Abstract
In a recent paper, Bacher and de la Harpe study the conjugacy growth series of finitary permutation groups. In the course of studying the coefficients of a series related to the finitary alternating group, they introduce generalized partition functions \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\). The group theory motivates the study of the asymptotics for these functions. Moreover, Bacher and de la Harpe also conjecture over 200 congruences for these functions which are analogous to the Ramanujan congruences for the unrestricted partition function p(n). We obtain asymptotic formulas for all of the \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\) and prove their conjectured congruences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Background
In [2], Bacher and de la Harpe study infinite permutation groups that are locally finite. If X is a nonempty set, given a permutation g of X, the support of g is \(\sup (g)=\{x\in X{:}\,g(x)\ne x\}\). The finitary symmetric group of X, \({\text {Sym}}(X)\), is the group of permutations with finite support. Bacher and de la Harpe investigate the number theoretic properties of word lengths for such groups with respect to various generating sets of transpositions.
Given a group G generated by a set S, for \(g\in G\), the word length \(\ell _{G,S}(g)\) is the smallest non-negative integer n such that \(g=s_1s_2\cdots s_n\) where \(s_1,s_2,\ldots ,s_n\in S\cup S^{-1}\). The smallest integer n such that there exists h in the conjugacy class of g where \(\ell _{G,S}(h)=n\) is called the conjugacy length \(\kappa _{G,S}(g)\). Let \(\gamma _{G,S}(n)\in \mathbb {N}\cup \{0\}\cup \{\infty \}\) denote the number of conjugacy classes in G made up of elements g where \(\kappa _{G,S}(g)=n\) for \(n\in \mathbb {N}\).
If the pair (G, S) is such that \(\gamma _{G,S}(n)\) is finite for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), then Bacher and de la Harpe define the conjugacy growth series as
They also define the exponential rate of conjugacy growth to be
In the cases we study, the values of \(H_{G,S}^{\text {conj}}\) are 0; thus, we define the modified exponential rate of conjugacy growth to be
Extending classical facts about finite symmetric groups, a natural bijection can be seen between the conjugacy classes of \({\text {Sym}}(X)\) and sets of integer partitions. Motivated by their study of subgroups of \({\text {Sym}}(X)\), Bacher and de la Harpe define generalized partition functions. Given a vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^{k}\), the corresponding generalized partition function \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\) is defined as the coefficients of the power series
The function \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\) can be interpreted as multi-partition numbers with constraints on the parts.
The group theory in [2] motivates the study of the asymptotics of these power series, and the classical work of Ramanujan motivates the study of their congruences. Here, we briefly recall the classical theory of the partition function p(n).
A partition of a positive integer n is a non-increasing sequence \(\lambda :=(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\ldots )\) such that \(\sum _{j\,\ge \,1}\lambda _j=n\). The partition function p(n) counts the number of partitions of n. This function has been an important object of study both for its uses in number theory and combinatorics and in its own right. The partition function has generating function
This is the case of the generalized partition function with the vector \(\mathbf e =(1)\). By Proposition 1 in [2], this series (1.4) corresponds to \(C_{{\text {Sym}}(\mathbb {N}),S}(q)\) where \(S\subset {\text {Sym}}(\mathbb {N})\) is a generating set such that \(S_{\mathbb {N}}^{\text {Cox}}\subset S\subset T_{\mathbb {N}}\), where
is such that \(({\text {Sym}}(\mathbb {N}), S_{\mathbb {N}}^{\text {Cox}})\) is a Coxeter system, and
is the conjugacy class of all transpositions in \({\text {Sym}}(\mathbb {N})\). Therefore, the famous Hardy-Ramanujan asymptotic formula
as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) implies that the coefficients of the conjugacy growth series defined by the set S above, \(\gamma _{{\text {Sym}}(\mathbb {N}),S}(n)\), approach the right-hand side of (1.5) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). In particular, we then have that the modified exponential rate of conjugacy growth is given by
Using Ingham’s Tauberian Theorem [4, 5], we derive an asymptotic formula for the generalized partition function \(p(n)_\mathbf e \) for any vector \(\mathbf e \) with nonnegative integer entries. Given \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\), let \(d:=\gcd \{m{:}\,\,e_m\ne 0\}\). Note that \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }=0\) for all \(n\ge 0\) such that \(d\not \mid n\). Define quantities \(\beta \), \(\gamma \), and \(\delta \) by
and
In terms of these constants, we obtain the following asymptotics.
