The Lattice of integer partitions and its infinite extension

We must show that for any two elements a and b of L_B(n), inf(\ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}},\ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}) and sup(\ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}},\ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}) are in \ensuremath{\ensuremath{L_B(n)}^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. Let us first consider the element c=inf(a,b). It is clear that \ensuremath{c^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} is in \ensuremath{\ensuremath{L_B(n)}^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}, and we will show that \ensuremath{c^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} is equal to inf(\ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}},\ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}). This statement comes directly from Brylawski’s result on dominance ordering [Bry73]:

Let us consider now e = sup(a,b). We will show that \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} is equal to d = sup(\ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}},\ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}). We have e \ge a and e \ge b, therefore \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \ge \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} and \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \ge \ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. This implies that \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \ge d. To show that d \ge \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}, let us begin by showing that d_1 = c_1 + 1. We can suppose that a_1 \ge b_1. The partition (a_1, a_1, a_1-1, a_1-2, \dots ) is greater than a and b, and so it is greater than or equal to e. Moreover, e \ge a implies e_1 \ge a_1 and so e_1 = a_1. Since \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \le d \le \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}, we then have d_1 = a_1+1 = e_1+1. Let f=(d_1-1, d_2, d_3,\dots). Since d \le \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} and e_1 = a_1, f is a partition: d_1-1 \ge d_2. Moreover, d \ge \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} and d \ge \ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}, and so f \ge a and f \ge b. This implies that f \ge sup(a,b) = c and that d \ge \ensuremath{e^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}, which ends the proof.

It is obvious that the right hand side of each of these equations is a subset of its correspond left hand side, thus it is sufficient to prove the converse. So, let us consider an element c = \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}} in dirreach(\ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}).

1. If i \neq 1 then c = \ensuremath{(a \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}})^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \in \ensuremath{dirreach(a)^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. If a \in NP(n) then there is no transition at the first column of \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. If a \in C(n), and if c= \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \ensuremath{\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}} then c is also equal to \ensuremath{(a \ensuremath{\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}})^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}.

2. If i \neq 1 then c = \ensuremath{(a \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}})^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \in \ensuremath{dirreach(a)^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. Otherwise if i=1, it is clear that c = \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{\ell +2}}}}.

3. If i \neq 1 then c = \ensuremath{(a \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}})^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \in \ensuremath{dirreach(a)^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. However, the element b=a \ensuremath{\stackrel{1}{\longrightarrow}} is obtained directly from a, but \ensuremath{b^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} is not obtained directly from \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. So we have: c \in \ensuremath{(dirreach(a) \setminus \lbrace b \rbrace)^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. Otherwise if i=1, it is clear that c = \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{2}}}}.

4. If i \neq 1 then c = \ensuremath{(a \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}})^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} \in \ensuremath{dirreach(a)^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}}. Otherwise if i=1, it is clear that c = \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{2}}}}.

First of all, it is easy to check that this union is a disjoint union.

Let us recall the strategy of the construction of L_B(n+1). First, L_B(n)^_1 is a sublattice of L_B(n+1); we then add to L_B(n)^_1 all directly reachable elements (and transitions) from this set to obtain a new set L^1; finally, we add to L^1 all directly reachable elements (and transitions) from L^1 to obtain a new set L^2, and so on. The key idea of this theorem is to show that the set L^1 is already equal to L_B(n+1), or, equivalently, that all directly reachable elements from L^1 are elements of L^1.

In Proposition 2, we have shown that L^1 is represented as the disjoint union in the right hand side of the claim. So let g \in L^1, and let h = g \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}} be a directly reachable element of g; we shall prove that h \in L^1. Several cases are possible.

We shall prove that c is an element of L_B(\infty) and that c is equal to inf_{\ensuremath{L_B(\infty)}}(a,b). Let n = 2(\sum_{i\geq 2}a_i + \sum_{i \geq 2}b_i). Let a'=(n-\sum_{i\geq 2}a_i,a_2,\ldots,a_k), b'=(n-\sum_{i\geq 2}b_i,b_2,\ldots,b_l) and c'=(n-\sum_{i\geq 2}c_i,c_2,\ldots,c_{max(k,l)}). It is then obvious that a' and b' are two partitions of n and that c' is the infimum of a' and b' by the dominance ordering in L_B(n). Therefore, c' is a decreasing sequence, and so c is an element of L_B(\infty). Moreover, according to the definition of \geq_{\ensuremath{L_B(\infty)}}, c is the maximal element of L_B(\infty) which is smaller than a and b, and so c=inf_{\ensuremath{L_B(\infty)}}(a,b).

