we have recently given a combinatorial model for the irreducible characters of a complex semisimple lie group @xmath1 , and , more generally , for the demazure characters @xcite .
this model was defined in the context of the equivariant @xmath2-theory of the generalized flag variety @xmath3 .
our character formulas were derived from a chevalley - type formula in @xmath4 .
our model was based on enumerating certain saturated chains in the bruhat order on the corresponding weyl group @xmath5 .
this enumeration is determined by an alcove path , which is a sequence of adjacent alcoves for the affine weyl group @xmath6 of the langland s dual group @xmath7 .
alcove paths correspond to decompositions of elements in the affine weyl group .
our chevalley - type formula was was expressed in terms of a certain @xmath8-matrix , that is , in terms of a collection of operators satisfying the yang - baxter equation .
this setup allowed us to easily explain the independence of our formulas from the choice of an alcove path .
there are other models for chevalley - type formulas in @xmath4 and for the characters of the irreducible representations of @xmath1 with highest weight @xmath0 , such as the littelmann path model .
littelmann  @xcite showed that the characters can be described by counting certain continuous paths in @xmath9 .
these paths are constructed recursively , by starting with an initial one , and by applying certain root operators . by making specific choices for the initial path
, one can obtain special cases which have more explicit descriptions .
for instance , a straight line initial path leads to the lakshmibai - seshadri paths ( ls paths ) .
these were introduced before littelmann s work , in the context of standard monomial theory  @xcite .
they have a nonrecursive description as weighted chains in the bruhat order on the quotient @xmath10 of the corresponding weyl group @xmath5 modulo the stabilizer @xmath11 of the weight @xmath0 ; therefore , we will use the term ls chains when referring to this description .
ls paths were used by pittie and ram @xcite to derive a @xmath12-chevalley formula .
recently , gaussent and littelmann  @xcite , motivated by the study of mirkovi - vilonen cycles , defined another combinatorial model for the irreducible characters of a complex semisimple lie group .
this model is based on ls - galleries , which are certain sequences of faces of alcoves for the corresponding affine weyl group . according to @xcite , for each ls - gallery there is an associated littelmann path and a saturated chain in the bruhat order on @xmath10 . our alcove path model from  @xcite and ls - galleries , which were developed independently ,
can be related to each other in the case of regular weights .
the main goal of this paper is to extend the model introduced in @xcite from semisimple lie algebras to complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebras . instead of alcove paths ( that make sense only in finite types ) ,
the present paper is based on @xmath0-chains , which are chains of positive roots defined by certain interlacing conditions .
these new objects extend the notion of a reflection ordering @xcite , and have many interesting combinatorial properties , some of which are investigated in this paper .
the extension from the finite to the infinite case is nontrivial since the description in terms of the affine weyl groups and alcoves is no longer available in the latter case .
compared to the geometric approach in @xcite ( involving the equivariant @xmath2-theory of @xmath3 ) , the generalization in this paper is carried out purely in the context of representation theory , and , in this process , new features of our model are added .
for instance , we define root operators in our model , and study their properties .
this allows us to show that our model satisfies the axioms of an admissible system of stembridge @xcite .
thus , we easily derive character formulas , a littlewood - richardson rule for decomposing tensor products of irreducible representations , as well as a branching rule . the approach via admissible systems was already applied to ls chains in ( * ? ? ?
* section 8) .
stembridge s approach has the advantage of making a part of the proof independent of a particular model for weyl characters , by using a system of axioms for such models .
the root operators in our model define certain colored graph structures which we call semiperfect crystals . in the case of a special @xmath0-chain
, we show that our model gives rise to ls paths ( which are also defined in the kac - moody setup ) via a certain process of passing to the limit .
it then follows that the semiperfect crystals for the special @xmath0-chain coincide with kashiwara s crystals ( called here perfect crystals ) of the corresponding irreducible integrable highest weight modules @xcite .
furthermore , the independence of our model from the choice of a @xmath0-chain was proved in @xcite in the finite case .
hence , in this case , we know that our semiperfect crystals are perfect crystals for any choice of a @xmath0-chain .
we briefly discuss the relationship between our model and the littelmann path model ( in the kac - moody setup ) .
the former is a discrete counterpart of the latter without being simply a translation of it into a different language .
let us explain .
both models are based on certain choices ( of a @xmath0-chain and of an initial path , respectively ) .
however , in its full generality , the path model is a recursive one , as explained above , whereas ours is a nonrecursive one .
the definition of root operators in our model always involves reflecting a single segment in a @xmath0-chain , whereas several segments of a path might be reflected in the path model ( cf .
section [ sec : finite ] ) .
furthermore , we have a generalization of the left - key construction of lascoux - schtzenberger ( relevant to demazure characters , cf .
remark [ lskey ] ) in our model for any choice of a @xmath0-chain , whereas , in the path model , a similar generalization exists only for ls paths .
although ls paths can be derived from our model , as explained above , the two are not equivalent either .
indeed , certain information is lost in the process of passing to the limit , namely the order in which certain hyperplanes are crossed , when a path is deformed into one which passes through the intersection of these hyperplanes .
( in some cases , such as the one related to the @xmath12-chevalley formula in @xcite , the lost information needs to be recovered , but this is done by a nontrivial lift from @xmath10 to @xmath5 ; the @xmath12-chevalley formula in @xcite based on our model obviates this lift . )    the main advantage of our model is related to its combinatorial nature .
this model is computationally efficient because it uses simple labels for the vertices of an irreducible crystal , namely certain finite sets of positive integers ( called admissible subsets ) ; these can be efficiently constructed .
although a @xmath0-chain might be an infinite object , we do not need to store it , since we always work with a finite set of objects ( cf .
remark [ finiteness ] ) .
more precisely , all we need is a procedure for comparing two elements in a @xmath0-chain , namely two pairs , each consisting of a positive root and a nonnegative integer ( see proposition [ constr - lambdachain ] for a simple procedure of this type ) .
let us also note that our model is equally simple for both regular and nonregular highest weights @xmath0 .
indeed , instead of working with chains of cosets in @xmath10 ( as in the case of ls chains ) or with possibly lower dimensional faces of alcoves ( as in the case of ls - galleries ) , we always work with chains in @xmath5 and , in the finite case , with alcoves too . compared to ls chains and ls - galleries
, we also eliminate the need for making extra choices after the initial choice ( of an initial path , of a sequence of alcoves / lower dimensional faces of them , or of a @xmath0-chain ) .
unlike ls - galleries , our model extends to the kac - moody case .
finally , it leads to an extensive generalization of the combinatorics of irreducible characters from lie type @xmath13 ( where the combinatorics is based on young tableaux ) to arbitrary type .
for example , an alcove path analog of schtzenberger s evacuation is given in @xcite .
the study of the combinatorics of our model will be continued in future publications .
let us now present our combinatorial formula for characters . fix a complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebra @xmath14 ; see  @xcite .
let @xmath15 be the associated set of positive real roots .
for a root @xmath16 , let @xmath17 be the corresponding coroot .
let @xmath0 be a dominant integral weight , and let @xmath18 be the associated irreducible representation of @xmath14 with the highest weight @xmath0 .
we define a @xmath0-chain ( of roots ) @xmath19 as a map @xmath20 , @xmath21 , from a totally ordered index set @xmath22 to positive roots , that satisfies the conditions below ; given @xmath23 and @xmath16 , we use the notation @xmath24 and @xmath25 .    1 .   for a root @xmath16 ,
the number @xmath26 of occurrences of @xmath27 equals @xmath28 .
given any triple of roots @xmath29 such that @xmath30 and @xmath31 for some integer @xmath32 , as well as @xmath23 such that @xmath33 , we have @xmath34    it turns out that , in the finite case , condition  ( 2 ) is equivalent to a condition stating that any triple of roots @xmath29 with @xmath35 satisfies the following interlacing property : there is exactly one element from the set @xmath36 between any two consecutive @xmath37 s , as well as before the first @xmath37 ; and there are no @xmath27 s or @xmath38 s after the last @xmath37 .
note that , according to condition  ( 1 ) , the index set @xmath22 is always a countable or a finite set .
however , it is not always order - isomorphic to a subset of @xmath39 .
for example , it may contain infinite intervals .
[ exist - lc ] for any dominant integral weight @xmath0 , there exists a @xmath0-chain .    for a weight @xmath0 ,
there are usually many @xmath0-chains .
we will give an explicit construction of a @xmath0-chain ( in proposition [ constr - lambdachain ] ) .
for @xmath16 , let @xmath40 denote the associated reflection .
the reflections @xmath40 generate the weyl group @xmath5 .
the covering relations @xmath41 , for @xmath42 , @xmath43 , define the bruhat order on @xmath5 .
these covering relations are labelled by the corresponding positive roots @xmath27 .
let us fix a @xmath0-chain @xmath19 .
let us say that a finite subset @xmath44 of the index set @xmath22 is admissible if the roots @xmath45 are labels of an increasing saturated chain in the bruhat order starting at the identity element , i.e. , we have : @xmath46    for @xmath16 and @xmath47 , let @xmath48 be the affine reflection given by @xmath49 . for a @xmath0-chain ,
let @xmath50 be the associated sequence of nonnegative integers defined by @xmath51 .
let us define the weight @xmath52 of an admissible subset @xmath53 by @xmath54    for a dominant integral weight @xmath0 and any @xmath0-chain @xmath19 , the character @xmath55 of the irreducible representation @xmath18 is given by @xmath56 where the sum is over the admissible subsets @xmath57 of the index set @xmath22 .
