Skip to main content
25 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 26, 2019 at 7:26 comment added Christian Stump @Vincent: done, thanks for pinging!
Nov 26, 2019 at 7:26 history edited Christian Stump CC BY-SA 4.0
updated broken link
Nov 24, 2019 at 23:02 comment added Vincent The link to the temporary storing place of the paper doesn't work anymore. Could you add the link to the Arxiv-version?
Aug 18, 2017 at 14:07 history bounty awarded Mare
Aug 17, 2017 at 2:25 vote accept Mare
Aug 16, 2017 at 22:03 history edited Martin Rubey CC BY-SA 3.0
provide paper
Aug 10, 2017 at 22:04 history edited Martin Rubey CC BY-SA 3.0
include outline of proof
S Aug 10, 2017 at 16:02 history suggested Christian Stump CC BY-SA 3.0
added that we know how to do it.
Aug 10, 2017 at 15:54 review Suggested edits
S Aug 10, 2017 at 16:02
Aug 10, 2017 at 7:49 comment added Martin Rubey @SylvainJULIEN: sorry, I do not understand your question. As far as I can see, the remaining difficulty is to translate the second condition of a $2$-Gorenstein failure $(a,b)$ into the Dyck path picture. The permutation matrix is easy to see in this picture: drawing the Dyck path with north and east steps, staying above the main diagonal, put a cross into each valley and fill the remaining slots with an increasing sequence.
Aug 9, 2017 at 23:24 comment added Mare @MartinRubey the condition $c_{a+b} \geq c_{a+b-1}$ alone also has an interesting interpretation. If I made no mistake it counts the algebras having the double centralizer protperty with respect to a minimal faithful projective-injective module. My conjecture is that the corresponding sequence is oeis.org/A005043 .
Aug 9, 2017 at 22:56 comment added Martin Rubey It appears that Sergi Elizalde's cycle diagram makes at least the relation between $c_{a+b}\geq c_{a+b-1}$ and double deficiencies clear. I haven't translated the other condition yet, though.
S Aug 9, 2017 at 20:57 history edited FindStat CC BY-SA 3.0
added code
S Aug 9, 2017 at 20:57 history suggested Christian Stump CC BY-SA 3.0
added code
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:52 review Suggested edits
S Aug 9, 2017 at 20:57
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:45 comment added Sylvain JULIEN I don't quite get it. Wouldn't it follow from the fact that a pair $ (a,b) $ is either 2-Gorenstein or a 2-Gorenstein failure and if $ i\neq\sigma(i) $ then $\sigma( i )$ is either a double deficiency or a double excedance ? I must be missing something.
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:34 comment added Mare Yes, more information is always better.
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:33 comment added Christian Stump I think it would be useful to add the code here as it is rather straightforward to see how this works. Should I add it?
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:32 comment added Martin Rubey @Mare: I checked all Dyck paths with semilength at most 11.
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:27 comment added Martin Rubey @SylvainJULIEN: yes, you only need to reverse inequalities.
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:21 comment added Sylvain JULIEN I can read in your second link the definition of a double deficiency but not of a double excedance : is it the same with reversed inequalities, i. e a "negative" double deficiency ?
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:20 comment added Mare This looks spectacular. How good tested is your conjecture?
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:10 history edited Martin Rubey CC BY-SA 3.0
correct conjecture
Aug 9, 2017 at 19:55 review First posts
Aug 9, 2017 at 20:08
Aug 9, 2017 at 19:54 history answered FindStat CC BY-SA 3.0