Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Symplectic Grassmannians and cyclic quivers

Evgeny Feigin E. Feigin:
School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
evgfeig@gmail.com
Martina Lanini M. Lanini:
Dipartimento di Matematica
Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Rome, Italy
lanini@mat.uniroma2.it
Matteo Micheli M. Micheli:
Dipartimento di Matematica ”Guido Castelnuovo”
Sapienza Università di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Rome, Italy
matteo.micheli@uniroma1.it
 and  Alexander Pütz A. Pütz:
Institute of Mathematics
University Paderborn
Warburger Str. 100

D-33098 Paderborn
Germany
alexander.puetz@math.uni-paderborn.de
Abstract.

The goal of this paper is to extend the quiver Grassmannian description of certain degenerations of Grassmann varieties to the symplectic case. We introduce a symplectic version of quiver Grassmannians studied in our previous papers and prove a number of results on these projective algebraic varieties. First, we construct a cellular decomposition of the symplectic quiver Grassmannians in question and develop combinatorics needed to compute Euler characteristics and Poincaré polynomials. Second, we show that the number of irreducible components of our varieties coincides with the Euler characteristic of the classical symplectic Grassmannians. Third, we describe the automorphism groups of the underlying symplectic quiver representations and show that the cells are the orbits of this group. Lastly, we provide an embedding into the affine flag varieties for the affine symplectic group.

1. Introduction

The classical Grassmann varieties Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\mathrm{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) admit a flat degeneration into certain reducible algebraic varieties X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ). The construction emerged from arithmetics as local models of Shimura varieties [Go01, Ga01, PRS13], but is also very natural from the point of view of complex algebraic geometry [Kn08, Zho19]. In [FLP22, FLP23a, FLP23b] the quiver Grassmannians approach describing these degenerations was developed. More precisely, the authors considered certain modules U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over the cyclic quivers ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) is isomorphic to the quiver Grassmannian of subrepresentations of U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of dimension k𝑘kitalic_k at each vertex. This paper is the first step towards the extension of the quiver approach to the symplectic case (see [BF19, BF20, BC22, BCFF24] for the non cyclic type A𝐴Aitalic_A case).

The varieties X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) admit many nice properties. Having a quiver Grassmannians realization at hand, one is able to use various techniques from the algebraic, combinatorial and geometric theories of quivers in order to study various structures related to X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ). In particular, one can use the automorphism groups of the underlying representations in order to describe cellular decompositions and to establish a link with the positroid decomposition of totally nonnegative Grassmannians. Looking at the side of local models of Shimura varieties, one gets generalizations for other classical groups [Go03, Pa18, PZ22] (we note that only the Lagrangian case was considered). Hence it is natural to ask for the quiver realization with a bilinear form added as an extra piece of data. Our goal is to initiate the study of the corresponding quiver Grassmannians.

In this paper we deal only with the symplectic form on a 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n dimensional complex vector space. The symplectic Grassmannians Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have been extensively studied in the literature (see e.g. [DC, FH]). For each k=1,,n𝑘1𝑛k=1,\dots,nitalic_k = 1 , … , italic_n we define a degeneration X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the corresponding symplectic Grassmannian as follows. The symplectic form on the 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n dimensional complex vector space as above induces a non degenerate skew-symmetric form on the representation space U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is defined as a subvariety of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) consisting of self-orthogonal subrepresentations. Our first theorem is as follows.

Theorem A.

(Theorem 4.14) The intersection of a standard cell of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) with X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either empty or an affine cell. The top dimensional cells of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are obtained from top dimensional cells of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). The dimension of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to the dimension of the classical symplectic Grassmannian Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the number of irreducible components of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to the Euler characteristic of Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Let G𝐺Gitalic_G be the automorphism group of U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be its subgroup preserving the symplectic form. It was shown in [FLP22, FLP23a, FLP23b] that G𝐺Gitalic_G is a degeneration of the general linear group GL2n𝐺subscript𝐿2𝑛GL_{2n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the action of G𝐺Gitalic_G can be used to describe various properties of the varieties X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). We show that similar properties hold true in the symplectic case as well.

Theorem B.

(Theorem 3.11) The group Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a degeneration of the classical group Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; in particular, dimGsp=2n2+ndimensionsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝2superscript𝑛2𝑛\dim G^{sp}=2n^{2}+nroman_dim italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_n. The group Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acts on X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with a finite number of orbits, the orbits are affine cells and are naturally labeled by certain combinatorial gadgets that we call symplectic juggling patterns.

Recall that the varieties X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) admit embeddings into the affine flag varieties of type A𝐴Aitalic_A [HR20, Zho19, Zhu19]. These embeddings have simple and transparent description in terms of quiver representations via the lattice realization of affine Grassmannians and affine flag varieties ([FLP23a, HZ23-1, HZ23-2]). We show that one can extend the type A𝐴Aitalic_A picture to the symplectic case. More precisely, we prove the following theorem (it is known for k=n𝑘𝑛k=nitalic_k = italic_n from the arithmetic side by [PRS13]).

Theorem C.

(Theorem 5.4) The varieties X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT admit an embedding into the flag variety for the affine symplectic group Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The image of the embedding is a union of Schubert varieties.

We put forward two conjectures:

  • The degeneration from the symplectic Grassmannian Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to
    X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is flat (see Section 2.4 for more detail);

  • The poset structure on the set of cells of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is induced from the corresponding poset of cells of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) (see Conjecture 4.9).

Finally, let us mention several possible further directions. First, it would be interesting to study the projections XS(k,2n)spsubscript𝑋𝑆superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X_{S}(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the varieties X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the product of Grassmannians corresponding to a subset S𝑆Sitalic_S of vertices of the quiver Δ2nsubscriptΔ2𝑛\Delta_{2n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Second, the varieties X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) admit certain ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω-generalizations X(k,2n,ω)𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝜔X(k,2n,\omega)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n , italic_ω ) [FLP23a], it would be interesting to develop the corresponding symplectic story. Third, one is interested in the projections XS(k,2n,ω)spsubscript𝑋𝑆superscript𝑘2𝑛𝜔𝑠𝑝X_{S}(k,2n,\omega)^{sp}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_k , 2 italic_n , italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In all these cases one expects a link to a flat degeneration from Schubert varieties in affine Grassmannians to unions of Schubert varieties in affine flag varieties (see [Ga01, Zho19, FLP23b]). Fourth, the quiver Grassmannian realization allows one to use quiver techniques for the construction of resolutions of singularities [FF13, CFR13, PR23]. It is natural to ask for a similar construction in the symplectic case (see [FFL14] for a special case of such construction). Fifth, it is natural to expect a link between the topology of the varieties X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the symplectic version of the totally nonnegative Grassmannians (in the spirit of [FLP22], see also [Kar18, W05, Pos06]). Lastly, it is natural to study the orthogonal case (both even and odd) and the case of odd symplectic Grassmannians [M07, Pr88].

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we provide the needed background; in particular, we introduce here the poset JP(k,n)𝐽𝑃𝑘𝑛JP(k,n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , italic_n ) of (k,n)𝑘𝑛(k,n)( italic_k , italic_n )-juggling patterns and the juggling variety X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ), as well as their symplectic analogues JP(k,2n)sp𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝JP(k,2n)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Section 3 is about reductive group actions: we recall the action of an appropriate degeneration of GL2n𝐺subscript𝐿2𝑛GL_{2n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ), we define an involution on such a group and look at both its fixed point subgroup Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (the symplectic automorphism group) and at the corresponding Lie algebra. The symplectic automorphism group acts on X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and we devote the rest of this section to the investigation of its orbits. More precisely, we show that they are parameterized by symplectic juggling patterns and that they are all affine spaces. In Section 4 we deepen the study of the Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbits on X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. More specifically, we connect the orbit closure inclusion relation to certain combinatorial moves on juggling patterns called mutations, and exploit them to determine the cell dimension. Moreover, we provide an explicit counting of the top dimensional cells, and hence determine the dimension of our variety of interest. Section 5 deals with the affine Grassmannians and flag variety: after recalling the embedding of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) into the GL2n𝐺subscript𝐿2𝑛GL_{2n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT affine flag variety, we show that X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be embedded into the Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-affine flag variety. In Appendix A we exhibit Poincaré polynomials and Euler characteristics of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and its symplectic analogue for n=1,2,3,4𝑛1234n=1,2,3,4italic_n = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n.

2. Background

2.1. Juggling patterns and juggling variety

First we lay down some notation:

  • for nm+𝑛𝑚superscriptn\leq m\in{\mathbb{N}}^{+}italic_n ≤ italic_m ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we will write [n]delimited-[]𝑛[n][ italic_n ] for the set {1,2,,n}12𝑛\{1,2,\dots,n\}{ 1 , 2 , … , italic_n }, [n,m]𝑛𝑚[n,m][ italic_n , italic_m ] for {n,n+1,,m}𝑛𝑛1𝑚\{n,n+1,\dots,m\}{ italic_n , italic_n + 1 , … , italic_m } and ([m]n)binomialdelimited-[]𝑚𝑛\binom{[m]}{n}( FRACOP start_ARG [ italic_m ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) for the set of subsets of [m]delimited-[]𝑚[m][ italic_m ] with cardinality n𝑛nitalic_n;

  • e1,e2,,ensubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒𝑛e_{1},e_{2},\dots,e_{n}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the elements of the standard basis for nsuperscript𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Given a subset I𝐼Iitalic_I of [n]delimited-[]𝑛[n][ italic_n ], the coordinate subspace VIsubscript𝑉𝐼V_{I}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as Span{ei|iI}Spanconditionalsubscript𝑒𝑖𝑖𝐼\operatorname{Span}\{e_{i}\,|\,i\in I\}roman_Span { italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_i ∈ italic_I };

  • if g𝑔gitalic_g is an invertible matrix, gtsuperscript𝑔𝑡g^{-t}italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT will be notation for (g1)tsuperscriptsuperscript𝑔1𝑡(g^{-1})^{t}( italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT;

  • the ring of integers modulo m𝑚mitalic_m will be denoted by msubscript𝑚{\mathbb{Z}}_{m}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We denote with ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the equioriented quiver of type A~~𝐴\widetilde{A}over~ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices.

The quiver Δ6subscriptΔ6\Delta_{6}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We label its vertices with the integers modulo n𝑛nitalic_n, so that the arrows are of the form ii+1𝑖𝑖1i\longrightarrow i+1italic_i ⟶ italic_i + 1.

Definition 2.1.

Let kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n be natural numbers; we define the projective variety

X(k,n){V=(Vi)ininGr(k,n)|τ1(Vi)Vi+1in}𝑋𝑘𝑛conditional-set𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑖subscript𝑛subscriptproduct𝑖subscript𝑛𝐺𝑟𝑘superscript𝑛subscript𝜏1subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑉𝑖1for-all𝑖subscript𝑛X(k,n)\coloneqq\Big{\{}V=(V_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}}\in\prod_{i\in{\mathbb{% Z}}_{n}}Gr(k,{\mathbb{C}}^{n})\,|\,\tau_{1}(V_{i})\subseteq V_{i+1}\,\forall\,% i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}\Big{\}}italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) ≔ { italic_V = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∀ italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }

where the endomorphism τ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{C}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is given by τ1(ei)=ei+1subscript𝜏1subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖1\tau_{1}(e_{i})=e_{i+1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i<n𝑖𝑛i<nitalic_i < italic_n and τ1(en)=0subscript𝜏1subscript𝑒𝑛0\tau_{1}(e_{n})=0italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0.

Notice that X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) is a quiver Grassmannian for ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (see [FLP22] for more detail): consider the nilpotent ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which has nsuperscript𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over each vertex and τ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over each arrow. If we denote by k¯n¯𝑘superscript𝑛\underaccent{\bar}{k}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{n}under¯ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the dimension vector whose entries are all equal to k𝑘k\in{\mathbb{N}}italic_k ∈ blackboard_N, we have that X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) is the locus of subrepresentations of U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of dimension vector k¯¯𝑘\underaccent{\bar}{k}under¯ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG, i.e.

X(k,n)=Gr(k¯,U[n]).𝑋𝑘𝑛𝐺𝑟¯𝑘subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛X(k,n)=Gr(\underaccent{\bar}{k},U_{[n]})\,.italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) = italic_G italic_r ( under¯ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT6superscript6{\mathbb{C}}^{6}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPTτ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

The representation U[6]subscript𝑈delimited-[]6U_{[6]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 6 ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Definition 2.2.

Let kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n be natural numbers. A (k,n)𝑘𝑛(k,n)( italic_k , italic_n )-juggling pattern is a collection 𝒥=(Ji)in𝒥subscriptsubscript𝐽𝑖𝑖subscript𝑛\mathcal{J}=(J_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}}caligraphic_J = ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of cardinality k𝑘kitalic_k subsets of [n]delimited-[]𝑛[n][ italic_n ], such that jJi𝑗subscript𝐽𝑖j\in J_{i}italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT implies j+1Ji+1𝑗1subscript𝐽𝑖1j+1\in J_{i+1}italic_j + 1 ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for all in𝑖subscript𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and all j[n1]𝑗delimited-[]𝑛1j\in[n-1]italic_j ∈ [ italic_n - 1 ]. The set of (k,n)𝑘𝑛(k,n)( italic_k , italic_n )-juggling patterns is denoted by JP(k,n)𝐽𝑃𝑘𝑛JP(k,n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , italic_n ).

Remark 2.3.

Observe that for each (k,n)𝑘𝑛(k,n)( italic_k , italic_n )-juggling pattern 𝒥=(Ji)i𝒥subscriptsubscript𝐽𝑖𝑖\mathcal{J}=(J_{i})_{i}caligraphic_J = ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the collection of coordinate vector spaces p𝒥(VJi)isubscript𝑝𝒥subscriptsubscript𝑉subscript𝐽𝑖𝑖p_{\mathcal{J}}\coloneqq(V_{J_{i}})_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a point in X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ).

In [FLP22] a different, but isomorphic, ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation is chosen: the map on the arrow ii+1𝑖𝑖1i\longrightarrow i+1italic_i ⟶ italic_i + 1 is the projection along the i𝑖iitalic_i-th standard basis vector. The corresponding quiver Grassmannians are again isomorphic to ours, and the combinatorial gadgets resulting from this representation are called (k,n)𝑘𝑛(k,n)( italic_k , italic_n )-Grassmann necklaces. One can produce a juggling pattern from a grassmann necklace and viceversa [FLP22, 2.2], and all results we recall that use one family of objects still hold for the other.

For all k[0,n]𝑘0𝑛k\in[0,n]italic_k ∈ [ 0 , italic_n ], the set JP(k,n)𝐽𝑃𝑘𝑛JP(k,n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , italic_n ) can be equipped with the following partial order: 𝒥𝒥𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}\leq\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J ≤ caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if and only if JiJisubscript𝐽𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑖J_{i}\geq J^{\prime}_{i}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i/n𝑖𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z / italic_n blackboard_Z, where two sets A,B([n]k)𝐴𝐵binomialdelimited-[]𝑛𝑘A,B\in\binom{[n]}{k}italic_A , italic_B ∈ ( FRACOP start_ARG [ italic_n ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) satisfy AB𝐴𝐵A\leq Bitalic_A ≤ italic_B if, when written in increasing order A={a1<a2<<ak}𝐴subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscript𝑎𝑘A=\{a_{1}<a_{2}<\dots<a_{k}\}italic_A = { italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, B={b1<b2<<bk}𝐵subscript𝑏1subscript𝑏2subscript𝑏𝑘B=\{b_{1}<b_{2}<\dots<b_{k}\}italic_B = { italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < ⋯ < italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, one has aibisubscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖a_{i}\leq b_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i[k]𝑖delimited-[]𝑘i\in[k]italic_i ∈ [ italic_k ].

Let GAutΔn(U[n])𝐺subscriptAutsubscriptΔ𝑛subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛G\coloneqq\operatorname{Aut}_{\Delta_{n}}(U_{[n]})italic_G ≔ roman_Aut start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be the automorphism group of the ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then G𝐺Gitalic_G acts on all quiver Grassmannians for U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, in particular on X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ). Each G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbit in X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) contains exactly one point p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT labeled by a juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J as in Remark 2.3. Such an orbit is an affine cell by [FLP22, Theorem 1] and we denote it by C𝒥subscript𝐶𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus the closure inclusion order on the set of G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbits induces a partial order on JP(k,n)𝐽𝑃𝑘𝑛JP(k,n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , italic_n ), which coincides with the combinatorial order described above [FLP23a, Corollary 4.7].

2.2. Symplectic conditions on the juggling variety

To introduce symplectic conditions on such varieties we need the dimension of the vector spaces to be even, so we work in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). We equip 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with the symplectic form

(v,w)=i=1n(1)i+1viw2ni+1,𝑣𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛superscript1𝑖1subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑤2𝑛𝑖1(v,w)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{i+1}\cdot v_{i}\cdot w_{2n-i+1}\,\,,( italic_v , italic_w ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where v=i=1nviei𝑣superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖v=\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}e_{i}italic_v = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and w=i=1nwiei𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑤𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖w=\sum_{i=1}^{n}w_{i}e_{i}italic_w = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In other words, this is the symplectic form whose Gram matrix ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω in the standard basis has zeros everywhere except on the antidiagonal, where it has alternating 1s and 11-1- 1s, with a 1 on the upper right corner.

Ω=(0001001001001000)Ωmatrix0001001001001000\Omega=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&\cdots&0&1\\ 0&0&\cdots&-1&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\text{\reflectbox{$\ddots$}}&\vdots&\vdots\\ 0&1&\cdots&0&0\\ -1&0&\cdots&0&0\end{pmatrix}roman_Ω = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG )

When n𝑛nitalic_n is fixed, we write i~~𝑖\tilde{i}over~ start_ARG italic_i end_ARG for 2ni+12𝑛𝑖12n-i+12 italic_n - italic_i + 1 for brevity. This way we have (ei,ej)=(1)i~δi~jsubscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗superscript1~𝑖subscript𝛿~𝑖𝑗(e_{i},e_{j})=(-1)^{\tilde{i}}\delta_{\tilde{i}j}( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_i end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_i end_ARG italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proposition 2.4.

