Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT...
Transcript of Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT...
![Page 1: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Wishful Thinking as a ProofTechnique
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 1
![Page 2: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
First example
P : finite p-element poset
ω : P → {1, 2, . . . , p}: any bijection (labeling)
(P, ω)-partition: a map σ : P → N such that
s ≤ t ⇒ σ(s) ≥ σ(t)
s < t, ω(s) > ω(t) ⇒ σ(s) > σ(t).
AP,ω: set of all (P, ω)-partitions σ
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 2
![Page 3: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
An equivalence relation
Define labelings ω, ω′ to be equivalent ifAP,ω = AP,ω′.
How many equivalence classes?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 3
![Page 4: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
An equivalence relation
Define labelings ω, ω′ to be equivalent ifAP,ω = AP,ω′.
How many equivalence classes?
Easy result: the number of equivalence classesis the number ao(HP ) of acyclic orientations ofthe Hasse diagram HP of P .
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 3
![Page 5: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Number of acyclic orientations
For any (finite) graph G, we can ask for thenumber ao(G) of acyclic orientations.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 4
![Page 6: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Number of acyclic orientations
For any (finite) graph G, we can ask for thenumber ao(G) of acyclic orientations.
No obvious formula.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 4
![Page 7: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Deletion-contraction
A function f from graphs to an abelian group(such as Z) is a deletion-contraction invariantor Tutte-Grothendieck invariant if for any edgee, not a loop or isthmus,
f(G) = f(G− e)± f(G/e).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 5
![Page 8: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Deletion-contraction
A function f from graphs to an abelian group(such as Z) is a deletion-contraction invariantor Tutte-Grothendieck invariant if for any edgee, not a loop or isthmus,
f(G) = f(G− e)± f(G/e).
Wishful thought: could ao(G) be adeletion-contraction invariant?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 5
![Page 9: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Deletion-contraction
A function f from graphs to an abelian group(such as Z) is a deletion-contraction invariantor Tutte-Grothendieck invariant if for any edgee, not a loop or isthmus,
f(G) = f(G− e)± f(G/e).
Wishful thought: could ao(G) be adeletion-contraction invariant?
It is!
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 5
![Page 10: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Deletion-contraction
A function f from graphs to an abelian group(such as Z) is a deletion-contraction invariantor Tutte-Grothendieck invariant if for any edgee, not a loop or isthmus,
f(G) = f(G− e)± f(G/e).
Wishful thought: could ao(G) be adeletion-contraction invariant?
It is!
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 5
![Page 11: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Conclusion
Deletion-contraction invariants (of matroids)extensively studied by Brylawski. Routine toshow that if G has p vertices, then
ao(G) = (−1)pχG(−1),
where χG is the chromatic polynomial of G.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 6
![Page 12: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Second example
Sn: symmetric group on {1, 2, . . . , n}
si: the adjacent transposition (i, i+ 1),1 ≤ i ≤ n− 1
ℓ(w): length (number of inversions) of w ∈ Sn,and the least p such that w = si1 · · · sip
reduced decomposition of w: a sequence(c1, c2, . . . , cp) ∈ [n− 1]p, where p = ℓ(w), suchthat
w = sc1sc2 · · · scp.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 7
![Page 13: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
More definitions
R(w): set of reduced decompositions of w
r(w) = #R(w)
w0: the longest element n, n− 1, . . . , 1 in Sn, of
length(n2
)
Example. w0 = 321 ∈ S3:
R(w0) = {(1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 2)}, r(w0) = 2.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 8
![Page 14: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
A conjecture
f(n) := r(w0) for w0 ∈ Sn
P. Edelman (∼1983) computed
f(3) = 2, f(4) = 24, f(5) = 28 · 3.
Earlier J. Goodman and R. Pollack computedthese and f(6) = 211 · 11 · 13.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 9
![Page 15: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A conjecture
f(n) := r(w0) for w0 ∈ Sn
P. Edelman (∼1983) computed
f(3) = 2, f(4) = 24, f(5) = 28 · 3.
Earlier J. Goodman and R. Pollack computedthese and f(6) = 211 · 11 · 13.
Conjecture. f(n) = f δn, the number of standardYoung tableaux (SYT) of the staircase shapeδn = (n− 1, n− 2, . . . , 1).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 9
![Page 16: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
An explicit formula
Hook length formula ⇒
f(n) =
(n2
)!
