Congruence conjectures for DSOME modulo 8 and 16

Less than 1 year old · traced to

Let DSOME(n)DSOME(n) denote the sum of all odd parts in the partitions of nn into distinct parts minus the sum of all even parts. DSOME congruence conjecture. For all integers n≥0n\geq0,

DSOME(250n+21)≡DSOME(250n+71)≡DSOME(250n+121)≡DSOME(250n+171)≡DSOME(250n+221)≡0(mod8),DSOME(250n+21)\equiv DSOME(250n+71)\equiv DSOME(250n+121)\equiv DSOME(250n+171)\equiv DSOME(250n+221)\equiv0\pmod{8},

and

DSOME(500n+71)≡DSOME(500n+171)≡DSOME(500n+271)≡DSOME(500n+371)≡DSOME(500n+471)≡0(mod16).DSOME(500n+71)\equiv DSOME(500n+171)\equiv DSOME(500n+271)\equiv DSOME(500n+371)\equiv DSOME(500n+471)\equiv0\pmod{16}.

The conjecture is based on numerical calculations and proposes further congruences for the distinct-part function DSOMEDSOME; the supplied source gives no resolution.

References

Primary source

Nayandeep Deka Baruah and Pankaj Gogoi, “Arithmetic properties of DSOME function”, arXiv:2602.20025 (2026).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A 2026 paper claims the modulo-eight part is proved, while a later unverified posted argument claims the remaining modulo-sixteen part is also complete.

Baruah and Gogoi proposed the two DSOMEDSOME congruence families in 2026 from numerical evidence. Their paper supplied generating-function methods and recorded the assertions as conjectures.

Known results

  • Baruah and Gogoi (2026) derived a closed generating function and new congruences for DSOMEDSOME, including the conjectured modulo-88 and modulo-1616 families.

August 2026 claimed proofs

Bardhan and Saikia claim a stronger theorem, DSOME(50n+10t+1)≡0(mod8)DSOME(50n+10t+1)\equiv0\pmod{8} for 1≤t≤41\leq t\leq4, which proves the problem’s modulo-88 family. A reader-written complete proof of the modulo-1616 family is also presented, but it has not been independently verified.

Posted attempt

The posted argument claims a complete proof of DSOME(100n+71)≡0(mod16)DSOME(100n+71)\equiv0\pmod{16}, using a coefficientwise theta-series calculation and an involution; the attempt has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): The modulo-88 assertion has a claimed arXiv proof, while the modulo-1616 assertion has only an unverified complete-proof claim.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

The two congruences for DSOME(n)DSOME(n)

For a nonnegative integer nn, let DSOME(n)DSOME(n) be the sum of the odd parts minus the sum of the even parts, taken over all partitions of nn into distinct parts. We prove Baruah and Gogoi's Conjecture 4.1: for every n≥0n\geq0,

DSOME(50n+21)≡0(mod8),DSOME(100n+71)≡0(mod16).DSOME(50n+21)\equiv0\pmod8, \qquad DSOME(100n+71)\equiv0\pmod{16}.

The first congruence was proved by Bardhan and Saikia in Theorem 4.11 and Remark 4.12. We prove the second. We will also use their quadratic-representation involution, explicitly given below. The additional step is a coefficientwise theta-series calculation modulo 1616; two parity decompositions then finish the argument.

1. A weighted pentagonal identity

All series in the proof are formal power series with integer coefficients. Put

f=∏r≥1(1−qr),X=∑m≥1(−1)mqm2,Xd=X(qd),D=qddq.f=\prod_{r\geq1}(1-q^r),\qquad X=\sum_{m\geq1}(-1)^m q^{m^2},\qquad X_d=X(q^d),\qquad D=q\frac{d}{dq}.

Thus X1=XX_1=X. Write ϕ=1+2X\phi=1+2X. The generating-function identity in Baruah and Gogoi, Theorem 1.1, together with ϕ=∏r≥1(1−qr)2/∏r≥1(1−q2r)\phi=\prod_{r\geq1}(1-q^r)^2/\prod_{r\geq1}(1-q^{2r}), gives

F(q):=∑n≥0DSOME(n)qn=f8(ϕ−1−ϕ3).(1)\mathcal F(q):=\sum_{n\geq0}DSOME(n)q^n =\frac{f}{8}\left(\phi^{-1}-\phi^3\right). \tag{1}

Set Pj=j(3j−1)/2P_j=j(3j-1)/2 for j∈Zj\in\mathbb Z. We use the classical identities recorded as (2.2) and (4.54) in Bardhan and Saikia:

f=∑j∈Z(−1)jqPj,fϕ2=∑j∈Z(1−6j)qPj.(2)f=\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}(-1)^j q^{P_j}, \qquad f\phi^2=\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}(1-6j)q^{P_j}. \tag{2}

Define U=X(1+X)U=X(1+X) and Y=fUY=fU. Since ϕ2=1+4U\phi^2=1+4U, (2) implies

Y=∑j∈Z(−1)jvjqPj,v2k=−3k,v2k+1=3k+1.(3)Y=\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}(-1)^j v_j q^{P_j}, \qquad v_{2k}=-3k,\quad v_{2k+1}=3k+1. \tag{3}

A direct calculation, valid for every integer jj, gives

3Pj=2vj2+vj.3P_j=2v_j^2+v_j.

