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.
Lattice Paths and Catalan Numbers
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Formal Power Series
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Recurrences and Rational Generating Functions
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
Formal power series and coefficient extraction supply the algebraic language of the page, and the page uses the constant-one square root in exactly where the Catalan generating function needs it. The path counts rest on binomial coefficients as counts, while the cycle-lemma and Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot sections use group actions, orbit-stabiliser, permutation sign and the Leibniz determinant to turn combinatorial sets into explicit formulas. These are the background tools that let the page move between path enumeration, free actions and generating functions without leaving finite combinatorics.
The development starts with lattice paths and the dictionary between monotone and diagonal pictures, then proves the reflection principle, the ballot theorems and the Dyck-path interpretation of the Catalan numbers. It then gives the Catalan count by reflection, by the cycle lemma and by the generating function, and uses those routes to derive Chung-Feller, Motzkin and Schröder identities, balanced bracket words, binary trees and polygon triangulations. The page closes with non-intersecting path systems and the lattice-path form of Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot, so determinant arguments appear as another path-counting method rather than as a separate topic.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Lattice paths, step sets and step words
Definition
Points of the plane are pairs of integers (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals), added componentwise:
Since is a commutative group (The integers form a commutative ring) and each monoid axiom holds one coordinate at a time, is a commutative monoid (Semigroup and monoid). A natural number written where an integer is expected denotes its image under the embedding , , of The naturals embed in the integers, which is injective and preserves addition, multiplication and the order; no symbol is written for it, so , and denote integers when they occur in an integer expression.
A step set is a finite subset (The cardinality of a finite set); its elements are steps.
Definition. Let and . A lattice path of length with steps in from is a function with and for every with . It is a path from to when moreover . Write
and for the subset of those with .
A path is nothing but this function. No geometry of the plane is used, no continuous curve is attached to it, and the points are the only data.
The length-zero case, stated rather than left implicit. For the domain has one point and the condition on differences is vacuous, so has exactly one element, the function with . This is the empty path at ; it is a path from to , and it exists even when .
The step word. Words of length over an alphabet are the functions , and denotes the set of them (Finite words, contiguous factors, avoidance and proper-prefix states). The step word of a path is the word with
equivalently for . The step word of the empty path is the empty word.
The path traced by a word. Conversely let and . The path traced by from is
the sum being the finite product of The product of a finite list in a monoid, by recursion, with the empty product () equal to the identity in the commutative monoid , written additively. Its two defining clauses read and , so
and is a lattice path of length with steps in from , since each displayed difference is the letter .
Concatenation. Let be a path of length from to and let be a path of length from to , with step words and . Their concatenation is the path of length traced from by the concatenated word (Finite words, contiguous factors, avoidance and proper-prefix states). The common endpoint condition ensures that its first steps are and its last steps are . Concatenating on the left with the empty path at , or on the right with the empty path at , changes nothing because .
Remarks
-
Why the step set is required to be finite. Nothing in the definition of a path needs it; it is imposed because every count on this page is a count of words over , and a finite makes every finite. If the finiteness requirement were relaxed, the converse would hold for ; at the set is the singleton containing the empty word for every .
-
A path records where it starts. Two paths with the same step word and different starting points are different functions. Every set of paths written down here therefore fixes a start point, and translation from one start point to another is a separate statement each time it is used.
For each start point the step word is a bijection onto
Statement
Let be a step set, and . The map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection
whose inverse sends to the path traced by from (Lattice paths, step sets and step words). Consequently is finite with
the power being the natural-number exponentiation of Exponentiation of natural numbers, , and its agreement with the integer power in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a step set , a point and a natural number .
A lattice path of length with steps in from is a function with and for every with ; its step word is the word with ; and the path traced by from satisfies and for (Lattice paths, step sets and step words).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and , and such a is then unique ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For finite sets and , the set of functions is finite and (The set of functions between finite sets is finite, with ).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
Proof
For and each with the difference lies in , so is a function , that is an element of ; for the domain is empty and is the empty word.
Given , the traced path lies in and its step word has -th letter , so ; conversely, given with , both and take the value at the index and both satisfy for , so the set of indices at which they agree contains and contains whenever it contains , whence they agree throughout and . Thus is a two-sided inverse of and is a bijection.
Since is finite and is finite with elements, is finite with , and transporting along the bijection of step 2.1 gives that is finite with the same cardinality. At both sides are , one empty path against the one empty word, and this holds also for ; for and both sides are .
Remarks
-
What the lemma is for. Every count on this page is obtained by counting words and transporting the answer along this bijection, so the correspondence is proved once here and cited rather than re-established.
-
The start point is fixed throughout. The map forgets , and a step word alone therefore determines a path only after a start point has been named.
Monotone lattice paths with steps and
Definition
Put and . A monotone lattice path is a lattice path whose steps lie in the step set with and (Lattice paths, step sets and step words). Write
so is the set of monotone paths from to of any length. The letters and are the two steps and are also used as the two letters of the alphabet of a step word.
Where a monotone path is after steps. Let have step word , and for let
be the number of letters among the first (The cardinality of a finite set). Then
Indeed and ; and if the formula holds at then , where gives and raises the first coordinate by , while gives and raises the second coordinate by ; in both cases the formula holds at . Induction on (The principle of mathematical induction) gives it for every . Note , so the first coordinate is again a point of with .
Three consequences, recorded because every count below uses them.
(a) Both coordinates are nondecreasing along a monotone path, since and are both nondecreasing.
(b) The endpoint determines the length and the letter count. A path satisfies if and only if and .
(c) Existence. is nonempty exactly when and ; in that case every one of its members has length , and the word traces one of them. Here and denote the natural numbers whose images under the embedding of into are those differences.
Degenerate rectangles are included. Under the existence hypotheses and , if then every step is and has one element; likewise if . If and its one element is the empty path at .
Remarks
-
"Monotone" names the conclusion of (a), not an extra hypothesis. The definition fixes a step set; the monotonicity of the coordinates is then forced and is proved above rather than assumed.
-
Why may be written without a length. By (c) all its members have one and the same length, so no information is lost by suppressing it. For a step set in which two different lengths join the same two points this notation would be ambiguous, and it is not used there.
Statement
For all the set of monotone lattice paths from to (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ) is finite with
the binomial coefficient of The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient . More generally, if and in and are the natural numbers with and , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: natural numbers and , and integers , in the second clause.
A monotone lattice path is a lattice path whose steps lie in the step set with and (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ).
For with step word and , one has for ; hence if and only if and (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For a finite set and , is the set of -element subsets of , it is finite, and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
Every member of has length , and under the step-word bijection of [L1] with and the set corresponds exactly to the set of words with .
The map carries into the set of -element subsets of , and the map sending a subset to the word with for and otherwise is a two-sided inverse of it, so it is a bijection of onto that set of subsets.
The set has elements, so its -element subsets number , and transporting along the two bijections of steps 1.1 and 2.1 makes finite of that cardinality.
For general endpoints, is a bijection : subtracting a constant leaves every difference unchanged, sends to and to , and inverts it; so the two sets have the same cardinality . At this is one empty path against ; at it is the single all- path against ; at it is the paths differing in the position of the one step against .
Remarks
-
The general-endpoint clause is not decoration. Every later count on this page is a count of paths between two points neither of which is the origin, and it is obtained from this clause rather than by repeating the argument.
-
Where the monotonicity is spent. Only in [F2]: it makes the endpoint determine the numbers of - and -steps and hence the length. A fixed start and a fixed step word always determine one endpoint, for every step set; what can fail for a step set containing negative steps is the converse assertion that the endpoint determines the letter counts used by this binomial count.
Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function
Definition
A diagonal lattice path is a lattice path whose steps lie in the step set with , (Lattice paths, step sets and step words). Write
for the diagonal paths of length from .
Every diagonal path advances one unit in the first coordinate at each step. Both steps have first coordinate , so if and denotes the first coordinate of then and for ; induction on (The principle of mathematical induction) gives . Hence
for a unique function (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals), the height function of . It satisfies
and conversely every such is the height function of exactly one : the word with when and otherwise is the only step word producing those heights, and step words correspond bijectively to paths (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ). A diagonal path from and its height function are therefore the same datum, and the two are used interchangeably below.
Height after steps. With the step word of and
the number of up-steps among the first (The cardinality of a finite set), one has
Indeed and ; and if the formula holds at , then raises by and by , while lowers by and leaves unchanged, so it holds at . Induction on finishes it.
Prescribing the endpoint. For put
which by the previous paragraph is the set of whose step word has . It is nonempty exactly when divides (Divisibility in : when for some integer ) and
the second condition being , since is or according as or (The absolute value of an integer). For if such a exists then with , giving both conditions; and if they hold, then is forced to be the natural number with , which satisfies , and the word traces such a path.
Levels. For a diagonal path with height function touches the level when for some with ; it stays strictly above the level when for every such , and stays weakly above when for every such .
Remarks
-
The two conditions on the endpoint are not interchangeable. The parity condition says which heights are reachable at all after steps; the range condition says the height cannot move further than one unit per step. Dropping either leaves an empty set, and the count below is stated so that it returns in both cases rather than being undefined.
-
The height function is the object, the path is the packaging. Every statement below about diagonal paths is a statement about , and the pair is carried only so that the results of Lattice paths, step sets and step words apply unchanged.
The two step sets describe the same objects: , is a bijection matching the diagonal with the level
Statement
Let and put . Replacing each letter of a step word by and each letter by induces a bijection
from the diagonal paths of length from ending at height (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function) onto the monotone paths from to (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ).
Moreover the two pictures agree step by step: if has height function and , then
Consequently, for every and every , the height inequality holds if and only if ; in particular staying weakly above the level corresponds to staying weakly above the diagonal .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: natural numbers and , and .
A diagonal lattice path is a lattice path whose steps lie in the step set with , ; a diagonal path of length from has , and with the number of up-steps among the first its height is when (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
A monotone lattice path is a lattice path whose steps lie in the step set with and ; for such a path from with step word and the number of letters among the first , one has (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
Proof
The letter map with and has the two-sided inverse , , so composing a word with carries to and composing with the inverse letter map carries it back; a word with up-steps is carried to a word with letters and letters . Hence a diagonal path of length from ending at height is carried to a monotone path from ending at , and conversely.
Define as the composite: take the step word of a diagonal path by [L2], compose it with , and trace the resulting word from ; define the same way with the inverse letter map. Each of the three constituents of is a bijection with the corresponding constituent of as inverse, by [L2] and step 1.1, so and are the respective identities and is a bijection.
For the count of up-steps among the first letters of equals the count of letters among the first letters of , that is ; so , and the two sides of the height inequality are the same integer, whence each holds exactly when the other does. Taking gives the statement about the diagonal , and at both sides are .
Remarks
-
Why this is a lemma and not a convention. The page uses the rectangular picture for the binomial count and the diagonal picture for heights, levels and reflections. The sources use one or the other and state no correspondence, so a page using both must prove they agree once. Every later statement that moves between the pictures cites this lemma and does not restate it.
-
What the correspondence does not do. It matches the two step sets and the two positions, and nothing else. The number of steps is preserved and the two endpoints determine each other, but a level in one picture is a diagonal line in the other, which is why the level statements below are made in the diagonal picture only.
The number of diagonal paths from to is for the natural number with , and when no such exists
Statement
Let and , and let be the set of diagonal lattice paths of length from whose height function ends at (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
-
Suppose divides and , and let be the natural number with ; then and
-
If either condition fails then , so its cardinality is .
In both cases the set is finite, and the count depends on and only through the difference .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: integers and and a natural number .
A diagonal path of length from has with and ; with the number of up-steps its endpoint height is ; and is nonempty exactly when divides and (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For and , replacing by and by is a bijection (The two step sets describe the same objects: , is a bijection matching the diagonal with the level ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and ; and a finite set has cardinality exactly when it is empty (The cardinality of a finite set).
is the number of -element subsets of the natural number , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Proof
Subtracting the constant leaves every difference unchanged and sends to and to , and adding it back inverts the operation; so it is a bijection and the two sets have the same cardinality.
If does not divide , or if lies outside the range from to , then is empty and its cardinality is , which is clause 2.
If the two conditions hold, let be the natural number with and put . From and one gets , and because .
By step 2.2 and [L1] the set is in bijection with , which by [L2] is finite with elements; transporting along that bijection and along the translation of step 1.1 gives clause 1. At the conditions force and , and the one empty path is counted by ; at they force , and the one all-up path is counted by .
Remarks
-
The vanishing clause is used, not decorative. The reflection principle below subtracts one of these counts from another, and both the parity and the range conditions can fail for the reflected endpoint while holding for the original; the difference is correct only because the count is then rather than undefined.
-
Why the answer is stated through rather than as a quotient. The natural number with exists exactly under the stated hypotheses, and writing would name an element of a field where the hypothesis of the statement is that the halving is exact in .
A diagonal path with or satisfies for some
Statement
Let be a diagonal lattice path of length from with height function (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function), and let . If
then for some with ; that is, touches the level .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a diagonal path of length from with height function , an integer , and the hypothesis that lies weakly between and in one order or the other.
The height function of a diagonal path of length from satisfies and for , and touches the level when for some with (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
Every nonempty subset has a least element: there is with for all (The well-ordering principle).
Proof
Assume first that . The set contains , so it is nonempty and has a least element .
Assume instead that . The set contains , so it is nonempty and has a least element .
In the case of step 1.1: if then and , so ; and if then is not in , so , whence is positive and therefore equal to , giving and so .
In the case of step 1.2: if then and , so ; and if then is not in , so , whence is negative and therefore equal to , giving and so .
The hypothesis puts weakly between and in one of the two orders, so one of the two cases applies, and each produces an index at which the height is exactly .
Remarks
-
Where the step set is spent. The argument uses only that consecutive heights differ by exactly , and it fails for a step set whose steps change the height by more than one unit: such a path can pass from above a level to below it without ever meeting it. The companion page carries that witness.
-
Both orders are needed. The reflection argument applies the lemma once with the start above the level and the end below it, and once the other way round, so neither inequality may be dropped.
Reflecting the initial segment at the first visit to level
Statement
Let , let , and let with and . Write for the set of diagonal paths that touch the level (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For with height function , let be the least index with and define to be the diagonal path whose height function is
The two clauses agree at , and
is a bijection. Its inverse is given by the same recipe, applied to a path starting at height .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: an integer , a natural number , and integers and .
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for ; it touches the level when for some (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
If a diagonal path of length has or , then for some with (A diagonal path with or satisfies for some ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
Every nonempty subset has a least element: there is with for all (The well-ordering principle).
Proof
Let and let be a diagonal path of length from with height function and , touching the level . The set of indices with is a nonempty subset of , so it has a least element , and because . The function displayed in the statement is well defined, since at the first clause gives and the second gives ; it satisfies and ; and for one has while for one has . So is the height function of a diagonal path of length from ending at .
Every touches the level : its height function has because , and , so and [L1] supplies an index with height . Likewise every that touches is in by definition.
The first visit to is at the same index for and for the path built in step 1.1: for we have , hence , while .
Applying step 1.1 with shows maps into , and applying it with , which is legitimate by step 1.2, shows the same recipe maps into and, since the image touches , into . Applying the recipe twice returns the original path: by step 2.1 the first visit index is the same at both applications, and for while the second segment is untouched. So the two maps are two-sided inverses of one another and is a bijection by [L2].