Given k,n𝑘𝑛k,nitalic_k , italic_n natural numbers with 0k2n0𝑘2𝑛0\leq k\leq 2n0 ≤ italic_k ≤ 2 italic_n, the map

σ:X(k,2n):𝜎𝑋𝑘2𝑛\displaystyle\sigma\colon X(k,2n)italic_σ : italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) X(2nk,2n)absent𝑋2𝑛𝑘2𝑛\displaystyle\longrightarrow X(2n-k,2n)⟶ italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n )
(Vi)isubscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑖\displaystyle(V_{i})_{i}( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Vi)iabsentsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-to𝑖\displaystyle\longmapsto(V_{-i}^{\perp})_{i}⟼ ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

is well defined.

For VX(k,n)𝑉𝑋𝑘𝑛V\in X(k,n)italic_V ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) and WX(,n)𝑊𝑋𝑛W\in X(\ell,n)italic_W ∈ italic_X ( roman_ℓ , italic_n ) with k𝑘k\leq\ellitalic_k ≤ roman_ℓ, we write VW𝑉𝑊V\subseteq Witalic_V ⊆ italic_W whenever ViWisubscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑊𝑖V_{i}\subseteq W_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all in𝑖subscript𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof of Proposition 2.4.

To start with, observe that Ω=Ωt=Ω1ΩsuperscriptΩ𝑡superscriptΩ1-\Omega=\Omega^{t}=\Omega^{-1}- roman_Ω = roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Moreover, notice that, as matrices in the standard basis, Ωτ1tΩ1=Ωτ1tΩ=τ1Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜏1𝑡superscriptΩ1Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜏1𝑡Ωsubscript𝜏1-\Omega\cdot\tau_{1}^{t}\cdot\Omega^{-1}=\Omega\tau_{1}^{t}\Omega=\tau_{1}- roman_Ω ⋅ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Ω italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. From linear algebra we obtain: given W2n𝑊superscript2𝑛W\subseteq{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}italic_W ⊆ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT a subspace and M𝑀Mitalic_M a 2n×2n2𝑛2𝑛2n\times 2n2 italic_n × 2 italic_n matrix, one has ΩMtΩ((MW))WΩsuperscript𝑀𝑡Ωsuperscript𝑀𝑊perpendicular-tosuperscript𝑊perpendicular-to\Omega M^{t}\Omega\bigl{(}(M\cdot W)^{\perp}\bigr{)}\subseteq W^{\perp}roman_Ω italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω ( ( italic_M ⋅ italic_W ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Now if V=(Vi)i𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑖V=(V_{i})_{i}italic_V = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a point in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ), its vector spaces satisfy τ1ViVi+1subscript𝜏1subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑉𝑖1\tau_{1}\cdot V_{i}\subseteq V_{i+1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i𝑖iitalic_i. Taking the orthogonal subspaces we get Vi+1(τ1Vi)superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖1perpendicular-tosuperscriptsubscript𝜏1subscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-toV_{i+1}^{\perp}\subseteq(\tau_{1}\cdot V_{i})^{\perp}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then applying τ1subscript𝜏1\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to both sides we find

τ1(Vi+1)τ1((τ1Vi))=Ωτ1tΩ((τ1Vi))Vi.subscript𝜏1superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖1perpendicular-tosubscript𝜏1superscriptsubscript𝜏1subscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-toΩsuperscriptsubscript𝜏1𝑡Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜏1subscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-tosubscriptsuperscript𝑉perpendicular-to𝑖\tau_{1}(V_{i+1}^{\perp})\subseteq\tau_{1}\bigl{(}(\tau_{1}\cdot V_{i})^{\perp% }\bigr{)}=\Omega\tau_{1}^{t}\Omega\bigl{(}(\tau_{1}\cdot V_{i})^{\perp}\bigr{)% }\subseteq V^{\perp}_{i}\,\,.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = roman_Ω italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω ( ( italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

That is, τ1(σV)i1(σV)isubscript𝜏1subscript𝜎𝑉𝑖1subscript𝜎𝑉𝑖\tau_{1}(\sigma V)_{-i-1}\subseteq(\sigma V)_{-i}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_σ italic_V ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ ( italic_σ italic_V ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for any i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in\mathbb{Z}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and hence we obtain σVX(2nk,2n)𝜎𝑉𝑋2𝑛𝑘2𝑛\sigma V\in X(2n-k,2n)italic_σ italic_V ∈ italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ). ∎

Remark 2.5.

The composition

X(k,2n)𝜎X(2nk,2n)𝜎X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝜎𝑋2𝑛𝑘2𝑛𝜎𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)\overset{\sigma}{\longrightarrow}X(2n-k,2n)\overset{\sigma}{% \longrightarrow}X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) overitalic_σ start_ARG ⟶ end_ARG italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ) overitalic_σ start_ARG ⟶ end_ARG italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n )

is the identity map.

2.3. The main object

Now we introduce the main object of this paper:

Definition 2.6.

Let kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n. Then

X(k,2n)sp{V=(Vi)iX(k,2n)|VσV}.𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝conditional-set𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝑉𝜎𝑉X(k,2n)^{sp}\coloneqq\{V=(V_{i})_{i}\in X(k,2n)\,|\,V\subseteq\sigma V\}\,.italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ { italic_V = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) | italic_V ⊆ italic_σ italic_V } .

This is the subvariety of isotropic, or symplectic, points in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ).

Remark 2.7.

If instead nk2n𝑛𝑘2𝑛n\leq k\leq 2nitalic_n ≤ italic_k ≤ 2 italic_n, we can define coisotropic points in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) as those that satisfy VσV𝜎𝑉𝑉V\supseteq\sigma Vitalic_V ⊇ italic_σ italic_V. Then the corresponding subvariety is isomorphic to X(2nk,2n)sp𝑋superscript2𝑛𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(2n-k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT via σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ.

For a subset I([2n]k)𝐼binomialdelimited-[]2𝑛𝑘I\in\binom{[2n]}{k}italic_I ∈ ( FRACOP start_ARG [ 2 italic_n ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ), let RI[2n]𝑅𝐼delimited-[]2𝑛RI\coloneqq[2n]italic_R italic_I ≔ [ 2 italic_n ] \{i~|iI}([2n]2nk)conditional-set~𝑖𝑖𝐼binomialdelimited-[]2𝑛2𝑛𝑘\{\tilde{i}\,|\,i\in I\}\in\binom{[2n]}{2n-k}{ over~ start_ARG italic_i end_ARG | italic_i ∈ italic_I } ∈ ( FRACOP start_ARG [ 2 italic_n ] end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_n - italic_k end_ARG ). Notice that VRIsubscript𝑉𝑅𝐼V_{RI}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the coordinate subspace corresponding to RI𝑅𝐼RIitalic_R italic_I, coincides with VIsuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝐼perpendicular-toV_{I}^{\perp}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If IRI𝐼𝑅𝐼I\subseteq RIitalic_I ⊆ italic_R italic_I we say that I𝐼Iitalic_I is isotropic, or coisotropic if IRI𝑅𝐼𝐼I\supseteq RIitalic_I ⊇ italic_R italic_I; in either case we say that I𝐼Iitalic_I is symplectic.

Next, we extend R:([2n]k)([2n]2nk):𝑅binomialdelimited-[]2𝑛𝑘binomialdelimited-[]2𝑛2𝑛𝑘R\colon\binom{[2n]}{k}\longrightarrow\binom{[2n]}{2n-k}italic_R : ( FRACOP start_ARG [ 2 italic_n ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) ⟶ ( FRACOP start_ARG [ 2 italic_n ] end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_n - italic_k end_ARG ) to the poset of juggling patterns: for 𝒥=(Ji)JP(k,2n)𝒥subscript𝐽𝑖𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛\mathcal{J}=(J_{i})\in JP(k,2n)caligraphic_J = ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ), we define R𝒥𝑅𝒥R\mathcal{J}italic_R caligraphic_J as the tuple of sets (R𝒥)i=R(Ji)subscript𝑅𝒥𝑖𝑅subscript𝐽𝑖(R\mathcal{J})_{i}=R(J_{-i})( italic_R caligraphic_J ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ); this is a (2nk,2n)2𝑛𝑘2𝑛(2n-k,2n)( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern, since σ(p𝒥)X(2nk,2n)𝜎subscript𝑝𝒥𝑋2𝑛𝑘2𝑛\sigma(p_{\mathcal{J}})\in X(2n-k,2n)italic_σ ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and it has a coordinate vector space VR(Ji)=V(R𝒥)isubscript𝑉𝑅subscript𝐽𝑖subscript𝑉subscript𝑅𝒥𝑖V_{R(J_{-i})}=V_{(R\mathcal{J})_{i}}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R caligraphic_J ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on vertex i𝑖iitalic_i. Once again, R𝑅Ritalic_R is a bijection and R(R𝒥)=𝒥𝑅𝑅𝒥𝒥R(R\mathcal{J})=\mathcal{J}italic_R ( italic_R caligraphic_J ) = caligraphic_J. Given two juggling patterns 𝒥JP(k,n)𝒥𝐽𝑃𝑘𝑛\mathcal{J}\in JP(k,n)caligraphic_J ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , italic_n ) and 𝒥JP(,n)superscript𝒥𝐽𝑃𝑛\mathcal{J}^{\prime}\in JP(\ell,n)caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_J italic_P ( roman_ℓ , italic_n ) with k𝑘k\leq\ellitalic_k ≤ roman_ℓ, we write 𝒥𝒥𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J ⊆ caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if p𝒥p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥subscript𝑝superscript𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}\subseteq p_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, that is, if JiJisubscript𝐽𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑖J_{i}\subseteq J^{\prime}_{i}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i𝑖iitalic_i.

Definition 2.8.

Let kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n; a (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is isotropic, or symplectic, if p𝒥X(k,2n)spsubscript𝑝𝒥𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝p_{\mathcal{J}}\in X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or, equivalently, if 𝒥R𝒥𝒥𝑅𝒥\mathcal{J}\subseteq R\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J ⊆ italic_R caligraphic_J. By JP(k,2n)sp𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝JP(k,2n)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we denote the set of (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-symplectic juggling patterns.

Example 2.9.

Let k=n=2𝑘𝑛2k=n=2italic_k = italic_n = 2.

Then 𝒥=(J0={3,4},J1={2,4},J2={2,3},J3={3,4})𝒥formulae-sequencesubscript𝐽034formulae-sequencesubscript𝐽124formulae-sequencesubscript𝐽223subscript𝐽334\mathcal{J}=(J_{0}=\{3,4\},J_{1}=\{2,4\},J_{2}=\{2,3\},J_{3}=\{3,4\})caligraphic_J = ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 3 , 4 } , italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 2 , 4 } , italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 2 , 3 } , italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 3 , 4 } ) is a (2,4)24(2,4)( 2 , 4 )-juggling pattern, but it is not symplectic, as J2RJ2={1,4}not-subset-of-or-equalssubscript𝐽2𝑅subscript𝐽214J_{2}\not\subseteq RJ_{2}=\{1,4\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊈ italic_R italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 , 4 }. Instead, 𝒥=(J0={3,4},J1={2,4},J2={3,4},J3={2,4})JP(2,4)spsuperscript𝒥formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐽034formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐽124formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐽234subscriptsuperscript𝐽324𝐽𝑃superscript24𝑠𝑝\mathcal{J}^{\prime}=(J^{\prime}_{0}=\{3,4\},J^{\prime}_{1}=\{2,4\},J^{\prime}% _{2}=\{3,4\},J^{\prime}_{3}=\{2,4\})\in JP(2,4)^{sp}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 3 , 4 } , italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 2 , 4 } , italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 3 , 4 } , italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 2 , 4 } ) ∈ italic_J italic_P ( 2 , 4 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Remark 2.10.

A (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is maximal in the partial order if for all i𝑖iitalic_i, 2nJi2𝑛subscript𝐽𝑖2n\in J_{i}2 italic_n ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT implies 1Ji+11subscript𝐽𝑖11\in J_{i+1}1 ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [FLP22, Remark 4.12]. Then a maximal 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is symplectic if and only if J0subscript𝐽0J_{0}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is symplectic, or equivalently if and only if Jnsubscript𝐽𝑛J_{n}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is symplectic.

Proposition 2.11.

For any n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1, X(1,2n)sp=X(1,2n)𝑋superscript12𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑋12𝑛X(1,2n)^{sp}=X(1,2n)italic_X ( 1 , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_X ( 1 , 2 italic_n ).

Proof.

First we prove that any (1,2n)12𝑛(1,2n)( 1 , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern is isotropic: assume there exists a non-symplectic (1,2n)12𝑛(1,2n)( 1 , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J, with Ji={x}subscript𝐽𝑖𝑥J_{i}=\{x\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x } and Ji={x~}={2nx+1}subscript𝐽𝑖~𝑥2𝑛𝑥1J_{-i}=\{\tilde{x}\}=\{2n-x+1\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { over~ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG } = { 2 italic_n - italic_x + 1 } for some x[2n]𝑥delimited-[]2𝑛x\in[2n]italic_x ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] and i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let m𝑚mitalic_m be the number of arrows on the minimal path from i𝑖-i- italic_i to i𝑖iitalic_i, which is equivalent to 2i2𝑖2i2 italic_i modulo 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n and therefore even. Since x𝑥xitalic_x and x~~𝑥\tilde{x}over~ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG have different parity, we see that both between i𝑖iitalic_i and i1𝑖1-i-1- italic_i - 1 and between i𝑖-i- italic_i and i1𝑖1i-1italic_i - 1 there must be a vertex a𝑎aitalic_a such that Ja={2n}subscript𝐽𝑎2𝑛J_{a}=\{2n\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 2 italic_n }; this means x+m>2n𝑥𝑚2𝑛x+m>2nitalic_x + italic_m > 2 italic_n and x~+2nm>2n~𝑥2𝑛𝑚2𝑛\tilde{x}+2n-m>2nover~ start_ARG italic_x end_ARG + 2 italic_n - italic_m > 2 italic_n. These two inequalities are incompatible, thus we have found a contradiction.

Next we show that if 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is a maximal (1,2n)12𝑛(1,2n)( 1 , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern, then the whole orbit C𝒥=Gp𝒥subscript𝐶𝒥𝐺subscript𝑝𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}=G\cdot p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_G ⋅ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consists of symplectic points: let i𝑖iitalic_i be the vertex with Ji={1}subscript𝐽𝑖1J_{i}=\{1\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 }, so we have Ji+m={i+m}subscript𝐽𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑚J_{i+m}=\{i+m\}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_i + italic_m } for m[0,2n1]𝑚02𝑛1m\in[0,2n-1]italic_m ∈ [ 0 , 2 italic_n - 1 ]. Given a point V𝑉Vitalic_V in the orbit C𝒥subscript𝐶𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exist coefficients g1,,g2nsubscript𝑔1subscript𝑔2𝑛g_{1},\dots,g_{2n}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

Vi+m=Span(0,,0m,g1,g2,,g2nm)subscript𝑉𝑖𝑚subscriptSpansubscript00𝑚subscript𝑔1subscript𝑔2subscript𝑔2𝑛𝑚V_{i+m}=\operatorname{Span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{m},g_{1},g_% {2},\dots,g_{2n-m})italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Span start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( under⏟ start_ARG 0 , … , 0 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with g10subscript𝑔10g_{1}\neq 0italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ 0 (see [FLP22, Theorem 3.10] and [Pue22, Theorem 4.13]). Now let msuperscript𝑚m^{\prime}italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the number in [0,2n1]02𝑛1[0,2n-1][ 0 , 2 italic_n - 1 ] such that i+m2n(i+m)subscript2𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖superscript𝑚i+m\equiv_{2n}-(i+m^{\prime})italic_i + italic_m ≡ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( italic_i + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ); observe that if m+m2n𝑚superscript𝑚2𝑛m+m^{\prime}\geq 2nitalic_m + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 2 italic_n, the symplectic form between the generators of Vi+msubscript𝑉𝑖𝑚V_{i+m}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Vi+msubscript𝑉𝑖superscript𝑚V_{i+m^{\prime}}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT trivially vanishes, so we can assume m+12nmsuperscript𝑚12𝑛𝑚m^{\prime}+1\leq 2n-mitalic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ≤ 2 italic_n - italic_m. We compute the product and find

s=m+12nm(1)s+1gsmg2nm+1s.superscriptsubscript𝑠superscript𝑚12𝑛𝑚superscript1𝑠1subscript𝑔𝑠superscript𝑚subscript𝑔2𝑛𝑚1𝑠\sum_{s=m^{\prime}+1}^{2n-m}(-1)^{s+1}g_{s-m^{\prime}}\cdot g_{2n-m+1-s}\,.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_m + 1 - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

There is an even number of summands since m𝑚mitalic_m and msuperscript𝑚m^{\prime}italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have the same parity, and hence m+1superscript𝑚1m^{\prime}+1italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 and 2nm2𝑛𝑚2n-m2 italic_n - italic_m have different parity. Moreover, every summand appears twice with opposite signs, so that the sum is zero. We conclude the proof by observing that the union of all maximal cells is dense in X(1,2n)𝑋12𝑛X(1,2n)italic_X ( 1 , 2 italic_n ) and that X(1,2n)sp𝑋superscript12𝑛𝑠𝑝X(1,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( 1 , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a closed subvariety of X(1,2n)𝑋12𝑛X(1,2n)italic_X ( 1 , 2 italic_n ). ∎

2.4. Interpretation as degeneration of the isotropic Grassmannian

The construction of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT mimics the definition of the classical isotropic Grassmannian Gr(k,2n)sp𝐺𝑟superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝Gr(k,2n)^{sp}italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is, the projective variety of isotropic subspaces of 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Recall from [FLP22] that X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ) is a degeneration of Gr(k,n)𝐺𝑟𝑘𝑛Gr(k,n)italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , italic_n ): for z𝑧z\in{\mathbb{C}}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C define U[n](z)subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛𝑧U_{[n]}(z)italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) as the ΔnsubscriptΔ𝑛\Delta_{n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation with nsuperscript𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on every vertex and τ1,zsubscript𝜏1𝑧\tau_{1,z}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on every map, where the matrix of τ1,zsubscript𝜏1𝑧\tau_{1,z}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the standard basis is

τ1,z=(000z100000000010).subscript𝜏1𝑧matrix000𝑧100000000010\tau_{1,z}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0&\cdots&0&z\\ 1&0&\cdots&0&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\ 0&0&\ddots&0&0\\ 0&0&\cdots&1&0\end{pmatrix}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_z end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) .