[ th : char_formula ]    let @xmath14 be the lie algebra of type @xmath58 .
let us fix a choice of simple roots @xmath59 , and let @xmath60 be the first fundamental weight . in this case
, there is only one @xmath0-chain @xmath61 ( assuming that @xmath62 ) .
the index set @xmath22 has 3 admissible subsets : @xmath63 .
the subset @xmath64 is not admissible because the reflection @xmath65 does not cover the identity element . in this case ,
theorem  [ th : char_formula ] gives the following expression for the character of @xmath67 : @xmath68    we will define a colored graph structure on the collection of admissible subsets . from this , we will deduce a rule for decomposing tensor products of irreducible representations and a branching rule .    the general outline of the paper follows . in section  [ sec : notation ]
, we review basic notions related to roots systems for complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebras and fix our notation . in section  [ sec :
admissible ] , we discuss crystals and give stembridge s axioms of admissible systems . in sections  [ sec : lambdachains]-[sec : folded ] , we define our combinatorial model . in section  [ sec :
lambdachains ] , we discuss @xmath0-chains . in section  [ sec : chains - foldings ] , we define and study folding operators ; we use them to construct more general chains of roots from a @xmath0-chain , which we call admissible foldings . in section
[ sec : folded ] , we study combinatorial properties of admissible subsets and admissible foldings . in section  [ sec : rootoperators ] , we define root operators on admissible subsets / foldings . in section  [ sec : mainthm ] , we prove that our combinatorial model satisfies stembridge s axioms .
this enables us to derive a character formula for complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebras , a littlewood - richardson rule for decomposing tensor products of irreducible representations , as well as a branching rule . in section [ sec : ls ] , we explain the connection between our model and ls chains . in section [ sec : finite ] , we discuss the way in which the present model specializes to the one in our previous paper  @xcite in the finite case .
we are grateful to john stembridge for the explanation of his work , and to v.  lakshmibai and peter magyar for helpful conversations .
in this section , we briefly recall the general setup for complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebras and their representations . we closely follow ( * ? ? ?
* section 1 ) , and refer to @xcite for more details .
let @xmath69 be a finite - dimensional real vector space with a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form @xmath70 , and let @xmath71 be a crystallographic root system of rank @xmath72 with simple roots @xmath73 . by this , we mean that @xmath74 is the set of real roots of some complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebra . the finite root systems of this type are the root systems of semisimple lie algebras .
note that , in the infinite case , it is possible for the simple roots to span a proper subspace of @xmath69 ; indeed , it can happen that the bilinear form is degenerate on the span of the simple roots .
given a root @xmath27 , the corresponding _ coroot _ is @xmath75 . the collection of coroots @xmath76 forms the _ dual root system .
_ for each root @xmath27 , there is a reflection @xmath77 defined by @xmath78 more generally , for any integer @xmath32 , one can consider the affine hyperplane @xmath79 and let @xmath48 denote the corresponding reflection , that is , @xmath80    the _ weyl group _
@xmath5 is the subgroup of @xmath81 generated by the reflections @xmath82 for @xmath83 .
in fact , the weyl group @xmath5 is a coxeter group , which is generated by the _ simple reflections _ @xmath84 corresponding to the simple roots @xmath85 , subject to the _ coxeter relations _ : @xmath86 here the relations of the second type correspond to the distinct @xmath87 in @xmath88 for which the dihedral subgroup generated by @xmath89 and @xmath90 is finite , in which case @xmath91 is half the order of this subgroup .
the weyl group is finite if and only if @xmath74 is finite .
an expression of a weyl group element @xmath92 as a product of generators @xmath93 which has minimal length is called a _ reduced decomposition _ for @xmath92 ; its length @xmath94 is called the _ length _ of @xmath92 . for @xmath95
, we say that @xmath96 _ covers _
@xmath92 , and write @xmath97 , if @xmath98 , for some @xmath99 , and @xmath100 . the transitive closure `` @xmath101 '' of the relation `` @xmath102 '' is called the _ bruhat order _ on @xmath5 .
let us note that @xmath74 can be characterized by the following axioms :    1 .
@xmath73 is a linearly independent set .
@xmath103 for all @xmath104 .
@xmath105 for all distinct simple roots @xmath106 and @xmath107 .
@xmath108 .
let @xmath109 be the set of positive roots , that is , the set of roots in the nonnegative linear span of the simple roots .
then @xmath74 is the disjoint union of @xmath15 and @xmath110 .
we write @xmath111 ( respectively , @xmath112 ) for @xmath16 ( respectively , @xmath113 ) , and we define @xmath114 to be @xmath115 ( respectively , @xmath116 ) .
we also use the notation @xmath117 .
let us choose a set of _ fundamental weights _
@xmath118 , that is , @xmath72 vectors in v such that @xmath119 .
the lattice of ( integral ) _ weights _
@xmath120 is the lattice generated by the fundamental weights .
the set @xmath121 of _ dominant weights _ is given by @xmath122 if we replace the weak inequalities above with strict ones , we obtain the strongly dominant weights .
it is known that every @xmath5-orbit in @xmath69 has at most one dominant member .
the ( integral ) tits cone @xmath123 is defined to be the union of all @xmath5-orbits of dominant integral weights , or , equivalently , @xmath124 we have @xmath125 in the finite case , but not otherwise .
we now define a ring @xmath8 that contains the characters of all irreducible representations of the corresponding kac - moody algebra . in the finite case
, one may simply take @xmath8 to be the group ring of @xmath120 , but in general more care is required .
first , we choose a height function @xmath126 , that is , a linear map assigning the value 1 to all simple roots .
second , for each @xmath127 , let @xmath128 denote a formal exponential subject to the rules @xmath129 for all @xmath130 .
we now define the ring @xmath8 to consist of all formal sums @xmath131 with @xmath132 satisfying the condition that there are only finitely many weights @xmath0 with @xmath133 and @xmath134 , for all @xmath135 .
the ring @xmath8 contains the formal power series ring @xmath136 $ ] .
in particular , if @xmath137 has constant term 1 , then @xmath138 has a multiplicative inverse in @xmath8 .    for each @xmath139 with a finite @xmath5-stabilizer
, we define @xmath140 where @xmath141 .
it is not hard to check that @xmath142 is a well - defined member of @xmath8 .
moreover , if @xmath0 is dominant , then @xmath143 if and only if @xmath0 is strongly dominant .
in that case , @xmath144 has constant term 1 , and @xmath142 is invertible in @xmath8 .    since the scalar product is nondegenerate , we may select @xmath145 so that @xmath146 for all @xmath104 .
this given , for each @xmath139 we define @xmath147 it is easy to show that @xmath148 , and hence @xmath55 , do not depend on the choice of @xmath149 . by the kac - weyl character formula @xcite , @xmath55 is the character of the irreducible integrable module of highest weight @xmath0 for the corresponding kac - moody algebra .
this section closely follows ( * ? ? ? * section 2 ) . we refer to this paper for more details .
a _ crystal _ is a 4-tuple @xmath150 satisfying axioms ( a1)-(a3 ) below , where    * @xmath151 is a set whose elements are called objects ; * @xmath152 and @xmath153 are maps @xmath154 ; * @xmath155 are bijections between two subsets of @xmath151 .
a crystal is called an _ admissible system _ if it satisfies axioms ( a0 ) and ( a4 ) .
a crystal is called _ semiperfect _ if it satisfies axioms ( a4 ) and ( a5 ) .    for all real numbers @xmath156
, there are only finitely many objects @xmath157 such that @xmath158 .
axiom ( a0 ) implies that the generating series @xmath159 is a well - defined member of @xmath8 .    for each @xmath160 ,
we call @xmath161 , @xmath162 , and @xmath163 the _ weight _ , _ depth _ , and _ rise _ of @xmath157 .    @xmath164 , @xmath165 .
we define the depth and rise in the direction @xmath106 by @xmath166 and @xmath167 .
in fact , we will develop the whole theory in terms of @xmath168 and @xmath169 rather than @xmath162 and @xmath170 .
@xmath155 is a bijection from @xmath171 to @xmath172 .
we let @xmath173 denote the inverse map .
@xmath174 , @xmath175 .
hence , we also have @xmath176 .
the maps @xmath177 and @xmath155 act as raising and lowering operators that provide a partition of the objects into @xmath106-strings that are closed under the action of @xmath177 and @xmath155 .
for example , the @xmath106-_string through _ @xmath157 is ( by definition ) @xmath178 where @xmath179 and @xmath180 .
we define partial orders on @xmath151 , one for each @xmath181 , by @xmath182 any assignment of elements @xmath183 of a totally ordered set to pairs @xmath184 with @xmath185 is called a _ timing pattern _ for @xmath151 .
a timing pattern is called _ coherent _ if the following two conditions are satisfied for all pairs @xmath184 such that @xmath185 and @xmath186 :    * @xmath187 ; * for all @xmath188 , all integers @xmath189 , and all @xmath190 , there is an object @xmath191 such that @xmath192 and @xmath193 if and only if there is an object @xmath194 such that @xmath195 and @xmath196 .
the following axiom ensures the existence of a certain sign - reversing involution used to cancel the negative terms in the kac - weyl character formula .    there exists a coherent timing pattern for @xmath151 .    note that , compared to @xcite , here we let the timing pattern take values in any totally ordered set , and we reverse the total order previously considered . however , these minor changes , dictated by our needs , are easily taken care of by minor changes in the corresponding proofs in @xcite .
we say that @xmath151 has a maximum object if it does so with respect to the partial order generated by all partial orders @xmath197 , for @xmath104 .
