Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 24, 2016 at 20:40 answer added Brian Hopkins timeline score: 3
Jul 24, 2016 at 20:11 comment added Brian Hopkins I wonder if Hanlon is missing a $\text{sgn}(\sigma)$ term in the summation. Working out the $S_3$ example he has running through the article gives $2\alpha^2 - 3 \alpha + 1$ for the product but $2\alpha^2 + 3\alpha + 1$ for the sum (which is $\beta^3-3\beta^2+2\beta$ vs. $\beta^3 + 3\beta^2 + 2\beta$ in your formulation).
Jul 24, 2016 at 20:08 answer added Linus Hamilton timeline score: 7
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:57 history edited Ben McKay CC BY-SA 3.0
sp
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:53 comment added I.K Yes. I rewrote it. I used $ \beta = \alpha^{-1} $ Then it's the same equality, isn't it?
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:51 comment added Brian Hopkins Looking at the paper, I think it's $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (1-i\alpha) = \prod_{\sigma \in S_n} \alpha^{n-c(\sigma)}$.
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:51 comment added I.K I edited the question, I'm pretty sure that from the context, beta is positive strictly less than 1.
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:48 history edited I.K CC BY-SA 3.0
added 67 characters in body
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:46 comment added Linus Hamilton Are you missing a sign somewhere? If $\beta=1$ then the LHS is zero but the RHS is $n!$. EDIT: for a fixed $n$, both sides are polynomials in $\beta$, so if they are equal for $0<\beta<1$ then they are equal for $\beta=1$ too.
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:44 history edited I.K CC BY-SA 3.0
added 4 characters in body
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:39 history edited Michael Albanese CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 157 characters in body
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:37 review First posts
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:39
Jul 24, 2016 at 19:37 history asked I.K CC BY-SA 3.0