Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 46 references

Raising and lowering maps for tridiagonal pairs

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the quantum raising, flat, and lowering maps of a tridiagonal pair are conjugate to the split maps, so injectivity and rank statements transfer.

desk verdict Careful, genuine structural algebra: explicit intertwiners between the quantum and split decompositions of a tridiagonal pair, with minor terse spots and no load-bearing gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19400 v1 pith:7V4FZT6O submitted 2025-07-25 math.CO math.RA

Paul Terwilliger This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.RA MSC 15A2105E30
keywords tridiagonalpairssplitdecompositionraisingandloweringmapsLeonardKrawtchouktypequantumrelationsprimitiveidempotents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

A tridiagonal pair is a pair of diagonalizable linear maps $A,A^*$ whose eigenspaces interlace like the three diagonals of a tridiagonal matrix; attached to it are two standard ways of building raising and lowering operators. The first way decomposes $A$ as $R+F+L$ according to the eigenspaces of $A^*$; the second way uses the split decomposition $V=\bigoplus_{i=0}^d U_i$ and gives maps $\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{L}$ that move between the $U_i$. This paper's central claim is that these two mechanisms are the same mechanism: one fixed bijection $\Psi=\sum_{\ell=0}^d F_\ell E^*_\ell$ conjugates $R$ to $\mathcal{R}$, and expresses $F$ and $L$ as explicit polynomials in $\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{L}$ on each split subspace. If the claim is right, results proved in one picture—most concretely the injectivity/surjectivity profile of powers of the split maps—transfer automatically to the other picture, and the two decompositions can be used interchangeably.

What carries the argument

The central object is the intertwiner $\Psi=\sum_{\ell=0}^d F_\ell E^*_\ell$, the sum over $\ell$ of the split-decomposition projector $F_\ell$ followed by the primitive idempotent $E^*_\ell$. It is the bridge between the two decompositions because Lemma 6.4 gives $F_iE^*_iF_i=F_i$ and $E^*_iF_iE^*_i=E^*_i$, and Lemma 6.5 makes $\Psi$ a bijection carrying $E^*_iV$ onto $F_iV$. The paper's computations reduce to evaluating products $F_iE^*_i A E^*_j$; the commuting diagrams in Theorems 8.9–8.11 are exactly the statement that $\Psi$ intertwines the quantum maps with the split maps.