@xmath151 has a maximum object .
semiperfect crystals are admissible systems .    it suffices to show that axiom ( a0 ) is a consequence of the other axioms . let @xmath198 be the maximum object of @xmath151 and let @xmath199 .
any other object of @xmath151 is obtained from @xmath198 by applying lowering operators @xmath155 .
each of these operators decreases weight by @xmath106 , and thus they decrease height by 1 .
it follows that we may have at most @xmath200 elements of height @xmath201 , where @xmath72 is the number of simple roots .
@xcite[thmst ] if @xmath151 is an admissible system , then @xmath202 in particular , if @xmath151 is a semiperfect crystal with maximal object @xmath203 , then @xmath204 .    given @xmath205 ,
let @xmath206 denote the root subsystem of @xmath74 with simple roots @xmath207 .
following @xcite , we let @xmath208 , @xmath209 , and @xmath210 denote the corresponding weyl group , weight lattice , and character ring . provided that we use the height function inherited from @xmath74 ( in which case @xmath211 ) , it is easy to see that any admissible system @xmath151 can also be viewed as an admissible system relative to @xmath206 using only the operators @xmath177 and @xmath155 for @xmath212 . given @xmath213 , we let @xmath214 denote the weyl character ( relative to @xmath206 ) corresponding to @xmath0 . the following branching rule is given in @xcite .
@xcite[branching ] if @xmath151 is an admissible system and @xmath205 , we have @xmath215    finally , note that one can define on @xmath151 the structure of a directed colored graph by constructing arrows @xmath216 colored @xmath181 for each @xmath217 . also note that the most important source of crystals are integrable representations of quantum groups @xmath218 corresponding to kac - moody algebras @xmath219 .
it is well - known that such representations can be encoded by combinatorial data @xmath150 satisfying axioms ( a1)-(a3 ) , i.e. , by crystals ( cf .
@xcite , see also e.g. @xcite ) .
these crystals are usually called _ perfect crystals _ , while the corresponding directed colored graphs are known as _ crystal graphs_.
fix a dominant weight @xmath0 . throughout this paper , we will use the term `` sequence '' for any map @xmath220 from a totally ordered set @xmath22 to some other set .
we will use the notation @xmath221 , and , if @xmath22 is finite or countable , the usual notation @xmath222 , where @xmath223 .
given an element @xmath224 and an index @xmath225 , we also define the following counting functions : @xmath226 assuming that the corresponding cardinalities are finite .
if the elements of a sequence are positive roots and @xmath27 is such a root , then we set @xmath25 .
[ lambdachain ] a @xmath0-_chain ( of roots ) _ is a sequence of positive roots @xmath19 indexed by the elements of a totally ordered set @xmath22 , which satisfies the conditions below .    1 .
the number of occurrences of any positive root @xmath27 , i.e. , @xmath227 , is @xmath28 .
2 .   given any triple of roots @xmath29 such that @xmath30 and @xmath31 for some integer @xmath32 , as well as @xmath23 such that @xmath33
, we have @xmath34    note that finding a @xmath0-chain amounts to defining a total order on the set @xmath228 such that condition ( 2 ) above holds , where @xmath229 for any @xmath230 in @xmath22 .
one particular example of such an order can be constructed as follows .
fix a total order on the set of simple roots @xmath231 . for each @xmath230 in @xmath22 , let @xmath232 , and define the vector @xmath233 in @xmath234 .
the map @xmath235 is injective .
indeed , assume that @xmath236 for @xmath230 and @xmath237 .
if @xmath238 , the root system @xmath239 would contain two proportional positive coroots @xmath240 , which is not possible . also , the fact that @xmath241 implies that @xmath242 .
hence , we can define a total order on @xmath22 by @xmath243 iff @xmath244 in the lexicographic order on @xmath234 .
we are now ready to prove the existence of @xmath0-chains ( cf .
lemma  [ exist - lc ] ) .
[ constr - lambdachain ] given the total order on @xmath22 defined above , the sequence @xmath19 defined by @xmath229 for @xmath230 is a @xmath0-chain .    throughout this proof
, we work with coroots only and modify the above notions accordingly .
let us fix a triple of positive coroots @xmath29 such that @xmath245 for some fixed integer @xmath246 .
let @xmath247 and @xmath248 we define a map @xmath235 for @xmath249 to @xmath250 as above .
this map is not injective , because we have @xmath251 for @xmath252 .
however , we can still define a total order @xmath249 if , in addition to setting @xmath243 whenever @xmath244 in the lexicographic order , we impose @xmath253 for @xmath252 .
hence , we can define the sequence @xmath254 by @xmath255 for @xmath256 .    the remainder of the proof consists in showing that the finite sequence @xmath257 , where @xmath258 has the induced total order , is a concatenation of pairs @xmath259 and @xmath260 ( in any order ) .
hence , given @xmath261 such that @xmath262 , we have @xmath263 . on the other hand ,
it is easy to see that @xmath264 .
thus , condition ( 2 ) in the definition of a @xmath0-chain is verified in the case when @xmath27 and @xmath37 are both positive or both negative roots .
the remaining case is checked in a similar way .    for each @xmath181 in @xmath88 ,
let us denote by @xmath265 , @xmath266 , @xmath267 the coefficients of @xmath268 in @xmath27 , @xmath269 , @xmath37 , respectively ; clearly , @xmath270 . also , let @xmath271 , @xmath272 , and @xmath273 , where @xmath274 .
the interlacing condition to be verified is straightforward if @xmath275 or @xmath276 .
assume @xmath277 .
in this case , the mentioned condition is checked based on the following three claims about the finite sequence @xmath257 :    1 .
if an entry @xmath27 is followed by @xmath269 , or vice versa , there is an entry @xmath37 in - between ; 2 .   between two entries @xmath27 , or two entries @xmath269
, there is an entry @xmath37 ; 3 .
the sequence can not start with @xmath37 , but must end with @xmath37 .
for the first claim , let @xmath278 , which means @xmath279 .
if the inequality is strict , then the rational number @xmath280 is strictly in - between the previous two ones ; therefore , we have @xmath281 , which proves the claim . otherwise , all three numbers are equal .
we can now repeat our reasoning above with @xmath282 and @xmath283 replaced by @xmath265 and @xmath266 for @xmath284 .
if equality still holds , we let @xmath285 etc . at some point
, we must have strict inequalities ; indeed , otherwise @xmath27 and @xmath269 would be proportional , which is impossible .    for the second claim , we can assume that we have two consecutive entries @xmath27 with corresponding indices @xmath286 and @xmath287 .
furthermore , we can assume that we have an entry @xmath269 with corresponding index @xmath288 such that @xmath289 it is straightforward to check that we have @xmath290 therefore , we have @xmath291 , which proves the claim .
for the last claim , note that the first three entries in the sequence @xmath257 are @xmath292 in some order , and that the corresponding vectors in @xmath234 have their first components equal to @xmath293 . the fact that the sequence can not start with @xmath37 follows by an argument similar to the proof of the first claim above . on the other hand , the sequence must end with @xmath37 because the largest value of the first component in the vectors involved is @xmath294 , and this value only appears in @xmath295 for @xmath296 .
the following immediate consequence of condition ( 2 ) in the definition of a @xmath0-chain will be used several times below .
[ countroots ] for any two positive roots @xmath30 and @xmath23 such that @xmath33 , we have @xmath297    we conclude this section by showing that , in the case of a finite root system , we can simplify the definition of a @xmath0-chain .
[ equivalence ] in the case of a finite root system , condition ( 2 ) in definition  [ lambdachain ] is equivalent to the following interlacing condition .    1 .   for each triple of positive roots @xmath298 with @xmath35 , the finite sequence @xmath299 , where @xmath300 has the induced total order , is a concatenation of pairs @xmath259 and @xmath301 ( in any order )
it is easy to see that the interlacing condition ( 2@xmath302 ) is equivalent to the following one : given any @xmath23 and any triple of positive roots @xmath298 with @xmath35 , we have @xmath303 clearly , condition ( 2 ) in definition  [ lambdachain ] implies ( [ basiccount ] ) ; indeed , one just has to set @xmath304 in the former .
assume that @xmath27 , @xmath38 , and @xmath37 are all positive roots and @xmath305 .
given that ( [ basiccount ] ) holds , we check condition ( 2 ) in this case using induction on @xmath32 , which starts at @xmath306 . given @xmath246 , we know that @xmath307 , for @xmath308 , are coroots , as elements of the @xmath309-string through @xmath310 .
the induction step consists in writing @xmath311 , and in combining ( [ basiccount ] ) with the induction hypothesis .
now assume that @xmath38 and @xmath37 are positive roots , but @xmath27 is a negative root .
we check condition ( 2 ) in this case in a similar way , using induction which starts at @xmath304 . given an arbitrary @xmath312 , we know that @xmath313 , for @xmath308 , are coroots , as elements of the @xmath309-string through @xmath314 .
we now write @xmath315 the induction step is completed by combining ( [ basiccount ] ) with the induction hypothesis ( in ( [ eq1 ] ) ) and condition ( 2 ) in the case already verified ( in ( [ eq2 ] ) ) .    for the rest of our construction ( sections  [ sec : chains - foldings][sec : mainthm ] ) , let us fix a dominant integral weight @xmath0 and fix an arbitrary @xmath0-chain @xmath19 .
we will use the notation @xmath316 for the reflection @xmath317 .
we start by associating to our fixed @xmath0-chain the closely related object @xmath318 where @xmath149 is a fixed dominant weight satisfying @xmath146 for all @xmath104 . here , as well as throughout this article , we let @xmath319 be greater than all elements in @xmath22 .
we use operators called _ folding operators _ to construct from @xmath320 new objects of the form @xmath321 here @xmath322 is a root , @xmath323 , any given root appears only finitely many times in @xmath324 , and @xmath325 is in the @xmath5-orbit of @xmath149 .
more precisely , given @xmath324 as above and @xmath225 in @xmath22 , we let @xmath326 and we define @xmath327 where @xmath328    let us now consider the set of all @xmath324 that are obtained from @xmath320 by applying folding operators ; we call these objects the _ foldings _ of @xmath320 . clearly , @xmath329 is an involution on the set of foldings of @xmath320 . in order to describe this set ,
let us note that the folding operators commute .
indeed , if @xmath324 is as in ( [ defgamma ] ) , @xmath243 , @xmath330 , and @xmath331 , then we have @xmath332 so @xmath333 .
this means that every folding @xmath324 of @xmath320 is determined by the set @xmath334 .
more precisely , if @xmath335 , then @xmath336 . we call the elements of @xmath57 the _ folding positions _ of @xmath324 , and write @xmath337 .    throughout this paper , we will use @xmath57 and @xmath337 interchangeably .
for instance , according to the above discussion , we have @xmath338 where @xmath339 denotes the symmetric difference of sets .
hence , it makes sense to define the folding operator @xmath329 on @xmath57 ( compatibly with the action of @xmath329 on @xmath340 ) by @xmath341 .    using the notation above and the fact that @xmath342
, we have @xmath343 recall that @xmath344 .
in particular , we have @xmath345 for @xmath346 .
