Staircase diagrams, pattern avoidance, and smooth permutations

Apply Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.7 to Proposition 5.9, Proposition 5.10, and Proposition 5.11.

Suppose we have permutations w_1 and w_2 with S(w_1)\subseteq [i] and S(w_2)\subseteq [n-1]\setminus[i] for some 1 \leq i < n-1. Then for any k\leq i, we have w_1(k)\leq i+1 and w_2(k)=k, which implies that w_1\cdot w_2(k)\leq i+1. This implies that w_1\cdot w_2 is left-weakly decomposable.

Conversely, suppose that w is left-weakly decomposable. Then there exists 1\leq i< n-1 such that w(k)\leq i+1 for all k\leq i. Define

and j=w^{-1}(x). Note that x\leq i+1 and j\geq i+1. Define the permutations w_1 and w_2 by

Since w_1(k)=k for all k> i+1 and we have S(w_1)\subseteq [i]. Furthermore, since w_2(k)=k for all k\leq i, we have S(w_2)\subseteq [n]\setminus[i]. Finally, it is easy to verify that w=w_1\cdot w_2. For uniqueness, we observe that w=w_1\cdot w_2 is a parabolic decomposition with respect to S(w_2) and hence unique [BB05, Proposition 2.4.4]. This completes the proof.

First note that p is strongly indecomposable if and only if p^{-1} is strongly indecomposable. Moreover, w contains p if and only if w^{-1} contains p^{-1}. Hence, without loss of generality, we may assume that w is left-weakly decomposable.

Let w=w_1\cdot w_2 is a left-weakly decomposing factorization such that S(w_1)\subseteq [i] and S(w_2)\subseteq[n]\setminus[i]. Suppose w avoids p. For the sake of contradiction, if w_1 contains p, then any containment of p must be within the sequence w_1(1)\cdots w_1(i+1) since w_1(k)=k for k>i+1 and p is strongly indecomposable. But w contains the sequence w_1(1)\cdots w_1(i+1) and hence would also contain p, which is a contradiction. Thus w_1 avoids p. By a similar argument, w_2 also avoids p.

Conversely, assume that w_1 and w_2 each avoid p and suppose that w contains p. If p is contained within w(1)\cdots w(i), then w_1 would contain p. Similarly, if p is contained within w(i+1)\cdots w(n), then w_2 would contain p. Hence any containment of p within w must involve entries before and after w(i+1) in one-line notation.

Let p=p(1)\cdots p(r) and fix a containment of p within w. Let p(1)\cdots p(r') denote the sequence entries contained within w(1)\cdots w(i). Note that this sequence is non-empty and r'<r. Since \{w(1),\ldots, w(i)\}\subseteq [i+1], we must have \{p(1),\ldots,p(r')\}\subseteq [r'+1]. This implies that p is left-weakly decomposable, which is a contradiction. Thus w must avoid p.

We prove the proposition by induction on k=|\mathcal{D}|. If k=2, then \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,B_2\} with B_1\cap B_{2}=\varnothing. If B_1\cup B_{2} is disconnected, then B_1 and B_2 are both maximal (and minimal) in \mathcal{D}. Thus

Since B_1\cap B_{2}=\varnothing, we have u_{J(B_1)}=u_{J(B_2)}=\text{id} and hence

If B_1\prec B_{2}, then only B_2 is maximal in \mathcal{D} and

Similarly, if B_1\succ B_{2}, then only B_1 is maximal and \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=\Lambda(\{B_1\})\cdot \Lambda(\{B_2\}).

Now suppose \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots, B_k\} with B_i\cap B_{i+1}=\varnothing for some i<k. If B_i\cup B_{i+1} is disconnected, then the blocks in \mathcal{D}_1 and \mathcal{D}_2 are pairwise incomparable in \mathcal{D} and hence both sets contain a block that is maximal in \mathcal{D}. Let B_m be maximal in \mathcal{D} such that m\leq i. By induction,

Since B_m\cap S(\mathcal{D}_2)=\varnothing, the set J(B_m) is unchanged when restricting from \mathcal{D} to \mathcal{D}_1. Thus

A similar argument shows that \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_2)\cdot \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_1) by choosing a maximal block in \mathcal{D}_2.

If B_i\prec B_{i+1}, then there exists a maximal element B_m\in \mathcal{D} such that m>i. If m>i+1, then B_i\prec B_{i+1} in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{B_m\}. Induction on k yields

If m=i+1, then either B_i\cup B_{i+2} is disconnected in \mathcal{D}\setminus\{B_m\} or \mathcal{D}_2=\{B_m\}. In either case, we still conclude \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_2)\cdot\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_1). Note that if B_i\succ B_{i+1}, then an analogous argument shows that \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_1)\cdot \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_2).

