Enumerative conjecture for minimally-sorted permutations
Let be the set of minimally-sorted permutations under . Enumerative conjecture. For every positive integer ,
This gives a recurrence between the numbers of minimally-sorted permutations of consecutive odd and even lengths; the source says it was computationally verified for .
References
Primary source
Owen Zhang, “The Order of the (123, 132)-Avoiding Stack Sort”, arXiv:2405.01854 (2024).
Progress summary
A posted argument claims a complete proof of the recurrence, but no independent verification has been found, so the conjecture remains unconfirmed.
Owen Zhang introduced the minimally-sorted permutations and stated the enumerative conjecture in 2024: . His paper reports computational verification through , but presents no proof.
Known results
- Zhang, 2024: established the iteration order and introduced ; the recurrence itself remained conjectural.
Posted attempt
A detailed posted argument claims a complete bijective proof: deleting the final entry gives a map from to , with exactly inverse extensions. The argument has not been independently verified.
Current status (as of August 2026): the recurrence is computationally verified for , while the complete posted proof remains unverified and the conjecture is therefore open.
Sources
Solutions 1
ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solution
A recurrence for minimally sorted permutations
Let be the greedy stack map: read the input from left to right, pushing the next entry whenever the stack, read from top to bottom, avoids and , and otherwise popping its top entry to the output. Flush the stack when the input is exhausted. Let be the permutations of taking the maximum number of iterations to reach a periodic point. We prove
This is Zhang, Conjecture 4.4. We use the prior results stated there as Theorems 1.1 and 1.2: writing , periodicity is equivalent to
and the maximum time to periodicity is . The bijection below does not assume the adjacent Conjecture 4.3.
1. Small entries and the first output
An incoming entry is pushed exactly when at most one entry already in the stack is larger than . In particular, an entry already in the stack can be popped during input processing only by an incoming smaller entry: at its own push, at most one larger entry lay below it, and the entries below it do not change while it remains in the stack. Also, the first input entry is always the last output entry.
We need the following localization fact. If the first entries of an input are all larger than , then the first output entries are all larger than , when . Indeed, an entry arriving after this prefix leaves at most one of its entries in the stack when it is pushed, so at least prefix entries precede it in the output. If such an lies inside the prefix, it is its unique minimum. Unless it is the first input entry, it stays in the stack until the whole prefix has been read; all prefix entries other than and the first input entry must be output before it. If it is the first entry, it is output last.
Starting with and iterating gives, for ,
For , apply the -pass assertion to .
Write and . We claim that, for every with , entry is permanently in position by time , and that it first becomes permanent at exactly that time if and only if
For , an input not beginning with sends to the penultimate position, where it remains. An input beginning with sends it to the last position and then to the penultimate position. Thus the claim holds.
Here is the tail calculation for the induction. If entries are in their stated positions, write the input as
where all entries of and all exceed . Put , and let denote with its last entry removed. Directly processing the successive minima gives
Thus the fixed small entries remain fixed. Moreover, if
the induction hypothesis and (3) give
For this is the first-input/last-output rule. For , entries have settled by time , so (3) gives , and induction proves (4).
Now prove the claim for , at time . All smaller entries have settled, and (1) confines to the final positions. For , equations (4) and (1) imply
since . Consequently, putting , the only possible positions of are , , and . In the first case it is already permanently placed. In the second case it is the last, and smallest, entry of in (3), with , so the next pass places it in position . In the third case it is ; the next pass puts it last in , and the following pass puts it in position . This third case takes exactly two further passes. By (4), it occurs exactly when
This proves (2) and the induction. Therefore, for or , with ,
Indeed, all smaller entries have settled by time , and (2) decides whether the last required entry takes the full passes.
2. The event in (5) uses only an initial prefix
We first record an early-output observation. Suppose that the first entries of an input are all at least , where . If
then
To see this, consider the first input entry smaller than , if one exists; its index is at least . Before this entry arrives, the only possible entry below smaller than is , and at most one larger entry can lie below . Hence, if is first popped when that smaller entry arrives, its output position is at least . If it arrives later, the first smaller entry has already flushed all but one of the first entries, again making an early output impossible. The same bound holds if survives to the final flush: at most two entries lie below it. These arguments also cover the case that no entry smaller than exists. If is the first input entry, it is output last.
Thus an output in position must be caused by the arrival of , with already in the stack. Before arrives, all preceding entries except exceed . Entry then lies immediately above the first input entry and is popped after all other preceding entries. If arrives in position , this makes the output position of equal to . Hence . At that moment the first outputs have already been produced, proving (6). In particular, this input prefix has minimum at its end, and its first entry is the other entry not yet output.
Apply (6) backwards to (5). At the stage involving , use
Equation (1) supplies the hypothesis on the first entries, and follows from . We obtain prefixes
with , such that for :
- ends with its minimum ;
- consists of , followed by and the first entry of .
Inducting backwards shows that contains every entry . Its first entry, which is removed in passing to , must therefore exceed . In particular, contains all of , and all entries outside this initial -letter prefix exceed .
Crucially, these prefix relations also work forwards for any extension of . When its final minimum is read, every entry of except that minimum and the first entry has already been output. Thus the output starts with , regardless of the remaining input. Repeating this argument for the final minimum of each shows that the -st output begins with . The argument is unchanged under any increasing relabelling that fixes . For , the same conclusion is immediate: the event is simply that the first entry is .
3. The bijection
Let and put . If , its initial -letter prefix contains all entries , so its last entry belongs to . Delete this last entry and standardize the remaining permutation, obtaining . Standardization fixes and preserves the order of the initial prefix. Section 2 and (5) therefore give .
Conversely, given and , increase each entry of that is at least by one, and append . The same prefix argument shows that the resulting permutation lies in . These two constructions are inverse. There are exactly choices for , proving the recurrence for .
For , all permutations of lengths one and two are already periodic. Hence and , proving the remaining case.