6
$\begingroup$

In Stanley, EC2, we have the following statement:

screenshot from corollary 7.23.9

I think there is a typo in the first sum after "generating function", and that $[n]_q!$ should be replaced by $(1-q)(1-q^2)\dotsb (1-q^n)$, and same for $[n]_t!$.

The problem with the proof seems to be the line

line of proof

which is incorrect(?) as the denominator on the right hand side should be not the q/t-factorials, but the above product, according to the lemma which is referenced there.

This issue (if my suspicions hold), is not listed in the Errata..

I have also checked this in Mathematica, so I am fairly confident this is a typo.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Looks like it. It's easy to mix up $[n]_q!$ and $(1-q)(1-q^2)\cdots(1-q^n)$ (which of course differ only by a factor of $(1-q)^n$): that's a mistake that I make all the time when writing these kind of generating functions. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17, 2021 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins yes, exactly my thought... $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17, 2021 at 15:11
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, I will fix this. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17, 2021 at 19:42
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ On second thought, just before Corollary 7.23.9 I define $[n]!_q=(1-q)(1-q^2)\cdots (1-q^n)$, and similarly for $[n]!_t$. My notation for $[n]!_q/(1-q)^n$ is $(n)!$ (in boldface---MO displays all math in boldface, which doesn't work so well for my notation). $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2021 at 2:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RichardStanley Ah, I see! My mistake for not looking up the convention! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2021 at 7:41

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

(In order that this question appears as answered I'm converting Richard's comment into an answer.)

The (somewhat nonstandard) convention in the text, stated just before the corollary, is that $[n]!_q = (1-q)(1-q^2)\cdots(1-q^n)$. For the quantity $[n]!_q/(1-q)^n$, the notation $\mathbf{(n)!}$ is used instead.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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