1n−13n−25n−3 · · · (2n− 3)1
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 10
![Page 17: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
An analogy
Maximal chains in distributive lattices J(P )correspond to linear extensions of P .
Maximal chains in the weak order W (Sn)correspond to reduced decompositions of w0.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 11
![Page 18: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
A quasisymmetric function
L(P ): set of linear extensions v = a1a2 · · · ap ofP (regarded as a permutations of the elements1, 2, . . . , p of P )
Useful to consider
FP =∑
v=a1···an∈L(P )
∑
1≤i1≤···≤ipij<ij+1 if aj>aj+1
xi1 · · ·xip.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 12
![Page 19: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
An analogy
Analogously, define for w ∈ Sn
Fw =∑
(c1,...,cp)∈R(w)
∑
1≤i1≤···≤ipij<ij+1 if cj>cj+1
xi1 · · · xip.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 13
![Page 20: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
An analogy
Analogously, define for w ∈ Sn
Fw =∑
(c1,...,cp)∈R(w)
∑
1≤i1≤···≤ipij<ij+1 if cj>cj+1
xi1 · · · xip.
Compare
FP =∑
v=a1···an∈L(P )
∑
1≤i1≤···≤ipij<ij+1 if aj>aj+1
xi1 · · · xip.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 13
![Page 21: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
More wishful thinking
What is the nicest possible property of Fw?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 14
![Page 22: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
More wishful thinking
What is the nicest possible property of Fw?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 14
![Page 23: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
The nicest property
Theorem. Fw is a symmetric function.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 15
![Page 24: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The nicest property
Theorem. Fw is a symmetric function.
By considering the coefficient of x1x2 · · ·xp(p = ℓ(w)):
Proposition. If Fw =∑
λ⊢p cw,λsλ, then
r(w) =∑
λ⊢p
cw,λfλ.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 15
![Page 25: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Consequences
By a simple argument involving highest andlowest terms in Fw:
Theorem. There exists a partition λ ⊢ ℓ(w) suchthat Fw = sλ if and only if w is 2143-avoiding(vexillary).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 16
![Page 26: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Consequences
By a simple argument involving highest andlowest terms in Fw:
Theorem. There exists a partition λ ⊢ ℓ(w) suchthat Fw = sλ if and only if w is 2143-avoiding(vexillary).
Corollary Fw0= sλ, so r(w0) = f δn−1.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 16
![Page 27: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Consequences
By a simple argument involving highest andlowest terms in Fw:
Theorem. There exists a partition λ ⊢ ℓ(w) suchthat Fw = sλ if and only if w is 2143-avoiding(vexillary).
Corollary Fw0= sλ, so r(w0) = f δn−1.
Much further work by Edelman, Greene, et al.For instance, cw,λ ≥ 0.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 16
![Page 28: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Third example
New York Times Numberplay blog (March 25,2013): Let S ⊂ Z, #S = 8. Can you two-color Ssuch that there is no monochromatic three-termarithmetic progression?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17
![Page 29: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Third example
New York Times Numberplay blog (March 25,2013): Let S ⊂ Z, #S = 8. Can you two-color Ssuch that there is no monochromatic three-termarithmetic progression?
bad: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17
![Page 30: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Third example
New York Times Numberplay blog (March 25,2013): Let S ⊂ Z, #S = 8. Can you two-color Ssuch that there is no monochromatic three-termarithmetic progression?
bad: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,4,7 is a monochromatic 3-term progression
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17
![Page 31: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Third example
New York Times Numberplay blog (March 25,2013): Let S ⊂ Z, #S = 8. Can you two-color Ssuch that there is no monochromatic three-termarithmetic progression?
bad: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,4,7 is a monochromatic 3-term progression
good: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17
![Page 32: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Third example
New York Times Numberplay blog (March 25,2013): Let S ⊂ Z, #S = 8. Can you two-color Ssuch that there is no monochromatic three-termarithmetic progression?
bad: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,4,7 is a monochromatic 3-term progression
good: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.
Finally proved by Noam Elkies.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17
![Page 33: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Compatible pairs
Elkies’ proof is related to the following question:
Let 1 ≤ i < j < k ≤ n and 1 ≤ a < b < c ≤ n.