Finally, observe that if B_i=[l_i,r_i] and B_{i+1}=[l_{i+1},r_{i+1}], then

Since B_i\cap B_{i+1}=\varnothing, we have r_i<l_{i+1}. Lemma 2.3 implies the product \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_i)\cdot \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_{3-i}) is a weakly decomposing factorization for i=1,2. Furthermore, if B_i\cup B_{i+1} is disconnected, then Lemma 2.1 implies the product is a decomposing factorization. This completes the proof.

Suppose that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is left-weakly decomposable with a decomposing factorization \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=w_1\cdot w_2. Since the smooth patterns 3412 and 4231 are both strongly indecompsoable, it follows from Lemma 2.5 that w_1 and w_2 are both smooth permutations since \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is smooth. Theorem 3.5 implies there exist staircase diagrams \mathcal{D}_1 on [j-1] and \mathcal{D}_2 on [j,n-1], where w_1=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_1) and w_2=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}_2). Let

and define

with the staircase poset structures of \mathcal{D}_1 and \mathcal{D}_2, and with the additional relation B'_i\succ B'_{i+1} if B'_i\cup B'_{i+1} is connected. Since B'_i\cap B'_{i+1}=\varnothing, we have

But Theorem 3.5 implies that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) uniquely determines \mathcal{D} and hence \mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}' and B_i\cap B_{i+1}=\varnothing. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is right-weakly decomposable, a similar argument applies with the same conclusion. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is decomposable, again the argument gives the same conclusion, but with B_i\cup B_{i+1} disconnected.

Since B_k is the terminal block of \mathcal{D}, it is either maximal or minimal. Suppose that B_k is maximal. Since \mathcal{D}\setminus\{B_k\}=\mathcal{D}^+\setminus\{B'_k\} and J(B_k)=J(B'_k), we have

Observe that u_{B'_k}\cdot u_{B_k}=s_m\cdots s_n is a cyclic permutation whose left action appends n+1 to \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) and then shifts the values (m,m+1,\ldots, n,n+1). Specifically, if \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=w(1)\cdots w(n) in one-line notation, then \Lambda(\mathcal{D}^+)=w'(1)\cdots w'(n+1) where

Hence \Lambda(\mathcal{D}^+) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{D}). If B_k is minimal in \mathcal{D}, then it is maximal in the dual staircase diagram \mathcal{D}^*. Proposition 3.6 part (4) implies that

and hence

The right action of the cyclic shift s_n\cdots s_m “inserts" n+1 into the m-th position of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}). In other words,

where \Lambda(\mathcal{D}):=w(1)\cdots w(n). Again we have \Lambda(\mathcal{D}^+) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{D}).

By Lemma 4.1, we can assume, without loss of generality, that S(\mathcal{D})=[n] and S(\mathcal{D}')=[n-1]. If B_k is maximal in \mathcal{D}, then

If B_k=[m,n], then J(B_k)=[m,n-1] and u_{B_k}\cdot u_{J(B_k)}=s_m\cdots s_n is a cyclic permutation whose left action on \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') appends n+1 and then shifts the values (m,m+1,\dots, n+1). We conclude that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{D}').

If B_k is minimal in \mathcal{D}, then we can again conclude that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') by considering the dual staircase diagram \mathcal{D}^* as in the proof of Lemma 4.1.

By the duality from Proposition 3.6, part (4), it suffices to assume that B_k is maximal and show that region A_2 from ? is decreasing. Suppose that A_2 is not decreasing and therefore contains nodes (i,w(i)) and (j,w(j)) such that i<j and w(i)<w(j). Since B_{k-1}\prec B_k, Proposition 3.6, part (1) implies that w(m)<w(m+1). But now \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains the pattern 3412, which contradicts the fact that it is a smooth permutation (see ?). Thus region A_2 must be decreasing.

The one-line notation for \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q) or \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q) follows directly from ? and ?. For the second part, suppose that \mathcal{D} contains a q-overlap. Then there exist blocks B_i,B_{i+1}\in \mathcal{D} such that |B_i\cap B_{i+1}|=q'\geq q. Proposition 4.5 implies that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains one of \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_{q'}) or \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_{q'}), which contain \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q) or \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q), respectively.

If \mathcal{D} contains a q-overlap, then Lemma 4.7 implies \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains one of \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q) or \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q).