What would settle it

Take a concrete tridiagonal pair of diameter $d=2$ or $d=3$ with generic eigenvalues, write $A$ and $A^*$ explicitly in matrix form, compute the projections $F_i$ and $E^*_i$, and check the identity in Theorem 8.9 (or Corollary 8.7) on a numerical vector. If $\Psi$ is singular or the two sides differ, the central claim fails; the same calculation also tests the imported bijection lemma, since $\Psi$ is written in these terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the $\Phi$-raising map $R=\sum_{i=0}^{d-1} E^*_{i+1}AE^*_i$ and the $\Phi$-split raising map $\mathcal{R}$ satisfy the conjugacy relation $R=\Psi^{-1}\mathcal{R}\Psi$, where $\Psi=\sum_{\ell=0}^d F_\ell E^*_\ell$ is the bijection sending each $E^*_iV$ to $F_iV$. Theorem 8.9 states this as a commuting square: $E^*_jV$ maps by $R$ to $E^*_{j+1}V$, while $F_jV$ maps by $\mathcal{R}$ to $F_{j+1}V$, with the same $\Psi$ on both vertical legs. Theorem 8.10 does the same for the flat map: under $\Psi$, $F$ acts on $F_jV$ as $\theta_j I + \mathcal{R}\mathcal{L}/(\theta^*_j-\theta^*_{j-1}) + \mathcal{L}\mathcal{R}/(\theta^*_j-\theta^*_{j+1})$, with the endpoints treated separately. Theorem 8.11 gives the parallel formula for the lowering map $L$ as a combination of $\mathcal{L}$, $\mathcal{R}\mathcal{L}^2$, $\mathcal{L}\mathcal{R}\mathcal{L}$, and $\mathcal{L}^2\mathcal{R}$ with coefficients built from eigenvalue differences. Theorem 10.1 then transfers the known injectivity/bijectivity/surjectivity profile of powers of $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ on the split subspaces to the spaces $E^*_iV$, yielding rank identities for $E^*_i A^{j-i} E^*_j$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the split decomposition $V=\bigoplus_{i=0}^d U_i$ being direct and on the map $\Psi=\sum_{\ell=0}^d F_\ell E^*_\ell$ being invertible; this key fact is cited from earlier work (Lemma 6.5, from [42]) rather than re-proved from the tridiagonal-pair axioms in this paper, and every commuting diagram is conjugated through that map.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The powers $\mathcal{R}^{j-i}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{j-i}$ now have a known injectivity/bijectivity/surjectivity profile on the $A^*$-eigenspaces, matching the existing profile on the split subspaces (Theorem 10.1).
  • The rank identities $\operatorname{rank} E^*_i A^{j-i} E^*_j = \min\{\rho_i,\rho_j\}$ follow directly (Corollary 10.2).
  • For Leonard systems the two pictures give bijections at every step, and the formulas in Corollaries 8.7 and 8.8 reproduce the standard relations among the parameters $a_i$, $x_i$, $\varphi_i$ (Section 11).
  • For Krawtchouk type the intertwiner is $\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)$, and the commutation relations $\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)$, $\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)F=(A-\mathcal{R}+[\mathcal{L},\mathcal{R}]/2)\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)$, and $\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)\mathcal{L}=(-\mathcal{L}+[\mathcal{L},[\mathcal{L},\mathcal{R}]]/8)\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)$ hold (Theorems 12.5–12.7).
  • The relations obtained from the $j-i\ge 2$ cases recover the tridiagonal relations for $\mathcal{R},\mathcal{L}$ and, at Krawtchouk type, the vanishing of the third-order commutators $[\mathcal{L},[\mathcal{L},[\mathcal{L},\mathcal{R}]]]$ and $[\mathcal{R},[\mathcal{R},[\mathcal{R},\mathcal{L}]]]$ (Corollary 9.3, Theorems 12.8, 12.9).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit the fact that the intertwiners can be weighted: replacing $\Psi$ by $\sum_{\ell=0}^d c_\ell F_\ell E^*_\ell$ yields a family of conjugacies wherever that sum remains invertible, so the unweighted sum is a normalization rather than an essential feature.
  • The Krawtchouk-type identification $\Psi=\exp(\mathcal{L}/2)$ suggests that for other parameter families (for example $q$-Racah type) the same intertwiner should be expressible through $q$-exponentials in $\mathcal{L}$; checking this would transfer the commuting-diagram results to those families in closed form.
  • One testable extension is to compare the rank identities with the known shape bounds: because $\rho_i=\dim F_iV=\dim E^*_iV$, the two pictures impose compatible dimension inequalities, which could yield new constraints on the shape vector.
  • If the conjugacy holds, the subalgebras generated by $R,F,L$ and by $\mathcal{R},\mathcal{L}$ are isomorphic via conjugation by $\Psi$; structural invariants would then transfer between the quantum and split pictures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a tridiagonal pair (A, A*) on a finite-dimensional vector space and compares two standard families of structure maps attached to it: the quantum decomposition maps R, F, L, defined with respect to the A*-eigenspace filtration, and the split decomposition maps R, L, defined with respect to the U_i split decomposition. The central result is that these two families are related by the fixed bijection P = sum_l F_l E*_l. Theorems 8.9–8.11 express this as commuting diagrams: P R = R P, P F = (theta_j I + RL/(theta*_j - theta*_{j-1}) + LR/(theta*_j - theta*_{j+1})) P on E*_j V, and a corresponding longer formula for P L. Theorem 10.1 transfers the known injectivity/surjectivity/bijectivity properties of powers of R and L on the split subspaces to the eigenspaces E*_i V. The final sections specialize these results to Leonard systems and to Krawtchouk type, recovering known results such as Proposition 11.3 and Corollary 9.3 as consistency checks.