1
$\begingroup$

Combinatorics provides us with many fast growing integer sequences. An exact computation of terms does not have to be crucial. Instead, and in addition to standard questions about the approximate values, we may also consider the relative behavior of different terms from the same or related sequences, or the number theoretic properties of the terms, etc.

One of the early problems of this type is the limit

$$\frac{top_0(n)}{top(n)} \rightarrow 1$$

where  $top(n)$  is the number of different quasi-orders in the $n$-element set $\ 0\ \ldots\ n\!-\!1$,  and $\ top_0(n)\ $ is a similar number of the partial orders. The authors of the conjecture made it based on a small maximal known value of the terms $\ top(n)\ top_0(n)$.  They had a good insight as the conjecture is supported by later higher values of $n$.

QUESTIONS:

  • Can someone recover that old reference?
  • How much known is more about the mentioned conjecture?
  • Are there some new (or any) insights in the said conjecture?

It seems to me (and perhaps to most anybody) that this should be one of the easiest conjectures of the type described above at the beginning of the question. And the question is reasonably attractive and well known. So? :-)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The terms of $\ top(n)\ $ are: $\ 1, 4, 29, 355, 6942, 209527, \ldots\ $ for $\ n=1\ldots 6$, and of $\ top_0(n)\ $ are: $\ 1, 3, 19, 219, 4231, 1300023, \ldots\ $ again for $\ n=1\ldots 6$ $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 6:24
  • $\begingroup$ Notation $top(n)$ and $top_0(n)$ shows its topological connection. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 8:43

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

It seems that Kleitman and Rothschild (Proc. AMS, 1970 and Trans. AMS, 1975) defined $O_n(=\text{top}(n))$ to be the number of preorders and $P_n(=\text{top}_0(n))$ to be the number of partial orders on $n$, and showed $$ \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\log O_n}{\log P_n}=1 $$ and $\log_2 P_n=n^2/4+3n/2+O(\log_2(n))$.

I don't see an explicit conjecture there that $O_n/P_n\rightarrow 1$. But it seems plausible since the ratios are all $\ge 1$ and start like this:

1, 1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.5, 1.4, 1.4, 1.3, 1.3, 1.2, 1.2, ...

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ 1970 and 1975? That early! I've seen a few months ago on Internet a copy of an old paper by two (three?) authors (at least one of them had a Russian name; perhaps it was simply a paper from a Russian journal) who announced a computation of $top_0(n)$, hence $top(n)$ too, for $n=10$ (or was it $n=11$?). That was enough for them (or someone before them?) to formulate the conjecture about limit 1. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2014 at 8:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .