Opened 6 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

## #15444 closed defect

# Two algorithms for k-charge do not give same answer — at Initial Version

Reported by: | aschilling | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|

Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.1 |

Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | tableaux, charge |

Cc: | sage-combinat, zabrocki | Merged in: | |

Authors: | Reviewers: | ||

Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |

Branch: | Commit: | ||

Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |

### Description

Currently, the two implementations of k-charge do not give the same answer:

sage: T = WeakTableaux(4,[4,3,2,1],[2,2,2,2,1,1],representation='bounded') sage: for t in T: print t.k_charge(), t.k_charge(algorithm='J') ....: 9 10 10 10 8 8 9 9 10 10 8 9 11 11

Comparing against the expansion of Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions in terms of k-Schur functions, it seems that the I-implementation is correct

sage: Sym = SymmetricFunctions(QQ['t']) sage: Qp = Sym.hall_littlewood().Qp() sage: ks = Sym.kschur(4) sage: ks(Qp[2,2,2,2,1,1])[Partition([4,3,2,1])] t^11 + 2*t^10 + 2*t^9 + 2*t^8

**Note:**See TracTickets for help on using tickets.