BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Shalosh B. Ekhad appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
This is a symbolic-computational redux, and extension, of a beautiful paper, by Harry Dym and Eugene Luks, published in 1966 (but written in 1964) about a certain game with balls and cells.
How many ways, exactly, can a Chess King, always moving forward (i.e. with steps [1,0],[0,1],[1,1]) walk to [100000,200000]? Thanks to the amazing Apagodu-Zeilberger extension of the Almkvist-Zeilberger algorithm, adapted in this article for combinatorial applications, this 104492-digit number, can be computed in less than 33 seconds. But not just this particular number. Many other numbers that come up in enumerative combinatorics, can be computed just as efficiently
We use the Jacobi-Trudi formula to execute "explicit" evaluation of determinants of Stirling numbers of both kinds. We also offer a Maple package accompanying the paper on the personal websites at the end of the second page.
In this memorial tribute to Joe Gillis, who taught us that Special Functions count, we show how the seminal Even-Gillis integral formula for the number of derangements of a multiset, in terms of Laguerre polynomials, can be used to efficiently compute not only the number of the title, but much harder ones, when it is interfaced with Wilf-Zeilberger algorithmic proof theory.
We investigate the notion of almost avoiding a permutation: $π$ almost avoids $β$ if one can remove a single entry from $π$ to obtain a $β$-avoiding permutation.
Dyck paths are one of the most important objects in enumerative combinatorics, and there are many papers devoted to counting selected families of Dyck paths. Here we present two approaches for the automatic counting of many such families, using both a "dumb" approach (driven by numeric dynamic programming) that often works in practice, and a "clever" approach, needed for larger problems, driven by "symbolic" dynamic programming. Both approaches are fully automated and implemented in Maple.
In Ramanujan's Lost Notebook there is an amazing identity that furnishes infinitely many "almost counterexamples" to the cubic Fermat's Last Theorem, with no indication whatsoever how he discovered it. In 1995, Michael Hirschhorn explained, in a brilliant way, how Ramanujan may have done it, based on a certain polynomial identity for a sum of four cubes. Much earlier, Eri Jabotinsky, in an article published in 1946 (in a mathematics journal for teenagers) explained how Ramanujan may have discovered these polynomial identities needed for Hirschhorn's approach. Here we combine these two brilliant ideas (that may or may not have been how Ramanujan did it), automate it, and generalize, by developing an algorithm to solve a large class of cubic diophantine equations. Our interest in this problem was rekindled after reading Amy Alznauer's (b. Andrews) delightful children book "The Boy Who Dreamed of Infinity" (Candlewick Press), 2020, where Ramanujan's identity appears in one of the illustrations.
In a delightful article that recently appeared in the American Mathematics Monthly, Norbert Henze and Guenter Last discuss the "Absent-Minded Passengers" Problem, but left open finding an explicit expression for the probability generating function, of the random variable "Number of passengers occupying a wrong seat", when the number of absent-minded passengers is larger than one. This is accomplished in this note, using experimental mathematics and symbolic computation. We also derive explicit expressions for the first 8 moments of the original case of one absent-minded passenger, and indicate how to extend it to the general case
Pisot sequences (sequences $a_n$ with initial terms $a_0=x, a_1=y$, and defined for $n>1$ by $a_n= \lfloor a_{n-1}^2/a_{n-2} + \frac{1}{2} \rfloor$) often satisfy linear recurrences with constant coefficients that are valid for all $n \geq 0$, but there are also cautionary examples where there is a linear recurrence that is valid for an initial range of values of $n$ but fails to be satisfied beyond that point, providing further illustrations of Richard Guy's celebrated "Strong Law of Small Numbers". In this paper we present a decision algorithm, fully implemented in an accompanying Maple program ({\tt Pisot.txt}), that first searches for a putative linear recurrence and then decides whether or not it holds for all values of $n$. We also explain why the failures happen (in some cases the `fake' linear recurrence may be valid for thousands of terms). We conclude by defining, and studying, higher-order analogs of Pisot sequences, and point out that similar phenomena occur there, albeit far less frequently. This article is dedicated to Richard K. Guy (b. Sept. 30, 1916) on his 100th birthday.