[ finiteness ] although a folding @xmath324 of @xmath320 is an infinite sequence if the root system is infinite , we are , in fact , always working with finite objects .
indeed , we are examining @xmath324 by considering only one root at a time .    given a folding @xmath324 of @xmath320 ,
we associate to each pair in @xmath324 ( or the corresponding index @xmath225 in @xmath22 ) an integer @xmath347 , which we call _ level _ ; the sequence @xmath348 will be called the _ level sequence _ of @xmath324 .
the definition is as follows : @xmath349 where @xmath350 we make the convention that the sum is 0 if it contains no terms .
the definition makes sense since the sum is always finite .
in particular , we have the level sequence @xmath351 of @xmath320
.    we will now consider certain affine reflections corresponding to foldings @xmath324 of @xmath320 .
let @xmath352 ; recall that the latter is the reflection in the affine hyperplane @xmath353 . in particular , we have the affine reflections @xmath354 corresponding to @xmath320 .
[ defweighted ] given @xmath355 and @xmath337 , we let @xmath356 and call @xmath152 the _ weight _ of @xmath324 ( respectively @xmath57 ) . we also let
@xmath357 ( recall that @xmath358 ) .    given a root @xmath27
, we will use the following notation : @xmath359 where @xmath360 .
the following proposition is our main technical result , which relies heavily on the defining properties of @xmath0-chains .
[ hyperplane ] let @xmath337 for some @xmath355 , and let @xmath361 ( the first or the second inequality is dropped if @xmath362 or @xmath363 , respectively ) . using the notation above
, we have @xmath364    it suffices to consider @xmath363 .
let us define the roots @xmath365 and @xmath366 for @xmath367 ; note that @xmath368 . throughout this proof
, we use the maps @xmath369 and @xmath370 defined at the beginning of section [ sec : lambdachains ] to count roots in @xmath320 .
we need to show that @xmath371 where , according to the definitions of folding operators and of levels , the integer @xmath372 can be expressed as @xmath373 indeed , by examining the segment of @xmath320 between @xmath374 and @xmath375 for @xmath367 ( we let @xmath376 ) , we note that only the root @xmath377 gets changed to @xmath378 in @xmath324 ; more precisely , the sign of the corresponding root in @xmath324 is @xmath379 .
the definition of levels now leads us to the above formula for @xmath32 .
we now use induction on @xmath380 , which starts at @xmath381 .
let us assume that the statement to prove holds for @xmath382 .
based on the discussion above , this means that @xmath383 where @xmath384 an easy linear algebra computation shows that @xmath385 where @xmath386 let us now substitute into this formula the expression for @xmath387 given by the induction hypothesis , and compare the result with the expression for @xmath32 given above .
let us first assume that @xmath388 .
it turns out that verifying @xmath389 amounts to proving the following identity : @xmath390 let us now multiply both sides by @xmath391 , then substitute @xmath392 with @xmath393 , and finally write @xmath27 for @xmath394 , @xmath38 for @xmath395 , and @xmath225 for @xmath396 .
the identity to prove becomes precisely the one in lemma  [ countroots ] .    in the special case @xmath397 , we need to correct the identity above by adding @xmath391 to its right - hand side .
this is proved in a similar way , based on the correction of lemma  [ countroots ] in the case @xmath398 , which amounts to adding @xmath115 to the right - hand side of the corresponding formula .
[ affinerefl ] let @xmath337 for some @xmath355 . using the notation above
, we have @xmath399 in particular , we have @xmath400 for @xmath346 .
furthermore , if @xmath401 , then @xmath402 .
the first part follows from proposition  [ hyperplane ] by applying the following basic result : if @xmath403 for some affine reflections @xmath404 , then @xmath405 .
the rest of the corollary follows easily from the first part .
the next proposition shows that all inner products of @xmath406 with positive roots can be easily read off from the level sequence @xmath407 .
recall that , according to ( [ levelseq ] ) , the latter is computed by applying a simple counting procedure to the sequence of pairs in @xmath324 .
[ lastlevel ] given a positive root @xmath27 , let @xmath408 , assuming that @xmath409 .
then we have @xmath410 on the other hand , if @xmath411 , then we have @xmath412    we prove this result by induction on @xmath380 , which starts at @xmath381 . if @xmath413 , we assume that the result holds for @xmath414 , where @xmath415 .
let @xmath416 we have @xmath417 recall that @xmath418 , by ( [ reflection ] ) .
we have the following cases .
we have @xmath419 .
based on ( [ weightcomp ] ) and induction , we have @xmath420 where @xmath421 is the correction term in the formula for @xmath422 . on the other hand
, an easy linear algebra computation shows that @xmath423 maps the affine hyperplane @xmath424 to @xmath425 but then , by proposition  [ hyperplane ] , we have @xmath426 .
hence , all we have to prove is that @xmath427 , where @xmath153 is the correction term in the formula for @xmath428 .
this follows from the fact that , if @xmath429 is the pair indexed by @xmath283 in @xmath430 , then we have @xmath431    it is clear that @xmath30 .
we have two subcases , corresponding to @xmath432 nonempty and empty . in the first subcase ,
letting @xmath433 , we have @xmath434 , and , thus , @xmath435 ; here the counting function @xmath369 refers to our fixed @xmath0-chain .
based on ( [ weightcomp ] ) , induction , and lemma  [ countroots ] , we have @xmath436 where @xmath437 is as above .
on the other hand , note that @xmath438 , so we have to prove @xmath439 hence , it remains to show that @xmath440 , where @xmath153 is as above .
this follows from the fact that @xmath441 the subcase @xmath442 is now immediate , since ( [ mucount ] ) still holds , with @xmath437 defined as in ( [ defeps ] ) ; indeed , in this case the induction is based on the second formula in the proposition to be proved .
this case is easily reduced to case 1.2 above , since the formula to be proved can still be written as in ( [ toprove ] ) , with @xmath153 defined as in ( [ defeps ] ) .    [ graphrep ] ( 1 ) since @xmath443 , we have @xmath444 .
hence , proposition  [ lastlevel ] can be restated in terms of @xmath445 .
\(2 ) it is often useful to use the following graphical representation .
let @xmath446 , and let us define the continuous piecewise - linear function @xmath447\rightarrow{\mathbb r}$ ] by @xmath448 then , according to the defining relation ( [ levelseq ] ) and proposition  [ lastlevel ] , we have @xmath449 for instance , assume that the entries of @xmath324 indexed by the elements of @xmath450 are @xmath451 , @xmath452 , @xmath453 , @xmath453 , @xmath451 , @xmath452 , @xmath451 , @xmath453 , in this order ; also assume that @xmath454 .
the graph of @xmath455 is shown in figure  [ fig : walls ] .
we will now define some special foldings @xmath340 of @xmath320 .
the notation is the same as in section [ sec : chains - foldings ] .
[ admsubset ] an _ admissible subset _ is a finite subset of @xmath22 ( possibly empty ) , that is , @xmath335 , such that we have the following saturated chain in the bruhat order on @xmath5 : @xmath456 if @xmath57 is an admissible subset , we will call @xmath337 an _ admissible folding _ ( of @xmath320 ) .
we denote by @xmath457 the collection of all admissible subsets corresponding to our fixed @xmath0-chain .
[ lskey ] the weyl group element @xmath458 is a generalization of the _ left - key _ of semistandard young tableaux , which was defined by lascoux - schtzenberger @xcite , and which is relevant to _ demazure characters_. indeed , for finite types , a demazure character formula in terms of @xmath458 appears in @xcite .    according to ( [ reflection ] ) , we have the following intrinsic criterion for @xmath340 to be an admissible folding .
[ intrinsic ] given arbitrary @xmath355 , @xmath340 is an admissible folding if and only if @xmath459    in this section , we will prove some results about admissible foldings .
let us fix an admissible subset @xmath335 , and let @xmath324 be the associated admissible folding ; also , let @xmath407 , @xmath460 , and @xmath461 .
recall the notation @xmath462 .
we start with a basic result involving the bruhat order .