Theorem 1.1
Assume the notation above. Given a nonzero vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\) where \(e_m\ge 0\) for all m, as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
where
and
Remark
Using the circle method [1], one can obtain stronger forms of Theorem 1.1 with explicit error terms.
Example
Let \(\mathbf e =(1)\). Then \(d=1\), \(\gamma =1\), and \(\delta =1\), so \(\lambda =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\) and \(A=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\). Then as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
and our asymptotic coincides with (1.5).
Example
Let \(\mathbf e =(2)\). Then \(d=1\), \(\gamma =2\), and \(\delta =2\), so \(\lambda =\frac{1}{2\pi }\) and \(A=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\). Then as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
Similarly, for \(\mathbf e =(0,1)\), as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
By Proposition 11 in [2], it is known that
where \(S'\subset {\text {Alt}}(\mathbb {N})\) is a generating set such that \(S_{\mathbb {N}}^{A}\subset S'\subset T_{\mathbb {N}}^{A}\). Here we have that
and
Then the coefficients of this series satisfy the asymptotic
as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Therefore, we have that
In addition to finding generalized asymptotic formulas, we study generalized forms of Ramanujan’s congruences including those conjectured by Bacher and de la Harpe in [2]. The Ramanujan congruences are [3]:
Using the definition of generalized partition numbers, Bacher and de la Harpe define a generalized Ramanujan congruence as:
-
(i)
a nonzero integer vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\),
-
(ii)
an arithmetic progression \((An+B)_{n\ge 0}\) with \(A\ge 2\) and \(1\le B\le A-1\), and
-
(iii)
a prime power \(\ell ^f\) with \(\ell \) prime and \(f\ge 1\)
such that
for all \(n\ge 0\).
Remark
In Theorem 1.1 the entries of the vector \(\mathbf e \) must be nonnegative, whereas here the entries of the vector \(\mathbf e \) are allowed to take on negative values.
Bacher and de la Harpe conjecture 284 generalized Ramanujan congruences for \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\). They observe how the coefficients of conjugacy growth series satisfy congruence relations similar to the classic Ramanujan congruences for the partition function, and use these congruences to analyze the finitary alternating group.
There are two different types of congruences of the form \(p(\ell n+B)_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \) that appear in [2]. In the first type, the value of B is uniquely determined by the vector \(\mathbf e \). The second type consists of sets of congruences of the form \(p(\ell n+B)_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \) with varying values of B using the same values of \(\ell \) and \(\mathbf e \). One example of the first type is the conjectured congruence
for all \(n\ge 0\). An example of a set of the second type is the pair of conjectured congruences
for all \(n\ge 0\).
We offer an algorithm to determine the number of values of \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\) that must be computed in order to guarantee a congruence. Given a vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\) and a prime \(\ell \ge 5\), we construct a vector of nonnegative integers \(\mathbf c _\mathbf{e }:=(c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_k)\). Let \(\mathbf e ':=\mathbf e -\ell \mathbf c _\mathbf{e }\). We define
and
where \(\frac{1}{24}\) is taken as the multiplicative inverse of 24 \(\pmod \ell \). We then define
and
where \(N_0:={\text {lcm}}\{m{:}\;e_m'\ne 0\}\). The vector \(\mathbf e '\) that we construct satisfies the following conditions:
-
(i)
\(e_m'\le 0\) for all m,
-
(ii)
\(\omega \in \mathbb {Z}\),
-
(iii)
\(w\in \mathbb {Z}\), and
-
(iv)
\(\sum \nolimits _{m\,=\,1}^{k}\frac{N}{m}e_m'\equiv 0\!\pmod {24}\).
We then define
where the product runs over all prime divisors of N.
