Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

26

5

The $n$th Catalan number can be written in terms of factorials as $$ C_n = {(2n)! \over (n+1)! n!}. $$ We can rewrite this in terms of gamma functions to define the Catalan numbers for complex $z$: $$ C(z) = {\Gamma(2z+1) \over \Gamma(z+2) \Gamma(z+1)}. $$ This function is analytic except where $2n+1, n+2$, or $n+1$ is a nonpositive integer -- that is, at $n = -1/2, -1, -3/2, -2, \ldots$.

At $z = -2, -3, -4, \ldots$, the numerator of the expression for $C(z)$ has a pole of order 1, but the denominator has a pole of order $2$, so $\lim_{z \to n} C(z) = 0$.

At $z = -1/2, -3/2, -5/2, \ldots$, the denominator is just some real number and the numerator has a pole of order 1, so $C(z)$ has a pole of order $1$.

But at $z = -1$: - $\Gamma(2z+1)$ has a pole of order $1$ with residue $1/2$; - $\Gamma(z+2) = 1$; - $\Gamma(z+1)$ has a pole of order $1$ with residue $1$. Therefore $\lim_{z \to -1} C(z) = 1/2$, so we might say that the $-1$st Catalan number is $-1/2$.

Is there an interpretation of this fact in terms of any of the countless combinatorial objects counted by the Catalan numbers?

flag	asked Feb 17 2010 at 19:00 Michael Lugo 8,415●2●21●48

2

Have you read any of these links? math.ucr.edu/home/baez/counting – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 17 2010 at 21:49

Some of them, but not recently. – Michael Lugo Feb 17 2010 at 21:50

10

Michael, I think you are making things a bit more complicated than they really are: write the explicit formula as a recurrence relation: $$C_{n+1} = \frac{4n+2}{n+2} C_n$$ From here you immediately conclude that $C_{-1}=-\frac12 C_0 =-\frac12$, and that the formula makes no sense for $n=-2$, so you cannot extend the sequence in the negative direction any further. – Igor Pak Feb 18 2010 at 4:22

1

Well, Igor, I think you're right. – Michael Lugo Feb 18 2010 at 13:00

One of the papers by Propp discusses how the well-known expression for negative binomial coefficients can be given a concrete combinatorial interpretation following ideas of Schanuel; it seems potentially relevant. – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 19 2010 at 3:41

Jacques Carette · Answer 1 · 2010-02-19 03:39:14Z UTC

4

Whatever combinatorial interpretation someone comes up with has to somehow count the number of ordered trees on 0 vertices as $-1/2$. Using counting techniques like the ones advocated by Baez allows you to make sense of generalized counts, but negative counts stretch 'combinatorics' pretty far!

answered Feb 19 2010 at 3:39

Jacques Carette
6,717●1●14●35

There are, of course, hundreds of combinatorial interpretations of the Catalan numbers, and it may be that only some of them "degenerate" in the correct way. Stanley knows a lot about both the Catalan numbers and combinatorial reciprocity; I hope he takes a look at this thread. – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 19 2010 at 3:43

1

Right - I looked at about 20 of them, and all of them either made no sense at all for n=-1, or they were essentially equivalent to the one above. So I figured I would post at least that much information. – Jacques Carette Feb 19 2010 at 12:57

One of the problems in Stanley says that C_n is the dimension of the space of invariants of SL(2, C) acting on the (2n)th tensor power of the defining 2-dimensional representation. Does anyone know how to take negative tensor powers? Can you get an object with a "generalized dimension" of -1/2? – Qiaochu Yuan Mar 4 2010 at 19:38

Is there a combinatorial reason that the (-1)st Catalan number is -1/2?

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.