A corollary of Stanley's Hook Content Formula
Mark Wildon

TL;DR
This paper explores the properties of rectangular tableaux derived from partition hook lengths, demonstrating their equal multisets of entries through combinatorial and algebraic methods involving Stanley's Hook Content Formula.
Contribution
It introduces a novel application of hook lengths to define tableaux and proves their equivalence using both elementary and algebraic techniques.
Findings
The tableaux have identical multisets of entries.
Elementary combinatorial proof of the tableaux's properties.
Algebraic proof using Stanley's Hook Content Formula.
Abstract
We use the hook lengths of a partition to define two rectangular tableaux. We prove these tableaux have equal multisets of entries, first by elementary combinatorial arguments, and then using Stanley's Hook Content Formula and symmetric polynomials.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics · Advanced Mathematical Identities · Advanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
A
corollary of Stanley’s Hook Content Formula
Mark Wildon
(Date: October 2018)
Abstract.
We use the hook lengths of a partition to define two rectangular tableaux. We prove these tableaux have equal multisets of entries, first by elementary combinatorial arguments, and then using Stanley’s Hook Content Formula and symmetric polynomials.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 05E05, Secondary: 05E10
1. Introduction
This paper presents two proofs of an appealing corollary of Stanley’s Hook Content Formula [3, Theorem 7.21.2] for the number of semistandard Young tableaux: the first is self-contained and entirely elementary, while the second uses Stanley’s result and symmetric polynomials. The author hopes the paper will be useful as an introduction to this interesting circle of ideas.
The following definitions are standard. A partition of is a sequence of natural numbers such that and . The size of is . We define and , setting . The Young diagram of , denoted , is the set of boxes .
We fix throughout , . Let . We orient by compass directions, thus is the box in its south-west corner and is the box in its north-east corner. As a running example, the Young diagram of , shown as a subset of when and , is below.
The hatched squares show the hooks on and , as defined formally in the definition below.
Definition**.**
Let be a partition with and . Let .
- (i)
The hook on , denoted , is
[TABLE]
if . We define the hook length of , denoted , to be .
- (ii)
The distance of , denoted , is the number of boxes in any walk by steps south and west to if , or of any walk by steps north and east to if .
Our result concerns two ways to fill the boxes of with natural numbers. Formally, these are specified by two functions from to , assigning to each box of a corresponding entry in .
Definition**.**
Let be a partition with and . Let . The hook/distance tableau for has entry in box
[TABLE]
Theorem 1**.**
For any partition with and , the multisets of entries of the hook/distance tableau for and the distance/hook tableau for are equal.
In our running example, the hook/distance tableau (below left) and distance/hook tableau (below right) both have, for instance, six entries of , three entries of , and as their unique greatest entry.
1211964211986314327641654354287654431987652111109876
6789101112156789124456713463451356823424679121468911
In §2 we give an elementary combinatorial proof of Theorem 1, working by induction on the size of . Then in §3 we put the theorem in its proper context by giving a shorter algebraic proof using Stanley’s Hook Content Formula and a bijection due to King [1, §4].
2. An elementary combinatorial proof of the main theorem
We work by induction on , the size of . If , so , then the hook/distance tableau has the distances ,…, from west to east in row , while the distance/hook tableau has the hook lengths from west to east in row . Therefore the multisets of entries agree.
Suppose the theorem holds for the partition of where . Let be a box such that is the Young diagram of a partition, denoted . As a visual aid, we define the hook/hook tableau to have entry in box if and entry in box if . No entry is assigned to the exceptional box . The hook/hook tableau in our running example with is below.
12119642119863113764112465421346843124579211467911
The following lemma is used below to express the hook lengths of in terms of those of . The hook/hook tableau above shows that the sets , , and in this lemma are , , and .
Lemma 2**.**
@afterheading
- (i)
Let and let . Then where the union is disjoint.
- (ii)
Let and let . Then where the union is disjoint.
Proof.
It is clear from the diagram below and the hook/hook tableau that no hook length in can equal a hook length in .
\iddots$$\scriptstyle(a,b)$$\scriptstyle(a,j)$$\scriptstyle(i,b)$$\scriptstyle(i^{\prime},b)
Therefore and are disjoint. If then the greatest hook length in is , measured by walking north from to then east to . Otherwise it is , measured by walking east from to then north to . Since , this proves (i); the proof of (ii) is entirely analogous. ∎
Given a multiset of natural numbers, let . Let denote the union of multisets. Thus and .