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a concrete dictionary between two widely used decompositions in the theory of tridiagonal pairs: the quantum decomposition and the split decomposition. The main formulas are explicit and parameter-free rational expressions in the eigenvalue data, and the key intertwining map P is proved to be a bijection in Lemma 6.5, not merely imported. The proofs are largely transparent and the dependence on the literature is clearly flagged. The transfer of the injectivity/surjectivity statements to the eigenspaces E*_i V in Theorem 10.1 is a genuine strengthening of the split-map results and yields the clean rank formulas in Corollary 10.2. The rederivation of previously known identities from the new formulas is a useful consistency check. I found no load-bearing gap in the main argument.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 8.5] The denominator conventions in the displayed formula need to be stated explicitly. When s = i or s = j, the corresponding denominator product should be interpreted as the empty product equal to 1. As written, the factor (theta*_i - theta*_s) in the first sum appears to be zero for s = i, which would make the formula ill-defined without that convention.
  2. [Theorem 5.1(ii)] The sentence 'where e+_d and e-_1 are indeterminates' is difficult to interpret. Please state explicitly whether the terms containing e+_d and e-_1 are omitted at the boundary, or whether the symbols are assigned a formal value; otherwise the displayed relations are not well-defined as scalar equations.
  3. [Corollary 9.3] The proof of the claimed equality in Corollary 9.3 is summarized as a 'direct calculation using (11)' in four cases. Since this is a lengthy algebraic verification, please display at least one representative case (for example 3 <= j <= d-1) in the text or in an appendix so that the calculation can be checked by the reader.
  4. [Sections 7-8] The two families of maps, the quantum maps R, F, L and the split maps R, L, are denoted by letters that are not always visually distinguished in the running text. A short table of notation at the end of Section 7 would help the reader keep the two families separate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the intertwining theorems are self-contained algebraic reformulations, and the imported split-decomposition facts are established external support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here. The central intertwining theorems 8.9–8.11 are reformulations of Corollaries 8.6–8.8, which are specializations of Theorem 8.5. Theorem 8.5 is an algebraic expansion of the identity FiE*iAE*j = FiE*i(ΣFr)A(ΣFs)E*j, using only the split-decomposition identities in Lemmas 7.5–7.6 and the transfer formulas in Propositions 8.2 and 8.4; those propositions are proved in the paper from Lemmas 8.1 and 8.3 and the definition L = A* − Σθ*ℓFℓ in Definition 7.1. The bijection P = ΣFℓE*ℓ used in the commuting diagrams is not merely cited: Lemma 6.5 is proved in Section 6, with Lemma 6.4 proved immediately before it. The genuinely imported ingredient is [14, Theorem 4.6], which establishes the directness of the split decomposition and relations (19)–(20); this is an established structure theorem for tridiagonal pairs and not a restatement of the paper’s conclusions. Theorem 10.1 and the injectivity/surjectivity results use the standard [14, Lemma 6.5] together with Theorem 8.9, again as external support rather than a fitted input. No parameter is fitted to data and renamed a prediction, and no claimed result is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to determine. The abbreviated “direct calculation” in Corollary 9.3 is an algebraic verification within the proof, not a load-bearing assumption. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new postulates. All maps, including R, F, L, R, and L, are explicitly constructed from the given tridiagonal pair and its eigenspaces or split subspaces. The main imported assumptions are foundational theorems on tridiagonal systems and the split decomposition, cited transparently. A few calculation details are compressed but the overall structure is self-contained.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Tridiagonal pair axioms (Definition 1.1): A and A* are diagonalizable, each shifts the eigenspaces of the other by at most one index, and there is no nontrivial common invariant subspace.
    The entire paper is a study of this class of objects; all results are conditional on these axioms.
  • standard math E*_i A E*_j is zero when |i-j|>1 and nonzero when |i-j|=1, with the analogous statement for E_i A* E_j (Lemma 3.2, cited from [14, Lemma 3.6] and [42, Lemma 3.6]).
    Used to define R, F, L and in the evaluations of Theorem 5.1. This is an established structural fact about tridiagonal systems.
  • domain assumption The map sum_{l=0}^d F_l E*_l is a bijection with inverse sum_{l=0}^d E*_l F_l, and the identities F_i E*_i F_i = F_i and E*_i F_i E*_i = E*_i hold (Lemma 6.5, cited from [42, Lemma 3.15]).
    Load-bearing premise for the intertwining theorems in Section 8 and the transfer of injectivity and surjectivity in Theorem 10.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Raising and lowering maps for tridiagonal pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7V4FZT6O