Consequently vj≡Pj(mod4)v_j\equiv P_j\pmod4. Substituting this into 3(Pj−vj)=2vj(vj−1)3(P_j-v_j)=2v_j(v_j-1) modulo 88 gives vj≡2Pj2−Pj(mod8)v_j\equiv2P_j^2-P_j\pmod8. Therefore

Y≡(2D2−D)f(mod8),Y≡Df(mod4).(4)Y\equiv(2D^2-D)f\pmod8, \qquad Y\equiv Df\pmod4. \tag{4}

In particular, both ff and YY have zero coefficient at every index not of the form PjP_j.

2. The coefficient calculation modulo 1616

Fix an integer N≥0N\geq0 such that N≡3(mod4)N\equiv3\pmod4 and N≠PjN\neq P_j for every j∈Zj\in\mathbb Z. For a series HH, write ⟨H⟩=[qN]H\langle H\rangle=[q^N]H, and put

ad=⟨fXd⟩(d=1,2,4,8,16).a_d=\langle fX_d\rangle \qquad(d=1,2,4,8,16).

We claim that

DSOME(N)≡−2Na1−12a4−8(a2+a8+a16)(mod16).(5)DSOME(N)\equiv -2Na_1-12a_4-8(a_2+a_8+a_{16}) \pmod{16}. \tag{5}

Here are the details. Factoring the numerator of (1) gives the exact identity

F=−Y(1+2X21+2X).\mathcal F =-Y\left(1+\frac{2X^2}{1+2X}\right).

Since XX has zero constant term, expansion of the inverse is valid formally. With

Z=X2−2X3+4X4,Z=X^2-2X^3+4X^4,

we obtain F≡−Y−2YZ(mod16)\mathcal F\equiv-Y-2YZ\pmod{16}. Our assumption on NN gives ⟨Y⟩=0\langle Y\rangle=0, so

DSOME(N)≡−2⟨YZ⟩(mod16).(6)DSOME(N)\equiv-2\langle YZ\rangle\pmod{16}. \tag{6}

For any series HH,

⟨(Df)H⟩=N⟨fH⟩−⟨fDH⟩,⟨(D2f)H⟩=N2⟨fH⟩−2N⟨fDH⟩+⟨fD2H⟩.\begin{aligned} \langle(Df)H\rangle &=N\langle fH\rangle-\langle fDH\rangle,\\ \langle(D^2f)H\rangle &=N^2\langle fH\rangle -2N\langle fDH\rangle+\langle fD^2H\rangle. \end{aligned}

Using (4), then N≡3(mod4)N\equiv3\pmod4, yields

⟨YZ⟩≡(2−N)⟨fZ⟩+5⟨fDZ⟩+2⟨fD2Z⟩(mod8).(7)\langle YZ\rangle\equiv (2-N)\langle fZ\rangle +5\langle fDZ\rangle +2\langle fD^2Z\rangle \pmod8. \tag{7}

The following congruences follow coefficientwise by separating odd and even mm in the definition of XX:

DX≡X+X4−2X16(mod4),D2X≡X+X4(mod2),(DX)2≡X2+X8(mod2).(8)\begin{aligned} DX&\equiv X+X_4-2X_{16}\pmod4,\\ D^2X&\equiv X+X_4\pmod2,\\ (DX)^2&\equiv X_2+X_8\pmod2. \end{aligned} \tag{8}

For the last line, square the preceding parity expression and use Xd2≡X2d(mod2)X_d^2\equiv X_{2d}\pmod2.

Differentiating ZZ gives

DZ≡2U DX(mod8),2D2Z≡4(DX)2+4U D2X(mod8).\begin{aligned} DZ&\equiv2U\,DX\pmod8,\\ 2D^2Z&\equiv4(DX)^2+4U\,D^2X\pmod8. \end{aligned}

Substitution into (7), followed by (8), gives

⟨YZ⟩≡⟨f(−NX2+4X4+6UX4−4UX16+4X2+4X8)⟩(mod8).(9)\begin{aligned} \langle YZ\rangle\equiv \big\langle f\big(&-NX^2+4X^4+6UX_4\\ &-4UX_{16}+4X_2+4X_8\big)\big\rangle \pmod8. \end{aligned} \tag{9}

Indeed, before using N≡3(mod4)N\equiv3\pmod4, the coefficient of X3X^3 in this simplification is 2N+22N+2, which vanishes modulo 88.

To simplify (9), use ⟨fX2⟩=−a1\langle fX^2\rangle=-a_1, which follows from ⟨Y⟩=0\langle Y\rangle=0, and X4≡X4(mod2)X^4\equiv X_4\pmod2. Also (4) and DXd≡0(modd)DX_d\equiv0\pmod d give

⟨YX4⟩≡Na4(mod4),⟨YX16⟩≡Na16(mod2).\langle YX_4\rangle\equiv Na_4\pmod4, \qquad \langle YX_{16}\rangle\equiv Na_{16}\pmod2.

