18.

315 (Alex Postnikov, MIT, Fall 2014)

Scribed by Carl Lian

December 18, 2014

0 Acknowledgments
Thanks to Cesar Cuenca for typing the notes on November 14 and to Darij Grinberg and Tom
Roby for pointing out corrections. I also thank everyone else who attended the class for their
encouragement in continuing to type the notes. Dongkwan Kim won a beer; the astute reader may
figure out how.

1 September 3, 2014
The topic of this class is combinatorial aspects of Schubert calculus. There’s a course website,
which you can find linked to the lecturer’s webpage. Recommended (not required) Books: Fulton’s
book on Young Tableaux, Stanley, Manivel’s book on Schubert polynomials.
The lecturer has been collaborating with T. Lam, who took this class a long time ago. Lam
remembered nothing from the class, except something from the first lecture. Two kinds of com-
binatorics: extremal (Erdos), algebraic/enumerative (Stanley). In the former, you prove bounds
(like n log(n)), in the latter, you prove A = B, which suggests an interplay between algebra and
combinatorics.
Things related to the topic of the class:

• Algebraic geometry and topology. Gr(k, n), flag manifolds.

• Representation theory, GL(n), Sn

• Symmetric functions

• Quantum cohomology, Gromov-Witten invariants

• Total positivity

We will concentrate on the relationships to combinatorics. The only prerequisite is linear algebra.
We may not cover everything, depends on how fast we go and interest.
“Main players”: Young tableaux, Schur polynomials. We’ll try to avoid repeating things from
last year’s 18.315 (symmetric functions). We will focus more generally on Schubert polynomials
(generalization of Schur polynomials). Littlewood-Richardson rule, Bruhat order, matroids, recent
topics (e.g. total positivity, quantum cohomology).
Let’s start with an example in Schubert calculus.

Example 1.1. Find the number of lines ` in C3 that intersect 4 given generic lines L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 .

1
 Why do we expect that this number is finite? Have 2-dimensional space of lines through the
origin, then have a 2-dimensional space of affine translations of the line, so in total a 4-dimensional
space of lines. Each intersection with one of the given lines is a single linear condition, so we expect
finitely many solutions.
Definition 1.2. Fix 0 ≤ k ≤ n, and a field F (above, F = C). Define the Grassmannian
Gr(k, n, F) to be the “space” of k-dimensional subspaces of Fn .
An affine line in C3 corresponds to a 2-dimensional subspace of C4 , i.e. an element of Gr(2, 4).
One way to see this is to put your C3 inside C 4 as a hyperplane not passing through the origin;
then, to get from an affine line in C3 to a 2-plane in C4 , just take the span of the points on line.
Fix A ∈ Gr(2, 4). Define ΩA = {B ∈ Gr(2, 4) | dim(A ∩ B) ≥ 1}. This is an example of a
Schubert variety. The example above is asking about the size of ΩL1 ∩ ΩL2 ∩ ΩL3 ∩ ΩL4 , i.e. the
value of an intersection number. This number is also the coefficient of the Schur polynomial s2,2
in (s1 )4 .
Definition 1.3. A Young diagram associated to a partition λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . .) with λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ is
the usual thing with λi boxes in the i-th row and everything left-aligned. They fit into the Young
lattice Y, the poset of Young diagrams ordered by inclusion.
The number above is also the number of paths in Y from the empty partition to (2, 2).
Let’s now start a systematic discussion. Can think of an element of Gr(k, n) as a k × n matrix,
where the rows are linearly independent, i.e. our matrix has maximal rank k. Let Mat∗ (k, n) be
the set of such matrices; then Gr(k, n) is just GLk \ Mat∗ (k, n), i.e. full-rank k × n matrices up to
row operations.
Exercise 1.4. Gr(k, n) is GL(n) modulo matrices with all zeroes in the bottom-left (n − k) × k
submatrix (i.e. maximal parabolic subgroup), which in turn is U (n)/U (k) × U (n − k) (when we
work over C)
Example 1.5. Gr(1, n) is 1 × n matrices modulo scaling, which is just projective space Pn−1 .
What’s the dimension of Gr(k, n)? Given a k × n matrix, most of the time the left-most
maximal minor is non-singular, so after row operations this maximal minor becomes the identity.
The number of surviving parameters is k(n − k), which come from all of the other entries. Hence
dim Gr(k, n) = k(n − k). Also, this shows Gr(k, n) = Fk(n−k) ∪ {lower dimensional part}.
Gaussian elimination and RREF give us a canonical representative for each point of the Grass-
mannian. Take k = 5, n = 12 – after row operations, get something that looks like:
 
0 1 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ 0 0 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗
 0 0 0 0 1 ∗ 0 0 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ∗ ∗ 0 ∗ 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ∗
Because the original matrix has full rank, we should get 5 pivots. Now remove the rows with
pivots. Get the k × (n − k) matrix
 
0 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
0 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
 
0 0 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗
 
0 0 0 0 ∗ ∗ ∗
0 0 0 0 0 0 ∗

2
 If we flip over the vertical axis, we get a Young Diagram (6, 4, 4, 3, 1) of stars, that fits inside a
k × (n − k) rectangle, which we denote (6, 4, 4, 3, 1) ⊂ k × (n − k).

Definition 1.6. A Schubert cell Ωλ , with λ ⊂ k × (n − k) is the set of points of Gr(k, n) whose
RREF has shape λ.

Theorem 1.7 (Schubert decomposition). Gr(k, n) = λ⊂k×(n−k) Ωλ , with Ωλ ∼ = F|λ|

`

Example 1.8. P2 = Gr(1, 3) = {[1 : x : y]} {[0 : 1 : x]} {[0 : 0 : 1]} = F2 F1 F0 .

` ` ` `
Geometrically, take the usual plane, add a line at infinity, then add a point at infinity to the line.

The number of Schubert cells is nk = k!(n−k)! n!

.
[n]q !
Application: q-binomial coefficients. nk q = [k]q ![n−k] , where [n]q = 1 + q + · · · + q n−1 =


q!
(1 − q n )/(1 − q), and [n]q ! = [1]q [2]q · · · [n]q . If q = 1, get the usual things.

Theorem 1.9. nk q is a polynomial in q with positive integer coefficients.

Proof. Check the q-Pascal identity,

     
n n−1 n−1
= qk + ,
k q k q k−1 q

then use induction.

More enlightening way:

Proof. Let F = Fq , where q is a prime power (there are infinitely many of these). What is | Gr(k, n)|?
This is just

(q n − 1)(q n − q)(q n − q 2 ) · · · (q n − q k−1 )

 
∗ n
| Matk,n (Fq )|/| GLk (Fq )| = k k k−1
= ,
(q − 1) · · · (q − q ) k q

because the action of GL on Mat is free. On the other hand,

X
| Gr(k, n)| = q |λ| ,
λ⊂k×(n−k)

so in fact we have an identity of rational functions that holds for infinitely many q, and thus for
generic q.

Example 1.10. n = 4, k = 2: 42 q = 1 + q + 2q 2 + q 3 + q 4 , corresponding to the Young diagrams

∅, (1), (2), (1, 1), (2, 1), (2, 2).

Writing nk q = a0 + a1 q + · · · + aN q N , with N = k(n − k), the Gaussian coefficients have the

following properties:

1. Symmetry: ai = aNi (to see this, rotate your k × (n − k) rectangle by 180 degrees and swap
λ with its complement).

2. Unimodality: a0 ≤ a1 ≤ · · · ≤ aN/2 ≥ · · · ≥ aN (hard – conjectured by Kelly, proven

algebraically by Sylvester (1878), combinatorially by O’Hara (1990)).

Let’s sketch Sylvester’s proof of unimodality.

3
Proof. Let V be the R-space of formal linear combinations of Young diagrams λ ⊂ k ×(n−k). Then
V is graded by size of Young diagram: V0 ⊕ V1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ VN , where N = k(n − k). Let ni = dim Vi .
Given λ, let add(λ) denote the set of boxes that can be added to λ to get another YT, and let
remove(λ) be the same thing for removing boxes. Define the up operator U by
X p
λ 7→ w(x)(λ + x),
x∈add(λ)

and the down operator D by X p

λ 7→ w(y)(λ − y),
y∈remove(λ)

where w(x) = (k + c(x))(n − k − c(x)), and c(x) is the content of x, the row number of x minus
the column number (i.e. distance from main diagonal).
Now look at the eigenvalues of the diagonal operator [D, U ] = DU − U D. Possibly more details
next time.

2 September 5, 2014
Recall the Gaussian coefficients: ai = |{λ ⊂ k × (n − k) | |λ| = i}. They are unimodal: a0 ≤ a1 ≤
· · · aN/2 ≥ · · · ≥ aN , where N = k(n − k). Let’s finish the proof from last time.

Proof. Vi is the space of linear P p of λ’s with |λ| = i, and V = V0 ⊕ · · · V∗ N . We

combinations
have an up operator U : λ 7→ x∈add(λ) w(x)(λ + x) and a down operator D = U : λ 7→
P p
y∈rem(λ) w(y)(λ − y), where w(x) = (k + c(x))(n − k − c(x)).
p Now consider H = [D, U ] = DU − U D. DU adds a box x and removes a box y with weight
w(x)w(y); U removes a box y and adds a box x with the same weight. Unless x = y, the two
resulting terms cancel. Thus
 
X X
H(λ) =  w(x) − w(y) λ = wλ λ
x∈add(λ) y∈rem(λ)

hence H acts diagonally by the eigenvalues wλ above.

Lemma 2.1. wλ = k(n − k) − 2|λ|.

Proof. Exercise.

To get unimodality, need ai ≤ ai+1 for i < N/2, where ai = dim Vi , ai+1 = dim Vi+1 . Let
Ui : Vi → Vi+1 be the restriction of U , and Di : Vi → Vi−1 be the restriction of D (similarly for
other indices). By the above, Hi = Di Ui − Ui−1 Di−1 = Ui∗ Ui − Ui−1 Ui−1 ∗ = (k(n − k) − 2i)I, where

I is the identity. By linear algebra, Ui−1 Ui−1 is symmetric and positive semi-definite, so Ui∗ Ui is
∗

positive-definite (because we are just adding Hi , which is a positive multiple of the identity). In
particular, Ui∗ Ui is non-singular, i.e. rank ai , so Ui , which is ai ×ai+1 , has rank ai . Hence ai ≤ ai+1 ,
completing the proof.

4
 Really this proof comes from representation theory: the operators U, D, H give an irreducible
representation of the Lie Algebra sl2 , generated by e, f, h with [e, f ] = h, [h, e] = 2e, [h, f ] = −2f .
The dimensions above are the same as the dimensions of weight spaces of the representation.
This is also related to the Horn problem: consider Hermitian matrices A + B = C, where
A has real eigenvalues α1 ≤ · · · ≤ αn , B has eigenvalues β1 ≤ · · · ≤ βn , and C has eigenvalues
γ1 ≤ · · · ≤ γn . What 3n-tuples of eigenvalues can arise in this way? It turns out that there is
a polyhedral cone in R3n of allowed triples α, β, γ. This problem was open for a while, solved
by Klyachko assuming the “saturation conjecture,” which was later proven by Knutson-Tao. The
description of the cone is recursive; it would be nice to do it non-recursively (still open).

Let’s get back to the Grassmannian - we introduce Plücker coordinates. For simplicity, work
over C. There is an embedding Gr(k, n) → CPN −1 , where N = nk , defined as follows. Recall that

a point of Gr(k, n) is a k × n matrix A, modulo row operations. For all I ∈ [n]

k , i.e. an index set
{i1 < · · · < ik } ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , n}, let AI denote the k × k submatrix of A with column set I. Let
∆I (A) be the maximal minor det(AI ) (side remark: we will regard I as an ordered set, so that
∆I (A) is an anti-symmetric function in the i’s).
Because A has full-rank, not all of the maximal minors are zero. Moreover, row operations scale
simultaneously: if B ∈ GL(k), then ∆I (BA) = det(B)∆I (A). Hence, the ∆I (A) form a point of
CPN − 1, giving us the Plücker embedding ϕ : Gr(k, n) → CPN −1 .
Lemma 2.2. ϕ is injective, so the Plücker embedding is actually an embedding. (In fact, the
differential dϕ is also injective.)
Proof. Assume ∆12···k 6= 0, so that A can be transformed via row operations into a matrix A e
∆ (A)
whose leftmost k × k minor is the identity. Hence ∆I (A) e = I
∆1···k (A) . Now, the entry xij of A is
e
∆12···(i−1)j(i+1)···k (A),
e so in particular we can recover A
e from the Plücker coordinates.

There are some relations between the maximal minors:

Example 2.3. Consider Gr(2, 4), with the Plücker coordinates [∆12 , ∆13 , ∆14 , ∆23 , ∆24 , ∆34 ]. Then
we have
∆13 ∆24 = ∆12 ∆34 + ∆14 ∆23 . (2.4)
This can be represented by something like a skein relation:

Figure 1: Plücker relation as a skein relation

To prove (2.4) in Gr(2, 4), it is enough to prove it for the matrix

 
1 0 a b
,
0 1 c d

5
in which case we get c(−b) = 1(ad − bc) + d(−a).
In fact, Gr(2, 4) is the subvariety of CP5 cut out by (2.4).

In general, we have the Plücker relations: for all i1 , . . . , ik , j1 , . . . , jk and r = 1, . . . , k,

X
∆i1 ···ik ∆j1 ···jk = ∆i01 ···i0k ∆j10 ···jk0 ,

where the indices i01 , . . . , i0k , j10 , . . . , jk0 from i1 , . . . , ik , j1 , . . . , jk by switching is1 , . . . , isr (where s1 <
· · · < sr ) with j1 , j2 , . . . , jk (it is a little cumbersome to formulate this in such a way that the signs
are correct).

Example 2.5. k = 2, n = 4, r = 1. ∆12 ∆34 = ∆32 ∆14 + ∆13 ∆24 = −∆23 ∆14 + ∆13 ∆24 .

Example 2.6. r = 2, k = 3. ∆241 ∆312 = ∆311 ∆242 + ∆341 ∆212 + ∆231 ∆412 = ∆231 ∆412 , because
a repeated index means a repeated column, so zero determinant. Oops, that one was trivial.

The Plücker relations describe the image of Gr(k, n) in CPn−1 , i.e. Gr(k, n) is the zero locus in
projective space of the Plücker relations. In fact, all you need are the Plücker relations for r = 1.
Let’s prove the Plücker relations (due to Sylvester).

Proof. Let v1 , . . . , vk , w1 , . . . , wk ∈ Ck , and let [v1 , . . . , vk ] denote the determinant with column
vectors v1 , . . . , vk (in that order). Then the Plücker relations may be written as
X
[v1 , . . . , vk ][w1 , . . . , wk ] = [v10 , . . . , vk0 ][w10 , . . . , wk0 ],
where as before, on the right hand side, we take all ordered subsets of the vi of size r and swap
them with w1 , . . . , wr , preserving the order, then sum.
Let f = LHS − RHS. First, observe that f is multilinear in v1 , . . . , vk , w1 , . . . , wk . We claim
that f is a skew-symmetric function of the k + 1 vectors v1 , . . . , vk , wk , i.e. swapping two adjacent
vectors flips the sign of f . It’s enough to show that f = 0 if vi = vi+1 or vk = wk , i.e. the form is
alternating (Editorial note: I think the terms “skew-symmetric” and “alternating” may have been
reversed in class. In any case, there is no issue with characteristic 2, because alternating indeed
implies skew-symmetric in all characteristics.)
If vi = vi+1 , then LHS = 0. The only non-zero terms on the RHS look like [· · · vi · · · ][· · · vi+1 · · · ]
or [· · · vi+1 · · · ][· · · vi · · · ] (i.e. exactly one of vi , vi+1 get swapped with one of the wi ). All of pairs
these terms will cancel, because they are obtained from each other by swapping two columns in the
matrix on the left.
If vk = wk , assume r < k, or else there’s nothing to check. Note that wk doesn’t get swapped,
and vk doesn’t either, or else vk , wk are columns of the same matrix, and we get a zero term on
the RHS. So the only non-vanishing terms have the form [· · · vk ][· · · wk ]. In an appropriate basis
we can assume vk = wk is the vector (0, . . . , 0, 1), in which case we just get a Plücker relation with
k replaced by k − 1 (apply induction).
It now follows that f = 0.

3 September 10, 2014

n
Recall that we have a Plücker Embedding ϕ : Gr(k, n) ,→ CP(k )−1 , where the target points are
indexed by Plücker coordinates ∆I , I ∈ [n]


k .

6
 [n]

These satisfy the Plücker relations: for I, J ∈ k , r > 0, i1 , . . . , ir ∈ I,
X
∆I ∆J = ±∆I 0 ∆J 0 ,

where the sum is over all j1 , . . . , jr ∈ J and I 0 = (I\{i1 , . . . , ir })∪{j1 , . . . , jr } and J 0 = (J\{j1 , . . . , jr })∪
{i1 , . . . , ir }.
Consider the ideal Ikn ⊂ C[∆I ] generated by Plücker relations for r = 1, and let Jkn be the
ideal generated by all of the Plücker relations (make the correct choice of signs, see above).
n
Proposition 3.1. ϕ(Gr(k, n)) in CP(k )−1 is the zero locus of Ikn .

Proof left as an exercise. Not too hard; use induction.