@misc{pith2026250719400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Raising and lowering maps for tridiagonal pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7V4FZT6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19400}
}
abstract

Let $V$ denote a nonzero finite-dimensional vector space. A tridiagonal pair on $V$ is an ordered pair $A, A^*$ of maps in ${\rm End}(V)$ such that (i) each of $A, A^*$ is diagonalizable; (ii) there exists an ordering $\lbrace V_i \rbrace_{i=0}^d$ of the eigenspaces of $A$ such that $A^* V_i \subseteq V_{i-1} + V_i + V_{i+1}$ $(0 \leq i \leq d)$, where $V_{-1} =0$ and $V_{d+1}=0$; (iii) there exists an ordering $\lbrace V^*_i \rbrace_{i=0}^\delta$ of the eigenspaces of $A^*$ such that $A V^*_i \subseteq V^*_{i-1} + V^*_i + V^*_{i+1}$ $(0 \leq i \leq \delta)$, where $V^*_{-1} =0$ and $V^*_{\delta+1}=0$; (iv) there does not exist a subspace $W \subseteq V$ such that $W \not=0$, $W\not=V$, $A W \subseteq W$, $A^*W \subseteq W$. Assume that $A, A^*$ is a tridiagonal pair on $V$. It is known that $d=\delta$. For $0 \leq i \leq d$ let $\theta_i$ (resp. $\theta^*_i$) denote the eigenvalue of $A$ (resp. $A^*$) for $V_i$ (resp. $V^*_i$). By construction, there exist $R,F,L \in {\rm End}(V)$ such that $A=R+F+L$ and $R V^*_i \subseteq V^*_{i+1}$, $F V^*_i \subseteq V^*_i$, $LV^*_i \subseteq V^*_{i-1}$ $(0 \leq i \leq d)$. For $0 \leq i \leq d$ define $U_i = (V^*_0 + V^*_1 + \cdots + V^*_i ) \cap (V_i + V_{i+1} + \cdots + V_d)$. It is known that the sum $V=\sum_{i=0}^d U_i$ is direct. By construction, there exists $\mathcal R, \mathcal L \in {\rm End}(V)$ such that $\mathcal R=A - \theta_i I$ and $\mathcal L= A^*-\theta^*_i I$ on $U_i$ $(0 \leq i \leq d)$. It is known that $\mathcal R U_i \subseteq U_{i+1}$ and $\mathcal L U_i \subseteq U_{i-1}$ $(0 \leq i \leq d)$, where $U_{-1}=0$ and $U_{d+1}=0$. In this paper, our main goal is to describe how $R,F,L,\mathcal R, \mathcal L$ are related. We also give some results concerning injectivity/surjectivity and $R, L$.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bannai, Et

    E. Bannai, Et. Bannai, T. Ito, R. Tanaka. Algebraic Combinatorics. De Gruyter Series in Discrete Math and Applications 5. De Gruyter, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630251

    doi:10.1515/9783110630251 2021

  2. [2]

    Distance-regular graphs with classical parameters that support a uniform structure: case $q \le 1$

    B. Fern´ andez, R. Maleki,ˇS. Miklaviˇ c, G. Monzillo. Distance-regular graphs with classi- cal parameters that support a uniform structure: case q≤ 1. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 46 (2023) no. 6, Paper No. 200, 23 pp. arXiv:2305.08937

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Distance-regular graphs with classical parameters that support a uniform structure: case $q \ge 2$

    B. Fern´ andez, R. Maleki,ˇS. Miklaviˇ c, G. Monzillo. Distance-regular graphs with classi- cal parameters that support a uniform structure: case q≥ 2. Discrete Math. 348 (2025) no. 1, Paper No. 114263, 12 pp. arXiv:2308.16679