Remarks
-
The proof is the two-sided inverse, and that is deliberate. A count of the reflected paths that argued only that reflection produces a path of the right kind would not show that every such path arises, and it is exactly the surjectivity that step 1.2 supplies, from the intermediate-value lemma.
-
The endpoint hypothesis. The stated form assumes , as required by the reflection principle that uses it, and then the first visit satisfies . The same construction also remains a bijection when ; in that boundary case the first visit may be the final index and reflection fixes that endpoint.
The reflection principle: paths from to staying strictly above level are counted by a difference of two binomial coefficients
Statement
Let , let and let with and . Write for the set of diagonal paths that stay strictly above the level , that is for every with (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
-
is finite and
-
Suppose divides and , and let be the natural number with . Then is a natural number and
-
If does not divide , or , or , then all three sets above are empty and all three counts are .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: an integer , a natural number , integers and , and the set of the statement.
The height function of a diagonal path of length from satisfies and ; the path touches the level when for some , and stays strictly above when for every ; and the restriction of the path to is a diagonal path of length (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
If a diagonal path of length has or , then for some with (A diagonal path with or satisfies for some ).
If and are finite and disjoint, then is finite and (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clause 1).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and ; and a finite set has cardinality exactly when it is empty (The cardinality of a finite set).
For and , reflecting the initial segment at the first visit to level is a bijection from the set of that touch the level onto (Reflecting the initial segment at the first visit to level ).
is finite; if divides and then its cardinality is for the natural number with , and otherwise the set is empty (The number of diagonal paths from to is for the natural number with , and when no such exists).
A subset of a finite set is finite (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clause 1).
Proof
A path fails to touch the level if and only if it stays strictly above . If it stays strictly above then no height equals . Conversely, if for some , then the restriction of to is a diagonal path whose height at the last index is , the height at index , so [L1] gives an index with and touches ; hence a path that does not touch has every height and, none being equal to , every height .
Therefore is the union of the set of paths that touch and the set , and these are disjoint. Both are subsets of the finite set , hence finite by [L5] and [L6], so [L2] gives .
By [L4] the set is in bijection with , so the two have the same cardinality by [L3], and substituting into step 2.1 gives clause 1.
For clause 2, put , a natural number because ; then , so is the natural number attached by [L5] to the endpoint data of . If then [L5] gives ; if then , so [L5] makes the set empty and [L7] makes equal to as well. The same two readings apply to and , and clause 1 then reads as the displayed identity, whose subtracted form follows because the identity holds in . For clause 3, [L5] makes empty in each of the three listed cases, so its cardinality is by [L3] and clause 1 forces both summands to be , hence both those sets to be empty as well. As a check, with gives , and since .
Remarks
-
Where the two hypotheses are spent. The hypothesis is what makes the reflected starting height lie strictly below , so that every reflected path meets and the correspondence is onto; the hypothesis is what keeps the first visit strictly before the last index, so that reflection preserves the endpoint. Neither is a normalisation.
-
The identity is stated as a sum, and only then as a difference. The counting argument produces "touching plus avoiding equals all" in , and the difference form is legitimate only because that identity has already been proved; written the other way round the subtraction would need its own justification whenever the second coefficient vanishes.
Bertrand's ballot problem: for the orderings in which the first candidate is strictly ahead throughout satisfy
Statement
Let with . A count in which the first candidate receives votes and the second votes, the votes being read in order, is recorded by a diagonal lattice path of length from whose step word has exactly letters , one for each vote for the first candidate; such a path ends at height (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function). The first candidate is strictly ahead throughout when the height after each of the votes is at least . Write
Then is finite and, in ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: natural numbers , so and ; and the set above.
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for ; with the number of up-steps its endpoint height is ; and it stays strictly above the level when for every (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For , and , : if divides and , and is the natural number with , then the set of paths in staying strictly above level is finite and its cardinality satisfies (The reflection principle: paths from to staying strictly above level are counted by a difference of two binomial coefficients, clause 2).
For with : in ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and ).
for every , and (The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
for , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
For the first step is forced upward: and , while , so .
Two identities in , with . First, : since and , and since and , [L2] gives and ; multiplying the first by and using from [L3] makes both left sides equal, and cancelling the nonzero factor by [L3] and [L4] gives the identity. Second, : when both sides are , since then and by [L5]; and when then with , so [L2] gives and , and the same multiplication by and cancellation of gives it.
Shifting the index by one is a bijection from onto the set of paths in that stay strictly above the level : given , put for , so by step 1.1, , consecutive values differ by in absolute value, and ; conversely, given such an , put and for , which has and the remaining differences those of , ends at , and has for . The two constructions undo one another, so [L6] and [L7] apply and .
Apply [L1] with , , and : the hypotheses and hold because , and is even with , so and ; also since . Hence .
Multiplying step 3.1 by and substituting the two identities of step 1.2 gives , and since this is exactly . At it reads , so by [L4], matching the single all-up path; at , it reads , so , the one path with step word .
Remarks
-
The quotient form. The identity of the statement is an identity of natural numbers. Reading each natural number as its canonical natural in (The canonical natural of a field) and dividing by the nonzero real turns it into the familiar ; the multiplicative form is the one proved, and the division is legitimate only because , which needs or at least .
-
Why and not . With the height ends at , so the last vote brings the count level and the first candidate is not strictly ahead throughout; the count is then , while the right-hand side is as well, so the identity survives but says nothing. The interesting weak form, in which the first candidate is merely never behind, is a separate statement.
The weak ballot count: for the orderings in which the first candidate is never behind satisfy
Statement
Let with . Write
the diagonal paths of length from the origin ending at height whose height is never negative (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function); these record the orderings of a count with votes for the first candidate and for the second in which the first candidate is never behind. Then is finite and, in ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: natural numbers , and the set above.
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for ; with the number of up-steps its endpoint height is (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For natural numbers , the set of diagonal paths of length from ending at height whose height is at least at every index from to is finite, and its cardinality satisfies (Bertrand's ballot problem: for the orderings in which the first candidate is strictly ahead throughout satisfy ).
For with : in , and ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and ).
for every , and (The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
Prepending an up-step is a bijection from onto the set of diagonal paths of length from ending at height whose height is at least from the index onwards. Given in the first set, put and for : then , the later differences are those of , the values from the index on are at least because , and . Conversely, given in the second set, its first step is forced upward since and , so putting for gives , and . The two constructions undo one another, so [L5] and [L6] give a bijection and equal cardinalities.
Two identities in . First, : with and one has and , so [L2] gives , while [L2] applied to gives , and multiplying the latter by and using from [L3] makes the two left sides equal; cancelling the nonzero factor by [L3] and [L4] gives the identity. Second, by the symmetry clause of [L2], since .
Apply [L1] with and , which is legitimate because follows from : the set it counts is exactly the second set of step 1.1, so its cardinality is by step 1.1, and .
Multiplying step 2.1 by and substituting the first identity of step 1.2 gives ; cancelling the nonzero factor by [L4] and rewriting as by the second identity of step 1.2 gives . At this reads , so , the single all-up path; at it reads , which is the relation the Catalan development uses.
Remarks
-
Why the extra up-step and not a reflection. The weak condition is not of the form treated by the reflection principle, whose hypothesis is a strict inequality against a level with both endpoints strictly above it. Prepending one up-step turns the weak condition at every index into the strict condition from the index onwards, and the strict count is already proved.
-
The case . Here , and the identity says that times the number of never-behind orderings is the central binomial coefficient. That is the shape the Catalan numbers take on this page, and it is why the weak form is stated separately rather than left as an exercise on the strict one.
Dyck paths of semilength
Definition
Let . A Dyck path of semilength is a diagonal lattice path of length from to whose height function satisfies for every with (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function). Write
for the set of them. The word semilength records that the path has steps: its length is and its semilength is .
Small cases, read off the definition. For the path has length , so consists of the empty path at and has exactly one element. For there are two diagonal paths of length from to , with step words and and height sequences and ; only the first has , so has exactly one element.
Ballot words. A ballot word of length is a word in which the number of letters equals the number of letters and, for every , the number of letters among the first is at least the number of letters among them. Step words identify the two notions: by For each start point the step word is a bijection onto the map (step word of ) is a bijection from the diagonal paths of length starting at onto , and under it the two conditions defining become the two conditions defining a ballot word. For with the number of letters among the first , the height formula of Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function gives
and is the number of letters among the first . So and the set of ballot words of length correspond bijectively, and either may be used to compute the other's size.
Remarks
-
Why the height condition is weak and not strict. A diagonal path from has , so a strict condition would be satisfied by nothing at all. The condition that bites is at the interior indices, and the two endpoints are on the boundary of it by construction.
-
Semilength, not length, is the index. Every count below is stated in terms of , and the path it counts has steps. A statement about is never a statement about paths of length ; the odd lengths carry no Dyck paths at all, since a path of odd length from cannot return to height .
is a finite set
Statement
For every the set of Dyck paths of semilength (Dyck paths of semilength ) is finite and nonempty; more precisely has at least one and at most elements.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
is the set of diagonal paths of length from to whose height function satisfies for every with (Dyck paths of semilength ).
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection , and is finite with (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For finite sets and , the set of functions is finite and (The set of functions between finite sets is finite, with ).
A subset of a finite set is finite, and a subset of a finite set has (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clauses 1 and 2).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
Proof
The set of all diagonal paths of length from the origin is finite with exactly elements, since the step set has two elements.
The word of length with for even and for odd traces a Dyck path: its height function satisfies , and if with then and , so by induction on every even index has height and every odd index height ; hence throughout and .
By [F1] the set is a subset of the finite set of step 1.1, hence finite with at most elements by [L3]; and it is nonempty by step 1.2, so it has at least one element.
Remarks
-
What this lemma is for. It is the well-definedness obligation behind the Catalan numbers: is a natural number only because is finite, and the cardinality notation is defined for finite sets alone.
-
The bound is not the point. It is the crude count of all words of length over a two-letter alphabet, recorded because it is what makes the set finite; the exact count is the subject of the theorems below and is far smaller.
The Catalan number
Definition
For the Catalan number is the number of Dyck paths of semilength :
(Dyck paths of semilength , The cardinality of a finite set). This is a natural number because is finite ( is a finite set), and the cardinality notation is defined for finite sets only.
and , both read off the definition rather than stipulated: is the one-element set containing the empty path, and is the one-element set whose member has step word (Dyck paths of semilength ).
for every , since is nonempty ( is a finite set).
Remarks
-
The Catalan number is defined as a count, and every formula for it is a theorem. Defining by a closed expression would make a convention about an empty product or an empty binomial coefficient, and would make the statement that the expression is a natural number something to be arranged rather than proved. Here integrality is free and the closed formula has content.
-
The indexing convention. counts the Dyck paths of semilength , equivalently the ballot words of length , so and the path has steps. This is the indexing of Krattenthaler §10.3 and of Guichard §3.5, and every source consulted for this page agrees on it; a source indexing by the number of steps would call the same number , and no statement here is stated that way.
Statement
For every , in ,
where is the Catalan number (The Catalan number ) and the coefficients are those of The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient . Equivalently , the subtraction being legitimate because the displayed identity has been proved.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
is the set of diagonal paths of length from to whose height function satisfies for every with ; for it has exactly one element, with step word (Dyck paths of semilength ).
, and (The Catalan number ).
For , and , : if divides and , and satisfies , then , the set of paths in staying strictly above the level is finite, and (The reflection principle: paths from to staying strictly above level are counted by a difference of two binomial coefficients, clause 2).
for , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Proof
Since heights are integers, holds exactly when ; so is precisely the set of paths in that stay strictly above the level .
Apply [L1] with , , and . The hypotheses hold: and because ; and is even with , so the natural number with is and . By step 1.1 the set is , whose cardinality is , so .
Since the identity holds in , the difference form follows. At it reads , that is by [L2] and ; at it reads , that is , matching the single element of .
Remarks
-
Where the reflection is spent. The level is and not : a Dyck path starts and ends at height , so no path stays strictly above , and it is only because heights are integers that the weak condition against is the strict condition against . The reflected starting height is , which is why the subtracted coefficient is the one attached to the endpoint pair from to .
-
The additive form is the one proved. Writing the difference first would require knowing in advance that , which is a consequence of the identity rather than an input to it.
Statement
For every , in ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
For with : in ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and ).
for every , and (The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
for , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
For all : if then (Addition is cancellative).
Proof
First, in . For both sides are , since by [L3]. For one has and , so [L1] gives and ; writing and the second factor by [L2], the two left sides read and , and cancelling the nonzero factor by [L2] and [L4] gives the identity.
Multiply [F1] by : . By step 1.1 the second summand on the left is , and the right-hand side is , so cancelling the common summand by [L5] gives . At this reads .
Remarks
-
The quotient form. The identity is an identity of natural numbers. Reading each natural number as its canonical natural in (The canonical natural of a field) and dividing by the nonzero real turns it into the familiar . The multiplicative form is the one proved, and it is the form in which no division and no embedding is needed; it also says at once that divides the central binomial coefficient, which the quotient form presupposes.
-
What the proof actually uses. Only the reflection identity and factorial bookkeeping. The Catalan number is never manipulated as a formula: it enters as the count it was defined to be and leaves as a factor of a binomial coefficient.
divides for every
Statement
For every the integer divides (Divisibility in : when for some integer ), and the quotient is the Catalan number (The Catalan number ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
For , divides when for some (Divisibility in : when for some integer ).
The embedding of into sending to is injective and preserves addition, multiplication, and order (The naturals embed in the integers).
Proof
The Catalan number is a natural number, so its image in is an integer, and the identity of [F1] holds between natural numbers.
Since the embedding preserves multiplication and addition, the same identity holds in between the corresponding integers; taking in [L1] with and shows that divides and exhibits as the quotient.
Remarks
-
The quotient is exhibited as a count, and that is the whole proof. No arithmetic property of is used: the divisibility holds because a set of Dyck paths was counted and the count turned out to be the quotient. An argument from prime factorisations would have to be made separately for every prime dividing , and would give no combinatorial meaning to the quotient.
-
What is not claimed. Nothing here says is the largest such divisor, or that has any other divisibility property. The statement is the single divisibility, for every , with included: there divides .
Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function
Definition
Throughout, is a natural number with , and a word of length over a set is a function from to , written (Finite words, contiguous factors, avoidance and proper-prefix states).
Remainders. For every there is exactly one pair of integers with and (Division with remainder for any nonzero divisor: for and there are unique with and , whose bound is here because , The absolute value of an integer). Write for that remainder, so for every integer , including negative .
Cyclic shifts. For the shift of a word of length over is the word of length over given by
Since lies in this is again a word of length , and begins at the position of .
Weight. Let now be a word of length of integers (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals). Its weight is
the finite sum in the commutative monoid (The integers form a commutative ring, Semigroup and monoid), that is the finite product of The product of a finite list in a monoid, by recursion, with the empty product () equal to the identity written additively, whose two clauses read and .
The periodic partial-sum function. Define by
This is well defined because the pair is unique. Defining on all of by a closed formula, rather than by extending a one-sided sequence, is what makes the statements below about all integers available at once.
Three identities, proved here because everything below uses them.
(a) On the first period is the ordinary partial sum. For one has . For this is the definition with and ; for it is the definition with and , giving . In particular .
(b) Quasiperiodicity. for every : if with then with the same , so the two values differ by exactly one copy of .
