Let $B_n$ be the subset lattice of $\{1,2, \dots , n \}$, also called the boolean lattice of rank $n$.
A labeling $f: B_n \to \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}$ is called acceptable if $\forall a,b \in B_n$:

  • $a < b \Rightarrow \frac{f(b)}{f(a)} \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 2}$
  • $ f(a)f(b) \le f(a \vee b)f(a \wedge b)$

Let $\varphi(f) := \sum_{a \in B_n} (-1)^{|a^{\complement}|}f(a)$ be the Euler totient of $f$.

Reminder (see this post and its answers): The divisor lattice of $m$ square-free is boolean of rank the number of prime factors of $m$ and $\varphi(f) = \varphi(m) > 0$. For $[H,G]$ boolean interval of finite groups, the labeling $f(K) = |K|$ is acceptable and $\varphi(f) > 0$ by Ore's theorem (for $G$ a Chevalley group and $H$ a Borel subgroup, $[H,G]$ is boolean of rank that of the Dynkin diagram of $G$). We know that at rank $\le 5$, $\varphi(f) > 0$ for any acceptable labeling $f$, but there are some at rank $6$ with $\varphi(f) < 0$.

Question: Is $\varphi(f)$ nonzero for any acceptable labeling $f$?

Motivation: A positive answer would give a purely combinatorial generalization of Ore's theorem.

Edit: We now request $a < b \Rightarrow \frac{f(b)}{f(a)} \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 3}$, for two reasons:

  • If there is an atom $K$ of $[H,G]$ boolean, such that $|K:H| = 2$, then $\forall T \in [H,K^{\complement}]$, $|T \vee K : T| = 2$, so that the Euler totient for $[H,G]$ equals the one for $[H,K^{\complement}]$.
  • If we allow $\frac{f(b)}{f(a)}=2$, then there is a trivial infinite series of counter-examples: take $ m\ge 0$, then the $q$-deformation of the regular labeling (see the definitions in the accepted answer) for $$ r=2, \ s_1=2, \ n_1=2^{m+1}+4, \ s_2=2^{2^{m+1}+4+m}+1, \ n_2=1, \ q=2^m+1 $$ has rank $2^{m+1}+5$, and a zero Euler totient.

This question is related to tricky problems in modular arithmetic. We will give a series of non-trivial examples of acceptable labelings and prove that their Euler totient is nonzero:

Let $r,s,q \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 2}$ with $r \wedge s = 1$. Consider the following labeling $f$ on $B_n$:
Take an atom $a$ of $B_n$, and label every maximal chain of $[\hat{0}, a^{\complement}]$ by $$(1, r, \dots, r^{n-1})$$ and every maximal chain of $[a,\hat{1}]$ by $$(s, rs, \dots, r^{n-3}s,r^{n-2}sq,r^{n-1}sq^2) $$

See below this labeling for $n=4$:

enter image description here

The labeling $f$ is obviously acceptable.

Proposition: The Euler totient $\varphi(f)$ is nonzero.
Proof: At rank $n+1$, we have $$\varphi(f) = s[(r-1)^{n}-(r^{n}-nr^{n-1})+(r^{n}q^2-nr^{n-1}q)]-(r-1)^{n}$$ $$= (s-1)(r-1)^{n} + sr^{n-1}(q-1)(r(q+1)-n)$$ So, $$\varphi(f) \equiv (s-1)(r-1)^{n} \mod r^{n-1}.$$ Now, assume that $\varphi(f) =0$, then $s\equiv 1 \mod r^{n-1}$, because $(r-1)\wedge r = 1$. So $s=k r^{n-1} + 1$ with $k \ge 1$. Then $$\varphi(f) = r^{n-1}[k(r-1)^{n} + (k r^{n-1} + 1)(q-1)(r(q+1)-n)]$$ Note that we must have $n < r(q+1)$ and $(r-1)^{n} > r^{n-1}$. It follows that $$3r+1 \le n \le \frac{ln(r-1)}{ln(1+\frac{1}{r-1})})$$ We deduce that $r \ge 24$ and $n \ge 73$, and also $n \le rln(r-1)$.

But $\varphi(f) =0$ implies that $$k(r-1)^{n} + (k r^{n-1} + 1)(q-1)(r(q+1)-n) \equiv (q-1)(r(q+1)-n) \equiv 0 \mod k$$ So there is $k'>0$ such that $(q-1)(r(q+1)-n) = -kk'$. It follows that $$\varphi(f) = r^{n-1}k[(r-1)^{n} - (k r^{n-1} + 1)k'] = 0$$ Then, $(r-1)^{n} = k'(k r^{n-1} + 1)$ and $k' \equiv (-1)^n \mod r$. So, $$(r-1)^{n} = (k''r+(-1)^n)(k r^{n-1} + 1)$$ with $k''\ge 0$. If $k'' \ge 1$, then $(r-1)^{n} \ge (r-1)(r^{n-1} + 1)>(r-1)^n$, contradiction. Then, $k'' = 0$, so $(-1)^n=1$, and $$(r-1)^{n} = k r^{n-1} + 1$$ So, it is necessary to have a solution for the following tricky equation

$$ (r-1)^{n} \equiv 1 \mod r^{n-1}$$

with $r \ge 24$ and $n \ge 3r+1 \ge 73$. By using arguments as in this answer, we deduce that:

  • If $r \not \equiv 2 \mod 4$, then $2.2> \frac{2r}{r-2}>(1+\frac{1}{r-1})^n>(1+\frac{1}{r})^r>2.6$, contradiction.
  • If $r \equiv 2 \mod 4$, then $m \ge r-2 = 2^mx \ge 2^m$ (with $x$ odd), contradiction.

