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 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)