Using this notation, we arrive at the following theorem:
Theorem 1.2
Assume the notation above. Let \(\ell \ge 5\) be prime. Then \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \) for all n if and only if \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \) for all \(0\le n\le K_\mathbf{e }\).
The second type of congruence conjectured by [2] relies on much of the same notation and machinery, but requires considering the Legendre symbol with respect to the prime \(\ell \). We define two sets as follows:
and
We then define
where the product runs over all prime divisors of \(N\ell ^2\).
Theorem 1.3
Assume the notation above. Let \(\ell \ge 2\) be prime where if \(\ell =2\) or 3, \(\alpha \equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\). Then \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all n and all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\) (resp. \(S_{-}\)) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le K_\mathbf{e }'\) and all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\) (resp. \(S_{-}\)).
Using Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, we arrive at the following corollary:
Corollary 1.4
All of the conjectured congruences in [2] are true.
Remark
Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 can be generalized to congruences modulo prime powers \(\ell ^f\) in a straightforward way.
The results in this paper are obtained by making use of the theory of modular forms. In Sect. 2.1 of this paper, we cover preliminaries on modular forms. Section 2.2 focuses on Ingham’s Tauberian Theorem, which we will use to prove Theorem 1.1. Section 2.3 covers Sturm’s Theorem and additional properties used to prove Theorems 1.2 and 1.3. In Sect. 3 we prove Theorem 1.1 and provide an example of an asymptotic. Following this, in Sect. 4, we give an algorithm used to construct a vector \(\mathbf c _e\) that we use in the proof of Theorem 1.2. Section 5 of the paper is dedicated to the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, and Sect. 6 looks at an example of each type of congruence. The appendix lists the congruences conjectured by Bacher and de la Harpe in [2], which we prove using Theorems 1.2 and 1.3.
2 Preliminaries on modular forms
2.1 Modularity
Proving Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 requires the use of modular forms and their properties. Here we state standard properties of modular forms that can be found in many texts such as [1] and [6]. We use the following definition of modular forms from [1, p. 114]:
Definition 2.1
A function f is said to be an entire modular form of weight k on a subgroup \(\Gamma \subseteq {\text {SL}}_{2}(\mathbb {Z})\) if it satisfies the following conditions:
-
(i)
f is analytic in the upper-half \(\mathbb {H}\) of the complex plane,
-
(ii)
f satisfies the equation
$$\begin{aligned} f\left( \frac{az+b}{cz+d}\right) =(cz+d)^kf(z) \end{aligned}$$whenever \(\begin{pmatrix} a&{} \quad b\\ c&{} \quad d \end{pmatrix}\in \Gamma \) and \(z\in \mathbb {H}\), and
-
(iii)
the Fourier expansion of f has the form
$$\begin{aligned} f(z)= \sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty } c(n)e^{2\pi i n z} \end{aligned}$$at the cusp \(i\infty \), and f has analogous Fourier expansions at all other cusps.
Note that a cusp of \(\Gamma \) is an equivalence class in \(\mathbb {P}^1(\mathbb {Q})=\mathbb {Q}\cup {\infty }\) under the action of \(\Gamma \) [6, p. 2].
We use Dedekind’s eta-function, a weight 1/2 modular form defined as the infinite product
where \(q:=e^{2\pi iz}\) and \(z\in \mathbb {H}\). The eta-function has the following transformation property as described in [6, p. 17]:
An eta-quotient is a function f(z) of the form
where \(N\ge 1\) and each \(r_{\delta }\) is an integer. If each \(r_{\delta }\ge 0\), then f(z) is known as an eta-product. If N is a positive integer, then we define \(\Gamma _0(N)\) as the congruence subgroup
We will need the following fact about congruence subgroups from [6, p. 2]:
Proposition 2.2
If N is a positive integer, then
where the products are over the prime divisors of N.
We recall Theorem 1.64 from [6, p. 18] regarding the modularity of eta-quotients:
Theorem 2.3
If \(f(z)=\prod _{\delta \mid N}\eta (\delta z)^{r_{\delta }}\) has integer weight \(k=\frac{1}{2}\sum _{\delta \mid N}r_{\delta }\), with the additional properties that
and
then f(z) satisfies
for every \(\begin{pmatrix} a&{} \quad b\\ c&{} \quad d \end{pmatrix}\in \Gamma _0(N)\) where the character \(\chi \) is defined by \(\chi (d):=\left( \frac{(-1)^ks}{d}\right) \), where \(s:=\prod _{\delta \mid N}\delta ^{r_\delta }\).
Any modular form that is holomorphic at all cusps of \(\Gamma _0(N)\) and satisfies (2.2) is said to have Nebentypus character \(\chi \), and the space of such forms is denoted \(M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\). In particular, if k is a positive integer and f(z) is holomorphic at all of the cusps of \(\Gamma _0(N)\), then \(f(z)\in M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\). Furthermore, all modular forms can be identified by their Fourier expansion.
If f(z) is a modular form, then we can act on it with Hecke operators. If \(f(z)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\in M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\), then the action of the Hecke operator \(T_{p,k,\chi }\) on f(z) is defined by
where \(a(n/p)=0\) if \(p\not \mid n\). We recall the following result from [6, p. 21]:
Proposition 2.4
Suppose that
If \(m\ge 2\), then \(f(z)\mid T_{m,k,\chi }\in M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\).
We now recall the notion of a “twist” of a modular form. Suppose that \(f(z)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\in M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\). If \(\psi \) is a Dirichlet character (mod m), then the \(\psi \)-twist of f(z) is defined by
Recall that \(\psi (n)=0\) if \(\gcd (n,m)\ne 1\). We will use a property of “twists” from [6, p. 23]:
Proposition 2.5
Suppose that \(f(z)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\in M_k(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\). If \(\psi \) is a Dirichlet character with modulus m, then
Remark
If \(\psi \) is the Legendre symbol, then \(\psi ^2\) is the trivial character so \(\chi \psi ^2=\chi \) and \(M_k(\Gamma _0(Nm^2),\chi \psi ^2)= M_k(\Gamma _0(Nm^2),\chi )\).
2.2 Ingham’s Tauberian theorem
We now look at the tool used to derive the asymptotic formula for the generalized partition function \(p(n)_\mathbf e \) for any vector \(\mathbf e \). Recall Ingham’s Tauberian Theorem from [4, 5]:
Theorem 2.6
Let \(f(q)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\) be a power series with weakly increasing coefficients and radius of convergence equal to 1. If there are constants \(A>0\), \(\lambda ,\alpha \in \mathbb {R}\) such that
as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), then as \(n \rightarrow \infty \), we have
2.3 Sturm’s theorem
We now introduce the machinery used to determine the number of coefficients needed to guarantee a generalized Ramanujan congruence. Suppose that
is a formal power series with coefficients in \(\mathcal {O}_K\), the ring of integers of a number field K. If \(\mathfrak {m}\subset \mathcal {O}_K\) is an ideal, then we define \({\text {ord}}_{\mathfrak {m}}(f)\), the order of f modulo \(\mathfrak {m}\), by
If \(a(n)\in \mathfrak {m}\) for all n, then we let \({\text {ord}}_{\mathfrak {m}}(f):=+\infty \).
Using this notation, we recall a theorem of Sturm’s from [6, p. 40]:
Theorem 2.7
Let \(f(z)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\in M_{\frac{k}{2}}(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\) be a modular form where k is a positive integer. Furthermore, suppose that its coefficients are in \(\mathcal {O}_K\), the ring of integers of a number field K. If \(\mathfrak {m}\subset \mathcal {O}_K\) is an ideal for which
then \({\text {ord}}_{\mathfrak {m}}(f)=+\infty \).
If \(\mathcal {O}_K=\mathbb {Z}\) and \(\mathfrak {m}=\langle \ell \rangle \), then \({\text {ord}}_{\ell }(f)=\min \{n{:}\,\,\ell \not \mid a(n)\}\) and if \(\ell \mid a(n)\) for all n, then \({\text {ord}}_{\ell }(f):=+\infty \). Therefore Theorem 2.7 can be reformulated as follows:
Corollary 2.8
Let \(f(z)=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }a(n)q^n\in M_{\frac{k}{2}}(\Gamma _0(N),\chi ) \cap \mathbb {Z}[[q]]\) be a modular form where k is a positive integer. If \(a(n)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le \frac{k}{24}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N)]\), then \(a(n)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
3 An asymptotic formula for \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\)
Given \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\), let \(d=\gcd \{m{:}\;e_m\ne 0\}\). Define \(\beta \), \(\gamma \), and \(\delta \) by (1.6), (1.7), and (1.8), respectively. Define \(\mathbf e ':=(e_1',e_2',\ldots ,e_k')\) by \(e'_{m}=e_{dm}\).
Lemma 3.1
Assume the notation above. Then \(p(dn)_\mathbf{e }=p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
Proof
This follows from a simple change of variables \(q\rightarrow q^d\). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.1
By Lemma 3.1, since \(p(dn)_\mathbf{e }=p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) for all \(n\ge 0\), it suffices to find an asymptotic for \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\). First note that \(\gcd \{m{:}\;e_m'\ne 0\}=1\) by definition of \(\mathbf e '\). Now let
Then we have
By (2.1), it follows that
Therefore, we have that
As \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), it follows that
Then as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+\), we obtain
where \(\lambda \) and A are defined in the statement of Theorem 1.1. Note that \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) is supported for all \(n\ge \max \{m{:}\;e_m'\ne 0\}\) since \(\gcd \{m{:}\;e_m'\ne 0\}=1\), thus for all \(n\ge {\text {lcm}}\{m{:}\;e_m'\ne 0\}\), \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) is positive. Additionally, since each \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) is a product of positive powers of the generating function for p(n) with allowed changes of variable and p(n) is increasing, it follows that the values of \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) are weakly increasing on progressions that support the nonvanishing coefficients. Since \(p(n)_\mathbf{e '}\) is eventually nonvanishing for all n, it is therefore eventually weakly increasing.
Furthermore, f(q) has radius of convergence 1. Every modular form maps the upper half plane \(\mathbb {H}\) to the unit disk and thus has radius of convergence at least 1. Since f(q) has a pole at \(q=1\), the radius of convergence of f(q) must equal 1. By Theorem 2.6, it then follows that as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
By Lemma 3.1, as \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we have that
We thus obtain an asymptotic for \(p(dn)_\mathbf{e }\). \(\square \)
Example
Let \(\mathbf e :=(1,0,1)\). Then \(d=1\), \(\gamma =2\), and \(\delta =\frac{4}{3}\), so \(A=\frac{2\pi ^2}{9}\) and \(\lambda =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\pi }\). Then by Theorem 1.1, we have that
where
In Table 1, we display the first 10,000 values of \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }\) and \(P(n)_\mathbf{e }\) (computed in Mathematica). As \(n\rightarrow \infty \), we observe that the ratio \(p(n)_\mathbf{e }/P(n)_\mathbf{e }\) approaches 1.
4 An algorithm for the vector \(\mathbf c _e\)
We now establish an algorithm used to confirm or refute alleged generalized Ramanujan congruences. Define \(\alpha \) by (1.10). Given a prime \(\ell \ge 2\) where if \(\ell =2\) or 3, \(\alpha \equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \), and a vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\) with \(-\ell +1\le e_m\le 0\), we must construct a vector \(\mathbf c _e\) so that \(\mathbf e '=\mathbf e -\ell \mathbf c _e\) satisfies the following conditions:
-
(i)
\(e_m'\le 0\) for all m,
-
(ii)
\(\omega \in \mathbb {Z}\),
-
(iii)
\(w\in \mathbb {Z}\), and
-
(iv)
\(\sum \nolimits _{m=1}^{k}\frac{N}{m}e_m'\equiv 0\!\pmod {24}\)
where w, \(\omega \), and N are defined by (1.12), (1.13), and (1.14), respectively.
Proposition 4.1
Assume the notation above. Given a prime \(\ell \ge 2\) where if \(\ell =2\) or 3, \(\alpha \equiv 0\!\!\pmod \ell \), and a vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\) with \(-\ell +1\le e_m\le 0\), it is possible to construct a vector \(\mathbf c _e\) such that the above conditions are satisfied.