In this tribute to Neil Sloane, we revisit the first sequence in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, sequence A435 (1, 8, 78, 944, 13800, 237432, 4708144, 105822432, ...), that he encountered when he was a graduate student, and when normalized gives the average total height of rooted labeled trees. We state rigorously-computed explicit expressions for the first twelve moments of the random variable `total height' on rooted labeled trees, and pledge to donate to the OEIS 100 dollars in honor of the first to find an explicit expression for the probability density function of the limiting scaled probability distribution, as n goes to infinity.
Continuing pioneering work of Christophe Doche and Laurent Habsieger from 2004, we develop computer algebra algorithms, implemented in Maple, for finding the (necessarily rational) generating function for any integral of products, and in particular, moments, of Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. We generate a lot of output, and confirm again a conjecture of Saffari for the asymptotics for small (and not so small) powers. We also confirm, for small powers, a related, more general, conjecture, of Hugh Montgomery. Finally, we outline a proof of Saffari's full conjecture, that we believe can be turned into a full proof. [In this version we report that Brad Rodgers has independently found a (complete!) proof of Saffari's conjecture here http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01637] .
Shmuel Friedland and Giorgio Ottaviani's beautiful constant term expression for the number of singular vector tuples of generic tensors is used to derive a rational generating function for these numbers, that in turn, is used to obtain an asymptotic formula for the number of such tuples for n by n by n three-dimensional tensors, and to conjecture an asymptotic formula for the general d-dimensional case. A donation of 100 dollars, in honor of the first prover, will be made to the On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.
We develop a meta-algorithm that, given a polynomial (in one or more variables), and a prime p, produces a fast (logarithmic time) algorithm that takes a positive integer n and outputs the number of times each residue class modulo p appears as a coefficient when the polynomial is raised to the power n and the coefficients are read modulo p.
In this short article, two recent beautiful proofs of George Andrews, Aviezri Fraenkel, and James Sellers, about the mod m characterization of the number of m-ary partitions are simplified and streamlined, and then generalized to handle many more cases, and prove much deeper theorems, with the help of computers, of course.
Jaclyn Anderson proved that if s and t are relatively prime positive integers, then there are exactly (s+t-1)!/(s!t!) partitions whose set of hook-lengths is disjoint from the set {s,t}. Drew Armstrong conjectured (and Paul Johnson, and a bit later, Victor Wang, proved) a beautiful expression for the average size, namely (s-1)(t-1)(s+t+1)/24 . In the present article, we go far beyond the average, and state absolutely certain expressions (but "officially" still conjectures) for the variance (showing in particular that it is rather large, and there is no "concentration about the mean"), and the third through the sixth moments. For the special case of (s,s+1)-core partitions, we go all the way to the 9th moment. We pose two challenges, and will be glad to donate 100 dollars each, to the OEIS foundation in honor of the first provers, regarding a "soft" and "global", yet rigorous, justification of our empirical approach, and for proving an intriguing conjecture about the limiting distribution. This version reports (thanks to Marko Thiel and Nathan Williams) that the second challenge mentioned above has been done by Paul Johnson (but not in two pages). A donation to the OEIS was made. The first challenge is still wide open.
An "odd-rule" cellular automaton (CA) is defined by specifying a neighborhood for each cell, with the rule that a cell turns ON if it is in the neighborhood of an odd number of ON cells at the previous generation, and otherwise turns OFF. We classify all the odd-rule CAs defined by neighborhoods which are subsets of a 3 X 3 grid of square cells. There are 86 different CAs modulo trivial symmetries. When we consider only the different sequences giving the number of ON cells after n generations, the number drops to 48, two of which are the Moore and von Neumann CAs. This classification is carried out by using the "meta-algorithm" described in an earlier paper to derive the generating functions for the 86 sequences, and then removing duplicates. The fastest-growing of these CAs is neither the Fredkin nor von Neumann neighborhood, but instead is one defined by "Odd-rule" 365, which turns ON almost 75% of all possible cells.