It follows that $\varphi(f) \neq 0$. $\square$

Problem: Can we extend this proof to any acceptable labeling $f$?


1 Answer 1


No, we have found six primitive counter-examples at rank $11,14,15,15,20,28$, respectively.

Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be two labeling on $B_{n_1}$ and $B_{n_2}$ respectively.
Let $f_1 \cdot f_2$ be a composition of $f_1$ and $f_2$, on $B_{n_1} \times B_{n_2} \simeq B_{n_1+n_2}$, defined by: $$ (f_1 \cdot f_2)(a_1,a_2) = f_1(a_1)f_2(a_2).$$ A labeling $f$ is primitive if it is not of the form $f_1 \cdot f_2$ (with $f_i$ non-trivial), and $f(\hat{0}) = 1$.
A composition of a labeling $f$ with itself $n$ times will be noted $f^n$.
Note that $\varphi(f_1 \cdot f_2)=\varphi(f_1)\varphi(f_2)$, and so $\varphi(f^n)=\varphi(f)^n$.

A labeling is called regular if $\forall a<b$ $$f(a)f(b) = f(a \vee b)f(a \wedge b)$$

Let $r>0$ and $3 \le s_1 < \cdots < s_r$ be integers.
Let $f_i$ be the labeling on $B_1$ defined by $f(\hat{0}) = 1$ and $f(\hat{1}) = s_i$.
Let $n_i>0$ be an integer and let $F$ be the labeling $f_1^{n_1} \cdot f_2^{n_2} \cdots f_r^{n_r}$, on $B_n=B_{n_1+\cdots +n_r}$.
Then, $\varphi(F)=\prod_{i=1}^r (s_i-1)^{n_i} > 0$. A labeling is regular iff it is of the form of $F$.

Let $q \ge 1$ be an integer and let $F_q$ be a $q$-deformation of $F$ defined by $F_q(\hat{1}) = q^2 F(\hat{1})$, $F_q(c) = q F(c)$ for any coatom $c$, and $F_q(a) = F(a)$ otherwise.

Note that the labeling $F_q$ is acceptable, and primitive if $q>1$. We compute that $$ \varphi(F_q) = \varphi(F) - (\prod_{i=1}^r s_i^{n_i-1}) \left[ \sum_{i=1}^rn_i\prod_{j \ne i}^r s_j - (q+1)\prod_{i=1}^r s_i \right] (q-1) $$ So $\varphi(F_q) = 0$ if and only if

$$\prod_{i=1}^r (s_i-1)^{n_i} = (\prod_{i=1}^r s_i^{n_i-1}) \left[ \sum_{i=1}^rn_i\prod_{j \ne i}^r s_j - (q+1)\prod_{i=1}^r s_i \right] (q-1)$$

Now this post is dedicated to the above equation, and this answer proves the following theorem:

Theorem: There are exactly six solutions with $3\le s_1 < \cdots < s_r \le 9$, given by

$$ \begin{array}{c|c} \prod_i s_i^{n_i} &3^{5}4^{5}9^{1} &3^{5}4^{1}6^{1}7^{4}8^{3} &4^{4}5^{6}6^{5} &3^{1}4^{8}7^{1}9^{5} &4^{7}5^{6}6^{5}9^{2} &3^{4}4^{3}5^{2}6^{1}7^{8}8^{7}9^{3} \newline \hline q &2&2&2&2&3&4 \newline \hline \sum_i n_i &11&14&15&15&20&28 \end{array}$$

We deduce the expected primitive and acceptable labelings whose Euler totients equal zero.

Question 1: What is the smallest possible rank for a counter-example?

It is easy to see that there is no counter-example with the model above at rank $\le 10$. But we can generalize the $q$-deformation as follows: take a (regular) labeling $F$ and let $F_{q,\ell}$ be the level $\ell$ $q$-deformation of $F$ defined by $F_{q,\ell}(a) = q^{\ell-|a^{\complement}|}F(a)$ if $|a^{\complement}| < \ell$, and $F_{q,\ell}(a) = F(a)$ otherwise. If $\ell=2$, we recover the previous deformation. By solving $\varphi(F_{q,\ell}) = 0$ for small values as above, we would find new counter-examples, and perhaps some at rank $\le 10$.

We can cook extra generalizations, for example, take $1 \le q_1 \le \dots \le q_{\ell}$, and define $F_{(q_1, \dots, q_{\ell})}$ by $$F_{(q_1, \dots, q_{\ell})}(a) = F(a)\prod_{i=1}^{\ell-|a^{\complement}|}q_i$$ if $|a^{\complement}| < \ell$, and $F_{q,\ell}(a) = F(a)$ otherwise. If $q_i=q$ for any $i$, we recover the previous deformation.

Let's call $f(\hat{1})/f(\hat{0})$ the index of the labeling.

Question 2: Is there a counter-example with odd index?

We have extended here the above theorem to $s_r \le 10$, there are $30$ solutions, none has odd index.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.