Talk:Specht module

Dual caution

Just a head's up: in the literature of modular representation theory it is not consistent which ${\hat {\mathbb {Z} }}_{p}[\operatorname {Sym} (n)]$-lattice is the Specht module; there are at least two very natural choices corresponding to M and M^*, and many people choose one willy-nilly. I believe in particular that "Combinatorica" and MR1402783 use conflicting conventions, and that neither are particularly explicit about what convention they use (perhaps combinatorica even has two "bases" methods, one producing M and one producing M^*). At the time, I found sources split about half and half whether they called M or M^* the Specht module. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)