Flag manifolds as incidence correspondences












6












$begingroup$


Let $G$ be a reductive group, $B$ a Borel and $P_j$ the maximal parabolics, indexed by the vertices $j$ of the Dynkin diagram. Then $B = bigcap_j P_j$, so the flag manifold $G/B$ injects into $prod_j G/P_j$.



In the classical types, this is a useful concrete description of $G/B$: In type $A_{n-1}$, $GL_n/P_j$ is the Grassmannian of $j$-planes in $n$-space, so a point of $prod_j GL_n/P_j$ is a sequence of subspaces $(V_1, V_2, cdots, V_{n-1})$, with $dim V_j = j$. The subspace $G/B$ is the flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-1}$.



Similarly, in types $B$ and $C$, the $G/P_j$ are isotropic flags, and we get the standard descriptions of the type $B$/$C$ flag manifolds as complete isotropic flags.



In type $D_n$, the $n-2$ vertices on the long leg of the diagram correspond to isotropic subspaces of dimensions $1 leq j leq n-2$, and the two extra vertices correspond to the two types of isotropic $n$-plane: We get that $G/B$ is flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-2} subset V_n^+, V_n^-$, where $V_j$ is an isotropic $j$ plane and $V_n^+$ and $V_n^-$ are of the $+$ type and the $-$ type. This isn't the standard description of complete isotropic flags, but it is easy to convert to one: Given $(V_n^+, V_n^-)$, we can recover $V_{n-1}$ as $V_n^+ cap V_n^-$ and, given $(V_{n-1}, V_n^+)$, we can recover $V_n^-$ as the other isotropic $n$-plane between $V_{n-1}$ and $V_{n-1}^{perp}$. Note that the condition $V_{n-2} subseteq V_n^+, V_n^-$ together with the types of $V_n^{pm}$ actually forces $dim (V_n^+ cap V_n^-) = n-1$.



I note that, in each of these cases, I only need to impose conditions on pairs $(V_i, V_j)$ where there is an edge $(i,j)$ in the Dynkin diagram. This leads me to my question:




For two Dynkin vertices $a$, $b$, let $pi_{ab}$ be the projection of $prod G/P_j$ onto $G/P_a times G/P_b$. Is it still right in the exceptional types that $G/B = bigcap pi_{ab}^{-1}left( pi_{ab}( G/B) right) subset prod G/P_j$ where the intersection runs over edges $(a,b)$ of the Dynkin diagram? Does this question make sense, and is the answer yes, for Kac-Moody groups?




Motivation: I've committed to teach a course on Bruhat orders and Schuberty things next Fall, and I'm thinking about how to tell combinatorialists about flag manifolds in other types without getting into the whole construction of reductive/Kac-Moody groups.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Let $G$ be a reductive group, $B$ a Borel and $P_j$ the maximal parabolics, indexed by the vertices $j$ of the Dynkin diagram. Then $B = bigcap_j P_j$, so the flag manifold $G/B$ injects into $prod_j G/P_j$.



    In the classical types, this is a useful concrete description of $G/B$: In type $A_{n-1}$, $GL_n/P_j$ is the Grassmannian of $j$-planes in $n$-space, so a point of $prod_j GL_n/P_j$ is a sequence of subspaces $(V_1, V_2, cdots, V_{n-1})$, with $dim V_j = j$. The subspace $G/B$ is the flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-1}$.



    Similarly, in types $B$ and $C$, the $G/P_j$ are isotropic flags, and we get the standard descriptions of the type $B$/$C$ flag manifolds as complete isotropic flags.



    In type $D_n$, the $n-2$ vertices on the long leg of the diagram correspond to isotropic subspaces of dimensions $1 leq j leq n-2$, and the two extra vertices correspond to the two types of isotropic $n$-plane: We get that $G/B$ is flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-2} subset V_n^+, V_n^-$, where $V_j$ is an isotropic $j$ plane and $V_n^+$ and $V_n^-$ are of the $+$ type and the $-$ type. This isn't the standard description of complete isotropic flags, but it is easy to convert to one: Given $(V_n^+, V_n^-)$, we can recover $V_{n-1}$ as $V_n^+ cap V_n^-$ and, given $(V_{n-1}, V_n^+)$, we can recover $V_n^-$ as the other isotropic $n$-plane between $V_{n-1}$ and $V_{n-1}^{perp}$. Note that the condition $V_{n-2} subseteq V_n^+, V_n^-$ together with the types of $V_n^{pm}$ actually forces $dim (V_n^+ cap V_n^-) = n-1$.