[ bruhat ] let @xmath463 be a covering relation in the bruhat order , where @xmath38 is some positive root , and @xmath27 is a simple root .
assume that we have @xmath464 and @xmath465
. then @xmath466 .    for a simple root @xmath27 ,
the following conditions are equivalent : ( 1 ) @xmath467 ; ( 2 ) @xmath468 ; ( 3 ) there exists a reduced decomposition for @xmath92 that ends with @xmath40 .
let us pick such a reduced decomposition @xmath469 , so @xmath470 .
all elements @xmath96 that are covered by @xmath92 in the bruhat order are obtained by skipping one term in the reduced decomposition .
we know that @xmath464 , so the element @xmath96 can not have a reduced decomposition that ends with @xmath471 .
thus @xmath96 is obtained from @xmath92 by skipping the last term @xmath472 in the reduced decomposition .
so @xmath473 , where @xmath474 .
[ existroot ] assume that @xmath475 and @xmath476 for some simple root @xmath27 and @xmath477 ( if @xmath275 , then the first condition is void )
. then there exists @xmath225 with @xmath478 such that @xmath479 .
find @xmath225 with @xmath478 such that @xmath480 and @xmath481 . by lemma  [ bruhat
] , we have @xmath482 .
this means that @xmath483 .
[ folding ] if @xmath484 , then @xmath485 .
we can assume that @xmath486 .
since @xmath487 , where @xmath488 , we need to prove that the right - hand side is a positive root .
this follows from the fact that @xmath489 , according to a well - known property of the bruhat order on a coxeter group , cf .
* proposition  5.7 ) .
[ signchange ] assume that @xmath27 is a simple root for which @xmath490 .
let @xmath491 be either the minimum of @xmath450 , or an element for which its predecessor @xmath32 ( in @xmath450 ) satisfies @xmath492 .
then we have @xmath493 .
assume that @xmath494 .
recall that the corresponding admissible subset is @xmath335 .
note that @xmath495 , based on proposition  [ folding ] ( indeed , we must have @xmath496 ) .
let us define the index @xmath224 by the condition @xmath497 ( possibly , @xmath498 , in which case the second inequality is dropped ) .
we also define the index @xmath499 by setting @xmath500 if @xmath501 , and by the condition @xmath502 , otherwise ( if @xmath275 in the second case , the corresponding first inequality is dropped ) .
we clearly have @xmath503 , which implies @xmath476 . if @xmath504 , we also have @xmath505 , so @xmath475 . but then lemma  [ existroot ] applies and leads to a contradiction .
[ lastneg ] assume that , for some simple root @xmath27 , we have either @xmath506 , or @xmath507 for @xmath508
. then we have @xmath509 .
assume that the conclusion fails , which means that @xmath510 ( cf .
remark [ graphrep ] ( 2 ) ) .
define the index @xmath499 by setting @xmath500 if @xmath506 , and by the condition @xmath511 , otherwise ( if @xmath275 or @xmath512 in the second case , one of the two inequalities is dropped ) . if @xmath504 , we have @xmath513 , so @xmath475 .
it means that the hypotheses of lemma  [ existroot ] are satisfied for @xmath514 .
this lemma now leads to a contradiction .
[ maximum ] assume that @xmath413 and let @xmath515 .
we have @xmath516 in other words , @xmath517 is a positive multiple of a positive root . in particular , if @xmath518 then @xmath519 belongs to the positive cone in the root lattice .    using the definitions and notation in section [ sec : chains - foldings ] , we have @xmath520 the fact that @xmath521 is a positive root is the content of proposition [ folding ] .
[ extremalelement ] given @xmath522 and @xmath523 , the following hold .    1 .   if @xmath381 , then @xmath524 for all simple roots @xmath27 with @xmath525 .
2 .   if @xmath413 , then there is a simple root @xmath27 in @xmath324 such that @xmath525 and @xmath526 .
the first part follows directly from the definitions .
if @xmath413 , we can find a simple root @xmath27 such that @xmath510 .
hence , proposition  [ lastneg ] applies , and , letting @xmath527 , we have @xmath528 .
but then @xmath529 , by proposition  [ lastlevel ] , so the second statement is verified .
let us now fix a simple root @xmath27 , and recall the description of the sets @xmath530 and @xmath531 based on the continuous piecewise - linear function @xmath455 , which was introduced in remark [ graphrep ] ( 2 ) .
we will rephrase some of the above results in a simple way in terms of @xmath455 , and we will deduce some consequences ( to be used in the subsequent sections ) , which are formulated in the same language .
assume that @xmath532 , so that @xmath455 is defined on @xmath533 $ ] , and let @xmath534 be the maximum of @xmath455 .
note first that the function @xmath455 is determined by the sequence @xmath535 , where @xmath536 for @xmath537 , and @xmath538 . we have the following restrictions .    1 .
@xmath539 for @xmath537 ( by proposition  [ folding ] ) .
2 .   @xmath540 or @xmath541 implies @xmath542 ( by propositions [ signchange ] and [ lastneg ] ) .
[ cor1 ] we have @xmath543 . if @xmath544 , then @xmath545 for @xmath546 , and @xmath547 .
the fact that @xmath543 follows from condition ( c2 ) for @xmath540 .
thus , @xmath548 .
if @xmath549 for @xmath550 , then @xmath551 by condition ( c1 ) .
but then condition ( c2 ) leads to a contradiction .
the last statement is obvious .
[ cor2 ] assume that @xmath552 , and let @xmath283 be such that @xmath553 .
we have @xmath554 , @xmath555 , and @xmath556 .
moreover , we have @xmath557 for @xmath558 .    if @xmath559 , then @xmath560 , so @xmath561 .
it is also easy to see that both @xmath562 and @xmath563 contradict the definition of @xmath283 .
now assume that the last statement fails .
then there exists @xmath564 such that @xmath565 and @xmath566 .
condition ( c2 ) implies @xmath567 and @xmath568 , which is a contradiction to the definition of @xmath283 .
the next corollary can be proved in a similar way to corollary [ cor2 ] .
[ cor3 ] assume that @xmath569 , and let @xmath32 be such that @xmath570 .
we have @xmath571 , @xmath572 , and @xmath573 .
moreover , we have @xmath557 for @xmath574 .
we will now define _ root operators _ on the collection @xmath457 of admissible subsets corresponding to our fixed @xmath0-chain .
let @xmath57 be such an admissible subset , let @xmath324 be the associated admissible folding , and @xmath407 its level sequence , denoted as in section [ sec : chains - foldings ]
. also recall from section [ sec : chains - foldings ] the definitions of the finite sequences @xmath575 , @xmath530 , @xmath576 , and @xmath531 , where @xmath27 is a root .
we will first define a partial operator @xmath155 on admissible subsets @xmath57 for each @xmath181 in @xmath88 , that is , for each simple root @xmath106 .
let @xmath181 in @xmath88 be fixed throughout this section .
let @xmath577 be the maximum of the finite set of integers @xmath578 .
we know that @xmath543 from corollary [ cor1 ] .
assume that @xmath552 .
let @xmath579 be the minimum index @xmath225 in @xmath580 for which we have @xmath581 .
if no such index exists , then @xmath582 ; in this case , we let @xmath583 .
now let @xmath584 be the predecessor of @xmath283 in @xmath585 . by corollary [ cor2
] , this always exists and we have @xmath586 .
let us now define @xmath587 where @xmath588 is the identity map .
note that the folding of @xmath320 associated to @xmath589 , which will be denoted by @xmath590 , is defined by a similar formula .
more precisely , we have @xmath591 and @xmath592 in other words , based on proposition  [ propf ] below , we can say that applying the root operator @xmath155 amounts to performing a `` folding '' in position @xmath32 , and , if @xmath593 , an `` unfolding '' in position @xmath283 .
[ propf ] given the above setup , the following hold .    1 .   if @xmath593 , then @xmath594 and @xmath595 .
we have @xmath596 and @xmath597 .
we have @xmath598    let @xmath599 . the first two statements
follow immediately from corollaries [ cor1 ] and [ cor2 ] . for the third statement , note that , by corollary [ affinerefl ] , the weight of @xmath589 is @xmath600 if @xmath593 , and @xmath601 otherwise .
using the formula @xmath602 , and the similar one for @xmath603 , we compute ( in both cases ) @xmath604    we now intend to define a partial inverse @xmath177 to @xmath155 .
assume that @xmath605 .
let @xmath606 be the maximum index @xmath225 in @xmath580 for which we have @xmath581 .
note that such indices always exist , by corollary [ cor3 ] .
now let @xmath607 be the successor of @xmath32 in @xmath585 .
corollary [ cor3 ] implies that , if @xmath608 , then we have @xmath609 , while , otherwise , we have @xmath610 . finally , we define @xmath611 by the same formula as @xmath589 , namely ( [ defroot ] ) .
hence , the folding of @xmath320 associated to @xmath611 is also defined in the same way as above .
the following analog of proposition  [ propf ] is proved in a similar way , by invoking corollaries [ cor1 ] and [ cor3 ] .
[ prope ] given the above setup , the following hold .    1 .
we have @xmath596 and @xmath612 .