For the converse, we assume that \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots, B_k\} avoids q-overlaps and proceed by induction on k. First, if k=1, then \mathcal{D} vacuously avoids q-overlaps and \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=u_{B_1} clearly avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{\pm}_q). Now suppose k>1 and let \mathcal{D}':=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{k-1}\} denote the sub-diagram of \mathcal{D} removing B_k. Note that \mathcal{D}' also avoids q-overlaps, so by induction, the permutation \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{\pm}_q). Suppose B_k is maximal in \mathcal{D} and let q':=|B_{k-1}\cap B_k| denote the overlap between B_{k-1} and B_k. In ?, we display the matrices of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') and \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) following ? noting that region A_2 has q'+1 rows. Since \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q), any containment of \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q) in \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) must involve region A_3. Furthermore, region A_3 is decreasing and hence, any containment of \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q) in \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) must also use q+1 entries from region A_2. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q), then q\leq q'. But \mathcal{D} avoids q-overlaps by assumption and therefore q'<q. This implies \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{+}_q).

Next we show that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q). Continuing with the assumption that B_k is maximal in \mathcal{D}, we have that the region A_2 is decreasing by Lemma 4.4 in ?. Since both regions A_2 and A_3 are decreasing, any containment of \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q) in \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) must be within region A_1. But \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{O}v^{-}_q) and therefore, so does \Lambda(\mathcal{D}).

Finally, if B_k is minimal, we can apply the argument above to the dual staircase diagram \mathcal{D}^* and use Proposition 3.6 part (4) noting that diagrams \mathcal{O}v^{\pm}_q are dual to each other. This completes the proof.

Let \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} be a staircase diagram and suppose that \mathcal{D} contains a strongly connected \ell-chain. By Proposition 4.5 and Lemma 4.11, if the chain is increasing, then \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^+_\ell), and if the chain is decreasing, then \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell).

Conversely, suppose that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell). We will show that \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} contains a decreasing \ell-chain by induction on the number of decreasing runs in \mathcal{D}. Since \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell) is strongly indecomposable, it suffices to assume \mathcal{D} is a strongly connected staircase diagram by Lemma 2.5 and Proposition 3.7. First, suppose that \mathcal{D} is a single decreasing chain. If k<\ell, then repeated applications of Lemma 4.13 imply that \Lambda(\{B_1\}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_2)=4312 which is a contradiction. Hence k\geq \ell and \mathcal{D} contains a decreasing \ell-chain.

If \mathcal{D} is not a decreasing chain, then let B_d denote the maximal block in \mathcal{D} with largest index and consider the subdiagrams \mathcal{D}':=\{B_1,\ldots,B_{d-1}\} and \mathcal{D}'':=\{B_d,\ldots,B_k\}. In particular, \mathcal{D}'' is a decreasing chain. Since \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell), Lemma 4.14 implies at least one of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') or \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell). If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell), then \mathcal{D}'' must be a decreasing chain of at least \ell blocks and hence \mathcal{D} contains a decreasing \ell-chain. Otherwise, \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^-_\ell) and, by induction, the subdiagram \mathcal{D}' contains a decreasing \ell-chain. In either case, \mathcal{D} contains a decreasing \ell-chain.

Finally, if \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^+_\ell), then \mathcal{D} contains an increasing \ell-chain by Proposition 3.6 part (4) and the preceding arguments. This proves the theorem.

We prove the lemma by induction on the number of blocks |\mathcal{D}|=k. First if k=1, then \mathcal{D}=\{[1,n-1]\} and \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=u_{[1,n-1]}=n(n-1)\cdots 1, which contains 321 using any subsequence of length 3. In particular, the subsequence w(1)w(2)w(n)=n(n-1)1 is a containment of 321.

Now suppose that \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} is a strongly connected increasing chain on [n-1] and let \mathcal{D}'=\mathcal{D}\setminus\{B_k\} (in particular, B_k is maximal). In ?, we show \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') dividing into regions A_1 and A_2 in its containment in \Lambda(\mathcal{D}).

Let \Lambda(\mathcal{D}')=w'(1)\cdots w'(l_{k-1}+1) and \Lambda(\mathcal{D})=w(1)\cdots w(n). By induction, the permutation \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains the pattern (k+1)k12\cdots (k-1) along the subsequence

We further assume by induction that w'(1)=l_{k-1}+1 and w'(2)=l_{k-1}. Since \mathcal{D} is strongly connected, r_k\leq l_{k-1} and hence the nodes (1,w(1)), (2,w(2)) belong to region A_2. This implies w(1)=l_k+1=n and w(2)=l_{k}=n-1. Proposition 3.6 part (2) implies w(l_{k-1}+1)<w(l_{k-1}+2), which, in turn, implies that w(l_{k-1}+1)<w(l_{k}+1). Thus \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains the pattern (k+2)(k+1)12\cdots k at

with w(1)=n and w(2)=n-1. This completes the proof.