(c) The one-step difference. for every . Write with , so and . If then , so and the difference is by the second clause of the finite sum. If then , so and the difference is , which is by the same clause applied at .
Remarks
-
The shift index is a position, not a rotation count in the other direction. reads starting at position , so drops the first letter of and appends it at the end. The sources cut necklaces at both ends and a page that mixes the two conventions gets the correspondences of the cycle lemma pointing the wrong way; the convention here is fixed once, in this definition, and is restated where it is used.
-
The weight is an integer and may be negative or zero. Nothing in this definition constrains the letters. The hypotheses and that the cycle lemma needs are stated in the results that use them, not built into the objects.
Cyclic shifting is an action of on the words of length over a set
Statement
Let be a set and , and let be the set of words of length over , with the shifts of Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function.
- is the identity of , and for all and .
- whenever . Hence is a well-defined left action of the additive group (The congruence class and the quotient set , For every natural , is an abelian group, multiplication is a commutative monoid operation, and both distributive laws hold) on , in the sense of Left group actions, transitive actions, and faithful actions.
- For every the number of positions of carrying the letter equals the number of positions of carrying . In particular, for a word of integers, .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a set , a natural number , and words of length over .
for , where is the unique with and ; and for a word of integers (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
A left action of a group with identity on a set is a function with and for all and (Left group actions, transitive actions, and faithful actions).
holds exactly when (The congruence class and the quotient set ).
is a commutative ring under the induced operations, so in particular its addition makes it an abelian group with identity (For every natural , is an abelian group, multiplication is a commutative monoid operation, and both distributive laws hold).
For a commutative monoid and , if is a permutation of the von Neumann natural and for every , then (Generalised associativity: in a monoid the product of a finite list does not depend on the bracketing, and in a commutative monoid it does not depend on the order of the factors either, clause 3).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
Proof
For every integer and every one has , because is a multiple of and adding a multiple of to the argument changes neither the remainder nor its defining inequalities.
The map is a permutation of : the map is a two-sided inverse of it, since by step 1.1 both composites send to , which is for .
Clause 1 holds: for , and using step 1.1.
Clause 2 holds: if then for every , since the two arguments differ by a multiple of , so ; by [L2] the rule is therefore well defined on , and by [L3] together with clause 1 it satisfies the two axioms of [L1] with .
Clause 3 holds: by step 2.1 the map is a permutation of the index set, and it carries the positions of carrying bijectively onto the positions of carrying , since exactly when ; so the two counts agree by [L5]. For a word of integers, [L4] applied with gives .
The three clauses are established.
Remarks
-
Why the acting group is and not . Both act, and the -action factors through by clause 2. Taking the finite group is what makes the orbit and stabiliser counts below available, and it is the only reason the reduction is recorded.
-
Clause 3 is what confines the action to a level set. The shift preserves the number of positions carrying each letter, so it acts on the words with a prescribed letter count and on the words of a prescribed weight. The cycle lemma is a statement about one such orbit.
If then the shift stabiliser of is trivial, so its orbit has exactly elements
Statement
Let and let be a word of length of integers whose weight is coprime to , that is (Coprime integers: , Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function). Then, for the action of on words of length by cyclic shifts (Cyclic shifting is an action of on the words of length over a set):
- the stabiliser of is the trivial subgroup (The orbit and stabilizer of a point in a group action);
- the orbit of is finite with exactly elements.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and a word of length of integers with .
for , and is the unique with and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
for with ; ; and for every (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
is the identity, , and is a well-defined left action of the additive group on the words of length (Cyclic shifting is an action of on the words of length over a set, clauses 1 and 2).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
For , divides when for some (Divisibility in : when for some integer ).
For not both there are integers with (Bézout's identity: for integers not both zero, is the least positive element of ; in particular has an integer solution).
is the greatest common divisor of and , and when and are not both (Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor , with the convention ).
Integers and are coprime when (Coprime integers: ).
If and then for all (Divisibility is reflexive and transitive on , and is linear: if and then for all integers ; also implies , and , clause 3).
Every class in contains exactly one integer with , and (For , every class in has one representative with , so ; while is in bijection with ).
is a commutative ring under the induced operations, so its addition makes it an abelian group with identity (For every natural , is an abelian group, multiplication is a commutative monoid operation, and both distributive laws hold).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
Suppose lies in the stabiliser of , with chosen as the representative supplied by [L8]. Then , that is for every with .
For every one has . At this is by [F2]. If it holds at , then applying the one-step difference identity of [F2] at and at gives and , and step 1.1 makes the two added letters equal, since and lies in the index range; so the identity holds at . Induction gives it for all .
For every one has : at both sides are , and the inductive step is step 2.1 with . Taking gives , while exhibits in the form with and , so by [F2]. Hence , and therefore divides .
Since , the pair , is not both zero, so [L4] gives integers with , which is by hypothesis and [L6]. Multiplying by gives ; by step 3.1 the integer divides , and it divides , so [L7] makes it divide . With this forces : writing , any would give and any would give . So the stabiliser contains only , which is clause 1.
The map sending to is surjective by the definition of the orbit and injective: if then applying the inverse of in the abelian group and using the action axioms of [L1] and [L9] gives , so by step 4.1 and . Since by [L8], transport along this bijection by [L10] makes the orbit finite with exactly elements, which is clause 2.
Remarks
-
The hypothesis is exactly what the Catalan application supplies. There the word has weight , and for every , so the orbit of every such word has full size and the count of orbits is the count of words divided by . Without a coprimality hypothesis a word can repeat: the word has weight and is fixed by the shift by two positions.
-
No orbit-stabiliser theorem is used. The orbit size is obtained from the injectivity of , which is what a trivial stabiliser says directly; invoking the coset bijection would then require counting the cosets of the trivial subgroup, which is the same computation one step further away.
has all partial sums positive exactly when for every
Statement
Let , let be a word of length of integers with , and let (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
-
For every with ,
-
Every partial sum with is positive if and only if for every integer .
Call a strict right minimum of when for every integer . Clause 2 says that the shift has all of its partial sums positive exactly when is a strict right minimum of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , a word of length of integers with , and an integer .
; for every ; for every ; and the finite sum satisfies and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
For with there is exactly one pair of integers with and (Division with remainder for any nonzero divisor: for and there are unique with and ).
Proof
Clause 1 holds by induction on . At both sides are by [F2]. If it holds at with , then the finite-sum clause gives , which by the inductive hypothesis and [F1] is , and the one-step difference identity of [F2] applied at turns the last two terms into .
For every and every one has : at this is trivial, and the step is the quasiperiodicity clause of [F2]. Hence, if every partial sum of over is positive, then for those by step 1.1, and for an arbitrary integer we may write with and by [L2], since ; putting , so and , gives because and .
Conversely, if for every integer , then in particular for , so every partial sum of over that range is positive by step 1.1. The two directions together are clause 2.
Remarks
-
Why the condition is stated for all and not for one period. The one-period form is what a shift's partial sums see, and the unbounded form is what the succession structure of the strict right minima is stated in. The equivalence needs : with weight the function is periodic, , and no index is a strict right minimum. In that case the full-period partial sum is also , so no shift has every nonempty partial sum positive.
-
The strict right minima are a property of alone. They do not refer to the word except through its partial-sum function, and that is what makes the counting argument of the cycle lemma a statement about rather than about words.
If every and , the strict right minima form a two-sided increasing list on which increases by exactly at each successive index
Statement
Let and let be a word of length of integers with for every and with (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function). Write for the set of strict right minima of , that is the set of with for every integer ( has all partial sums positive exactly when for every ).
- Existence and value. For every there is exactly one with . Writing for it, the map is a bijection with .
- Succession. is strictly increasing, and for every .
- Window count. For every the set is finite with exactly elements.
The hypothesis enters only in clause 1, where it is what forces the value at a strict right minimum to be exactly rather than merely at most .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and a word of length of integers with for every and .
; for ; for every ; for every ; and for (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
An integer is a strict right minimum of when for every integer ( has all partial sums positive exactly when for every ).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
The order on is total, antisymmetric and transitive, and is compatible with addition; positives are closed under multiplication (The integers form a totally ordered ring).
A nonempty with an upper bound has a unique greatest element, and a nonempty with a lower bound has a unique least element (A nonempty set of integers bounded above has a greatest element, and a nonempty set of integers bounded below has a least element).
For with there is exactly one pair of integers with and (Division with remainder for any nonzero divisor: for and there are unique with and ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and ; and for a natural number (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
The integers have a least element : by induction on , every list has a least element, since the order on is total, so adjoining one further integer to a list with a least element leaves it with one.
For every the set is nonempty. If then . If then put , a positive integer; induction on with the quasiperiodicity clause of [F1] gives , and because , so .
Each has an upper bound. Let and write with by [L4], so by [F1] and step 1.1, whence . If then because , so ; and if then . So in either case , where is the greater of and , and therefore .
By [L3] the set has a greatest element . Every lies outside , so , and is a strict right minimum. Its value is exactly : the one-step difference identity of [F1] gives by hypothesis, while since is outside , so and hence .
At most one strict right minimum has a given value: if are both strict right minima then , so their values differ. With step 3.1 this gives, for each , exactly one with ; write for it. Every satisfies by that uniqueness, so is onto , and it is injective because ; by [L5] it is a bijection . This is clause 1.
is strictly increasing: if and , then either , forcing , or , and then the strict right minimum property of gives ; both contradict . And is a strict right minimum of value : for we have , so the quasiperiodicity clause of [F1] gives , and ; hence by step 4.1. This is clause 2.
Fix . Iterating clause 2 by induction gives for every , so the set is nonempty, taking with , and bounded below, since for with every has ; let be its least element by [L3]. Then , so and . Since is strictly increasing and every member of is some , the members of in are exactly , and is a bijection from the natural number onto that set; so by [L6] the set is finite with exactly elements, which is clause 3.
Remarks
-
Why the hypothesis cannot be dropped. It is used exactly once, in step 3.1, to force : without it the greatest element of can have a value strictly below , several values of then share one strict right minimum, and the succession structure of clause 2 fails. A word with a letter shows this at once, and it is the reason the cycle lemma is stated for words whose letters are at most .
-
Why the hypothesis cannot be dropped. It is what makes take arbitrarily large values to the right of any index and arbitrarily small ones to the left, which is what makes every nonempty and bounded above. With weight the function is periodic and is empty.
The cycle lemma (Dvoretzky–Motzkin): if every and , then exactly of the cyclic shifts of have all partial sums positive
Statement
Orientation convention, fixed here and cited wherever it is used. A shift is counted when all of its partial sums , for , are strictly positive, and shifts are indexed by starting position, so begins at position of (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
- Let and let be a word of length of integers with for every and . Then exactly of the indices with are such that has all its partial sums positive.
- Boxes and circles. Let with , and let be a word of length in which positions carry the letter and the remaining positions carry the letter . Then , and if then exactly of the indices with are such that has all its partial sums positive.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and a word of length of integers, with the hypotheses of the clause being proved.
; ; and the finite sum satisfies and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
For and : every partial sum with is positive if and only if for every integer , that is exactly when is a strict right minimum of ( has all partial sums positive exactly when for every ).
If for every and , then for every the set of strict right minima of lying in is finite with exactly elements (If every and , the strict right minima form a two-sided increasing list on which increases by exactly at each successive index, clause 3).
For a commutative monoid and : ; and if is a permutation of the von Neumann natural and for every , then (Generalised associativity: in a monoid the product of a finite list does not depend on the bracketing, and in a commutative monoid it does not depend on the order of the factors either, clauses 1 and 3).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
for a natural number , and a bijection transports finiteness and cardinality (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
By [L1] an index is such that has all its partial sums positive exactly when is a strict right minimum of ; so the set of indices to be counted in clause 1 is the set of strict right minima lying in .
By [L2] with that set is finite with exactly elements, which is clause 1.
For clause 2, first compute the weight. Reordering the positions is a permutation of the index set, so by the permutation clause of [L3] the weight of equals the weight of the word whose first letters are and whose remaining letters are ; the splitting clause of [L3] gives , and induction with the finite-sum clause of [F1] evaluates a sum of copies of as and a sum of copies of as ; hence . Each letter is at most , since and for , so if then clause 1 applies with and gives clause 2.
Remarks
-
The orientation convention is the one place this statement can silently go wrong. Dershowitz and Zaks cut a necklace at a valid origin and count shifts by strict domination; Krattenthaler's Lemma 10.4.6 states a version with weak domination below a line. These are the same lemma read in opposite directions, and a page that mixes them gets a one-to- correspondence pointing the wrong way. The convention above is strict positivity of every partial sum, with shifts indexed by starting position, and it is cited rather than restated wherever it is used.
-
Indices, not words. The count is of indices in . Two different indices can give the same word, and then the same word is counted twice; that happens exactly when the shift stabiliser of is nontrivial, and the case the applications need is the one where the weight is coprime to and the shifts are pairwise distinct (If then the shift stabiliser of is trivial, so its orbit has exactly elements).
-
What the hypotheses buy. Boundedness of the letters above by makes the strict right minima succeed one another at value steps of exactly ; positive weight makes them exist. Neither is a normalisation, and the companion of each is recorded in If every and , the strict right minima form a two-sided increasing list on which increases by exactly at each successive index.
, a second derivation of the Catalan count
Statement
For every , in ,
where is the Catalan number (The Catalan number ).
This is a second derivation of the Catalan count, by a group action rather than by a reflection: the route runs through the cycle lemma (The cycle lemma (Dvoretzky–Motzkin): if every and , then exactly of the cyclic shifts of have all partial sums positive) and the orbits of the cyclic shift, and it uses no reflection and no difference of binomial coefficients. The identity is consistent with (), and the consistency is the separate identity proved below.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number ; the set of words of length over having exactly entries ; and the set of those all of whose partial sums , , are positive.
corresponds bijectively, through step words, to the set of ballot words of length , that is the words over a two-letter alphabet in which the two letters occur equally often and every prefix has at least as many of the first letter as of the second (Dyck paths of semilength ).
, , and the finite sum satisfies and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
If and a word of length has positions carrying and positions carrying , then its weight is ; and if has every letter at most and then exactly of the indices with are such that has all its partial sums positive (The cycle lemma (Dvoretzky–Motzkin): if every and , then exactly of the cyclic shifts of have all partial sums positive, clauses 2 and 1).
If then the stabiliser of under the shift action of is and the orbit of has exactly elements (If then the shift stabiliser of is trivial, so its orbit has exactly elements).
For every letter the number of positions of carrying equals the number of positions of carrying , and is a left action of on the words of length (Cyclic shifting is an action of on the words of length over a set, clauses 2 and 3).
For a left action of on the relation given by for some is an equivalence relation, its class at is the orbit of , and the distinct orbits partition (The orbits of a group action are the equivalence classes of iff for some , and hence partition the acted-on set).
For a finite set and , is the set of -element subsets of , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
If is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets, then is finite with (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clause 2).
For a constant natural number and a finite index set , (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form, clause (c)).
A subset of a finite set is finite (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clause 1).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For with : ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and ).
for every , and (The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
Integers and are coprime when ; and are coprime for every integer , since , and the relation is symmetric (Coprime integers: ).
Proof
The map sending to is a bijection from onto the -element subsets of the -element set , its inverse sending a subset to the word with entry at the positions of and elsewhere; so is finite with .
Every has positions carrying and the remaining positions carrying , so its weight is by the box-and-circle clause of [L1] with , and ; and every letter of is at most .