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Two commuting operators associated with a tridiagonal pair

    S. Bockting-Conrad. Two commuting operators associated with a tridiagonal pair. Linear Algebra Appl. 437 (2012) 242–270. arXiv:math/1110.3434

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Tridiagonal pairs of $q$-Racah type, the double lowering operator $\psi$, and the quantum algebra $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$

    S. Bockting-Conrad. Tridiagonal pairs of q-Racah type, the double lowering opera- tor ψ, and the quantum algebra Uq(sl2). Linear Algebra Appl. 445 (2014) 256–279. arXiv:1307.7410

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    The algebra $U_q({\mathfrak{sl}_2})$ in disguise

    S. Bockting-Conrad and P. Terwilliger. The algebra Uq(sl2) in disguise. Linear Algebra Appl. 459 (2014) 548–585. arXiv:1307.7572

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Some $q$-exponential formulas involving the double lowering operator $\psi$ for a tridiagonal pair

    S. Bockting-Conrad. Some q-exponential formulas involving the double lowering opera- torψ for a tridiagonal pair. Assoc. Women Math. Ser., 21 Springer, Cham, 2020, 19–43. arXiv:1907.01157

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    G. Dickie. Twice Q-polynomial distance-regular graphs are thin. European J. Combin. 16 (1995) no. 6, 555–560

    work page 1995

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Dickie and P

    G. Dickie and P. Terwilliger. A note on thin P -polynomial and dual-thin Q-polynomial symmetric association schemes. J. Algebraic Combin. 7 (1998) 5–15

    1998

  2. [10]

    B. Hartwig. The tetrahedron algebra and its finite-dimensional irreducible modules. Linear Algebra Appl. 422 (2007) 219–235. arXiv:math/0606197

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hora and N

    A. Hora and N. Obata. Quantum Probability and Spectral Analysis of Graphs. Theo- retical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    J. Go. The Terwilliger algebra of the hypercube. European J. Combin. 23 (2002) 399– 429. 27

    2002

  5. [13]

    T. Ito, K. Nomura, P. Terwilliger. A classification of sharp tridiagonal pairs. Linear Algebra Appl. 435 (2011) 1857–1884. arXiv:1001.1812

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    T. Ito, K. Tanabe, P. Terwilliger. Some algebra related to P - and Q-polynomial as- sociation schemes, in: Codes and Association Schemes (Piscataway NJ, 1999) , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence RI, 2001, pp. 167–192. arXiv:math.CO/0406556

    1999

  7. [15]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. The shape of a tridiagonal pair. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 188 (2004) 145–160. arXiv:math.QA/0304244

    2004

  8. [16]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. Tridiagonal pairs and the quantum affine algebra Uq(bsl2). Ramanujan J. 13 (2007) 39–62. arXiv:math/0310042

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. Tridiagonal pairs of Krawtchouk type. Linear Algebra Appl. 427 (2007) 218–233. arXiv:0706.1065

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. Finite-dimensional irreducible modules for the three-point sl2 loop algebra. Comm. Algebra 36 (2008) 4557–4598. arXiv:0707.2313

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. The Drinfeld polynomial of a tridiagonal pair. J. Combin. Inform. System Sci. 34 (2009) 255–292. arXiv:0805.1465

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. Tridiagonal pairs of q-Racah type. J. Algebra 322 (2009) 68–93. arXiv:0807.0271

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ito and P

    T. Ito and P. Terwilliger. The augmented tridiagonal algebra. Kyushu J. Math. 64 (2010) 8–144. arXiv:0904.2889

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Miklaviˇ c and P

    ˇS. Miklaviˇ c and P. Terwilliger. Bipartite Q-polynomial distance-regular graphs and uniform posets. J. Algebraic Combin. 38 (2013) no. 2, 225–242. arXiv:1108.2484

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. The split decomposition of a tridiagonal pair. Linear Algebra Appl. 424 (2007) no. 2-3, 339–345. arXiv:math/0612460

