40

The formal group law associated with a generating function $f(x) = x + \sum_{n=2}^\infty a_n \frac{x^n}{n!}$ is $$f(f^{-1}(x) + f^{-1}(y)).$$ In my thesis, I found a large number of examples of formal group laws that have combinatorial interpretations and thus have nonnegative coefficients. In Sec 9.1 I conjectured the following characterization for positivity of a formal group law:

Conjecture. $f(f^{-1}(x) + f^{-1}(y))$ has nonnegative coefficients if and only if $$\phi(x) = \frac{1}{\frac{d}{dx} f^{-1}(x)}$$ has nonnegative coefficients.

At least one direction is easy: The positivity of the FGL implies positivity of $\phi(x)$.

I have not been able to prove the converse, but there is some evidence. Start with $$\phi(x) = 1 + t_1x + t_2\frac{x^2}{2!} + t_3\frac{x^3}{3!} + \cdots$$ for indeterminates $t_i$ and define $f(x)$ by $f(0) = 0$, $1/(f^{-1})'(x) = \phi(x)$, or equivalently, $f'(x) = f(\phi(x))$. Then we can compute the coefficients of $f(f^{-1}(x) + f^{-1}(y))$ and they seem to all be polynomials with nonnegative coefficients in the variables $t_i$.

Often it is more illuminating to consider the slightly more general symmetric function $$F = f(f^{-1}(x_1) + f^{-1}(x_2) + \cdots).$$ The expansion of $F$ in the monomial basis of the ring of symmetric functions is

\begin{align*} F = m_1 &+ (2t_1)\frac{m_{11}}{2!} + (3t_2)\frac{m_{21}}{3!} + (6t_1^2 + 6t_2)\frac{m_{111}}{3!}\\ &+ (4t_3)\frac{m_{31}}{4!} + (12t_1t_2 + 6t_3)\frac{m_{22}}{4!} + (36t_1t_2 + 12t_3)\frac{m_{211}}{4!} \\ &+ (24t_1^3 + 96t_1t_2 + 24t_3)\frac{m_{1111}}{4!} + (5t_4)\frac{m_{41}}{5!} + (30t_2^2 + 30t_1t_3 + 10t_4)\frac{m_{32}}{5!}\\ &+ (60t_2^2 + 80t_1t_3 + 20t_4)\frac{m_{311}}{5!} + (120t_1^2t_2 + 120t_2^2 + 150t_1t_3 + 30t_4)\frac{m_{221}}{5!}\\ &+ (420t_1^2t_2 + 240t_2^2 + 360t_1t_3 + 60t_4)\frac{m_{2111}}{5!} \\ &+ (120t_1^4 + 1320t_1^2t_2 + 480t_2^2 + 840t_1t_3 + 120t_4)\frac{m_{11111}}{5!}\\ &+ \cdots \end{align*}

Note that $f(x)$ here has a combinatorial interpretation due to Bergeron-Flajolet-Salvy: $f(x)$ is the exponential generating function for increasing trees weighted by their degree sequence in the variables $t_i$. So there is reason to think that there is a combinatorial interpretation of $F$ in terms of increasing trees.

An interesting special case if $\phi(x) = 1 + x^2$, so that $f(x) = \tan(x)$. Then the associated formal group law is a sum of Schur functions of staircase-ribbon shape: $$f(f^{-1}(x_1) + f^{-1}(x_2) + \cdots ) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty s_{\delta_{n} / \delta_{n-2}}$$ where $\delta_n$ is the partition $(n,n-1, n-2, \ldots, 1)$. (See Ardila-Serrano, Prop 3.4.) This can also be interpreted in terms of binary increasing trees.

In many examples given in my thesis I found that there was a combinatorial interpretation of the FGL in terms of chromatic symmetric functions, but I was not able to apply those methods to this more general case.

Edit: Tom Copeland suggested I share some of the Sage code I used to generate these coefficients. Here is a Jupyter notebook in CoCalc that shows the computations.