Proof
First define \(\alpha \) by (1.10). Then define
where in the first case, \(\ell ^{-1}\) is taken as the multiplicative inverse of \(\ell \!\!\pmod {24}\), and in the second case, since \(\ell \mid \alpha \), \(\ell ^{-1}=\frac{1}{\ell }\).
Define \(c_m'=0\) if \(e_m=0\). We now define the vector \(\mathbf c _e'\) recursively beginning with \(c_k'\) as follows for all \(e_m\ne 0\):
Note that \(c_1'=\beta _\mathbf{e }-\sum _{n\,=\,2}^{k}nc_n'\), so \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}mc_m'=\beta _\mathbf{e }\) and
so condition (ii) is satisfied. If \(\frac{1}{2}\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}(e_m-\ell c_m')\in \mathbb {Z}\), then define \(\mathbf c _e=\mathbf c _e'\).
Suppose \(\frac{1}{2}\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}(e_m-\ell c_m')\not \in \mathbb {Z}\). Then choose the smallest j such that j is even and \(c_j'>0\). Define \(c_j:=c_j'-1\) and \(c_1:=c_1'+j\). For all other m, let \(c_m:=c_m'\). Let \(\mathbf c _e=(c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_k)\) and define \(\mathbf e '=\mathbf e -\ell \mathbf c _e\). Then \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}mc_m=\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}mc_m'\) and \(e_m'\le 0\) for all m, so conditions (i)–(ii) hold. Since \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}c_m=\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}c_m'-1+j\) and \(-1+j\) is odd, the parity of the sum \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}e_m'=\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}e_m-\ell \sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}c_m\) changes and \(w=-\frac{1}{2}\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}(e_m-\ell c_m')\in \mathbb {Z}\).
Suppose \(c_j'=0\) for all j even. Then choose the smallest \(j\ne 1\) such that j is odd and \(c_j>0\). Define \(c_j=c_j'-1\), \(c_{j-1}=c_{j-1}'+1\), and \(c_1=c_1'+1\). For all other m, let \(c_m=c_m'\). Let \(\mathbf c _e=(c_1,c_2,\ldots ,c_k)\) and define \(\mathbf e '=\mathbf e -\ell \mathbf c _e\). Then, as before, \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}mc_m=\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}mc_m'\) and \(e_m'\le 0\) for all m, so conditions (i)–(ii) hold. Since \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}c_m=\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}c_m'+1\), the parity of the sum \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}e_m'\) changes and \(w\in \mathbb {Z}\).
Note that by the definition of N in (1.14), \(\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}\frac{N}{m}e_m'\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {24}\), so condition (iv) holds. Thus the vector \(\mathbf e '\) satisfies conditions (i)–(iv) as desired. \(\square \)
5 Generalized Ramanujan congruences
We now use the algorithm in Proposition 4.1 to prove Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 and establish a method of confirming or refuting alleged generalized Ramanujan congruences that fall into two different types. First note the following fact from [2]:
Proposition 5.1
Consider a vector \(\mathbf e :=(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\in \mathbb {Z}^k\), an arithmetic progression \((An+B)_{n\ge 0}\) with \(A\ge 2\) and \(1\le B\le A-1\), a prime \(\ell \), and another vector \(\mathbf e '=(e_1',e_2',\ldots ,e_k')\in \mathbb {Z}^k\). Assume that \(e_m'\equiv e_m\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(m\ge 0\). Then \(p(An+B)_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(p(An+B)_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
5.1 Proof of Theorem 1.2
By Proposition 5.1, it suffices to consider vectors \(\mathbf e =(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\) with \(-\ell +1\le e_m\le 0\) for all m. Define \(\mathbf e '=\mathbf e -\ell \mathbf c _e\) by Proposition 4.1. Then since \(e'_m\equiv e_m\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(m\ge 0\), by Proposition 5.1, it is enough to show that \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\). Note that
where \(\omega \) is defined by (1.13). Note that \(\omega \equiv \delta _{\ell }\!\!\pmod {\ell }\).
Now, note that g(z) has weight \(w=-\frac{1}{2}\sum _{m\,=\,1}^{k}e_m'\). By condition (iii), w must be an integer. Furthermore, based on our choices of \(\mathbf c _e\) and N, \(\mathbf e '\) satisfies conditions (ii) and (iv), which are the necessary conditions of Theorem 2.3. Since g(z) is additionally holomorphic at all the cusps of \(\Gamma _0(N)\), g(z) is a modular form in the space \(M_w(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\). We can therefore write its Fourier expansion
Then \(p(\ell n+\omega )_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(b(\ell n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\). Note that \(p(\ell n+\omega )_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\) since \(\omega \equiv \delta _{\ell }\pmod {\ell }\). Therefore, we obtain that \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e '}\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\) if and only if \(b(\ell n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
We now act on g(z) with the Hecke operator \(T_{\ell ,w,\chi }\) and define
By Proposition 2.4, the function f(z) is a modular form in the space \(M_w(\Gamma _0(N),\chi )\), so we can write its Fourier series expansion as
Then we observe that \(a(n)=b(\ell n)+\chi (\ell )\ell ^{w-1}b(n/\ell )\), so \(a(n)\equiv b(\ell n)\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\). Thus we have that \(b(\ell n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(a(n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
Since f(z) has weight w and is a level N modular form, by Theorem 2.7, \(a(n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(a(n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le \frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N)]\). Then we have that \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(\frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\le n\le \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }+\frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N)]\). Therefore, we obtain that \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }+\frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N)]\). By Proposition 2.2, we have that
so by our definition of \(K_\mathbf{e }\) in (1.15), we obtain \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\delta _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le K_\mathbf{e }. \square \)
5.2 Proof of Theorem 1.3
As in the proof of Theorem 1.2, by Proposition 5.1, it suffices to consider vectors \(\mathbf e =(e_1,e_2,\ldots ,e_k)\) with \(-\ell +1\le e_m\le 0\) for all m. Define \(\mathbf e '\) using Proposition 4.1. Again, let \(g(z)=\prod _{m\mid N}\eta (mz)^{-e'_m}=\sum _{n\,=\,0}^{\infty }b(n)q^n\). Then, as in the previous proof, we have that \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\) if and only if \(b(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell }-\omega )\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\), which holds if and only if \(b(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell }-\delta _{\ell })\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\).
Define the following Dirichlet characters:
and
Note that \(\psi _0^2(n)\) and \(\psi _1^2(n)\) both yield the trivial character. Now define
and
By Proposition 2.5, we have that G(z) and \(G_{\psi _1}(z)\) are both modular forms; in particular, since \(\psi _0^2\) and \(\psi _1^2\) are both trivial, we have that \(G(z), G_{\psi _1}(z)\in M_w(\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2),\chi )\). Now define
and
Then we observe that \(H_{\pm }(z)\in M_w(\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2),\chi )\). Recalling our definitions of the sets \(S_{\pm }\) in (1.16) and (1.17), note that
Now, we can write the Fourier expansion of \(H_{\pm }(z)\) as
Since \(a_{+}(n)\) is only supported where \(n\equiv \gamma _{\ell }+\delta _{\ell }\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) where \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\), we have that \(b(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell }-\delta _{\ell })\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\) if and only if \(a_{+}(n)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\). By Theorem 2.7, \(a_{+}(n)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) if and only if \(a_{+}(n)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le \frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2)]\). As \(a_{+}(n)\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le \frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2)]\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(\frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\le n\le \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }+\frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2)]\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\), we obtain that \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(\frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }\le n\le \frac{\omega -\delta _{\ell }}{\ell }+\frac{w}{12}[\Gamma _0(1){:}\Gamma _0(N\ell ^2)]\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\).