2 .   if @xmath593 , then @xmath613 and @xmath496 .
we have @xmath614    [ closed ] if @xmath589 is defined , then it is also an admissible subset .
similarly for @xmath611 .
moreover , if @xmath589 and @xmath611 are both defined , then @xmath615 ; otherwise , we have @xmath616 .
we consider @xmath155 first .
the cases corresponding to @xmath593 and @xmath608 can be proved in similar ways , so we only consider the first case .
let @xmath335 , as usual , and , based on proposition  [ propf ] ( 1)-(2 ) , let @xmath617 be such that @xmath618 if @xmath275 or @xmath619 , then the corresponding indices @xmath620 , respectively @xmath621 , are missing .
if @xmath622 , there is nothing to prove , so we assume @xmath623 .
we use the criterion in corollary [ intrinsic ] . based on it , we have @xmath624 let @xmath625 ; if @xmath275 , then set @xmath626 .
we need to prove that @xmath627 where @xmath628 for @xmath629 .
indeed , the pair with index @xmath225 in @xmath630 is @xmath631 , for @xmath632 .
note that ( [ chain2 ] ) also implies that @xmath615 .
recall that @xmath633 , by ( [ reflection ] ) . on the other hand , based on proposition  [ propf ] ( 2 )
, we have @xmath634 , which implies @xmath635 .
hence , we have @xmath636 , which gives us the first covering relation in ( [ chain2 ] ) .
but we also have @xmath637 , by ( [ chain1 ] ) , and @xmath638 , by the choice of @xmath32 . based on a well - known property of the bruhat order on a coxeter group ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  1.1  ( iv )  ( iii ) ) , we deduce that @xmath639 and @xmath640 .
the latter statement gives us the second covering relation in ( [ chain2 ] ) .
we can proceed in this way until we get the whole chain ( [ chain2 ] ) .
the proof of the result for @xmath611 is completely similar , based on proposition  [ prope ] .
[ bijection ] ( 1 ) assume that @xmath589 is defined .
then we have @xmath641 hence , @xmath642 is defined and equal to @xmath57 .
\(2 ) assume that @xmath611 is defined .
then we have @xmath643 hence @xmath644 is defined and equal to @xmath57 .
\(3 ) let @xmath499 be maximal such that @xmath645 is defined , and let @xmath224 be maximal such that @xmath646 is defined
. then @xmath647 .
the proof is straightforward based on the results already proved in this section , and is left to the interested reader .
we note that that it is convenient to use the graphical representation described in remark [ graphrep ] ( 2 ) .
in this section , we derive our main result .
we start with the following definitions and lemma . given an admissible folding @xmath337 , denoted as in section [ sec : chains - foldings ] ,
we denote by @xmath648 the sequence indexed by @xmath649 given by @xmath650 and @xmath651 for @xmath652 .
let us define @xmath653 where @xmath654 was defined at the beginning of section [ sec : rootoperators ] .
[ lemtiming ] let @xmath655 and @xmath324 be two admissible foldings , with @xmath656 and @xmath657 .
assume that @xmath658 , that @xmath659 is defined , and that @xmath660 for @xmath661 . then @xmath662 .
moreover , equality holds if and only if @xmath663 .
let @xmath664 and @xmath665 be the folding positions of @xmath655 and @xmath324 , respectively , where @xmath666 note that the pair in @xmath655 indexed by @xmath225 is @xmath667 , by proposition  [ prope ] ( 1 ) . hence , we have @xmath668 , so @xmath669 . by proposition
[ lastlevel ] , we have @xmath670    recall that @xmath457 is the collection of all admissible subsets corresponding to our fixed @xmath0-chain .    the collection @xmath457 of admissible subsets together with the root operators form a semiperfect crystal .
thus we have the following character formula : @xmath671    as usual , we denote by @xmath57 a generic element of @xmath672 , by @xmath152 its weight , and by @xmath337 the corresponding admissible folding .
also , @xmath106 will be a generic simple root .
axiom ( a1 ) follows from corollary [ cor1 ] .
axiom ( a2 ) is the content of proposition  [ closed ] and proposition  [ bijection ] ( 1)-(2 )
. axiom ( a3 ) is the content of proposition  [ propf ] ( 3 ) and proposition  [ bijection ] ( 1 ) .
according to proposition  [ extremalelement ] , @xmath673 is the unique admissible subset which is maximal with respect to all partial orders @xmath197 , for @xmath104 . since the height of @xmath674 is strictly larger than the height of @xmath52 for any other admissible subset @xmath57 ( cf .
proposition [ maximum ] ) , and since the height of @xmath675 is larger by 1 than the height of @xmath52 , we conclude that @xmath673 is the maximum object of @xmath457 . hence , axiom ( a5 ) is satisfied .
the definition of a coherent timing pattern and the related verification of axiom ( a4 ) are analogous to those for ls chains in ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  8.3 ) ; nevertheless , there are some features specifically related to our setup , such as the reversal of the total order on the set in which the timing pattern takes values , and the use of proposition  [ lastlevel ] in lemma  [ lemtiming ] ( used below ) .
assume that @xmath676 , so that @xmath611 is defined .
we define @xmath677 , where @xmath678 was defined in section [ sec : rootoperators ] in connection with the root operator @xmath177 . assuming that @xmath589 is defined , and applying proposition  [ bijection ] ( 1 ) , we have @xmath679 by iteration
, it follows that @xmath680 for @xmath681 .
therefore , given @xmath682 for @xmath188 with @xmath683 and @xmath684 , we have @xmath685 we have @xmath686 , by proposition  [ closed ] .
hence , by lemma  [ lemtiming ] , we have @xmath687 , so there exists @xmath688 such that @xmath689 .
we claim that @xmath690 .
let @xmath691 and @xmath692 .
we have @xmath693 also note that @xmath694 , by proposition  [ closed ] .
assume that @xmath695 .
then the fact that @xmath696 implies , based on lemma  [ lemtiming ] , that the maximum of @xmath697 is attained at @xmath698 as well ; but this contradicts the definition of @xmath699 .
the case @xmath700 is similar . on the other hand ,
similar reasoning proves conversely that given @xmath688 such that @xmath701 and @xmath702 , there is @xmath703 such that @xmath704 and @xmath705 .
the formula for @xmath55 now follows from theorem  [ thmst ] .
( littlewood - richardson rule ) .
we have @xmath706 where the summation is over all @xmath57 in @xmath457 satisfying @xmath707 for all @xmath104 .
this follows immediately from theorem  [ thmst ] .
there , the condition for @xmath57 to contribute to the summation was @xmath708 , which is easily seen to be equivalent to the condition stated above .
( branching rule ) .
given @xmath205 , we have the following rule for decomposing @xmath55 as a sum of weyl characters relative to @xmath206 : @xmath709 where the summation is over all @xmath57 in @xmath457 satisfying @xmath710 for all @xmath212 .
immediate , based on corollary [ branching ] .
in this section , we explain the connection between our model and ls chains .
we start with the relevant definitions , by closely following ( * ? ? ?
* section 8) .
the bruhat order on the orbit @xmath711 of a dominant or antidominant weight is the transitive closure of the relations @xmath712 the bruhat orders on @xmath711 and @xmath713 are dual isomorphic ; in fact , @xmath714 if and
only if @xmath715 . as usual , we write @xmath716 to indicate that @xmath152 covers @xmath717 ; this happens only if @xmath718 for some @xmath16 , but not conversely .
given @xmath719 and a fixed real number @xmath224 , one defines the @xmath224-_bruhat order _ @xmath720 as the transitive closure of the relations @xmath721 thus , @xmath152 covers @xmath717 in @xmath224-bruhat order if and only if @xmath152 covers @xmath717 in the usual bruhat order and @xmath722 is an integer multiple of a root .    given @xmath719 , we say that a pair consisting of a chain @xmath723 in the @xmath5-orbit of @xmath0 and an increasing sequence of rational numbers @xmath724 is a _ lakshmibai - seshadri chain _
( ls chain ) if @xmath725    following @xcite , we identify an ls chain ( denoted as above ) with the map @xmath726\rightarrow w\lambda$ ] given by @xmath727 for @xmath728 , where @xmath729 and @xmath730 , @xmath731 .
note that the piecewise - constant left - continuous maps that correspond to ls chains can be characterized by the property @xmath732 where @xmath733 denotes the right - hand limit of @xmath37 at @xmath699 . to each ls chain @xmath37 , we associate the continuous piecewise - linear path @xmath734\rightarrow\hr$ ] given by @xmath735 in other words
, we define @xmath736 for @xmath737 .
the root operators @xmath155 and @xmath177 on ls chains ( for a simple root @xmath106 ) were defined by littelmann @xcite as follows .
let @xmath738 be the minimum of the function @xmath739\rightarrow { \mathbb r}$ ] given by @xmath740 .
if @xmath741 , then @xmath177 is undefined . otherwise , we let @xmath742 $ ] be minimal such that @xmath743 , and we let @xmath744 $ ] be maximal such that @xmath745 for @xmath746 $ ] . we define @xmath747
the definition of @xmath155 is similar .
more precisely , if @xmath748 , then @xmath155 is undefined .
otherwise , we let @xmath749 $ ] be maximal such that @xmath750 , and we let @xmath751 $ ] be minimal such that @xmath745 for @xmath752 $ ] . given the latter values for @xmath753 and @xmath754 , we define @xmath755 by the same formula as @xmath756 .    [ defrootops ]
the above definition of @xmath177 and @xmath155 applies to any continuous piecewise - linear path @xmath757 with @xmath758 , if we replace the map @xmath37 above with the left - hand derivative of @xmath757 ( which is a piecewise - constant left - continuous map defined on @xmath759 $ ] ) .    with each ls chain @xmath37 ( denoted as above )
, one can associate the _ dual _ ls chain @xmath760 , which is defined as @xmath761 where @xmath762 .
it is easy to see that @xmath763 and @xmath764 .
the paths corresponding to ls chains are special cases of _ littelmann paths_. the latter were defined by littelmann @xcite , still in the setup of complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebras .
more precisely , littelmann defined root operators @xmath177 and @xmath155 on continuous paths @xmath734\rightarrow \hr$ ] with @xmath758 .
in fact , the operator @xmath177 ( respectively @xmath155 ) is defined as in remark [ defrootops ] if the function @xmath739\rightarrow { \mathbb r}$ ] given by @xmath740 is weakly decreasing ( respectively weakly increasing ) between @xmath753 and @xmath754 . in general , the definition is more involved ; for convenience , we stated it in section [ sec : finite ] .