A set of arithmetical sequences $$ a_1\, (\bmod{ \,\, m_1}) \quad, \quad a_2 \, (\bmod{\,\, m_2}) \quad, \quad \dots \quad , \quad a_k \, (\bmod{\,\,m_k}) \quad \quad , $$ with $$ m_1 \leq m_2 \leq \dots \leq m_k \quad \quad , $$ is called a {\it disjoint covering system} (alias {\it exact covering system}) if every positive integer belongs to {\bf exactly} one of the sequences. Mirski, Newman, Davenport and Rado famously proved that the moduli can't all be distinct. In fact the two largest moduli must be equal, i.e. $m_{k-1}=m_k$ This raises the natural question:"How close can you get to getting distinct moduli?", in other words, can you find all such systems where all the moduli are distinct except the largest, that is repeated $r$ times, for any, specific given $r$? It turns out (conjecturally, but almost certainly) that excluding the trivial case where the smallest modulus is 2, for any number of repeats $r$, there are only finitely many such systems. Marc Berger, Alexander Felzenbaum and Aviezri Fraenkel found them all for $r$ up to $9$, and Mekmamu Zeleke and Jamie Simpson extended the list for systems up to $12$ repeats. In the present article we continue the list up to $r=32$. All our systems are correct, but we did not bother to formally prove completeness, but we know for sure that the lists are complete if the largest modulus is $\leq 600$, and we are pretty sure that they are complete.
The problems of enumerating lattice walks, with an arbitrary finite set of allowed steps, both in one and two dimensions, where one must always stay in the non-negative half-line and quarter-plane respectively, are used, as case studies, to illustrate the `naive' methodology of guess-and-check, where rigorous proofs are possible, but not worth the trouble. We argue that this is a metaphor for future math.
We use the Robinson-Schensted correspondence, followed by symbol-crunching, in order to derive explicit expressions for the quantities mentioned in the title. We follow it by number crunching, in order to compute the first terms of these sequences. As an encore, we cleverly implement Ira Gessel's celebrated determinant formula for the generating functions of these sequences, to crank out many terms. This modest tribute is dedicated to one of the greatest enumerators alive today (and definitely the most modest one!), Ira Martin Gessel, who is turning 64 years-old today
Once upon a time there was an esoteric and specialized notion, called "size of the Durfee square", of interest to at most 100 specialists in the whole world. Then it was kissed by a prince called Jorge Hirsch, and became the famous (and to quite a few people, infamous) h-index, of interest to every scientist, and scholar, since it tells you how productive a scientist (or scholar) you are! When Rodney Canfield, Sylvie Corteel, and Carla Savage wrote their beautiful 1998 article proving, rigorously, by a very deep and intricate analysis, the asymptotic normality of the random variable "size of Durfee square" defined on integer-partitions of n (as n goes to infinity), with precise asymptotics for the mean and variance, they did not dream that one day their result should be of interest to everyone who has ever published a paper. However Canfield et. al. had to work really hard to prove their deep result. Here we take an "empirical" shortcut, that proves the same thing much faster (modulo routine number- and symbol- crunching). More importantly, the empirical methodology should be useful in many other cases where rigorous proofs are either too hard, or not worth the trouble!
In this case-study in computer-human collaboration, we develop, implement, and execute symbolic-computational algorithms for the automatic discovery and proof of explicit expressions for the expectation, variance, and higher moments of a large class of natural combinatorial statistics defined on Catalan-counted objects, enabling, inter-alia, to prove that they are not asymptotically normal. In particular, we reproduce in 0.12 seconds results of Miklos Bona, and derive far deeper results, way beyond the scope of humans, concerning higher moments of the random variable "number of occurrences of a pattern" in the set of 132-avoiding permutations for all patterns of length 2 and 3, and, more impressively, explicit expressions for the averages for all patterns of lengths up to 10. The ample output inspired us to make an intriguing conjecture concerning the number of so-called Bona classes, and we pledge to donate 100 dollars to the OEIS Foundation in honor of the prover (or disprover).