Theorem 3.2 (Nullstellensatz). Let I be a (non-irrelevant) homogeneous ideal in C[x1 , . . . , x√N ],

X ∈ CPN −1 be the zero locus of I, and J be the ideal of polynomials vanishing on X. Then J = I.
√
It can be proven that Ikn = Jkn ; need to check that Jkn is a radical ideal. The proof is in
Fulton’s book.

“Row picture” vs. “Column picture” in Gr(k, n). Let A be a k × n matrix of rank k. Thinking
of the row space of A, this corresponds to a k-dimensional subspace of Cn . Looking at the column
space instead, a point of the Grassmanian corresponds to a collection of n vectors spanning Ck
modulo a GLk action.
A matroid captures the information of which sets of k vectors are linearly independent, i.e
which Plücker coordinates are
non-zero. That is, we have a matroid M corresponding to a point
of Gr(k, n) is the set {I ∈ [n]
k | ∆I 6= 0}. Elements of M are called bases. The Plücker relations
impose some conditions on such an object: namely that P if0 the left hand side ∆I ∆J is non-zero,
then at least one of the terms on the right hand side 0
∆I ∆J must be non-zero. This motivates
the following definition:

Definition 3.3. A non-empty subset M of [n]

k is a matroid of rank k if it satisfies the Exchange
Axiom (E): ∀I, J ∈ M, ∀i ∈ I, ∃j ∈ J such that (I\{i}) ∪ {j} ∈ M.

This only says that ∆I 0 6= 0 on the right hand side of the Plücker Relation for r = 1. We can
require that ∆J 0 6= 0 as well:
A Stronger Version (E’) of the Exchange Axiom: ∀I, J ∈ M, ∀i ∈ I, ∃j ∈ J such that
(I\{i}) ∪ {j} ∈ M and (J\{j}) ∪ {i} ∈ M.
We can require this to be true for all Plücker relations, not just r = 1, leading to:
Even Stronger Version (E”): ∀I, J ∈ M.∀r > 0, ∀i1 , . . . , ir , ∃j1 , . . . , jr ∈ J such that
(I\{i1 , . . . , ir }) ∪ {j1 , . . . , jr } ∈ M and (J\{j1 , . . . , jr }) ∪ {i1 , . . . , ir } ∈ M.

Exercise 3.4. Are (E), (E’), (E”) equivalent?

Definition 3.5. M is realizable (over F) if it comes from a point of the Grassmannian Gr(k, n, F).

Example 3.6. Matroids of rank k = 2. The only relations between ` vectors

` you can get in 2-
dimensional space come from parallel or zero vectors. Let [n] = B0 B1 · · · , and take {i, j} to
be a base if i and j are in different blocks and are not in B0 (B0 corresponds to zero vectors).
These turn out to be all rank 2 matroids, and all are realizable.

Becomes a mess in k = 3.

7
 Figure 2: Fano plane

Example 3.7. Fano plane (see Figure 2). {i, j, k} is a base if i, j, k are not on the same line (or
circle). This forms a non-realizable matroid over R (it is realizable over F2 – take all non-zero
vectors in F32 ).

Example 3.8. Pappus Theorem (see Figure 3); again {i, j, k} ∈ M is a base if i, j, k are not on the
same line. This is a realizable matroid over R. On the other hand, M + {7, 8, 9} is a non-realizable
matroid over R - the fact that it is not realizable follows from Pappus.

Figure 3: Pappus Theorem

Example 3.9. Desargues’ Theorem (didn’t bother with picture): Given ABC and A0 B 0 C 0 with
AA0 , BB 0 , CC 0 concurrent at P
, then X = BC ∩ B 0 C 0 , Y = CA ∩ C 0 A0 , Z = AB ∩ A0 B 0 are
collinear. The matroid D ⊂ [10] 3 of all triples of points that do not lie on a line, plus {X, Y, Z}, is
a non-realizable matroid.

Let’s get back to Schubert cells. Recall

a
Gr(k, n) = Ωλ ,
λ⊂k×(n−k)

8
with Λ = F|λ| . We can also index the cells by I ∈ [n]


k . We have a bijection between partitions
λ ⊂ k × (n − k) and down-left lattice paths from the point (n − k, k) by tracing the bottom and
right edges of λ. Then, taking the set of down steps gives us a k-element subset of [n].
3 definitions of Schubert cells.

Definition 3.10 (via Gaussian elimination, RREF). Done last week. Note that one can extract
I ∈ [n]


k in bijection above by taking the column numbers of the pivots in the RREF of the point
in the Grassmannian.

Consider the Gale order on [n]

k : given I = {i1 < · · · < ik }, J = {j1 < · · · < jk }, we have
I ≤ J if i1 ≤ j1 , . . . , ik ≤ jk . Note that this agrees with the reverse of the partial order on Young
diagrams by containment, using the bijection above. Also, note by row reduction that the matroid
associated to a point of the Grassmannian has a unique Gale-minimal element.

Exercise 3.11. The last sentence above is true for arbitrary matroids.

Definition 3.12. ΩI = {A ∈ Gr(k, n) | I Gale-minimal in the corresponding matroid}.

It’s easy to see that the first two definitions are equivalent.

Definition 3.13 (Classical). Fix the complete flag of subspaces in Fn , 0 ⊂ V1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vn = Fn ,

with Vi = {en , . . . , en−i+1 } (this is the opposite convention from most of the literature). Now, for
d = (d1 , . . . , dn ) ∈ Zn≥0 , define

Γd = {V ∈ Gr(k, n) | ∀i, dim(V ∩ Vi ) = di }.

Need to require 0 ≤ d1 ≤ · · · ≤ dn = k, and di − di−1 ≥ {0, 1}.

To show that the classical definition agrees with the previous one, consider an up-right lattice
path from (0, 0) to (n − k, k). Get d1 , . . . , dn by starting with d0 = 0, and adding 1 every time you
go up, and 0 every time you go right. The rest is not hard using RREF. More on Schubert cells
next time.
“Do you want a lot of homework, or not a lot of homework?”

4 September 12, 2014

Let’s clarify why the last (classical) definition of Schubert cells agrees with the other two.
Given a full rank k × n matrix A in RREF, suppose the pivots lie in columns i1 ≤ · · · ≤ ik ; let
I be the set of these indices. Let u1 , . . . , uk denote the row vectors of A; the row space of A is the
space of vectors of the form α1 u1 + · · · + αk uk . Let p be such that αp 6= 0, but α1 , . . . , αp−1 = 0.
Then u ∈ heip , eip +1 , . . . , en i, but u ∈
/ her , . . . , en } if r > ip .
Thus Rowspace(A) ∩ Vi is spanned by the uj such that ij ∈ {n, n − 1, . . . , n − i + 1}, so
di = dim Rowspace(A) ∩ Vi , which is the size of I ∩ {n, n − 1, . . . , n − i + 1}.

Example 4.1. If λ = (3, 3, 1) ⊂ 3×4 (so n = 7, k = 3), then I = {2, 3, 6} and d = (0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3).

The classical definition only depends on the flag, not the coordinates.
We now define Schubert varieties; work over C. Ωσ is the closure (in the usual topology of
N
C – should also get the same thing in the Zariski topology) in Gr(k, n).

Theorem 4.2. Three (clearly) equivalent formulations:

9
 `
(1) Ωσ = µ⊆λ Ωµ .
`
(2) Ωσ = K≥I ΓK , where ≥ denotes the Gale order from last time.

(3) Ωσ = {A ∈ Gr(k, n) | ∆J = 0 unless J ≥ I}.

Proof. First show that Ωσ ⊂ {A ∈ Gr(k, n) | ∆J = 0 unless J ≥ I}; fix A ∈ Ωσ . Then A =

lim→0 A() such that A() ∈ ΓI . Then, for  6= 0, ∆J (A()) = 0 unless J ≥ I in the Gale order, so
the same is true for A, which is exactly what we need.
Conversely, suppose A ∈ ΩK for K ≥ I. Now let A() be the sum of A and AI , where AI
has 1s in the positions amim and zeroes everywhere else. Then A() ∈ ΓI for all  6= 0, and
A = lim→0 A().

Corollary 4.3. The following are equivalent:

• ΩI ⊇ ΩJ .

• I ≤ J (in the Gale order).

• λ ⊃ µ, where λ ↔ I and µ ↔ J.

We also have a Matroid stratification of Gr(k,` n). Define the matroid stratum SM = {A ∈
Gr(k, n) | ∆I (A) 6= 0 ⇔ I ∈ M. Then Gr(k, n) = M SM . This is a much finer stratification:
instead of specifying the Gale-minimal non-zero Plücker coordinate, we specify all of the non-zero
Plücker coordinates. The SM are also called thin “cells” or Gelfand-Serganova “cells.”

Theorem 4.4 (Mnëv Universality). SM can be “as complicated as any algebraic variety.” (In fact,
this is also true in rank 3)

Pick a permutation w = w1 · · · wn ∈ Sn . Then define the permuted flag V.w = V1w ⊂ V2w ⊂
· · · ⊂ Vnw , where Viw = w(Vi ) = hew(n) , ew(n−1) , . . . , ew(n−i+1) i. Then, let Ωw
λ = w(Ωλ ), i.e. the
w
Schubert cell defined by the flag V. .

Theorem 4.5 (Gelfand-Goresky-MacPherson-Serganova). The matroid` decomposition is the com-

mon refinement of the n! permuted Schubert decompositions Gr(k, n) = λ Ωwλ.

Proof. Should be obvious: the matroid strata tell you which Plücker coordinates are zero and non-
zero, which is the same as knowing the Gale-minimal (equivalently, lex-minimal) Plücker coordinate
for any ordering of the column vectors.

The proof is transparent because we’ve fixed a bunch of coordinate vectors (the things we’re
permuting), but this is less clear if we only make reference to a flag without a basis.
3 definitions of matroids.

Definition 4.6. Using Exchange Axiom (already done).

Given w ∈ Sn , re-order [n] by w(1) <w · · · <w w(n) – this induces the permuted Gale order
I ≤w J.

Theorem 4.7. M is a matroid iff it has a unique minimal element under ≤w for any w ∈ Sn .

Definition 4.8. Given I ∈ [n]

k , define the Schubert matroid (or lattice path matroid)
[n]

MI = {J ∈ k | J ≥ I}.

10
 In terms of lattice paths, think of I as a lattice path, then take all lattice paths J to the
southeast of I.
T
Theorem 4.9. Any matroid is an intersection of some permuted Schubert matroids w(MIw ).
(Warning: not every intersection of matroids is a matroid! This will be clear in the k = 2.n = 4
case below.)
Example 4.10. Taking an intersection of a Schubert matroid MI and a permuted Schubert ma-
troid w(MJ )) with the reverse order on coordinates (i.e. w(1) = n, w(2) = n − 1, . . .) is the same as
taking all lattice paths fitting below I and above J. (These might be called Richardson matroids?)
Given any I ∈ [n] [n]


P
k , let eI be the 0-1 vector i∈I ei . Then, given M = k , define the polytope
PM to be the convex hull of the eI for I ⊂ M.
Example 4.11. Take k = 2, n = 4. The six vectors eI with I ∈ [4]


2 form an octahedron; opposite
vertices correspond to sets that are complements of each other. A subset of these vertices forms a
matroid iff all edges of the convex hull of these vertices are already edges of the octahedron. (This
is true in general.)

5 September 17, 2014

We alluded to the following last time:
[n]

Theorem 5.1 (GGMS).P Given M ⊂ k , M is a matroid iff any edge of the convex hull PM
of the vectors eI = i∈I ei looks like [eI , eJ ], where J = (I\{i}) ∪ {j}. Such polytopes are called
matroid polytopes.
Note that if PM contains one pair of opposite vertices, then it should contain another pair.
This can be seen from the Plücker relations, e.g. for k = 2, n = 4
Torus action on Gr(k, n, C). The complex torus T = (C\{0})n acts on Cn by rescaling:
(t1 , . . . , tn ) sends (x1 , . . . , xn ) to (t1 x1 , . . . , tn xn ). This gives an action on subspaces, and in par-
ticular on Gr(k, n). Thinking of Gr(k, n)\ Mat∗ (k, n), T acts by right Q multiplication by the diag-
onal matrix (t1 , . . . , tn ). In terms of Plücker coordinates, ∆i 7→ ( i∈I ti )∆I under the action by
(t1 , . . . , tn ).
What are the fixed points of this action? This is equivalent to having exactly one non-zero
Plücker coordinate. Also, for any one-dimensional orbit of T , there are exactly two non-zero
∆I , ∆J , and furthermore J = (I\{i}) ∪ {j}.
Fix A ∈ Gr(k, n). Then the orbit T · A ∈ Gr(k, n) (where (t1 , . . . , tn )A = A diag(t1 , . . . , tn ))
is some quasi-projective subvariety of CPn . What is its degree (more accurately, degree of its
closure), i.e. the number of intersection points of X with a generic linear subspace of complimentary
dimension? (The dimension of T · A should be equal to the dimension of the corresponding matroid
polytope.)
Example 5.2. In Gr(2, 4), fix a (sufficiently general) point A = (∆12 : · · · : ∆34 ) ∈ CP5 . (t1 , . . . , t4 )
acts by multiplication by (t1 t2 , . . . , t3 , t4 ): the orbit cuts out a 3-dimensional subvariety of CP5 (note
that simultaneously the ti produces the same point). Now, intersect T · A with 3 generic linear
equations:
α1 ∆12 t1 t2 + · · · + α6 ∆34 t3 t4 = 0
β1 ∆12 t1 t2 + · · · + β6 ∆34 t3 t4 = 0
γ1 ∆12 t1 t2 + · · · + γ6 ∆34 t3 t4 = 0.

11
Now apply the Bernstein-Kushnirenko Theorem: Given finite sets A1 , . . . , Am ⊂ Zm , denote
xa = xa11 · · · xamm for a ∈ Zm . Also, let Pi be the convex
P hull of the Ai (Newton polytope). Then,
consider the system of m equations in m variables a∈Ai ci,a xa for i = 1, 2, . . . , m with generic
coefficients ci,a ∈ C. The number of solutions to this system of equations in (C∗ )m is equal to the
mixed volume of P1 , . . . , Pm (we won’t define this). In the special case P1 = · · · = Pm = P , the
number of solutions is m! · Vol(P ), the normalized volume of P .
In the case of the system above, the Newton polytope P is exactly the matroid polytope, defined
by when the Plücker coordinates are zero vs. non-zero. Hence the degree of the torus orbit is equal
to the the normalized volume of PM .
Consider the case M = [n] = [0, 1]n ∩ {x1 +


k , corresponding to the hypersimplex ∆kn = P([n] k )
· · · + xn = k} (warning: we’re using ∆ to use something different than before). This is the same as
e k,n−1 = [0, 1]n−1 ∩ {k − 1 ≤ x1 + · · · + xn−1 ≤ k}, via the map (x1 , . . . , xn ) 7→ (x1 , . . . , xn−1 ).
∆
Theorem 5.3 (Laplace). The normalized volume of ∆kn , (n −P 1)! Voln−1 ∆
e k,n−1 , is equal to the
k+1 n+1 ∞ n r
Eulerian number Ak−1,n−1 , where Ak,n = [x ](1 − x) r=0 r x (Akn = 0 is k ≥ n).
Equivalently, Ak,n is the number of permutations w ∈ Sn with exactly k descents.
To prove that these two definitions of Eulerian numbers are equivalent, show that they satisfy
the recurrence relation Ak,n = (n − k)Ak−1,n−1 + (k + 1)Ak,n−1 .
One way to prove Laplace’s Theorem is as follows: express the volume of a section k − 1 ≤
x1 + · · · + xn ≤ k ∩ [0, 1]n by as an alternating sum of sections of quadrants.

6 September 24, 2014

Lots of facts about cohomology. We’re not going to prove them, and we’re not even going to define
cohomology.
X a topological space. To it, we associate to it a cohomology ring H ∗ (X) = H 0 (X) ⊕
H 1 (X) ⊕ · · · . All coefficients are in C, so the H i are vector spaces over C. There ring structure
comes from the cup product H p (X) ⊗ H q (X) → H p+q (X). The dimensions βi of the H i called
Betti numbers.
Let` X be a smooth complex n-dimensional projective variety with finite cell decomposition
X = Xi , such that Xi ∼ = Cni are locally closed subvarieties, and Xi − Xi is a union of lower-
dimensional cells. Then, the cohomology X lives in even dimension, i.e. H ∗ = H 0 ⊕ H 2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ H 2n .
Also, we have Poincaré Duality: H 2p (X) ∼ = H2n−2p (X) ∼ = (H 2n−2p (X))∗ . In particular, the Betti
numbers are symmetric. Have fundamental classes [Xi ] ∈ H 2(n−ni ) (X), which form a linear
basis of H ∗ (X). `
For Gr(k, n) = λ⊂k×(n−k) Ωλ , define Schubert varieties Xλ = Ωλ , and the Schubert
classes σλ = [Xλ ], where λ∨ is the complement of λ in a k × (n − k) rectangle. From the
∨

above, σλ ∈ H 2|λ| (Gr(k, n)) form a linear basis of H ∗ (Gr(k, n)).

