Infinite family of congruence conjectures for c(n)

From papers

Let c(n)c(n) denote the coefficient sequence under consideration, and let k,nN0k,n\in\mathbb{N}_0. The infinite-family congruence conjecture for c(n)c(n).

c(22k+3n+114k+13)0 (mod4),c\left(2^{2k+3}n+\frac{11\cdot 4^k+1}{3}\right)\equiv 0\ \left( \mathrm{mod} \, 4 \right), c(22k+3n+174k+13)0 (mod8),c\left(2^{2k+3}n+\frac{17\cdot 4^k+1}{3}\right)\equiv 0\ \left( \mathrm{mod} \, 8 \right), c(22k+4n+384k+13)0 (mod4).c\left(2^{2k+4}n+\frac{38\cdot 4^k+1}{3}\right)\equiv 0\ \left( \mathrm{mod} \, 4 \right).

The authors propose these congruences as a more general infinite family related to the preceding open congruence for c(n)c(n). The provided text does not state a proof or resolution.

Progress summary

Solved

A 2026 preprint claims to prove all three infinite divisibility patterns, but no independent verification was found.

Banerjee, Bringmann, and El Bachraoui proposed three infinite families of congruences for the coefficient sequence c(n)c(n), extending their previously proved initial cases. The conjecture concerns every k,n0k,n\ge0.

Known results

  • Banerjee, Bringmann, and El Bachraoui proved c(8n+4)0(mod4)c(8n+4)\equiv0\pmod4, c(8n+6)0(mod8)c(8n+6)\equiv0\pmod8, and c(16n+13)0(mod4)c(16n+13)\equiv0\pmod4 (2026).

2026 claimed proof

Juejie Sun and Olivia X.M. Yao’s preprint claims to settle all three families for k,n0k,n\ge0, using the earlier results and an identity of Watson; it derives intermediate congruences and an induction. The claim is currently unverified by independent sources, with no reported objection or retraction.

Current status (as of August 2026): The initial cases are established, and Sun–Yao claim a proof of the full families, but independent verification is not recorded.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Koustav Banerjee, Kathrin Bringmann and Mohamed El Bachraoui, “On congruence conjectures of Andrews and Bachraoui”, arXiv:2604.02239 (2026).

Solutions 1

Proof

Prior proof and attribution. All three conjectured families were already proved by Sun and Yao in arXiv:2604.05403, Section 2. The original problem is therefore not open. The proof below is only an alternative derivation through a stronger residue-three transfer identity; it does not claim the first proof.

All three congruence families hold for every k,n0k,n\ge0. The key is a transfer theorem between the source's new coefficient sequence cc and the distinct mock-theta partition function pωp_\omega:

c(4m+3)pω(4m+3)(mod8)(m0),\boxed{ c(4m+3)\equiv-p_\omega(4m+3)\pmod8 \qquad(m\ge0), }

where qω(q)=N1pω(N)qNq\omega(q)=\sum_{N\ge1}p_\omega(N)q^N.

Indeed, the primary source gives

C(q)=N0c(N)qN=2qA(q)B(q)qω(q),C(q)=\sum_{N\ge0}c(N)q^N = 2qA(q)B(-q)-q\omega(-q),

and

A(q)A0(q4)+qA1(q4)(mod4),A12Z[[q]].A(q)\equiv A_0(q^4)+qA_1(q^4)\pmod4, \qquad A_1\in2\mathbb Z[[q]].

For B(q)=j=03qjBj(q4)B(q)=\sum_{j=0}^3q^jB_j(q^4), the exact classical four-dissections are

B1(q)=2f28f17,B2(q)=4f22f44f15,fj=(qj;qj).B_1(q)=\frac{2f_2^8}{f_1^7}, \qquad B_2(q)=\frac{4f_2^2f_4^4}{f_1^5}, \qquad f_j=(q^j;q^j)_\infty.

Thus B1B_1 is even and B2B_2 is divisible by 44. Consequently the residue-two part of A(q)B(q)A(q)B(-q) satisfies

A0B2A1B10(mod4).A_0B_2-A_1B_1\equiv0\pmod4.

Therefore 2qA(q)B(q)2qA(q)B(-q) contributes zero modulo 88 to every exponent 4m+34m+3, while

[q4m+2]ω(q)=pω(4m+3),-[q^{4m+2}]\omega(-q) = -p_\omega(4m+3),

proving the transfer theorem.

Now define

N1(k,n)=22k+3n+114k+13,N2(k,n)=22k+3n+174k+13,N3(k,n)=22k+4n+384k+13.\begin{aligned} N_1(k,n) &= 2^{2k+3}n+\frac{11\cdot4^k+1}{3},\\ N_2(k,n) &= 2^{2k+3}n+\frac{17\cdot4^k+1}{3},\\ N_3(k,n) &= 2^{2k+4}n+\frac{38\cdot4^k+1}{3}. \end{aligned}

For every k1k\ge1, all three integers satisfy Ni(k,n)3(mod4)N_i(k,n)\equiv3\pmod4. The published theorem of Andrews–Passary–Sellers–Yee gives

pω(N1(k,n))0(mod4),p_\omega(N_1(k,n))\equiv0\pmod4, pω(N2(k,n))0(mod8),p_\omega(N_2(k,n))\equiv0\pmod8,

and

pω(N3(k,n))0(mod4).p_\omega(N_3(k,n))\equiv0\pmod4.

Applying the transfer identity proves the corresponding three congruences for cc for every k1k\ge1.

When k=0k=0, the three statements reduce to

c(8n+4)0(mod4),c(8n+6)0(mod8),c(16n+13)0(mod4),c(8n+4)\equiv0\pmod4, \qquad c(8n+6)\equiv0\pmod8, \qquad c(16n+13)\equiv0\pmod4,

which are already established as Theorems 1.4–1.6 in the primary source. Hence all three conjectured families hold for every k,n0k,n\ge0.

The 2017 theorem concerns pωp_\omega, not cc; Sun and Yao already proved the stated conjecture in arXiv:2604.05403, and the transfer identity gives an alternative stronger route.

Sources: Banerjee–Bringmann–El Bachraoui, arXiv:2604.02239, Conjecture 8.2; Andrews–Passary–Sellers–Yee, The Ramanujan Journal 43 (2017), 347–357, Theorem 1.1, doi:10.1007/s11139-016-9812-2; “On second order mock theta function B(q)B(q),” Electronic Research Archive 30 (2022), 52–65, equations (1.6)–(1.7), doi:10.3934/era.2022003.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel · · edited