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. Sharp tridiagonal pairs. Linear Algebra Appl. 429 (2008) 79–99. arXiv:0712.3665

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. Towards a classification of the tridiagonal pairs. Linear Algebra Appl. 429 (2008) 508–518. arXiv:0801.0621

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. On the shape of a tridiagonal pair. Linear Algebra Appl. 432 (2010) no. 2-3, 615–636. arXiv:0906.3838

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. Krawtchouk polynomials, the Lie algebra sl2, and Leonard pairs. Linear Algebra Appl. 437 (2012) 345–375. arXiv:1201.1645

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. Totally bipartite tridiagonal pairs. Electron. J. Linear Algebra 37 (2021) 434–491. arXiv:1711.00332. 28

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Nomura and P

    K. Nomura and P. Terwilliger. Leonard pairs, spin models, and distance-regular graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 177 (2021) Paper No. 105312, 59 pp. arXiv:1907.03900

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. The subconstituent algebra of an association scheme I. J. Algebraic Combin. 1 (1992) 363–388

    1992

  23. [31]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. The subconstituent algebra of an association scheme II. J. Algebraic Combin. 2 (1993) 73–103

    1993

  24. [32]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. The subconstituent algebra of an association scheme III. J. Algebraic Combin. 2 (1993) 177–210

    1993

  25. [33]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Two relations that generalize the q-Serre relations and the Dolan-Grady relations. In Physics and Combinatorics 1999 (Nagoya) , 377–398, World Scientific Pub- lishing, River Edge, NJ, 2001. arXiv:math/0307016

    1999 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Two linear transformations each tridiagonal with respect to an eigenbasis of the other. Linear Algebra Appl. 330 (2001) 149–203. arXiv:math/0406555

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Leonard pairs from 24 points of view. Conference on Special Functions (Tempe, AZ, 2000). Rocky Mountain J. Math. 32 (2002) 827–888. arXiv:math/0406577

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Leonard pairs and the q-Racah polynomials. Linear Algebra Appl. 387 (2004) 235–276. arXiv:math/0306301

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Two linear transformations each tridiagonal with respect to an eigenbasis of the other; the TD-D canonical form and the LB-UB canonical form. J. Algebra 291 (2005) 1–45. arXiv:math/0304077

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Two linear transformations each tridiagonal with respect to an eigenbasis of the other; comments on the parameter array.Des. Codes Cryptogr. 34 (2005) 307–332. arXiv:math/0306291

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Two linear transformations each tridiagonal with respect to an eigenbasis of the other: comments on the split decomposition. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 178 (2005) 437–452. arXiv:math/0306290

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. An algebraic approach to the Askey scheme of orthogonal polynomials. Orthogonal polynomials and special functions, 255–330, Lecture Notes in Math., 1883, Springer, Berlin, 2006. arXiv:math/0408390

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Notes on the Leonard system classification. Graphs Combin. 37 (2021) no. 5, 1687–1748. arXiv:2003.09668

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Tridiagonal pairs, alternating elements, and distance-regular graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 196 (2023) Paper No. 105724, 41 pp. arXiv:2207.07741

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Terwilliger

    P. Terwilliger. Distance-regular graphs, the subconstituent algebra, and the Q- polynomial property. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 487 Cambridge University Press, London, 2024, 430–491. arXiv:2207.07747. 29

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Terwilliger and R

    P. Terwilliger and R. Vidunas. Leonard pairs and the Askey-Wilson relations. J. Algebra Appl. 3 (2004) 411–426. arXiv:math/0305356

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Terwilliger and A

    P. Terwilliger and A. ˇZitnik. The quantum adjacency algebra and subconstituent algebra of a graph. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 166 (2019) 297–314. arXiv:1710.06011

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Worawannotai

    C. Worawannotai. Dual polar graphs, the quantum algebra Uq(sl2), and Leonard systems of dual q-Krawtchouk type. Linear Algebra Appl. 438 (2013) 443–497. arXiv:1205.2144. Paul Terwilliger Department of Mathematics University of Wisconsin 480 Lincoln Drive Madison, WI 53706-1388...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.