Let Y, Y 0 be subvarieties of X, such that Y ∪ Y 0 = Z1 ∪ Z2 ∪ · · · ∪ Zr . Assume that codim(Y ) +
codim(Y 0 ) = codim(Zi ) for all i, and that Y, Y 0 intersect transversely. Then, [Y ][Y 0 ] = [Z1 ] + · · · +
[Zr ]. In particular, if codim(Y ) + codim(Y 0 ) = dim(X), then the Zi s are points, so [Y ] · [Y 0 ] = r[∗].
The integer r is called the intersection number of Y and Y 0 , and is the same as the value
h[Y ], [Y 0 ]i obtained from the Poincaré pairing.
Similarly, we can talk about intersection numbers of 3 subvarieties Y, Y 0 , Y 00 such that codim(Y )+
codim(Y 0 ) + codim(Y 00 ) = dim(X) intersecting in r points, so that h[Y ], [Y 0 ], [Y 00 ]i = r. Fact:
X
[Yi ] · [Yj0 ] = h[Yi ], [Yj ], [Yk ]i · [Yk ]∗ ,
k

12
where the [Yk ]∗ are dual basis elements. So to understand H ∗ , we only need to understand the
double and triple intersection numbers.
Let’s specialize to the Grassmannian.

Theorem 6.1 (Duality). If |λ| + |µ| = k(n − k), then hσλ , σµ i = δλ,µ∨ .

In other words, the basis {σλ } is self-dual with respect to the Poincaré pairing.

Theorem 6.2 (Pieri’s Formula). Let σr be the Schubert class corresponding the partition (r) (Young
diagram with one row of size r). Then
X
σλ σr = σµ ,
µ

where the sum is over all µ such that µ/λ is a horizontal r-strip, i.e. |µ| − |λ| = r and each
column of µ/λ has at most 1 box. Equivalently, µ1 ≥ λ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ µk ≥ λk , and
r = (µ1 − λ1 ) + · · · + (µk − λk ).

The problem with intersecting Xλ and Xµ is that they don’t intersect tranversely: for example,
if λ ⊂ µ, one Schubert variety is contained in the closure of the other. Instead, look at Xλ ∩ g(Xµ ),
where g is a generic element of GLn (presumably g(Xµ ) and Xµ are in the same cohomology class?).
In other words, take two different Schubert decompositions of Gr(k, n) whose flags are in “general
position” to each other (this is much harder to do for triple intersections).
Let V1 ⊂ V2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vn = C and Ve1 ⊂ Ve2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Ven = C be two flags. Let rij = dim(Vi ∩ Vej ),
and take the n × n rank matrix of ri j. It turns out there are n! such matrices: to write them
down, consider the n! rook placements on an n × n chessboard, and let rij be the number of rooks
in top-left i × j sub-board. (Side-remark: this essentially gives the Bruhat order.)
If we take V1 ⊂ V2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vn to be the standard coordinate flag and Ve1 ⊂ Ve2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Ven to
be the opposite coordinate flag, then the flags intersect generically (the ri j are all the expected
generic sizes). If you’re in the class and are reading this, I owe you a beer, three people maximum.
Explicitly, Vi = hen , . . . , en−i+1 i and Vei = he1 , e2 , . . . , ei i.

Lemma 6.3. We have:

e µ 6= 0 if and only if λ ⊇ µ∨ (equivalently, µ∨ and λ∨ don’t overlap).
1. Ωλ ∩ Ω

2. Ωλ ∩ Ω
e λ∨ is a single point and the intersection is transversal.

Proof. Ωλ ∩ Ω e µ 6= 0 means that there exists a k × (n − k) matrix A such that row reduction
puts the pivots in positions i1 < i2 < · · · < ik (corresponding to the partition λ), and “reverse
row operations,” i.e. going from right to left, puts the pivots in positions j1 < j2 < · · · < jk
(corresponding to µ∨ ), and furthermore i1 ≤ j1 , . . . , ik ≤ jk . Using the Gale order, this is equivalent
to λ ⊃ µ∨ . For the converse, it turns out that after row operations A can be transformed into a
matrix with left pivots i1 , . . . , ik , right pivots are j1 , . . . , jk , and zeroes to the left of all left pivots
and to the right of all right pivots.
When i1 = j1 , . . . , ik = jk , there is only one element in the intersection: the matrix with pivots
in positions i1 < i2 < · · · < ik and zeroes everywhere else.

13
7 September 26, 2014
We did a lot of handwaving last time, so let’s summarize what we know about the cohomology ring
H ∗ (Gr(k, n, C)).

• Commutative (usually, the cohomology ring is only commutative up to sign, but note that
cohomology lives only in even dimensions), associative algebra over C.

• Graded algebra H 0 ⊕ H 2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ H 2k(n−k) .

• Has a linear basis of Schubert classes σλ ∈ H 2|λ|

• Given λ1 , . . . , λr , with |λ1 | + · · · + |λr | = k(n − k) the intersection numbers hσλ1 · σλ2 · · · σλr i
are equal to the coefficient of σk(n−k) in the product σλ1 · σλ2 · · · σλr ; geometrically, this is the
number of intersection points in generic translates of the Schubert varieties Xλ∨1 , . . . , Xλ∨r .

• (Duality theorem) hσλ , σµ i = δλ,µ∨ .

We have Littlewood-Richardson coefficients cνλµ of H ∗ (Gr(k, n)):

X
σλ σµ = cνλµ σν .

These are just triple intersection numbers, because

!
∨
cγλµ σµ
X
h(σλ σµ ) · σν i = h , σν i = cνλµ .
γ

∨
Define cλµν = cνλµ . Because these are intersection numbers, they are non-negative integers, we want
a combinatorial interpretation.
We cheated last time in proving the duality theorem, so let’s do it over.

Lemma 7.1. We have:

1. Xλ ∩ Xeµ 6= ∅ if and only if λ ⊇ µ∨ (here Xλ is a Schubert variety and X

eµ is an opposite
Schubert variety).

2. If |λ| + |µ| = k(n − k), then Xλ ∩ Xeµ 6= ∅ is a single point if λ = µ∨ and empty otherwise.

Proof. Let XI = Xµ , where I ∈ [n]

k is the set of left steps along the border of λ (walking from
the top right corner of the k(n − k) rectangle to the bottom left). The first claim is equivalent
to XI ∩ X eJ 6= ∅ iff I ≤ J ∨ in the Gale order, where J ∨ = {n + 1 − jk , . . . , n + 1 − j1 }. Given
A ∈ Gr(k, n), let MA be the corresponding matroid. A ∈ XI iff I ≤ K for all K ∈ MA , and
A∈X eJ iff J ∨ ≥ K for all K ∈ MA , so I ≤ J ∨ . The second part now follows because if I = J ∨ ,
then MA has only one element, and only one point of the Grassmannian corresponds to such a
matroid.

Last time we claimed that we can apply row operations to our k × (n − k) matrix A so that
the left and right pivots are simultaneously in the right places (according to I and J ∨ ). This is
actually false, consider the example
   
1 0 1 0 1 0
∼ ,
0 1 0 1 0 1

14
which can’t be put in the form  
1 1 0
0 1 1
via row operations. The issue is that we are intersecting closures of Schubert cells, not the Schubert
cells themselves; there will be a homework problem about this.

Theorem 7.2 (Pieri Formula). Let r be the one-part partition (r). Then

σλ σr = σµ σµ ,

where the sum on the right hand side is over all µ such that µ/λ is a horizontal strip.

The idea of the proof is to compute intersection numbers hσλ , σµ∨ , σr i. This is not so obvious
(as is the case in general with triple intersection numbers) because it’s hard to write down three
pairwise generically intersecting flags.

Example 7.3. What is fkn = hσ1 ·σ1 · · · σ1 i? We have X(1)∨ = {V ∈ Gr(k, n) | V ∩hen , en−1 , . . . , ek+1 i =
6
0}. Fix N = k(n − k) generic (n − k)-dimensional subspaces in Cn , L1 , . . . , LN . Then, fkn is the
number of k-dimensional subspaces intersecting non-trivially with all of the LI .
1 2(n−2)


Theorem 7.4. f1n = 1 and f2n = Cn−2 = n−1 n−2 .
P
Proof. The first part is easy. For the second part, by Pieri we have σλ σ1 = µ σµ , where the sum
over µ obtained by adding a box to λ. Thus σ∅ σ1n is
X
fλ σλ ,
λ:|λ|=m

where fλ is the number of ways to build λ one box at a time, i.e. the number of standard Young
Tableaux of shape λ.
Now, f1n is just f(n−1) and f2n is just f(n−2,n−2) , immediately implying the conclusion (for f(nn) ,
there’s an easy bijection to Dyck paths)

There’s a general formula for fλ , the hook length formula. Namely,

m!
fλ = Q ,
x∈λ h(x)

where m = |λ| and h(x) is the number of boxes in the hook associated to a box x, i.e. the set of
boxes below x in the same column or to the right of x in the same row.

Example 7.5. k = 3, n = 6: the number of 3-dimensional subspaces of C6 intersecting 9 generic

3-dimensional subspaces is 9!/(1 · 22 · 33 · 42 · 5).

The next goal is to understand the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients cνλµ . They arise in:

• H ∗ (Gr(k, n)) (we’ve already seen this)

ν
P
• products of Schur polynomials: sλ sµ = ν cλµ sν

• tensor products of irreps of SLn : Vµ ⊗ Vµ = ⊕cνλµ Vν

S
• irreps of Sn : IndSm+n
m ×Sn
(πλ ⊗ πµ ) = ⊕nu cνµν πν .

15
 Let’s see how much about symmetric functions we can cram into a third of a lecture.

Definition 7.6. The ring of symmetric polynomials is Λn = C[x1 , . . . , xn ]Sn =

P d
Λn , i.e. the
ring of invariants under the usual Sn -action. It is somewhat more convenient to work in infinitely
many variables, so define Λd to be the inverse limit of Λd1 ← Λd2 ← Λd3 ← · · · , where the maps are
evaluation of the last variable at zero. Explicitly, this is the ring of degree d power series invariant
under any finite permutation of the variables. Then, define the ring of symmetric functions to
be the direct sum of the Λd for d = 0, 1, 2, . . ..

Example 7.7.
P
• Elementary symmetric functions i1 <···<ik x i1 · · · x ik

P
• Complete homogeneous symmetric functions i1 ≤···≤ik xi1 · · · xik

• Power sum symmetric functions pk = i xki

P

• Monomial symmetric functions: mλ is the symmetrization of the monomial xλ1 1 · · · xλk k . Note
that m(1,1...,1) = ek , mk = pk .

Theorem 7.8 (Fundamental Theorem). Two versions:

1. Λn = C[e1 , . . . , en ] = C[h1 , . . . , hn ] = C[p1 , . . . , pn ] with no relations.

2. Λ = C[e1 , e2 , . . .] = C[h1 , h2 , . . .] = C[p1 , p2 , . . .] with no relations.

We have several linear bases of Λ: {mλ } clearly form a basis. From the fundamental theorem,
products of elementary symmetric functions eλ = eλ1 · · · eλk form a basis; similarly can define bases
hλ , pλ . (If you work over Z, the pλ don’t form a basis).

Proof of Theorem 7.8. We’ll just show the first part (elementary symmetric functions generate Λ
0
freely). The leading coefficient (using lex order) of xλ is xλ , where λ0 is the conjugate of λ. It
follows that the eλ are related to the mλ via an upper triangular matrix, hence we get a basis.

Definition 7.9. Given γ = (γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γn ), with γ1 > · · · > γn , define

(−1)w xγw(1) · · · xγw(n)

X
1 n
aγ (x1 , . . . , xn ) = ,
w∈Sn

where (−1)w Q
is the sign of w. In particular, when δ = (n − 1, n − 2, . . . , 0), aδ is the Vandermonde
determinant i<j (xi − xj ). For any λ, define the Schur polynomial sλ (x1 , . . . , xn ) = aλ+δ /aδ ,
and the Schur function limn→∞ sλ (x1 , . . . , xn ).

These form linear bases of Λn and Λ, and also satisfy the Pieri Formulas:

Theorem 7.10 (Pieri Formulas). We have

P
1. sλ hr = µ sµ , where the sum is taken over all µ for which µ/λ is a horizontal r-strip (note
that hr = s(r) ).
P
2. sλ er = µ sµ , where the sum is taken over all µ for which µ/λ is a vertical r-strip (note that
er = s(1,...,1) ).

16
Proof. It suffices to do this for the aλ ; this is not too hard.

Easy but important fact:

Lemma 7.11. If A is any associative C-algebra with linear basis vλ such that vλ vr satisfying the
Pieri formula, then A ∼
= Γ, via the map vλ 7→ sλ

8 October 1, 2014
Let A be the k × n Vandermonde matrix
 n−1
xn−2 x01

x1 1 ···
xn−1 xn−2 · · · x02 
 2 2
..  .

 .. .. ..
 . . . .
n−1 n−2
xk xk ··· x0k

Let λ ⊂ k × (n − k), so that I(λ) = {n − k + 1 − λ1 , n − k + 2 − λ2 , . . . , n − λk }. Classically, we

∆ (A)
define the Schubert polynomials sλ (x1 , . . . , xk ) = ∆I(λ)(A) . The Plücker relations give us some
I(∅)
information:
∆13 ∆24 = ∆12 ∆34 + ∆14 ∆23 ⇔ s21 s1 = s22 s∅ + s2 s11 .
We then define the Schur functions sλ (x1 , x2 , . . .) = limk→∞ sλ (x1 , . . . , xk ). This makes sense
because of the following stability condition: sλ (x1 , . . . , xk , 0) = sλ (x1 , . . . , xk ).
Recall:

Lemma 8.1. Let A be a C-algebra with linear basis vλ satisfying the Pieri formula, i.e.
X
vλ vr = vµ ,
µ

where we sum over all µ for which µ/λ is a horizontal strip. Then Λ ∼
= A via the isomorphism
i : sλ 7→ vλ .

Proof. Clearly i is an isomorphism of vector spaces; need i(f · g) = i(f ) · i(g). Pieri says i(f hr ) =
i(f )i(hr ) (note that hr = sr ), and moreover the hr generate Λ freely, so we are done.

Lemma 8.2. Ikn = hsλ | λ 6⊆ k(n − k)i is an ideal in Λ.

Proof. Follows from Pieri.

Exercise 8.3. Λkn = Λ/Ikn =∼

= C[x1 , . . . , xk ]Sk /hhn−k+1 , hn−k+2 , . . . , hn i.

Corollary 8.4. If Akn is an algebra with basis hvλ | λ ⊂ k × (n − k)i satisfying Pieri, then
Akn ∼
= Λkn . Hence H ∗ (Gr(k, n)) = Λkn .

We will now state a version of the Littlewood-Richardson rule, but we need to introduce web
diagram first. Fix a horizontal line, say the x-axis. then, we associate a “left particle” to each integer
n on the x-axis: this particle approaches n at a 60-degree angle from the northwest. Similarly,
“right particles” associated to an integer n approaches n at a 60-degree √ angle from the northeast.
A left and right particle then “interact as follows”: at some height h 3/2, the two particles switch
positions, then continue in the same direction that they were going. If the left and right particles

17
 Figure 4: Interaction of left and right particle

were originally going toward the integers m, n, respectively, on the x-axis, then for some h, they
land at n + h, m − h.
Given partitions λ, µ, consider left particles associated to λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λm and right particles
associated to µ1 , µ+2, . . . , µn . Suppose every left particle interacts with every right particle exactly
once, and suppose that the landing positions are ν1 , ν2 , . . . , νm+n . Then, the diagram obtained is
called a web diagram with λ, µ, ν.

Figure 5: Web diagram (µ1 , µ2 should be swapped above)

cνλµ sν , where cνλµ is the number

P
Theorem 8.5 (Littlewood-Richardson rule, GP version). sλ sµ =
of web diagrams with λ, µ, ν.

Example 8.6. m = n = 1, a ≤ b: sa sb = s(b,a) + s(b+1,a−1) + · · · + s(a+b,0) (we declare sλ = 0 if

there is some negative part in λ).

Pieri rule for web diagrams. Consider sλ sr ; say |λ| = m, the left particle corresponding to λi
lands at µi , and the right particle starting at r ends at µm+1 . Then µ1 ≥ λ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥

18
µm+1 . Let ρi be the length of the interaction between r and λi . Then µm+1 = r − ρ1 − · · · − ρm ,
so |µ| − |λ| = r, and µ/λ is a horizontal r-strip. So if we can show that the multiplication defined
by web diagrams is associative, we will have established the L-R rule by Lemma [?]. This is not
so easy (do something with local transformations of web diagrams) – we will (might?) do this at
some point later.
Definition 8.7 (Combinatorial definition of Schur functions). Let T be a SSYT of shape λ and
weight β = (β1 , β2 , . . .), where βi is the number of appearances of i in the SSYT. The Kostka
number Kλβ is the number of SSYTs of shape λ and weight β. Then,
X X
sλ = xwt(T ) = Kλβ xβ .
sh(T )=λ β

It’s not immediately obvious that sλ is a symmetric function from this definition, but one can
prove this combinatorially. P
µ1 · · · hµ` =
By the Pieri formula, hµ = s∅ hP λ Kλµ sµ (using the classical definition of sλ . The
combinatorial definition says sλ = µ Kλµ mµ .
We have a scalar product h−, −i on Λ such that the sλ form an orthonormal basis, i.e. hsλ , sµi =
δλµ . Then, the hλ , mµ are dual with respect to the scalar product; this follows from:
Theorem 8.8 (Cauchy formula). We have
Y 1 X X
= sλ (x1 , x2 , . . .)sλ (y1 , y2 , . . .) = hλ (x1 , x2 , . . .)mλ (y1 , y2 , . . .).
1 − xi yj
i,j λ λ

Here, we are using the classical definition of Schur functions.