  • Observation: The coefficient of $m_{11 \cdots 1}$ appears to be http://oeis.org/A145271 . – David E Speyer Feb 01 '18 at 15:25
  • @DavidESpeyer: Yes, in general, the coefficient of $m_{1^n}$ will be $a_n = [x^n]f(x)$. – Jair Taylor Feb 01 '18 at 16:54
  • (or $a_n = [x^n/n!]f(x)$ in the exponential notation above.) – Jair Taylor Feb 01 '18 at 17:05
  • I've written up some notes expanding slightly on the relations between the FGL and binomial and Appell Sheffer sequences. See the links in A145271 addressed above. The cycle index polynomials for the symmetric groups (https://oeis.org/A036039) are also related with the associated indeterminates being the complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials/functions. – Tom Copeland Feb 01 '18 at 17:41
  • It appears that even the coefficients of $m_\lambda/(\lambda_1!\lambda_2!\dots)$ are integers. – Martin Rubey Feb 02 '18 at 10:37
  • 1
    Jair, in your thesis, part 2. of the definition of contractible species there seems to be a typo, since there are two $\sigma$s.I suppose it should read "so that there is an $\mathcal F$-structure $\omega\in \mathcal F(V\smallsetminus U\cup {v})$ for some $v$ and $\tau\in\mathcal F(U)$ with $\sigma = \omega(v\leftarrow \tau)$"? – Pedro Feb 02 '18 at 11:38
  • @PedroTamaroff: Yes, you are right. Thank you. – Jair Taylor Feb 02 '18 at 15:33
  • @MartinRubey This is true. It's a bit cleaner to normalize them in that way, but I've found that it's more convenient for some combinatorial interpretations to divide them by the $(\sum_i \lambda_i)!$. – Jair Taylor Feb 02 '18 at 15:39
  • 2
    @JairTaylor: I turned some of the formal group laws in your thesis into statistics on integer partitions, see http://www.findstat.org/FullTextSearch?action=fullsearch&value=formal+group+law&fullsearch=start. I chose the smaller normalisation, because the numbers become huge. Feel free to add more! Do you have a combinatorial interpretation (in terms of counting objects associated with the integer partition) for the coefficients (suitably normalized) of one of these? – Martin Rubey Feb 03 '18 at 12:35
  • @JairTaylor: very very cool! Would you mind adding whatever you know to the description? I don't know what a Smirnov arrangement is, could you indicate a definition? – Martin Rubey Feb 03 '18 at 18:39
  • @MartinRubey Oh, a Smirnov arrangement/word is a word with no repeated adjacent letters. So, 'abcb' is Smirnov but 'abbcb' is not. See the last paragraph of 3.4 in my thesis. For a much more direct proof, see Lemma 2.2 in my paper here, where they're called "Carlitz" words. (This was the example that lead me to start thinking about formal group laws.) – Jair Taylor Feb 03 '18 at 18:53
  • @MartinRubey Sure, I'll edit the findstat entries a bit later. – Jair Taylor Feb 03 '18 at 18:56
  • @MartinRubey I've updated the FindStat entries with combinatorial interpretations. I realized the interpretation I gave earlier was not correct. – Jair Taylor Feb 04 '18 at 21:12

3 Answers3

16

Given $\phi(x)\in\mathbb{R}[[x]]$, with $\phi(0)=1$, we have defined $g(x):=\int^x_0{dt\over \phi(t)}$, $f:=g^{-1}$ and $$F(x,y)=f\big(g(x)+g(y)\big)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \psi_n(x) {y^n\over n!}\in\mathbb{R}[[x,y]].$$ Let's write a recursion for the coefficient sequence $\psi_n=\partial_y^nF(x,0)\in\mathbb{R}[[x]]$, solving by series the differential equation satisfied by $F$,

$$\cases{\phi(x)\, F_x(x,y)=\phi(F(x,y))\\ F(x,0)=x\ .}$$

One finds $\psi_0=x$, $\psi_1=\phi,\dots$ . Let's take $\partial_y^n$ at $ {y=0}$ on both sides. Faà di Bruno: $$\partial_y^n\big( \phi\circ F\big)\big|_{y=0}=\Big(\sum_{\alpha\in\operatorname{par}[n]} \phi_y^{(|\alpha|)} (F)\, \prod_{s\in\alpha} \partial_y^{|s|}F \Big) \ \Big|_{y=0} =\sum_{\alpha\in\operatorname{par}[n]} \phi^{(|\alpha|)}(x) \prod_{s\in\alpha} \psi_{|s|}(x) ,$$ (Legenda: The sum is indexed on the set of all partitions of $[n]:=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, and $|\cdot|$ denotes cardinality. The latter equality comes from $F(x,0)=x$ and $\partial_y^{j}F(x,y)\big|_{y=0}=\psi_j$). Now we isolate the term $\phi'\psi_n$, that corresponds to the partition $\alpha$ into a single class, from the terms of the sum indexed on the set of non-trivial partitions, with $|\alpha|>1$, denoted $\operatorname{par}^*[n]$. Note that each of these terms contains more than one factor $\psi_j$.

$$\phi\psi'_n -\phi' \psi_n =\sum_{\alpha\in\operatorname{par}^*[n]} \phi^{(|\alpha|)} \prod_{s\in\alpha} \psi_{|s|} .$$ Multiplying by the integrating factor $\phi^{-2}$ , and since $\psi_n(0)=0$, for $n>1$ $$ \psi_n(x) =\phi(x)\int_0^x\big(\!\sum_{\alpha\in\operatorname{par}^*[n]} \phi^{(|\alpha|)} \prod_{s\in\alpha} \psi_{|s|}\,\big)\phi^{-2}\ dt .$$

It is now clear by complete induction that for any $n\ge1$, $\psi_n$ is equal to $\phi$ times a series with positive coefficients, proving your conjecture.

