Can generators of a Coxeter group be redundant?
$begingroup$
I’m just beginning to learn about Coxeter groups and at one point the textbook’s author seems to take it for grant that each generator cannot be “reduced” into a product of other generators. Specifically, it seems the following claim is so obvious that it need not be stated:
If ${s_1, s_2,..., s_n}$ is the set of generators of a coxeter group $W$, then one cannot have $s_i=s_1s_2...s_{j-1}s_js_{j-1}...s_1$ for some $j$ without $i, j$ being $1$.
So I suspected something like $s_1=s_2s_4s_8$ cannot happen too. I know the question looks really stupid but it seems I’m missing something fundamental.
abstract-algebra coxeter-groups
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m just beginning to learn about Coxeter groups and at one point the textbook’s author seems to take it for grant that each generator cannot be “reduced” into a product of other generators. Specifically, it seems the following claim is so obvious that it need not be stated:
If ${s_1, s_2,..., s_n}$ is the set of generators of a coxeter group $W$, then one cannot have $s_i=s_1s_2...s_{j-1}s_js_{j-1}...s_1$ for some $j$ without $i, j$ being $1$.
So I suspected something like $s_1=s_2s_4s_8$ cannot happen too. I know the question looks really stupid but it seems I’m missing something fundamental.
abstract-algebra coxeter-groups
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m just beginning to learn about Coxeter groups and at one point the textbook’s author seems to take it for grant that each generator cannot be “reduced” into a product of other generators. Specifically, it seems the following claim is so obvious that it need not be stated:
If ${s_1, s_2,..., s_n}$ is the set of generators of a coxeter group $W$, then one cannot have $s_i=s_1s_2...s_{j-1}s_js_{j-1}...s_1$ for some $j$ without $i, j$ being $1$.
So I suspected something like $s_1=s_2s_4s_8$ cannot happen too. I know the question looks really stupid but it seems I’m missing something fundamental.
abstract-algebra coxeter-groups
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
$endgroup$
I’m just beginning to learn about Coxeter groups and at one point the textbook’s author seems to take it for grant that each generator cannot be “reduced” into a product of other generators. Specifically, it seems the following claim is so obvious that it need not be stated:
If ${s_1, s_2,..., s_n}$ is the set of generators of a coxeter group $W$, then one cannot have $s_i=s_1s_2...s_{j-1}s_js_{j-1}...s_1$ for some $j$ without $i, j$ being $1$.
So I suspected something like $s_1=s_2s_4s_8$ cannot happen too. I know the question looks really stupid but it seems I’m missing something fundamental.
abstract-algebra coxeter-groups
abstract-algebra coxeter-groups
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
asked Jan 2 at 11:18
AhmbakAhmbak
390110
390110
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059359%2fcan-generators-of-a-coxeter-group-be-redundant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3059359%2fcan-generators-of-a-coxeter-group-be-redundant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
This is not obvious -- I suspect it only becomes clear somewhere in Chapter 4 of Björner/Brenti, not earlier. The easiest way to see the claim is if you know that the length function of a parabolic subgroup $W_I$ of $W$ is the restriction of the length function of $W$ (see, e.g., §9.6 of arXiv:math/0208154v2); thus, if $s_i$ was a product of other $s_j$'s, then $s_i$ would have to be a single other $s_j$, which would contradict the (nontrivial) fact that the elements of $S$ are distinct in $W$.
$endgroup$
– darij grinberg
Jan 2 at 11:45