The set is in bijection with , so . A word has first partial sum , hence ; deleting it leaves the word of length over , whose partial sums are and whose total is , so has entries of each sign and every prefix at least as many entries as : a ballot word of length under the relabelling of and as the two letters. Prepending inverts the deletion and carries a ballot word back into , since the partial sums then become plus a nonnegative number and the total becomes . With [F1], [F2], [L9] and [L10] this gives .
The shift action of restricts to , because shifting preserves the number of positions carrying each letter by [L3]. Since , step 1.2 and [L2] make every stabiliser in trivial, so every orbit has exactly elements and the words with are pairwise distinct.
Each orbit meets in exactly one word: by [L1] with there is exactly one index in with , and by step 2.1 distinct indices give distinct words, so exactly one member of the orbit lies in . Hence (orbit of ) is a bijection from onto the set of orbits, whose members partition by [L4]; is finite by [L8] and step 1.1, and [L6] with index set together with [L7] gives .
Combining steps 1.1, 1.3 and 3.1 gives . For the consistency with [L14]: and , so [L11] gives , which with from [L12] reads ; and [L11] applied to gives , so by [L12]. Cancelling the nonzero factor by [L12] and [L13] gives , so multiplying the identity of this theorem by and the identity of [L14] by produces the same equation and the two closed forms agree. At the theorem reads .
Remarks
-
This is a different route, not a rearrangement. The reflection derivation matches paths that touch a level with paths from a reflected starting point; this one lets a cyclic group act on words and counts orbits. The two share only the definition of as a count of Dyck paths, and each yields a closed form the other does not produce directly: here and there.
-
Where the coprimality is spent. Every word in has weight , and is coprime to every modulus, so no orbit is short and no word is counted twice. Without that the orbit count would not be divided by the length, and the argument would give an inequality rather than an identity.
If then is a bijection from onto
Statement
Let and let be a word of length of integers with (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function). For put
the number of the partial sums of the shift , counted from , at which has not risen strictly above its value at . Then
is a bijection (Injection, surjection, bijection). In particular each of the values is realised by exactly one in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and a word of length of integers with .
for every ; ; and is the unique with and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
For , divides when for some (Divisibility in : when for some integer ).
For with there is exactly one pair of integers with and (Division with remainder for any nonzero divisor: for and there are unique with and ).
Let be a finite set and ; then is finite, , and if and only if (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clauses 1, 2 and 3).
If then there is no injection from to (The pigeonhole principle on , clause 2).
for a natural number , and a bijection transports finiteness and cardinality (The cardinality of a finite set).
A function is a bijection when it is both injective and surjective (Injection, surjection, bijection).
Proof
The integer key is -periodic: , using in the quasiperiodicity clause of [F1].
is injective on : if with in that range, then , so divides while , and writing forces by [L2], since would give and would give .
For every and every with : if and only if . Put , so . If then ; if then , and this is the only place the hypothesis is used. So the sign of decides, and the two conditions agree.
For one has . Indeed is a bijection of onto itself, with inverse ; by step 1.1 and the periodicity of one has , and is the value at itself since in this range; so step 1.3 identifies the set counted by with the displayed set through that bijection, and [L5] preserves the count.
is injective on . Let lie in that range; by step 1.2 the values and differ, say . Then is contained in and does not contain , which the second set does; so it is a proper subset of a finite set and [L3] gives a strictly smaller cardinality, that is by step 2.1.
takes values in : the index always satisfies , so the counted set is nonempty and ; and it is a subset of an -element set, so by [L3] and [L5].
Both and have exactly elements. If omitted a value of , then by steps 3.1 and 3.2 it would be an injection from an -element set into a set of at most elements, which [L4] forbids; so is surjective as well as injective and is a bijection by [L6].
Remarks
-
This is not the cycle lemma. The cycle lemma counts the shifts all of whose partial sums are positive, and for weight that is exactly one shift. This lemma sorts every shift, by how many of its partial sums fail to rise above the starting value, and finds that the shifts realise the possible counts once each. The shift with count is the one the cycle lemma singles out.
-
Why an integer key and not a rational one. The source perturbs by to break ties; multiplying through by gives , which does the same work without leaving . The tie-breaking is exactly the injectivity of step 1.2.
The Chung–Feller theorem: for each with , exactly of the diagonal paths from to have exactly steps lying above level
Statement
Let be a diagonal lattice path of length with height function (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function). Its steps are the indices with , the step passing from height to height ; it is an up step when and a down step when . The step lies above level when and , and lies below level otherwise. Every step is exactly one of the two.
Let . Then every has an even number of steps above level , say with ; and for each with the set
is finite with
(The Catalan number ). In particular the count does not depend on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number ; the set of words of length over with exactly entries , so with entries ; the subset of words whose entry at the position is ; and for a word of length over the statistic .
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for ; with the number of up-steps among the first its height is (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
; ; ; ; ; and the finite sum satisfies and (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function).
If and , then is a bijection from onto (If then is a bijection from onto ).
If then the stabiliser of under the shift action of is and the orbit of has exactly elements (If then the shift stabiliser of is trivial, so its orbit has exactly elements).
For every letter the number of positions of carrying equals the number of positions of carrying , and is a left action of on the words of length (Cyclic shifting is an action of on the words of length over a set, clauses 2 and 3).
For a left action of on the relation given by for some is an equivalence relation, its class at is the orbit of , and the distinct orbits partition (The orbits of a group action are the equivalence classes of iff for some , and hence partition the acted-on set).
For , and : ( has all partial sums positive exactly when for every , clause 1).
For a finite set and , is the set of -element subsets of , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If and are finite and disjoint then ; and if is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets then (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clauses 1 and 2).
For a constant natural number and a finite index set , (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form, clause (c)).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and ; and for a natural number (The cardinality of a finite set).
A subset of a finite set is finite, with cardinality at most that of the set (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clauses 1 and 2).
A nonempty with an upper bound has a greatest element (A nonempty set of integers bounded above has a greatest element, and a nonempty set of integers bounded below has a least element).
Every nonempty subset has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
Integers and are coprime when ; and are coprime for every integer , since , and the relation is symmetric (Coprime integers: ).
Proof
A step of a diagonal path joins the two heights and , which differ by exactly ; writing for the smaller of them, the step lies above level exactly when , hence below level exactly when . For an up step and for a down step , so the steps below level are the up steps starting at a height together with the down steps ending at a height , and these two families are disjoint because a step cannot be both up and down.
Let be the number of up steps of starting at a height . The map sending to the diagonal path of length from whose step word is , with read as an up step and as a down step, is a bijection : the inverse prepends the entry , and by [F1] and [L8] a word of length over the two letters with exactly up letters is the step word of exactly one diagonal path of length from , whose height at the last index is . Moreover : writing , the path has for and its step carries the letter , so the position always contributes to because and , while a position with contributes exactly when , that is exactly when . Finally is finite with , since deleting the entry at the position is a bijection from onto the words of length over with exactly entries , and those correspond by [L7], [L9] and [L12] to the -element subsets of a -element set.
Fix and let be the positions of carrying the entry , extended to all integers by . Put . Then , because by [F3], so is determined by and is a word of length of integers; its weight is , which is because has entries and entries . The one-step difference identity of [F3] for reads , so induction on gives for every and every .
For the steps below level number , so the steps above level number with . Send a down step with to the least index with , which exists by [L15] because ; then and differ by , so and and is an up step starting at height . The map is injective: if then , and if moreover then with , so , a contradiction. It is surjective: given an up step with , the set of with contains and is bounded above, so by [L14] it has a greatest element ; then and , so is a down step with , every index strictly between and has height , and . So the two families of step 1.1 are equinumerous by [L12], and [L10] adds them; the number of up steps of is by [F1] since , so .
The members of the orbit of that lie in are exactly the pairwise distinct words with , and takes each of the values for exactly one such . Since and is coprime to by [L18], [L2] makes the stabiliser trivial, so the words with are pairwise distinct and form the orbit; the entry of at the position is , which is exactly for . For such a , [L5] gives , and the positions with at which carries the entry are exactly those with for some with , because and the integers whose residue carries the entry are exactly the . Hence , which by step 1.3 is ; and [L1] applied to , of length and weight , says that this is a bijection from onto .
For put . By step 2.2, takes values in on and each orbit meets each in exactly one word, so is the union of the pairwise disjoint sets , and for each pair the rule sending to the unique member of its orbit lying in is a bijection, the orbits being the classes of an equivalence relation by [L4]. Hence all sets have the same cardinality, and by [L10], [L11], [L12] and [L13] we get , which is by [L6]; cancelling the nonzero factor by [L17] gives for every .
By step 2.1 a path has steps above level , an even number, and , so the count is for exactly one with , namely . By step 1.2 the bijection carries onto , since and ; and by step 3.1 that set has exactly elements, so by [L12]. At the two paths from to have height sequences and , with two steps above level and none respectively, so each of and is realised once, and .
Remarks
-
This is not a corollary of the cycle lemma as that lemma is stated here. The cycle lemma counts the cyclic shifts all of whose partial sums are positive, and for weight that is exactly one shift; Chung–Feller needs every shift sorted by how many of its partial sums fail to rise, which is the strictly finer statement If then is a bijection from onto .
-
Where the blocking is spent. The word records only the jumps of between consecutive positions carrying the entry . That is what turns a statement about the shifts of beginning with into a statement about all shifts of a word of length , which is the form the transversal lemma is stated in.
-
Why the steps split evenly below the axis. The pairing of step 2.1 matches each descent to level with the next ascent from , and it is a bijection only because the path ends at height : with a free right endpoint a descent below the axis need never be undone, and the count of steps below the axis would not be even.
Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and
Statement
Let and put
The map sending to the diagonal path of length from whose step word is , then the step word of , then , then the step word of , is a bijection
onto the Dyck paths of semilength (Dyck paths of semilength ). The index is recovered from the image as the first return: is the least positive index at which the height of is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the set above.
is the set of diagonal paths of length from to whose height function satisfies for every (Dyck paths of semilength ).
A diagonal path of length from is the same datum as a function with and for ; with the number of up-steps among the first its height is (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
Every nonempty subset has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
Proof
lands in , and for its image the first return to height is at the index . The concatenated word has length , so by [L1] it is the step word of exactly one diagonal path of length from . Writing , , for the three height functions, [F2] gives , for , and for ; since we get and , so . Hence throughout and , so by [F1]; and for , so no index in the range from to has height and the first return is exactly at .
is surjective. Let have height and step word . Since and , the first step is up and . The set of positive indices with contains , so by [L3] it has a least element , and because . By [F2] the number is even for every , so forces even, say with and . For we have and , hence ; in particular , and since the step at is down and . Let be the diagonal path of length from with step word and the one of length with step word , both supplied by [L1]. Then with , so ; and with , so . The word of is , then that of , then , then that of , so .
is injective. If then by step 1.1 the common image has first return at and at , so ; the three blocks of the step word are then determined by their positions, so and have the same step word and likewise and , whence and by [L1].
By steps 2.1 and 1.2 the map is injective and surjective, so it is a bijection, and by [L2] it has a two-sided inverse, namely the map sending to the triple built in step 1.2. At the set has the single element with both factors the empty path, and sends it to the path with step word , which is the unique member of .
Remarks
-
Why the first return and not the last. The decomposition is forced by reading the path from the left: the first step is up, and the index at which the height first comes back to is the only place the path can be cut so that the inner block is a Dyck path after a shift and the outer remainder is one outright. Cutting at the last return also gives a decomposition, of a different shape, and the two must not be mixed.
-
Three later theorems on this page are this lemma applied elsewhere. The Motzkin and Schröder equations and the recursion for binary trees are the same first-return argument run over a different step set or a different recursive family, and each states the analogue rather than reusing this statement.
, with
Statement
, and for every , in ,
the sum being over the finite index set (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form) and the Catalan number (The Catalan number ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the set of triples with , and .
, and (The Catalan number ).
The map sending to the diagonal path whose step word is , the step word of , , the step word of , is a bijection (Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and ).
is finite and nonempty for every ( is a finite set).
If is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets, then is finite with (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clause 2).
If and are finite then is finite and (The product rule: , and , clause 1).
For a finite index set and , is defined and equals for any bijection with ; taking and the identity gives (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form, clause (a)).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
For each with put . These sets are pairwise disjoint, since their members differ in the first coordinate, and their union is . Each is finite with : the sets and are finite by [L2], so [L4] makes the product finite of cardinality by [F1], and pairing with the single element is a bijection onto , which [L6] makes cardinality preserving.
The index set is finite, so [L3] applies and gives that is finite with , the sum being the natural-number sum of [L5] over that index set.
By [L1] and [L6], , which with step 2.1 is the stated identity; and by [F1]. At the identity reads , and at it reads .
Remarks
-
The recurrence determines the sequence, and the definition does not need it. Every value is computable from by the displayed convolution, but was defined as a count, so the recurrence is a theorem about that count rather than the object's definition. That is what makes the three closed forms on this page statements rather than restatements.
-
Where the first-return decomposition is spent. Only in the bijection: the sum has one summand for each possible length of the inner block, and the disjointness of the summands is the uniqueness half of that decomposition.
The Catalan generating function in
Definition
is a field (The rationals form a field) and therefore a commutative ring (Every field is a commutative ring with ; it is an integral domain, and it is a commutative division ring), so the formal power series and the coefficient functionals of Formal power series over a commutative ring and the coefficient-extraction functional are available over it.
Natural numbers as coefficients. A natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under the composite of the embedding , , of The naturals embed in the integers with the embedding of The integers embed in the rationals; no symbol is written for it. Both embeddings are injective and preserve addition and multiplication, so the composite does too, and by induction (The principle of mathematical induction) it therefore carries a finite sum or product of natural numbers to the corresponding finite sum or product of rationals. An identity between natural numbers may therefore be read as an identity between rationals, and conversely, the embedding being injective.
Definition. The Catalan generating function is the formal power series whose coefficient function is (The Catalan number ), that is
Two formal power series are equal exactly when all their coefficients agree (Coefficient extraction is -linear, separates formal series, shifts under multiplication by , and converts products to finite convolution), so is determined by this prescription and nothing else is asserted: the symbol is an indeterminate, no value is substituted for it, and no convergence is claimed.
as a commutative -algebra. The coefficientwise sum and the Cauchy product make a commutative ring, and the map sending a rational to the constant series with that coefficient at is an injective unital ring homomorphism (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring, applied to the polynomials of degree at most ). So is a commutative -algebra in the sense of Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra, and the formal exponential, logarithm and binomial powers of that item are available in it.
Remarks
-
Why and not . Every coefficient of is a natural number, so has a copy in . The square-root and binomial-power machinery used below is stated for a commutative -algebra, because its definitions divide by , and is not one. Working over from the start avoids moving between two rings in the middle of a computation.
-
A count read as a coefficient. The coefficients are the counts , and the reading of a natural number as a rational is the embedding recorded above. Nothing else changes: an identity proved between the counts is an identity between the coefficients, and an identity proved between the coefficients transports back because the embedding is injective.
Statement
In the Catalan generating function (The Catalan generating function in ) satisfies
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Catalan generating function .
For every , , and a natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under an injective embedding preserving addition, multiplication and finite sums (The Catalan generating function in ).
in for every (, with ).
; if and only if for every ; for and for ; and (Coefficient extraction is -linear, separates formal series, shifts under multiplication by , and converts products to finite convolution).