however , only the simpler version of the definition is needed for an ls chain , since it is known that the corresponding function @xmath765 satisfies the condition stated above .
littelmann considered the collection @xmath766 of all paths obtained by applying the operators @xmath155 to a fixed continuous path from @xmath293 to @xmath0 which lies inside the dominant weyl chamber .
he showed that these paths form a crystal , that the associated colored directed graph does not depend on the initial path , and that one can express @xmath767 moreover , there is a corresponding littlewood - richardson rule @xcite .
stembridge @xcite reproved the special case of the above results corresponding to ls chains by showing that they form an admissible system .
kashiwara @xcite , lakshmibai @xcite , and joseph @xcite proved independently that littelmann paths ( obtained from a fixed path via root operators ) have the structure of a perfect crystal .
let us now return to ls chains , and fix @xmath0 in @xmath121 . recall the set @xmath22 in ( [ indset ] ) , and the @xmath0-chain @xmath19 given by proposition  [ constr - lambdachain ] , which depends on a total order on the set of simple roots @xmath768 .
we will now describe a bijection between the corresponding admissible subsets ( cf .  definition  [ admsubset ] ) and the ls chains corresponding to the antidominant weight @xmath769 .
given an index @xmath230 , we let @xmath770 and @xmath771 . we have an order - preserving map from @xmath22 to @xmath772 given by @xmath773 . recall the notation @xmath358 and @xmath774 ; we also let @xmath775 .
consider an admissible subset @xmath335 and let @xmath776 let @xmath777 be such that @xmath778 if and only if @xmath779 , for @xmath729 .
define weyl group elements @xmath780 for @xmath781 and @xmath782 for @xmath729 by @xmath783 , @xmath784 , and @xmath785 .
let also @xmath786 .
for any @xmath787 , we have the following saturated chain in bruhat order of minimum ( left ) coset representatives modulo @xmath11 : @xmath788 indeed , none of the reflections @xmath789 lies in @xmath11 , since @xmath790 for all @xmath23 .
the above chain gives rise to a saturated increasing chain from @xmath791 to @xmath792 in the bruhat order on @xmath713 .
we will now show that this chain is , in fact , a chain in @xmath793-bruhat order .
let @xmath794 , so that @xmath795 , for @xmath796 .
we need to check that @xmath797 , for @xmath779 . but @xmath798 while , by definition , @xmath799 is a fraction with denominator @xmath800 . hence @xmath801 is an ls chain in the @xmath5-orbit of @xmath769 .
we denote it by @xmath802 , and the associated continuous piecewise - linear path by @xmath803 .
note that @xmath804 is the ls chain consisting only of @xmath769 , while @xmath805\rightarrow\hr$ ] is the path @xmath806 .
the path @xmath807 intersects the affine hyperplane @xmath808 at @xmath809 for @xmath23 ; moreover , these and @xmath810 are the only intersections of @xmath807 with affine hyperplanes @xmath811 , for @xmath83 and @xmath812 .
it is not hard to see that the path @xmath803 can be described using folding operators as follows : @xmath813 here , the folding operators @xmath329 are defined as follows on the relevant paths @xmath757 : @xmath814    [ weightls ] based on ( [ describefold ] ) , we can easily show that @xmath815 ( cf
.  definition  [ defweighted ] ) .
indeed , we have @xmath816 .    [ rootopscorr ]
we have @xmath817 for all admissible subsets @xmath57 ( here @xmath177 is the root operator for paths , while @xmath155 in the one defined in section [ sec : rootoperators ] ) .
consider the point @xmath818 , where @xmath819 is a small positive real number .
let @xmath820\to \h_\r^*$ ] be the path @xmath821 .
given @xmath230 in @xmath22 and a sufficiently small @xmath819 , the path @xmath822 crosses the affine hyperplane @xmath823 at @xmath824 .
fix a simple root @xmath106 and an admissible subset @xmath335 .
let @xmath337 be the corresponding admissible folding , and @xmath407 the corresponding level sequence .
we can find @xmath825 such that , for all @xmath243 in @xmath826 and @xmath827 , the points @xmath828 exist , and we have @xmath829 .
let us now extend this path by the segments from 0 to @xmath830 and from @xmath831 to @xmath769 .
more precisely , we consider the path @xmath832\to \h_\r^*$ ] given by @xmath833 since @xmath825 , the point @xmath834 does not lie on an affine hyperplane @xmath835 , for @xmath836 , whenever @xmath837\cup[1-\varepsilon,1)$ ] and @xmath827 . from now on
, we assume that @xmath827 .
let @xmath838 be the value of @xmath699 in @xmath839 $ ] for which @xmath840 crosses the affine hyperplane @xmath823 for @xmath230 in @xmath22 ( assuming that such a value exists ) .
clearly , it is still true that , for all @xmath243 in @xmath826 , the points @xmath841 exist , and we have @xmath842 .
now consider the path @xmath843 where the folding operators @xmath329 are defined as in ( [ simpledeffold ] ) , except that @xmath844 is replaced by @xmath838 .
it is easy to see that the only intersections of @xmath845 with affine hyperplanes @xmath835 , for @xmath836 , occur at @xmath846 , @xmath810 , and @xmath847 for @xmath848 .
moreover , note that the signs of the roots in the pairs @xmath849 for @xmath850 in @xmath324 with @xmath851 , as well as the sign of @xmath852 indicate the sides of the mentioned hyperplane on which the path @xmath840 lies before and/or after the intersection .
corollary [ cor1 ] shows that the minimum of the function @xmath853 is @xmath854 ; furthermore , this minimum is attained at @xmath847 for @xmath848 with @xmath855 , as well as at @xmath810 if @xmath856 .
let @xmath857 , @xmath858 , and assume @xmath593 .
we define @xmath617 by @xmath502 and @xmath859 ( possibly @xmath275 , in which case the corresponding inequality is dropped ) .
let us define @xmath860 as in remark [ defrootops ] . by corollary [ cor2 ] ,
the corresponding points @xmath753 and @xmath754 are as follows : @xmath861 consider @xmath862 , and let @xmath863 be its successor in @xmath864 . given a subset @xmath865 of @xmath22 , we will use the notation @xmath866 for @xmath867 ; we also set @xmath868 .
let @xmath869 and @xmath870 . by ( [ defeppaths ] ) , the direction of @xmath860 for @xmath871 $ ] is @xmath872 .
since @xmath873 , the direction of @xmath874 for the same values of @xmath699 is @xmath875 .
but @xmath876 , so @xmath877 , and , therefore , the two directions above coincide .
the directions of the two paths also coincide for @xmath878 , since @xmath615 ( cf .  proposition  [ closed ] ) .
the case @xmath608 is similar .
all this shows that @xmath879 now let us take the limit as @xmath880 .
note that @xmath845 converges uniformly to @xmath803 , since @xmath881 converges to @xmath882 , for @xmath346 ; so the minimum of @xmath803 is also @xmath854 , and the points @xmath883 in the construction of @xmath884 are precisely @xmath885 ( which are the limits of @xmath886 ) .
this implies that @xmath177 commutes with limits , so the proposition follows by taking the limit in ( [ foldepsilon ] ) .
the map @xmath887 is a bijection between the admissible subsets considered above and the ls chains corresponding to the antidominant weight @xmath769 .
surjectivity follows directly from theorem  [ rootopscorr ] , based on the fact that all ls chains corresponding to @xmath769 can be obtained from the one consisting only of @xmath769 by applying the root operators @xmath155 .
injectivity then follows from the character formula ( [ litchar ] ) , since @xmath815 , as noted in remark [ weightls ] .
\(1 ) the proof of theorem  [ rootopscorr ] contains the justification of the fact that the minima of the paths associated to ls chains are integers .
this justification is based only on the combinatorics in section [ sec : folded ] .
note that the same fact was proved by littelmann in @xcite using different methods .
\(2 ) the proof of theorem  [ rootopscorr ] shows that ls chains can be viewed as a limiting case of a special case of our construction .
the special choices of @xmath0-chains that lead to ls chains represent a very small fraction of all possible choices .    based on the independent results of kashiwara @xcite , lakshmibai @xcite , and joseph @xcite , which were discussed above
, we deduce the following corollary .
given a complex symmetrizable kac - moody algebra @xmath888 , consider the colored directed graph defined by the action of root operators ( cf .
section [ sec : rootoperators ] ) on the admissible subsets corresponding to the special choice of a @xmath0-chain above .
this graph is isomorphic to the crystal graph of the irreducible representation with highest weight @xmath0 of the associated quantum group @xmath218 .
we make the following conjecture , which is the analog of a result due to littelmann , that was discussed above .
the colored directed graph defined by the action of root operators on the admissible subsets corresponding to any @xmath0-chain does not depend on the choice of this chain .
the conjecture was proved for finite types ( i.e. , complex semisimple lie algebras ) in @xcite .
it implies that any choice of a @xmath0-chain leads to a perfect crystal .
in this section , we discuss the way in which the model in this paper specializes to the one in @xcite in the case of finite irreducible root systems .
let @xmath74 be the root system of a simple lie algebra .
let @xmath6 be the _ affine weyl group _ for @xmath239 , that is , the group generated by the affine reflections @xmath48 ( defined in ( [ affref ] ) ) .
the corresponding affine hyperplanes @xmath811 divide the real vector space @xmath9 into open regions , called _ alcoves . _
the _ fundamental alcove _
@xmath889 is given by @xmath890 we say that two alcoves are adjacent if they are distinct and have a common wall .
for a pair of adjacent alcoves , let us write @xmath891 if the common wall of @xmath13 and @xmath892 is orthogonal to the root @xmath83 , and @xmath27 points in the direction from @xmath13 to @xmath892 .
an _ alcove path _ is a sequence of alcoves @xmath893 such that @xmath894 and @xmath895 are adjacent , for @xmath896 .
we say that an alcove path is _ reduced _ if it has minimal length among all alcove paths from @xmath897 to @xmath898 .
let @xmath899 be the alcove obtained via the affine translation of the fundamental alcove @xmath889 by a weight @xmath0 .
the reduced alcove paths from @xmath889 to @xmath900 are in bijection with the reduced decompositions of the element @xmath901 in @xmath6 defined by @xmath902 ; see  @xcite .
let us fix a dominant weight @xmath0 .
this proposition is an analog of the fact that the normal ordering of roots can be described in terms of dihedral subgroups .
each alcove @xmath13 is given by the inequalities @xmath905 where @xmath906 are some integers .
we need the following characterization due to shi of the collection of integers @xmath907 associated with alcoves .
