Conjectured arithmetic congruences for the 9-color overpartition function

About 13 years old · traced to

Let p‾9(n)\overline{p}_{9}(n) denote the 99-color overpartition function, and let n≥0n\ge0 and α≥1\alpha\ge1. Arithmetic congruence conjecture. For all n≥0n\ge0 and α≥1\alpha\ge1,

p‾9(2α(8n+7))≡0(mod16),p‾9(36n+33)≡0(mod128).\begin{aligned} \overline{p}_{9}\bigl(2^{\alpha}(8n+7)\bigr)&\equiv0\pmod{16},\\ \overline{p}_{9}(36n+33)&\equiv0\pmod{128}. \end{aligned}

These are presented as conjectured arithmetic properties based on the paper's computations; no proof or resolution is supplied.

References

Primary source

H. S. Sumanth Bharadwaj, N. Sujatha and S. Chandankumar, “Arithmetic properties of the 2-color overpartition function p_(n)”, arXiv:2607.16608 (2026).

Additional references

7 papers in this index state this conjecture (2013–2026). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:2412.19998, arXiv:2307.04687, arXiv:2307.02579, arXiv:2101.04058, arXiv:1801.06990, arXiv:1304.0684.

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A reader-submitted complete proof attempt claims both conjectures are true, but no independent verification has appeared.

The July 2026 preprint by H. S. Sumanth Bharadwaj, N. Sujatha, and S. Chandankumar records the congruences for p‾9(2α(8n+7))\overline{p}_{9}(2^{\alpha}(8n+7)) modulo 1616 and p‾9(36n+33)\overline{p}_{9}(36n+33) modulo 128128 as conjectures based on computation, without supplying proofs.

Posted attempt

A complete proof attempt claims both congruences, strengthens the first to p‾ℓ(2α(8n+7))≡0(mod16)\overline{p}_{\ell}(2^{\alpha}(8n+7))\equiv0\pmod{16} for every ℓ≡1(mod8)\ell\equiv1\pmod8, and sketches a modular-form/Sturm-bound verification of the second. The attempt has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): Both congruences have an unverified complete-proof claim, but neither is mathematically settled.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Both congruences hold. In fact, the first extends to every parameter ℓ≡1(mod8)\ell\equiv1\pmod8 and every exponent α≥0\alpha\ge0, strengthening both restrictions in the conjecture:

p‾ℓ(2α(8n+7))≡0(mod16)(ℓ≡1 ⁣ ⁣(mod8), α,n≥0),\boxed{\overline p_\ell(2^\alpha(8n+7)) \equiv0\pmod{16} \quad (\ell\equiv1\!\!\pmod8,\ \alpha,n\ge0),}

and

p‾9(36n+33)≡0(mod128)(n≥0).\boxed{\overline p_9(36n+33)\equiv0\pmod{128} \quad(n\ge0).}

For the first identity, put

U(q)=∑j≥1(−1)jqj2,V(q)=U(qℓ).U(q)=\sum_{j\ge1}(-1)^jq^{j^2}, \qquad V(q)=U(q^\ell).

The theta identity gives

∑N≥0p‾ℓ(N)qN=1(1+2U)(1+2V)\sum_{N\ge0}\overline p_\ell(N)q^N = \frac1{(1+2U)(1+2V)}

and consequently, modulo 1616,

1−2(U+V)+4(U2+UV+V2)−8(U3+U2V+UV2+V3).(1)1-2(U+V) +4(U^2+UV+V^2) -8(U^3+U^2V+UV^2+V^3). \tag{1}

Its terms count representations by at most three positive weighted squares, with weights 1,ℓ≡1(mod8)1,\ell\equiv1\pmod8.

Write M=8n+7M=8n+7. If α=2a\alpha=2a, any representation of 4aM4^aM by at most three weighted squares has every root divisible by 2a2^a. Dividing yields a representation of M≡7(mod8)M\equiv7\pmod8 by at most three residues from {0,1,4}\{0,1,4\}, which is impossible.

If α=2a+1\alpha=2a+1, dividing roots by 2a2^a leaves 2M≡6(mod8)2M\equiv6\pmod8, which is neither a weighted square nor a sum of two weighted squares. For each cubic term in (1), swap two roots of the same weight. A fixed point would satisfy

2a0x2+b0z2=2M,a0,b0∈{1,ℓ}.2a_0x^2+b_0z^2=2M, \qquad a_0,b_0\in\{1,\ell\}.