Proof. The first and third expression are equal by expanding. We prove that the first two are equal.
Let A be the k × ∞ matrix (xji ), and B the k × ∞ matrix (yij ). The Cauchy-Binet formula says
X
det(AB T ) = ∆I (A)∆I (B).
|I|=k

Here, AB T is the matrix ((1 − xi yj )−1 )ki,j=1 , and Cauchy-Binet says its determinant is
 
Y X
 (xi − xj )(yi − yj ) sλ (x)sλ (y).
i<j λ

So it suffices to show
k
Y Y 1
det((1 − xi yj )−1 )ki,j=1 = (xi − xj )(yi − yj ) .
1 − xi yj
i<j i,j=1

Left as an exercise.
We can define Skew Schur functions in two ways:
• (Classical) hsλ/µ , f i = hsλ , sµ f i for all f ∈ Λ.
• (Combinatorial) Same as for sλ : sum over SSYT of shape λ/µ.
Ways to think about L-R coefficients:
1. σλ σµ = cνλµ σν . (Schubert classes)
P

2. sλ sµ = cνλµ sλ . (Schur functions)

P

P λ
3. sλ/µ = cµν sµ (Skew Schur functions; immediate from classical definition).

19
9 October 3, 2014
Homework: prove as many non-trivial unproven statements from class as you can. Due two weeks
from now. The lecturer may or may not compile a list of these at some point in the next two weeks.

Classical L-R rule.

Definition 9.1. w = w1 · · · wr ∈ Zr>0 is a lattice word if for all initial subwords w1 w2 · · · wk , the
number of appearances of i is at least the number of appearances of j whenever i ≥ j.

Given a SSYT T of a skew shape, define the word w(T ) is obtained by Hebrew reading of its
entries, i.e. read from top to bottom, right to left.

Definition 9.2. A SSYT is an LR-tableau if w(T ) is a lattice word.

Theorem 9.3 (Classical L-R). cνλµ is the number of LR-tableaux of shape ν/λ and weight µ.

The L-R coefficients have symmetries:

∨
1. S3 -symmetry: cλµν = cνλµ is invariant under any permutation of λ, µ, ν ⊂ k × (n − k). This
follows from Poincaré Duality.
0
2. Conjugation: cνλµ = cνλ0 µ0 . One way to see this is to use the involution ω : Λ → Λ taking
sλ 7→ sλ0 , which preserves the inner product on Λ. Geometrically, this follows from the fact
that Gr(k, n) ∼= Gr(n − k, n)
Corollary 9.4. LR(ν/λ, µ) = LR(ν/µ, λ) = LR(ν 0 /λ0 , µ0 ) = · · · .

Definition 9.5. A picture is a bijection ϕ from boxes of λ/µ to boxes of ν/γ such that:

1. If we label the boxes of λ/µ by 1, 2, . . . , n in the Hebrew reading, then ϕ maps the labels to
a SYT.

2. Same condition for ϕ−1 .

Theorem 9.6 (Zelevinsky). hsλ/µ , sν/γ i is the number of pictures ϕ : λ/µ → ν/γ.

How do we get from Zelevinsky’s pictures to LR-tableaux? Given a picture ϕ : ν/λ → µ, if

ϕ(x) is in the i-th row of µ, then put i in box x of ν/λ. (Exercise: check this.)
Two partial orders on Z × Z:

1. x ≤& y if y is to the southeast of x.

2. x ≤. y if y is to the southwest of x.

Exercise 9.7. ϕ is a picture iff x ≤& y ⇒ φ(x) ≤. φ(y) and φ(x) ≤& φ(y) ⇒ x ≤. y.

Definition 9.8. Let T be a SSYT of shape λ. Then, construct an inverted triangular array as
follows: in the first row, write λ1 , λ2 , . . .. Then, remove all instances of the largest number T , and
do this again in the second row, so that the second row has one fewer number. If you’re in the class
and are reading this, I owe you a beer (max 3 people). The resulting array is called a Gelfand-
Tsetlin pattern; SSYTs are in bijection with Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns where the condition on the
latter is that along NE-SW rows the numbers decrease weakly and along NW-SE rows the numbers
increase weakly. (If you want, fix n so that the largest entry is n and λ has n parts.)

20
 Figure 6: GT pattern example

Figure 7: GT pattern example – skew shape

Example 9.9. Example of a SSYT and corresponding GT pattern – see Figure 6.

We can do a similar thing for skew shapes, and we get the same weak increasing/decreasing
conditions; the shape of the Gelfand-Tsetlin pattern is a parallelogram – see Figure 7.
Fix n, λ = (λ1 , . . . , λn ), µ = (µ1 , . . . , µn ), ν = (ν1 , . . . , νn ). Let T be a LR-tableau of shape ν/λ
and weight µ, corresponding to theP GT pattern P . Let Ai j be the number of j’s in the i-th row of
T . The entries of P are bij = λi + j 0 ≤j aij 0 , where the indexing is as in Figure 8

Figure 8: Indexing for parallelogramular (?) GT pattern

Note that the top row reads ν1 , . . . , νn and the bottom row reads λ1 , . . . , λn . The word w(T )
has the following form: a11 1’s, followed be a22 2’s, followed by a21 1’s, a33 3’s, a32 2’s, a31 1’s,
and so on. The lattice word condition P is the collection of inequalities a11 ≥ a22 , a22 ≥ a33 ,
a11 + a21 ≥ a22 + a32 , . . .. Let cij = i0 ≤i ai0 j , the number of j’s in the first i rows of T . We have:

Lemma 9.10. w(T ) is a lattice word iff (cij ) is a GT-pattern (see Figure 9)

So the LR-coefficients are the number of collections of integers aij that satisfy a bunch of
inequalities corresponding to some GT-patterns; we’ll write down a more symmetric way of doing
this next time.

21
 Figure 9: Indexing for triangular GT pattern

10 October 8, 2014
Recall that cνλµ is the number of LR-tableaux T of shape ν/λ and weight µ. The conditions describe
some convex polytope in Rn ; the number of lattice points inside is the L-R coefficient.
Fix k a positive integer, and λ, µ, ν partitions with k parts, |λ| + |µ| = |ν|. Let `i = λi − λi+1 ,
and define mi , ni similarly for i = 1, 2, . . . , k − 1. Construct the graph BZk (shown by example for
k = 5 in Figure10).

Figure 10: The graph BZ5

Definition 10.1. A BZ(I)-pattern is a map f : BZk → Z such that:

1. f (x) ≥ 0

2. a1 + a2 = `1 , a3 + a4 = `2 , . . ., b1 + b2 = m1 , b3 + b4 , . . ., and c1 + c2 = n1 , c3 + c4 = n2 , . . ..

3. For any unit hexagon with labels a, b, c, d, e, f in clockwise order, have a + b = d + e, b + c =

e + f, c + d = f + a (note that one of these equations is redundant.
Theorem 10.2 (Bernstein-Zelevinsky). The number of BZ(I) patterns associated to λ, µ, ν is cνλµ .
∨
Letting cλµν = cνλµ , the Z/3-symmetry cλµν = cµνλ = cνλµ is clear from this picture, but the
symmetry cνλµ = cνµλ is not.
Let Tk be the graph shown in Figure 11 for k = 4 (note that the vertices of the big triangle are
not vertices of Tk here). The three tails at a vertex v are shown as well.
Definition 10.3. A BZ(II)-pattern is a map f : Tk → Z such that:

22
 Figure 11: The graph T4 , with tail directions shown.

P
1. (Tail non-negativity) For any vertex v ∈ Tk , x∈tail(v) f (x) ≥ 0 for each of the three tails of
v

2. The sums of maximal tails in the 3 directions are `i , mi , ni , as in Figure 11.

Theorem 10.4. The number of BZ(II) patterns associated to λ, µ, ν is cνλµ .

Remark 10.5. From these L-R rules it is clear that the coefficients only depend on the difference
vectors (`i ), (mi ), (ni ). This can also be seen from the definitions of Schur functions.

How to get from a BZ(II) to a BZ(I)? Starting from a BZ(2), write on each edge a running tail
sum in the directions indicated below. Then, take all of the numbers you get in this way and stick
them into a BZ(1) triangle – then, reflect over a vertical axis. An example is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Bijection from BZ(II) diagram to BZ(I) diagram.

ν become BZ(I) patterns for

Theorem 10.6. Using the procedure above, BZ(II) patterns for Cλµ
∨
cµλν ∨ .

The hexagon condition is needed to write down the inverse map.

Knutson-Tao honeycombs. Consider the plane {(x, y, z) | x + y + z = 0} – we allow lines in three
directions, namely lines of the form (a, ∗, ∗), (∗, b, ∗), (∗, ∗, c). Given λ, µ, ν as above, consider the
infinite rays (λi , ∗, ∗), (∗, µi , ∗), (∗, ∗, −ν). A honeycomb graph looks something like the pictures
in Figure 13 (we won’t write down an actual definition).

Theorem 10.7 (Knutson-Tao). cνλµ is the number of integer honeycombs for λ, µ, ν.

23
 Figure 13: Honeycomb graphs: note that the one on the right has an edge of length zero.

Define d((x, y, z), (x0 , y 0 , z 0 )) = K (x − x0 )2 + (y − y 0 )2 + (z − z 0 )2 , where K is chosen so that

p

the vertical distance between the lines (a, ∗, ∗) and (b, ∗, ∗) is |a−b|. Then, to get from a honeycomb
to a BZ(I) diagram, read off the lengths of all of the edges (some of which are zero) and stick them
on the nodes of the BZ(I) in the obvious way. Note that equiangularity of the hexagons is exactly
the hexagon condition.

11 October 10, 2014

Rough list of exercises for reference (a few are new).

• Lemma in the proof of unimodality of Gaussian coefficients.

• Various examples and non-examples of matroids. Equivalence of exchange axioms (regular,

strong, stronger)

• Laplace Theorem on Eulerian Numbers

• Plücker Relations cut out the Grassmannian. Radical of the r = 1 relations gives the whole
ideal. (This is essentially commutative algebra.)

• Cauchy determinant:
k
Y Y 1
det((1 − xi yj )−1 )ki,j=1 = (xi − xj )(yi − yj ) .
1 − xi yj
i<j i,j=1

• Demazure character formula. Define

xi f (x1 , . . . , xn ) − xi+1 f (x1 , . . . , xi+1 , xi , . . . , xn )
Di · f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = .
xi − xi+1

These satisfy the relations Di2 =
Di , Di Di+1 Di = Di+1 Di Di+1 , and Di Dj = Dj Di if |i − j| >
1. Write down a product on n2 transpositions si = (i, i + 1) ∈ Sn whose product is the
longest element in Sn , i.e. the permutation σ(1) = n, σ(2) = n − 1, . . . , σ(n) = 1 (such
products correspond to wiring diagrams). For example, when n = 4, take s1 s2 s1 s3 s2 s1 .
Then, applying the corresponding Di in this order (e.g. D1 D2 D1 D3 D2 D1 above) to xλ1 1 · · · xλnn
yields sλ (x1 , . . . , xn ).

24
 • Knutson-Tao Saturation Theorem: if crν rλ,rµ 6= 0 for some r (rλ multiply the sizes of the
ν ν (polytope of BZ-
parts by r), then in fact cλ,µ . Stronger statement: if the LR-polytope Pλ,µ
triangles, or equivalently polytope of honeycombs) is non-empty, it contains a lattice point
(including boundary). Exercise: find λ, µ, ν such that Pλµ ν has a non-integer vertex (Hint: fill

in some zeroes in a BZ triangle in such a way that the boundary conditions determine the
rest of the entries, and some of them are not integers). Morally, this says that the Saturation
Theorem is not trivial, because the LR-polytope may not have integer vertices despite being
defined by integer equations.

12 October 15, 2014

Problem set deadline extended to next Wednesday.
Correspondence between Classical L-R rule and honeycombs (BZ-triangles).
T a LR-tableaux of P shape ν/λ and weight P µ. Let ai j be the number of j’s in the i-th row.
Then, define bij = λi + j 0 ≤j aij 0 and cij = i0 ≤i ai0 j . Now, the cij ’s become the coordinates of
the vertical edges of a honeycomb, i.e. the vertical lines ∗cij ∗ become vertical edges, as shown in
Figure 14. The aij s become the lengths of the edges in the NE-SW direction.

Figure 14: L-R tableaux parameters in a honeycomb.

Exercise 12.1. Check carefully that this is all a bijection (where are the bij ?). More precisely:

• w(T ) is a lattice word iff the lengths of the edges in the NW-SE direction are non-negative.

• T is a SSYT iff the lengths of the edges in the N-S direction are non-negative.

Theorem 12.2 (Knutson-Tao saturation property). If crν ν

rλ,rµ 6= 0, then cλµ 6= 0. Equivalently, if
ν
the L-R polytope Pλµ 6= ∅, then it contains at least one integer point.

The idea of the proof is to start with a honeycomb, possibly interior line segments not having
integer coordinates, then perturb the edges until you get integer coordinates.
More general honeycombs: consider rays coming from 6 directions, as shown in Figure 15. Let
a, b, c, d, ef be the number of rays coming in each direction, satisfying the hexagon condition (if we
force a = c = e = 0, get KT honeycombs; if a = d = 0 we get GP web diagrams). If you allow all
6 directions, get infinitely many honeycombs. If there are 5 directions, what numbers do you get?

25
 Figure 15: Generalized honeycombs?

Honeycombs live inside a certain class of web diagrams: given λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λn ) and µ =
(µ1 , µ2 , . . . , µn ), ν = (ν1 , ν2 , . . . , νn , 0, 0, . . . , 0), the honeycomb is the right half of the web diagram,
as in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Honeycomb inside GP diagram.

Conversely, if you have arbitrary λ, µ, ν of m, n, m + n parts, respectively, then you can add n
zeroes to the end of λ and , m zeroes to the end of µ, draw the honeycomb, then identify the result
with a web diagram.
Yet another L-R rule reformulation. Let V be a vector space with basis e0 , e1 , e2 , . . . (by con-
vention, e<0 = 0). Then R(c) : V ⊗ V → V ⊗ V is defined by sending ex ⊗ ey 7→ ey+c ⊗ ex−c if
c ≥ x − y and 0 otherwise (this is the “scattering matrix” for the particle interaction in the GP
web diagrams: a left particle originally going toward x and a right particle originally going toward
y that interact at height c get scattered to y + c, x − c, respectively).
Now given λ = (λ1 , . . . , λm ), µ = (µ1 , . . . , µn ), let Eλ = eλm ⊗ eλm−1 ⊗ · · · eλ1 ∈ V ⊗m and define
Eµ ∈ V ⊗n similarly. Then, the operator Rij (c) acts by R(c) on the i-th and j-th components of
V ⊗N and by the identity on the others.
Now, draw a wiring diagram as shown by example with m = 3, n = 2 in Figure 17. Order
the points of intersection of the wires with integers cij . Then, define the operator Rm,n (c) =
R34 (c34 )R24 (c24 ) · · · R15 (c15 ), where we read off the indices from left to right (we have to make

26
some choices – note that with all of the choices the operators in question commute with each other,
so it Rm,n doesn’t depend on the choices we make), and P let Mm,n be the sum of the Rm,n (c) over
all reverse plane partitions c. Then Mmn (Eλ ⊗ Eµ ) = ν cνλ,µ Eν .

Figure 17: Wiring diagram for L-R rule.

13 October 17, 2014

Let Sn be the symmetric group, realized as the group of bijections w : [n] → [n]; multiplication is by
composition (gh means do h, then do g). The generators are adjacent transpositions si = (i, i + 1),
and the relations are:

• si si+1 si = si+1 si si+1

• si sj = sj si for Ii − j| > 2

• s2i = 1.

A reduced decomposition is an expression w = si1 . . . sir of minimal possible length ` = `(w).

Exercise 13.1. `(w) is the number of inversions of w, i.e. the number of pairs (i, j) for which
i < j and w(i) > w(j).

To a reduced decomposition we associate a wiring diagram, shown by example.

Example 13.2. w = s1 s2 s3 s2 , shown in Figure 18. If a wire goes from j on the left to i on the
right, then w(i) = j.

Figure 18: Wiring diagram corresponding to the reduced decomposition w = s1 s2 s3 s2

Because the decomposition is reduced, two wires intersect at most once; the inversions of w
correspond to the points of intersection. The relations in Sn correspond to local moves, as shown
in Figure 19.

27
Figure 19: Local moves on wiring diagrams: si si+1 si = si+1 si si+1 (3-move), si sj = sj si (2-move)

Exercise 13.3. Any two wiring diagrams for reduced decompositions can be obtained from each
other via local moves (not obvious, because we never need to use the relation s2i = 1.

Let Ei (t) be the n×n matrix with entries (1, . . . , 1, t, t−1 , 1, . . . , 1) down the diagonal (where t is
in row i), and a 1 in the i, i+1 entry. For w = si1 · · · si` , let E(t1 , . . . , t` ) = Ei1 (t1 )Ei2 (t2 ) · · · Ei` (t` ).

Lemma 13.4. We have the following relations corresponding to local moves:

• (2-move, obvious) Ei (a)Ej (b) = Ej (b)Ei (a).

• (3-move) Ei (a)Ei+1 (b)Ei (c) = Ei+1 (a0 )Ei (b0 )Ei+1 (c0 ), where (a0 , b0 , c0 ) = ((c−1 +ab−1 )−1 , ac, a+
bc−1 ).

Proof. Exercise, if you want to practice multiplication of 3x3 matrices.

Now, consider the transformation on the wiring diagram which produces a weighted bicolored
directed graph, shown by example in Figure 20: this is the result of applying the shown transfor-
mation to the reduced decomposition w = s1 s2 s3 s2 from before.