The coefficientwise sum and Cauchy product make a commutative ring, and the constant series form an isomorphic copy of inside it (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring).
Proof
The constant coefficients agree: , the second term vanishing by the clause of [L2] for , and by [F1] and [F2].
The coefficients at every positive index agree. Let . Then by [L2], and the Cauchy product clause of [L2] evaluates as , which is by [L1], read in through the embedding of [F1]. And .
The two series have the same coefficient at every index by steps 1.1 and 1.2, so they are equal by the extensionality clause of [L2].
Remarks
-
This is the recurrence, transcribed. The equation carries exactly the content of the convolution recurrence together with the initial value ; the passage between the two is the Cauchy product formula and nothing else. What the equation buys is that it can be solved, which a recurrence cannot be.
-
No division occurs. The equation is stated in the cleared form . Solving it below produces the closed form by identifying a square root, not by dividing by , which is not a unit of .
for , and for
Statement
Work in , a commutative -algebra (The Catalan generating function in ), and let denote the formal binomial power of Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra with and ; by Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra it is the unique series in whose square is . Then
and for every , in ,
The displayed quotient formula is stated for only, and is not a statement about : at the value is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the series above; write .
is a commutative -algebra, and a natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under an injective embedding preserving addition and multiplication (The Catalan generating function in ).
In a commutative -algebra, for and , , where the numerator is the empty product at (Formal and are inverse homomorphisms and formal binomial powers obey the expected addition laws).
For and , , and the displayed families are summable because (Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra).
For a commutative -algebra , and , there is a unique with , namely (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
For with : ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and ).
for every , and is a natural number (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
for every , and (The factorial and the falling factorial , defined by recursion in ).
For all with : if then (Cancellation for multiplication by a nonzero factor).
is a field, so every nonzero rational is invertible (The rationals form a field).
A property that holds at and passes from every natural number to its successor holds at every natural number: if a property satisfies and () for all , then holds for all (The principle of mathematical induction).
Proof
With we have , so by [L1] and [L4] the coefficient of the binomial series at the index receives a contribution only from the term , giving for every ; at the numerator is the empty product and . Consequently for every .
For every the identity holds in . Both and , so [L5] gives and . Multiplying the first by and using from [L7] gives ; multiplying the second by and using gives . The two right-hand sides agree, so cancelling the nonzero factor by [L7] and [L8] gives the identity.
For every one has , by induction on . At the formula of step 1.1 gives , and by [L6]. Assume it at some . Multiplying the recursion of step 1.1 by gives , which by step 1.2 is ; since is a nonzero rational, [L9] allows cancelling it and yields , which is the formula at .
Dividing by the nonzero rational turns step 2.1 into the quotient form, and step 1.1 gives the value at . As a check, the first coefficients are , , , , and .
Remarks
-
The index is genuinely outside the formula. The quotient has no value at , and the coefficient there is , not . Stating the formula with its range is not pedantry: the closed form of the Catalan generating function takes coefficients at positive indices only, and a statement covering would be false.
-
Where the uniqueness clause is used. [L3] identifies the binomial power as the series in squaring to , which is what lets a series produced by an entirely different computation be recognised as this one. No branch is chosen and no limit is taken.
, where is the unique square root with constant coefficient
Statement
In , with the Catalan generating function (The Catalan generating function in ) and the formal binomial power of Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra,
The series is the unique element of whose square is (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra), and the content of the theorem is that is that element. No square root is chosen, no branch is selected and no substitution for is made.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Catalan generating function .
For every , , and is a commutative -algebra (The Catalan generating function in ).
For a commutative -algebra , and , there is a unique with , namely (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
The coefficientwise sum and Cauchy product make a commutative ring (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring).
For and the formal binomial power is (Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra).
Proof
Expanding in the commutative ring gives , and [F1] says , so .
The series lies in : its coefficient at the index is by [L2], since .
The series lies in , so [L1] with supplies exactly one element of whose square is , namely as defined in [L4]. By steps 1.1 and 1.2 the series is such an element, so it is that one: , and adding to both sides gives .
Remarks
-
The root is identified, not chosen. Both primary sources for this page solve the quadratic by the quadratic formula and then pick the branch by letting tend to . That is an analytic argument about a function, and there is no function here: is an indeterminate and no value is substituted for it. The uniqueness clause of Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra replaces the branch choice with an identification, and it is the only step of this page where the sources use an argument the library may not.
-
Why the identity is stated with the factor left in place. The series is not a unit of , since its coefficient at is , so cannot be obtained by dividing. Every coefficient statement below is derived from the cleared identity by extracting a coefficient, which is legitimate at every index.
A third derivation of , from the closed form of
Statement
For every , in ,
The identity is that of ; what is new is the route. It is obtained here by extracting a coefficient from the closed form (, where is the unique square root with constant coefficient ), with no bijection, no reflection and no group action: only formal algebra in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the Catalan generating function .
for every , and a natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under an injective embedding preserving addition and multiplication (The Catalan generating function in ).
For every , in ( for , and for ).
is a field, so every nonzero rational is invertible (The rationals form a field).
Proof
Extract the coefficient at the index from the left-hand side of [F1]: by [L2], .
Extract it from the right-hand side: by [L2] the constant series contributes at a positive index, so , and multiplying by and using [L1] with , which is at least , gives .
By [F1] the two coefficients of steps 1.1 and 1.2 are equal, so multiplying step 1.1 by gives in ; cancelling the nonzero rational by [L3] gives in , and the embedding of [F2] being injective, the same identity holds in . It is the identity of [L4], now proved a third time. At it reads .
Remarks
-
What makes this a different route and not a rearrangement. The two earlier derivations count a set twice: once directly and once after a reflection or after a group action. This one never counts anything. It turns the recurrence into an algebraic equation, solves that equation inside , and reads a single coefficient off the solution. The only combinatorial input is the recurrence itself.
-
Where the three derivations meet. All three end at the same identity in , and the cycle-lemma derivation ends at , whose consistency with this one is proved where it is stated. Agreement of the answers is not evidence that the routes are the same; each spends a different hypothesis, and the remark on routes at the end of this page records which.
is not a rational formal power series, so satisfies no eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence
Statement
The Catalan generating function (The Catalan generating function in ) is not a rational formal power series (Rational formal power series, proper presentations and reduced denominators): there are no polynomials with and .
Consequently the sequence , read in , satisfies no eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence (A coefficient sequence is eventually linearly recurrent if and only if its formal generating function is rational).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Catalan generating function , and the polynomial ring over (The polynomial ring over a commutative ring as finitely supported coefficient sequences with convolution).
is a commutative -algebra and the coefficient of at the index is (The Catalan generating function in ).
A formal power series is rational when there are polynomials with a unit and (Rational formal power series, proper presentations and reduced denominators).
For a field and a sequence in with : satisfies an eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence if and only if is a rational formal power series (A coefficient sequence is eventually linearly recurrent if and only if its formal generating function is rational).
If is an integral domain and are nonzero, then and (Over an integral domain, degrees add under multiplication of nonzero polynomials).
The degree of a nonzero polynomial is the largest index carrying a nonzero coefficient (Degree, leading coefficient and monic polynomial, with the zero polynomial having no degree).
Every field is an integral domain (Every field is a commutative ring with ; it is an integral domain, and it is a commutative division ring, clause 2).
is a field (The rationals form a field).
The coefficientwise sum and Cauchy product make a commutative ring, and the inclusion of into it is an injective unital ring homomorphism (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring).
Proof
Suppose is rational: by [L1] there are with a unit of , hence and , and in .
From [F1] we have , hence . Multiplying by and using gives , an identity between polynomials, which by [L8] may be read inside . Put .
. Otherwise ; but is an integral domain by [L6] and [L7], and and are nonzero, so [L3] makes the product nonzero.
Comparing degrees in gives a contradiction. By [L3] applied twice, and , the degree of being by [L5]. So in , which is impossible: writing and , if then , and if then .
The assumption of step 1.1 is therefore false and is not rational; and by [L2] with and , a sequence satisfies an eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence exactly when its generating series is rational, so the sequence satisfies no such recurrence.
Remarks
-
Why the parity argument is the whole proof. The equation says that is a square in the fraction field of up to squares, and the degree of a square is even while the degree of times a square is odd. Nothing about the specific coefficients is used, and the same argument rules out rationality for any series satisfying a quadratic equation whose discriminant has odd degree.
-
What the second clause does and does not say. It says no recurrence with constantly many constant coefficients holds from some index onwards. The Catalan numbers do satisfy the convolution recurrence , which is not of that form, and they satisfy the two-term recurrence whose coefficients depend on ; neither is excluded, and the companion page carries the false statement that conflates them.
Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions
Definition
Put , , and , and recall the lattice paths of Lattice paths, step sets and step words. For a lattice path of length write for the second coordinate of and for its first coordinate.
Definition. Let .
- A Motzkin path of length is a lattice path of length with steps in from to with for every . Write for the set of them.
- A Schröder path of half-length is a lattice path with steps in from to , of any length, with for every index . Write for the set of them.
Each step of a Motzkin path advances the first coordinate by exactly , so a Motzkin path of length automatically ends at first coordinate ; this is the same induction as in Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function. A Schröder path has a step of width , so its length is not determined by and is recorded below.
Counting the steps of a Schröder path. Let have up steps, down steps and level steps. Each raises by , each lowers it by and each leaves it unchanged, so induction on the index (The principle of mathematical induction) gives as the number of steps among the first minus the number of steps among them; from at the last index we get . Likewise the first coordinate of is the number of and steps among the first plus twice the number of steps among them, so and . Hence
of which are not level. In particular the length of a Schröder path of half-length is at most .
Both sets are finite, and the two counts are therefore defined. By For each start point the step word is a bijection onto the paths of a given length from with steps in a three-element step set form a finite set of elements. So is a subset of a finite set and is finite (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if ); and is a subset of the union of the finitely many sets of paths of length for , which is finite by The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition because paths of different lengths are functions with different domains, so is finite as well. Define
(The cardinality of a finite set), the Motzkin numbers and the large Schröder numbers. Both are defined as counts, and every formula for them below is a theorem.
Small values, read off the definition. At both conditions leave only the empty path at , so and . For : a single step from to must be , since ends at height and at height , so . For : the words and qualify, and fails the height condition at the middle vertex, so . For : a path from to is or , and fails the height condition, so .
The two generating functions. In (Formal power series over a commutative ring and the coefficient-extraction functional ) put
each count read as a rational coefficient exactly as in The Catalan generating function in ; two series are equal exactly when all their coefficients agree (Coefficient extraction is -linear, separates formal series, shifts under multiplication by , and converts products to finite convolution).
Remarks
-
The indeterminate marks length in and half-length in . That is the indexing of the source, and it is what makes the two functional equations below differ in the power of multiplying the square: a and a consume two units of length but only one unit of half-length. Reading either series with the other convention gives a false equation.
-
The letter for the large Schröder numbers is a deliberate departure. The source writes ; here already names a step set (Lattice paths, step sets and step words) and the periodic partial-sum function (Cyclic shifts of an integer word and its periodic partial-sum function), so the numbers are written and the paths . Nothing else about the source's convention is changed: counts the Schröder paths of half-length , so and .
-
Why the finiteness clause treats the two cases differently. A Motzkin path of length has exactly steps, so one word length suffices. A Schröder path of half-length has steps, and is not determined by ; the bound is what makes the union above finite, and it is attained exactly when the path has no level step.
, and
Statement
In the Motzkin generating function (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions) satisfies
and, with the formal binomial power of Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra,
the series being the unique element of whose square is (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the Motzkin paths and numbers of Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions.
is the set of lattice paths of length with steps in , where , and , from to with for every ; each such path advances the first coordinate by at every step; is finite; and ; and (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions).
A natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under an injective embedding preserving addition, multiplication and finite sums, and is a commutative -algebra (The Catalan generating function in ).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If and are finite and disjoint then ; and if is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets then (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clauses 1 and 2).
If and are finite then is finite and (The product rule: , and , clause 1).
For a finite index set and the sum is defined, and (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form, clause (c)).
; if and only if for every ; for and for ; and (Coefficient extraction is -linear, separates formal series, shifts under multiplication by , and converts products to finite convolution).
For a commutative -algebra , and , there is a unique with , namely (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
For and the formal binomial power is (Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra).
The coefficientwise sum and Cauchy product make a commutative ring (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Every nonempty subset has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
Proof
First-return decomposition. Let with step word and heights . Its first step is not , since would fail, so it is or . If it is then and the path of length with step word has heights , so it lies in . If it is then ; the set of positive indices with contains , so by [L11] it has a least element , and by minimality while , so the step at is and ; putting , the path of length with step word has heights ending at , so , and the path of length with step word has heights ending at , so , with because . Conversely, prepending to a member of , and sending to the path with step word , that of , , that of , produce members of whose first-return data are the ones started from; the two constructions are two-sided inverses, so by [L1] and [L2] the set is in bijection with the disjoint union of and the sets for .
Counting the two sides of step 1.1 with [F1], [L3], [L4], [L5] and [L10] gives, in , the sum being over the finite index set . At that index set is empty and the sum is , so , which is correct because a path of length beginning with cannot return to height . At it gives , at it gives , and at it gives .
Comparing coefficients gives the functional equation. At the index : by [L6], and . At an index : , while is when and when , by the shift and Cauchy-product clauses of [L6]; in both cases this matches the sum of step 2.1, so . Extensionality in [L6] gives .
Rearranging step 3.1 in the commutative ring gives , and hence The series has coefficient at the index , so it lies in , and with ; by the uniqueness clause of [L7] with it is therefore the series of [L8], which gives . No division by occurs, and none is available: that series has coefficient at the index and is not a unit.
Remarks
-
The route is the page's own, run on a third step set. No combinatorial class, no symbolic-method operator and no fixed-point theorem is used; the argument is the first-return decomposition of Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and with a level step added, and the added case is the whole difference between the Dyck recurrence and this one. The source reaches the same equation from an infinite continued fraction, which needs machinery this page does not build, so the proof here is local while the statement is the source's.
-
Where the level step shows in the equation. It contributes the summand , and the pair of a with its matching contributes the factor : two units of length for one pair. The convolution index therefore stops at and not at , which is exactly the point at which the Schröder equation differs.
Statement
For every , in ,
the sum being over the finite index set (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form), with the Motzkin numbers (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions) and the Catalan numbers (The Catalan number ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
is the set of lattice paths of length with steps in from to with at every index, and is finite (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions).
corresponds bijectively, through step words, to the ballot words of length , that is the words over with equally many letters of each kind in which every prefix has at least as many as ; and (Dyck paths of semilength , The Catalan number ).
For a diagonal path of length from with step word and the number of up steps among the first , the height is ; in particular is even (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For a finite set and , is the set of -element subsets of , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
If is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets then is finite with (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clause 2).
If and are finite then is finite and (The product rule: , and , clause 1).
For a finite index set and the sum is defined (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
A subset of a finite set is finite (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , clause 1).
Proof
Let have step word , put and let be the word over obtained by reading the letters of at the positions of in increasing order. A level step leaves the height unchanged, so for every the height of equals the height of the diagonal path traced by at , the number of non-level positions before ; and every with arises as such a count, taking to be or the position immediately after the -th member of . Hence for all if and only if for all , and if and only if .
Consequently is even, say with , since and is even by [F3]; and is then a ballot word of length , so by [F2] it is the step word of a unique Dyck path of semilength .
