The 1243 inversion generating-function conjecture for rectangular posets

About 10 years old · traced to

Let ENs,t(σ)(q)EN_{s,t}(\sigma)(q) denote the inversion-generating function for linear extensions of the rectangular poset with parameters s,ts,t that avoid the permutation pattern σ\sigma, and let [n]q[n]_q denote the qq-integer. The 1243 inversion generating-function conjecture. For all t≥1t \ge 1,

EN3,2t−1(1243)(q)=q3(t2−t+1)[2t−1]q[4t−1]q.EN_{3,2t-1}(1243)(q) = q^{3(t^2-t+1)} [2t-1]_q [4t-1]_q.

The formula is a proposed qq-analogue for pattern-avoiding linear extensions; computer-generated data verify it for t≤9t \le 9, while the general case remains open.

References

Primary source

David Anderson, Eric S. Egge, Manda Riehl, Lucas Ryan, Ruth Steinke and Yuriko Vaughan, “Pattern Avoiding Linear Extensions of Rectangular Posets”, arXiv:1605.06825 (2016).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

The original formula is false as written, and a published paper proves the corrected version; a posted calculation also claims a first-case counterexample but has not been independently verified.

The conjecture was recorded by Anderson, Egge, Riehl, Ryan, Steinke, and Vaughan in 2016 as a proposed formula for inversion-generating functions of 12431243-avoiding linear extensions of rectangular posets. Their computations supported it through t≤9t\leq 9, but did not prove the general claim.

Known results

  • Anderson et al. (2016) proved the ordinary 12431243-avoiding enumeration via Fuss–Catalan numbers and established inversion-number bounds.
  • The same paper explicitly left the relevant inversion distribution as an open investigation and stated the displayed identity only as Conjecture 7.1.

2019 correction and proof

Defant states that the conjecture was parameterized incorrectly and proves the corrected identity for EN3,t(1243)(q)EN_{3,t}(1243)(q), for every t≥1t\geq 1, with direct checks for t∈{1,2}t\in\{1,2\} and an insertion classification for t≥3t\geq 3. Thus the literal EN3,2t−1EN_{3,2t-1} claim is false, while the intended corrected theorem is proved.

Posted attempt

A posted calculation claims a complete disproof at t=1t=1, comparing q3q^3 with q3+q4+q5q^3+q^4+q^5, and identifies the corrected parameterization. This attempt has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): the stated EN3,2t−1(1243)(q)EN_{3,2t-1}(1243)(q) conjecture is false, and Defant’s corrected EN3,t(1243)(q)EN_{3,t}(1243)(q) identity is proved in the literature.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

The statement as written is false already at t=1t=1.

For t=1t=1, the poset EN3,1EN_{3,1} is a three-element chain. Its unique linear extension is 321321, which has three inversions and automatically avoids the length-four pattern 12431243. Therefore

EN3,1(1243)(q)=q3.EN_{3,1}(1243)(q)=q^3.

The proposed right-hand side is instead

q3(12−1+1)[1]q[3]q=q3(1)(1+q+q2)=q3+q4+q5.q^{3(1^2-1+1)}[1]_q[3]_q = q^3(1)(1+q+q^2) = q^3+q^4+q^5.

Hence

q3≠q3+q4+q5,q^3\neq q^3+q^4+q^5,

which disproves the literal MathDB statement.

This is a known error in the original formulation. Colin Defant explicitly notes that it was stated incorrectly and proves the corrected result in Theorem 3.1 of “Proofs of Conjectures about Pattern-Avoiding Linear Extensions”:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02309

Published version:

https://doi.org/10.23638/DMTCS-21-4-16

The corrected theorem is

EN3,t(1243)(q)=q3(t2−t+1)(1−q2t−1−2q2t+q3t−1+q3t)(1−q)(1−q2)EN_{3,t}(1243)(q) = \frac{ q^{3(t^2-t+1)} \left( 1-q^{2t-1}-2q^{2t}+q^{3t-1}+q^{3t} \right) }{ (1-q)(1-q^2) }

for every t≥1t\geq1. Notice that the corrected left side is EN3,tEN_{3,t}, not EN3,2t−1EN_{3,2t-1}.

For t≥3t\geq3, Defant’s insertion classification gives the exact finite sum

EN3,t(1243)(q)=∑i=1t∑j=i+12tq3t2−3t+i+j.EN_{3,t}(1243)(q) = \sum_{i=1}^{t}\sum_{j=i+1}^{2t} q^{3t^2-3t+i+j}.

Summing the two geometric progressions yields precisely the corrected rational expression above; the cases t=1,2t=1,2 are checked directly in the paper.

Thus the MathDB statement is disproved at its first parameter, while the intended corrected theorem is proved in the published literature.