Necessarily z=2wz=2w and xx is odd, so

M=a0x2+2b0w2≡1 or 3(mod8),M=a_0x^2+2b_0w^2\equiv1\text{ or }3\pmod8,

contradicting M≡7(mod8)M\equiv7\pmod8. Therefore every cubic coefficient is even, and its factor 88 makes it vanish modulo 1616. This proves the stronger all-ℓ\ell, all-α\alpha theorem.

For the second congruence, write fj=(qj;qj)∞f_j=(q^j;q^j)_\infty. The source's exact three-dissection gives

B(q)=∑r≥0p‾9(3r)qr=f24f34f18f62.B(q) = \sum_{r\ge0}\overline p_9(3r)q^r = \frac{f_2^4f_3^4}{f_1^8f_6^2}.

The target corresponds to exponents 12n+1112n+11 of BB. Form the eta quotient

E(τ)=η(2τ)4η(3τ)4η(12τ)72η(τ)8η(6τ)2=q36f1272B(q).E(\tau) = \frac{\eta(2\tau)^4\eta(3\tau)^4\eta(12\tau)^{72}} {\eta(\tau)^8\eta(6\tau)^2} = q^{36}f_{12}^{72}B(q).

At level 2424, its eta exponent vector is

(r1,r2,r3,r6,r12)=(−8,4,4,−2,72).(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_6,r_{12})=(-8,4,4,-2,72).

The weighted eta sums are

∑rδ=70,∑δrδ=864,∑(24/δ)rδ=24.\sum r_\delta=70,\qquad \sum\delta r_\delta=864,\qquad \sum(24/\delta)r_\delta=24.

At cusp denominators 1,2,3,4,6,8,12,241,2,3,4,6,8,12,24, the orders are respectively

1, 6, 19, 12, 18, 12, 36, 36.1,\ 6,\ 19,\ 12,\ 18,\ 12,\ 36,\ 36.

Hence EE is holomorphic of weight 3535, level 2424, and character χ−4\chi_{-4}.

Project onto residue 11(mod12)11\pmod{12} using all four Dirichlet characters modulo 1212:

S11=∑ψ mod 12ψ(11)(E⊗ψ)=4∑r≡11 (12)[qr]E qr.S_{11} = \sum_{\psi\bmod12}\psi(11)(E\otimes\psi) = 4\sum_{r\equiv11\ (12)}[q^r]E\,q^r.

Primitive twisting and the standard oldform correction for imprimitive characters show

S11∈M35(Γ0(3456),χ−4).S_{11}\in M_{35}(\Gamma_0(3456),\chi_{-4}).

The subgroup index is 69126912, giving the complete Sturm bound

B=35⋅691212=20160.B=\frac{35\cdot6912}{12}=20160.

The required exact finite certificate is reproducible entirely with integer arithmetic:

a(0)=1,a(r)=2∑j2≤r(−1)j+1a(r−j2)(mod128),a(0)=1,\qquad a(r)= 2\sum_{j^2\le r}(-1)^{j+1}a(r-j^2) \pmod{128},

and

p‾9(r)=∑j=0⌊r/9⌋a(r−9j)a(j)(mod128).\overline p_9(r) = \sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor r/9\rfloor} a(r-9j)a(j) \pmod{128}.

Computing through

3(B−36)=603723(B-36)=60372

gives

p‾9(36j+33)≡0(mod128)(0≤j≤1676).\overline p_9(36j+33)\equiv0\pmod{128} \qquad(0\le j\le1676).

These 16771677 exact coefficients cover the full Sturm bound after the q36q^{36} shift and multiplication by the unit f1272f_{12}^{72}. Therefore

S11≡0(mod512)S_{11}\equiv0\pmod{512}

identically by Sturm's theorem. Dividing its coefficients by 44 and removing the residue-preserving unit proves the desired modulo-128128 congruence for every nn.

Source: H. S. Sumanth Bharadwaj, N. Sujatha and S. Chandankumar, arXiv:2607.16608, equation (3.3) and Conjecture 3, equations (5.7)–(5.8).