Then Gr(k,n)𝐺𝑟𝑘𝑛Gr(k,n)italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , italic_n ) is isomorphic to Gr(k¯,U[n](z))𝐺𝑟¯𝑘subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛𝑧Gr(\underline{k},U_{[n]}(z))italic_G italic_r ( under¯ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) for all z0𝑧0z\neq 0italic_z ≠ 0 (for example by taking the vector space on vertex 0). Since τ1,0=τ1subscript𝜏10subscript𝜏1\tau_{1,0}=\tau_{1}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we get U[n](0)=U[n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛0subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛U_{[n]}(0)=U_{[n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) = italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so these varieties form a family Y𝑌Yitalic_Y equipped with a morphism π:Y:𝜋𝑌\pi\colon Y\longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}italic_π : italic_Y ⟶ blackboard_C. The fibers over nonzero numbers are all isomorphic to the classical Grassmannian, and the fiber over 0 is X(k,n)𝑋𝑘𝑛X(k,n)italic_X ( italic_k , italic_n ). Now, we replace n𝑛nitalic_n by 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n and take kn𝑘𝑛k\leq nitalic_k ≤ italic_n, in order to realize X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as a degeneration of Gr(k,2n)sp𝐺𝑟superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝Gr(k,2n)^{sp}italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Observe that Ωτ1,ztΩ=τ1,zΩsuperscriptsubscript𝜏1𝑧𝑡Ωsubscript𝜏1𝑧\Omega\tau_{1,z}^{t}\Omega=\tau_{1,z}roman_Ω italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so we can define a map

σz:Gr(k¯,U[2n](z))Gr(2nk¯,U[2n](z)):subscript𝜎𝑧𝐺𝑟¯𝑘subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑧𝐺𝑟¯2𝑛𝑘subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑧\sigma_{z}\colon Gr(\underline{k},U_{[2n]}(z))\longrightarrow Gr(\underline{2n% -k},U_{[2n]}(z))italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_G italic_r ( under¯ start_ARG italic_k end_ARG , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ) ⟶ italic_G italic_r ( under¯ start_ARG 2 italic_n - italic_k end_ARG , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) )

as in Proposition 2.4. For every fiber π1(z)superscript𝜋1𝑧\pi^{-1}(z)italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_z ), we consider points that satisfy Vσz(V)𝑉subscript𝜎𝑧𝑉V\subseteq\sigma_{z}(V)italic_V ⊆ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_V ) . This condition is continuous with z𝑧z\in{\mathbb{C}}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C and the fibers over nonzero numbers are isomorphic to the isotropic Grassmannian. Thus we have a subvariety Yspsuperscript𝑌𝑠𝑝Y^{sp}italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of Y𝑌Yitalic_Y such that X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the desired degeneration. Lastly we observe that G=AutΔn(U[n])𝐺subscriptAutsubscriptΔ𝑛subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛G=\operatorname{Aut}_{\Delta_{n}}(U_{[n]})italic_G = roman_Aut start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a degeneration of GLn𝐺subscript𝐿𝑛GL_{n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if we see it as the special fiber of the family over \mathbb{C}blackboard_C whose fiber over z𝑧z\in\mathbb{C}italic_z ∈ blackboard_C is the algebraic group AutΔn(U[n](z))subscriptAutsubscriptΔ𝑛subscript𝑈delimited-[]𝑛𝑧\operatorname{Aut}_{\Delta_{n}}(U_{[n]}(z))roman_Aut start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z ) ).

Example 2.12.

We compute the poset of symplectic (2,4)24(2,4)( 2 , 4 )-juggling patterns, with the combinatorial order inherited by JP(2,4)𝐽𝑃24JP(2,4)italic_J italic_P ( 2 , 4 ). We write ij𝑖𝑗ijitalic_i italic_j for the set {i,j}𝑖𝑗\{i,j\}{ italic_i , italic_j }, and we describe a juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J in the following way:

J0J3J1J2matrixmissing-subexpressionsubscript𝐽0missing-subexpressionsubscript𝐽3missing-subexpressionsubscript𝐽1missing-subexpressionsubscript𝐽2missing-subexpression\begin{matrix}&J_{0}&\\ J_{3}&&J_{1}\\ &J_{2}&\end{matrix}start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG

Out of the 33 juggling patterns from JP(2,4)𝐽𝑃24JP(2,4)italic_J italic_P ( 2 , 4 ), only these 13 are symplectic:

|12142334||24131324||13242413||34231412|matrixmissing-subexpression12missing-subexpression14missing-subexpression23missing-subexpression34missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression24missing-subexpression13missing-subexpression13missing-subexpression24missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression13missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression13missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression23missing-subexpression14missing-subexpression12missing-subexpression\displaystyle\begin{vmatrix}&12&\\ 14&&23\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&24&\\ 13&&13\\ &24&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&13&\\ 24&&24\\ &13&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 23&&14\\ &12&\end{vmatrix}| start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 12 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 14 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 23 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 13 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 13 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 13 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 13 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 23 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 14 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 12 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG |
|24142334||13242434||24343424||34242413||34231424|matrixmissing-subexpression24missing-subexpression14missing-subexpression23missing-subexpression34missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression13missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression34missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression24missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression24missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression13missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression23missing-subexpression14missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression\displaystyle\begin{vmatrix}&24&\\ 14&&23\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&13&\\ 24&&24\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&24&\\ 34&&34\\ &24&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 24&&24\\ &13&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 23&&14\\ &24&\end{vmatrix}| start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 14 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 23 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 13 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 13 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 23 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 14 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG |
|24343434||34242434||34343424|matrixmissing-subexpression24missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression34missing-subexpressionmatrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression24missing-subexpression\displaystyle\begin{vmatrix}&24&\\ 34&&34\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 24&&24\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 34&&34\\ &24&\end{vmatrix}| start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG | | start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 24 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG |
|34343434|matrixmissing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression34missing-subexpression\displaystyle\begin{vmatrix}&34&\\ 34&&34\\ &34&\end{vmatrix}| start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 34 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG |

The Hasse diagram of JP(2,4)sp𝐽𝑃superscript24𝑠𝑝JP(2,4)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( 2 , 4 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the following (the minimal vertex is on the bottom):

3. Symplectic Automorphisms

Let us now discuss the largest subgroup of G=AutΔn(U[2n])𝐺subscriptAutsubscriptΔ𝑛subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛G=\operatorname{Aut}_{\Delta_{n}}(U_{[2n]})italic_G = roman_Aut start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) which preserves the symplectic form.

Definition 3.1.

An automorphism A=(Ai)i2nG𝐴subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑖subscript2𝑛𝐺A=(A_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}\in Gitalic_A = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G is symplectic if

(3.1) (Ai(v),Ai(w))=(v,w)subscript𝐴𝑖𝑣subscript𝐴𝑖𝑤𝑣𝑤(A_{i}(v),A_{-i}(w))=(v,w)( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w ) ) = ( italic_v , italic_w )

for all i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, vU[2n](i)𝑣superscriptsubscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖v\in U_{[2n]}^{(i)}italic_v ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and wU[2n](i)𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖w\in U_{[2n]}^{(-i)}italic_w ∈ italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The subgroup of such elements is denoted by Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Recall that the choice of ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω corresponds to the choice of an involutive (non trivial) automorphism of GL2n𝐺subscript𝐿2𝑛GL_{2n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, given by:

gΩgtΩ,𝑔Ωsuperscript𝑔𝑡Ωg\longmapsto-\Omega\cdot g^{-t}\cdot\Omega,italic_g ⟼ - roman_Ω ⋅ italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ roman_Ω ,

whose fixed-point subgroup is Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We provide G𝐺Gitalic_G with a similar automorphism σG:GG:subscript𝜎𝐺𝐺𝐺\sigma_{G}:G\rightarrow Gitalic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_G → italic_G: for any A=(Ai)i2nG𝐴subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑖subscript2𝑛𝐺A=(A_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}\in Gitalic_A = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G we define

(3.2) σG(A)(Ω(Ait)Ω)i.subscript𝜎𝐺𝐴subscriptΩsuperscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑡Ω𝑖\sigma_{G}(A)\coloneqq\bigl{(}-\Omega\cdot(A_{-i}^{-t})\cdot\Omega\bigr{)}_{i}\,.italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ≔ ( - roman_Ω ⋅ ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Observe that two matrices A𝐴Aitalic_A and B𝐵Bitalic_B in GL2n𝐺subscript𝐿2𝑛GL_{2n}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with (A(v),B(w))=(v,w)𝐴𝑣𝐵𝑤𝑣𝑤(A(v),B(w))=(v,w)( italic_A ( italic_v ) , italic_B ( italic_w ) ) = ( italic_v , italic_w ) for all v,w2n𝑣𝑤superscript2𝑛v,w\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must satisfy

B=Ω(At)Ω.𝐵Ωsuperscript𝐴𝑡ΩB=-\Omega\cdot(A^{-t})\cdot\Omega.italic_B = - roman_Ω ⋅ ( italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ roman_Ω .

Hence the σGsubscript𝜎𝐺\sigma_{G}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-fixed subgroup of G𝐺Gitalic_G is precisely Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Recall the morphism σ:X(k,2n)X(2nk,2n):𝜎𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝑋2𝑛𝑘2𝑛\sigma:X(k,2n)\rightarrow X(2n-k,2n)italic_σ : italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) → italic_X ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ) defined in Proposition 2.4.

Lemma 3.2.

The equality

σG(A)V=σ(A(σV))subscript𝜎𝐺𝐴𝑉𝜎𝐴𝜎𝑉\sigma_{G}(A)\cdot V=\sigma\bigl{(}A\cdot(\sigma V)\bigr{)}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ⋅ italic_V = italic_σ ( italic_A ⋅ ( italic_σ italic_V ) )

holds for all VX(k,2n)𝑉𝑋𝑘2𝑛V\in X(k,2n)italic_V ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and AG𝐴𝐺A\in Gitalic_A ∈ italic_G.

Proof.

Since (A(σV))i=Ai(Vi)subscript𝐴𝜎𝑉𝑖subscript𝐴𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-to\bigl{(}A\cdot(\sigma V)\bigr{)}_{i}=A_{i}\cdot(V_{-i}^{\perp})( italic_A ⋅ ( italic_σ italic_V ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we have

(σ(A(σV)))i=(Ai(Vi)).subscript𝜎𝐴𝜎𝑉𝑖superscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-toperpendicular-to\Bigl{(}\sigma\bigl{(}A\cdot(\sigma V)\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}_{i}=\Bigl{(}A_{-i}\cdot% (V_{i}^{\perp})\Bigr{)}^{\perp}.( italic_σ ( italic_A ⋅ ( italic_σ italic_V ) ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

As in the proof of Proposition 2.4, we use the fact that given a matrix M𝑀Mitalic_M and a subspace W𝑊Witalic_W, there is an inclusion ΩMtΩ((MW))WΩsuperscript𝑀𝑡Ωsuperscript𝑀𝑊perpendicular-tosuperscript𝑊perpendicular-to\Omega M^{t}\Omega\bigl{(}(M\cdot W)^{\perp}\bigr{)}\subseteq W^{\perp}roman_Ω italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω ( ( italic_M ⋅ italic_W ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which is an equality whenever M𝑀Mitalic_M is invertible. In this case the identity can be rewritten as (MW)=ΩMtΩ(W)superscript𝑀𝑊perpendicular-toΩsuperscript𝑀𝑡Ωsuperscript𝑊perpendicular-to(M\cdot W)^{\perp}=\Omega M^{-t}\Omega(W^{\perp})( italic_M ⋅ italic_W ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Ω italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω ( italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). We obtain the claim by plugging in M=Ai𝑀subscript𝐴𝑖M=A_{-i}italic_M = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and W=Vi𝑊superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖perpendicular-toW=V_{i}^{\perp}italic_W = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT since A𝐴Aitalic_A consists of invertible matrices. ∎

Corollary 3.3.

The map R:JP(k,2n)JP(2nk,2n):𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛𝐽𝑃2𝑛𝑘2𝑛R\colon JP(k,2n)\longrightarrow JP(2n-k,2n)italic_R : italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) ⟶ italic_J italic_P ( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n ) is order preserving.

Proof.

Firstly, notice that R𝑅Ritalic_R sends the minimal (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern, whose sets all equal to {2nk+1,,2n}2𝑛𝑘12𝑛\{2n-k+1,\dots,2n\}{ 2 italic_n - italic_k + 1 , … , 2 italic_n } to the minimal (2nk,2n)2𝑛𝑘2𝑛(2n-k,2n)( 2 italic_n - italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern, which is constantly equal to {k+1,,2n}𝑘12𝑛\{k+1,\dots,2n\}{ italic_k + 1 , … , 2 italic_n }. Now let V=Ap𝒥𝑉𝐴subscript𝑝superscript𝒥V=A\cdot p_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}italic_V = italic_A ⋅ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some AG𝐴𝐺A\in Gitalic_A ∈ italic_G and 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT some (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern. By Lemma 3.2 we obtain,

σV=σ(Ap𝒥)=σ(Aσ(pR𝒥))=σG(A)pR𝒥.𝜎𝑉𝜎𝐴subscript𝑝superscript𝒥𝜎𝐴𝜎subscript𝑝𝑅superscript𝒥subscript𝜎𝐺𝐴subscript𝑝𝑅superscript𝒥\sigma V=\sigma(A\cdot p_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}})=\sigma(A\cdot\sigma(p_{R% \mathcal{J}^{\prime}}))=\sigma_{G}(A)\cdot p_{R\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}.italic_σ italic_V = italic_σ ( italic_A ⋅ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_σ ( italic_A ⋅ italic_σ ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ⋅ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Hence σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ sends isomorphically the cell C𝒥subscript𝐶superscript𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into the cell CR𝒥subscript𝐶𝑅superscript𝒥C_{R\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Recall that, for another juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J, the condition 𝒥𝒥𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}\leq\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J ≤ caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, is equivalent to p𝒥C𝒥¯subscript𝑝𝒥¯subscript𝐶superscript𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}\in\overline{C_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. Since σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ is an isomorphism of varieties, we get pR𝒥CR𝒥¯subscript𝑝𝑅𝒥¯subscript𝐶𝑅superscript𝒥p_{R\mathcal{J}}\in\overline{C_{R\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG

3.1. Explicit description of the symplectic automorphisms

Let A=(Ai)i2nG𝐴subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑖subscript2𝑛𝐺A=(A_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}\in Gitalic_A = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G. For any i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we denote by {e1(i),,e2n(i)}superscriptsubscript𝑒1𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑒2𝑛𝑖\{e_{1}^{(i)},\ldots,e_{2n}^{(i)}\}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } the standard basis of U[2n](i)=2nsuperscriptsubscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖superscript2𝑛U_{[2n]}^{(i)}={\mathbb{C}}^{2n}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. With respect to such a basis, each Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a lower triangular matrix with nonzero diagonal entries and A𝐴Aitalic_A is completely determined by the the entries of the first column of each of the Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s [FLP22, Proposition 4.5]. Let us denote the entries of the first column of Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by aj(i)subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑖𝑗a^{(i)}_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and j[2n]𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛j\in[2n]italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ].

Lemma 3.4.

We have that AGsp𝐴superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝A\in G^{sp}italic_A ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if and only if the following conditions hold true

(3.3) a1(i)a1(j)=1,i,j2n,i+j=1,formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑗11𝑖formulae-sequence𝑗subscript2𝑛𝑖𝑗1a^{(i)}_{1}a^{(j)}_{1}=1,\quad i,j\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n},\ i+j=1,\\ italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , italic_i , italic_j ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i + italic_j = 1 ,
(3.4) =0r1(1)a1+(i)ar(ri)=0i2n,r=2,,2n.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript0𝑟1superscript1superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖0formulae-sequence𝑖subscript2𝑛𝑟22𝑛\displaystyle\sum_{\ell=0}^{r-1}(-1)^{\ell}a_{1+\ell}^{(i)}\,a_{r-\ell}^{(r-i)% }=0\quad i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n},\ r=2,\dots,2n.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 + roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r - roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r = 2 , … , 2 italic_n .
Remark 3.5.

The relation (3.4) is trivial for r=2i𝑟2𝑖r=2iitalic_r = 2 italic_i.

Proof of Lemma 3.4.

By Definition 3.1, AGsp𝐴superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝A\in G^{sp}italic_A ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if and only if

(Aiej1(i),Aiej2(i))=(ej1(i),ej2(i))subscript𝐴𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑗1subscript𝐴𝑖subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑗2subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑗1subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑗2(A_{i}e^{(i)}_{j_{1}},A_{-i}e^{(-i)}_{j_{2}})=(e^{(i)}_{j_{1}},e^{(-i)}_{j_{2}})( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

holds for any i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, any j1,j2[2n]subscript𝑗1subscript𝑗2delimited-[]2𝑛j_{1},j_{2}\in[2n]italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ [ 2 italic_n ]. Now the desired equations come from the explicit form of the matrices Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as in [FLP22, Proposition 4.5]. ∎

3.2. Lie algebra of the symplectic automorphism group

Now we compute the dimensions of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let 𝔤Lie(G)=End(U[2n])𝔤Lie𝐺Endsubscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛{\mathfrak{g}}\coloneqq\text{Lie}(G)={\rm End}(U_{[2n]})fraktur_g ≔ Lie ( italic_G ) = roman_End ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). These endomorphisms are explicitly described in [FLP22, Proposition 4.5].