We are now ready for the inductive step. Define
[TABLE]
and let be defined analogously, replacing hook lengths with distances.
If then
[TABLE]
and similarly if then
[TABLE]
The equations for above show that is obtained from by removing each hook length in and inserting each hook length in . Similarly is obtained from by removing each hook length in and inserting each hook length in . Therefore, using the multiset union,
[TABLE]
We now manipulate these equations so that the inductive hypothesis applies. Recall from Lemma 2 that and . Hence, taking the multiset union of both sides of the two equations above with and , respectively, we get
[TABLE]
where . Setting , it follows that
[TABLE]
Since and we have and . Taking the multiset union of both sides of (1) with and (2) with , we get
[TABLE]
Cancelling the elements of and , we get and . By our inductive hypothesis, the right-hand sides are equal. Therefore , as required.
3. A symmetric polynomials proof of the main theorem
3.1. Background
Fix a partition . A -tableau is a function assigning to each box of an entry in . A -tableau is semistandard if its rows are weakly increasing, when read from west to east, and its columns are strictly increasing, when read from north to south. Let denote the set of semistandard -tableaux with maximum entry at most our fixed number . For , let denote the monomial where is the number of entries of equal to . By definition, the Schur polynomial in variables is
[TABLE]
A fundamental result states that is symmetric under permutation of . This has an elegant proof by the Bender–Knuth involution: see for instance Theorem 7.10.2 in [3].
Let denote the sum of the entries of . Specializing by we obtain
[TABLE]
The minimum possible value of for is . Stanley’s Hook Content Formula may be stated as
[TABLE]
where the hook lengths for are as we have defined. (The term ‘content’ refers to the powers of in the numerators.) Stanley’s formula was first proved in [2, Theorem 15.3]; for the statement above see [3, Theorem 7.21.2] and the following discussion. For example,
[TABLE]
enumerates the semistandard tableaux
[TABLE]
The central symmetry about in the coefficients in this example is a special case of the following basic and well-known lemma, left to the reader in Exercise 7.75 in [3].
Lemma 3**.**
Let be a partition of . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be a symmetric polynomial. If is a monomial in then so is , and the coefficients agree. Under the specialization the first becomes and the second . Observe that the sum of exponents is . Therefore the coefficients of and in agree for each . Taking this easily implies the lemma. ∎
The end of our proof requires the following unique factorization theorem, implicitly used in (4.8) in [1].
Lemma 4**.**
Let and be finite multisubsets of . In the ring , if and only if .
Proof.
If either or is empty the result is obvious. In the remaining cases, let be maximal such that has as a root. By maximality, is a factor in the left-hand side. Since is then also a root of the same argument shows that is a factor in the right-hand side. Therefore . It follows inductively by cancelling from both sides that . ∎
Let denote the partition defined by deleting any final zeroes from ; here if we take .
We require the following bijection which is indicated in [1, §4]; we give a complete proof.
Proposition 5**.**
There is a bijection
[TABLE]
defined by sending to the unique -tableau having as its entries in column the complement in of the entries of in column , arranged in increasing order from north to south.
Proof.
It suffices to prove that is semistandard. Suppose, for a contradiction, that columns and of have entries , …, and read from north to south. Let columns and of read from north to south have entries , …, where is maximal such that . Then are all the numbers strictly less than in , since, by choice of , if is defined then . But from the chain and the inequalities for , we see that is strictly greater than distinct numbers, a contradiction. ∎
3.2. Proof of Theorem 1
Observe that if then . Therefore by (3), the bijection in Proposition 5, and then Lemma 3, we have
[TABLE]
Applying Stanley’s Hook Content Formula (4) to each side we obtain
[TABLE]
We now relate the numerators to the distances in Theorem 1, using the bijection from to defined by where and . We have . Moreover, is the number of boxes in any walk by steps north and east from to , namely . Therefore the left-hand side is
[TABLE]
If then is the number of boxes in any walk by steps south and west to , again . Therefore, cancelling the powers of we obtain
[TABLE]
Theorem 1 now follows by multiplying through by the denominators and applying Lemma 4.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Ronald C. King, Young tableaux, Schur functions and SU ( 2 ) SU 2 {\rm SU}(2) plethysms , J. Phys. A 18 (1985), no. 13, 2429–2440.
- 2[2] Richard P. Stanley, Theory and application of plane partitions. II , Studies in Appl. Math. 50 (1971), 259–279.
- 3[3] by same author, Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 2 , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 62, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, With a foreword by Gian-Carlo Rota and appendix 1 by Sergey Fomin.