Figure 20: Weighted bicolored directed graph from wiring diagram

P Q
The (i, j) entry of E(t1 , . . . , t` ) is P :Li →Rj e∈P w(e). In our example, E(t1 , . . . , t` ) is

E1 (t1 )E2 (t2 )E3 (t3 )E2 (t4 ) = t−1 −1 −1

1 t3 t4 + t1 t2 .

In fact,

Lemma 13.5 (Lindström Lemma/Gessel-Viennot Method). We have

X Y
∆I,J E(t1 , . . . , t` ) = w(Ps ),
P1 ,...,Pr s

where |I| = |J| = r, the sum is over non-crossing paths crossing Li , i ∈ I to Rj , j ∈ J, and the
weight of a path is the product of the weights of its edges.

28
 You can look up the proof. Carl: Fomin-Zelevinsky’s expository article on totally positive
matrices proves this.
Let Ds = ∆{w(s+1),w(s+2),...,w(n)},{s,[
s+1,s+2,...,n}
, which is a positive Laurent polynomial. Starting
with the digraph G, get the graph Gn−1 by reversing all edges along the wire Rn , and inverting all
of the weights. Then, get the graph Gn−2 by reversing all edges along the wire Rn−1 and inverting
all of the weights again. Keep going...
P
Exercise 13.6. Ds = P :Rs+1 →Rs w(P ), where the paths are taken in Gs .

Corollary 13.7. Ds depends only on w and not on choice of reduced decomposition.

Tropicalize everything: replace addition with taking minimum, and multiplication by addition.
For example, the 3-move is (a, b, c) 7→ (c−1 + ab−1 , ac, a + bc−1 ), and the tropical 3-move is

(a, b, c) 7→ (max(c, b − a), a + c, min(a, b − c))

This corresponds to taking ti = q ai and sending q 7→ 0.

14 October 24, 2014

Today we’ll finish the proof of the L-R rule. Recall that if we have a reduced decomposition
w = si1 · · · sir , we have a product of matrices E(t1 , . . . , t` ) = ei1 (t) · · · Ei` (t), where Ei (t) is the
n × n identity matrix except for the 2 × 2 block in rows and columns i, i + 1, where it is the matrix
 
t 1
.
0 t−1

These satisfy some relations:

Lemma 14.1. We have the following relations corresponding to local moves:

• Ei (a)Ej (b) = Ej (b)Ei (a).

• Ei (a)Ei+1 (b)Ei (c) = Ei+1 (a0 )Ei (b0 )Ei+1 (c0 ), where (a0 , b0 , c0 ) = ((c−1 + ab−1 )−1 , ac, a + bc−1 ).

For r = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, we have the minor Dr = ∆{w(r+1),...,w(n)},{r,[ r+1,r+2,...,n}

(E(t1 , . . . , tr )).
This corresponds to taking the wiring diagram for w, reversing the orientation of the top n − r
wires, and replacing all crossings with a pair of trivalent vertices (shown in Figure 21, then taking
the product of the weights of paths from the (r + 1)-st right vertex to the r-th right vertex (the
weights were given last time). The value of this minor is independent of reduced decomposition (to
see this, apply local moves).
Tropicalization: given f a subtraction-free rational expression in some variables, T rop(f ) is the
expression obtained by replacing × with +, / by −, and + by min. For example, T rop(xy +xz −1 ) =
min(x + y, x − z).
Let V be the vector space with basis v0 , v1 , v2 , . . ., so that V ⊗n has basis vα1 ···αn = vα1 ⊗ · · · vαn .
Define the scattering matrix Si (c) : V ⊗n → V ⊗n , c ∈ Z, by vα1 ···αn 7→ vα1 ,...,αi−1 ,αi −c,αi+1 +c,αi+2 ,...,αn
if αi ≥ c ≥ αi − αi+1 , and 0 otherwise.

Lemma 14.2. Si (a)Si+1 (b)Si (c) = Si+1 (a0 )Si (b0 )Si+1 (c0 ), where (a0 , b0 , c0 ) = (max(c, b − a), a +
c, min(a, b − c)).

This is exactly the tropical analogue of the relation among the Ei from before.

29
 Figure 21: Transformation on a wiring diagram.

P
Definition 14.3. Given w = si1 · · · sir , define the operator Sw = Si1 (c1 ) · · · Si` (c` ), where the
`
sum is taken over all (c1 , . . . , c` ) ∈ Z≥0 for which trop(Dr ) ≥ 0 for r = 1, . . . , n − 1.
Example 14.4. w = 3412 = s2 s1 s3 s2 . Then, trop(D1 ) = min(c1 − c3 , c2 − c4 ), trop(D2 ) = c4 ,
trop(D3 ) = min(c1 − c2 , c3 − c4 ). Thus, Sw is the sum of S2 (c1 )S1 (c2 )S3 (c3 )S2 (c4 ), where we sum
over c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 ∈ Z4≥0 satisfying c1 ≥ c2 , c3 ≥ c4 ≥ 0.
By looking at local moves, we can show:
Theorem 14.5. Sw depends only on w, not on its reduced decomposition.
How is this all related to the L-R rule? Fix m, n and partitions λ = (λ1 , . . . , λn ), µ =
(µ1 , . . . , µn ), ν = (ν1 , . . . , νm+n ). Then, let wm,n be the permutation (m + 1)(m + 2) · · · (m +
n)12 · · · m. Let λR = (λm , . . . , λ1 ) (reverse order of the parts).
Theorem 14.6. cνλµ is the coefficient of vν R in Swm,n (vλR ⊗ vµR ).
The latter can be represented as in Figure 22, and from here we can give a bijection to web
diagrams, so to prove L-R it suffices to prove the above theorem.

Proof. Define a product on ⊕n ≥ 0V ⊗n , by vα vβ = Swm,n (vα ⊗ vβ ), where α, β are arbitrary

vectors taking values in non-negative integers. (Exercise: this product is zero unless α1 ≤ α2 ≤
· · · αn and β1 ≤ β2 ≤ · · · ≤ βn . We need to check that · satisfies the Pieri rule (this was already
done for web diagrams), and associativity.
Fix α = (α1 , . . . , αm ), β(β1 , . . . , βn ), γ = (γ1 , . . . , γk ); we need to show that (vα vβ ) vγ =
vα (vβ vγ ). In terms of wiring diagrams, this may be represented as in Figure 23.
Note that each wiring diagram represents the same permutation wm,n,k , and furthermore both
products are equal to Swm,n,k (vα ⊗ vβ ⊗ vγ ). Equivalently, if we transform one wiring diagram into
another, all of the inequalities on one side transform into the other.

The next topic of the course is the Flag variety (manifold) Fln , the spae of complete flags
0 = V0 ⊂ V1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Vn = Cn . We will define a Schubert decomposition into Schubert cells labeled
by permutations w ∈ Sn . The closures of Schubert cells define cohomology classes which form a
basis of the cohomology ring, and the Schubert cells are ordered by the Bruhat order on Sn . We’ll
start with the combinatorics and then go to the geometry later.

30
 Figure 22: Wiring Diagrams and Web Diagram

Figure 23: Associativity of

Definition 14.7. We define the weak Bruhat order on Sn by declaring u l v if v = usi , with
si = (i, i + 1), and `(v) = `(u) + 1. In the strong Bruhat order, we define u <s v the same is
true, but si is allowed to be any transposition.

Warning: some people switch the names of the weak and strong Bruhat order.

Example 14.8. Bruhat orders on S3 : weak on the left and strong on the right in Figure 24

15 October 29, 2014

We’ll define the Schubert polynomials Sw , where w is a permutation. Two approaches:

• “Top-to-bottom” approach via divided difference operators: Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand (1974),

Demazure, Lascoux-Schuzenberger (1982). Define Sw for the longest permutation, then go
down the weak Bruhat order.

31
 Figure 24: Weak and strong Bruhat orders

• “Bottom-to-top” approach via Monk’s formula (1959), go up the strong Bruhat order.
Today, we’ll do the first construction.
Definition 15.1. Define the divided difference operators ∂i on C[x1 , . . . , xn ] by
f (x1 , . . . , xn ) − f (x1 , . . . , xi+1 , xi , . . . , xn ) 1
∂i (f ) = = (1 − si )(f ).
xi − xi+1 xi − xi+1
It is clear that this is a polynomial.
Lemma 15.2. The operators ∂i satisfy nil-Coxeter relations:
• ∂i2 = 0
• ∂i ∂j = ∂j ∂i if |i − j| ≥ 2
• ∂i ∂i+1 ∂i = ∂i+1 ∂i ∂i+1
1 1
Proof. We’ll prove the first relation. Note that xi −xi+1 (1 − si ) = (1 + si ) xi −x i+1
. Then

1 1
∂i2 = (1 − si ) (1 − si )
xi − xi+1 xi − xi+1
1 1
= (1 − si )(1 + si ) =0
xi − xi−1 xi − xi+1
= 0.

The other two relations may be checked directly.

Definition 15.3. If w = si1 si2 · · · si` is a reduced decomposition of w ∈ Sn , define ∂w = ∂i1 · · · ∂i` .
By the nil-Coxeter relations, this operator depends only on w (not on reduced decomposition).
We now define the Schubert polynomials Sw (x1 , . . . , xn ) and Double Schubert polynomials
Sw (x1 , . . . , xn ; y1 , . . . , yn ) (specializing at yi = 0 recovers the Schubert polynomials). First, for the
longest permutation w0 = (n, n − 1, . . . , 1), define
Y
Sw0 (x; y) = (xi − yj ),
i+j≤n,j,j≥1

so that Sw0 (x) = xn−1

1 xn−2
2 · · · x0n . Then, if `(wsi ) = `(w) − 1, define Swsi (x; y) = ∂i Sw (x; y).
Here, the ∂i act only on the xj ’s.

32
Example 15.4. n = 3. Sw0 (x) = x21 x2 . Length 2: Ss1 s2 (x) = ∂1 (x21 x2 ) = x1 x2 and Ss2 s1 (x)(s21 s2 ) =
x21 . Length 1: Ss1 (x) = ∂2 (x1 x2 ) = x1 and Ss2 (x) = ∂1 (x21 ) = x1 + x2 . Finally, S1 (x) = 1.

In fact, Sw (x) ∈ Z≥0 [x1 , . . . , xn ], and Sw (x, −y) ∈ Z≥0 [x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn ]. This is not yet
obvious.
From the perspective of AG, any choice of Sw (x) will work: the polynomials you get are
representatives of Schubert classes in the cohomology ring of the Flag manifold. Our particular
choice of Sw (x) lends itself to some nice combinatorial aspects, which we will get to next.

Definition 15.5. The nil-Coxeter algebra N Cn over C is generated by u1 , . . . , un−1 with the
nil-Coxeter relations as before.

This is almost the group algebra C[Sn ], except here u2i = 0 instead of 1. The nil-Coxeter
algebra has basis indexed by permutations: if w = si1 · · · si` is a reduced decomposition, then
uw = ui1 · · · ui` . Given permutations u, w ∈ Sn , we have uv uw = uv·w if `(v) + `(w) = `(v + w) and
uv uw = 0 otherwise.
(There is a closely related object, the nil-Hecke algebra, generated by ∂i and xj .)
Let hi (x) = 1 + xui ∈ N Cn [x] (so x commutes with all of the ui ). These satisfy the following
relations:

• hi (x)hi (y) = hi (x + y)

• hi (x)hj (y) = hj (y)hi (x)

• hi (x)hi+1 (x + y)hi (y) = hi+1 (y)hi (x + y)hi+1 (x) (Yang-Baxter relation)

Given a reduced decomposition, we produce an operator φ as follows: draw the wiring diagram,
then multiply the operators hi (xj − xk ) from left to right, where hi corresponds to si , and xj − sk
corresponds to the transposition of the wires xj and xk (labeled on the right).

Example 15.6. w = s1 s3 s2 s1 s4 s3 . Then, φ = h1 (x2 − x4 )h3 (x1 − x5 )h2 (x1 − x4 )h1 (x1 − x2 )h4 (x3 −
x5 )h3 (x3 − x4 ). The wiring diagram with weights is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Operator from wiring diagram

This operator only depends on w: for example, the fact that the operator is preserved under a
3-move is just the Yang-Baxter relation.
Now, define the operator φ ∈ N Cn [x1 , . . . , xn ; y1 , . . . , yn as follows: start with the diagram in
Figure 26, then label each crossing with xj − yk , corresponding to the wires intersecting there.

33
Then, multiply the operators hi (xj − yk ) from left to right, where i is the height of the crossing as
before. Then φn = hn−1 (x1 − yn−1 )hn−2 (x1 − yn−2 ) · · · hn−1 (xn−1 − y1 ). This operator is preserved
under 2-moves, but not under 3-moves. When we set yi = yn+1−i , this recovers the same operator
from before.

Figure 26: Operator φ from maximal length permutation

P
Theorem 15.7 (Fomin-Stanley, Billey-Jockush-Stanley). φn = w∈Sn Sw (x; y)uw .

For n = 3, we have φ3 = h2 (x1 − y2 )h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x2 − y1 ) = (1 + (x1 − y2 )u2 )(1 + (x1 −
y1 )u1 )(1 + (x2 − y1 )u2 ).

16 October 31, 2014

Recall that the nilCoxeter algebra is generated by u1 , . . . , un−1 with relations u2i = 0, ui uj =
uj ui for |i − j| ≥ 2, and ui ui+1 ui = ui+1 ui ui+1 . For w = si1 · · · si` a reduced composition, we
defined uw = ui1 · · · ui` . We have hi (x) = 1 + xui , satisfying the relatiosn hi (x)hi (y) = hi (x + y),
hi (x)hj (y) = hj (y)hi (x) if |i − j| ≥ 2, and hi (x)hi+1 (x + y)hi (y) = hi+1 (y)hi (x + y)hi+1 (x) (Yang-
Baxter relation).
Define (order of the terms in the product matters!)
n−1
Y 1
Y
φn = hi+j−1 (xi − yj ),
i=1 j=n−i

which comes from the wiring diagram of the longest permutation in Figure 26.
P
Theorem 16.1 (Fomin-Stanley, Billey-Jockush-Stanley). φn = w∈Sn Sw (x; y)uw .

For n = 3, we have

φ3 = h2 (x1 − y2 )h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x2 − y1 ) = (1 + (x1 − y2 )u2 )(1 + (x1 − y1 )u1 )(1 + (x2 − y1 )u2 )
= 1 + (x1 − y1 )u1 + (x1 − y2 + x2 − y1 )u2
+ (x1 − y1 )(x2 − y1 )u1 u2 + (x1 − y2 )(x1 − y1 )u2 u1 + (x1 − y2 )(x1 − y1 )(x2 − y1 )u2 u1 u2 .
P
Proof of Theorem 16.1. Say φn = w fw (x1 , . . . , xn ; y1 , . . . , yn ). We have fw0 = Sw0 by definition,
where w0 is the longest permutation. By induction, it suffices to show that ∂i (fw ) = fwsi if
`(wsi ) = `(w) − 1. It suffices to prove the following lemma:

34
Lemma 16.2. ∂i (φn ) = φn · ui .
Indeed, this lemma would imply
X X
∂i (fw )uw = fv uv ui ,
w∈Sn v∈Sn

and uv ui = uvsi if `(vsi ) = `(v) + 1 and uv ui = 0 otherwise; then compare coefficients.

So we need to prove
1
(1 − si )(φn ) = φn ui
xi − xi+1
φn − si (φn ) = φn (xi − xi+1 )ui
φn (1 + (xi+1 − xi )ui ) = si (φn )
φn · hi (xi+1 − xi ) = si (φn ).
Example 16.3. n = 3, i = 2.
φ3 · h2 (x3 − x2 ) = h2 (x1 − y2 )h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x2 − y1 )h2 (x3 − x2 )
= h2 (x1 − y2 )h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x3 − y1 )
= s2 (φ3 ).
Example 16.4. n = 3, i = 1.
φ3 · h1 (x2 − x1 ) = h2 (x1 − y2 )h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x2 − y1 )h1 (x2 − x1 )
= h2 (x1 − y2 )h2 (x2 − x1 )h1 (x2 − y1 )h2 (x1 − y1 )
= h2 (x2 − y2 )h1 (x2 − y1 )h2 (x1 − y1 )
= s1 (φ3 ).
Let’s do the general case. We slightly change the order of the terms in φn , but enough factors
commute with each other such that we get the same operator.

φn = hn−1 (x1 − yn−1 )[hn−2 (x1 − yn2 )hn−1 (x2 − yn−2 )] · · · [h1 (x1 − y1 )h2 (x2 − y1 ) · · · hn−1 (xn−1 − y1 )
= H (1) H (2) · · · H (n−1)

We claim that H (n−1) hi (xi+1 − xi ) = si (H (n−1) ) if i = n − 1 and hi+1 (xi+1 − xi )si (H (n−1) )
otherwise. Indeed, in the first case, the last factor in H (n−1) and hi (xi+1 − xi ) combine to get
hn−1 (xn − y1 ), and the result is exactly sn−1 (H (n−1) ). In the second, the hi (xi+1 − xi ) commutes
with all of the terms going from right to left until it runs into hi (xi − y1 )hi+1 (xi+1 − yi ). Now,
apply Yang-Baxter, to get hi+1 (xi+1 − x1 )hi (xi+1 − y1 )hi+1 (xi − y1 ), then commute hi+1 (xi+1 − x1 )
past everything on the left; the result is hi+1 (xi+1 − xi )si (H (n−1) ).
Now apply this claim repeatedly and follow your nose.

