The exponential lower-bound conjecture for prime 2-ball passing patterns

From papers

For a fixed integer k1k\geq 1, let P(2,n,k)P'(2,n,k) denote the number of prime 2-ball, kk-hand passing patterns of length nn. As nn tends to infinity, Exponential lower-bound conjecture. there is a constant γP(k)\gamma_{P'}(k) such that

P(2,n,k)γP(k)(1+k)n.P'(2,n,k)\gtrsim \gamma_{P'}(k)(1+k)^n.

The conjecture would improve the proved lower bound with exponential factor 2n2^n by capturing the expected growth rate suggested by the underlying counting problem. The paper does not establish the required asymptotic theorem with base 1+k1+k.

Progress summary

Open

No verified progress has been found: the conjecture remains open, with only a weaker growth estimate proved.

The conjecture predicts that, for fixed kk, the number of prime 22-ball passing patterns grows at least exponentially with base 1+k1+k. The paper presents this as Conjecture 5.1 and explicitly does not prove it.

Known results

  • The paper proves the weaker asymptotic lower bound P(2,n,k)γP(k)2nP'(2,n,k)\gtrsim \gamma_{P'}(k)2^n for fixed kk.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjectured (1+k)n(1+k)^n lower bound remains unproved; only the weaker 2n2^n exponential lower bound is established.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Steve Butler, Vera Choi, Joel Jeffries, Nina McCambridge, Asia Morgenstern and Samuel Orellana Mateo, “Enumerating Prime Patterns in Juggling Variations”, arXiv:2603.17284 (2026).

Solutions 1

Proof

A finite lower bound proving Conjecture 5.1. For every pair of integers n,k1n,k\geq 1,

P(2,n,k)k(k+1)n1.P'(2,n,k)\geq k(k+1)^{n-1}.

Thus the conjecture holds with the explicit positive constant γP(k)=k/(k+1)\gamma_{P'}(k)=k/(k+1).

We use the convention of Butler, Choi, Jeffries, McCambridge, Morgenstern and Orellana Mateo, arXiv:2603.17284, Section 5: the kk hands are distinguished, some hands may be unused, and patterns are counted up to cyclic rotation. A pattern is prime when its cycle has no repeated state. A state records the hand and remaining landing time of each ball; the balls themselves are not distinguished.

The idea is to make exactly one throw longer than the whole period. Between successive long throws, the other ball follows an arbitrary selection of landing times. The long throw distinguishes the starting point, so counting cyclic patterns will not require division by nn.

1. Constructing the patterns. Choose a subset

S={0=s0<s1<<sm1<n}S=\{0=s_0<s_1<\cdots<s_{m-1}<n\}

containing 00, and put sm=ns_m=n and d=s1d=s_1. When m=1m=1, these conventions mean d=s1=nd=s_1=n. At each time sjs_j, choose a hand hj{1,,k}h_j\in\{1,\ldots,k\}; set hm=h0h_m=h_0.

Immediately before time 00, place one ball at hand h0h_0, ready to be thrown, and the other ball on a trajectory landing at time dd, at hand h1h_1 (at hand h0h_0 when m=1m=1). Make the following throws, repeating the instructions every nn beats:

  • At time 00, throw the arriving ball to land at time n+dn+d, at the hand assigned to time dd modulo nn.
  • At time sjs_j, for 1j<m1\leq j<m, throw the arriving ball to land at time sj+1s_{j+1}, at hand hj+1h_{j+1}.
  • At all remaining times in the period, no ball lands and no throw is made.

If m2m\geq2, the second ball lands successively at s1,,sm1,ns_1,\ldots,s_{m-1},n, while the first ball remains in flight until n+dn+d. Immediately before time nn, there is therefore a ball ready to land at hand h0h_0 and another due dd beats later at the hand assigned to dd. This is precisely the initial state, with the roles of the two balls exchanged.

If m=1m=1, the initial landing times are 0,n0,n, and the only throw sends the first ball from time 00 to time 2n2n. The state likewise returns after nn beats. Thus the construction is valid in this case too, including n=1n=1.

In every case there are exactly two balls. Their landing times are distinct, so at most one ball lands at any beat, even when several chosen hands coincide. All throws go to permitted hands and have positive heights.

2. Primality. Examine the states immediately before integer times t=0,,n1t=0,\ldots,n-1, and let MtM_t be the larger remaining landing time. A ball landing at the current time has remaining time 00; adding 11 to every remaining time gives the usual state-column convention.

At time 00, we have M0=dM_0=d. At each time 1t<n1\leq t<n, the ball thrown at time 00 is still due at time n+dn+d, while the other ball is due no later than time nn. Consequently,

M0=d,Mt=n+dt(1t<n).M_0=d,\qquad M_t=n+d-t\quad(1\leq t<n).

These nn numbers are pairwise distinct: the latter ones are n+d1,n+d2,,d+1n+d-1,n+d-2,\ldots,d+1. Hence all nn states are distinct, even after forgetting the hand labels. Every constructed passing pattern is prime and has period exactly nn.

3. Counting without overcounting. The throw at time 00 has height n+d>nn+d>n. Every other throw has height sj+1sj<ns_{j+1}-s_j<n. Thus every constructed cycle has a unique throw of height greater than nn, which recovers its distinguished time 00 from the unrooted cycle.

Once this origin is recovered, the landing times in one period recover SS, and the hand at each landing recovers every hjh_j. Therefore different choices of SS and its hand labels give different cyclic patterns. This also covers the single-throw case.

For a subset SS of size mm, there are (n1m1)\binom{n-1}{m-1} choices of its nonzero elements and kmk^m choices of hands. Summing gives

P(2,n,k)m=1n(n1m1)km=k(1+k)n1.\begin{aligned} P'(2,n,k) &\geq\sum_{m=1}^{n}\binom{n-1}{m-1}k^m\\ &=k(1+k)^{n-1}. \end{aligned}

The ordinary one-long-throw family and its primality argument are the b=2b=2 case of Banaian and coauthors, Proposition 9. The source's Theorem 5.4 already observes that assigning hands to a prime ordinary pattern preserves primality. Evaluating the full hand-choice weight on this family gives the finite bound above, without replacing that weight by one depending only on the number of spacing sets. It yields the required exponential base directly, without an asymptotic interchange of sums or limits. In particular,

lim infnP(2,n,k)(k+1)nkk+1>0,\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{P'(2,n,k)}{(k+1)^n} \geq\frac{k}{k+1}>0,

which proves the full conjecture for every fixed k1k\geq1.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·