Assume S(\mathcal{D})=[n-1] and let B_k=[r,n-1]. Since \mathcal{D} is strongly connected, we have B_{k-1}\cap B_k=[r,m-1] for some r< m<n-1. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_{\ell}), then it also contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_{\ell-1}). Suppose \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') avoids \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_{\ell}). Since B_k is minimal, ? together with the assumption \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell) implies that every such containment must involve positions in \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) from the interval [r,r+n-m]. Specifically, the containment must use exactly one position from [m,m+n-r] for the value \ell+2 from \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_{\ell}) as in ?. Thus \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_{\ell-1}).

We first consider the case where d=k and hence \mathcal{D}''=\{B_d\}. Note that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'')=u_{B_d} which contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell) if and only if \ell=1. So we assume that \ell\geq 2. Since B_d is maximal, the matrix of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) has the following form as in ?, where the submatrix \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') is given by regions A_1 and A_2, and region A_3 is an anti-diagonal square.

Lemma 4.4 says that region A_2 is decreasing. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell), then any such containment must happen within region A_1 since region A_3 is also decreasing. Hence \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell). Now suppose that d<k and hence \mathcal{D}'' is a decreasing chain with more than one block. The matrix of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is given in ?.

Here, region A_4 corresponds to appending the sequence of blocks B_{d+1}\succ\cdots\succ B_k to \mathcal{D}'\cup \{B_d\}. The region A_3 (from block B_d) splits into two regions, A_3' and A_3''. Since A_3 is anti-diagonal, each of A_3', A_3'' are also anti-diagonal with A_3'' strictly above and to the right of A_3'. Also note that region A_4 is strictly to the right of regions A_1 and A_2 since B_d\succ\cdots\succ B_k is a decreasing sequence with B_d maximal in \mathcal{D}.

Now suppose that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell). Then either \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) is contained in region A_1 or contained in regions A_4 and A_3'' since regions A_2 and A_3' are decreasing. But \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains region A_1 and \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'') contains the region given by A_4 and A_3'' (in fact, \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'') contains the region given by A_3', A_4, and A_3''). Hence, at least one of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}'),\Lambda(\mathcal{D}'') contains \Lambda(\mathcal{C}h^{-}_\ell).

By Theorem 4.10 and Theorem 4.8, staircase diagrams avoiding 2-overlaps and strongly connected 3-chains correspond to smooth permutations avoiding 45321, 54312, 34521, 54123.

These are exactly the permutations patterns that appear in Theorem 1.3.

Lemma 2.5 and Proposition 3.7 imply that, to enumerate staircase diagrams that avoid strongly indecomposable permutations, it suffices to consider staircase diagrams that are strongly connected and fully supported on [n]. Each fully supported staircase diagram decomposes as a strongly connected staircase diagram and a fully supported staircase diagram on a smaller connected support. For example:

Since \mathcal{D} avoids Q if and only if each component avoids Q, we have the recursion:

Thus

Furthermore, any staircase diagram is a disjoint union of fully supported staircase diagrams. Since a strongly indecomposable permutation is also indecomposable, Lemma 2.1 implies

Combining ? and ? completes the proof.

Since p is chain indecomposable and p contains itself, there exists a strongly connected chain \mathcal{D}'\subseteq \mathcal{D} such that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') contains p=\Lambda(\mathcal{D}). But \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) cannot contain a permutation of a staircase diagram with strictly smaller support. Hence \mathcal{D}'=\mathcal{D}.

Let \mathcal{D}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{D}_K denote the maximal chains of \mathcal{D} corresponding to \mathcal{E}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{E}_K. If \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) avoid p, then each of \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_i) must avoid p by Proposition 4.5. Using Lemma 4.1 and the assumption that p is chain indecomposable, it follows that each of the corresponding broken staircases \mathcal{E}_i avoids p.

Conversely, suppose that each \mathcal{E}_i avoids p. Since \mathcal{D}_i\in \mathcal{F}r^{-1}(\mathcal{B}r^{-1}(\mathcal{E}_i)), we get that the permutation \Lambda(\mathcal{D}_i) avoids p. This implies \Lambda(\mathcal{D}') avoids p for every chain \mathcal{D}'\subseteq\mathcal{D} since each chain in \mathcal{D} is in some maximal \mathcal{D}_i. Again, since p in chain indecomposable, we have that \Lambda(\mathcal{D}) avoids p.