It follows that

⟨YZ⟩≡Na1+(4+6N)a4−4Na16+4a2+4a8≡Na1+6a4+4(a2+a8+a16)(mod8).\begin{aligned} \langle YZ\rangle &\equiv Na_1+(4+6N)a_4 -4Na_{16}+4a_2+4a_8\\ &\equiv Na_1+6a_4+4(a_2+a_8+a_{16}) \pmod8. \end{aligned}

Together with (6), this proves (5).

3. The progression 100n+71100n+71

Now let N=100n+71N=100n+71 with n≥0n\geq0, and put

M=24N+1=5(480n+341).M=24N+1=5(480n+341).

Thus the exponent of 55 in MM is exactly one. In particular MM is not a square, so NN is not pentagonal, since 24Pj+1=(6j−1)224P_j+1=(6j-1)^2. Also N≡3(mod4)N\equiv3\pmod4, and (5) applies.

By (2), the sums ada_d have the explicit form

ad=∑j∈Z, m≥1Pj+dm2=N(−1)j+m.(10)a_d= \sum_{\substack{j\in\mathbb Z,\ m\geq1\\ P_j+dm^2=N}}(-1)^{j+m}. \tag{10}

For d=2d=2, a summand would give M=(6j−1)2+48m2M=(6j-1)^2+48m^2. Reduction modulo 55 forces both 6j−16j-1 and mm to be divisible by 55, because 22 is a quadratic nonresidue modulo 55. This contradicts the exponent of 55 in MM. The same argument for d=8d=8 uses the nonresidue 33. Hence

a2=a8=0.(11)a_2=a_8=0. \tag{11}

Consider the finite set

R={(j,m)∈Z×Z>0:Pj+m2=N}.\mathcal R= \{(j,m)\in\mathbb Z\times\mathbb Z_{>0}: P_j+m^2=N\}.

We use the involution from the proof of Bardhan and Saikia's Theorem 4.11. For (j,m)∈R(j,m)\in\mathcal R, put u=6j−1u=6j-1. Then u2+24m2=Mu^2+24m^2=M. Neither uu nor mm is divisible by 55, and there is a unique s∈{1,−1}s\in\{1,-1\} such that 5∣u+sm5\mid u+sm. Define

u′=24sm−u5,m′=∣su+m∣5,j′=u′+16.(12)u' =\frac{24sm-u}{5},\qquad m'=\frac{|su+m|}{5},\qquad j'=\frac{u'+1}{6}. \tag{12}

Both u′u' and m′m' are integers, u′≡−1(mod6)u'\equiv-1\pmod6, and m′>0m'>0: equality su+m=0su+m=0 would make M=25m2M=25m^2. Moreover,

(u′)2+24(m′)2=M,(u')^2+24(m')^2=M,

so (j′,m′)∈R(j',m')\in\mathcal R. To check the inverse explicitly, let ε\varepsilon be the sign of su+msu+m and put s′=sεs'=s\varepsilon. Then

s′m′=u+sm5,u′+s′m′=5sm.s'm'=\frac{u+sm}{5},\qquad u'+s'm'=5sm.

Thus s′s' is the unique sign selected for (u′,m′)(u',m'), and applying (12) again returns uu and mm.

Furthermore,

m′≡m+1(mod2),j′=4sm−j+15≡j+1(mod2).m'\equiv m+1\pmod2,\qquad j'=\frac{4sm-j+1}{5}\equiv j+1\pmod2.

The involution therefore exchanges even and odd mm and preserves the sign (−1)j+m(-1)^{j+m}.

For d=2,4,8d=2,4,8, set

Ed=∑(j,m)∈Rd∣m(−1)j.E_d=\sum_{\substack{(j,m)\in\mathcal R\\ d\mid m}}(-1)^j.

Pairing by (12) gives a1=2E2a_1=2E_2. In addition, simply separating even and odd values of m/2m/2 and m/4m/4 gives

E2+a4=2E4,E4+a16=2E8.(13)E_2+a_4=2E_4, \qquad E_4+a_{16}=2E_8. \tag{13}

Using N≡3(mod4)N\equiv3\pmod4 and (13), we obtain

NE2+3a4+2a16≡3(E2+a4)+2a16=6E4+2a16≡2(E4+a16)=4E8≡0(mod4).\begin{aligned} NE_2+3a_4+2a_{16} &\equiv3(E_2+a_4)+2a_{16}\\ &=6E_4+2a_{16}\\ &\equiv2(E_4+a_{16}) =4E_8\equiv0\pmod4. \end{aligned}

Finally, (5), (11) and a1=2E2a_1=2E_2 imply

DSOME(N)≡−4(NE2+3a4+2a16)≡0(mod16).DSOME(N)\equiv -4(NE_2+3a_4+2a_{16}) \equiv0\pmod{16}.

This proves the second congruence for every n≥0n\geq0. Together with the previously proved modulo-88 congruence, it establishes all of Conjecture 4.1.