    I note that, in each of these cases, I only need to impose conditions on pairs $(V_i, V_j)$ where there is an edge $(i,j)$ in the Dynkin diagram. This leads me to my question:




    For two Dynkin vertices $a$, $b$, let $pi_{ab}$ be the projection of $prod G/P_j$ onto $G/P_a times G/P_b$. Is it still right in the exceptional types that $G/B = bigcap pi_{ab}^{-1}left( pi_{ab}( G/B) right) subset prod G/P_j$ where the intersection runs over edges $(a,b)$ of the Dynkin diagram? Does this question make sense, and is the answer yes, for Kac-Moody groups?




    Motivation: I've committed to teach a course on Bruhat orders and Schuberty things next Fall, and I'm thinking about how to tell combinatorialists about flag manifolds in other types without getting into the whole construction of reductive/Kac-Moody groups.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Let $G$ be a reductive group, $B$ a Borel and $P_j$ the maximal parabolics, indexed by the vertices $j$ of the Dynkin diagram. Then $B = bigcap_j P_j$, so the flag manifold $G/B$ injects into $prod_j G/P_j$.



      In the classical types, this is a useful concrete description of $G/B$: In type $A_{n-1}$, $GL_n/P_j$ is the Grassmannian of $j$-planes in $n$-space, so a point of $prod_j GL_n/P_j$ is a sequence of subspaces $(V_1, V_2, cdots, V_{n-1})$, with $dim V_j = j$. The subspace $G/B$ is the flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-1}$.



      Similarly, in types $B$ and $C$, the $G/P_j$ are isotropic flags, and we get the standard descriptions of the type $B$/$C$ flag manifolds as complete isotropic flags.



      In type $D_n$, the $n-2$ vertices on the long leg of the diagram correspond to isotropic subspaces of dimensions $1 leq j leq n-2$, and the two extra vertices correspond to the two types of isotropic $n$-plane: We get that $G/B$ is flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-2} subset V_n^+, V_n^-$, where $V_j$ is an isotropic $j$ plane and $V_n^+$ and $V_n^-$ are of the $+$ type and the $-$ type. This isn't the standard description of complete isotropic flags, but it is easy to convert to one: Given $(V_n^+, V_n^-)$, we can recover $V_{n-1}$ as $V_n^+ cap V_n^-$ and, given $(V_{n-1}, V_n^+)$, we can recover $V_n^-$ as the other isotropic $n$-plane between $V_{n-1}$ and $V_{n-1}^{perp}$. Note that the condition $V_{n-2} subseteq V_n^+, V_n^-$ together with the types of $V_n^{pm}$ actually forces $dim (V_n^+ cap V_n^-) = n-1$.



      I note that, in each of these cases, I only need to impose conditions on pairs $(V_i, V_j)$ where there is an edge $(i,j)$ in the Dynkin diagram. This leads me to my question:




      For two Dynkin vertices $a$, $b$, let $pi_{ab}$ be the projection of $prod G/P_j$ onto $G/P_a times G/P_b$. Is it still right in the exceptional types that $G/B = bigcap pi_{ab}^{-1}left( pi_{ab}( G/B) right) subset prod G/P_j$ where the intersection runs over edges $(a,b)$ of the Dynkin diagram? Does this question make sense, and is the answer yes, for Kac-Moody groups?




      Motivation: I've committed to teach a course on Bruhat orders and Schuberty things next Fall, and I'm thinking about how to tell combinatorialists about flag manifolds in other types without getting into the whole construction of reductive/Kac-Moody groups.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Let $G$ be a reductive group, $B$ a Borel and $P_j$ the maximal parabolics, indexed by the vertices $j$ of the Dynkin diagram. Then $B = bigcap_j P_j$, so the flag manifold $G/B$ injects into $prod_j G/P_j$.



      In the classical types, this is a useful concrete description of $G/B$: In type $A_{n-1}$, $GL_n/P_j$ is the Grassmannian of $j$-planes in $n$-space, so a point of $prod_j GL_n/P_j$ is a sequence of subspaces $(V_1, V_2, cdots, V_{n-1})$, with $dim V_j = j$. The subspace $G/B$ is the flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-1}$.



      Similarly, in types $B$ and $C$, the $G/P_j$ are isotropic flags, and we get the standard descriptions of the type $B$/$C$ flag manifolds as complete isotropic flags.



      In type $D_n$, the $n-2$ vertices on the long leg of the diagram correspond to isotropic subspaces of dimensions $1 leq j leq n-2$, and the two extra vertices correspond to the two types of isotropic $n$-plane: We get that $G/B$ is flags $V_1 subset V_2 subset cdots subset V_{n-2} subset V_n^+, V_n^-$, where $V_j$ is an isotropic $j$ plane and $V_n^+$ and $V_n^-$ are of the $+$ type and the $-$ type. This isn't the standard description of complete isotropic flags, but it is easy to convert to one: Given $(V_n^+, V_n^-)$, we can recover $V_{n-1}$ as $V_n^+ cap V_n^-$ and, given $(V_{n-1}, V_n^+)$, we can recover $V_n^-$ as the other isotropic $n$-plane between $V_{n-1}$ and $V_{n-1}^{perp}$. Note that the condition $V_{n-2} subseteq V_n^+, V_n^-$ together with the types of $V_n^{pm}$ actually forces $dim (V_n^+ cap V_n^-) = n-1$.



