3
$\begingroup$

Let $\lambda = (k_1^{m_1}\,k_2^{m_2})$ where $0<k_1<k_2$ be a partition of $n$ in the power notation.

Let $\mu = p_0^{r_0}\,p_1^{r_1}\,\cdots\, p_t^{r_t} \,(k_1^{m_1}\,k_2^{m_2})\,q_0^{s_0}\,q_1^{s_1}\,\cdots\, q_u^{s_u}$ where $0<p_0<p_1<\cdots<p_t<k_1<k_2<q_0<q_1<\cdots<q_u$ be a partition of some positive integer $m>n$.

Pictorially, I am adding new rows of length different from $r$ and $s$ on top and bottom of the Ferrer diagram of $\lambda$.

My question is, Given an $m > n$, how many such $\mu$'s are there which are also partition of $m$?

Also, what is the relation between $\lambda$ and $\mu$.

More precisely are they comparable in any natural partial order defined on partitions and set of all such $\mu$'a form the ideal generated by lambda?

Kindly share your thoughts.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Here's a way to count the number of $\mu \vdash m$ determined as you specify by a given $\lambda \vdash n$ that is a modification of the standard generating function for integer partitions.

Writing $p(n)$ for the number of partitions of $n$, Euler gave us $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty p(n) x^n = \prod_{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-x^i}.$$ Your $\mu$ are partitions that "contain" $\lambda = (k_1^{m_1}, k_2^{m_2})$ with the additional restriction that other parts be either less than $k_1$ or greater than $k_2$. Writing $r(m)$ for the number of partitions of $m$ with this restriction, we have \begin{align} \sum_{m=0}^\infty r(m) x^m & = (x^{k_1})^{m_1} (x^{k_2})^{m_2} \left(\prod_{i=1}^{k_1-1} \frac{1}{1-x^i}\right) \left(\prod_{i=k_2+1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-x^i}\right) \\ & = x^n (1-x^{k_1})\cdots(1-x^{k_2})\prod_{i=1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-x^i} \\ & = x^n \left(\prod_{i=k_1}^{k_2}(1-x^i)\right) \left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty p(n) x^n\right). \end{align}

As an example, consider $\lambda = (2,6,6)$. The polynomial giving counts for $\mu$ begins $$x^{14}+x^{15}+x^{16}+x^{17}+x^{18}+x^{19}+x^{20}+2x^{21}$$ where the 2 partitions of 21 are $(1^7,2,6,6)$ and $(2,6,6,7)$.

I chose $\lambda = (2,6,6)$ to highlight that this approach applies to $\lambda$ with more than 2 distinct parts. Using $(2,2,4,6)$ or $(2,3,3,6)$ for $\lambda$ would give the same number of $\mu$ as using $(2,6,6)$. All that matters are the smallest part, largest part, and sum of $\lambda$.

$\endgroup$

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.