{i, j, k} and {a, b, c} are compatible if there existintegers x1 < x2 < · · · < xn such that xi, xj, xk isan arithmetic progression and xa, xb, xc is anarithmetic progression.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 18
![Page 34: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
An example
Example. {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2, 4} are not
compatible. Similarly 124 and 134 are not
compatible.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 19
![Page 35: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
An example
Example. {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2, 4} are not
compatible. Similarly 124 and 134 are not
compatible.
123 and 134 are compatible, e.g.,
(x1, x2, x3, x4) = (1, 2, 3, 5).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 19
![Page 36: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Elkies’ question
What subsets S ⊆([n]3
)have the property that
any two elements of S are compatible?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 20
![Page 37: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Elkies’ question
What subsets S ⊆([n]3
)have the property that
any two elements of S are compatible?
Example. When n = 4 there are eight suchsubsets S:
∅, {123}, {124}, {134}, {234},
{123, 134}, {123, 234}, {124, 234}.
Not {123, 124}, for instance.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 20
![Page 38: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Elkies’ question
What subsets S ⊆([n]3
)have the property that
any two elements of S are compatible?
Example. When n = 4 there are eight suchsubsets S:
∅, {123}, {124}, {134}, {234},
{123, 134}, {123, 234}, {124, 234}.
Not {123, 124}, for instance.
Let Mn be the collection of all such S ⊆([n]3
), so
for instance #M4 = 8.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 20
![Page 39: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Conjecture of Elkies
Conjecture. #Mn = 2(n−1
2 ).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 21
![Page 40: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Conjecture of Elkies
Conjecture. #Mn = 2(n−1
2 ).
Proof (with Fu Liu).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 21
![Page 41: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Conjecture of Elkies
Conjecture. #Mn = 2(n−1
2 ).
Proof (with Fu Liu ).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 21
![Page 42: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
A poset on Mn
Let Qn be the subposet of [n]× [n]× [n] (orderedcomponentwise) defined by
Qn = {(i, j, k) : i+ j < n+ 1 < j + k}.
Propposition (J. Propp, essentially) There is asimple bijection from the lattice J(Qn) of orderideals of Qn to Mn.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 22
![Page 43: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The case n = 4
Q4
Q4J ( )
133 124
134 224
φ
123 134
234123,134
124 123,234
124,234
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 23
![Page 44: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
More wishful thinking
Let Ln be a known “reasonable” distributive
lattice with 2(n−1
2 ) elements. Is it true thatJ(Qn) ∼= Ln?
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 24
![Page 45: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
More wishful thinking
Let Ln be a known “reasonable” distributive
lattice with 2(n−1
2 ) elements. Is it true thatJ(Qn) ∼= Ln?
Only one possibility for Ln: the lattice of allsemistandard Young tableaux of shapeδn−1 = (n− 2, n− 1, . . . , 1) and largest part atmost n− 1, ordered component-wise.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 24
![Page 46: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
L4
112
122
113
132
123
223
233
133
L 4
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 25
![Page 47: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
#Ln
#Ln = sδn−2(1, . . . , 1︸ ︷︷ ︸
n−1
)
= 2(n−1
2 ),
by hook-content formula or
sδn−2(x1, . . . , xn−1) =
∏
1≤i<j≤n−1
(xi + xj).
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 26
![Page 48: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Proof.
To show J(Qn) ∼= Ln, check that their posets ofjoin-irreducibles are isomorphic.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 27
![Page 49: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Proof.
To show J(Qn) ∼= Ln, check that their posets ofjoin-irreducibles are isomorphic.
D: set of all proved theorems.
Q: Elkies’ conjecture
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 27
![Page 50: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Proof.
To show J(Qn) ∼= Ln, check that their posets ofjoin-irreducibles are isomorphic.
D: set of all proved theorems.
Q: Elkies’ conjecture
Then Q∈D.
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 27
![Page 51: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
The last slide
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 28
![Page 52: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
The last slide
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 29
![Page 53: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
The last slide
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 29
![Page 54: Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique - MIT Mathematicsmath.mit.edu/conferences/stanley70/Site/Slides/Stanley.pdf · 2014-07-03 · Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 17.](https://reader030.fdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022041017/5ecaf83f31e6bc613a3300a2/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Thanks!
Karen CollinsPatricia Hersh
Caroline KlivansAlexander Postnikov
Avisha LallaAlejandro Morales
Sergi ElizaldeClara Chan
Satomi OkazakiShan-Yuan Ho
Wishful Thinking as a Proof Technique – p. 30