RC-graphs/Pipe Dreams. Start with a diagram as in the left of Figure 27, and break some of
the crossings in such a way that any two resulting “pipes” intersect at most one point. The weight
of an intersection point is xi − yj , where xi is the label directly below (go straight down, not along
a pipe) and yj is the label directly to the left. The weight of the diagram D is the product of the
weights on the intersection points. The permutation associated to D is the permutation sending i
to σ(i), where the pipes connect xi to yσ(i) .
We have the following consequence of Theorem 16.1:

35
 Figure 27: Pipe Dream

P
Theorem 16.5. Sw (x, y) = D wt(D), where the sum is taken over pipe dreams D associated to
the permutation w.

Corollary 16.6. Sw (x, −y) ∈ Z≥0 [x1 , . . . , xn ; y1 , . . . , yn ].

We also have stability: Sn embeds into Sn+1 in the obvious way: given w ∈ Sn , produce
we ∈ Sn+1 by acting by w in the first n letters and fixing the last one. Then, Sw (x; y) = Swe (x; y).
Indeed, the only way to get a Pipe Dream associated to w, e we need to break all of the outermost
crossings to get a pipe from xn+1 to yn+1 , then build a Pipe Dream associated to w underneath.
The weight of the Pipe Dream of size n is the same as the one of size n + 1.
We now define S∞ as the injective limit of all of the finite symmetric groups: concretely this
the group of permuations of Z that are eventually the identity. By stability, we can define Sw (x; y)
for any w ∈ S∞ .

Proposition 16.7. Sw (x; y) = Sw (x; 0) form a linear basis of C[x1 , x2 , . . .].

We’ll prove this later.

A pipe dream for w can be reflected over the line y = x, yielding a pipe dream for w, and
swapping the roles of the x and y. We find that Sw (x, −y) = Sw−1 (y, −x).
We have Cauchy formulas: first recall the story for Schur polynomials.

• (Cauchy) i,j 1−x1i yj = λ sλ (x)sλ (y)

Q P

Q P
• (dual Cauchy) i,j (1 + xi yj ) = λ sλ (s)sλ0 (y)

For Schubert polynomials,

Y X
Sw0 (x; −y) = (xi + yj ) = Sw (x)Sww0 (y).
i+j≤n,i,j≥1 w∈Sn

More generally, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 16.8. For any w ∈ Sn ,

X
Sw (x; −y) = Su (x)Sv (y).

where the sum is over all u, v ∈ Sn where w = v −1 u and `(w) = `(u) + `(v).

Exercise: can you recover the usual Cauchy formulas from the Schubert polynomial version?

36
17 November 5, 2014
Recall:
Lemma 17.1. φn hi (xi+1 − xi ) = si (φn ).
We will now prove a Cauchy formula for Schubert polynomials:
Theorem 17.2. For any w ∈ Sn ,
X
Sw (x; −y) = Su (x)Sv (y).

where the sum is over all u, v ∈ Sn where w = v −1 u and `(w) = `(u) + `(v).
P P
Proof.
P Let φ(x, y) = φP n = w∈Sn Sw (x, y)uw . We have φ(x, 0) = w∈Sn Sw (x)uw and φ(0, y) =
w∈Sn S w (0, y)u w = S
w∈Sn w −1 (−y)u w . Because uv · uw = uvw if `(vw) = `(v) + `(w) and
uv · uw = 0 otherwise, the identity is equivalent to φ(x, y) = φ(0, y)φ(x, 0).
In fact, we have φ(x, 0) = hn−1 (x1 ) · · · h1 (x1 )hn−1 (x2 ) · · · h2 (x2 ) · · · hn−1 (xn−1 ), and each factor
hi (x) has inverse hi (−x), so the whole product may be inverted term-by-term (order needs to be
reversed): φ(x, 0)−1 = hn−1 (−xn−1 ) · · · h2 (−x2 ) · · · hn−1 (−x2 )h1 (−x1 ) = H, and it suffices to prove
φ(x, y)φ(x, 0)−1 = φ(0, y). Denote ψ(x1 , . . . , xn ) = φ(x, y), so that ψ(0, . . . , 0) = φ(0, y). We need
to show that ψ(x1 , . . . , xn )H = ψ(0, . . . , 0).
Because Schubert polynomials don’t depend on the last variable xn (by construction, or by
Pipe Dreams), ψ(x1 , . . . , xn ) = ψ(x1 , . . . , xn−1 , 0). Multiply on the right by the leftmost term of
H, namely hn−1 (0 − xn−1 ), which swaps the last two variables (by the lemma from before), giving
ψ(x1 , . . . , xn−2 , 0, xn−1 ) = ψ(x1 , . . . , xn−2 , 0, 0). Next, multiply on the right by the next two terms
of H, which swaps xn−2 with the penultimate 0, then the last 0; then replace the xn−2 , which is
now in the last argument, with 0. Continuing in this way, we get ψ(0, . . . , 0) at the end.

Recall pipe dreams from last time, and the following theorem:
P
Theorem 17.3. Sw (x, y) = D wt(D), where the sum is taken over pipe dreams D associated to
the permutation w.

Figure 28: Sid

Note that Sid = 1, because there’s only one pipe dream associated to the identity, and there
are no intersections. Also, Ssk (x, y) = x1 + · · · + xk − y1 − · · · − yk – shown by picture for k = 3
in Figure 28. In particular, Ssk (x) = x1 + · · · + xk = e1 (x1 , . . . , xk ). In general, Sw (x, y) is a
bihomogeneous polynomial of degree `(w) (clear from pipe dreams or divided difference operators).

37
Definition 17.4. Fix 1 ≤ k ≤ n. w ∈ Sn is Grassmannian if w(1) < w(2) < · · · < w(k) and
w(k + 1) < · · · < w(n), w has at most one descent, in position k.

Figure 29: Young diagram to Grassmann permutation

Such permutations are in bijection with k-element subsets I = {w(1), . . . , w(k)}, which in turn
are in bijection with Young diagrams λ ⊂ k × (n − k). After some rotations, we can express this
bijection as in Figure 29.
Sidenote:

Exercise 17.5. w ∈ Sn is fully commutative if any two reduced decompositions for w are
obtained from each other via 2-moves (these include Grassmannian permutations). Show that w is
fully commutative iff it is 321-avoiding, and that the number of such permutations is the Catalan
number Cn .

What is the Schubert polynomial associated to a Grasmannian permutation? Given λ ⊂ k ×

(n − k), let wλ be the corresponding Grasmannian permutation. Then:

Theorem 17.6. Swλ (x) = sλ (x1 , . . . , xk ).

Monomials on the left hand side correspond to pipe dreams, and monomials on the right hand
side correspond to SSYT. We want a bijection between these objects. For convenience, we’ll consider
anti-SSYT, which means that numbers weakly decrease across rows and strongly decrease down
rows. Start with the anti-SSYT as in the left of Figure 30
Then, build a pipe dream as follows: start in the third column, then go up over two crossings,
corresponding to the two 3s in the first row of the anti-SSYT. Then, avoid the next crossing, move
to the left, then start moving up again. The next entry in the first row is a single 1, so move up
and go over one crossing, then avoid the next by moving to the left. Now start over with the second
row of the anti-SSYT, and the second column of the pipe dream, and finally do the third row and
the first column of the pipe dream. The resulting pipes should not cross, and the rest of the pipes
can be filled in uniquely so that there are no more crossings.
The result is shown on the right of Figure 30.

38
 Figure 30: Pipe Dream from SSYT

18 November 7, 2014
Today all Schubert polynomials will be in one variable.

Definition 18.1. The coinvariant algebra Cn is C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In , where In is the ideal generated
by by symmetric polynomials with no constant term.

Theorem 18.2. dim Cn = n!. In fact, H ∗ (Fln , C) ∼

= Cn , and the cohomology ring has a linear
basis of Schubert classes.

Let Vn denote the span of “staircase monomials” xa = xa11 · · · xann , where 0 ≤ ai ≤ n − i for all
i (i.e. monomials dividing Sw0 = xn−1
1 x2n−2 · · · xn−1 . Clearly dim Vn = n!.

Theorem 18.3. We have:

1. The Schubert polynomials Sw form a linear basis of Vn .

2. The cosets of Schubert polynomials Sw = Sw + In form a linear basis of Cn .

3. The cosets of staircase polynomials xa = xa + In form a linear basis of Cn .

Recall that if w = si1 · · · si` is a reduced decomposition, ∂w = ∂i1 · · · ∂i` , then Sw = Sw−1 w0 (Sw0 ).

Lemma 18.4. If u, w ∈ Sn with `(u) = `(w), then ∂u (Sw ) = ∂uw .

Proof. ∂u (Sw ) = ∂u (∂w−1 w0 Sw0 ) = (∂u ∂w−1 w0 )(Sw ). But ∂u ∂w−1 w0 unless `(u) + `(w−1 w0 ) =
`(uw−1 w0 ). But `(w−1 w0 ) = `(w0 ) − `(w), so this only happens when uw−1 w0 = w0 , i.e. u = w.
Now, ∂w0 (Sw0 ) = Sid = 1 (clear from Pipe Dreams).

Lemma 18.5. The Sw are linearly independent.

P
Proof. Suppose not; because Schubert polynomials are homogeneous, we can assume w αw Sw = 0
where we sum over w of length `. Now, for each such w, apply ∂w to both sides; by the previous
lemma, αw = 0.

39
Proof of Theorem 18.3(1). First, note that Sw ∈ Vn ; this is clear from Pipe Dreams (or from
divided differences, or the Cauchy formula). They are linearly independent, and span a subspace
of Vn with equal dimension, so it’s the whole space. The other two statements are equivalent.
P
Recall the Kostka numbers Kλµ , defined by sλ = µ Kλµ mµ ; Kλµ is the number of SSYT of
shape λ and weight µ. Analogously:
Definition 18.6. Let K = (Kw,a ) be the Kostka-Schubert matrix,P indexed by permutations w
and vectors a corresponding to staircase monomials, where Sw = a
Kw,a x ; Kw,a is the number
of pipe dreams with permutation w and weight xa .
Exercise 18.7. Find some orders on w, a that makes this matrix upper triangular with 1s down
the diagonal.
Problem: how do you invert this matrix? (This was done by Egecioglu-Remmel for the Kostka
matrix)
Corollary 18.8. The polynomials Sw for w ∈ S∞ form a linear basis for C[x1 , x2 , . . .].
To address parts (2) and (3) of the Theoremschubertspan, we need the theory of Grobner bases.
Let I ⊂ C[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a non-zero ideal. Fix a total order on monomials satisfying:
• xa ≺ xb ⇒ xa xi ≺ xb xi for all i;

• xa ≺ xb if xb is divisible by xa .
For f ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ], let in(f ) be the leading term of f (highest in the monomial order, and
let M = in(I) denote the monomial ideal spanned by in(f ), for f ∈ I. We can choose a set of
minimal generators xa1 , . . . , xaN of M ; these can be found when n = 2 by mapping each monomial
xa y b to a point (a, b) ∈ Z2 , then taking the corners of the lattice path bounding the discrete region
formed by these points. (Similar thing for higher n).
Theorem 18.9. There exists a unique reduced Grobner basis f1 , . . . , fN ∈ I such that:
• hf1 , . . . , fN i = I,

• xai = in(fi ) (and the coefficient of xai in fi is 1), and

• no monomial in fi is divisible by xaj if i 6= j.

Theorem 18.10. For the reduced Grobner basis of I, the set of monomials xa ∈
/ in(I) form a
linear basis in C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I.
Buchberger’s Algorithm: let g1 , . . . , gm be generators of I; want to turn these into a reduced
Grobner basis. For any gi , gj , let gi = αxa + · · · , gj = βxb + · · · , where the terms not shown
have lower order than the leading term. Let xc be the least common multiple of xa , xb , and let
gij = α1 xc−a gi − β1 xc−b gj (do this for all i, j). Then, “reduce,” by subtracting away some terms
from the gij if they are divisible by the initial monomials xai . Repeat this until you get a Grobner
basis (details omitted), which happens when all of the gij are zero.
Back to the coinvariant algebra: fix the degree lex term order, i.e. order first by total degree,
then lexicographically.
Proposition 18.11 (Sturmfels). The reduced Grobner basis of In is given by hk (x1 , . . . , n + 1 − k),
where k = 1, 2, . . . , n.

40
Example 18.12. When n = 3, the Grobner basis is h1 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = x1 + x2 + x3 , h2 (x1 , x2 ) =
x21 + x1 x2 + x22 , and h3 (x1 ) = x31 . The minimal generators of the initial ideal M3 are x31 , x22 , x3 , and
the standard monomials are exactly the staircase monomials, so we get part (3) of the theorem.

Exercise 18.13. Check that the ideal generated by the hk (x1 , . . . , n + 1 − k) is indeed In .

Helpful identity for the above:

Exercise 18.14. hk (x1 , . . . , x` ) = det(ej−i+1 (x1 , . . . , xk+`−i ))ki,j=1 . (This is some modification of
Jacobi-Trudi.)

19 November 12, 2014

Recall:

• Swλ = sλ (x1 , . . . , xn )

• Ssk = x1 + · · · + xk

• Ssk−r+1 ...,sk = er (x1 , . . . , xk )

• Ssk sk−1 ···sk−r+1 = hr (x1 , . . . , xk−r+1 ).

P
Theorem 19.1 (Chevalley-Monk formula, version 1 (S∞ )). For all w ∈ Sn , Sw Ssk = Swtij ,
where the sum is over all i, j such that i ≤ k < j and `(wtij ) = `(w) + 1.

Theorem 19.2 P (Chevalley-Monk formula, version 2). Fix n, and w ∈ Sn such that w(n) = n.
Then Sw Ssk = Swtij , where the sum is taken over all i, j such that 1 ≤ i ≤ k < j ≤ n and
`(wtij ) = `(w) + 1.

Recall from last time that the Sw form a linear basis for the space Vn spanned by staircase
monomials xa11 · · · xann . Note now that if Sw ∈ Vn−1 , then Sw Ssk ∈ Vn .

Theorem 19.3 (Chevalley-Monk formula, version 3). For w ∈ Sn , let Sw denote the coset Sw +In ,
n ⊂ C[x1 , . . . , xn ] is generated by symmetric polynomials without constant term.
where the ideal IP
Then, Sw Ssk = Swtij .

Exercise 19.4. In is spanned by Sw (x1 , . . . , xn , 0, . . .) for w ∈ S∞ \Sn .

Recall that H ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ∼

= Λ/hsλ , λ 6⊂ k × (n − k)i. Analogously,

H ∗ (Fln ) ∼
= C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/hSw (x1 , . . . , xn , 0, . . .), w ∈ S∞ \Sn i.

Proof
P of Version 2. Let w ∈ Sn with w(n) = n, so that Sw ∈ Vn−1 and Sw Ssk . Let Sw Ssk =
u u Su ; by looking at degrees, in order for βu 6= 0 we need `(u) = `(w) + `(sk ) = `(w) + 1. Note
β
also that βu = ∂u (Sw Ssk ).
Lemma 19.5 (Leibniz rule for ∂u ). For all f, g ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ], ∂i (f · g) = ∂i (f )si (g) + f ∂i (g).

Proof. Exercise.

41
 Let u = si1 · · · si` . Then, βu = ∂i1 ∂i2 · · · ∂i` (Sw Ssk ). Applying the Leibniz rule and the fact
that hitting Ssk (which has degree 1) with two divided difference operators gives zero, we get
`
X
βu = ir · · · ∂i` (Sw )∂ir (sir+1 · · · si` (Ssk ))
∂i1 · · · ∂c
r=1

The first term is equal to 1 if and only if si1 · · · sc ir · · · si` = w is a reduced decomposition. To
see this, note that w = u(si` si`−1 · · · sir sir+1 · · · si` ) where the product of transpositions is itself a
transposition tij ; i = si` si`−1 · · · sir+1 (ir ) and j = si` si`−1 · · · sir+1 (ir + 1).
Now, let ν = sir+1 · · · si` . Then, we have ν(Ssk ) = xν(1) + xν(2) + · · · + xν(k) , so we find
∂ir (ν(Ssk )) = 1 if i ∈ {1, . . . , k}, j ∈ / {1, 2, . . . , k}, ∂ir (ν(Ssk )) = 1 if i 6∈ {1, 2, . . . , k} and j ∈
{1, 2, . . . , k} (impossible, because i < j), and ∂ir (ν(Ssk )) = 0 otherwise. From here, we get the
conclusion.

Let Tij be an operator on C[x1 , x2 , . . .] define by Tij (Sw ) = Swtij if `(wtij ) = `(w) + 1, and
Tij (Sw ) = 0 otherwise. Then, the Chevalley-Monk formula says
X
Ssk Sw = Tij (Sw ).
i≤k<j
P P
Corollary 19.6. Define the Dunkl operators Xk = − i<k Tik + j>k Tkj . Then xk Sw =
Xk (Sw ) for any w ∈ S∞ .

This follows from the fact that xk = Ssk − Ssk−1 .

Consider the generalized L-R coefficients cw
P w
uv , so that Su Sv = w cuv Sw . No simple
combinatorial interpretation is known, but one way to calculate them is to write Su as a product
of sums of Tij , then expand; each term will be give you a single Schubert polynomial.

Example 19.7. Ss1 s2 Sw = x1 x2 Sw = (T12 + T13 + T14 + · · · )(−T12 + T23 + T24 + · · · )(Sw ).