Joshua Cooper and Mark Walters initiated the subject that we call here Enumerative Geometric Genealogy, (and that lead to the hard-to-count OEIS sequence A140468) but they did not realize the broader impact of their research to the population explosion of a certain far-away planet, whose inhabitants are much smarter, and more civilized, than we are.
The beautiful theory of statistical gambling, started by Dubins and Savage (for subfair games) and continued by Kelly and Breiman (for superfair games) has mostly been studied under the unrealistic assumption that we live in a continuous world, that money is indefinitely divisible, and that our life is indefinitely long. Here we study these fascinating problems from a purely discrete, finitistic, and computational, viewpoint, using Both Symbol-Crunching and Number-Crunching (and simulation just for checking purposes).
Roger Apery's seminal method for proving irrationality is "turned on its head" and taught to computers, enabling a one second redux of the original proof of zeta(3), and many new irrationality proofs of many new constants, alas, none of them is both famous and not-yet-proved-irrational.
In this article, dedicated with admiration and gratitude to guru Neil Sloane on his 75-th birthday, we observe that the generating functions for multi-set permutations that do not contain an increasing subsequence of length d, and where every letter appears the same number of times, say r, are always D-finite, (for every d and every r), and we actually crank out the first few terms of quite a few of them, many of whom are not yet in the OEIS. We also state a conjectured asymptotic formula for these sequences, that reduces to Amitai Regev's famous formula when r=1, and pledge a 100 dollar donation to the OEIS in honor of the first one to prove our conjecture. We pledge another 100 dollars for extending Ira Gessel's spectacular Bessel determinant, from the r=1 case to general r.
This short tribute to the guru of Enumerative and Algebraic Combinatorics started out when one the authors(DZ) attended the Stanely@70 conference, that took place at the same time as the preliminary stage of the 2014 World Cup. It states a surprising application of an analog of Richard Stanley's famous theorem about the enumeration of magic squares to the enumeration of possible outcomes in a World Cup Group.
We show how to extend the Karolyi-Nagy beautiful proof of the Zeilberger-Bressoud q-Dyson theorem, (first proved by Zeilberger and Bressoud in 1985, and originally conjectured by George Andrews in 1975), that states that the constant term of a certain Laurent polynomial equals the q-multinomial coefficient, how to evaluate any other specific coefficient. The algorithm implies that any such coefficient is always a certain rational function (that the algorithm finds) times the q-multinomial coefficient.
Jacobi said "man muss immer umkehren". And indeed it takes a genius like Michael Somos to take a specific non-linear recurrence, like a(n)=(a(n-1)a(n-3)+a(n-2)^2)/a(n-4), subject to a(1)=1, a(2)=1, a(3)=1, a(4)=1, and observe that surprise, surprise, they always generate integers. Then it takes other geniuses to actually prove this fact (and the more general so-called Laurent phenomenon). But let's follow Jacobi's advise and go backwards. Rather than try to shoot a target fifty meters away, and most probably miss it, let's shoot first, and then draw the bull'e eye. Then we are guaranteed to be champion target-shooters. So let's take a sequence of integers that manifestly and obviously only consists of integers, and ask our beloved computers to find non-linear recurrences satisfied by the sequence itself, or by well-defined subsequences.
Yet another example where "physical" (i.e. only checking finitely many special cases) gives a fully rigorous proof, notwithstanding what your "Intro To Proofs" prof told you!
The brilliant idea of Jean Betrema and Jean-Guy Penaud that proved the celebrated "three to the power n" theorem of Dominique Gouyou-Beauchamps and Xavier Viennot, counting towers of domino pieces is extended and used to enumerate much more general towers, where the pieces can be many i-mers.
The deductive method ruled mathematics for the last 2500 years, now it is the turn of the inductive method. Here we make a modest start by using the inductive method to discover and prove (rigorously) explicit generating functions for the number of dimer (and monomer-dimer) tilings of large families of "skinny" plane regions.
