Blogrolling On III
Note that if we always set , has a non-zero imaginary part when . If , and thus , the coefficients take the form
for the Schroeder numbers . Then is a cubed root of unity , and the generating function corresponds to the rule
Can we prove a law ? Similarly, if and the rule would be . Can we interpret these rules in terms of trees? Let's write the first rule as . This looks a lot like the Motzkin rule, except for the extra factor of . What if we distinguished left and right branches for Motzkin trees? That is, take a full binary rooted tree template and count whole trees with 0, 1 or 2 branches that may be fitted to the template. Then the desired rule works by differentiating left and right unary branches from the root. Instead of a fivefold bijection of the set of Motzkin trees, there is now a fourfold mapping, and the series
Motzkin numbers are also given in terms of trinomial coefficients . The coefficients go back to Euler. These are the number of permutations of ternary symbols (-1, 0, or 1) which sum to 0. A general is the number of permutations of these symbols that sum to .
for the Schroeder numbers . Then is a cubed root of unity , and the generating function corresponds to the rule
Can we prove a law ? Similarly, if and the rule would be . Can we interpret these rules in terms of trees? Let's write the first rule as . This looks a lot like the Motzkin rule, except for the extra factor of . What if we distinguished left and right branches for Motzkin trees? That is, take a full binary rooted tree template and count whole trees with 0, 1 or 2 branches that may be fitted to the template. Then the desired rule works by differentiating left and right unary branches from the root. Instead of a fivefold bijection of the set of Motzkin trees, there is now a fourfold mapping, and the series
Motzkin numbers are also given in terms of trinomial coefficients . The coefficients go back to Euler. These are the number of permutations of ternary symbols (-1, 0, or 1) which sum to 0. A general is the number of permutations of these symbols that sum to .
3 Comments:
Sure enough, the substitution rule J = 1 + 2J + J^2 results in an isomorphism J = J^4! It is essentially the same as in the Motzkin case: expand until you get to a J^5 term, then start collapsing terms with the lowest power of J. You seem to need an extra expansion at one point to "borrow" some powers of J. I want to think about this more after I get all these calculus tests graded...
Hi Matt! Good to see you here - and thanks for working through it. I'd also love to spend more time on this, because I'm sure its related to the physics we do here - but then there are so many things to do .....
Hi Kea,
The series 1 4 24 176 1440 can be found - intermixed - among a larger sequence of Sloane's A036912 'Maximum inverse of phi(n) increases' [author David W. Wilson].
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1+4+24+176+1440&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english
[see the list and graph as well]
There does not appear to be any exact Sloane match for the shorter series.
I do not know if this is significant.
Post a Comment
<< Home