ProbXiv
sign in

AN INVITATION TO THE GENERALIZED SATURATION CONJECTURE

Algebra · math.CO · math.RT · posed by Anatol N. Kirillov · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

Could it be true that for any finite dimensional \mathfrak{gl}{n} -module W there exists a polynomial p{W}(t)(p_{W}(t)=t ??) such that for all partitions \pi and \mu one has if a_{N \mu,W}^{N \pi}\ge p_{W}(N) , then a_{\mu,W}^{\pi}\ne 0 .

Context

Candidate 12 of the open problems stated in "AN INVITATION TO THE GENERALIZED SATURATION CONJECTURE", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

begin a project on this problem →

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt →

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement: for every finite-dimensional complex gln\mathfrak{gl}_n-module WW, there is a polynomial pW(t)p_W(t) such that for all partitions μ,π\mu,\pi and all N≥1N\ge1,

    aNμ,WNπ≥pW(N)⟹aμ,Wπ≠0,a_{N\mu,W}^{N\pi}\ge p_W(N)\quad\Longrightarrow\quad a_{\mu,W}^{\pi}\ne0,

    where

    W⊗k≅⨁μ⊢k, πSμ⊗Vπ⊕aμ,WπW^{\otimes k}\cong \bigoplus_{\mu\vdash k,\ \pi} S^\mu\otimes V_\pi^{\oplus a_{\mu,W}^{\pi}}

    as a Σk×gln\Sigma_k\times\mathfrak{gl}_n-module.

    Result: The statement is false.

    Fix n≥2n\ge2. Let L=det⁡2L=\det^2, the one-dimensional gln\mathfrak{gl}_n-module of highest weight (2,2,…,2)(2,2,\dots,2), and set

    W=1⊕L⊕L.W=\mathbf 1\oplus L\oplus L.

    For m≥0m\ge0, the multiplicity of the trivial Σm\Sigma_m-representation S(m)S^{(m)} in W⊗mW^{\otimes m} is Sym⁡mW\operatorname{Sym}^m W. Hence

    a(m),Wν=[Vν:Sym⁡mW].a_{(m),W}^{\nu}=[V_\nu:\operatorname{Sym}^m W].

    Now

    Sym⁡mW=Sym⁡m(1⊕L⊗C2)≅⨁j=0mLj⊗Sym⁡j(C2).\operatorname{Sym}^m W =\operatorname{Sym}^m(\mathbf 1\oplus L\otimes \mathbb C^2) \cong \bigoplus_{j=0}^m L^j\otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j(\mathbb C^2).

    Since Lj=det⁡2j=V(2j,…,2j)L^j=\det^{2j}=V_{(2j,\dots,2j)}, we get

    a(m),W(2j,…,2j)=dim⁡Sym⁡j(C2)=j+1.a_{(m),W}^{(2j,\dots,2j)}=\dim \operatorname{Sym}^j(\mathbb C^2)=j+1.

    Choose any odd r≥1r\ge1, let

    μ=(k),π=(r,r,…,r),\mu=(k),\qquad \pi=(r,r,\dots,r),

    with r≤2kr\le 2k. Then aμ,Wπ=0a_{\mu,W}^{\pi}=0, because every irreducible occurring in W⊗kW^{\otimes k} has highest weight (2j,…,2j)(2j,\dots,2j), with all entries even. But for N=2N=2,

    a2μ,W2π=a(2k),W(2r,…,2r)=r+1.a_{2\mu,W}^{2\pi} =a_{(2k),W}^{(2r,\dots,2r)} =r+1.

    Thus, for any proposed polynomial pW(t)p_W(t), choose odd rr with r+1≥pW(2)r+1\ge p_W(2), and then choose kk with r≤2kr\le2k. This gives

    a2μ,W2π≥pW(2)butaμ,Wπ=0,a_{2\mu,W}^{2\pi}\ge p_W(2) \quad\text{but}\quad a_{\mu,W}^{\pi}=0,

    contradicting the claimed implication.

    So no such polynomial pWp_W exists for this WW.

    Citation: No external citation; the counterexample is constructed above.

    Reviews

    1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The proposed disproof attacks the correct coefficients aμ,Wπa_{\mu,W}^{\pi} from the Σk×gln\Sigma_k\times\mathfrak{gl}_n decomposition of W⊗kW^{\otimes k}. The computation is sound: for W=1⊕L⊕LW=\mathbf1\oplus L\oplus L, L=det⁡2L=\det^2, the S(m)S^{(m)}-isotypic gln\mathfrak{gl}_n-module is Sym⁡mW\operatorname{Sym}^m W, giving multiplicity j+1j+1 for highest weight (2j,…,2j)(2j,\dots,2j). Choosing odd rr makes a(k),W(r,…,r)=0a_{(k),W}^{(r,\dots,r)}=0, while after scaling by N=2N=2 the multiplicity becomes r+1r+1, arbitrarily large. Hence no polynomial pWp_W can satisfy the proposed implication.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The counterexample is genuinely useful as a correction to Kirillov’s Question 2.15, but it is very elementary: it exploits a reducible module with two copies of a one-dimensional determinant representation, producing a parity obstruction with arbitrarily large multiplicity after scaling. This is more like a short erratum/remark than a standalone publishable combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I found no prior source containing this counterexample or a stronger disproof of Question 2.15. Searches covered the exact question/notation, “generalized saturation conjecture,” “plethysm saturation,” “stretched plethysm,” “Kronecker/plethysm saturation,” and related arXiv/GitHub/forum-style sources. The exact phrase “generalized saturation conjecture” on arXiv returns essentially Kirillov’s original paper; related saturation literature discusses semigroup properties, plethysm/Kronecker stretching, and GCT saturation hypotheses, but not this polynomial-threshold counterexample for arbitrary WW.

      Citation: No prior citation found for the counterexample. Target source: A. N. Kirillov, “An Invitation to the Generalized Saturation Conjecture,” Publ. RIMS 40 (2004), 1147–1239; arXiv:math/0404353, Question 2.15.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

open in Claude →open in ChatGPT →

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.