The problem here is that this doesn’t make it obvious that the cw
uv are non-negative.
The Tij satisfy the following quadratic relations:

• Tij2 = 0.

• Tij Tk` = Tk` Tij if i, j, k, ` are pairwise distinct.

• Tij Tjk = Tik Tij + Tjk Tik .

• Tjk Tij = Tij Tik + Tik Tjk .

The algebra generated by the Tij with the relations above is the Fomin-Kirillov algebra. It is
conjectured that these relations are enough to cancel all of the negative terms above, so that we
get a non-negative formula for the generalized L-R coefficients.

20 November 14, 2014 (notes by Cesar Cuenca)

Recap from last time: Schubert polynomials Sw , w ∈ S∞ , form a C-linear basis of C[x1 , x2 , . . .].
We defined the operators Tij on C[x1 , . . .] such that Tij Sw = Swtij , if l(wtij ) = l(w) + 1, and
Tij Sw = 0 otherwise. We proved the Chevalley-Monk formula

42
 X
Ssk · Sw = Tij Sw .
i≤k<j
P P
We introduced the Dunkl operators Xk = − i<k Tik + j>k Tkj and derived, using that
Ssk = x1 + x2 + . . . + xk ,

xk · Sw = Xk (Sw ).
The operators Tij satisfy the relations discovered by Sergey Fomin and Alexander Kirillov:

Tij2 = 0
Tij Tjk = Tjk Tik + Tik Tij
Tjk Tij = Tik Tjk + Tij Tik
Tij Tkl = Tkl Tij

Note. Alexander Postnikov told me after class that there is an analogous Orlik-Solomon al-
gebra, which is simpler, and looks more anticommutative. Pavel Ilyich later told me that the
Orlik-Solomon algebra is Koszul dual to the “Lie algebra” of the braid group.

By using the Fomin-Kirillov relations, one can then prove the following proposition.

Proposition 20.1 (Pieri Formula). If 1 ≤ r ≤ k, then

X
er (x1 , . . . , xk ) · Sw = Ti1 j1 Ti2 j2 . . . Tir jr (Sw ),
i1 ,...,ir ,j1 ,...,jr

where the sum is over all (2r)-tuples of integers i1 , . . . , ir , j1 , . . . , jr ∈ {1, . . . , r} such that:

1. i1 , . . . , ir ≤ k < j1 , . . . , jr .

2. i1 , . . . , ir are distinct.

3. j1 ≤ j2 ≤ . . . ≤ jr .

Proof. Exercise.

There is an analogous Pieri formula for the homogeneous symmetric polynomials instead of the
elementary symmetric polynomials.

Proposition 20.2 (Pieri formula). If 1 ≤ r ≤ k, then

X
hr (x1 , . . . , xk ) · Sw = Ti1 j1 Ti2 j2 . . . Tir jr (Sw ),
i1 ,...,ir ,j1 ,...,jr

where the sum is over all (2r)-tuples of integers i1 , . . . , ir , j1 , . . . , jr ∈ {1, . . . , r} such that:

1. i1 , . . . , ir ≤ k < j1 , . . . , jr .

2. i1 ≤ i2 ≤ . . . ≤ ir .

3. j1 , j2 , . . . , jr are distinct.

43
 We introduce an automorphism ω of the coinvariant algebra C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In , that sends xi to
−xn−i+1 , for all i.

Remark 20.3. You should think of this as an analogue to the automorphism ω of the ring of
symmetric functions Λ. Geometrically, in the case of symmetric functions, the automorphism
reflects the geometric fact that Gr(k, n) ∼
= Gr(n − k, n). In the case of Schubert polynomials, it
reflects the isomorphism F ln −→ F ln of the flag manifold that sends the complete flag V1 ⊂ V2 ⊂
. . . ⊂ Vn to its complementary flag V1⊥ ⊃ V2⊥ ⊃ . . . ⊃ Vn⊥ .

Proposition 20.4. ω sends Sw to Sw0 ww0 , for any w ∈ Sn .

Proof. For any k, we claim ω(Gsk ) = Gsn−k . This follows from two facts: (a) Ssk = e1 (x1 , . . . , xk ) =
x1 + x2 + . . . + xk , and (b) −xn − xn−1 − . . . − xn−k+1 = x1 + x2 + . . . + xn−k in the coinvariant
algebra Cn = C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In . Thus ω sends G(sk )−G(sk−1 ) = xk to G(sn−k )−G(sn−k+1 ) = xn−k .

Thus ω sends Gw0 to itself. It is not hard to prove (a) ω∂i = ω∂n−i and (b) si w0 = w0 sn−i .
From both we can easily prove ω(G)w = Gw0 w0 by reverse induction, i.e., top-down.

Theorem 20.5. The following are bases of Cn :

1. Sw , w ∈ Sn .

2. xa11 xa22 . . . xann , 0 ≤ ai ≤ n − i.

3. ei1 ,...,ein−1 := ei1 (x1 )ei2 (x1 , x2 ) . . . ein−1 (x1 , . . . , xn−1 ), 0 ≤ ir ≤ r.

4. hi1 ,...,hin−1 := hi1 (x1 )hi2 (x1 , x2 ) . . . hin−1 (x1 , . . . , xn−1 ), 0 ≤ ir ≤ n − r.

(k) (1) (m)
If we denote ei = ei (x1 , . . . , xk ), then the third basis is ei1 ,...,im = ei1 . . . eim .

Lemma 20.6. The polynomials ei1 ,...,im , for all m; i1 , i2 , . . . , im , form a basis of C[x1 , x2 , . . .].
(i) (i−1) (1) (1) (1)
Proof. Indeed, one can write xi as e1 − e1 . This proves that elements of the form ei1 ei2 · · · eim
span C[x1 , x2 , . . .]. From the straightening rule below, it follows that ei1 ,...,em span C[x1 , x2 , . . .].
We need to show they are linearly independent.

Assume there is a finite C-linear combination

(1) (m)
X
αi1 ,...,im ei1 · · · eim = 0.

We show that all αi1 ,...,im = 0. For any n, let xn+1 = xn+2 = . . . = 0, so that we can assume the
linear combination runs over m ≤ n, 0 ≤ ir ≤ r for all r. Then, by reducing modulo In , we have
(1) (m)
X
αi1 ,...,im ei1 · · · eim = 0.

(1) (m) (1) (r)

The reductions ei1 · · · eim with m ≤ n, 0 ≤ ir ≤ r, span Cn because ei1 · · · eir span C[x1 , x2 , . . .].
(n) (1) (m)
As ei ∈ In for being symmetric without constant term, then we ei1 · · · eim with m < n, 0 ≤ ir ≤ r,
span Cn . There are n! of these terms and dim(Cn ) = dim(C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In ) = n!, so it follows that
αi1 ,...,im = 0, whenever 0 ≤ ir ≤ m and m < n. But n was chosen arbitrarily, so all αi1 ,...,im = 0.

44
Lemma 20.7 (Straightening Rule). We have
(k) (k) (k+1) (k) (k+1) (k) (k) (k+1)
X
ei ej = ei ej + (ei−l ej−l − ei−l ej+l ).
l≥1

Proof. Exercise.

Now we turn to some geometry.

The flag manifold F ln consists of all complete flags W = (W1 ⊂ W2 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Wn = Cn ). There
is a natural transitive action of GLn . The stabilizer is the Borel subgroup B = StabGLn (F ln ).
Then F ln = GLn /B, and also F ln = Un /T , where T is the maximal torus.

If w ∈ Sn , we let rw (p, q) := #{i ≤ p, w(i) ≥ q}.

Definition 20.8. (Schubert Cell) Xwo = {W ∈ F ln : dim(Wp ∩ Vq ) = rw (p, q) for all p, q}.

21 November 19, 2014

Recall the Chevalley-Monk formula: for w ∈ Sn , r = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, we have
X
Ssr Sw = Swtij (mod In ),

where the sum is over i, j satisfying i ≤ r < j, `(wtij ) = `(w) + 1, and In is the ideal generated by
symmetric polynomials in n variables with no constant term. Note that Ssr = x1 + · · · + xr .

Corollary 21.1 (Chevalley). We have

X
(y1 x1 + · · · + yn xn )Sw (x) = (yi − yj )Swtij (mod In ),

where the sum is taken over i, j as before.

Consider the specialization y1 = n, y2 = n − 1, . . . , yn = 1. Then, take the weight of a saturated

chain in the strong Bruhat order to be the product of the yi − yj , where the edges along the chain
correspond to the transpositions tij . Then,
n
P

Theorem 21.2. chains w(chain) = 2 !, where we sum over all saturated chains in the strong
Bruhat order.

On the other hand, consider all reduced decompositions of the longest permutation w0 =
si1 · · · si` , corresponding to saturated chains in the weak Bruhat order. Then, let the weight of
a chain be the product of the ij . Then,
n
P

Theorem 21.3. chains w(chain) = 2 !, where we sum over all saturated chains in the weak
Bruhat order.

For general yi , we get a weighted sum of

n


2 !
Y
(yi − yj ).
1!2! · · · (n − 1)!
1≤i<j≤n

We will prove the first formula (strong order), but the second (weak order) is an exercise.

45
Definition 21.4. Give f, g ∈ C[x1 , . . . , xn ], define the D-pairing hf, giD to be the constant term
of  
∂ ∂
f ,..., g(x1 , . . . , xn ).
∂x1 ∂xn
This is a symmetric bilinear form on C[x1 , . . . , xn ].
n a1 an
o
x
Example 21.5. {xa11 · · · xann } and a11 ! · · · xann ! are dual bases with respect to the pairing.

Definition 21.6. Let I ⊂ C[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a graded ideal. The space of I-harmonic poly-
nomials
 is thespace HI = I ⊥ . Because I is an ideal, this is in fact the space of f such that
g ∂x∂ 1 , . . . , ∂x∂n f = 0 for all g ∈ I (this is a stronger condition than the constant term being
zero).
HI is the graded dual of C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I.
Lemma 21.7. Suppose {fi } is a graded basis of C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I and {gi } is a basis of HI . The
following are equivalent:
1. {fi } is dual to {gi }.
2. ex·y = i fi (x)gi (y) (mod I),
P e where x · y = x1 y1 + · · · + xn yn , and Ie is the extension of I to
C[[x1 , . . . , xn ]].
 
Proof. Let C = j fj (x)gj (y). Then, the constant term with respect to y of fi ∂y∂ i , . . . , ∂y∂n C is
P
P
j fj (x)hfi , gj iD . The first condition is equivalent to this expression being equal to fi (x). On the
other hand, check that C = ex·y is the only power series that satisfies this.

Let Cn = C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In be the coinvariant algebra, and let Hn = HIn = (Cn )∗ be the space
of Sn -harmonic polynomials, i.e. the space of polynomials f such that g ∂x∂ 1 , . . . , ∂x∂n f = 0 for
all g ∈ In .
The dimension of the degree k component of Hn is the same as that of the degree k component
of Cn , which is the number of permutations of length k, because we have a basis of Schubert
polynomials. We also have a basis ofPstaircase monomials, which has size equal to the number of
(a1 , . . . , an ) with 0 ≤ ai ≤ n − i and ai = k.
Definition 21.8. The Dual Schubert polynomial Dw (y1 , . . . , yn ) ∈ C[y1 , . . . , yn ] that form the
dual basis of Hn to the basis {Sw } of Cn .
Then, we have X
ex·y = Sw (x)Dw (y) (mod In ).
w∈Sn
Q
1≤i<j≤n (yi −yj )
Example 21.9. Did = 1, Dw0 = 1!2!···(n−1)! .
Both Sw and Dw are stable under the embedding Sn ,→ Sn+1P . We get that the Dw , for w ∈ S∞ ,
form a basis of C[y1 , y2 , . . .]. Then, we have the identity ex·y = w∈S∞ Sw (x)Dw (y).
Theorem 21.10. We have
1 X
Dw = w(P ),
`(w)!
P
where the sum is over all paths in the Hasse diagram of the strong Bruhat order from id to w, and
the weight of a path is the product of the Chevalley multiplicities yi − yj .

46
 P 1 P
Proof. Using the formula (x · y)Sw (x) = (yi − yj )Swtij (x), check that Dw = `(w)! P w(P )
satisfies ex·y = w∈Sn Sw (x)Dw (y).
P

We have a product Cn ⊗ Cn → Cn , defined by Su (x)Sv (x) = w cw

P
uv Sw (x) (mod In ), where
the cw uv are generalized L-R coefficients. We now define a coproduct ∆ : H n → Hn ⊗ Hn defined by
f (y1 , . . . , yn ) = f (y1 + z1 , . . . , yn + zn ).
Theorem 21.11. Dw (y + z) = u,v∈Sn cw
P
uv Du (y)Dv (z).

This is analogous to the statement sλ (y1 , y2 , . . . , z1 , z2 , . . .) = µ,ν cλµν sλ (y)sµ (z) (coproduct of
P
Schur polynomials).

Proof.
X X
cw
uv Sw (x)Du (y)Dv (z) = (Su (x)Du (y))(Sv (y)Dv (z))
u,v,w u,v
x·y x·z
=e e
x·(y+z)
=e
X
= Sw (x)Dw (y + z).
w

Now match up coefficients.

22 November 21, 2014

“I have almostPfinished making the problem
P set.” famous last words?
−1 S .
Let Sw = a Kw,a xa , so that xa = w Ka,w w
a a
P −1 x a xa x1 1 x2 2
Theorem 22.1. For w ∈ S∞ , we have Dw = a Ka,w a! , where by a! = a1 ! a2 ! ···.
Proof. Recall that we have D-dual bases {xa }, {xa /a!}. On the other hand, the bases {Sw } and
{Dw } are also D-dual. Hence expressing Dw in terms of {xa /a!} is the same as expressing Sw in
terms of xa .

Theorem P 22.2. Let ea = ea1 (x1 )ea2 (x1 , x2 )ea3 (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . .) · · · . Then, for w ∈ Sn , we have
−1
Sww0 = a Ka,w ew0 (ρ−a) , where ρ = (n − 1, . . . , 1) and a = (a1 , . . . , an−1 ), so that w0 (ρ − a) =
(1 − an−1 , 2 − an−2 , . . . , n − 1 − an−1 ).
Proof. By Cauchy formula,

X Y n−1
XX k
k−i
Sw (x)Sww0 (y) = (xi + yj ) = yn−k e1 (x1 , . . . , xk )
w∈Sn i+j≤n k=1 i=0

Exercise (?): finish the proof.

New topic: quantum cohomology. Recall that

H ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ∼
= Λ/hsλ | λ 6⊂ k × (n − k)i
∼
= Λ/hei , hj | i > k, j > n − ki
∼
= C[x1 , . . . , xk ]Sk /hhn−k+1 , . . . , hn i.

47
The second equality says that in order to kill all of the sλ doesn’t fit inside a k×(n−k) rectangle, it is
enough to kill rows and columns that don’t fit inside the rectangle (this follows from Jacobi-Trudi).
This ring has a linear basis of sλ (corresponding to Schubert varieties), and we have intersection
numbers cλµν = hσλ σµ σν i, equal to the coefficient of Sk×(n−k) in sλ sµ sν ; geometrically this is the
number of points in the triple-intersection of generic translates of the Schubert varieties associated
to λ, µ, ν (need |λ| + |µ| + |ν| = k(n − k)). Moreover, L-R coefficient cνλµ is cλµν ∨ .
We now consider the Gromov-Witten invariants cdλµν , where λ, µ, ν ⊂ k × (n − k) and d ≥ 0
is an integer. This counts the number of rational curves of degree d that pass through generic
translates of the Schubert varieties Ωλ , Ωµ , Ων . In order for this number to be finite, we will need
|λ| + |µ| + |ν| = k(n − k) + dn. When d = 0, we recover the usual L-R coefficients.
Write cν,d d
λµ = cλµν ∨ . Define the quantum product

cν,d
X
d
σλ ∗ σµ = λ,µ q σν .
ν,d

This is associative (not obvious). Define the quantum cohomology ring QH ∗ (Gr(k, n)) to be
H ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ⊗ C[q] as a vector space, so that Schubert classes σλ still form a linear basis over C[q].

Theorem 22.3 (Bertram). QH ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ∼ q q

= C[q][x1 , . . . , xk ]Sk /Jkn , where Jkn = hhn−k+1 , . . . , hn−1 , hn +
k
(−1) qi.

If λ ⊂ k × (n − k), then σλ still corresponds sλ .

How can we calculate the GW invariants cν,dλµ ? Rim hook algorithm, due to Bertram, Ciocan-
Fontanine, Fulton. To compute σλ ∗ σµ , first compute sλ sµ = ν=(ν1 ,...,νk ) cνλµ sν . The ideal is to
P
q
reduce the right hand side modulo Jkn so that all of the sν have ν fitting into a k ×(n−k) rectangle.
Given ν, remove rim hooks (ribbons) of size n from ν, i.e. strips of length n along the border of ν
with at most one box in each diagonal, such that removing the strip results in a valid Young diagram.
The resulting shape νe is uniquely determined, and is called the n-core of ν. If νe ⊂ k × (n − k),
then it turns out that !
q
Y
sν ≡ (−1)h(r)
q |R| sνe (mod Jkn ),
r∈R

where R is the set of removed rim hooks, and h(r) is the height of a rim hook. Otherwise, sν ≡ 0
q
(mod Jkn ). Hence, the cν,d γ
λµ is an alternating sum of the usual L-R coefficients cλµ .
Fact: σλ ∗ σµ 6= 0 for any λ, µ. (Not true in the classical case.)
Define the (k, n) cylinder, where we identify (i, j) with (i − k, j + n − k) for any (i, j). Hence a
k × (n − k) rectangle has its lower left and upper right corners identified. A Young diagram fitting
inside this rectangle may then be thought of as a closed loop passing through the point at which
these two corners are identified. Then, translate the endpoint and draw a new closed loop; the
region in between may be thought of as some skew shape.
From here, we get Cylindrical Schur functions, and from here we can pull out GW invariants.