Let (x(a,b)|a[2n],b2n)formulae-sequenceconditional𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑎delimited-[]2𝑛𝑏subscript2𝑛\bigl{(}x(a,b)\,|\,a\in[2n],b\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}\bigr{)}( italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) | italic_a ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] , italic_b ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) be the {\mathbb{C}}blackboard_C-basis of 𝔤𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}fraktur_g acting as

x(a,b)(e1+j(b+j))=ea+j(b+j)forj=0,,2naformulae-sequence𝑥𝑎𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑒1𝑗𝑏𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑎𝑗𝑏𝑗for𝑗02𝑛𝑎x(a,b)\bigl{(}e_{1+j}^{(b+j)}\bigr{)}=e_{a+j}^{(b+j)}\quad\text{for}\ j=0,% \dots,2n-aitalic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_b + italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_b + italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for italic_j = 0 , … , 2 italic_n - italic_a

and as zero when applied to any other basis vector. With respect to the basis {ej(i)j[2n]}i2nsubscriptconditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖subscript2𝑛\left\{e^{(i)}_{j}\mid j\in[2n]\right\}_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}{ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∣ italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the operator x(a,b)𝑥𝑎𝑏x(a,b)italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) is the matrix tuple (x(a,b)i)i2nsubscript𝑥subscript𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑖subscript2𝑛(x(a,b)_{i})_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}( italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whose b+j𝑏𝑗b+jitalic_b + italic_j-th block (j[0,2n1]𝑗02𝑛1j\in[0,2n-1]italic_j ∈ [ 0 , 2 italic_n - 1 ]) has (s,t)𝑠𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t )-entry equals to

x(a,b)b+j,(s,t)={1 if sj=a and tj=1,0 otherwise.𝑥subscript𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑠𝑡cases1 if 𝑠𝑗𝑎 and 𝑡𝑗10 otherwisex(a,b)_{b+j,(s,t)}=\begin{cases}1&\hbox{ if }s-j=a\hbox{ and }t-j=1,\\ 0&\hbox{ otherwise}.\end{cases}italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b + italic_j , ( italic_s , italic_t ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL if italic_s - italic_j = italic_a and italic_t - italic_j = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL otherwise . end_CELL end_ROW

by [FLP22, Proposition 4.5]. Notice that in particular the block x(a,b)b+j𝑥subscript𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑗x(a,b)_{b+j}italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the null matrix as soon as a+j>2n𝑎𝑗2𝑛a+j>2nitalic_a + italic_j > 2 italic_n.

Recall that the group G𝐺Gitalic_G is equipped with the automorphism σGsubscript𝜎𝐺\sigma_{G}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from (3.2). This induces a Lie algebra automorphism of 𝔤𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}fraktur_g of order 2:

σ𝔤(xi)(ΩxitΩ)i.subscript𝜎𝔤subscript𝑥𝑖subscriptΩsuperscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖𝑡Ω𝑖\sigma_{{\mathfrak{g}}}(x_{i})\coloneqq(\Omega x_{-i}^{t}\Omega)_{i}\,.italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≔ ( roman_Ω italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proposition 3.6.

The automorphism σ𝔤subscript𝜎𝔤\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT acts on the basis of 𝔤𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}fraktur_g via:

σ𝔤(x(a,b))=(1)ax(a,ab).subscript𝜎𝔤𝑥𝑎𝑏superscript1𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑏\sigma_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\bigl{(}x(a,b)\bigr{)}=(-1)^{a}\cdot x(a,a-b).italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_x ( italic_a , italic_a - italic_b ) .
Proof.

Fix a[2n]𝑎delimited-[]2𝑛a\in[2n]italic_a ∈ [ 2 italic_n ], b2n𝑏subscript2𝑛b\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_b ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let i=b+j𝑖𝑏𝑗-i=b+j- italic_i = italic_b + italic_j for j[0,2n1]𝑗02𝑛1j\in[0,2n-1]italic_j ∈ [ 0 , 2 italic_n - 1 ]. If j2na𝑗2𝑛𝑎j\leq 2n-aitalic_j ≤ 2 italic_n - italic_a then all entries of x(a,b)i𝑥subscript𝑎𝑏𝑖x(a,b)_{-i}italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are zero except for a 1 in position (a+j,1+j)𝑎𝑗1𝑗(a+j,1+j)( italic_a + italic_j , 1 + italic_j ), hence its transpose has only a 1 in position (1+j,a+j)1𝑗𝑎𝑗(1+j,a+j)( 1 + italic_j , italic_a + italic_j ). Because Ωst=(1)s+1δs+t,2n+1subscriptΩ𝑠𝑡superscript1𝑠1subscript𝛿𝑠𝑡2𝑛1\Omega_{st}=(-1)^{s+1}\delta_{s+t,2n+1}roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s + italic_t , 2 italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for any matrix A=(Ast)st𝐴subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑡A=(A_{st})_{st}italic_A = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we obtain

(ΩAΩ)st=(1)s+t+1A2ns+1,2nt+1.subscriptΩ𝐴Ω𝑠𝑡superscript1𝑠𝑡1subscript𝐴2𝑛𝑠12𝑛𝑡1(\Omega A\Omega)_{st}=(-1)^{s+t+1}\cdot A_{2n-s+1,2n-t+1}.( roman_Ω italic_A roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_s + 1 , 2 italic_n - italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Thus ΩxitΩΩsuperscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖𝑡Ω\Omega x_{-i}^{t}\Omegaroman_Ω italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω has zeros everywhere except a (1)(1+j)+(a+j)+1=(1)asuperscript11𝑗𝑎𝑗1superscript1𝑎(-1)^{(1+j)+(a+j)+1}=(-1)^{a}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_j ) + ( italic_a + italic_j ) + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in position (2nj,2naj+1)2𝑛𝑗2𝑛𝑎𝑗1(2n-j,2n-a-j+1)( 2 italic_n - italic_j , 2 italic_n - italic_a - italic_j + 1 ). If we let =2naj[0,2na]2𝑛𝑎𝑗02𝑛𝑎\ell=2n-a-j\in[0,2n-a]roman_ℓ = 2 italic_n - italic_a - italic_j ∈ [ 0 , 2 italic_n - italic_a ], then i=ab+𝑖𝑎𝑏i=a-b+\ellitalic_i = italic_a - italic_b + roman_ℓ and σ𝔤(x(a,b))i=(1)ax(a,ab)isubscript𝜎𝔤subscript𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑖superscript1𝑎𝑥subscript𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑖\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}\bigl{(}x(a,b)\bigr{)}_{i}=(-1)^{a}\cdot x(a,a-b)_{i}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_x ( italic_a , italic_a - italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If j2na+1𝑗2𝑛𝑎1j\geq 2n-a+1italic_j ≥ 2 italic_n - italic_a + 1 then x(a,b)i=0𝑥subscript𝑎𝑏𝑖0x(a,b)_{-i}=0italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and +2n2na+12𝑛2𝑛𝑎1\ell+2n\geq 2n-a+1roman_ℓ + 2 italic_n ≥ 2 italic_n - italic_a + 1, so σ𝔤(x(a,b))i=0=x(a,ab)isubscript𝜎𝔤subscript𝑥𝑎𝑏𝑖0𝑥subscript𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑖\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}\bigl{(}x(a,b)\bigr{)}_{i}=0=x(a,a-b)_{i}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 = italic_x ( italic_a , italic_a - italic_b ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ∎

Definition 3.7.

Let y(a,b)12[x(a,b)+(1)ax(a,ab)]𝑦𝑎𝑏12delimited-[]𝑥𝑎𝑏superscript1𝑎𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑏y(a,b)\coloneqq\frac{1}{2}\bigl{[}x(a,b)+(-1)^{a}\cdot x(a,a-b)\bigr{]}italic_y ( italic_a , italic_b ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ italic_x ( italic_a , italic_b ) + ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_x ( italic_a , italic_a - italic_b ) ].

Proposition 3.8.

The dimension of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is 2n2+n2superscript𝑛2𝑛2n^{2}+n2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_n.

Proof.

The elements from Definition 3.7 span 𝔤σ𝔤superscript𝔤subscript𝜎𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}^{\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}}fraktur_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and since y(a,b)=(1)ay(a,ab)𝑦𝑎𝑏superscript1𝑎𝑦𝑎𝑎𝑏y(a,b)=(-1)^{a}\cdot y(a,a-b)italic_y ( italic_a , italic_b ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_y ( italic_a , italic_a - italic_b ), a basis of 𝔤σ𝔤superscript𝔤subscript𝜎𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}^{\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}}fraktur_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT made of such elements has cardinality 2n2+n2superscript𝑛2𝑛2n^{2}+n2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_n. We end the proof by remarking that 𝔤σ𝔤superscript𝔤subscript𝜎𝔤{\mathfrak{g}}^{\sigma_{\mathfrak{g}}}fraktur_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the Lie algebra of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which therefore has the same dimension. ∎

3.3. Orbits of symplectic juggling patterns

Proposition 3.9.

If p𝒥X(k,2n)spsubscript𝑝𝒥𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝p_{\mathcal{J}}\in X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then

C𝒥X(k,2n)sp=Gsp.p𝒥.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐶𝒥𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝subscript𝑝𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}\cap X(k,2n)^{sp}=G^{sp}.p_{\mathcal{J}}\,.italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof.

Let V=(Vi)i𝑉subscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑖V=(V_{i})_{i}italic_V = ( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a point in C𝒥X(k,2n)spsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}\cap X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We want to show that there exists A=(Ai)iGsp𝐴subscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑖superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝A=(A_{i})_{i}\in G^{sp}italic_A = ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that V=A.p𝒥formulae-sequence𝑉𝐴subscript𝑝𝒥V=A.p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_V = italic_A . italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Observe that this A𝐴Aitalic_A is not unique since dimGsp>dimX(k,2n)spdimensionsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝dimension𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\dim G^{sp}>\dim X(k,2n)^{sp}roman_dim italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > roman_dim italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let ej(i)superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑖e_{j}^{(i)}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote the j𝑗jitalic_j-th standard basis vector of the i𝑖iitalic_i-th copy of 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as vector space of the Δ2nsubscriptΔ2𝑛\Delta_{2n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The point p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, seen as a Δ2nsubscriptΔ2𝑛\Delta_{2n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-module, is a direct sum of several indecomposables p𝒥,1p𝒥,sdirect-sumsubscript𝑝𝒥1subscript𝑝𝒥𝑠p_{\mathcal{J},1}\oplus\dots\oplus p_{\mathcal{J},s}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J , italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (see [FLP22, Example 3.3] and [FLP23a, Proposition 3.2]). For c[s]𝑐delimited-[]𝑠c\in[s]italic_c ∈ [ italic_s ], let ejc(ic)superscriptsubscript𝑒subscript𝑗𝑐subscript𝑖𝑐e_{j_{c}}^{(i_{c})}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote the basis vector corresponding to the starting point of the indecomposable p𝒥,csubscript𝑝𝒥𝑐p_{\mathcal{J},c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT viewed as a subrepresentation of U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then V𝑉Vitalic_V is completely determined by vectors vicVicsubscript𝑣subscript𝑖𝑐subscript𝑉subscript𝑖𝑐v_{i_{c}}\in V_{i_{c}}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for c=1,,s𝑐1𝑠c=1,\dots,sitalic_c = 1 , … , italic_s such that

vic=j=jc2nbj,icej(ic),withbjc,ic0.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑣subscript𝑖𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑗subscript𝑗𝑐2𝑛subscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑖𝑐subscriptsuperscript𝑒subscript𝑖𝑐𝑗withsubscript𝑏subscript𝑗𝑐subscript𝑖𝑐0v_{i_{c}}=\sum_{j=j_{c}}^{2n}b_{j,i_{c}}e^{(i_{c})}_{j},\quad\mathrm{with}\ b_% {j_{c},i_{c}}\neq 0.italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_with italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ 0 .

Since VX(k,2n)sp𝑉𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝V\in X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_V ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we know that (Vi,Vi)=0subscript𝑉𝑖subscript𝑉𝑖0(V_{i},V_{-i})=0( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. The equality A.pJ=Vformulae-sequence𝐴subscript𝑝𝐽𝑉A.p_{J}=Vitalic_A . italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V means that s𝑠sitalic_s (out of 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n) first columns start with the numbers b,subscript𝑏b_{\bullet,\bullet}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∙ , ∙ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. More precisely, the following equalities hold for all c[s]𝑐delimited-[]𝑠c\in[s]italic_c ∈ [ italic_s ]:

(3.5) a1(icjc+1)=bjc,ic,a2(icjc+1)=bjc+1,ic,,a2njc+1(icjc+1)=b2n,ic.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑖𝑐subscript𝑗𝑐1subscript𝑏subscript𝑗𝑐subscript𝑖𝑐formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑎2subscript𝑖𝑐subscript𝑗𝑐1subscript𝑏subscript𝑗𝑐1subscript𝑖𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑎2𝑛subscript𝑗𝑐1subscript𝑖𝑐subscript𝑗𝑐1subscript𝑏2𝑛subscript𝑖𝑐a_{1}^{(i_{c}-j_{c}+1)}=b_{j_{c},i_{c}},\quad a_{2}^{(i_{c}-j_{c}+1)}=b_{j_{c}% +1,i_{c}},\quad\ldots\ ,\quad a_{2n-j_{c}+1}^{(i_{c}-j_{c}+1)}=b_{2n,i_{c}}.italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We are left with the following problem: given several first entries of first columns of several matrices Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying the orthogonality conditions, we have to complete this data to an element AGsp𝐴superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝A\in G^{sp}italic_A ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We proceed by inductive application of Lemma 3.4 to prove this claim:

The equations from Lemma 3.4 satisfy the following properties:

  • a1superscriptsubscript𝑎1a_{1}^{\bullet}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either fixed by (3.5) and (3.3) or free;

  • for any pair i1i22nsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖2subscript2𝑛i_{1}\neq i_{2}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT there is a single relation involving a(i1)subscriptsuperscript𝑎subscript𝑖1a^{(i_{1})}_{\bullet}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and a(i2)subscriptsuperscript𝑎subscript𝑖2a^{(i_{2})}_{\bullet}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT;

  • the relation

    a1(i)ar(ri)=a2(i)ar1(ri)+(1)rar(i)a1(ri)subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑖1subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑟subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑖2subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑟1superscript1𝑟subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑖𝑟subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑟𝑖1a^{(i)}_{1}a^{(r-i)}_{r}=a^{(i)}_{2}a^{(r-i)}_{r-1}-\dots+(-1)^{r}a^{(i)}_{r}a% ^{(r-i)}_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⋯ + ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

    allows one to reconstruct ar(ri)subscriptsuperscript𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑟a^{(r-i)}_{r}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT starting from ar()subscriptsuperscript𝑎superscript𝑟a^{(\bullet)}_{r^{\prime}}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∙ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with rrsuperscript𝑟𝑟r^{\prime}\leq ritalic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_r.

Observe that the number of free parameters depends on dimStabGspp𝒥dimensionsubscriptStabsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝subscript𝑝𝒥\dim\mathrm{Stab}_{G^{sp}}p_{\mathcal{J}}roman_dim roman_Stab start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The procedure of recovering AGsp𝐴superscript𝐺𝑠𝑝A\in G^{sp}italic_A ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is as follows. Start with a1subscriptsuperscript𝑎1a^{\bullet}_{1}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT: some of them are known from V𝑉Vitalic_V and all the others are free or recovered via relation (3.3). We proceed with a2subscriptsuperscript𝑎2a^{\bullet}_{2}italic_a start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∙ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and so on. At each step some coefficients are known from the data given by V𝑉Vitalic_V as in (3.5). All the others are either free or recovered by using the relations from Lemma 3.4. ∎

Remark 3.10.

Lemma 3.4 together with Proposition 3.9 allows to compute the dimension of the cells C𝒥spC𝒥X(k,2n)spsuperscriptsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑠𝑝subscript𝐶𝒥𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}^{sp}\coloneqq C_{\mathcal{J}}\cap X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In Lemma 4.10 and Proposition 4.12 we provide combinatorial formulas.

3.4. Orbit structure of the main object

Theorem 3.11.

The group Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a degeneration of the classical group Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; in particular, dimGsp=2n2+ndimensionsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝2superscript𝑛2𝑛\dim G^{sp}=2n^{2}+nroman_dim italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_n. The group Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT acts on X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with a finite number of orbits, the orbits are affine cells and are naturally labeled by the symplectic juggling patterns.

Proof.

The degeneration procedure is analogous to X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as degeneration of Gr(k,2n)sp𝐺𝑟superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝Gr(k,2n)^{sp}italic_G italic_r ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, as described in Section 2.4. The dimension of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is computed in Proposition 3.8. In Proposition 3.9, the symplectic subsets of cells are obtained as Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbits of the points corresponding to juggling patterns as defined in Remark 2.3. This explicit description of the symplectic subsets of the G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbits, together with the equations from Lemma 3.4, imply that they are affine cells, since this holds for the G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbits by [FLP22, Theorem 1]. ∎

4. Properties of the symplectic orbits

In this section we examine the poset structures on JP(k,2n)sp𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝JP(k,2n)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the dimension of the cells C𝒥spX(k,2n)spsuperscriptsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑠𝑝𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}^{sp}\subset X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for 𝒥JP(k,2n)sp𝒥𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathcal{J}\in JP(k,2n)^{sp}caligraphic_J ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The computations are based on the combinatorics of the so called coefficient quivers associated to the juggling patterns.

