Talk:Robinson–Schensted correspondence

RSK algorithm

Can someone describre the RSK-algorythm? --80.108.36.153 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page move

It may be a minor point, but I propose that this page be moved to Robinson–Schensted correspondence (which currently a redirect to it). The main reason is that the algorithms of Robinson and Schensted are not at all the same, even though they essentially define the same correspondence. The language of this article should be modified to reflect that, but this is hard to do as long as it is called Robinson–Schensted algorithm. In fact even the correspondences defined by the two algorithms is not the same. I feel somewhat authoritative to make these claims, as I seem to be one of the few living people who have actually read and understood Robinson's paper (but I would be very glad to learn that this is false). For a detailed account of the relation between the two approaches, see section 4.2 of my paper "The Littlewood-Richardson rule, and related combinatorics", Interaction of combinatorics and representation theory, MSJ Mem., 11, Tokyo: Math. Soc. Japan, pp. 95–145, cited in the references of the Littlewood–Richardson rule article. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as reliable (secondary) sources call it the R–S correspondence it seems fine to call it that. Fulton's Young Tableaux and Cameron's Permutation Groups call it R–S cor., but Sagan's Symmetric Group and Stanley's Enumerative Combinatorics (2) call it R–S alg. (mentioning correspondence too). Both ways seem common. I'd be tempted to leave it alone, but I'd also not object to a move. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]