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 MR 1402783 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)