Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded a reference to today's * [[John Baez]], [[Joe Moeller]], [[Todd Trimble]], _Schur functors and categorified plethysm_, ([arXiv:2106.00190](https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00190)) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Schur+functor/95">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Schur+functor/95">v95</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Schur+functor">current</a>

   Added a reference to today’s

   • John Baez, Joe Moeller, Todd Trimble, Schur functors and categorified plethysm, (arXiv:2106.00190)

   diff, v95, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: TextI added the 'local naturality' requirement to the definition of a pseudonatural transformation.

   I added the 'local naturality' requirement to the definition of a pseudonatural transformation.
3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2024
   • PermaLink
   Author: perezl.alonso
   Format: MarkdownItexHere is something I find confusing. These are functors that can be defined on monoidal categories which are also enriched over Vect and have direct sums. But these functors are just monoidal with respect to the tensor product right? They don't respect the direct sums? E.g. the $n$th tensor power is a Schur functor, but obviously $(X+Y)^{\otimes n} \neq X^{\otimes n}+Y^{\otimes n}$. So by functor we only mean monoidal functor but without any exactness and whatnot related to sums?

   Here is something I find confusing. These are functors that can be defined on monoidal categories which are also enriched over Vect and have direct sums. But these functors are just monoidal with respect to the tensor product right? They don’t respect the direct sums? E.g. the $n$th tensor power is a Schur functor, but obviously $(X+Y)^{\otimes n} \neq X^{\otimes n}+Y^{\otimes n}$. So by functor we only mean monoidal functor but without any exactness and whatnot related to sums?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorJ-B Vienney
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2024
   • (edited Aug 23rd 2024)
   • PermaLink
   Author: J-B Vienney
   Format: MarkdownItexI think Schur functors are rarely strong monoidal with respect to the tensor product. For instance if $X,Y$ are two finite-dimensional vector spaces, then $\bigwedge^n(X \otimes Y)$ is of dimension $\binom{\mathrm{dim}(X)\mathrm{dim}(Y)}{n}$ whereas $\big(\bigwedge^n X\big) \otimes \big(\bigwedge^n Y\big)$ is of dimension $\binom{\mathrm{dim}(X)}{n}\binom{\mathrm{dim}(Y)}{n}$. I would be less surprised if they turned out to be lax or oplax monoidal though.

   I think Schur functors are rarely strong monoidal with respect to the tensor product. For instance if $X,Y$ are two finite-dimensional vector spaces, then $\bigwedge^n(X \otimes Y)$ is of dimension $\binom{\mathrm{dim}(X)\mathrm{dim}(Y)}{n}$ whereas $\big(\bigwedge^n X\big) \otimes \big(\bigwedge^n Y\big)$ is of dimension $\binom{\mathrm{dim}(X)}{n}\binom{\mathrm{dim}(Y)}{n}$. I would be less surprised if they turned out to be lax or oplax monoidal though.