How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Integer Partitions and the Twelvefold Way — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Combinatorial Classes and the Symbolic Method
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Formal Power Series
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Inclusion–Exclusion, the Pigeonhole Principle and Double Counting
- Integer Partitions and the Twelvefold Way
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Set Partitions, Stirling Numbers and Exponential Generating Functions
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
2 · Summary
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The eleven partitions of 6
Example
The partitions of , grouped by largest part, are
So .
Conjugation pairs the partitions of 6 by swapping length and largest part
Example
For the partitions of , conjugation gives the pairings
and
The fixed partition is self-conjugate.
A self-conjugate partition produces distinct odd diagonal hooks
Example
The partition
is self-conjugate. Its diagonal cells are , , and , and their hook lengths are
Thus the diagonal-hook construction sends to the distinct odd partition
Glaisher's bijection on an odd-part partition
Example
Start with the odd-part partition
Its multiplicities are
Glaisher's rule therefore replaces the two 's by one , keeps the , and replaces the two 's by one . The image is the distinct-part partition
The partition (5,3,3,2,1) decomposes by its Durfee square
Example
For
the Durfee length is , so the upper-left square is the Durfee square.
The cells to the right of that square form the partition
and the cells below it form the partition
Thus is rebuilt from the square together with one partition having at most parts and one partition with parts at most .
Euler's pentagonal recurrence computes p(10)=42
Example
The generalized pentagonal offsets not exceeding are
So the recurrence gives
Using
one gets
The labelled-to-labelled cells of the twelvefold way at n=3 and k=2
Example
For labelled balls and labelled boxes:
- arbitrary maps: ;
- injective maps: , because ;
- surjective maps: .
So the labelled-to-labelled row is .
The unlabelled-domain to labelled-codomain cells at n=3 and k=2
Example
For indistinguishable balls and labelled boxes, the occupancy vectors are:
- arbitrary: , , , , so the count is ;
- injective: none, because a - vector of length cannot sum to ;
- surjective: and , so the count is .
Thus the unlabelled-to-labelled row is .
The labelled-domain to unlabelled-codomain cells at n=3 and k=2
Example
For labelled balls and unlabelled boxes:
- arbitrary placements are set partitions of into at most two blocks, namely one one-block partition and three two-block partitions, so the count is ;
- injective placements do not exist, because three singleton fibres would use three boxes but only two are available;
- surjective placements are exactly the three two-block set partitions.
So the labelled-to-unlabelled row is .
The unlabelled-to-unlabelled cells at n=3 and k=2
Example
For indistinguishable balls and indistinguishable boxes:
- arbitrary placements correspond to the partitions and , so the count is ;
- injective placements do not exist because ;
- surjective placements correspond only to , so the count is .
Thus the unlabelled-to-unlabelled row is .
The recurrence gives p_3(5)=2
Example
Applying the recurrence once gives
The two partitions are
The partitions of 7 into distinct parts and into odd parts match
Example
The partitions of into distinct parts are
The partitions of into odd parts are
Glaisher's map pairs them as
The partition (4,2,1) is not self-conjugate
Statement refuted
The partition
is self-conjugate.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the partition .
Conjugation transposes the Ferrers diagram, so the conjugate partition has column lengths equal to the row lengths of the transposed diagram (Ferrers and Young diagrams, conjugate partitions, self-conjugacy, and the Durfee square).
Counterexample
The Ferrers diagram of has column lengths , so [F1] gives .
Since , the partition is not self-conjugate. Therefore the displayed claim is false.
Conjugating (4,2,1) does not produce an odd-part partition
Statement refuted
Conjugating the distinct-part partition
produces a partition into odd parts.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the distinct-part partition .
Conjugation of partitions is the transpose of the Ferrers diagram (Conjugating a partition twice returns the original partition).
Counterexample
The columns of the Ferrers diagram of have lengths , so [L1] gives .
The conjugate partition has an even part, namely , so it is not a partition into odd parts. Therefore the displayed claim is false.
Ignoring summability in the Euler product leads to illegal coefficient manipulations
Statement refuted
One may compute the coefficient of in the Euler product by the naive rule
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the formal factors .
The coefficient of in the true Euler product counts partitions of , so it is .
A locally finite product may be rearranged only by genuine regrouping of the same summable family; the infinite product is defined by stabilization of its finite partial products modulo each (Summable formal families may be regrouped and rearranged, distribute over multiplication, and have well-defined locally finite products).
Counterexample
On the right-hand side, only the and summands contribute a nonzero coefficient, so the naive calculation gives .
But [F1] gives the true coefficient as , corresponding to the partitions , , and . The naive rule loses the mixed contribution coming from two different factors, so it is not a genuine regrouping of the locally finite product expansion licensed by [L1]. Therefore the displayed identity is false, and the missing summability control is exactly what permits the legal coefficientwise product.