Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:03:41.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

FROM COMPLETE TO PARTIAL FLAGS IN GEOMETRIC EXTENSION ALGEBRAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

JULIA SAUTER*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics, Bielefeld University, PO Box 100 131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany e-mail: jsauter@math.uni-bielefeld.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A geometric extension algebra is an extension algebra of a semi-simple perverse sheaf (allowing shifts), e.g., a push-forward of the constant sheaf under a projective map. Particular nice situations arise for collapsings of homogeneous vector bundles over homogeneous spaces. In this paper, we study the relationship between partial flag and complete flag cases. Our main result is that the locally finite modules over the geometric extension algebras are related by a recollement. As examples, we investigate parabolic affine nil Hecke algebras, geometric extension algebras associated with parabolic Springer maps and an example of Reineke of a parabolic quiver-graded Hecke algebra.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Glasgow Mathematical Journal Trust 2017 

References

REFERENCES

1. Arabia, A., Cohomologie T-équivariante de la variété de drapeaux d'un groupe de Kac-Moody, Bull. Soc. Math. France 117 (2) (1989), 129165.Google Scholar
2. Bernstein, J. and Lunts, V.,. Bd. 1578: Equivariant sheaves and functors, Lecture notes in mathematics, volume 1578 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994), iv+139 S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Borho, W. and MacPherson, R., Partial resolutions of nilpotent varieties, in Analysis and topology on singular spaces, II, III (Luminy, 1981), vol. 101 (Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1983), 2374.Google Scholar
4. Chriss, N. and Ginzburg, V., Representation theory and complex geometry (Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1997).Google Scholar
5. de Cataldo, M. A. and Migliorini, L., The decomposition theorem, perverse sheaves and the topology of algebraic maps, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 46 (2009), 535633.Google Scholar
6. Douglass, J. M. and Röhrle, G., The Steinberg variety and representations of reductive groups, J. Algebra 321 (11) (2009), 31583196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Joshua, R., Modules over convolution algebras from equivariant derived categories. I, J. Algebra 203 (2) (1998), 385446.Google Scholar
8. Reineke, M., Quivers, desingularizations and canonical bases, in Studies in memory of Issai Schur (Chevaleret/Rehovot, 2000), vol. 210 (Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 2003), 325344.Google Scholar
9. Sauter, Julia, Generalized quiver Hecke algebras, arXiv:1306.3892 [math.RT].Google Scholar
10. Sauter, Julia, A survey on springer theory, arXiv:1307.0973v3.Google Scholar
11. Stroppel, C. and Webster, B., Quiver Schur algebras and q-Fock space, arXiv:1110.1115v2.Google Scholar
12. Varagnolo, M. and Vasserot, E., Canonical bases and affine Hecke algebras of type B, Invent. Math. 185 (3) (2011), 593693.Google Scholar
13. Varagnolo, M. and Vasserot, E., Canonical bases and KLR-algebras, J. Reine Angew. Math. 659 (2011), 67100.Google Scholar