𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Bijective proofs of some classical partition identities

✍ Scribed by Jeffrey B Remmel

Publisher
Elsevier Science
Year
1982
Tongue
English
Weight
797 KB
Volume
33
Category
Article
ISSN
0097-3165

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

πŸ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES

Three Alternating Sign Matrix Identities
Three Alternating Sign Matrix Identities in Search of Bijective Proofs
✍ David M. Bressoud πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2001 πŸ› Elsevier Science 🌐 English βš– 121 KB

This paper highlights three known identities, each of which involves sums over alternating sign matrices. While proofs of all three are known, the only known derivations are as corollaries of difficult results. The simplicity and natural combinatorial interpretation of these identities, however, sug

Hook–Schur Functions Analogues of Little
Hook–Schur Functions Analogues of Littlewood's Identities and their Bijective Proofs
✍ M. Yang; J.B. Remmel πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 1998 πŸ› Elsevier Science 🌐 English βš– 233 KB

We give bijective proofs of the Hook-Schur function analogues of two well-known identities of Littlewood. In the course of our proof, we propose a new correspondence which can be considered as a generalization of the Burge correspondences used in proving the Littlewood identities.

A bijective proof of Cassini's fibonacci
A bijective proof of Cassini's fibonacci identity
✍ M. Werman; D. Zeilberger πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 1986 πŸ› Elsevier Science 🌐 English βš– 42 KB

can be easily proved by either induction, Binet's formula, or ([1, p. 80]) by taking determinants in In this paper we give a bijective proof, based upon the following combinatorial interpretation of the Fibonacci numbers. Proposition. Let A(n) = {(al, β€’ β€’ β€’ , at); r >I O, ai = 1 or 2, a I +''' + a~

A Bijective Proof of Lassalle's Partitio
A Bijective Proof of Lassalle's Partition Identity: Volume 89, Number 2 (2000), pages 289–290
✍ Jiang Zeng πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2000 πŸ› Elsevier Science 🌐 English βš– 29 KB

3016): on page 290, the second paragraph ``We shall prove ... in R'' should read ``We shall prove ... in R, and the restriction of f on R is not a permutation of R.''. In the third paragraph, ``[r]'' should be read as ``R'' and ``[r+s]'' as ``R \_ [n+1, ..., n+s].''