Tail Positive Words and Generalized Coinvariant Algebras
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
There is an isomorphism of graded -modules .
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Tail Positive Words and Generalized Coinvariant Algebras", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
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.
NEW
Problem: For with , let
with acting by permutation of variables. Let be the complete, elementary, and power-sum symmetric polynomials in . Define
and
Let
The reconstructed conjecture is: there is an isomorphism of graded -modules
This is the intended formalization of Conjecture 5.1; the paper has a minor typographical slip where is momentarily written using , but the surrounding text says is obtained by replacing by .
Result: The conjecture is true.
Let . Since and are generated by symmetric polynomials, they are extensions of homogeneous ideals . By the Chevalley decomposition,
as graded -modules, where acts trivially on . Hence
and similarly for . Therefore it suffices to show that and have the same Hilbert series.
Put . Modding out by
identifies with . Under this identification, and become the corresponding in variables. Thus
In , the recurrences for complete functions and power sums imply that the later generators are redundant:
Both sequences
are homogeneous systems of parameters in . Indeed, over , if , then the sequence has consecutive zero terms. Removing zero roots, it satisfies an invertible linear recurrence whose constant coefficient is nonzero; back-substitution forces , contradiction. Hence all roots are zero. The same argument applies to : after grouping distinct nonzero roots, the power sums satisfy an invertible recurrence, and consecutive zero terms force , contradiction unless all roots are zero.
Thus both are regular sequences in the polynomial ring , with degrees
Therefore both quotient Hilbert series equal
So and are isomorphic as graded vector spaces. Tensoring such a graded vector-space isomorphism with gives a graded -module isomorphism
The boundary cases are included: if , then and both invariant quotients are ; if , both ideals give the ordinary coinvariant algebra.
Citation: No exact prior resolution is cited here. The proof uses the standard Chevalley freeness/decomposition theorem for reflection groups: C. Chevalley, “Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections,” Amer. J. Math. 77 (1955), 778–782.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1
PASS
The claimed proof addresses the correct conjecture (with defined using the power-sum ideal, correcting the paper’s evident typo). The argument is mathematically sound: since both ideals are generated by symmetric polynomials, Chevalley freeness reduces the graded -module comparison to Hilbert series of quotients of the invariant ring. After quotienting by with , the problem becomes comparing the complete and power-sum sequences and in . The proof that both are homogeneous systems of parameters is valid, using the linear recurrences for and , so both quotients have the same complete-intersection Hilbert series. Tensoring with the coinvariant/harmonic factor gives the desired graded -module isomorphism.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The statement appears genuinely not to have been explicitly resolved in the literature, but its proof is an immediate application of standard invariant-theoretic freeness/Chevalley decomposition plus elementary complete-intersection Hilbert-series facts. It would be suitable as a short remark or correction to the original paper, not as a standalone combinatorics paper.
Literature check: I found the original published paper, where Conjecture 5.1 is stated. Searches for the exact title, notation , , “power sum” variants, “Tail positive words,” related generalized coinvariant algebra papers, surveys, GitHub/forum-style sources, and later Delta-operator/generalized coinvariant literature did not reveal an explicit prior proof of this conjecture. Later surveys and related papers discuss nearby quotient rings and Delta conjecture geometry but not this exact isomorphism.
The general mechanism used in the proof is standard: quotients by symmetric ideals decompose as the coinvariant/harmonic factor tensor the invariant-ring quotient, so the graded -module type is controlled by a Hilbert series. Thus the result is new only as an observation about this specific conjecture.
Citation: B. Rhoades and A. T. Wilson, “Tail Positive Words and Generalized Coinvariant Algebras,” Electron. J. Combin. 24(3) (2017), P3.21; arXiv:1704.02618. Standard background: C. Chevalley, “Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections,” Amer. J. Math. 77 (1955), 778–782.
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.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.