1
$\begingroup$

Let $a_n$ and $b_n$ be two different expressions in natural $n$ with values in the set of all nonnegative integers such that we have the identity $a_n=b_n$ for all $n$. As a simplest example, we may consider $a_n:=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk$ and $b_n:=2^n$.

Is there an automated, algorithmic construction of bijective proofs of broad enough classes of such identities?

Given $a_n$ and $b_n$, such an algorithm would parse the expressions $a_n$ and $b_n$ and then (i) construct finite sets $A_n$ and $B_n$, (ii) construct a bijection from $A_n$ onto $B_n$, and (iii) show that the cardinalities of $A_n$ and $B_n$ are $a_n$ and $b_n$, respectively.

Remark: To avoid undesirable, trivial constructions such as the one mentioned in a comment by Sam Hopkins, it should be required that the expressions for the sets $A_n$ and $B_n$ not contain the expressions $a_n$ and $b_n$ as terms.

Weaker versions of the above question are obtained by asking the steps (i)–(iii) to be done only for all small enough values of $n$, possibly followed by a conjecture for all $n$.

The above question is, of course, somewhat vague, because it is hard to attach in advance a definite meaning to the phrase "broad enough classes".

In 2017, Timothy Chow asked a related question Automated search for bijective proofs, which was well thought-out and well presented. The main difference is that there sets $A_n$ and $B_n$ were given.

Even with $A_n$ and $B_n$ given, the problem appears very difficult. However, there may have been progress on such problems since 2017.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ You have to be really careful how you phrase things. Any proof at all the $a_n=b_n$ would technically fit your (i), (ii), (iii), with $A_n = \{1,2,\ldots,a_n\}$ and $B_n = \{1,2,\ldots,b_n\}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins : Thank you for your comment. I have added a remark to address this issue. Do you think this will be enough? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ I think it is a more subtle question than that. See the discussion at mathoverflow.net/questions/323779/… $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins : Thank you for your further suggestion. Can you give a specific objection showing that the added remark is still not enough? Please note that the question is only about some selected, delineated classes of identities. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 17:27

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .