Open Questions About posets
$begingroup$
Partially ordered sets (posets) are important objects in combinatorics (with basic connections to extremal combinatorics and to algebraic combinatorics) and also in other areas of mathematics. They are also related to sorting and to other questions in the theory of computing. I am asking for a list of open questions and conjectures about posets.
co.combinatorics computer-science order-theory posets
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Partially ordered sets (posets) are important objects in combinatorics (with basic connections to extremal combinatorics and to algebraic combinatorics) and also in other areas of mathematics. They are also related to sorting and to other questions in the theory of computing. I am asking for a list of open questions and conjectures about posets.
co.combinatorics computer-science order-theory posets
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Partially ordered sets (posets) are important objects in combinatorics (with basic connections to extremal combinatorics and to algebraic combinatorics) and also in other areas of mathematics. They are also related to sorting and to other questions in the theory of computing. I am asking for a list of open questions and conjectures about posets.
co.combinatorics computer-science order-theory posets
$endgroup$
Partially ordered sets (posets) are important objects in combinatorics (with basic connections to extremal combinatorics and to algebraic combinatorics) and also in other areas of mathematics. They are also related to sorting and to other questions in the theory of computing. I am asking for a list of open questions and conjectures about posets.
co.combinatorics computer-science order-theory posets
co.combinatorics computer-science order-theory posets
edited 9 hours ago
community wiki
Gil Kalai
3
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is probably considered one of the most significant open problems about finite posets; see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/3%E2%80%932/3_conjecture.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a problem that I believe has little chance of being resolved, and it's also not so clear to me what the motivation behind the problem is, but it involves some very pretty algebraic combinatorics.
Stanley (in his PhD thesis) defined a poset $P$ to be Gaussian if for every $mgeq 0$ we have
$$ sum_{I in J(Ptimes [m])} q^{#I} = frac{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i+m})}{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i})}$$
where $r$ and $h_1,ldots,h_r$ are constants independent of $m$. (Here $J(P times [m])$ is the distributive lattice of order ideals of the Cartesian product of $P$ and the chain poset $[m]={1,2,ldots,m}$.)
Using results from Standard Monomial Theory, in "Bruhat Lattices, Plane Partition Generating Functions, and Minuscule Representations", Proctor proved that if $P$ is a minuscule poset, then $P$ is Gaussian. Here a minuscule poset is a certain finite poset coming from a minuscule representation of a semisimple Lie algebra; these have been classified- see Proctor's paper for the list. Furthermore, Proctor conjectured that the minuscule posets are the only Gaussian posets.
I think a few things are known (due to some mixture of Proctor and Stanley) about this conjecture: that a Gaussian poset $P$ is a disjoint union of connected Gaussian posets; that a connected Gaussian poset has to be graded; that $r$ has to be the number of elements of $P$; that the $h_i$ have to be the ranks of the elements $pin P$; maybe some more things too. But like I said I think the full conjecture is pretty hopeless.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another classic from algebraic combinatorics.
In his PhD thesis "Ordered Structures and Partitions", Stanley introduces the $(P,omega)$-partition generating function of a labeled poset $(P,omega)$. This is defined to be $K(P,omega) := sum_{sigma in A^r(P,omega)} x^{sigma}$, where $A^r(P,omega)$ is the set of all reverse $(P,omega)$-partitions (i.e., fillings of the poset $P$ with entries in $mathbb{N}$ obeying certain inequalities depending on $omega$ and the order structure of $P$), and where we use the notation $x^f := prod_{i geq 1} x_i^{#f^{-1}(i)}$. Stanley shows that $K(P,omega)$ is always a quasisymmetric function. When $P$ is the poset of a skew Young diagram and $omega$ is a compatible ``Schur labelling'' then $K_{(P,omega)}$ is in fact a symmetric function (namely, a skew Schur funciton). Stanley's conjecture is that $K_{(P,omega)}$ is a symmetric function if and only if $(P,omega)$ is isomorphic to $(P_{lambda/mu},w)$, where $lambda/mu$ is a skew-shape and $w$ is a Schur labelling of $P_{lambda/mu}$. There has been some progress on this conjecture due to Malvenuto; I don't know the exact status of what has been proved.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322598%2fopen-questions-about-posets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is probably considered one of the most significant open problems about finite posets; see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/3%E2%80%932/3_conjecture.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is probably considered one of the most significant open problems about finite posets; see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/3%E2%80%932/3_conjecture.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is probably considered one of the most significant open problems about finite posets; see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/3%E2%80%932/3_conjecture.
$endgroup$
The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is probably considered one of the most significant open problems about finite posets; see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/3%E2%80%932/3_conjecture.
answered 10 hours ago
community wiki
Sam Hopkins
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a problem that I believe has little chance of being resolved, and it's also not so clear to me what the motivation behind the problem is, but it involves some very pretty algebraic combinatorics.
Stanley (in his PhD thesis) defined a poset $P$ to be Gaussian if for every $mgeq 0$ we have
$$ sum_{I in J(Ptimes [m])} q^{#I} = frac{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i+m})}{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i})}$$
where $r$ and $h_1,ldots,h_r$ are constants independent of $m$. (Here $J(P times [m])$ is the distributive lattice of order ideals of the Cartesian product of $P$ and the chain poset $[m]={1,2,ldots,m}$.)
Using results from Standard Monomial Theory, in "Bruhat Lattices, Plane Partition Generating Functions, and Minuscule Representations", Proctor proved that if $P$ is a minuscule poset, then $P$ is Gaussian. Here a minuscule poset is a certain finite poset coming from a minuscule representation of a semisimple Lie algebra; these have been classified- see Proctor's paper for the list. Furthermore, Proctor conjectured that the minuscule posets are the only Gaussian posets.
I think a few things are known (due to some mixture of Proctor and Stanley) about this conjecture: that a Gaussian poset $P$ is a disjoint union of connected Gaussian posets; that a connected Gaussian poset has to be graded; that $r$ has to be the number of elements of $P$; that the $h_i$ have to be the ranks of the elements $pin P$; maybe some more things too. But like I said I think the full conjecture is pretty hopeless.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a problem that I believe has little chance of being resolved, and it's also not so clear to me what the motivation behind the problem is, but it involves some very pretty algebraic combinatorics.
Stanley (in his PhD thesis) defined a poset $P$ to be Gaussian if for every $mgeq 0$ we have
$$ sum_{I in J(Ptimes [m])} q^{#I} = frac{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i+m})}{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i})}$$
where $r$ and $h_1,ldots,h_r$ are constants independent of $m$. (Here $J(P times [m])$ is the distributive lattice of order ideals of the Cartesian product of $P$ and the chain poset $[m]={1,2,ldots,m}$.)
Using results from Standard Monomial Theory, in "Bruhat Lattices, Plane Partition Generating Functions, and Minuscule Representations", Proctor proved that if $P$ is a minuscule poset, then $P$ is Gaussian. Here a minuscule poset is a certain finite poset coming from a minuscule representation of a semisimple Lie algebra; these have been classified- see Proctor's paper for the list. Furthermore, Proctor conjectured that the minuscule posets are the only Gaussian posets.
I think a few things are known (due to some mixture of Proctor and Stanley) about this conjecture: that a Gaussian poset $P$ is a disjoint union of connected Gaussian posets; that a connected Gaussian poset has to be graded; that $r$ has to be the number of elements of $P$; that the $h_i$ have to be the ranks of the elements $pin P$; maybe some more things too. But like I said I think the full conjecture is pretty hopeless.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a problem that I believe has little chance of being resolved, and it's also not so clear to me what the motivation behind the problem is, but it involves some very pretty algebraic combinatorics.
Stanley (in his PhD thesis) defined a poset $P$ to be Gaussian if for every $mgeq 0$ we have
$$ sum_{I in J(Ptimes [m])} q^{#I} = frac{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i+m})}{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i})}$$
where $r$ and $h_1,ldots,h_r$ are constants independent of $m$. (Here $J(P times [m])$ is the distributive lattice of order ideals of the Cartesian product of $P$ and the chain poset $[m]={1,2,ldots,m}$.)
Using results from Standard Monomial Theory, in "Bruhat Lattices, Plane Partition Generating Functions, and Minuscule Representations", Proctor proved that if $P$ is a minuscule poset, then $P$ is Gaussian. Here a minuscule poset is a certain finite poset coming from a minuscule representation of a semisimple Lie algebra; these have been classified- see Proctor's paper for the list. Furthermore, Proctor conjectured that the minuscule posets are the only Gaussian posets.
I think a few things are known (due to some mixture of Proctor and Stanley) about this conjecture: that a Gaussian poset $P$ is a disjoint union of connected Gaussian posets; that a connected Gaussian poset has to be graded; that $r$ has to be the number of elements of $P$; that the $h_i$ have to be the ranks of the elements $pin P$; maybe some more things too. But like I said I think the full conjecture is pretty hopeless.
$endgroup$
Here's a problem that I believe has little chance of being resolved, and it's also not so clear to me what the motivation behind the problem is, but it involves some very pretty algebraic combinatorics.
Stanley (in his PhD thesis) defined a poset $P$ to be Gaussian if for every $mgeq 0$ we have
$$ sum_{I in J(Ptimes [m])} q^{#I} = frac{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i+m})}{prod_{i=1}^{r}(1-q^{h_i})}$$
where $r$ and $h_1,ldots,h_r$ are constants independent of $m$. (Here $J(P times [m])$ is the distributive lattice of order ideals of the Cartesian product of $P$ and the chain poset $[m]={1,2,ldots,m}$.)
Using results from Standard Monomial Theory, in "Bruhat Lattices, Plane Partition Generating Functions, and Minuscule Representations", Proctor proved that if $P$ is a minuscule poset, then $P$ is Gaussian. Here a minuscule poset is a certain finite poset coming from a minuscule representation of a semisimple Lie algebra; these have been classified- see Proctor's paper for the list. Furthermore, Proctor conjectured that the minuscule posets are the only Gaussian posets.
I think a few things are known (due to some mixture of Proctor and Stanley) about this conjecture: that a Gaussian poset $P$ is a disjoint union of connected Gaussian posets; that a connected Gaussian poset has to be graded; that $r$ has to be the number of elements of $P$; that the $h_i$ have to be the ranks of the elements $pin P$; maybe some more things too. But like I said I think the full conjecture is pretty hopeless.
edited 9 hours ago
community wiki
Sam Hopkins
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think that the definition of a Gaussian poset is due to Proctor.
$endgroup$
– Richard Stanley
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RichardStanley: apologies, Richard!
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another classic from algebraic combinatorics.
In his PhD thesis "Ordered Structures and Partitions", Stanley introduces the $(P,omega)$-partition generating function of a labeled poset $(P,omega)$. This is defined to be $K(P,omega) := sum_{sigma in A^r(P,omega)} x^{sigma}$, where $A^r(P,omega)$ is the set of all reverse $(P,omega)$-partitions (i.e., fillings of the poset $P$ with entries in $mathbb{N}$ obeying certain inequalities depending on $omega$ and the order structure of $P$), and where we use the notation $x^f := prod_{i geq 1} x_i^{#f^{-1}(i)}$. Stanley shows that $K(P,omega)$ is always a quasisymmetric function. When $P$ is the poset of a skew Young diagram and $omega$ is a compatible ``Schur labelling'' then $K_{(P,omega)}$ is in fact a symmetric function (namely, a skew Schur funciton). Stanley's conjecture is that $K_{(P,omega)}$ is a symmetric function if and only if $(P,omega)$ is isomorphic to $(P_{lambda/mu},w)$, where $lambda/mu$ is a skew-shape and $w$ is a Schur labelling of $P_{lambda/mu}$. There has been some progress on this conjecture due to Malvenuto; I don't know the exact status of what has been proved.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another classic from algebraic combinatorics.