Let be the unique Dyck path whose step word is , supplied by [F2]. The map is a bijection from onto the disjoint union over with of . Its inverse takes to the path of length whose step word carries the letters of the step word of at the positions of in increasing order and the letter elsewhere: by steps 1.1 and 1.2 that path lies in , and the two constructions undo one another, so [L1] and [L2] apply.
The index set is a subset of the finite set , hence finite by [L8], and for each of its members is finite with elements by [L3] while is finite with elements by [F2]. So [L5] gives and [L4] with [L6] adds these over the index set; transporting along the bijection of step 2.1 by [L7] gives the stated identity. At the index set is and the single term is ; at it is again, giving ; at the terms are and , giving ; at they are and , giving ; and at they are , and , giving .
Remarks
-
A bijective proof, and therefore a second route. The functional equation of , and determines the same numbers, but nothing of it is used here: this argument deletes the level steps and reads what is left. It is also the identity that makes the Catalan numbers of this page count something other than Dyck paths.
-
Why the parity of is proved and not assumed. The subword at the non-level positions must return to height , and a diagonal path returns to its starting height only after an even number of steps. Assuming evenness would hide exactly the step that forces the summation index to be rather than .
, and
Statement
In the generating function of the large Schröder numbers (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions) satisfies
and, with the formal binomial power of Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra,
the series being the unique element of whose square is (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the Schröder paths and numbers of Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions.
is the set of lattice paths with steps in , where , and , from to with at every index; such a path with up steps has down steps, level steps and steps in all, with ; is finite; and , the two paths of half-length having step words and ; and (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions).
A natural number written where a rational is expected denotes its image under an injective embedding preserving addition, multiplication and finite sums, and is a commutative -algebra (The Catalan generating function in ).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
If and are finite and disjoint then ; and if is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets then (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clauses 1 and 2).
If and are finite then is finite and (The product rule: , and , clause 1).
For a finite index set and the sum is defined (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form).
; if and only if for every ; for and for ; and (Coefficient extraction is -linear, separates formal series, shifts under multiplication by , and converts products to finite convolution).
For a commutative -algebra , and , there is a unique with , namely (Every with has a unique th root with constant coefficient in a commutative -algebra).
For and the formal binomial power is (Formal exponential, logarithm, and binomial powers over a commutative -algebra).
The coefficientwise sum and Cauchy product make a commutative ring (Cauchy multiplication makes a commutative ring containing as the finitely supported subring).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Every nonempty subset has a least element (The well-ordering principle).
Proof
First-return decomposition. Let , of length , with step word and heights . Its first step is not , so it is or . If it is then translating the remaining path by gives a member of , since its endpoints become and and its heights are unchanged. If it is then ; the set of positive indices with contains , so by [L11] it has a least element , and by minimality while , so the step at lowers the height and is therefore , with . Translating the portion of from the index to the index by gives a path from whose heights are and which returns to height ; its numbers of up and down steps are therefore equal, so its horizontal extent is even, say , and it lies in . Since the step at has width , the first coordinate at is , so translating the portion from to by gives a member of , and . Conversely, prepending to a member of , and sending to the path with step word , that of , , that of , produce members of whose first-return data are the ones started from, because the heights strictly inside the first block are at least ; the two constructions are two-sided inverses, so by [L1] and [L2] the set is in bijection with the disjoint union of and the sets for .
The index range is where this differs from the Motzkin case. A and its matching have width each, so together they consume two units of horizontal extent and therefore exactly one unit of half-length; the inner and outer blocks then carry half-lengths and with , so the convolution index runs over all of and not only over . Counting the two sides of step 1.1 with [F1], [L3], [L4], [L5] and [L10] gives, in , the sum being over the finite index set . At the sum has the single term , so , matching the two paths with step words and . At it gives , at it gives , and at it gives .
Comparing coefficients gives the functional equation. At the index : by [L6], and . At an index : and by the shift and Cauchy-product clauses of [L6], and the sum of the two is by step 2.1. Extensionality in [L6] gives .
Rearranging step 3.1 in the commutative ring gives , and hence The series has coefficient at the index , so it lies in , and with ; by the uniqueness clause of [L7] with it is therefore as defined in [L8], which gives . No division by occurs, and none is available.
Remarks
-
One index range, and it is the whole content. Everything else in this proof is the Motzkin argument with the level step widened. The Motzkin convolution stops at because a with its costs two units of the index, and the Schröder convolution runs to because in half-length it costs one. A proof that copied the Motzkin range would give a false equation whose first wrong value is .
-
What the source proves and what is proved here. The statement is the source's, in the cleared form; its derivation there goes through a continued fraction, and the first-return argument above is written locally, exactly as in the Motzkin case.
Statement
For every , in ,
the sum being over the finite index set (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form), with the large Schröder numbers (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions) and the Catalan numbers (The Catalan number ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
is the set of lattice paths with steps in from to with at every index; such a path with up steps has down steps, level steps and steps in all, with ; and is finite (Motzkin paths, Schröder paths, the Motzkin numbers , the large Schröder numbers , and their generating functions).
corresponds bijectively, through step words, to the ballot words of length , that is the words over with equally many letters of each kind in which every prefix has at least as many as ; and (Dyck paths of semilength , The Catalan number ).
For a diagonal path of length from with step word and the number of up steps among the first , the height is (Diagonal lattice paths with steps and , and the height function).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For a finite set and , is the set of -element subsets of , and (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
If is finite and are pairwise disjoint finite sets then is finite with (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition, clause 2).
If and are finite then is finite and (The product rule: , and , clause 1).
For a finite index set and the sum is defined (The sum over a finite index set, and its product form).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
Let with up steps. By [F1] it has exactly steps, of which are not level, so the number of positions available to the non-level steps is and depends on ; that dependence is the whole difference from the Motzkin case, where the number of positions is for every . Let be the set of non-level positions, a -element subset of , and let be the word over read off the letters of the step word of at the positions of in increasing order. A level step leaves the height unchanged, so the height of at any index equals the height of the diagonal path traced by after the corresponding number of non-level steps, and every such number arises; hence the height condition on says exactly that throughout and , so is a ballot word of length and by [F2] the step word of a unique Dyck path of semilength .
For each with the map just described is a bijection from the set of having exactly up steps onto , where is the set of -element subsets of . Its inverse takes to the path whose step word has length , carries the letters of the step word of at the positions of in increasing order and the letter elsewhere: that word has up steps, down steps and level steps, hence horizontal extent , and by step 1.1 its heights are nonnegative and it ends at height , so it lies in and has exactly up steps. The two constructions undo one another, so [L1] and [L2] apply.
The sets of with exactly up steps, for , are pairwise disjoint with union by [F1]. Each is finite with elements, by step 2.1 with [L3], [L5] and [L7], and adding them over the finite index set with [L4] and [L6] gives the stated identity. At the single term is ; at the terms are and , giving ; at they are , and , giving ; and at they are , , and , giving .
Remarks
-
The binomial coefficient is and not . A Schröder path of half-length with up steps has steps, because a level step covers two units of horizontal extent while an up or a down step covers one. So the positions the non-level steps may occupy are in number, and that number moves with . In the Motzkin case every step has width , the number of positions is for every , and the coefficient is .
-
The same deletion, twice. The argument is the level-step deletion of ; only the count of available positions changes. Splitting by the number of up steps is what makes that count available, and it is why the sum here is indexed by from to rather than by the condition .
Balanced bracket words, defined by the recursive grammar
Definition
Let and let be the set of all finite words over , the words of length being the functions (Finite words, contiguous factors, avoidance and proper-prefix states). Write for the empty word and for concatenation.
Call a set grammatical when and for all . The set itself is grammatical, so the family of grammatical subsets is a nonempty subfamily of (The power set ), and we may define
the balanced bracket words. Thus is itself grammatical, and it is contained in every grammatical set.
Structural induction, which is what the definition is for. If is grammatical then , since is contained in every grammatical set. So to prove that every balanced bracket word has a property it suffices to prove it for and to prove it for whenever it holds for and for .
Every nonempty balanced word factors as . Put . Then because is grammatical, and is itself grammatical: it contains , and if then , so by construction. By the previous paragraph , which is the assertion.
Lengths. Every has even length: this holds for , and if and have even lengths then so does , whose length is . So put, for ,
Then , since a balanced word of length is and ; and for every ,
by the factorisation clause together with the additivity of lengths. In particular and .
Each is finite, being a subset of the set of words of length , which is finite with elements (The set of functions between finite sets is finite, with , A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , The cardinality of a finite set).
Remarks
-
The grammar is the definition, and that is deliberate. The set could instead have been defined by the counting condition — every prefix has at least as many as , with equal totals — and then the theorem that follows would be a tautology. Taking the recursive description as the definition makes the equivalence of the two descriptions something to prove, and it is that equivalence that the counting arguments use.
-
No parser and no stack. The definition quantifies over subsets of and takes an intersection. Nothing about reading a word left to right is assumed; the left-to-right characterisation is the content of the next item.
-
Why the graded pieces are indexed by half the length. A balanced word has even length, and every count on this page is stated in the number of bracket pairs. The displayed recursion for is the same shape as the first-return decomposition of a Dyck path, which is why the two families have the same counts.
is exactly the set of words of length over in which every prefix has at least as many as and the totals are equal
Statement
For a word over and let be the number of letters among the first letters of minus the number of letters among them. Call a nonnegative prefix word when for every and .
For every ,
(Balanced bracket words, defined by the recursive grammar). Moreover the alphabet bijection , carries onto the set of ballot words of length , hence onto through step words (Dyck paths of semilength ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , and the sets of Balanced bracket words, defined by the recursive grammar.
is the least grammatical subset of , so a grammatical equals ; every nonempty member of is with ; is the set of members of length ; ; and is the set of words with and for some (Balanced bracket words, defined by the recursive grammar).
corresponds bijectively, through step words, to the ballot words of length , that is the words over in which the two letters occur equally often and every prefix has at least as many as (Dyck paths of semilength ).
The map sending with , , to the diagonal path whose step word is , that of , , that of , is a bijection onto (Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and ).
For : is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
For a step set , a point and , the map sending a lattice path to its step word is a bijection (For each start point the step word is a bijection onto ).
If a property of naturals holds at whenever it holds at every , then it holds at every natural number (Strong (complete) induction).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
The letter map with and is a bijection , with the two-sided inverse , , so composing a word with is a bijection by [L2]. It carries to the difference between the numbers of and letters among the first , so is a nonnegative prefix word exactly when is a ballot word of length ; and by [F2] and [L3] those correspond bijectively to .
Every member of is a nonnegative prefix word. The set of members of that are is grammatical: qualifies, since ; and if and , then , for , , and for , the last value being . So is grammatical and [F1] gives .
Conversely every nonnegative prefix word of length lies in , by [L4] on . At the word is , which lies in by [F1]. Let and assume the claim at every index below . Let be a nonnegative prefix word. By step 1.1 the word is the step word of a path in , so [L1] writes that path as with , and ; applying the inverse letter map to the three blocks writes with of length and of length , both nonnegative prefix words by step 1.1 read backwards. Since and , the inductive hypothesis puts and , so by [F1].
Steps 1.2 and 2.1 are the two inclusions, so the displayed equality holds for every . Combining it with step 1.1 gives the second assertion, and [L5] transports cardinalities along it.
Remarks
-
What the theorem buys. The grammar is the definition, so this is the statement that the left-to-right condition a reader would have written down is the same notion. Without it the counting arguments would have to be run twice, once for each description, and the two would never be known to agree.
-
Where the first-return lemma enters. Only in the harder inclusion, and only to produce the factorisation the grammar needs. The lemma is a statement about paths, and the alphabet bijection of step 1.1 is what makes it applicable to words; the transport is stated as a bijection rather than left as an identification.
Statement
For every the set of balanced bracket words with pairs of brackets (Balanced bracket words, defined by the recursive grammar) is finite with
the Catalan number (The Catalan number ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
The alphabet bijection , carries onto the set of ballot words of length ( is exactly the set of words of length over in which every prefix has at least as many as and the totals are equal).
corresponds bijectively, through step words, to the set of ballot words of length (Dyck paths of semilength ).
If is finite and is a bijection then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
By [F1] and [L1] the composite of the alphabet bijection with the inverse of the step-word bijection is a bijection , a composite of two bijections being one.
By [F2] the set is finite, so [L3] transports its cardinality along the bijection of step 1.1 and gives , which is by [L2]. At both sides are and at both are .
Remarks
- The content is in the theorem above, not here. Once the grammar and the prefix condition are known to describe the same words, the count is a transport along a bijection of alphabets. What makes the corollary worth stating is that it is the first of the three Catalan families whose members are not paths.
Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size
Definition
Let be the set of all finite words over (Finite words, contiguous factors, avoidance and proper-prefix states, The natural numbers (von Neumann)), written for the empty word and for the word followed by the letter . A word is a prefix of when for some .
Definition. A binary tree is a finite set (The cardinality of a finite set) such that
- ;
- is closed under prefixes: if with then ;
- for every : if and only if .
Its elements are nodes; a node is internal when , and a leaf otherwise. The size of is the number of internal nodes, a natural number because is finite (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if ). Write for the set of binary trees, a subset of (The power set ), and .
The trees of size . If then no node of is internal, so no node has a child; a nonempty word in would put in by clause 2 with a child of it, so . Conversely is a binary tree of size . Hence , a one-element set: the tree with no internal node at all.
The recursion, proved here because everything below uses it. Let with ; then is internal, so and, by clause 3, . Put
Both are binary trees: each contains , each is prefix-closed because is, each satisfies clause 3 because does, and each is finite because and inject them into . The internal nodes of are together with the words for internal in and for internal in , and these three families are pairwise disjoint, so The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition gives
Conversely, for binary trees and the set is a binary tree with those two sets recovered as above, and with size . The two constructions undo one another, so for every the map is a bijection
Small cases. has the single member , and has exactly two members, obtained by attaching the size-one tree on the left or on the right.
Remarks
-
No graph theory is used, and none is available at this point in the reading order. A binary tree here is a set of node addresses: a finite prefix-closed set of binary words in which a node has two children or none. The usual picture, with a root drawn at the top and two subtrees hanging from it, is an illustration of the recursion clause above and is not a hypothesis anywhere.
-
Size counts internal nodes, not nodes. A tree of size has internal nodes and, by the recursion clause and induction, leaves; the count that matches the Catalan numbers is the one above. A statement about trees with nodes would be a different statement.
-
Why the addresses and not ordered pairs. Defining a tree as or an ordered pair of trees would need a recursion whose values are sets and whose ambient collection is not a set at this point in the development. The address encoding puts every tree inside the fixed set , so the definition is a condition rather than a construction, and the recursion clause above is then a theorem about it.
Each is finite
Statement
For every natural number , the set
of binary trees of size is finite (Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
The recursion of Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size gives
If and are finite and disjoint, then is finite; and a finite disjoint union of finite sets is finite (The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition).
If and are finite, then is finite (The product rule: , and ).
Proof
[base] The set has the single element by Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size, so is finite.
[ih] Assume that every with is finite.
For each index with , the sets and are finite by the induction hypothesis, so is finite by [F3].
The disjoint union is finite by [F2].
Since is in bijection with that finite disjoint union by [F1], the set is finite. Therefore every is finite.
