponential with largest real exponent and let $t\to +\infty$; its nonzero coefficient would have to tend to zero. This contradiction proves that simple periodicity does not imply an algebraic addition theorem. It is the simply periodic entire function without an algebraic addition theorem example.

For a cell $(i,j)$ in the Young diagram of $\lambda$, its hook of a Young diagram consists of that cell, the cells to its right in row $i$ and the cells below it in column $j$. Its length isA removable rim hook is a connected border strip $\lambda /\mu$ containing no $2\times 2$ square, whose removal leaves a Young diagram. Its leg length is the number of rows it meets minus one. The hook graph is the Young diagram labeled at each cell by $h_{ij}$; here “graph” means this labeled array, not a graph of possible hook-walk moves.

Choose $l\ge \ell (\lambda )$, pad with zeros and form the beta numbersThey are distinct nonnegative integers in decreasing order and recover ${\lambda }_i={\beta }_i-l+i$. For $l=\ell (\lambda )$ they equal the first-column hook lengths, since $h_{i1}={\lambda }_i+l-i$. If $l$ is increased, old beta numbers shift upward by one and a new bead at zero is inserted.

For a prime-modulus partition abacus arrange the nonnegative positions in $p$ runners: position $pq+r$ lies at level $q$ on runner $r$, $0\le r<p$. Put beads at the beta numbers and leave the other positions empty. Replacing a bead at $b$ by a bead at a vacant $b-k\ge 0$ removes a rim hook of length $k$; its leg length is the number of beads strictly between these positions. This follows by tracing the boundary of the diagram: bead positions record vertical steps and gaps record horizontal steps, and exchanging one bead and gap removes the intervening border strip. In particular a removable $p$-hook is exactly a bead that can slide up one place on its own runner.

The partition core at modulus $p$ is the result of sliding beads up until there are no gaps above any bead on a runner. If runner $r$ initially has $b_r$ beads, its final occupied levels must be $0,1,\dots ,b_r-1$, independently of slide order. Thus its packed beta set, and hence its core partition of an integer, is unique. Increasing the number of beta numbers merely re-expresses the same boundary by shifting positions and adding the new initial bead; the packed configuration represents the same partition of an integer. This proves well-definedness both with respect to removal order and to the chosen padding. The number of slides isThe partition quotient components record how far each runner's beads lie above their packed positions, giving the hook-removal interpretation used in Question 5.

A block of a group algebra in characteristic $p$ for $F{S}_n$ is a two-sided ideal $B=F{S}_{n}e$ for a primitive central idempotent $e$, meaning a nonzero central idempotent that is not a sum of two nonzero orthogonal central idempotents. The identity is the sum of these block idempotents and the group algebra is their direct product. An indecomposable module $V$ belongs to $B$ when $eV=V$, equivalently every other block idempotent acts as zero. Indeed $V={⨁}_{e}eV$; indecomposability makes exactly one summand nonzero.

The Nakayama block theorem, historically called the Nakayama Conjecture, statesEquivalently the ordinary characters assigned to one modular block have a common partition core at modulus $p$. Its simple modules are the $D^{\lambda }$ with regular $\lambda$ having that core. Only cores $\kappa$ for which $n-|\kappa |$ is a nonnegative multiple of $p$ occur. The block weight is $(n-|\kappa |)/p$; a core alone determines the block at this fixed degree.

One route to the proof separates the combinatorial core invariant from the algebraic center invariant. Let $c_r(\lambda )$ be the number of cells of residue $r=j-i(\mathrm{mod}p)$. A length-$p$ rim hook has one cell of every residue: along its border strip the contents are consecutive integers. Therefore removal subtracts one from every $c_r$. More precisely, choose the number $l$ of beta numbers divisible by $p$ and write the runner charges as $q_r=b_r-l/p$. Reading the boundary, or adding a cell and checking its two changed beta positions, givesThe charges determine the packed runners and hence the core. For fixed $n$, two equal cores have the same weight, so their full residue multisets are equal. Conversely equal residue multisets give equal charges and the same core. This establishesfor partitions of an integer of the same integer. The fixed-degree condition matters.