4.1. Mutations of coefficient quivers

Let B={ej(i):j[2n]}i2n𝐵subscriptconditional-setsuperscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑖𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖subscript2𝑛B=\{e_{j}^{(i)}\colon j\in[2n]\}_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}}italic_B = { italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where ej(i)superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑖e_{j}^{(i)}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is as usual the j𝑗jitalic_j-th standard basis vector in the i𝑖iitalic_i-th copy of 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as vector space of the Δ2nsubscriptΔ2𝑛\Delta_{2n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Definition 4.1.

Let Q(U[2n],B)𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) denote the coefficient quiver of U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to the basis B𝐵Bitalic_B. Thus Q𝑄Qitalic_Q has B𝐵Bitalic_B as vertex set and arrows ej(i)ej+1(i+1)superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗1𝑖1e_{j}^{(i)}\to e_{j+1}^{(i+1)}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for any i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and any j[2n1]𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛1j\in[2n-1]italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n - 1 ] (see [FLP22, Definition 2.2, Definition 3.3] for more detail).

Note that every (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern 𝒥JP(k,2n)𝒥𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛\mathcal{J}\in JP(k,2n)caligraphic_J ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) can be identified with an appropriate successor-closed subquiver S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Q(U[2n],B)𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) as follows: the subquiver S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains a vertex ej(i)subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗e^{(i)}_{j}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if jJi𝑗subscript𝐽𝑖j\in J_{i}italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; moreover, it contains an arrow of Q(U[2n],B)𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) if its source and target are contained in the vertex set of S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is successor-closed in Q(U[2n],B)𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) ( we write S𝒥scQ(U[2n],B)superscript𝑠𝑐subscript𝑆𝒥𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵S_{\mathcal{J}}\subseteq^{sc}Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) for short), i.e. if a vertex vS𝒥𝑣subscript𝑆𝒥v\in S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_v ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a source of an arrow α:vw:𝛼𝑣𝑤\alpha:v\to witalic_α : italic_v → italic_w of Q(U[2n],B)𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵Q(U_{[2n]},B)italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) then S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also contains w𝑤witalic_w (and hence α𝛼\alphaitalic_α). The above identification defines an isomorphism between JP(k,2n)𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛JP(k,2n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and the set

SC(k,2n):={SscQ(U[2n],B):#S{ej(i):j[2n]}=kforallin}.assign𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛conditional-setsuperscript𝑠𝑐𝑆𝑄subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝐵#𝑆conditional-setsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛𝑘forall𝑖subscript𝑛SC(k,2n):=\big{\{}S\subseteq^{sc}Q(U_{[2n]},B)\ :\ \#S\cap\{e^{(i)}_{j}\ :\ j% \in[2n]\}=k\ \mathrm{for}\ \mathrm{all}\ i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n}\big{\}}.italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) := { italic_S ⊆ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_B ) : # italic_S ∩ { italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] } = italic_k roman_for roman_all italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } .
Definition 4.2.

Two elements S,SSC(k,2n)𝑆superscript𝑆𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛S,S^{\prime}\in SC(k,2n)italic_S , italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) are connected by a mutation μ:SS:𝜇superscript𝑆𝑆\mu:S^{\prime}\to Sitalic_μ : italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_S if they differ by the position of a (predecessor closed) segment, i.e.:

SSsuperscript𝑆𝑆\displaystyle S^{\prime}\setminus Sitalic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ italic_S =ej(i)ej+1(i+1)ej+(i+),absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖1𝑗1subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=e^{(i)}_{j}\to e^{(i+1)}_{j+1}\to\dots\to e^{(i+\ell)}_{j+\ell},= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → … → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i + roman_ℓ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
SS𝑆superscript𝑆\displaystyle S\setminus S^{\prime}italic_S ∖ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =ej+s(i)ej+1+s(i+1)ej++s(i+).absentsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖1𝑗1𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑠\displaystyle=e^{(i)}_{j+s}\to e^{(i+1)}_{j+1+s}\to\dots\to e^{(i+\ell)}_{j+% \ell+s}.= italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → … → italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i + roman_ℓ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + roman_ℓ + italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We write SμSsuperscript𝜇superscript𝑆𝑆S^{\prime}\geq^{\mu}Sitalic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S if there is a sequence of mutations μ1,,μrsubscript𝜇1subscript𝜇𝑟\mu_{1},\dots,\mu_{r}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

S=μrμ1(S).𝑆subscript𝜇𝑟subscript𝜇1superscript𝑆S=\mu_{r}\circ\dots\circ\mu_{1}(S^{\prime}).italic_S = italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∘ ⋯ ∘ italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

By [LP23b, Corollary 2.22] this defines a partial order on SC(k,2n)𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛SC(k,2n)italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). In [FLP23a, Theorem 4.6] we prove the following statement.

Proposition 4.3.

There is an order preserving poset isomorphism between JP(k,2n)𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛JP(k,2n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) with the order induced by cell closures in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and SC(k,2n)𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛SC(k,2n)italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) with the order induced by mutation sequences.

4.2. Maximal symplectic juggling patterns

The above poset isomorphism allows us to apply the combinatorics of mutations to examine the structure of cell closures in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and its subvariety X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We say SμSsuperscript𝜇superscript𝑆𝑆S^{\prime}\geq^{\mu}Sitalic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_S are adjacent if there is no sequence of mutations from Ssuperscript𝑆S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to S𝑆Sitalic_S with r>1𝑟1r>1italic_r > 1. Analogously we define adjacent juggling patterns.

Lemma 4.4.

Let 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J be a non-maximal (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern such that 𝒥R𝒥𝒥𝑅𝒥\mathcal{J}\subseteq R\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J ⊆ italic_R caligraphic_J. Now let 𝒥𝒥superscript𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}\geq\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ caligraphic_J be another (k,2n)𝑘2𝑛(k,2n)( italic_k , 2 italic_n )-juggling pattern, adjacent to 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J. Suppose 𝒥R𝒥not-subset-of-or-equalssuperscript𝒥𝑅superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}\not\subseteq R\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊈ italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then there exists 𝒥′′𝒥superscript𝒥′′superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}\geq\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, adjacent to 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, such that 𝒥′′R𝒥′′superscript𝒥′′𝑅superscript𝒥′′\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}\subseteq R\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ italic_R caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

First we set some notation: given 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J a juggling pattern, x[2n]𝑥delimited-[]2𝑛x\in[2n]italic_x ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] and a2n𝑎subscript2𝑛a\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we write x(a)𝒥superscript𝑥𝑎𝒥x^{(a)}\in\mathcal{J}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_J to indicate xJa𝑥subscript𝐽𝑎x\in J_{a}italic_x ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We consider the inverse simple mutation in the coefficient quiver that links the successor-closed subquivers associated to 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J and 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: let

x(a)(x+1)(a+1)(x+)(a+)superscript𝑥𝑎superscript𝑥1𝑎1superscript𝑥𝑎x^{(a)}\rightarrow{(x+1)}^{(a+1)}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow{(x+\ell)}^{(a+% \ell)}italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ( italic_x + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ⋯ → ( italic_x + roman_ℓ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a + roman_ℓ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

be the elements of the sets of 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J that mutate into different ones. There exists an integer s1𝑠1s\geq 1italic_s ≥ 1 such that these numbers are substituted with

(4.1) (xs)(a)(x+1s)(a+1)(x+s)(a+)superscript𝑥𝑠𝑎superscript𝑥1𝑠𝑎1superscript𝑥𝑠𝑎(x-s)^{(a)}\rightarrow{(x+1-s)}^{(a+1)}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow{(x+\ell-s)% }^{(a+\ell)}( italic_x - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ( italic_x + 1 - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a + 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ⋯ → ( italic_x + roman_ℓ - italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a + roman_ℓ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT differs from 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J only by this change, since they are adjacent. Since this is a mutation, we have the following:

  • x1+s2𝑥1𝑠2x\geq 1+s\geq 2italic_x ≥ 1 + italic_s ≥ 2;

  • (x1)(a1)𝒥superscript𝑥1𝑎1𝒥(x-1)^{(a-1)}\notin\mathcal{J}( italic_x - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∉ caligraphic_J;

  • (xs1)(a1)𝒥superscript𝑥𝑠1𝑎1superscript𝒥(x-s-1)^{(a-1)}\notin\mathcal{J}^{\prime}( italic_x - italic_s - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∉ caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT;

  • x+2n𝑥2𝑛x+\ell\leq 2nitalic_x + roman_ℓ ≤ 2 italic_n, and therefore 2n22𝑛2\ell\leq 2n-2roman_ℓ ≤ 2 italic_n - 2;

  • x+s+1Ja++1Ja++1𝑥𝑠1subscript𝐽𝑎1subscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑎1x+\ell-s+1\in J_{a+\ell+1}\cap J^{\prime}_{a+\ell+1}italic_x + roman_ℓ - italic_s + 1 ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Recall now that 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is symplectic, so we know that for all a2n𝑎subscript2𝑛a\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and all yJa𝑦subscript𝐽𝑎y\in J_{a}italic_y ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the element 2n+1y2𝑛1𝑦2n+1-y2 italic_n + 1 - italic_y is not in Jasubscript𝐽𝑎J_{-a}italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By our assumption, 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT does not have this property, that is, there exist one vertex b𝑏bitalic_b and one element yJb𝑦subscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑏y\in J^{\prime}_{b}italic_y ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that 2n+1bJb2𝑛1𝑏subscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑏2n+1-b\in J^{\prime}_{-b}2 italic_n + 1 - italic_b ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and it must be one that appears in segment (4.1). We consider the elements paired to the elements of (4.1) by the symplectic form. They again form a segment (not necessarily contained completely in 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT):

(4.2) (2nx+s+1)(a)(2nx+s)(a1)(2nx+s+1)(a).superscript2𝑛𝑥𝑠1𝑎superscript2𝑛𝑥𝑠𝑎1superscript2𝑛𝑥𝑠1𝑎(2n-x-\ell+s+1)^{(-a-\ell)}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow(2n-x+s)^{(-a-1)}% \rightarrow(2n-x+s+1)^{(-a)}.( 2 italic_n - italic_x - roman_ℓ + italic_s + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a - roman_ℓ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ⋯ → ( 2 italic_n - italic_x + italic_s ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → ( 2 italic_n - italic_x + italic_s + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We will call the elements of this segment which are in 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT problems, and we know there is at least one, say (2nxj+s+1)(aj)superscript2𝑛𝑥𝑗𝑠1𝑎𝑗(2n-x-j+s+1)^{(-a-j)}( 2 italic_n - italic_x - italic_j + italic_s + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a - italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some j[0,]𝑗0j\in[0,\ell]italic_j ∈ [ 0 , roman_ℓ ]. Then for all 0ij0𝑖𝑗0\leq i\leq j0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_j, 2nxi+s+12𝑛𝑥𝑖𝑠12n-x-i+s+12 italic_n - italic_x - italic_i + italic_s + 1 is in Jaisubscriptsuperscript𝐽𝑎𝑖J^{\prime}_{-a-i}italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, because 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a juggling pattern. So the problems make up a successor closed subsegment of (4.2). We assume now that (2nxj+s+1)(aj)superscript2𝑛𝑥𝑗𝑠1𝑎𝑗(2n-x-j+s+1)^{(-a-j)}( 2 italic_n - italic_x - italic_j + italic_s + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a - italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the leftmost problem, so that it starts a segment in the successor-closed subquiver representing 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. To obtain a new symplectic juggling pattern from 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we want to apply a mutation to remove this exact segment, again by subtracting the integer s𝑠sitalic_s. We can do so since 2nxj+s+1s+12𝑛𝑥𝑗𝑠1𝑠12n-x-j+s+1\geq s+12 italic_n - italic_x - italic_j + italic_s + 1 ≥ italic_s + 1 (recall that s1𝑠1s\geq 1italic_s ≥ 1, j𝑗j\leq\ellitalic_j ≤ roman_ℓ and x+2n𝑥2𝑛x+\ell\leq 2nitalic_x + roman_ℓ ≤ 2 italic_n), and it creates a juggling pattern 𝒥′′superscript𝒥′′\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which is symplectic, because any problem with it would be of the form (2nx+1+i)(a+i)superscript2𝑛𝑥1𝑖𝑎𝑖(2n-x+1+i)^{(-a+i)}( 2 italic_n - italic_x + 1 + italic_i ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a + italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with i2nj𝑖2𝑛𝑗i\geq 2n-jitalic_i ≥ 2 italic_n - italic_j, and it is not possible since the element paired to it is neither in 𝒥superscript𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT nor 𝒥′′superscript𝒥′′\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, since they were removed with the first mutation (4.1). ∎

4.3. Symplectic mutations and closures of symplectic cells

Corollary 4.5.

If 𝒥′′>𝒥superscript𝒥′′𝒥\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}>\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > caligraphic_J are symplectic and adjacent in JP(k,2n)𝐽𝑃𝑘2𝑛JP(k,2n)italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ), or they are as in the previous lemma, then p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is in the closure of the Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbit of p𝒥′′subscript𝑝superscript𝒥′′p_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

We define the path V(t),t𝑉𝑡𝑡V(t),t\in{\mathbb{C}}italic_V ( italic_t ) , italic_t ∈ blackboard_C, as follows: for a2n𝑎subscript2𝑛a\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_a ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we set

V(t)aSpan({ej(a)|jJaJa′′}{ejs(a)+tej(a)|jJa\Ja′′}),𝑉subscript𝑡𝑎Spanconditional-setsuperscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎𝑗subscript𝐽𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎conditional-setsuperscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑠𝑎𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎𝑗subscript𝐽𝑎\subscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎V(t)_{a}\coloneqq\operatorname{Span}\Bigl{(}\{e_{j}^{(a)}\,|\,j\in J_{a}\cap J% ^{\prime\prime}_{a}\}\cup\{e_{j-s}^{(a)}+t\cdot e_{j}^{(a)}\,|\,j\in J_{a}% \text{\textbackslash}J^{\prime\prime}_{a}\}\Bigr{)}\,,italic_V ( italic_t ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ roman_Span ( { italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ∪ { italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_t ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ) ,

where s𝑠sitalic_s is an in Definition 4.2 if 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J and 𝒥′′superscript𝒥′′\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are adjacent, or as in the proof of the previous Lemma if they are not. It follows from the explicit description of the mutations as in Lemma 4.4 that V(t)𝑉𝑡V(t)italic_V ( italic_t ) is a point in the cell C𝒥′′subscript𝐶superscript𝒥′′C_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) for all t𝑡t\in{\mathbb{C}}italic_t ∈ blackboard_C, since it satisfies the equations describing the cells as computed in the proof of [Pue22, Theorem 4.13].

Now, we show that V(t)𝑉𝑡V(t)italic_V ( italic_t ) is contained in X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For any jJaJa′′𝑗subscript𝐽𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎j\in J_{a}\cap J^{\prime\prime}_{a}italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the vector ej(a)superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎e_{j}^{(a)}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT pairs trivially with any other element in V(t)a𝑉subscript𝑡𝑎V(t)_{-a}italic_V ( italic_t ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so we can take jJa\Ja′′𝑗subscript𝐽𝑎\subscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎j\in J_{a}\text{\textbackslash}J^{\prime\prime}_{a}italic_j ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and yJa\Ja′′𝑦subscript𝐽𝑎\subscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎y\in J_{-a}\text{\textbackslash}J^{\prime\prime}_{-a}italic_y ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then

(tej(a)+ejs(a),tey(a)+eys(a))=(tej(a),eys(a))+(ejs(a),tey(a))=0.𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑠𝑎𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑦𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑦𝑠𝑎𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑦𝑠𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑗𝑠𝑎𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑒𝑦𝑎0(t\cdot e_{j}^{(a)}+e_{j-s}^{(a)},t\cdot e_{y}^{(-a)}+e_{y-s}^{(-a)})=(t\cdot e% _{j}^{(a)},e_{y-s}^{(-a)})+(e_{j-s}^{(a)},t\cdot e_{y}^{(-a)})=0\,.( italic_t ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ( italic_t ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t ⋅ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 .

The expression is zero because the two summands are opposites of each other, since js𝑗𝑠j-sitalic_j - italic_s and ys𝑦𝑠y-sitalic_y - italic_s are respectively in Ja′′\Jasubscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎\subscript𝐽𝑎J^{\prime\prime}_{a}\text{\textbackslash}J_{a}italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and in Ja′′\Jasubscriptsuperscript𝐽′′𝑎\subscript𝐽𝑎J^{\prime\prime}_{-a}\text{\textbackslash}J_{-a}italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT \ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Finally, we observe that V(0)=p𝒥′′𝑉0subscript𝑝superscript𝒥′′V(0)=p_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime\prime}}italic_V ( 0 ) = italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the boundary point is p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ∎

This motivates the following definition:

Definition 4.6.

A symplectic mutation is either a mutation μ:SS:𝜇superscript𝑆𝑆\mu:S^{\prime}\to Sitalic_μ : italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_S such that both S𝑆Sitalic_S and Ssuperscript𝑆S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are symplectic or a pair of two mutations μ2:SS:subscript𝜇2superscript𝑆𝑆\mu_{2}:S^{\prime}\to Sitalic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_S and μ1:S′′S:subscript𝜇1superscript𝑆′′superscript𝑆\mu_{1}:S^{\prime\prime}\to S^{\prime}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where S𝑆Sitalic_S and S′′superscript𝑆′′S^{\prime\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are symplectic and μ1,μ2subscript𝜇1subscript𝜇2\mu_{1},\mu_{2}italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are as described in Lemma 4.4.

Remark 4.7.

Sequences of symplectic mutations define a partial order on SC(k,2n)sp𝑆𝐶superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝SC(k,2n)^{sp}italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (i.e. the subset of SC(k,2n)𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛SC(k,2n)italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) corresponding to the juggling patterns in JP(k,2n)sp𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝JP(k,2n)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). Hence it is a natural question to ask if this partial order is induced by the mutation order on SC(k,2n)𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛SC(k,2n)italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ).