Remarks
- This is the well-definedness step for the next corollaries. The Catalan count of binary trees is a statement about the natural number , and that symbol is honest only because this lemma makes the set finite first.
There is a bijection for every
Statement
For every natural number there is a bijection
from the binary trees of size (Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size) to the Dyck paths of semilength (Dyck paths of semilength ).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
Every tree in is determined by an index , a left subtree in and a right subtree in (Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size).
Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and for a unique index (Every Dyck path of semilength factors uniquely as with and ).
A function is a bijection exactly when it has a two-sided inverse ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
Proof
[base] The set has the single tree and has the single empty path, so sending to the empty path is a bijection.
[ih] Assume that for every index a bijection has already been constructed.
For a tree write its recursive data as as in [F1], with and , and define to be the Dyck path whose step word is , then the step word of , then , then the step word of . This lands in by the defining condition on Dyck paths.
For a Dyck path , the first-return factorisation of [L1] writes uniquely as with and for a unique , so the induction hypothesis supplies unique trees and and therefore a unique tree with recursive data . Define .
The definitions of and undo one another: starting from a tree, the factorisation recovered from its image is the same recursive split, and starting from a Dyck path, the tree recovered from its first return rebuilds the same path. Hence and , so is a bijection by [L2].
Remarks
- The proof is a transport of the same recursion on two different families. Binary trees split at the root into left and right subtrees; Dyck paths split at their first return into an inner and an outer path. The bijection is that identification written as a two-sided inverse.
Statement
For every natural number , the set of binary trees of size is finite and has cardinality
the th Catalan number.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
There is a bijection (There is a bijection for every ).
If is finite and is a bijection, then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
The bijection of [L1] identifies with .
Since has cardinality by [L2], [F1] transports that cardinality along the bijection of step 1.1 and gives .
Remarks
- This is the binary-tree form of the Catalan count. Later examples use it in the forward direction, by listing trees of a fixed size, and in the backward direction, by importing a Catalan identity into the tree family.
Chords of a labelled convex polygon, crossing, and triangulations, defined combinatorially
Definition
Let with , and write the vertices of a labelled convex -gon as the cyclically ordered set .
A chord is a two-element subset with . It is a side when or , and a diagonal otherwise.
Two chords and cross when
This is a condition on the cyclic order of the labels alone; no segment and no area enters the definition.
A triangulation of the labelled -gon is a set of diagonals such that
- no two members of cross; and
- is maximal with that property.
Write for the set of triangulations of the labelled -gon.
For and there are no diagonals at all, so the empty set is the unique triangulation:
For every fixed the set of diagonals is finite, being a subset of the finite set of all chords, so is a finite set of finite sets (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if , The cardinality of a finite set).
Remarks
-
The word "convex" in the title is only the picture attached to the cyclic order on the labels. The development below uses only the combinatorial crossing relation written above.
-
The side is singled out often enough to deserve a name: it is the closing side. The splitting lemma below decomposes a triangulation along the unique triangle touching that side.
For and a triangulation of the -gon there is a unique with such that and are both chords of or sides, and splits along
Statement
Let and let be a triangulation of the labelled -gon.
Then there is a unique index with such that both and are sides or diagonals of the triangulation. Equivalently, the closing side lies in a unique triangle with third vertex .
For that index :
- every diagonal of has both endpoints in or both endpoints in ;
- the restriction of to is a triangulation of the -gon;
- the restriction of to is a triangulation of the -gon.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and a triangulation .
A triangulation is a maximal set of pairwise non-crossing diagonals of the labelled polygon (Chords of a labelled convex polygon, crossing, and triangulations, defined combinatorially).
Proof
Let be the least element of such that is a diagonal of or the side . This set is nonempty because belongs to it.
The chord is a side or lies in . If it were a diagonal outside , maximality would give a diagonal crossing it, so ; if then would cross , impossible, and if then would contradict the minimality of .
Every diagonal of has both endpoints in or both endpoints in . Indeed, if had , then it would cross ; and if , then would satisfy the defining property of step 1.1 with , again impossible.
The diagonals of with endpoints in form a triangulation of the -gon, and those with endpoints in form a triangulation of the -gon: they are pairwise non-crossing because they are diagonals of , and they are maximal because any extra diagonal in one sub-polygon would also be a diagonal of the whole polygon and would not cross any member of by step 3.1. The index is unique, for if another index with had the same property, then the chords and would cross when , or the symmetric crossing would occur when .
Remarks
- This is the polygon version of first return. The closing side plays the role of the root edge, and the third vertex is the split point.
There is a bijection for every
Statement
For every natural number there is a bijection
from the binary trees of size to the triangulations of the labelled -gon.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
A triangulation of the -gon has a unique split index on the closing side, and splitting there produces triangulations of the -gon and the -gon (For and a triangulation of the -gon there is a unique with such that and are both chords of or sides, and splits along ).
Every tree in is determined by an index , a left subtree in and a right subtree in (Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size).
A function is a bijection exactly when it has a two-sided inverse ( is a bijection if and only if there is a function with and ; such a is unique, equals the inverse relation , and is itself a bijection).
Proof
[base] The set has the single tree and the set has the single empty triangulation, so there is a unique bijection .
[ih] Assume that for every index a bijection has already been constructed.
For a tree write its recursive data as as in [F1]. Let be the triangulation of the -gon obtained by taking the triangle on the closing side with third vertex , filling the left -gon by , and filling the right -gon by the order-preserving relabelling of onto the vertices .
For a triangulation , [L1] supplies a unique split index and therefore a unique index , together with triangulations of the left -gon and the right -gon. Relabel those two sub-polygons back to and , apply the inverse bijections and from the induction hypothesis, and rebuild a tree in from the recursive data . Define that tree to be .
The constructions in steps 2.1 and 2.2 undo one another because both are governed by the same split index: the root split of the tree becomes the closing-side triangle of the triangulation, and the closing-side triangle of the triangulation becomes the root split of the tree. Hence and , so is a bijection by [L2].
Remarks
- The boundary case is the digon, not the triangle. That is why the statement is rather than , and it is why the base case carries the empty triangulation of the two-gon explicitly.
Statement
For every natural number , the set of triangulations of the labelled -gon is finite and has cardinality
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
There is a bijection (There is a bijection for every ).
If is finite and is a bijection, then is finite and (The cardinality of a finite set).
Proof
The bijection of [L1] identifies with .
The set has cardinality by [L2], so [F1] transports that cardinality along the bijection of step 1.1 and yields .
Remarks
- At this says that the labelled hexagon has triangulations. The companion page writes them out in full.
Path systems between two families of lattice points, and non-intersecting systems
Definition
Fix a natural number , start points and end points in .
For a permutation (The finite symmetric group , one-line notation, and cycle notation), a -system is an -tuple
such that for each index , the path is a monotone lattice path from to (Monotone lattice paths with steps and ).
Two monotone lattice paths intersect when they share a lattice point, that is, when the images of their point functions have a common element of . A -system is non-intersecting when no two of its paths intersect.
Write for the set of -systems and for the non-intersecting ones.
Each set is finite. Indeed, for every index , either the endpoints and are compatible and counts a finite set of monotone paths between them, or they are incompatible and Monotone lattice paths with steps and makes that set empty. Repeated use of The product rule: , and therefore makes the product of those finite sets finite, and that product is exactly . Therefore the subset is finite as well (A subset of a finite set is finite, with , and equality holds if and only if ).
Remarks
-
The definition uses all lattice points of the paths, not only their step words. Two paths that merely cross between lattice points are not visible in this model; everything below is about sharing a lattice vertex.
-
The permutation is part of the datum. A path system records not only which paths occur but also which start is matched to which end.
Tail-swapping is a sign-reversing involution on the intersecting systems
Statement
Fix start points and end points , and let be the set of pairs such that and is an intersecting -system (Path systems between two families of lattice points, and non-intersecting systems).
There is an involution
with the following property: if
then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: start points , end points , and a pair with .
A -system is an -tuple of monotone paths , and it is intersecting when some pair of paths shares a lattice point (Path systems between two families of lattice points, and non-intersecting systems).
Composing a permutation with a transposition reverses its sign, so in particular for (Composing with a transposition reverses , Inversions, inversion number, the sign , and even and odd permutations).
Proof
The set of lattice vertices lying on at least two paths of is finite and nonempty. Choose its lexicographically least vertex , and then choose the lexicographically least pair of indices such that both and pass through .
Write and , where and end at and and start at . Define a new -tuple by replacing with , replacing with , and leaving every other path unchanged; and put .
The new tuple is a -system: the swapped paths are still monotone because each is a concatenation of monotone segments meeting at the same lattice point , and their endpoints are and respectively, while every other endpoint is unchanged.
Since and is a transposition, [L1] gives .
The same choices are recovered from . At every lattice vertex, swapping the two tails preserves the number of paths passing through that vertex: it only exchanges the labels and after . Thus the set of vertices lying on at least two paths, and hence its lexicographically least member , is unchanged. The paths with indices and still both pass through , and the set of indices of paths passing through is unchanged, so the least pair there is again . Applying the construction again swaps the same tails back.
Steps 2.1 and 3.1 show that the construction defines a map from to itself and that for every ; step 2.2 gives the sign change. So is the required sign-reversing involution.
Remarks
- The only real work is canonicity. A tail-swap at an arbitrary intersection would still reverse the sign, but it would not define an involution. The least indices and the first meeting point are what make the construction well defined.
Statement
Fix a natural number , start points and end points in . Put
the number of monotone lattice paths from to . Then
where is the set of non-intersecting -systems (Path systems between two families of lattice points, and non-intersecting systems).
If the configuration is compatible, meaning that every monotone path meets every monotone path whenever and , then only the identity permutation contributes and
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number , start points , end points , and the matrix with .
For , the determinant is (For , the determinant over a commutative ring by the Leibniz formula, and for a real matrix).
For each permutation , the set of -systems is finite, and its cardinality is the product (Path systems between two families of lattice points, and non-intersecting systems, The product rule: , and ).
There is a sign-reversing involution on the intersecting systems (Tail-swapping is a sign-reversing involution on the intersecting systems).
The sign is multiplicative, so and hence (The sign is a homomorphism , surjective exactly when ).
Proof
Expanding by [F1] and reindexing the finite sum by gives Indeed [F3] gives and, after putting , the product becomes .
For each permutation , the product is exactly the number of -systems by [F2], so
Split each finite set into its non-intersecting part and its intersecting part. The intersecting systems cancel in pairs under the involution of [L1], because paired terms carry opposite signs and equal absolute values. Therefore the sum of step 2.1 reduces to
In the compatible case, every non-identity permutation has an inversion with , and the compatibility hypothesis says that every path meets every path ; so every -system is intersecting and . Only the identity permutation remains, and the determinant counts the non-intersecting systems joining to .
Remarks
- This is the lattice-path form of the Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma. The general acyclic-digraph statement needs digraph machinery that this page does not build, so the theorem is stated exactly in the form the page uses.
For the pairs of non-intersecting monotone paths and number
Statement
Let . Then the number of pairs such that
- is a monotone lattice path from to ,
- is a monotone lattice path from to , and
- and do not intersect,
is
Facts & Assumptions
Proof
With , , and , the four path counts are by [L2].
Every monotone path meets every monotone path . After steps, both paths lie on the line ; writing their -coordinates as and , the difference starts at and ends at , and each step changes it by at most . So some index has , and then the common value of forces the same -coordinate as well.
Step 1.2 is exactly the compatibility condition for these two pairs of endpoints, so [L1] applies and gives the count as the determinant
At this gives , which matches the direct count: there are four ordered pairs of paths, and exactly one pair meets at the point .
Remarks
- The determinant is already nontrivial at : the count is not the product of the two individual path counts because the compatibility condition removes the intersecting pair.
Why the Catalan count is proved three times, and how the three statements agree
Remarks
The reflection route of spends only a path-set bijection: the work is in the first visit to the level , and the final count is the path difference absorbed into .
The cycle-lemma route of , a second derivation of the Catalan count spends a free cyclic action and trivial stabilisers. Its conclusion is the cleared count , and the last step of that theorem identifies this with the closed form of rather than treating it as a new sequence.
The formal-power-series route of A third derivation of , from the closed form of spends algebra in : the recurrence becomes the quadratic equation for , the closed form comes from , where is the unique square root with constant coefficient , and coefficient extraction returns the same closed formula again. So the three arguments disagree only in their hypotheses and intermediate objects, not in the count they deliver.
The trees and polygons of this page are defined by recursion and by inequalities on labels
Remarks
The binary trees of Binary trees, defined recursively, and their size are finite prefix-closed sets of binary words. Their size counts internal nodes, and every recursive step is stated inside that set-theoretic model. Nothing about a vertex set, an edge set or connectivity is used here.
The triangulations of Chords of a labelled convex polygon, crossing, and triangulations, defined combinatorially are sets of diagonals in a labelled cyclic order. Crossing is the inequality pattern or , and every later splitting argument uses only that combinatorial crossing relation. Drawings are illustrations of these two definitions, not additional hypotheses.
Conventions fixed on this page
Remarks
The page uses two step pictures and treats them as one subject only through their proved dictionary. Lattice paths, step sets and step words is the ambient definition, Dyck paths of semilength fixes the diagonal picture, and The two step sets describe the same objects: , is a bijection matching the diagonal with the level is the only place where the monotone picture is identified with it.
The indexing starts at . Dyck paths have semilength , the Catalan number counts semilength- paths by The Catalan number , and the base case is . Every count on the page is written with that convention visible rather than hidden inside a later formula.
"Strictly above" and "weakly above" are different conditions and are never merged. The reflection principle counts paths staying strictly above a level; the Dyck-path count uses weakly above because the path may touch height ; and The cycle lemma (Dvoretzky–Motzkin): if every and , then exactly of the cyclic shifts of have all partial sums positive fixes the orientation that a good shift is one whose partial sums are all strictly positive, with shifts indexed by their starting position.
A bijection on this page is always given with a two-sided inverse. That convention is what blocks the companion page's false bijection, and it is why the tail-swap of Tail-swapping is a sign-reversing involution on the intersecting systems is stated as an involution rather than as a cancellation slogan.
Two familiar refinements are left out because this page does not build the extra machinery they need. The Hankel determinant identity would need applied to a path family closed under the same tail-swap, together with a theorem counting the monotone paths that stay weakly below a fixed diagonal. The Narayana refinement counts Dyck paths by their number of peaks, and none of the routes built here tracks that statistic. Both are therefore recorded as not built here, and Huq §2.5 is the source in hand for the second.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The ten monotone lattice paths from to
Example
The ten monotone paths from to are exactly the length- words in with two steps. Grouped by the positions of the steps, they are:
| positions of the steps | step word |
|---|---|
EEENN | |
EENEN | |
EENNE | |
ENEEN | |
ENENE | |
ENNEE | |
NEEEN | |
NEENE | |
NENEE | |
NNEEE |
Facts & Assumptions
Verification
Every word in the table has length with three steps and two steps, so each is a monotone path from to .
Every monotone path from to has length with exactly two steps, so its step word appears in the table at the row indexed by those two positions.
The table has ten rows, which agrees with [L1] because .
The boundary cases of the theorem are visible too: there is one path from to , namely EEE, and one path from to , namely the empty path.
Remarks
- The table is the concrete instance of the subset bijection used in the proof of the general counting theorem: the path is determined by the positions of its north steps.