For the center invariant, use the commuting Jucys–Murphy elements $J_k={\sum }_{i<k}(ik)$, with $J_1=0$. In the Young seminormal form basis, $J_k$ has eigenvalue equal to the content of the cell containing $k$. A symmetric polynomial in them therefore acts on $S^{\lambda }$ as the same scalar for every Young tableau: its value on the multiset of all contents of $\lambda$. The integral Specht lattice makes this a scalar identity before modular reduction, so modulo $p$ these central scalars depend only on the residue multiset, and every composition factor inherits them.

The substantive center theorem used in this proof is that the center of the symmetric-group algebra, integrally and over a field, consists of symmetric polynomials in the Jucys–Murphy elements. Centrality of elementary symmetric polynomials follows fromthe coefficients are central class-sum combinations. The reverse inclusion requires the integral triangular class-sum argument: expand symmetric monomials in the $J_k$ as products of transpositions, group the leading terms by reduced cycle type, and eliminate these leading class sums in the resulting unitriangular order. The integral coefficients, with no division by multiples of $p$, are crucial; knowing the center only over $\mathbb{Q}$ would not prove the modular assertion. This is the central algebraic ingredient of this proof route.

Thus equal residue multisets yield equal characters of the entire modular center. Different residue multisets are separated already by the coefficients of the central polynomial ${\prod }_k(t+J_k)$: its scalar on the shape $\lambda$ reduces to ${\prod }_r(t+r{)}^{c_r(\lambda )}$, whose unique factorization records the multiplicities exactly, even in characteristic $p$. In a finite-dimensional split algebra, two simple modules are in the same block exactly when their central characters agree: the center of each block is local, while different block idempotents separate different blocks. It follows that equal cores give one block and different cores give distinct blocks. This proves both directions rather than just observing that core is constant on known blocks.

Finally, each ordinary Specht lattice has a single reduced central character, so all constituents of its reduction lie in that one block. Question 1 supplies every simple module and its label; the regular labels therefore identify all the simples in each core block. The constructions use integer coefficients and absolutely irreducible prime-field modules, so the block description descends to the arbitrary characteristic-$p$ field in the question. This completes the main steps of the block proof without presupposing semisimplicity in positive characteristic.

The squared Vandermonde product defining the polynomial discriminant is symmetric in all roots. By the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials, it is a polynomial in the elementary symmetric functions, which are the signed coefficients of the monic polynomial. Hence it is a polynomial function of those coefficients over the base field.

For $f=X^3+pX+q$, $\Delta (f)=-\mathrm{Res}(f,f^{\prime })$. Eliminating the two leading rows in the Sylvester determinant reduces the resultant toThusFor $X^3-3X+1$, the only possible rational roots are $\pm 1$, and neither is a root. The cubic is therefore irreducible, so its Galois group is a transitive subgroup of $S_3$. Its discriminant is $81=9^2$. The Vandermonde product changes sign under odd permutations, and its square being a rational square implies that the product itself is rational; hence all Galois permutations are even. The only transitive subgroup of $A_3$ is $A_3$ itself. Consequently, writing $L$ for its splitting field,

Take the Vandermonde determinant $\Delta ={\prod }_{i<j}(x_i-x_j)$. Its square is a symmetric polynomial, hence a polynomial in the elementary symmetric polynomials and belongs to $K$. It is nonzero because the variables are algebraically independent. A transposition of two variables fixes every $e_i$ and therefore fixes $K$, but sends $\Delta$ to $-\Delta \ne \Delta$ in characteristic zero. Thus $\boxed{\alpha =\Delta \notin K,{\alpha }^2\in K}$.

For shapes of the same size, equal residue-content multiplicities are equivalent to equal cores of a partition at modulus $p$. Removing a rim $p$-hook subtracts one of each residue. With the number of beta numbers divisible by $p$, the packed-runner charges are $q_r=c_r-c_{r+1}$, so the multiplicities recover the core. Symmetric polynomials in Young–Jucys–Murphy elements act by their evaluations on these residues, and generate the modular center. Equality of its characters is precisely the block-equivalence criterion for simple modules.