First note that since Q is inverse invariant, we have z^+_n=z^-_n where z^-_n denotes the analogous number of strongly connected decreasing chains which avoid Q. Let \mathcal{D} denote a fully supported, strongly connected staircase diagram on [n]. Then either \mathcal{D} is a chain (increasing or decreasing), or \mathcal{D} decomposes as (\mathcal{E}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{E}_K) as in Proposition 5.6 with K\geq 2. Let z_k^b denote the number of increasing broken staircases on [k] that avoid Q. Since Q is inverse invariant, z_k^b also equals the number of decreasing broken staircases on [k] that avoid Q. By Proposition 5.6, we have that

Observe that the bounds on the sum above come from the fact that broken staircases have minimum support size k=2 and that the staircase diagram \mathcal{E}_K must have at least two blocks and hence n-k\geq 3. Next, we claim that z_k^b=z^+_{k+1}-z^{+}_k. Let \mathcal{D}'=\{B_1,\ldots, B_{k}\} be a fully supported increasing chain on [k+1] and define

Either \phi(\mathcal{D}') is a broken staircase on [k], or a strongly connected chain on [k]. Moreover the map \phi is a bijection from increasing chains on [k+1] to the disjoint union of increasing broken staircases and increasing chains on [k]. Thus the claim is proved. Now Proof Proof becomes

and thus

Solving for \overline{Z}(x) proves the theorem.

Let \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} be a strongly connected staircase diagram and let \alpha_i:=|B_i|. If \mathcal{D} avoids Q_P, then it consists of alternating 2-chains with 1-overlaps between blocks. If k>1, then the map

is a two-to-one map between strongly connected staircase diagrams on [n] with k blocks that avoid Q_P and k-compositions of (n-k+1). Summing over k gives \bar p_n=2F_{n-1}-1. For example:

Here we use the fact that \displaystyle \sum_{k\geq 0}\binom{n-k}{k}=F_{n}.

The fact that \bar b_1=1 is clear. Let \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} be a strongly connected staircase diagram on [n] and let \alpha_i:=|B_i|. If \mathcal{D} avoids Q_B, then it consists of alternating 2-chains with non-empty overlaps between blocks. Define \beta_i=|B_i\cap B_{i+1}| for i<k with \beta_k=0 and \gamma_i=\alpha_i-(\beta_i+\beta_{i-1}) (here we set \beta_0=0). If k>1, then the map

is a two-to-one map between strongly connected staircase diagrams on [n] with k blocks that avoid Q_B and (2k-1)-compositions of n. Summing over k gives \bar b_n=2^{n-1}-1. For example:

Note that the number of compositions of n with an odd number of parts is 2^{n-2}.

The fact that \bar c_1^+=1 is clear. Let \mathcal{D}=\{B_1,\ldots,B_k\} be a strongly connected increasing chain and let \alpha_i:=|B_i|. If \mathcal{D} avoids Q_C, then there are 1-overlaps between all blocks in \mathcal{D}. The map

is a bijection between strongly connected, increasing chaings on [n] with k blocks that avoid Q_C and k-compositions (n-1). Summing over k gives \bar c_n^+=2^{n-2}. For example:

The Narayana number N(n,i) counts the number of Dyck paths on n with exactly i peaks. The proposition follows from Lemma 5.14 and Proposition 5.15.

By Corollary 5.8 and Proposition 5.16, it suffices to show that the generating function \sum_{n\geq i} N(i,n)\, x^n is rational for a fixed integer i. However, it is known that

This formula is stated in [Ba06, Example 40] (see also [GAO2016, Lemma 3.3]). We remark that the sum in the numerator is called the i-th Narayana polynomial.

The proposition follows from Lemma 5.14 and Proposition 5.15.

The corollary follows directly from techniques developed in [EZ20], but we include a proof for completeness. Let f_{q,n} denote the number of Dyck paths on n whose valley heights are less than q and define

It suffices to show that F_q(x) is rational for all q\geq 2. First note that when q=2, then F_2(x) is rational by Proposition 5.18 and Proposition 5.11. We proceed by induction on q. Let P denote a Dyck path whose valley heights are less than q. Split P into P_1 and P_2 at the first occurrence, which P returns to the x-axis. We can write

Note that P_1' is Dyck path whose valley heights are less than q-1, while P_2 is a Dyck path whose valley heights are still less than q. This gives

which implies

By induction, F_q(x) is rational for all q\geq 2.