23 November 26, 2014

Recall HQ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ∼ q q
= C[q][x1 , . . . , xk ]Sk /Jk,n , where Jk,n = hhn−k+1 , . . . , hn−1 , hn + (−1)k qi.
Schubert classes correspond to Schur functions sλ , λ ⊂ k × (n − k). To compute σλ ∗ σµ , compute
q
sλ sµ (mod Jkn ) via Rim Hook Algorithm.

48
 The usual isomorphism Gr(k, n) ∼ = Gr(n − k, n) induces an involution ω : QH ∗ (Gr(k, n)) →
QH ∗ (Gr(n − k, n)) taking σλ 7→ σλ0 , where λ ⊂ k × (n − k). Warning: quantum cohomology is not
functorial in the same way that usual cohomology is.
More symmetric description of HQ∗ : HQ∗ (Gr(k, n)) ∼ q
= C[q, e1 , . . . , ek , h1 , . . . , hn−k ]/Ikn , where
q
Ikn is generated by coefficients in the t-expansion of

(1 + te1 + te2 + · · · + tk ek )(1 − h1 t + h2 t − · · · + (−1)n−k tn−k hn−k ) − (1 + (−1)n− qtn )

Using this description, it is now clear that ω : ei ↔ hi . Exercise: the two descriptions of
HQ∗ (Gr(k, n)) are isomorphic.
Cylindric and toric tableaux. Let Cylkn = R2 /(−k, n − k)Z. Consider a lattice path from (k, 0)
to (0, n − k), defining a shape µ. Then, consider a lattice path from (k, 0) to (0, n − k) cutting out
the shape λ, then shifted by d in each direction, so that this is a lattice path from (k + d, d) to
(d, n − k + d). These are both closed loops on the cylinder. Then, a cylindrical tableau is a filling
of the squares in between these two closed loops that is weakly increasing across rows and strictly
increasing down columns. We denote the shape of the shape λ/d/µ.
Example 23.1. See Figure 31: here k = 6, n = 16, λ = (9, 7, 6, 2, 2, 0), µ = (9, 9, 7, 3, 3, 1), d = 2.
The weight of this filling is (3, 9, 4, 6, 3, 2, 2) (note that the half-boxes at both ends are identified
with each other).

Figure 31: Example of Cylindric Tableau

β
Define the cylindric Kostka numbers Kλ/d/µ to be the number of SSYT of shape λ/d/µ and
β
xβ .
P
of weight β, and the cylindric Schur functions sλ/d/µ (x1 , x2 , . . .) = β Kλ/d/µ
Lemma 23.2. sλ/d/µ is symmetric.
This can be proven using essentially the same argument as with usual Schur functions.
Definition 23.3. The toric Schur polynomial sλ/d,µ (x1 , . . . , xk ) is sλ/d/µ (x1 , . . . , xk , 0, 0, . . .).
If we define T oruskn = R2 /kZ × (n − k)Z and define toric shapes in a similar way to cylindric
shapes, the name should become clear.

49
 Recall that the GW invariants give the structure constants for multiplication in the quantum
cohomology ring:
cν,d
X
d
σλ ∗ σµ = λµ q σν .
ν⊂k×(n−k)

Theorem 23.4. We have

X
sλ/d/µ (x1 , . . . , xk ) = cλ,d
µν sν (x1 , . . . , xd ).
ν⊂k×(n−k)

Note that when d = 0, λ/0/µ = λ/µ, and we recover the usual LR coefficients. Also, note from
the geometric interpretation of cλ,d
µν that sλ/d/µ (x1 , . . . , xk ) is Schur-positive, but it turns out this
is false for the cylindric Schur function sλ/d/µ (x1 , . . . , xk , . . .). (when we specialize, the negative
terms go away).

Corollary 23.5. We have

cν,d
X
sµ∨ /d/λ (x1 , . . . , xk ) = λµ sν ∨ (x1 , . . . , xd ).
ν⊂k×(n−k)

In H ∗ (Gr(k, n)), we have that σλ σµ 6= 0 iff µ∨ /λ is a valid skew shape, i.e. the paths core-
sponding to λ, µ∨ don’t intersect. In QH ∗ (Gr(k, n)), σλ ∗ σµ is never zero, because if the paths
corresponding to λ, µ∨ overlap, we can shift µ∨ by d until they do not (this corresponds to a non-
zero q d coefficient in the quantum product). In fact, for any λ, µ ⊂ k × (n − k) there are two
non-negative integers dmin ≤ dmax such that q d appears in the product σλ ∗ σµ iff d ⊂ [dmin , dmax ].
dmin is the maximal length diagonal in the overlap region of λ and µ∨ . dmax is the opposite.

Exercise 23.6. dmin ≤ dmax

To prove Theorem 23.4, first prove a quantum Pieri formula (geometrically), then use this to
recover the comultiplication structure.

24 December 3, 2014
Quantum cohomology of Fln . As a linear space, QH ∗ (Fln ) = H ∗ (Fln ) ⊗ C[q1 , . . . , qn−1 ]. The
Schubert classes σw , w ∈ Sn form a C[q1 , . . . , qn−1 ]-linear basis of QH ∗ (Fln ).
Define the quantum product
X
σu ∗ σv = hσu , σv , σw id q d σw0 w
w∈Sn

n−1
where the sum is over d = (d1 , . . . , dn−1 ) ∈ Z≥0 . The hσu , σv , σw id is the GW invariant counting
the number of rational curves of multidegree d that intersect (generic translates of) the Schubert
varieties Xu , Xv , Xw . We would like combinatorial formula for this number (seems out of reach –
not known for the Grassmannian).
Recall:
(n) (n) (n)
Theorem 24.1 (Borel). H ∗ (Fln ) ∼
= C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/he1 , . . . , en i, where ei = ei (x1 , . . . , xn ).

We now have:

50
 (n) (n)
Theorem 24.2 (Quantum Borel; Givental-Kim). QH ∗ (Fln ) ∼= C[q1 , . . . , qn−1 ][x1 , . . . , xn ]/hE1 , . . . , En i,
(n)
where the quantum elementary polynomials Ei = Ei (x1 , . . . , xn , q1 , . . . , qn−1 ) are defined by the
(n)
expansion det(I + λAn ) = i=0 Ei λi , and
P

 
x 1 q1
−1 x2 q2 
 
An = 
 .. .. ..  .
 . . . 
 qn−1 
−1 xn

Figure 32: Weighted graph to be covered by monomers and dimers

(n)
There is also a monomer-dimer formula for Ei : Ei is the weighted sum over all disjoint systems
of monomers and dimers covering n nodes in the graph shown in Figure 32. (A monomer covers
one node and a dimer covers two adjacent nodes and the edge connecting them; the weight of a
covering is the product of the weights of vertices associated to the monomers and edges associated
to the dimers.)
We have the following recurrence:
(n) (n−1) (n−1) (n−2)
Ei = Ei + Ei−1 xn + Ei−2 qn−1 .

Schubert classes Sw are represented by quantum Schubert polynomials Sqw (x1 , . . . , xn , q1 , . . . , qn−1 ) ∈
C[x, q]/Inq .
Proposition 24.3. The following are bases of C[x1 , . . . , xn ]/In :
a
1. {xa11 · · · xn−1
n−1
, 0 ≤ ai ≤ n − i}.

2. {Sw , w ∈ Sn }.

3. Standard elementary monomials ei1 ···in−1 = ei1 (x1 )ei2 (x1 , x2 ) · · · ein−1 (x1 , . . . , xn−1 ).
We can thus write Sw = αi1 ···in−1 ei1 ···in−1 . Now, “quantize”: define Sqw =
P P
αi1 ···in−1 Ei1 ···in−1 ,
(1) (2) (n−1)
where Ei1 ···in−1 = Ei1 Ei2 · · · Ein−1 .

Theorem 24.4 (Fomin-Gelfand-Postnikov). The Sqw represent Sw in C[x, q]/Inq .

As a result, we get the following algorithm for computing the quantum product: evaluate
X
Squ Sqv = w,d d q
Cu,v q Sw (mod Inq );
w,d

w,d
the Cu,v are the GW-invariants.
Recall: Sw = a Kw,a xa , where Kw,a is the number of pipe dreams for w of weight xa . Hence
P

51
 1. xa = −1 S , w ∈ S , a ∈ Z∞ .
P
w Ka,w w ∞ ≥0
a1 a
P −1 1 x x2 2
2. Dw = a Ka,w a1 ! a2 ! ···.
−1
P
3. Sww0 = (a1 ,...,an−1 ),0≤ai ≤n−i Ka,w e1−an−1 ,2−an−2 ,...,n−1−a1 .

(1) (2) (n−1) (1) (k−1) (k−1) (k+1) (n−1)

∂k (ei1 ei2 · · · ein−1 ) = ei1 eik−1 eik −1 eik+1 · · · ein−1 .
To get rid of the repeated upper index, apply the straightening rule:
(k−1) (k−1)
X (k−1) (k) X (k−1) (k)
ei ej = ei+` ej−` − ej−m ei+m .
`≥0 m≥1

Example 24.5. Take n = 4. We can now calculate the Schubert polynomials in terms of the
elementary polynomials, by applying divided difference operators and going down the weak Bruhat
order. We have S4321 = e123 , then S3421 = ∂1 (e123 ) = e023 , and
S3412 = ∂3 (e0234 )
(2) (3)
= ∂3 (e2 e3 )
(2) (2)
= e2 e2
= e022 − e013 .
We can quantize this: so in the above example,
Sq3412 = E022 − E013
= (x1 x2 + q1 )(x1 x2 + x1 x3 + x2 x3 + q1 + q2 ) − (x1 + x + 2)(x1 x2 x3 + q1 x3 + q2 x1 )
= x21 x22 + 2q1 x1 x2 + q12 + q1 q2 − q2 x21
Note that the first term (the only one without any q-terms) is S3412 .
Axiomatic approach for Sqw .
A1. Homogeneity: Sqw is homogeneous of degree `(w), where we make deg(xi ) = 1, deg(qi ) = 2.
A2. Classical limit: Sqw (x1 , . . . , xn , 0, . . . , 0) = Sw .
A3. Positivity: the structure constants of C[x, q]/Inq in the basis Sqw are polynomials in the qi
with non-negative integer coefficients.
(k)
A4. If w = sk−i+1 sk−i+2 · · · sk , then Sqw = Ei .
Theorem 24.6 (Fomin-Gelfand-Postnikov). The axioms above uniquely define the Sqw (they define
exactly the polynomials we describe earlier).
Conjecture 24.7. In fact, this is true for just the first three axioms.
Theorem 24.8 (Quantum Monk Formula).

Sqwtab +
X X
Sqsr Sqw = qab Swtab (mod Inq ),
a≤k<b,`(wtab )=`(w)+1 a≤k<b,`(wtab )=`(w)−`(tab )

where qab = qa qa+1 · · · qb+1 . Note that Sqsr = x1 + · · · + xr .

We can express this in terms of quantum Bruhat operators on C[Sn ]: Tab sends w to wtab if
`(wtab ) = `(w) + 1, to qab wtabPif `(wtab ) = `(w) − `(tab ), and 0 otherwise. Then, multiplication by
Sqsk is the same as acting by a≤k<b Tab .

52
25 December 10, 2014
“I’ll finish grading [the problem sets] at some point.”
Recall that we have two ways of getting L-R coefficients:
X
sλ sµ = cνλµ sν
ν
X
sλ/µ = cλµν sν .
ν

We also have generalized L-R coefficients, defined by

X
Su Sv = cw
uv Sw .

We now define skew Schubert polynomials Su,w , where u ≤ w in the strong Bruhat order,
satisfying X
Su,w = cw
u,w0 v Sv .
v

In fact, we will define Squ,v

for any permutations u, v.
Recall the quantum Bruhat operators Tij on QH ∗ (Fln ) sending σw to σw tij if `(wtij ) = `(w)+1,
qi qi+1 · · · q−j − 1σw tij if `(wtij ) = `(w)−`(tij ), and 0 otherwise. Then, the quantum Monk formula
says that X
(x1 + · · · + xk ) ∗ σw = σsk ∗ σw = Tij (σw ).
i≤k<j

From here, we get the quantum Pieri formula

X
σsk−r+1 sk−r+2 ···sk ∗ σw = Ta1 ,b1 Ta2 ,b2 · · · Tar ,br (σw ),

where the sum is over the a1 , . . . , ar , b1 , . . . , br satisfying

(1) a1 , . . . , ar ≤ k < b1 , . . . , br ,

(2) ai are distinct, and

(3) b1 ≤ b2 ≤ · · · ≤ br .
d d
Define the C-linear involution ω on QH ∗ by ω(q1d1 · · · qn−1
n−1
σw ) = qn−1 d1
· · · q1 n−1 σw0 ww0 . Applying
ω to the quantum Pieri formula yields
X
σsk sk+1 ···sk+r−1 ∗ σw = Ta1 ,b1 Ta2 ,b2 · · · Tar ,br (σw ),

where the sum is over the a1 , . . . , ar , b1 , . . . , br satisfying

(1’) a1 , . . . , ar ≤ k < b1 , . . . , br ,

(2’) a1 ≤ a2 ≤ · · · ≤ ar , and

(3’) bi are distinct.

53
 Define the Pieri operator
X
Hr(k) (σw ) = Ta1 ,b1 · · · Tar ,br (σw ),
(10 ),(20 ),(30 )

and
(1) (n−1)
X
H(y) = y ρ−β Hβ1 · · · Hβn−1 ,
β1 ,...,βn−1 ,0≤βi ≤n−1

where ρ = (n − 1, n − 2, . . . , 1).
Finally, define the quantum skew Schubert polynomial Squ,v ∈ Z[y1 , . . . , yn−1 , q1 , . . . , qn−1 ] by
X
H(y) · σu 7→ Squ,v (y, q)σv .
v

Let’s reformulate this combinatorially. Define the quantum Bruhat graph as follows: the
vertices are permutations; there is a directed edge w 7→ wtij of weight 1 if `(wtij ) = `(w) + 1,
and a directed edge w 7→ wtij of weight qi qi+1 · · · qj+1 if `(wtij ) = `(w) − `(tij ). Then, Squ,v
may be computed as follows: for β ≤ ρ, the coefficient of y ρ−β in Squ,v is the weighted sum
over directed β-admissable paths from u to v in the quantum Bruhat graph, i.e. one with labels
a1 b1 , a2 b2 , . . . , aβ1 bβ1 , a01 b01 , . . . , a0β2 b0β2 , . . . (in this order; the label ij corresponds to the transposition
(1) (2)
tij ), where the a’s and b0 s satisfy the conditions from Hβ1 , Hβ2 , . . ..
Theorem 25.1. X
Squ,w0 v (y, q) = hσu , σv , σw0 w id q d Sw (y).
w,d

In particular, Sqw,w0 = Sq1,w0 w = Sw .

Example 25.2. Consider u = s1 s2 , v = s2 s1 when n = 3. The only β = (β1 , β2 ) for which we get
a β-admissiable path is (1, 1); the only β-admissable path is u →
7 w0 7→ v, with edge labels 12, 23.
Its weight is q2 , so we get Squ,v = y1 q2 .

Figure 33: Quantum Bruhat graph, n = 3

Proof of Theorem 25.1. Recall that we have the Cauchy formula

Y X
(xi + yj ) = Sww0 (x)Sw (y).
i+j≤n w∈Sn

The left hand side is

n−1 k
(1) (n−1)
YX X
k−i
yn−k ei (x1 , . . . , xk ) = y ρ−β eβ1 · · · eβn−1 ∈ H ∗ (Fln ).
k=1 i=0 β

54
Quantizing,
(1) (2) (n−1)
X X
y ρ−β Eβ1 Eβ2 · · · Eβn−1 = Sqww0 (x)Sw (y).
β w

Apply ω:
(1) (2) (n−1)
X X
y ρ−β Hβ1 Hβ2 · · · Hβn−1 = Sqw0 w (x)Sw (y).
β w

Now, think of each side as an operator on quantum Schubert polynomials, and check that they act
in the same way.

More on the quantum Bruhat graph. Let σ be the cycle the n-cycle (12 · · · n).

Theorem 25.3. The unweighted quantum Bruhat graph is symmetric under rotations w 7→ cw.

Recall that the GW-invariants satisfy

X
cu,v,w (q) = q d hσu , σv , σw id
d

Corollary 25.4. We have the following symmetry: cu,v,w = qi qi+1 · · · qj−1 cu,σ−1 v,σw .

First, rephrase the strong Bruhat order in terms of permutation matrices. Given w and its
permutation matrix Pw , we can swap i and j to move up in the strong Bruhat order iff the
corresponding 1’s in Pw are in NW/SE relative to each other, and there are no 1’s in the rectangle
defined by these two entries. We can swap i, j to move down iff the corresponding 1’s are NE/SW
relative to each other, and there are no 1’s above or below the rectangle defined by these two
entries. Applying the cycle ω corresponds to moving the bottom row of Pw to the top, and we see
that everything is preserved, hence we get the cyclic symmetry of the quantum Bruhat graph.

55