In how many ways can you place n chocolate pieces all of different sizes in an n by n chocolate box, in such a way that when you go from left to right and from top to bottom, there are no gaps AND the sizes increase along each row and each column? The answer is the well-known OEIS Sequence Number 85. To our amazement, the analogous sequence for a three-dimensional chocolate box was not there. Here we fill this gap, and more importantly, offer some computational and theoretical challenges about enumerating families of Solid Standard Young Tableaux.
This short article, dedicated to our beloved guru Philippe FLAJOLET (1948-2011), is a case-study in computer-generated combinatorial research, where the computer, all by itself, is using the transfer-matrix method to derive (rigorously!) rational generating functions for chromatic polynomials for infinite sequences of graphs generalizing the action of taking the Cartesian product with a path of length n, n=1,2,... .
Richard Stanely proposed, in a recent Amer. Math. Monthly Problem, to prove a nice explicit formula for the generating function for the number of n-letter words in {H,T} that have as many occurrences of HT as HH. In this article, we show how to prove this problem automatically, and ANY problem of that type, regardless of the size of the alphabet and the length of the two chosen strings
We comment on, elaborate, and extend the work of Warren Ewens and Herbert Wilf, described in their http://www.pnas.org/content/104/27/11189.full.pdf about the maximum in balls-and-boxes problem. In particular we meta-apply their ingenious method to show that it is not really needed, and that one is better off using the so-called Poisson Approximation, at least in applications to the real world, because extremely unlikely events mever happen in real life. This article is accompanied by the Maple package http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/tokhniot/BallsInBoxes">BallsInBoxes.
Binomial Theorem for (N+n)^r is described with non-commuting variables N and n.
Why bother with fully rigorous proofs when one can very quickly get semi-rigorous ones? Yes, yes, we know how to get a "rigorous" proof of the result stated in the title of this article. One way is the boring, human one, citing some heavy guns of theorems that already exist in the literature. We also know how to get a fully rigorous proof automatically, using the methods in this http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/georgy.htm neat article (but it would be a little more complicated, since the probability generating polynomial is not "closed form" but satisfies a second-order recurrence gotten from the Zeilberger algorithm), otherwise the same method would work, alas, it is not yet implemented. Instead, we chose to use the great Maple package http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/tokhniot/HISTABRUT">HISTABRUT(in fact, a very tiny part of it, procedure AlphaSeq), explained in this other http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimhtml/histabrut.html">neat article, and get a semi-rigorous proof. We also needed the nice little Maple package http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/tokhniot/GuessRat">GuessRat, to do the guessing of rational functions. Equipped with these two packages, Zeilberger wrote a short Maple program http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/tokhniot/SameSexMarriages">SameSexMarriages that enabled the author to generate this paper.
This short article answers a question asked by Bruce Sagan in the last few minutes of his wonderful talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdn890jg2U0), (describing joint work with Carla Savage) at the Rutgers University Experimental Mathematics seminar delivered on Dec. 9, 2010.
Richard Stanley proved that the centralized/normalized version of the random variable "length of largest up-down subsequence" in a random permutation of length n is asymptotically normal. We go beyond and present a more refined asymptotic formula for the moments.
This is an etude in experimental semi-rigorous (rigorizable!) mathematics. The leading asymptotics was brilliantly derived by Allan Berele and Amitai Regev for general hooks H(k,l) and general powers z, but what about more refined asymptotics? For small k and l, one can "guess" a linear recurrence (since we live in the holonomic ansatz) and using the Birkhoff-Trjitzinsky method, beautifully implemented in Doron Zeilberger's Maple package AsyRec (that has been incorporated into the present Maple package), we computed amazing refined asymptotics, that confirm, with a vengeance, the Berele-Regev asymptotic formula, and especially the impressive constant in front!
Weinstein's[2] brilliant short proof of de Branges'[1] theorem can be made yet much shorter(modulo routine calculations), completely elementary (modulo Löwner theory), self contained(no need for the esoteric Legendre polynomials' addition theorem), and motivated(ditto), as follows.