      I note that, in each of these cases, I only need to impose conditions on pairs $(V_i, V_j)$ where there is an edge $(i,j)$ in the Dynkin diagram. This leads me to my question:




      For two Dynkin vertices $a$, $b$, let $pi_{ab}$ be the projection of $prod G/P_j$ onto $G/P_a times G/P_b$. Is it still right in the exceptional types that $G/B = bigcap pi_{ab}^{-1}left( pi_{ab}( G/B) right) subset prod G/P_j$ where the intersection runs over edges $(a,b)$ of the Dynkin diagram? Does this question make sense, and is the answer yes, for Kac-Moody groups?




      Motivation: I've committed to teach a course on Bruhat orders and Schuberty things next Fall, and I'm thinking about how to tell combinatorialists about flag manifolds in other types without getting into the whole construction of reductive/Kac-Moody groups.







      lie-groups homogeneous-spaces exceptional-groups






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 1 hour ago









      David E SpeyerDavid E Speyer

      106k8275536




      106k8275536






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          The "incidence" relation (at least for types $E_6$ and $E_7$) for all pairs of vertices $i$, $j$ is described in S. Garibaldi, M. Carr "Geometries, the principle of duality, and algebraic groups", Expo. Math. 24 (2006), 195-234. While in most cases it is just inclusion of respective subspaces (in some representation), for pairs (2,5) and (2,6) in $E_6$ case it is more complicated (see 7.21 loc. cit.) and doesn't seem to be deduced from the relations for edges only.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
            $endgroup$
            – David E Speyer
            11 mins ago













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320961%2fflag-manifolds-as-incidence-correspondences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          The "incidence" relation (at least for types $E_6$ and $E_7$) for all pairs of vertices $i$, $j$ is described in S. Garibaldi, M. Carr "Geometries, the principle of duality, and algebraic groups", Expo. Math. 24 (2006), 195-234. While in most cases it is just inclusion of respective subspaces (in some representation), for pairs (2,5) and (2,6) in $E_6$ case it is more complicated (see 7.21 loc. cit.) and doesn't seem to be deduced from the relations for edges only.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
            $endgroup$
            – David E Speyer
            11 mins ago


















          5












          $begingroup$

          The "incidence" relation (at least for types $E_6$ and $E_7$) for all pairs of vertices $i$, $j$ is described in S. Garibaldi, M. Carr "Geometries, the principle of duality, and algebraic groups", Expo. Math. 24 (2006), 195-234. While in most cases it is just inclusion of respective subspaces (in some representation), for pairs (2,5) and (2,6) in $E_6$ case it is more complicated (see 7.21 loc. cit.) and doesn't seem to be deduced from the relations for edges only.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
            $endgroup$
            – David E Speyer
            11 mins ago
















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          The "incidence" relation (at least for types $E_6$ and $E_7$) for all pairs of vertices $i$, $j$ is described in S. Garibaldi, M. Carr "Geometries, the principle of duality, and algebraic groups", Expo. Math. 24 (2006), 195-234. While in most cases it is just inclusion of respective subspaces (in some representation), for pairs (2,5) and (2,6) in $E_6$ case it is more complicated (see 7.21 loc. cit.) and doesn't seem to be deduced from the relations for edges only.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The "incidence" relation (at least for types $E_6$ and $E_7$) for all pairs of vertices $i$, $j$ is described in S. Garibaldi, M. Carr "Geometries, the principle of duality, and algebraic groups", Expo. Math. 24 (2006), 195-234. While in most cases it is just inclusion of respective subspaces (in some representation), for pairs (2,5) and (2,6) in $E_6$ case it is more complicated (see 7.21 loc. cit.) and doesn't seem to be deduced from the relations for edges only.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 48 mins ago









          Victor PetrovVictor Petrov

          1,00458




          1,00458












          • $begingroup$
            Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
            $endgroup$
            – David E Speyer
            11 mins ago




















          • $begingroup$
            Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
            $endgroup$
            – David E Speyer
            11 mins ago


















          $begingroup$
          Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
          $endgroup$
          – David E Speyer
          11 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          Interesting! But I don't think it is a counter-example to what I've asked above. The outer automorphism of $E_6$ interchanges $1$ with $6$ and $3$ with $5$ so, if the $(2,3)$ incidence is a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,3)$ incidences, then the $(2,5)$ incidence must likewise be a consequence of the $(2,4)$ and $(4,5)$ incidences.
          $endgroup$
          – David E Speyer
          11 mins ago




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f320961%2fflag-manifolds-as-incidence-correspondences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Polycentropodidae

          Magento 2 Error message: Invalid state change requested

          Paulmy