2
$\begingroup$
  • Let $T_q(n, k)$ be an integer table such that $$T_q(n, k) = \begin{cases} 1 & \textrm{if } n = 0 \vee k = 0 \\ qT_q(n-1, n-1) + T_q(n, n-1) & \textrm{if } n = k > 0 \\ T_q(n, k-1) + T_q(n-1, k) + T_q(n-1, k-1) & \textrm{otherwise} \end{cases}$$

  • Start with vector $\nu$ of fixed length $2m$ with elements $\nu_i=1$ (that is, $\nu=\{1,1,\dotsc,1\}$) and vector $t$ of fixed length $m$ with elements $t_i=[i=1]$ and for $i$ from $1$ to $m-1$ and for $j$ from $i+1$ to $2m-i$ apply $\nu_j := \frac{1}{q}\nu_{j+(j-i) \bmod 2} + \nu_{j-1}$ and $t_{i+1} = q^i \nu_{i+1}$ (after ending each cycle for $j$).

Here square bracket denotes Iverson bracket.

I conjecture that after the whole transform we have $$ t_{n} = T_q(n-1, n-1). $$

Here is the PARI/GP program to check it numerically:

upto1(n, m) = my(v1, v2, v3); v1 = vector(n, i, 0); v1[1] = 1; v2 = v1; for(i=1, n-1, v3 = v1; for(j=2, i, v1[j] = v1[j-1] + v3[j] + v3[j-1]); v1[i+1] = m*v3[i] + v1[i]; v2[i+1] = v1[i+1]); v2
upto2(n, m) = my(v1, v2); v1 = vector(2*n, i, 1); v2 = vector(n, i, 0); v2[1] = 1; for(i=1, n-1, for(j=i+1, 2*n-i, v1[j] = (1/m)*v1[j+(j-i)%2] + v1[j-1]); v2[i+1] = m^i*v1[i+1]); v2
test(n, m) = upto1(n, m) == upto2(n, m)

Is there a way to prove it? Is there a similar integer coefficients (say, $R_q(n,k)$) for the case where $\nu$ has length $3m$, cycle for $j$ is from $i+1$ to $3m-2i$ and where we change $\nu_{j+(j-i) \bmod 2}$ to $\nu_{j+(j-i) \bmod 3}$?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the complexity of both approaches (possibly defined modulo some large prime to avoid big integers)? Looks like $T(n,n)$ is computable in time exponential in $n$ because of the branches, right? $\endgroup$
    – joro
    Commented Sep 17 at 8:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @joro, they're both quadratic (well, cubic when you take into account that the point is for $q$ to be a variable and $T_q$ to be a symbolic polynomial in $q$). OP, I think you're missing a base case. $T_q(0, k) = 1$ seems to work. And the notation is somewhat ambiguous about priority of the cases. Using the cases environment would allow it to be expressed more clearly. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 17 at 9:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You have a lot of conjectures about a(n)=b(n). For me interesting cases are when one is significantly faster than the other. You may need to work modulo prime to avoid extremely large integers. The process can be automated and interrupt very large running times. Very rough test is log(time(a(N)))/log(time(b(N))). If you wrap your pari in sage, you can do alarm(seconds). $\endgroup$
    – joro
    Commented Sep 17 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterTaylor, $T_q(n,0)=1$ is also works (because of the symmetry of the recurrence), isn't it? Could you please edit the question to indicate the cases? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 17 at 11:17

0

You must log in to answer this question.