The five Dyck paths of semilength , with their height functions
Example
The five Dyck paths of semilength are:
| step word | height sequence |
|---|---|
UUUDDD | |
UUDUDD | |
UUDDUD | |
UDUUDD | |
UDUDUD |
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Dyck paths of semilength .
is the number of Dyck paths of semilength (The Catalan number ).
Verification
Every word in the table has three up steps, three down steps, starts at height , ends at height , and never drops below height , so every row is a Dyck path of semilength .
Any Dyck path of semilength must begin with U; listing the five possible continuations that keep the height nonnegative gives exactly the five rows of the table and no others.
The table therefore has all the Dyck paths of semilength , so [L1] gives . This matches [L2], since and therefore .
Remarks
- The five words are the first nontrivial Catalan family large enough for the reflection, cycle-lemma and triangulation examples to display all members explicitly.
The five Dyck paths, balanced bracket words, binary trees and pentagon triangulations at semilength
Example
At semilength , the three Catalan families on this page match as follows.
| Dyck path | balanced brackets | binary tree | pentagon triangulation |
|---|---|---|---|
UDUDUD | ()()() | ||
UDUUDD | ()(()) | ||
UUDDUD | (())() | ||
UUDUDD | (()()) | ||
UUUDDD | ((())) |
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the five Dyck paths of semilength displayed in the table above.
Balanced bracket words are exactly the words with equal totals and nonnegative prefix balance ( is exactly the set of words of length over in which every prefix has at least as many as and the totals are equal); under , , these are exactly the step words of Dyck paths (Dyck paths of semilength ).
There is a bijection from the binary trees of size to the Dyck paths of semilength (There is a bijection for every ).
There is a bijection from the binary trees of size to the triangulations of the labelled pentagon (There is a bijection for every ).
Verification
The bracket column is obtained from the Dyck-path column by the letter substitution of [L1], so each row gives matching Dyck and bracket words.
The tree column is chosen so that the bijection of [L2] sends each listed binary tree to the Dyck path in the same row: UDUDUD corresponds to the right comb, UUUDDD to the left comb, and the three middle rows are the three mixed recursive shapes.
The triangulation column is the image of the tree column under [L3], with the two diagonals determined by the same recursive split. Thus each row records one object in each of the three Catalan families, and the rows are pairwise distinct.
Remarks
- The point of the table is not the shared count but the functions. The three bijections on the A page carry the first column to the remaining ones row by row.
The reflection bijection applied to
Example
Take the diagonal path with step word UDDUDU. Its height sequence is
The first visit to the level is at index . Reflecting the initial segment through the line changes the first four heights to
so the reflected path has step word DUUUDU and runs from to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the path UDDUDU.
If and , reflection sends a path from to that first visits level at to the path with heights for and for ; this is a bijection onto the paths from to (Reflecting the initial segment at the first visit to level ).
The Catalan count at semilength is (, The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Verification
The path UDDUDU starts at height , ends at height , and first reaches the level at the index .
Reflecting the heights through the line gives , so the reflected step word is DUUUDU; applying the same reflection to DUUUDU returns UDDUDU.
The count behind the example agrees with [L2]: there are diagonal paths from to , of them touch the level , and the remaining are the Dyck paths of semilength .
Remarks
- The reflected path is not a Dyck path; that is the whole point. The bijection removes exactly the paths that touch the forbidden level.
The ballot problem with three votes for and two for
Example
The ten orderings of three votes and two votes are:
Exactly two of them, AAABB and AABAB, keep candidate strictly ahead after
every vote.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: and .
The ballot theorem gives (Bertrand's ballot problem: for the orderings in which the first candidate is strictly ahead throughout satisfy ).
For , if counts the orderings in which the first candidate is never behind, then (The weak ballot count: for the orderings in which the first candidate is never behind satisfy ).
Verification
The ten words displayed above are exactly the words of length with three letters and two letters, so there are of them.
Reading the lead after each vote shows that only AAABB and AABAB stay strictly positive at every stage, so .
This agrees with [L1], since reads and therefore .
For the weak form with , the orderings AABB and ABAB are exactly the ones in which is never behind, so the weak count is ; that is and agrees with [L2].
Remarks
- The strict and weak counts differ because ties are allowed only in the second statement. At this size the difference is already visible.
The cycle lemma on the word
Example
Let
a word of length and weight . Its seven cyclic shifts and their partial sums are:
| shift | partial sums |
|---|---|
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the two words above and the weight-two word .
If every letter of a length- integer word is at most and its weight is , then exactly one starting index gives a cyclic shift whose nonempty partial sums are all positive (The cycle lemma (Dvoretzky–Motzkin): if every and , then exactly of the cyclic shifts of have all partial sums positive).
The cycle-lemma Catalan count gives (, a second derivation of the Catalan count).
Verification
In the table, only the second row has all partial sums strictly positive, so the word has exactly one good shift.
Deleting the leading from that good shift gives , which is the Dyck word UDUDUD of semilength .
This agrees with [L1] and [L2]: [L1] predicts one good shift, and [L2] reads , so .
The weight-two word has exactly the two good shifts and , so the general statement is visible too: the number of good shifts is the weight.
Remarks
- The good shift is the second row because the page's convention counts strict positivity of every partial sum, not nonnegativity.
The Catalan numbers through , from the recurrence and from the closed formula
Example
The Catalan numbers through are:
| from the recurrence | from | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Facts & Assumptions
Verification
Starting from , the recurrence [L1] gives successively , , , , and .
The central binomial coefficients in the third column are , , , , , and .
Dividing the third column by as [L2] prescribes gives exactly the second column again, so the two routes agree term by term.
Remarks
- The table is the finite check behind the three proofs on the A page: every one of them lands on the same sequence before any general theorem is applied.
All fourteen triangulations of the labelled hexagon
Example
Grouped by the split index of For and a triangulation of the -gon there is a unique with such that and are both chords of or sides, and splits along , the triangulations of the labelled hexagon are:
| triangulations | |
|---|---|
| , , , , | |
| , | |
| , | |
| , , , , |
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the labelled hexagon with vertices .
The split index on the closing side is unique (For and a triangulation of the -gon there is a unique with such that and are both chords of or sides, and splits along ).
The number of triangulations of the labelled hexagon is (, The Catalan number ).
Verification
Every diagonal set in the table has three pairwise non-crossing diagonals, so each row is a triangulation of the hexagon.
The four groups are disjoint because the split index of [L1] is unique, and the group sizes are , , and , so the table contains triangulations altogether.
This agrees with [L2], since . The same grouped count is the recursion .
Remarks
- The two extreme groups are the fan triangulations based at the vertices and , together with the four further triangulations on the corresponding pentagons.
The first coefficients of the Catalan generating function
Example
Up to degree ,
so
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Catalan generating function .
( for , and for ).
Verification
Using the coefficients , the Cauchy product gives , so agrees with through degree , as [L1] says it should.
The displayed coefficients of are exactly those of [L3], so the closed form predicts modulo .
Squaring gives modulo , which matches [L2].
Remarks
- This is the finite coefficient check behind the formal closed form. The theorem on the A page proves the identity in all degrees; the example shows the first place where the numbers become recognisably Catalan.
A two-by-two determinant counting non-intersecting path pairs
Example
At , the two monotone paths from to are EN and NE, and
the two monotone paths from to are again EN and NE.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the four paths above.
The count of non-intersecting pairs is (For the pairs of non-intersecting monotone paths and number , The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Verification
The four ordered pairs of paths are (EN,EN), (EN,NE), (NE,EN) and (NE,NE).
Exactly one of them, (NE,EN), meets at the lattice point ; the other three are non-intersecting.
Therefore the direct count is , which matches [L1] because .
Remarks
- This is the smallest instance in which the determinant count differs from the product of the individual path counts.
The tail-swap involution on a concrete intersecting pair
Example
Take the identity system with
where has step word NE and has step word EN. The two paths meet
at the lattice point .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the intersecting pair above.
The intersecting-system involution swaps the tails at the first canonical intersection point and changes the permutation by a transposition (Tail-swapping is a sign-reversing involution on the intersecting systems).
Verification
The first common point of and is , reached after the first step in each path.
Splitting at , the prefixes are N and E, and the tails are E and N; swapping the tails therefore gives the new pair NN from to and EE from to .
The new pair carries the transposed endpoint assignment, and applying the same tail swap at again returns the original pair. That is exactly the involution property of [L1] in this concrete case.
Remarks
- The example shows why the meeting point has to be selected canonically. A different intersection choice would not necessarily be undone by a second application.
FALSE: the quotient is an integer only for small
Statement
False claim: the quotient
is an integer only for small values of .
Facts & Assumptions
Refutation
The first values of the quotient are at respectively, so the quotient keeps producing integers beyond the first few cases.
More generally, [L1] rewrites the quotient as for every natural number , and is a natural number by definition. So the quotient is an integer for every , not merely for small ones.
Remarks
- The point of the refutation is that the divisibility is proved by exhibiting a count. Once the quotient is , no separate arithmetic argument is needed.
FALSE: the monotone paths from to staying weakly below the diagonal are exactly half of all monotone paths
Statement
False claim: among the monotone paths from to , exactly half stay weakly below the diagonal .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the case .
Replacing by and by gives a bijection in which diagonal height is for the corresponding monotone path (The two step sets describe the same objects: , is a bijection matching the diagonal with the level ).
Refutation
At there are monotone paths from to by [L2].
The weakly-below ones are exactly EENN and ENEN, so there are of them.
Half of the total would be , not , so the claim is false already at . The general reason is that some monotone paths cross the diagonal and therefore belong to neither weak half-plane, so the naive symmetry "below equals above equals half of all paths" breaks down.
Remarks
- The true count is , not . At that is , exactly as the two listed paths show.
FALSE: the Catalan numbers satisfy a constant-coefficient linear recurrence
Statement
False claim: the sequence of Catalan numbers satisfies a linear recurrence with constant coefficients.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the Catalan numbers and their generating function.
A sequence over a field satisfies an eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence exactly when its generating function is rational (A coefficient sequence is eventually linearly recurrent if and only if its formal generating function is rational).
The Catalan generating function is not rational ( is not a rational formal power series, so satisfies no eventual constant-coefficient linear recurrence).
The Catalan numbers satisfy with (, with ).
Refutation
If the false claim were true, [L1] would make the Catalan generating function rational.
That contradicts [L2].
The recurrence of [L3] does not rescue the false claim: it is a convolution recurrence, so the next term depends on products of earlier terms rather than on a fixed linear combination.
Remarks
- The tempting mistake is to see the word "recurrence" and forget to ask which kind. The Catalan sequence does have a recurrence, but not the rational-series kind.
A map from hexagon triangulations to size-four binary trees that is not injective
Statement refuted
Equal Catalan counts do not make a natural-looking rule injective. Define
by sending a triangulation of the labelled hexagon to the canonical comb tree determined only by its closing-side split index :
- if , take the tree whose left subtree has size and right subtree has size ;
- if , take the tree whose subtrees have sizes and ;
- if , take the tree whose subtrees have sizes and ;
- if , take the tree whose left subtree has size and right subtree has size ;
and in every case fill each nonzero subtree by the right comb of the required size.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the two triangulations
Every triangulation of the hexagon has a unique closing-side split index (For and a triangulation of the -gon there is a unique with such that and are both chords of or sides, and splits along ).
A function is injective when equal outputs force equal inputs (Injection, surjection, bijection).
Counterexample
Both and are triangulations of the labelled hexagon, and both have the same closing-side split index : the side is present in each, and no index smaller than is available.
By the definition of , both triangulations therefore map to the same canonical size-four comb tree, namely the tree with empty left subtree and right comb of size . So .
The input triangulations are distinct because but . Hence equal outputs do not force equal inputs, so [L2] shows that is not injective.
Remarks
- The failure is deliberate: the rule remembers only the top split and then replaces the two sides by canonical combs, so it discards most of the triangulation.
The step set breaks the reflection argument
Statement refuted
The reflection argument on the A page depends on the step set with height changes . It does not extend unchanged to arbitrary step sets.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the step set and the level .
A diagonal path with or meets the level somewhere (A diagonal path with or satisfies for some ).
For diagonal paths with steps and whose endpoints lie above the level and which first visit at some index , the initial segment up to may be reflected across the line to obtain the bijection of Reflecting the initial segment at the first visit to level .
For diagonal paths with steps and and endpoints strictly above a level, the reflection principle identifies paths touching that level with paths from the reflected starting height, and subtracts their count from the total (The reflection principle: paths from to staying strictly above level are counted by a difference of two binomial coefficients).
Counterexample
The one-step path from to with step starts above the level and ends below it, but its heights are only and , so it never has height . This path is outside [L1]'s diagonal-step hypothesis and shows that the conclusion of [L1] fails if that hypothesis is dropped.
Because the path of step 1.1 never visits the level , the first-visit reflection of [L2] is undefined on it. So the bijection on which the reflection count rests is absent.
The naive analogue of the count fails too. For these same steps there is no path from to , so the total count is and the count of paths staying strictly above is also ; but there is one path from to , namely UU. Illegally extending the subtraction pattern of [L3] would therefore give , which is not a count of paths.
Remarks
- The broken step is exactly the one hidden in the ordinary proof: when the height jump can skip over the forbidden level, "changes side" no longer means "meets the level first."
Sources
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.1
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.2
- D. Guichard, An Introduction to Combinatorics and Graph Theory, §3.5
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.3
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §§10.2–10.3
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.3, Theorem 10.3.1
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Example 4
- D. Guichard, An Introduction to Combinatorics and Graph Theory, §3.5 Catalan Numbers
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.3, Corollary 10.3.2
- N. Dershowitz and S. Zaks, "The Cycle Lemma and Some Applications", Europ. J. Combinatorics 11 (1990) 35–40, §1
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.4
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Claim 10
- N. Dershowitz and S. Zaks, "The Cycle Lemma and Some Applications", Europ. J. Combinatorics 11 (1990) 35–40, §1.1
- N. Dershowitz and S. Zaks, "The Cycle Lemma and Some Applications", Europ. J. Combinatorics 11 (1990) 35–40, §§1–1.1
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.4, Lemma 10.4.6
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Claim 11
- N. Dershowitz and S. Zaks, "The Cycle Lemma and Some Applications", Europ. J. Combinatorics 11 (1990) 35–40, §2
- A. Huq, Generalized Chung-Feller Theorems for Lattice Paths (PhD thesis, Brandeis University, 2009), Theorem 2.1.1
- A. Huq, Generalized Chung-Feller Theorems for Lattice Paths (PhD thesis, Brandeis University, 2009), Theorems 1.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Proposition 5
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Proposition 6
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, Spring 2019, Proposition 7
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §§10.8–10.9
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.9, Theorem 10.9.2, equation (10.49)
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.8, Corollary 10.8.2, equation (10.45)
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.9, Theorem 10.9.2, equation (10.50)
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.8, Corollary 10.8.2, equation (10.46)
- N. Dershowitz and S. Zaks, The Cycle Lemma and Some Applications
- D. Guichard, An Introduction to Combinatorics and Graph Theory, Exercise 3.5.5
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, §10.13
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics, Corollary 10.13.2
- C. Krattenthaler, "Lattice Path Enumeration", ch. 10 of the Handbook of Enumerative Combinatorics
- A. Huq, Generalized Chung-Feller Theorems for Lattice Paths
- A. Postnikov (notes by A. Lin), MIT 18.212 Algebraic Combinatorics, lecture of February 6, 2019