In his PhD thesis "Ordered Structures and Partitions", Stanley introduces the $(P,omega)$-partition generating function of a labeled poset $(P,omega)$. This is defined to be $K(P,omega) := sum_{sigma in A^r(P,omega)} x^{sigma}$, where $A^r(P,omega)$ is the set of all reverse $(P,omega)$-partitions (i.e., fillings of the poset $P$ with entries in $mathbb{N}$ obeying certain inequalities depending on $omega$ and the order structure of $P$), and where we use the notation $x^f := prod_{i geq 1} x_i^{#f^{-1}(i)}$. Stanley shows that $K(P,omega)$ is always a quasisymmetric function. When $P$ is the poset of a skew Young diagram and $omega$ is a compatible ``Schur labelling'' then $K_{(P,omega)}$ is in fact a symmetric function (namely, a skew Schur funciton). Stanley's conjecture is that $K_{(P,omega)}$ is a symmetric function if and only if $(P,omega)$ is isomorphic to $(P_{lambda/mu},w)$, where $lambda/mu$ is a skew-shape and $w$ is a Schur labelling of $P_{lambda/mu}$. There has been some progress on this conjecture due to Malvenuto; I don't know the exact status of what has been proved.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another classic from algebraic combinatorics.
In his PhD thesis "Ordered Structures and Partitions", Stanley introduces the $(P,omega)$-partition generating function of a labeled poset $(P,omega)$. This is defined to be $K(P,omega) := sum_{sigma in A^r(P,omega)} x^{sigma}$, where $A^r(P,omega)$ is the set of all reverse $(P,omega)$-partitions (i.e., fillings of the poset $P$ with entries in $mathbb{N}$ obeying certain inequalities depending on $omega$ and the order structure of $P$), and where we use the notation $x^f := prod_{i geq 1} x_i^{#f^{-1}(i)}$. Stanley shows that $K(P,omega)$ is always a quasisymmetric function. When $P$ is the poset of a skew Young diagram and $omega$ is a compatible ``Schur labelling'' then $K_{(P,omega)}$ is in fact a symmetric function (namely, a skew Schur funciton). Stanley's conjecture is that $K_{(P,omega)}$ is a symmetric function if and only if $(P,omega)$ is isomorphic to $(P_{lambda/mu},w)$, where $lambda/mu$ is a skew-shape and $w$ is a Schur labelling of $P_{lambda/mu}$. There has been some progress on this conjecture due to Malvenuto; I don't know the exact status of what has been proved.
$endgroup$
Here's another classic from algebraic combinatorics.
In his PhD thesis "Ordered Structures and Partitions", Stanley introduces the $(P,omega)$-partition generating function of a labeled poset $(P,omega)$. This is defined to be $K(P,omega) := sum_{sigma in A^r(P,omega)} x^{sigma}$, where $A^r(P,omega)$ is the set of all reverse $(P,omega)$-partitions (i.e., fillings of the poset $P$ with entries in $mathbb{N}$ obeying certain inequalities depending on $omega$ and the order structure of $P$), and where we use the notation $x^f := prod_{i geq 1} x_i^{#f^{-1}(i)}$. Stanley shows that $K(P,omega)$ is always a quasisymmetric function. When $P$ is the poset of a skew Young diagram and $omega$ is a compatible ``Schur labelling'' then $K_{(P,omega)}$ is in fact a symmetric function (namely, a skew Schur funciton). Stanley's conjecture is that $K_{(P,omega)}$ is a symmetric function if and only if $(P,omega)$ is isomorphic to $(P_{lambda/mu},w)$, where $lambda/mu$ is a skew-shape and $w$ is a Schur labelling of $P_{lambda/mu}$. There has been some progress on this conjecture due to Malvenuto; I don't know the exact status of what has been proved.
answered 9 hours ago
community wiki
Sam Hopkins
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322598%2fopen-questions-about-posets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Union closed sets conjecture of Frankl. Gerhard "Master Of The Obvious, Apparently" Paseman, 2019.02.06.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm hesitant to vote to close since it's well outside my area, but I do think this is probably "too broad."
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I have voted to close on the grounds the question is too broad. It seems any open problem related to sorting, searching, chains, antichains, cardinals, ordinals, surreal numbers, least fixed points, ... might be relevant.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
9 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
To be clear: The questions need to be questions about posets. For example, Frankl's union closed set conjecture is a great problem but it is outside the scope of the question as I see it. Gil, "if in doubt, make it a comment rather than an answer" Kalai.
$endgroup$
– Gil Kalai
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Here is the list from Ivan Rival that Gil Kalai mentioned: link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00334860.pdf. The last problem is interesting: I think it is saying "determine the Dedekind numbers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_number)"; but it's too much to hope for an exact formula, right?
$endgroup$
– Sam Hopkins
8 hours ago