Example 4.8.

In Example 2.12, we represented the Hasse diagram of JP(2,4)sp𝐽𝑃superscript24𝑠𝑝JP(2,4)^{sp}italic_J italic_P ( 2 , 4 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equipped with the combinatorial order. We grouped the elements horizontally in tiers by the dimension of their Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbit, from 3 to 0, top to bottom. In this case, the closure of a cell C𝒥spsuperscriptsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT coincides with the union of symplectic cells for lower (symplectic) juggling patterns That is, the combinatorial order of symplectic (2,4)24(2,4)( 2 , 4 )-juggling patterns coincides with the closure inclusion order on the set of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbits in X(2,4)sp𝑋superscript24𝑠𝑝X(2,4)^{sp}italic_X ( 2 , 4 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Otherwise stated, closure inclusion order on the set of Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbits in X(2,4)sp𝑋superscript24𝑠𝑝X(2,4)^{sp}italic_X ( 2 , 4 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is induced by the closure inclusion order on the set of G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbits in X(2,4)𝑋24X(2,4)italic_X ( 2 , 4 ). We conjecture that this is the case in general.

Conjecture 4.9.

Let 𝒥,𝒥JP(k,2n)sp𝒥superscript𝒥𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathcal{J},\mathcal{J}^{\prime}\in JP(k,2n)^{sp}caligraphic_J , caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that p𝒥C𝒥¯X(k,2n)subscript𝑝𝒥¯subscript𝐶superscript𝒥𝑋𝑘2𝑛p_{\mathcal{J}}\in\overline{C_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}}\subset X(k,2n)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ⊂ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). Then p𝒥C𝒥sp¯Xsp(k,2n)subscript𝑝𝒥¯superscriptsubscript𝐶superscript𝒥𝑠𝑝superscript𝑋𝑠𝑝𝑘2𝑛p_{\mathcal{J}}\in\overline{C_{\mathcal{J}^{\prime}}^{sp}}\subset X^{sp}(k,2n)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ over¯ start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⊂ italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ).

In other words: If S,SSC(k,2n)sp𝑆superscript𝑆𝑆𝐶superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝S,S^{\prime}\in SC(k,2n)^{sp}italic_S , italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are connected by a sequence of mutations, does a sequence of symplectic mutations connecting S𝑆Sitalic_S to Ssuperscript𝑆S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT exist?

Lemma 4.10.

For 𝒥JP(k,2n)sp𝒥𝐽𝑃superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathcal{J}\in JP(k,2n)^{sp}caligraphic_J ∈ italic_J italic_P ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the dimension of C𝒥spsuperscriptsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equals the number of symplectic mutations starting at S𝒥SC(k,2n)subscript𝑆𝒥𝑆𝐶𝑘2𝑛S_{\mathcal{J}}\in SC(k,2n)italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S italic_C ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ).

Proof.

In [LP23a, Corollary 6.5, Theorem 6.15], we prove that dimC𝒥subscriptdimensionsubscript𝐶𝒥\dim_{\mathbb{C}}C_{\mathcal{J}}roman_dim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT equals the number of mutations starting at S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, that is, mutations of the form μ:SS𝒥:𝜇𝑆subscript𝑆𝒥\mu\colon S\to S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_μ : italic_S → italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Every mutation is linked to one so-called terminal parameter in the equations describing the cells (see [LP23a, (5.9), (5.10)]). Now, Lemma 4.4 implies that these parameters are only independent if they belong to different symplectic mutations. Clearly, every symplectic mutation allows to choose one independent parameter. This implies the desired dimension formula. ∎

Remark 4.11.

In particular, every mutation starting at S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is either symplectic or part of a symplectic pair as described in Lemma 4.4.

4.4. Top dimensional cells

Proposition 4.12.

The dimension of any top dimensional cell in X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is k(2nk)k(k1)2𝑘2𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑘12k(2n-k)-\frac{k(k-1)}{2}italic_k ( 2 italic_n - italic_k ) - divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_k - 1 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG.

Proof.

By [FLP22, Theorem 3] every top dimensional cell C𝒥subscript𝐶𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) is of dimension k(2nk)𝑘2𝑛𝑘k(2n-k)italic_k ( 2 italic_n - italic_k ). This equals the number of mutations starting at S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by [LP23a, Corollary 6.5, Theorem 6.15]. To apply Lemma 4.10, we count the symplectic mutations starting at S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. At each of the k𝑘kitalic_k-many segments in S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of length 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n, there start 2nk2𝑛𝑘2n-k2 italic_n - italic_k-many mutations. But k1𝑘1k-1italic_k - 1 of them make 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J non-symplectic. They have to be paired with their correction move as described in Lemma 4.4. In total there start k(2nk)k(k1)𝑘2𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑘1k(2n-k)-k(k-1)italic_k ( 2 italic_n - italic_k ) - italic_k ( italic_k - 1 ) single mutations at S𝒥subscript𝑆𝒥S_{\mathcal{J}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which are symplectic and k(k1)2𝑘𝑘12\frac{k(k-1)}{2}divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_k - 1 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG symplectic pairs as described in Lemma 4.4. This sums up to the desired formula. ∎

Proposition 4.13.

The number of top dimensional cells in X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is

(2n)!!k!(2n2k)!!.double-factorial2𝑛𝑘double-factorial2𝑛2𝑘\frac{(2n)!!}{k!(2n-2k)!!}.divide start_ARG ( 2 italic_n ) !! end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ! ( 2 italic_n - 2 italic_k ) !! end_ARG .
Proof.

By Lemma 4.4, the top dimensional cells C𝒥spsuperscriptsubscript𝐶𝒥𝑠𝑝C_{\mathcal{J}}^{sp}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in X(k,2n)2p𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛2𝑝X(k,2n)^{2p}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are the intersection of the top dimensional cells C𝒥X(k,2n)subscript𝐶𝒥𝑋𝑘2𝑛C_{\mathcal{J}}\subset X(k,2n)italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) with X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is symplectic. Their number is given by the number of cardinality k𝑘kitalic_k subsets of [2n]delimited-[]2𝑛[2n][ 2 italic_n ] that contain no pair (i,i~)𝑖~𝑖(i,\tilde{i})( italic_i , over~ start_ARG italic_i end_ARG ). There are 2k(nk)=(2n)!!k!(2n2k)!!superscript2𝑘binomial𝑛𝑘double-factorial2𝑛𝑘double-factorial2𝑛2𝑘2^{k}\cdot\binom{n}{k}=\frac{(2n)!!}{k!(2n-2k)!!}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) = divide start_ARG ( 2 italic_n ) !! end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ! ( 2 italic_n - 2 italic_k ) !! end_ARG such sets. ∎

Theorem 4.14.

The intersection of a standard cell of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) with X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either empty or an affine cell. The top dimensional cells of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are obtained from top dimensional cells of X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). The dimension of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to the dimension of the classical symplectic Grassmannian Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the number of irreducible components of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to the Euler characteristic of Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

In Theorem 3.11 the intersection of the standard cell C𝒥subscript𝐶𝒥C_{\mathcal{J}}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with the symplectic subvariety is described as the Gspsuperscript𝐺𝑠𝑝G^{sp}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-orbit of the point p𝒥subscript𝑝𝒥p_{\mathcal{J}}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT corresponding to a symplectic juggling pattern 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J. In particular, it is an affine cell. If 𝒥𝒥\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J is not symplectic, then 𝒥R𝒥not-subset-of-or-equals𝒥𝑅𝒥\mathcal{J}\not\subseteq R\mathcal{J}caligraphic_J ⊈ italic_R caligraphic_J and hence there is at least one i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and an a[2n]𝑎delimited-[]2𝑛a\in[2n]italic_a ∈ [ 2 italic_n ] such that aJi𝑎subscript𝐽𝑖a\in J_{i}italic_a ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 2na+1Ji2𝑛𝑎1subscript𝐽𝑖2n-a+1\in J_{-i}2 italic_n - italic_a + 1 ∈ italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By the description of the G𝐺Gitalic_G-orbits in X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) from [FLP22], we know that every point (Vs)sC𝒥subscriptsubscript𝑉𝑠𝑠subscript𝐶𝒥(V_{s})_{s}\in C_{\mathcal{J}}( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is such that the space Visubscript𝑉𝑖V_{i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains a vector of the form v=ea(i)+s=a+12ncses(i)𝑣subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑠𝑎12𝑛subscript𝑐𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑠v=e^{(i)}_{a}+\sum_{s=a+1}^{2n}c_{s}e^{(i)}_{s}italic_v = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = italic_a + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, while Visubscript𝑉𝑖V_{-i}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains a vector of the form w=e2n+1a(i)+s=2n+2a2ndses(i)𝑤subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖2𝑛1𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑠2𝑛2𝑎2𝑛subscript𝑑𝑠subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑠w=e^{(-i)}_{2n+1-a}+\sum_{s=2n+2-a}^{2n}d_{s}e^{(-i)}_{s}italic_w = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 1 - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s = 2 italic_n + 2 - italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some complex numbers cs,dssubscript𝑐𝑠subscript𝑑𝑠c_{s},d_{s}\in{\mathbb{C}}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C. It is now clear that (v,w)0𝑣𝑤0(v,w)\neq 0( italic_v , italic_w ) ≠ 0 and hence (Vs)sX(k,2n)spsubscriptsubscript𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝(V_{s})_{s}\not\in X(k,2n)^{sp}( italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∉ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For the maximal symplectic juggling patterns, the dimension of the corresponding cell is computed in Proposition 4.12. It equals the dimension of Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The irreducible components are obtained as closure of the top dimensional cells by Lemma 4.4. Hence, their number matches the Euler characteristic of Gr(k,2n)spGrsuperscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathrm{Gr}(k,2n)^{sp}roman_Gr ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by Proposition 4.13 (see [B03] where a similar property holds in a more general setup). ∎

5. Affine Grassmannians and flag varieties

5.1. The type A case

Here we briefly recall some background on type A affine Grassmannians and flag varieties (more details can be found, for example, in [Pue22] or in [Kum02] in much greater generality). Let us fix a positive integer number N𝑁Nitalic_N. Let V𝑉Vitalic_V be an N𝑁Nitalic_N-dimensional complex vector space with a basis v1,,vNsubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑁v_{1},\dots,v_{N}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We consider the set of lattices inside the space V[t,t1]=V[t,t1]𝑉𝑡superscript𝑡1tensor-product𝑉𝑡superscript𝑡1V[t,t^{-1}]=V\otimes{\mathbb{C}}[t,t^{-1}]italic_V [ italic_t , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] = italic_V ⊗ blackboard_C [ italic_t , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ], i.e t𝑡titalic_t-invariant subspaces L𝐿Litalic_L such that for some m>0𝑚subscriptabsent0m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}italic_m ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c𝑐c\in{\mathbb{Z}}italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z one has

(5.1) tmV[t]LtmV[t],dimL/tmV[t]=mN+c.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑡𝑚𝑉delimited-[]𝑡𝐿superscript𝑡𝑚𝑉delimited-[]𝑡dimension𝐿superscript𝑡𝑚𝑉delimited-[]𝑡𝑚𝑁𝑐t^{m}V[t]\subset L\subset t^{-m}V[t],\qquad\dim L/t^{m}V[t]=mN+c.italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V [ italic_t ] ⊂ italic_L ⊂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V [ italic_t ] , roman_dim italic_L / italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V [ italic_t ] = italic_m italic_N + italic_c .

We denote by 𝒜𝒢N,c𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the set of lattices satisfying (5.1) for a fixed c𝑐c\in{\mathbb{Z}}italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z. For example, one has a distinguished lattice L̊c𝒜𝒢N,csubscript̊𝐿𝑐𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐\mathring{L}_{c}\in\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined as follows. Let us write c=Nd+r𝑐𝑁𝑑𝑟c=Nd+ritalic_c = italic_N italic_d + italic_r, where d𝑑d\in{\mathbb{Z}}italic_d ∈ blackboard_Z and r=0,,N1𝑟0𝑁1r=0,\dots,N-1italic_r = 0 , … , italic_N - 1. Then

(5.2) L̊c=td(V[t]Span{v1t1,,vrt1}).subscript̊𝐿𝑐superscript𝑡𝑑direct-sum𝑉delimited-[]𝑡Spansubscript𝑣1superscript𝑡1subscript𝑣𝑟superscript𝑡1\mathring{L}_{c}=t^{-d}\left(V[t]\oplus\operatorname{Span}\{v_{1}t^{-1},\dots,% v_{r}t^{-1}\}\right).over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V [ italic_t ] ⊕ roman_Span { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ) .

The affine Grassmannians 𝒜𝒢N,c𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are endowed with a structure of infinite-dimensional ind-varieties and the multiplication by t1superscript𝑡1t^{-1}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT induces the natural isomorphism 𝒜𝒢N,c𝒜𝒢N,c+Nsimilar-to-or-equals𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐𝑁\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}\simeq\mathcal{AG}_{N,c+N}caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c + italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. These ind-varieties are equipped with a transitive action of the affine Kac-Moody Lie group SL^Nsubscript^𝑆𝐿𝑁\widehat{SL}_{N}over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. One has 𝒜𝒢N,cSL^N/Pcsimilar-to-or-equals𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐subscript^𝑆𝐿𝑁subscript𝑃𝑐\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}\simeq\widehat{SL}_{N}/P_{c}caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for c=0,,N1𝑐0𝑁1c=0,\dots,N-1italic_c = 0 , … , italic_N - 1, where Pcsubscript𝑃𝑐P_{c}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the parahoric subgroup corresponding to the fundamental weight ΛcsubscriptΛ𝑐\Lambda_{c}roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The disjoint union c=0N1𝒜𝒢N,csuperscriptsubscriptsquare-union𝑐0𝑁1𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐\sqcup_{c=0}^{N-1}\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}⊔ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is identified with the affine Grassmannian for the affine GLN𝐺subscript𝐿𝑁GL_{N}italic_G italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT group.

The affine flag variety 𝒜N𝒜subscript𝑁\mathcal{AF}_{N}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sits inside the product c𝒜𝒢N,csubscriptproduct𝑐𝒜subscript𝒢𝑁𝑐\prod_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathcal{AG}_{N,c}∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and consists of collections (Lc)csubscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐𝑐(L_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that LcLc+1subscript𝐿𝑐subscript𝐿𝑐1L_{c}\subset L_{c+1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Lc+N=t1Lcsubscript𝐿𝑐𝑁superscript𝑡1subscript𝐿𝑐L_{c+N}=t^{-1}L_{c}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c + italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The ind-variety 𝒜N𝒜subscript𝑁\mathcal{AF}_{N}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is isomorphic to the quotient SL^N/𝕀subscript^𝑆𝐿𝑁𝕀\widehat{SL}_{N}/\mathbb{I}over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / blackboard_I, where 𝕀𝕀\mathbb{I}blackboard_I is the Iwahori subgroup defined as the preimage of the Borel subgroup BSLN𝐵𝑆subscript𝐿𝑁B\subset SL_{N}italic_B ⊂ italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under the t=0𝑡0t=0italic_t = 0 evaluation map SLN[t]SLN𝑆subscript𝐿𝑁delimited-[]𝑡𝑆subscript𝐿𝑁SL_{N}[t]\to SL_{N}italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_t ] → italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We note that 𝒜N𝒜subscript𝑁\mathcal{AF}_{N}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains the distinguished point L̊=(L̊c)c̊𝐿subscriptsubscript̊𝐿𝑐𝑐\mathring{L}=(\mathring{L}_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG = ( over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

5.2. Symplectic version

Assume that N=2n𝑁2𝑛N=2nitalic_N = 2 italic_n is even. We endow the space V𝑉Vitalic_V with a skew-symmetric nondegenerate bilinear form defined by (vi,vj)=(1)i+1δi+j,N+1subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗superscript1𝑖1subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗𝑁1(v_{i},v_{j})=(-1)^{i+1}\delta_{i+j,N+1}( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_j , italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The form induces a skew-symmetric nondegenerate form on V[t,t1]𝑉𝑡superscript𝑡1V[t,t^{-1}]italic_V [ italic_t , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] given by (vtr,uts)=(v,u)δr+s,1𝑣superscript𝑡𝑟𝑢superscript𝑡𝑠𝑣𝑢subscript𝛿𝑟𝑠1(vt^{r},ut^{s})=(v,u)\delta_{r+s,-1}( italic_v italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_u italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ( italic_v , italic_u ) italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r + italic_s , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For example, the lattice L̊0subscript̊𝐿0\mathring{L}_{0}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is Lagrangian with respect to this form.