@xcite an arbitrary collection of integers @xmath908 corresponds to some alcove @xmath13 , i.e. , @xmath909 for all @xmath16 , if and only if , for any triple of roots @xmath910 such that @xmath911 , we have @xmath912 .    for a sequence of positive roots @xmath913 ,
define @xmath914 , for @xmath16 and @xmath915 .
the axioms of a @xmath0-chain in the finite case ( condition ( 1 ) in definition  [ lambdachain ] and condition ( @xmath916 ) in proposition  [ equivalence ] ) can be rewritten in terms of the integers @xmath917 as follows : ( 1 ) @xmath918 , for @xmath16 ; and ( 2 ) for any triple @xmath910 such that @xmath919 and @xmath915 , we have @xmath920 ( interlacing condition ) .
shi s result implies that these conditions are equivalent to the fact that @xmath904 is a reduced alcove path , where @xmath921 is the alcove associated with the collection of integers @xmath922 , i.e. , @xmath923 .
\(2 ) reduced alcove paths from @xmath889 to @xmath924 ( where @xmath925 is the longest weyl group element ) correspond to _ reflection orderings _
@xcite . if @xmath0 is regular , then some reduced alcove paths from @xmath889 to @xmath926 start with an alcove path from @xmath889 to @xmath927 .
hence , we can say that @xmath0-chains extend the notion of a reflection ordering .
a _ gallery _ is a sequence @xmath928 such that @xmath929 are alcoves ; @xmath930 is a codimension one common face of the alcoves @xmath894 and @xmath895 , for @xmath896 ; @xmath931 is a vertex of the first alcove @xmath897 ; and @xmath932 is a vertex of the last alcove @xmath898 .
furthermore , we require that @xmath933 , @xmath934 , and @xmath935 for some weight @xmath936 , which is called the _ weight _ of the gallery .
the folding operator @xmath937 is the operator which acts on a gallery by leaving its initial segment from @xmath897 to @xmath894 intact and by reflecting the remaining tail in the affine hyperplane containing the face @xmath930 . in other words ,
we define @xmath938 where @xmath939 , @xmath940 , and @xmath941 , for @xmath942 .
let us fix a reduced alcove path @xmath904 , which determines the @xmath0-chain @xmath19 with @xmath943 .
the alcove path also determines an obvious gallery @xmath944 of weight @xmath769 .
we use the same notation as in sections [ sec : lambdachains]-[sec : rootoperators ] .
for instance , @xmath358 and @xmath774 .
we also let @xmath945 be the affine reflection in the hyperplane containing @xmath946 .
the weight of the gallery @xmath802 is @xmath949 ( cf
.  definition  [ defweighted ] ) .
indeed , we have @xmath816 .
hence , the model in this paper specializes to the one in @xcite , whose construction was based on the geometry of the generalized flag variety .
since we assumed that @xmath74 is irreducible , there is a unique _ highest coroot _
@xmath950 , i.e. , a unique coroot that has maximal height .
we will also use the _ coxeter number _ , that can be defined as @xmath951 ( in the finite case , the dominant weight @xmath149 considered at the end of section [ sec : notation ] is unique , and is given by @xmath952 ) .
let @xmath953 be the set of the elements of the lattice @xmath954 that do not belong to any affine hyperplane @xmath811 .
each alcove @xmath13 contains precisely one element @xmath955 of the set @xmath953 ( cf .
@xcite ) ; this will be called the _ central point _ of @xmath13 .
in particular , @xmath956 .
let us now associate to the gallery @xmath804 a continuous piecewise - linear path .
consider the points @xmath958 , @xmath959 for @xmath960 , @xmath961 for @xmath962 , and @xmath963 .
note that @xmath964 lies on @xmath946 for @xmath965 .
let @xmath807 be the piecewise - linear path obtained by joining @xmath966 .
given an admissible subset @xmath57 , let @xmath967 be the points on the faces of the gallery @xmath802 that are obtained ( in the obvious way ) from @xmath968 in the process of constructing @xmath802 from @xmath804 via folding operators .
clearly , @xmath969 are the central points of the corresponding alcoves in @xmath802 , for @xmath960 . by joining @xmath970
, we obtain a piecewise - linear path that we call @xmath803 .
note that @xmath803 can be described using folding operators , as in ( [ describefold ] ) , once these operators are appropriately defined .
it turns out that , in general , the collection of paths @xmath803 , for @xmath57 ranging over admissible subsets , does _ not _ coincide with the collection of littelmann paths obtained from @xmath807 by applying the root operators @xmath177 .
indeed , it is not true in general that @xmath977 , as was the case with the paths corresponding to ls chains ( cf .  theorem  [ rootopscorr ] ) .
the reason is that , given @xmath978 , the function @xmath739\rightarrow { \mathbb r}$ ] given by @xmath740 is usually not weakly decreasing between the corresponding points @xmath753 and @xmath754 ( see section [ sec : ls ] for the definition of these points ) .
this happens , for instance , when applying @xmath979 to the path @xmath807 in example [ exg2 ] below .
such situations can also arise if we define @xmath807 by joining the centers of the faces @xmath946 , or the centers of both the alcoves @xmath921 and the faces @xmath946 ( in the order they appear in the gallery @xmath804 ) .
in all these situations , we need the general definition of @xmath177 for littelmann paths , which we now recall from @xcite .    as in section
[ sec : ls ] , the definition is easier to state if we replace the continuous piecewise - linear paths @xmath757 ( satisfying @xmath758 ) with their left - hand derivatives @xmath37 ( which are piecewise - constant left - continuous maps defined on @xmath759 $ ] ) . recall that we denoted the minimum of the function @xmath765 by @xmath738 .
if @xmath980 , then @xmath756 is undefined , as before , so assume that @xmath981 .
choose @xmath982 such either        our model can be based on _ any _ @xmath0-chain ( that is , not necessarily on the ones given by proposition  [ constr - lambdachain ] ) , and we still have a definition of root operators for admissible subsets / admissible foldings that corresponds to the simpler version of their definition on paths , given in ( [ defeppaths ] ) .
suppose that @xmath992 .
proposition  [ constr - lambdachain ] gives the following @xmath993-chain : @xmath994 thus , we have @xmath995 , @xmath996 , @xmath997 , @xmath998 , @xmath999 , @xmath1000 , @xmath1001 , @xmath1002 , @xmath1003 , @xmath1004
. there are six saturated chains in the bruhat order ( starting at the identity ) on the corresponding weyl group that can be retrieved as subchains of the @xmath993-chain .
we indicate each such chain and the corresponding admissible subsets in @xmath1005 .    1 .
1 : @xmath1006 ; 2 .
@xmath1007 : @xmath1008 ; 3 .
@xmath1009 : @xmath1010 , @xmath1011 , @xmath1012 ; 4 .
@xmath1013 : @xmath1014 , @xmath1015 , @xmath1016 ; 5 .
@xmath1017 : @xmath1018 , @xmath1019 , @xmath1020 , @xmath1021 , @xmath1022 ; 6 .
@xmath1023 : @xmath1024 .
the weight of each admissible subset is now easy to compute ( by applying the corresponding affine reflections above to @xmath993 , cf .  definition [ defweighted ] ) .
this leads to the expression for the character @xmath1025 as the following sum over admissible subsets : @xmath1026    figure  [ fig : g2 ] displays the galleries @xmath802 corresponding to the admissible subsets @xmath57 indicated above , the associated paths @xmath803 , as well as the action of the root operators @xmath155 on @xmath57 . for each path , we shade the fundamental alcove , mark the origin by a white dot `` @xmath1027 '' , and mark the endpoint of a black dot `` @xmath1028 '' .
since some linear steps in @xmath803 might coincide , we display slight deformations of these paths , so that no information is lost in their graphical representations . as discussed above ,
the weights of the irreducible representation @xmath1029 are obtained by changing the signs of the endpoints of the paths @xmath803 ( marked by black dots ) . the roots in the corresponding admissible foldings @xmath340
can also be read off ; see proposition  [ chain_path ] . at each step , a path @xmath803 either crosses a wall of the affine coxeter arrangement or bounces off a wall .
the associated admissible subset @xmath57 is the set of indices of bouncing steps in the path .        c.  chevalley .
sur les dcompositions cellulaires des espaces . in _ algebraic roups and eneralizations : lassical ethods _ , volume 56 part 1 of _ proceedings and symposia in pure mathematics _ , pages 123 .
1994 .
a.  lascoux and m .-
keys and standard bases . in d.
stanton , editor , _ invariant theory and tableaux _ , volume  19 of _ the i m a vol . in math . and its appl .
_ , pages 125144 , berlin - heidelberg - new york , 1990 .
springer - verlag .