By definition, L_B(\infty) has a maximal element. Since it is closed for the infimum, L_B() is a lattice.

\chi is clearly bijective. Moreover, it is clear from the definitions that for all a and b in L_B(), a \ensuremath{\stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow}} b if and only if \chi(a) \ensuremath{\stackrel{i+1}{\longrightarrow}} \chi(b). Therefore, \chi is an order isomorphism. Since L_B() is a lattice, this implies that \chi is a lattice isomorphism.

Let a and b be two elements of L_B(n), we shall prove that inf_{\ensuremath{\widetilde{L_B(\infty)}}}(a,b) and sup_{\ensuremath{\widetilde{L_B(\infty)}}}(a,b) belong to L_B(n). Let c be inf_{\ensuremath{L_B(n)}}(a,b) and c' be inf_{\ensuremath{\widetilde{L_B(\infty)}}}(a,b). We have, a \geq c' \geq_{\ensuremath{\widetilde{L_B(\infty)}}} c, which means that \sum_{i \geq 1}a_i \leq \sum_{i \geq 1}c'_i \leq \sum_{i \geq 1}c_i, and so \sum_{i \geq 1}c'_i=n. This implies that c' belongs to L_B(n), and we obtain c'=c. The proof for the supremum is similar.

Let a and b be two elements of L_B(). We must show that \pi(a) and \pi(b) belong to the Young lattice, that a \ge b in L_B() is equivalent to \pi(a) \ge \pi(b) in the Young lattice and that inf(\pi(a),\pi(b)) in the Young lattice is equal to \pi(inf(a,b)) in L_B(). The first two points are easy: \pi(x) is obviously a decreasing sequence of integers for any x, and the order is preserved. Now, let c = inf(a,b). Then,

which proves the claim.

The claim is obvious for k=1. Indeed, in this case the root a has the form (i,a_2,\dots) with a_2 \le i-1, therefore its left son has the form (i+1,i-1,\dots), i.e. it starts with a cliff, and has only one son. This son also starts with a cliff; we can then deduce that X_1 is simply a chain, which is the claim for k=1.

Suppose now that the claim is proved for any i<k and consider the root a of a X_k subtree: a=(\raisebox{-2.5ex}{ i,\dots,i^{k}},a_{k+1},\dots) with a_{k+1}\le i-1. Its left son is \ensuremath{a^\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}} = (i+1,i,\dots,i,a_{k+1},\dots) with a_{k+1}\le i-1, therefore it is the root of a X_1 subtree. Moreover, a^_1 has one right son: a^{\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{2}}}} = (i+1,i+1,i,\dots,i,a_{k+1},\dots), which by definition is the root of a X_2 subtree. After k-1 such stages, we obtain a^{\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{1}}}\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{2}}}\dots\ensuremath{{\downarrow_{k-1}}}}, which is equal to (i+1,\dots,i+1,i,a_{k+1}). This node is the root of a X_{k-1} subtree and has a right son:

and we still have a_{k+1}\le i-1. Therefore, this node is the root of a X_k subtree, and from the definition of T_B(\infty) we know that it has no other son. This completes the proof.

Because of their recursive structure shown in Proposition 6, X_k subtrees contain no edge with label greater than k. Therefore, if the root of a X_k subtree is of length k then all its nodes have length k. Moreover, no X_l subtrees with l \not= k and with a root of length l can contain any node of length k. This remark, together with Theorem 4, implies the result.

The formula for c(\ell,k) is derived directly from the structure of X_k trees (Proposition 6 and Figure ?). To obtain the formula for |\ensuremath{L_B(n)}|, we recall Proposition 6 and Theorem 4. Applying them, we observe that if we keep the nodes of depth n at most, then the subtrees obtained from T_B() and X_n turn out to be isomorphic. The last formula is directly derived from Theorems 4 and 1.