The symplectic affine flag variety 𝒜2n𝔰𝔭𝒜subscriptsuperscript𝔰𝔭2𝑛\mathcal{AF}^{{\mathfrak{sp}}}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_s fraktur_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the subvariety of the type A𝐴Aitalic_A affine flag variety 𝒜2n𝒜subscript2𝑛\mathcal{AF}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined by

(5.3) (Lc)c𝒜2n𝔰𝔭 if (Lc)c𝒜2n and Lc=Lc.subscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐𝑐𝒜subscriptsuperscript𝔰𝔭2𝑛 if subscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐𝑐𝒜subscript2𝑛 and subscript𝐿𝑐superscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐perpendicular-to(L_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\in\mathcal{AF}^{{\mathfrak{sp}}}_{2n}\ \text{ if }% \ (L_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\in\mathcal{AF}_{2n}\text{ and }L_{-c}=L_{c}^{% \perp}.( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fraktur_s fraktur_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

In other words, if we consider a degree two automorphism σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ of 𝒜2n𝒜subscript2𝑛\mathcal{AF}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined by σ.(Lc)c=(Lc)cformulae-sequence𝜎subscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐𝑐subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐿𝑐perpendicular-to𝑐\sigma.(L_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}=(L_{-c}^{\perp})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}italic_σ . ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then 𝒜2nsp𝒜subscriptsuperscript𝑠𝑝2𝑛\mathcal{AF}^{{sp}}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the set of σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ-fixed points. Note that the symplectic affine flag variety contains the distinguished point L̊=(L̊c)c̊𝐿subscriptsubscript̊𝐿𝑐𝑐\mathring{L}=(\mathring{L}_{c})_{c\in{\mathbb{Z}}}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG = ( over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c ∈ blackboard_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Let Sp2nSL2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛𝑆subscript𝐿2𝑛Sp_{2n}\subset SL_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the Lie group preserving the above defined skew-symmetric form on V𝑉Vitalic_V. Let BspBSp2nsuperscript𝐵𝑠𝑝𝐵𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛B^{sp}\coloneqq B\cap Sp_{2n}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≔ italic_B ∩ italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the Borel subgroup of Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, consisting of symplectic upper triangular matrices (or rather, one needs the intersection with a Borel subgroup closed under the involution on SL2n𝑆subscript𝐿2𝑛SL_{2n}italic_S italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by the chosen symplectic form). We denote by Sp^2nSL^2nsubscript^𝑆𝑝2𝑛subscript^𝑆𝐿2𝑛\widehat{Sp}_{2n}\subset\widehat{SL}_{2n}over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the symplectic affine group. As in type A𝐴Aitalic_A, the Iwahori subgroup 𝕀spsuperscript𝕀𝑠𝑝\mathbb{I}^{sp}blackboard_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the preimage of the Borel subgroup BspSp2nsuperscript𝐵𝑠𝑝𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛B^{sp}\subset Sp_{2n}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊂ italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under the evaluation map Sp2n[t]Sp2n𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛delimited-[]𝑡𝑆subscript𝑝2𝑛Sp_{2n}[t]\to Sp_{2n}italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_t ] → italic_S italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, t0maps-to𝑡0t\mapsto 0italic_t ↦ 0. Then 𝒜2nspSp^2n/𝕀spsimilar-to-or-equals𝒜subscriptsuperscript𝑠𝑝2𝑛subscript^𝑆𝑝2𝑛superscript𝕀𝑠𝑝\mathcal{AF}^{sp}_{2n}\simeq\widehat{Sp}_{2n}/\mathbb{I}^{sp}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≃ over^ start_ARG italic_S italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / blackboard_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

5.3. Embeddings of quiver Grassmannians

As usual, for j[2n]𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛j\in[2n]italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ], we denote by ejsubscript𝑒𝑗e_{j}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the j𝑗jitalic_j-th standard basis vector of 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; moreover, whenever we identify 2nsuperscript2𝑛{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with with U[2n](i)superscriptsubscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛𝑖U_{[2n]}^{(i)}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is the i𝑖iitalic_i-th space of our Δ2nsubscriptΔ2𝑛\Delta_{2n}roman_Δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-representation U[2n]subscript𝑈delimited-[]2𝑛U_{[2n]}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we will use the notation e1(i),,e2n(i)superscriptsubscript𝑒1𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑒2𝑛𝑖e_{1}^{(i)},\ldots,e_{2n}^{(i)}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the standard basis vectors.

For k=1,,n𝑘1𝑛k=1,\dots,nitalic_k = 1 , … , italic_n consider the juggling variety X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ). We recall the embedding φ:X(k,2n)𝒜2n:𝜑𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝒜subscript2𝑛\varphi:X(k,2n)\to\mathcal{AF}_{2n}italic_φ : italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) → caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from [FLP23a, Section 6.1]. Given a point U=(Ui)i=02n1𝑈superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑈𝑖𝑖02𝑛1U=(U_{i})_{i=0}^{2n-1}italic_U = ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we describe the components (φU)csubscript𝜑𝑈𝑐(\varphi U)_{c}( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the point φU𝒜2n𝜑𝑈𝒜subscript2𝑛\varphi U\in\mathcal{AF}_{2n}italic_φ italic_U ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT below.

Let us define a family ηj,dsubscript𝜂𝑗𝑑\eta_{j,d}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of embeddings 2nV[t,t1]superscript2𝑛𝑉𝑡superscript𝑡1{\mathbb{C}}^{2n}\to V[t,t^{-1}]blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_V [ italic_t , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ]. The embeddings are labeled by d𝑑d\in{\mathbb{Z}}italic_d ∈ blackboard_Z, j[2n]𝑗delimited-[]2𝑛j\in[2n]italic_j ∈ [ 2 italic_n ]; ηj,dsubscript𝜂𝑗𝑑\eta_{j,d}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined by

e2nvjtd,e2n1maps-tosubscript𝑒2𝑛subscript𝑣𝑗superscript𝑡𝑑subscript𝑒2𝑛1\displaystyle e_{2n}\mapsto v_{j}t^{d},\ \ \,e_{2n-1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT vj+1td,,ejv2ntd,formulae-sequencemaps-toabsentsubscript𝑣𝑗1superscript𝑡𝑑maps-tosubscript𝑒𝑗subscript𝑣2𝑛superscript𝑡𝑑\displaystyle\mapsto v_{j+1}t^{d},\dots,\ e_{j}\mapsto v_{2n}t^{d},↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
ej1v1td1,ej2maps-tosubscript𝑒𝑗1subscript𝑣1superscript𝑡𝑑1subscript𝑒𝑗2\displaystyle e_{j-1}\mapsto v_{1}t^{d-1},\ e_{j-2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT v2td1,,e1vj1td1.formulae-sequencemaps-toabsentsubscript𝑣2superscript𝑡𝑑1maps-tosubscript𝑒1subscript𝑣𝑗1superscript𝑡𝑑1\displaystyle\mapsto v_{2}t^{d-1},\dots,\,e_{1}\mapsto v_{j-1}t^{d-1}.↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ↦ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Now we define φ:X(k,2n)𝒜2n:𝜑𝑋𝑘2𝑛𝒜subscript2𝑛\varphi:X(k,2n)\to\mathcal{AF}_{2n}italic_φ : italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) → caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the following way: (recall that L̊n=tV[t]Span{v1t0,,vnt0}subscript̊𝐿𝑛direct-sum𝑡𝑉delimited-[]𝑡Spansubscript𝑣1superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣𝑛superscript𝑡0\mathring{L}_{-n}=tV[t]\oplus\operatorname{Span}\{v_{1}t^{0},\dots,v_{n}t^{0}\}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t italic_V [ italic_t ] ⊕ roman_Span { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }):

(φU)0=L̊nηn+1,0U0,subscript𝜑𝑈0direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛subscript𝜂𝑛10subscript𝑈0\displaystyle(\varphi U)_{0}=\mathring{L}_{-n}\oplus\eta_{n+1,0}U_{0},( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(φU)1=L̊n+1ηn+2,0U1,subscript𝜑𝑈1direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛1subscript𝜂𝑛20subscript𝑈1\displaystyle(\varphi U)_{1}=\mathring{L}_{-n+1}\oplus\eta_{n+2,0}U_{1},( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 2 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
\displaystyle\dots\dots\dots\dots\dots\dots… … … … … …
(φU)n1=L̊1η2n,0Un1,subscript𝜑𝑈𝑛1direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿1subscript𝜂2𝑛0subscript𝑈𝑛1\displaystyle(\varphi U)_{n-1}=\mathring{L}_{-1}\oplus\eta_{2n,0}U_{n-1},( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(φU)n=L̊0η1,1Un,subscript𝜑𝑈𝑛direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿0subscript𝜂11subscript𝑈𝑛\displaystyle(\varphi U)_{n}=\mathring{L}_{0}\oplus\eta_{1,-1}U_{n},( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
\displaystyle\dots\dots\dots\dots\dots\dots… … … … … …
(φU)2n1=L̊n1ηn,1U2n1.subscript𝜑𝑈2𝑛1direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛1subscript𝜂𝑛1subscript𝑈2𝑛1\displaystyle(\varphi U)_{2n-1}=\mathring{L}_{n-1}\oplus\eta_{n,-1}U_{2n-1}.( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We also set (φU)c+2n=t1(φU)csubscript𝜑𝑈𝑐2𝑛superscript𝑡1subscript𝜑𝑈𝑐(\varphi U)_{c+2n}=t^{-1}(\varphi U)_{c}( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c + 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Remark 5.1.

One easily sees (see [FLP23a, Lemmas 6.2 and 6.4]) that (φU)c𝒜𝒢2n,csubscript𝜑𝑈𝑐𝒜subscript𝒢2𝑛𝑐(\varphi U)_{c}\in\mathcal{AG}_{2n,c}( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n , italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and that (Ui)iX(k,N)subscriptsubscript𝑈𝑖𝑖𝑋𝑘𝑁(U_{i})_{i}\in X(k,N)( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , italic_N ) implies φ(U)𝒜2n𝜑𝑈𝒜subscript2𝑛\varphi(U)\in\mathcal{AF}_{2n}italic_φ ( italic_U ) ∈ caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Example 5.2.

Let us take the point (Ui)i=02n1X(k,2n)superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑈𝑖𝑖02𝑛1𝑋𝑘2𝑛(U_{i})_{i=0}^{2n-1}\in X(k,2n)( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) given by Ui=Span{e2nk+1(i),,e2n(i)}subscript𝑈𝑖Spansubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖2𝑛𝑘1subscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖2𝑛U_{i}=\operatorname{Span}\{e^{(i)}_{2n-k+1},\dots,e^{(i)}_{2n}\}italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Span { italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } for all i2n𝑖subscript2𝑛i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{2n}italic_i ∈ blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then φU=L̊𝜑𝑈̊𝐿\varphi U=\mathring{L}italic_φ italic_U = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG.

Now we are ready to formulate the main result of this section.

Proposition 5.3.

For any k=1,,n𝑘1𝑛k=1,\dots,nitalic_k = 1 , … , italic_n the image φ(X(k,2n)sp)𝜑𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\varphi(X(k,2n)^{sp})italic_φ ( italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) belongs to 𝒜2nsp𝒜subscriptsuperscript𝑠𝑝2𝑛\mathcal{AF}^{sp}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT seen inside 𝒜2n𝒜subscript2𝑛\mathcal{AF}_{2n}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

Let us take a point (Ui)iX(k,2n)spsubscriptsubscript𝑈𝑖𝑖𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝(U_{i})_{i}\in X(k,2n)^{sp}( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We need to show that the condition (Ui,Ui)=0subscript𝑈𝑖subscript𝑈𝑖0(U_{i},U_{-i})=0( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 implies (φU)j(φU)jsubscript𝜑𝑈𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜑𝑈𝑗perpendicular-to(\varphi U)_{j}\subset(\varphi U)_{-j}^{\perp}( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let us start with j=0𝑗0j=0italic_j = 0. By definition

(φU)0=L̊nηn+1,0U0.subscript𝜑𝑈0direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛subscript𝜂𝑛10subscript𝑈0(\varphi U)_{0}=\mathring{L}_{-n}\oplus\eta_{n+1,0}U_{0}.( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Since L̊n=tV[t]Span{v1t0,,vnt0}subscript̊𝐿𝑛direct-sum𝑡𝑉delimited-[]𝑡Spansubscript𝑣1superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣𝑛superscript𝑡0\mathring{L}_{-n}=tV[t]\oplus\operatorname{Span}\{v_{1}t^{0},\dots,v_{n}t^{0}\}over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t italic_V [ italic_t ] ⊕ roman_Span { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } and the image of ηn+1,0subscript𝜂𝑛10\eta_{n+1,0}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the subspace Span{vn+1t0,,v2nt0,v1t1,,vnt1}Spansubscript𝑣𝑛1superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣2𝑛superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣1superscript𝑡1subscript𝑣𝑛superscript𝑡1\operatorname{Span}\{v_{n+1}t^{0},\dots,v_{2n}t^{0},v_{1}t^{-1},\dots,v_{n}t^{% -1}\}roman_Span { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }, we conclude that

(L̊n,L̊nηn+1,0U0)=0subscript̊𝐿𝑛direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛subscript𝜂𝑛10subscript𝑈00(\mathring{L}_{-n},\mathring{L}_{-n}\oplus\eta_{n+1,0}U_{0})=0( over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0

(recall that the skew-symmetric residue pairing is given by (vita,vjtb)=δa+b,1δi+j,2n+1(1)i+1subscript𝑣𝑖superscript𝑡𝑎subscript𝑣𝑗superscript𝑡𝑏subscript𝛿𝑎𝑏1subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗2𝑛1superscript1𝑖1(v_{i}t^{a},v_{j}t^{b})=\delta_{a+b,-1}\delta_{i+j,2n+1}(-1)^{i+1}( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a + italic_b , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + italic_j , 2 italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). We are left to show that (ηn+1,0U0,ηn+1,0U0)=0subscript𝜂𝑛10subscript𝑈0subscript𝜂𝑛10subscript𝑈00(\eta_{n+1,0}U_{0},\eta_{n+1,0}U_{0})=0( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. By definition the map

ηn+1,0:WSpan{vn+1t0,,v2nt0,v1t1,,vnt1}:subscript𝜂𝑛10𝑊Spansubscript𝑣𝑛1superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣2𝑛superscript𝑡0subscript𝑣1superscript𝑡1subscript𝑣𝑛superscript𝑡1\eta_{n+1,0}:W\to\operatorname{Span}\{v_{n+1}t^{0},\dots,v_{2n}t^{0},v_{1}t^{-% 1},\dots,v_{n}t^{-1}\}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_W → roman_Span { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }

sends the form on W𝑊Witalic_W to the restriction of the residue form to the image). Hence the condition (U0,U0)=0subscript𝑈0subscript𝑈00(U_{0},U_{0})=0( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 implies ((φU)0,(φU)0)=0subscript𝜑𝑈0subscript𝜑𝑈00((\varphi U)_{0},(\varphi U)_{0})=0( ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0.

Now let us take i=1,,n𝑖1𝑛i=1,\dots,nitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_n and let us prove that ((φU)i,(φU)i)=0subscript𝜑𝑈𝑖subscript𝜑𝑈𝑖0((\varphi U)_{i},(\varphi U)_{-i})=0( ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. It suffices to show that

(L̊n+iηn+i+1,0Ui,t(L̊niηni+1,1(U2ni)))=0direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛𝑖subscript𝜂𝑛𝑖10subscript𝑈𝑖𝑡direct-sumsubscript̊𝐿𝑛𝑖subscript𝜂𝑛𝑖11subscript𝑈2𝑛𝑖0\left(\mathring{L}_{-n+i}\oplus\eta_{n+i+1,0}U_{i},t(\mathring{L}_{n-i}\oplus% \eta_{n-i+1,-1}(U_{2n-i}))\right)=0( over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n + italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + italic_i + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_t ( over̊ start_ARG italic_L end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_i + 1 , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ) = 0

(recall (φU)i=t(φU)2nisubscript𝜑𝑈𝑖𝑡subscript𝜑𝑈2𝑛𝑖(\varphi U)_{-i}=t(\varphi U)_{2n-i}( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_t ( italic_φ italic_U ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). All the pairings except for the single term (ηn+i+1,0Ui,tηni+1,1Ui)subscript𝜂𝑛𝑖10subscript𝑈𝑖𝑡subscript𝜂𝑛𝑖11subscript𝑈𝑖(\eta_{n+i+1,0}U_{i},t\eta_{n-i+1,-1}U_{-i})( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n + italic_i + 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_t italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_i + 1 , - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) vanish by the definition of the residue pairing. The remaining term is zero due to the condition (Ui,Ui)=0subscript𝑈𝑖subscript𝑈𝑖0(U_{i},U_{-i})=0( italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. ∎

We conclude with the following theorem, which is proved exactly as in [FLP22, FLP23a].

Theorem 5.4.

The image of X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT inside 𝒜2nsp𝒜superscriptsubscript2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathcal{AF}_{2n}^{sp}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is equal to a union of Schubert cells. The embedding φ:X(k,2n)sp𝒜2nsp:𝜑𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝𝒜superscriptsubscript2𝑛𝑠𝑝\varphi:X(k,2n)^{sp}\to\mathcal{AF}_{2n}^{sp}italic_φ : italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT translates the action of the symplectic automorphism group on X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT into the action of the Iwahori sugroup 𝕀spsuperscript𝕀𝑠𝑝\mathbb{I}^{sp}blackboard_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on 𝒜2nsp𝒜superscriptsubscript2𝑛𝑠𝑝\mathcal{AF}_{2n}^{sp}caligraphic_A caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Acknowledgements

M.L. acknowledges the MUR Excellence Department Project 2023–2027 awarded to the Department of Mathematics, University of Rome Tor Vergata CUP E83C18000100006, and the PRIN2022 CUP E53D23005550006. A.P. was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) — SFB-TRR 358/1 2023 — 491392403.

Appendix A Numerical data

In this section we provide the Euler characteristics χk,2nsubscript𝜒𝑘2𝑛\chi_{k,2n}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and χk,2nspsuperscriptsubscript𝜒𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝\chi_{k,2n}^{sp}italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the varieties X(k,2n)𝑋𝑘2𝑛X(k,2n)italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) and X(k,2n)sp𝑋superscript𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝X(k,2n)^{sp}italic_X ( italic_k , 2 italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (the numbers of juggling patterns and of the symplectic juggling patterns) as well as the corresponding Poincaré polynomials Pk,2n(t)subscript𝑃𝑘2𝑛𝑡P_{k,2n}(t)italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) and Pk,2nsp(t)superscriptsubscript𝑃𝑘2𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑡P_{k,2n}^{sp}(t)italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , 2 italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ). For the symplectic setting we use Lemma 4.10.