By our definition of \(K_\mathbf{e }'\) in (1.18), we have that \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(n\ge 0\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\) if and only if \(p(\ell n+\gamma _{\ell })_\mathbf{e }\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) for all \(0\le n\le K_\mathbf{e }'\) and for all \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\). Thus the theorem holds for \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{+}\). Replacing \(S_{+}\) by \(S_{-}\), \(a_{+}(n)\) by \(a_{-}(n)\), and \(H_{+}(z)\) by \(H_{-}(z)\), the same argument works for \(\gamma _{\ell }\in S_{-}. \square \)
6 Examples of congruences
Given an alleged congruence of the form \(p(\ell n+B)_\mathbf e \equiv 0\!\!\pmod {\ell }\) that falls into either the Theorem 1.2 or Theorem 1.3 case, we can use the finite algorithm in Sect. 3 and Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 either to confirm or refute it. We first use the algorithm to determine \(K_\mathbf{e }\) and \(K'_\mathbf{e }\). By Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, it suffices to check numerically that the conjectured congruences hold for all \(0\le n\le K_\mathbf{e }\) or \(K'_\mathbf{e }\) respectively.
Example
We have that \(p(5n+2)_{(2,0,0,4)}\equiv 0\!\!\pmod {5}\) for all \(n\ge 0\), as conjectured by [2].
Proof
Note that \(\alpha =18\), so \(\delta _{\ell }=2\); this is an example of the Theorem 1.2 case. Using our algorithm, we have \(\mathbf c _e=(2,0,0,4)\), so \(\mathbf e '=(-8,0,0,-16)\). Then \(w=12\) and \(N=4\), so \(K_\mathbf e =6\). Computing the first 7 values of \(p(5n+2)_{(2,0,0,4)}\), we find that they are equivalent to \(0\pmod {5}\). Thus the congruence holds. \(\square \)
Example
We have that \(p(5n+2)_{(2,0,0,2)}\equiv p(5n+3)_{(2,0,0,2)}\equiv 0\pmod {5}\) for all \(n\ge 0\), as conjectured by [2].
Proof
Note that \(\alpha =10\), so \(\delta _{\ell }=0\). In this case \(S_{-1}=\{2,3\}\), so this is an example of the Theorem 1.3 case. Using our algorithm, we have \(\mathbf c _e=(2,0,0,6)\) so \(\mathbf e '=(-8,0,0,-28)\). Then \(w=18\) and \(N=8\), so \(K_\mathbf{e }'=540\). Computing the first 541 values of \(p(5n+2)_{(2,0,0,2)}\) and \(p(5n+3)_{(2,0,0,2)}\), we find that they are equivalent to \(0\pmod {5}\). Thus the congruence holds. \(\square \)
References
Apostol, T.: Modular functions and Dirichlet series in number theory. Springer-Verlag, New York (1990)
Bacher, R., de la Harpe, P.: Conjugacy growth series of some infinitely generated groups. (2016). arxiv:1603.07943 [math.GR]
Berndt, B.: Number theory in the spirit of Ramanujan, vol. 34. AMS Student Mathematical Library (2000)
Bringmann, K., Mahlburg, K.: Asymptotic formulas for stacks and unimodal sequences. J Comb Theory 126, 194–215 (2014)
Ingham, A.E.: Tauberian theorem for partitions. Ann Math 42(5), 1075–1090 (1941)
Ono, K.: The web of modularity: Arithmetic of the coefficients of modular forms and q-series: AMS and CBMS. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2004)
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ken Ono and Olivia Beckwith for advising this project and for their many helpful conversations and suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Pierre de la Harpe and Roland Bacher for their comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper. Along with this, the authors would like to thank Emory University and the NSF for their support via Grant DMS-1250467.
Appendix
Appendix
We include here a list of the conjectures from [2]. By Corollary 1.4, they are all true.
1.1 Some examples of the form \(p(3n+B)_{\mathbf e} \equiv 0 \pmod 3\)
1.2 Some examples of the form \(p(5n+B)_{\mathbf e}\equiv 0\pmod 5\)
1.3 Some examples of the form \(p(7n+B)_{\mathbf e}\equiv 0\pmod 7\)
1.4 Some examples of the form \(p(11n+B)_{\mathbf e}\equiv 0\pmod {11}\)
1.5 Some examples of the form \(p(13n+B)_{\mathbf e}\equiv 0\pmod {13}\)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Cotron, T., Dicks, R. & Fleming, S. Asymptotics and congruences for partition functions which arise from finitary permutation groups. Res. Number Theory 2, 20 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40993-016-0051-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40993-016-0051-9