Let n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1. Then

χ1,2=χ1,2sp=3,P1,2(t)=P1,2sp(t)=2t+1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒12superscriptsubscript𝜒12𝑠𝑝3subscript𝑃12𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑃12𝑠𝑝𝑡2𝑡1\chi_{1,2}=\chi_{1,2}^{sp}=3,\ P_{1,2}(t)=P_{1,2}^{sp}(t)=2t+1.italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 3 , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 2 italic_t + 1 .

Let n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2. Then

χ1,4=χ1,4sp=15,subscript𝜒14superscriptsubscript𝜒14𝑠𝑝15\displaystyle\chi_{1,4}=\chi_{1,4}^{sp}=15,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 15 ,
P1,4(t)=P1,4sp(t)=4t3+6t2+4t+1,subscript𝑃14𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑃𝑠𝑝14𝑡4superscript𝑡36superscript𝑡24𝑡1\displaystyle P_{1,4}(t)=P^{sp}_{1,4}(t)=4t^{3}+6t^{2}+4t+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_t + 1 ,
χ2,4=33,χ2,4sp=13,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒2433superscriptsubscript𝜒24𝑠𝑝13\displaystyle\chi_{2,4}=33,\quad\chi_{2,4}^{sp}=13,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 33 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 13 ,
P2,4(t)=6t4+12t3+10t2+4t1+1,subscript𝑃24𝑡6superscript𝑡412superscript𝑡310superscript𝑡24superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{2,4}(t)=6t^{4}+12t^{3}+10t^{2}+4t^{1}+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 12 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 10 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P2,4sp(t)=4t3+5t2+3t1+1.superscriptsubscript𝑃24𝑠𝑝𝑡4superscript𝑡35superscript𝑡23superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{2,4}^{sp}(t)=4t^{3}+5t^{2}+3t^{1}+1.italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 5 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 3 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 .

Let n=3𝑛3n=3italic_n = 3. Then

χ1,6=χ1,6sp=63,subscript𝜒16superscriptsubscript𝜒16𝑠𝑝63\displaystyle\chi_{1,6}=\chi_{1,6}^{sp}=63,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 63 ,
P1,6(t)=P1,6sp(t)=6t5+15t4+20t3+15t2+6t1+1,subscript𝑃16𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑃𝑠𝑝16𝑡6superscript𝑡515superscript𝑡420superscript𝑡315superscript𝑡26superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{1,6}(t)=P^{sp}_{1,6}(t)=6t^{5}+15t^{4}+20t^{3}+15t^{2}+6t^{1}% +1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 15 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 20 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 15 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
χ2,6=473,χ2,6sp=293,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒26473superscriptsubscript𝜒26𝑠𝑝293\displaystyle\chi_{2,6}=473,\quad\chi_{2,6}^{sp}=293,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 473 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 293 ,
P2,6(t)=15t8+60t7+110t6+120t5+90t4+50t3+21t2+6t1+1,subscript𝑃26𝑡15superscript𝑡860superscript𝑡7110superscript𝑡6120superscript𝑡590superscript𝑡450superscript𝑡321superscript𝑡26superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{2,6}(t)=15t^{8}+60t^{7}+110t^{6}+120t^{5}+90t^{4}+50t^{3}+21t% ^{2}+6t^{1}+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 15 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 60 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 110 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 120 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 90 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 50 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 21 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P2,6sp(t)=12t7+47t6+81t5+77t4+48t3+21t2+6t1+1,superscriptsubscript𝑃26𝑠𝑝𝑡12superscript𝑡747superscript𝑡681superscript𝑡577superscript𝑡448superscript𝑡321superscript𝑡26superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{2,6}^{sp}(t)=12t^{7}+47t^{6}+81t^{5}+77t^{4}+48t^{3}+21t^{2}+% 6t^{1}+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 12 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 47 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 81 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 77 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 48 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 21 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
χ3,6=883,χ3,6sp=79,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒36883superscriptsubscript𝜒36𝑠𝑝79\displaystyle\chi_{3,6}=883,\quad\chi_{3,6}^{sp}=79,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 883 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 79 ,
P3,6(t)=20t9+90t8+180t7+215t6+180t5+114t4+56t3+21t2+6t1+1,subscript𝑃36𝑡20superscript𝑡990superscript𝑡8180superscript𝑡7215superscript𝑡6180superscript𝑡5114superscript𝑡456superscript𝑡321superscript𝑡26superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{3,6}(t)=20t^{9}+90t^{8}+180t^{7}+215t^{6}+180t^{5}+114t^{4}+5% 6t^{3}+21t^{2}+6t^{1}+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 20 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 90 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 180 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 215 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 180 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 114 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 56 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 21 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P3,6sp(t)=8t6+18t5+22t4+17t3+9t2+4t1+1.superscriptsubscript𝑃36𝑠𝑝𝑡8superscript𝑡618superscript𝑡522superscript𝑡417superscript𝑡39superscript𝑡24superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{3,6}^{sp}(t)=8t^{6}+18t^{5}+22t^{4}+17t^{3}+9t^{2}+4t^{1}+1.italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 6 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 18 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 22 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 17 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 9 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 .

Let n=4𝑛4n=4italic_n = 4. Then

χ1,8=χ1,8sp=255,subscript𝜒18superscriptsubscript𝜒18𝑠𝑝255\displaystyle\chi_{1,8}=\chi_{1,8}^{sp}=255,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 255 ,
P1,8(t)=P1,8sp(t)=8t7+28t6+56t5+70t4+56t3+28t2+8t1+1,subscript𝑃18𝑡subscriptsuperscript𝑃𝑠𝑝18𝑡8superscript𝑡728superscript𝑡656superscript𝑡570superscript𝑡456superscript𝑡328superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle P_{1,8}(t)=P^{sp}_{1,8}(t)=8t^{7}+28t^{6}+56t^{5}+70t^{4}+56t^{3% }+28t^{2}+8t^{1}+1,italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 28 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 56 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 70 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 56 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 28 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
χ2,8=5281,χ2,8sp=4053,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒285281superscriptsubscript𝜒28𝑠𝑝4053\displaystyle\chi_{2,8}=5281,\quad\chi_{2,8}^{sp}=4053,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 5281 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 4053 ,
P2,8(t)=28t12+168t11+476t10+840t9+1050t8+1008t7+784t6subscript𝑃28𝑡28superscript𝑡12168superscript𝑡11476superscript𝑡10840superscript𝑡91050superscript𝑡81008superscript𝑡7784superscript𝑡6\displaystyle P_{2,8}(t)=28t^{12}+168t^{11}+476t^{10}+840t^{9}+1050t^{8}+1008t% ^{7}+784t^{6}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 28 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 168 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 476 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 840 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1050 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1008 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 784 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+504t5+266t4+112t3+36t2+8t1+1,504superscript𝑡5266superscript𝑡4112superscript𝑡336superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+504t^{5}+266t^{4}+112t^{3}+36t^{2}+8t^{1}+1,+ 504 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 266 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 112 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P2,8sp(t)=24t11+166t10+478t9+798t8+904t7+759t6+501t5+266t4superscriptsubscript𝑃28𝑠𝑝𝑡24superscript𝑡11166superscript𝑡10478superscript𝑡9798superscript𝑡8904superscript𝑡7759superscript𝑡6501superscript𝑡5266superscript𝑡4\displaystyle P_{2,8}^{sp}(t)=24t^{11}+166t^{10}+478t^{9}+798t^{8}+904t^{7}+75% 9t^{6}+501t^{5}+266t^{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 24 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 166 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 478 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 798 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 904 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 759 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 501 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 266 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+112t3+36t2+8t1+1,112superscript𝑡336superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+112t^{3}+36t^{2}+8t^{1}+1,+ 112 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
χ3,8=26799,χ3,8sp=7507,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒3826799superscriptsubscript𝜒38𝑠𝑝7507\displaystyle\chi_{3,8}=26799,\quad\chi_{3,8}^{sp}=7507,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 26799 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 7507 ,
P3,8(t)=56t15+420t14+1400t13+2870t12+4200t11+4788t10+4480t9subscript𝑃38𝑡56superscript𝑡15420superscript𝑡141400superscript𝑡132870superscript𝑡124200superscript𝑡114788superscript𝑡104480superscript𝑡9\displaystyle P_{3,8}(t)=56t^{15}+420t^{14}+1400t^{13}+2870t^{12}+4200t^{11}+4% 788t^{10}+4480t^{9}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 56 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 15 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 420 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 14 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1400 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 13 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2870 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4200 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4788 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4480 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+3542t8+2408t7+1420t6+728t5+322t4+120t3+36t2+8t1+1,3542superscript𝑡82408superscript𝑡71420superscript𝑡6728superscript𝑡5322superscript𝑡4120superscript𝑡336superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+3542t^{8}+2408t^{7}+1420t^{6}+728t^{5}+322t^{4}+120t^{3}+36t^{2}% +8t^{1}+1,+ 3542 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2408 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1420 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 728 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 322 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 120 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P3,8sp(t)=33t12+251t11+757t10+1319t9+1588t8+1445t7+1042t6superscriptsubscript𝑃38𝑠𝑝𝑡33superscript𝑡12251superscript𝑡11757superscript𝑡101319superscript𝑡91588superscript𝑡81445superscript𝑡71042superscript𝑡6\displaystyle P_{3,8}^{sp}(t)=33t^{12}+251t^{11}+757t^{10}+1319t^{9}+1588t^{8}% +1445t^{7}+1042t^{6}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 33 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 251 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 757 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1319 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1588 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1445 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1042 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+613t5+297t4+117t3+36t2+8t1+1.613superscript𝑡5297superscript𝑡4117superscript𝑡336superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+613t^{5}+297t^{4}+117t^{3}+36t^{2}+8t^{1}+1.+ 613 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 297 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 117 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 .
χ4,8=44929,χ4,8sp=633,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜒4844929superscriptsubscript𝜒48𝑠𝑝633\displaystyle\chi_{4,8}=44929,\quad\chi_{4,8}^{sp}=633,italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 44929 , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 633 ,
P4,8(t)=70t16+560t15+1960t14+4200t13+6426t12subscript𝑃48𝑡70superscript𝑡16560superscript𝑡151960superscript𝑡144200superscript𝑡136426superscript𝑡12\displaystyle P_{4,8}(t)=70t^{16}+560t^{15}+1960t^{14}+4200t^{13}+6426t^{12}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 70 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 16 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 560 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 15 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1960 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 14 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4200 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 13 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6426 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+7672t11+7532t10+6272t9+4522t8+2856t7+1588t6+776t5+330t47672superscript𝑡117532superscript𝑡106272superscript𝑡94522superscript𝑡82856superscript𝑡71588superscript𝑡6776superscript𝑡5330superscript𝑡4\displaystyle+7672t^{11}+7532t^{10}+6272t^{9}+4522t^{8}+2856t^{7}+1588t^{6}+77% 6t^{5}+330t^{4}+ 7672 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 7532 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 6272 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4522 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2856 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1588 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 776 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 330 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+120t3+36t2+8t1+1,120superscript𝑡336superscript𝑡28superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+120t^{3}+36t^{2}+8t^{1}+1,+ 120 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 36 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 8 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ,
P4,8sp(t)=16t10+56t9+106t8+131t7+121t6+93t5+59t4superscriptsubscript𝑃48𝑠𝑝𝑡16superscript𝑡1056superscript𝑡9106superscript𝑡8131superscript𝑡7121superscript𝑡693superscript𝑡559superscript𝑡4\displaystyle P_{4,8}^{sp}(t)=16t^{10}+56t^{9}+106t^{8}+131t^{7}+121t^{6}+93t^% {5}+59t^{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 , 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = 16 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 56 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 106 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 131 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 121 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 93 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 59 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
+31t3+14t2+5t1+1.31superscript𝑡314superscript𝑡25superscript𝑡11\displaystyle+31t^{3}+14t^{2}+5t^{1}+1.+ 31 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 14 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 5 italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 .

References

  • [BF20] A. Bigeni, E. Feigin, Symmetric Dellac configurations. J. Integer Seq. 23 (2020), no. 4, Art. 20.4.6, 32 pp.
  • [BF19] A. Bigeni, E. Feigin, Symmetric Dellac configurations and symplectic/orthogonal flag varieties. Linear Algebra Appl. 573 (2019), 54–79.
  • [BC22] M. Boos, G. Cerulli Irelli, On degenerations and extensions of symplectic and orthogonal quiver representations, arXiv:2106.08666.
  • [BCFF24] M. Boos, G.  Cerulli Irelli, X.  Fang, G. Fourier, Linear degenerate symplectic flag varieties: symmetric degenerations and PBW locus, arXiv:2405.02739.
  • [B03] M. Brion, Group completions via Hilbert schemes, J. Algebraic Geom. 12 (2003), 605–626.
  • [CFR13] G. Cerulli Irelli, E. Feigin, M. Reineke, Desingularisation of quiver Grassmannians for Dynkin quivers, Adv. Math. 245 (2013), 182–207.
  • [DC] C. De Concini, Symplectic standard tableaux, Adv. Math. 34 (1979), no. 1, 1–27.
  • [FH] W. Fulton, J. Harris, Representation Theory: a first course, Vol. 129, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  • [FF13] E. Feigin, M. Finkelberg, Degenerate flag varieties of type A: Frobenius splitting and BW theorem, Math. Z. 275 (2013), no. 1–2, 55–77.
  • [FFL14] E. Feigin, M. Finkelberg, P. Littelmann, Symplectic degenerate flag varieties, Canad. J. Math. 66 (2014), no. 3, 1250–1286.
  • [FLP22] E. Feigin, M. Lanini, A. Pütz, Totally nonnegative Grassmannians, Grassmann necklaces and quiver Grassmannians, Canad. J. Math. 75 (2023), no. 4, 1076–1109.
  • [FLP23a] E. Feigin, M. Lanini, A. Pütz, Generalized juggling patterns, quiver Grassmannians and affine flag varieties, http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00304.
  • [FLP23b] E. Feigin, M. Lanini, A. Pütz, Laumon parahoric local models via quiver Grassmannians, arXiv:2307.00776.
  • [Ga01] D. Gaitsgory, Construction of central elements in the affine Hecke algebra via nearby cycles, Invent. Math. 144 (2001), no. 2, 253–280.
  • [Go01] U. Görtz, On the flatness of models of certain Shimura varieties of PEL-type, Math. Ann. 321 (2001), 689–727.
  • [Go03] U. Görtz, On the Flatness of local models for the symplectic group, Adv. Math. 176 (2003), no. 1, 89–115.
  • [HR20] T. Haines, T. Richarz, Smoothness of Schubert varieties in twisted affine Grassmannians, Duke Math. J. 169 (2020), no. 17, 3223–3260.
  • [HZ23-1] X. He, N. Zhang, Degenerations of Grassmannians via lattice configurations, International Mathematics Research Notices 2023 (2023), no. 1, 298–349.
  • [HZ23-2] X. He, N. Zhang, Degenerations of Grassmannians via lattice configurations II, arXiv:2305.00158.
  • [Kar18] R.Karpman, Total positivity for the Lagrangian Grassmannian, Adv. in Appl. Math. 98 (2018), 25–76.
  • [Kn08] A. Knutson, The cyclic Bruhat decomposition of Grk(n)subscriptGr𝑘superscript𝑛{\rm Gr}_{k}({\mathbb{C}}^{n})roman_Gr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) from the affine Bruhat decomposition of AFlagk𝐴𝐹𝑙𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑘AFlag_{k}^{\circ}italic_A italic_F italic_l italic_a italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, talk at Bert Kostant’s 80th birthday conference (2008), http://pi.math.cornell.edu/ allenk/positroid.pdf
  • [Kum02] S. Kumar, Kac–Moody Groups, Their Flag Varieties and Representation Theory. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 204 (Birkhäuser, Boston, 2002)
  • [LP23a] M. Lanini, A. Pütz, GKM-Theory for Torus Actions on Cyclic Quiver Grassmannians, http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13138, Alg. Number Theory 17 (2023), no. 12, 2055–2096.
  • [LP23b] M. Lanini, A. Pütz, Permutation actions on quiver Grassmannians for the equioriented cycle via GKM-theory, J. Algebr. Comb. 57 (2023), 915–956.
  • [M07] I.A. Mihai, Odd symplectic flag manifolds, Transform. Groups, 12 (2007), no. 3, 573 – 599.
  • [Pa18] G. Pappas, Arithmetic models for Shimura varieties, Proceedings of the ICM – Rio 2018. Vol. II. Invited lectures, 377–398, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2018.
  • [Pr88] R.A. Proctor, Odd symplectic groups, Invent. Math. 92 (1988), no. 2, 307 – 332.
  • [PRS13] G. Pappas, M. Rapoport, B. Smithling, Local models of Shimura varieties, I. Geometry and combinatorics, Handbook of moduli. Vol. III, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), vol. 26, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2013, pp. 135–217.
  • [PZ22] G. Pappas, I. Zachos, Regular integral models for Shimura varieties of orthogonal type, Compos. Math. 158 (2022), no. 4, 831–867.
  • [Pos06] A. Postnikov, Total positivity, Grassmannians, and networks, Preprint, http://math.mit.edu/~apost/papers/tpgrass.pdf, 2006.
  • [Pue22] A. Pütz, Degenerate Affine Flag Varieties and Quiver Grassmannians, Algebr. Represent. Theory, 25 (2022), 91–119.
  • [PR23] A. Pütz, M. Reineke, Desingularizations of Quiver Grassmannians for the Equioriented Cycle Quiver, Pacific J. Math., 326 (2023), no. 1, 109–133.
  • [W05] L. Williams, Enumeration of totally positive Grassmann cells, Adv. Math. 190 (2005), no. 2, 319–342.
  • [Zho19] Q. Zhou, Convex polytopes for the central degeneration of the affine Grassmannian, Adv. Math. 348 (2019), 541–582.
  • [Zhu19] X. Zhu, On the coherence conjecture of Pappas and Rapoport, Ann. of Math. (2) 180 (2014), no. 1, 1–85.