Pietro Majer
  • 56,550
  • 4
  • 116
  • 260
  • 2
    These computations look good to me. But why does the last equation have positive coefficients? The $\phi^{-2}(t)$ may have negative coefficients, no? – Jair Taylor Feb 09 '18 at 05:13
  • 1
    Yes, of course, but by the complete induction hypothesis $\psi_j=\phi \chi_j$ for $1\le j<n$, with $\chi_j$ a formal power series with positive coefficients, and there are at least two factors $\psi_j$ in each product, since it's on $s\in\alpha$ with $|\alpha|>1$... – Pietro Majer Feb 09 '18 at 05:37
  • 1
    Ah, I see! That makes sense, thanks! It would seem this is proven. Allow me to think through the implications of this a bit and then I'll accept your answer. – Jair Taylor Feb 09 '18 at 05:39
  • 1
    Computing the first terms of the sequence I got, $\psi_0=x$, $\psi_1=\phi$, $\psi_2=\phi(\phi'-t_1)$, $\psi_3=\phi({\phi'}^2+\phi''\phi-t_2-3t_1\phi''+3t_1t_2)$. The feeling is that $\psi_n$ could be always a polynomial with integer coefficients in $\phi,\phi',\dots,\phi^{(n-1) }$. – Pietro Majer Feb 09 '18 at 23:08
  • 2
    This all makes sense to me. I think it should lead to a combinatorial interpretation as well. I'll need to think about that. – Jair Taylor Feb 10 '18 at 00:10
  • @PietroMajer, your feelings about the integrality of the coefficients of $\psi$ are indeed true. See my answer/comments. – Tom Copeland Feb 12 '18 at 19:36
  • 1
    Yes, indeed it can also be proven by induction from the formula I wrote, integrating by parts several times – Pietro Majer Feb 12 '18 at 20:23
9

This is really just a comment. Your question is equivalent to the following: if we have a formal group law $$ F(x,y) = x + y + \sum_{i,j>0} a_{ij}x^iy^j \in \mathbb{Q}[[x,y]] $$ with $a_{1j}\geq 0$ for all $j$, is it true that $a_{ij}\geq 0$ for all $i$ and $j$? As you say, the coefficients $a_{ij}$ can be expressed as polynomials in the coefficients $a_{1j}$, and these polynomials appear to have nonnegative coefficients, but I have not succeeded in finding a proof of that.

Your thesis is interesting. Your "contractible species" are essentially operads with a kind of nondegeneracy condition that is usually satisfied. I have never seen a connection between operads and formal group laws before, but it seems like a promising direction of investigation, which might be relevant for applications of formal group laws in algebraic topology.

  • Yes, you can formulate it this way. Actually, noticing that experimentally was what originally lead me to this conjecture. I do think contractible species are related to operads, but I wasn't aware of them when I wrote this. – Jair Taylor Feb 01 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    Perhaps you would be interested in Petersen's answer to https://mathoverflow.net/questions/259374/combinatorial-interpretation-of-series-reversion-coefficients. – Tom Copeland Feb 02 '18 at 16:30
  • @JairTaylor and Neil: From every contractible species $X$, you should be able to produce two shuffle operads (I haven't realized how to define composition here), one $X^C$, depending on connected components of hypergraphs of structures, and another $X^M$ depending on minimal edge sets on hypergraphs of structures, and it seems you main theorem rests on the fact that $X^M$ is a free right $X^C$-module over $X$. In fact, the arrows $A_n\to B_n$ for $n\in\mathbb N$ assemble to give a weighted bijection $X\circ X^C \to X^M$, and what remains to verify is this is a map of right $X^C$-modules. – Pedro Feb 04 '18 at 20:58
  • (The catch here is to understand how $X^M$ and $X^C$ naturally become shuffle operads, and show $X^M$ becomes a right $X^C$-module. This seems to depend on understanding how minimal edge sets and connected components of hypergraphs change upon the operadic composition one can obviously endow $X$ with, using the operations defined in the thesis.) – Pedro Feb 04 '18 at 21:01
  • As a further comment, @JairTaylor, it seems the axiom that contraction preserves edge sets (which one could call "leaf sets" to be in tune with the operadic intuition) is redundant. If we write $x(T\to i)$ for the contraction of a set $T$ to $i$ in a structure $x$, and $x_T$ for the restriction of $x$ to $T$, then for any $T'\subseteq T$, we always have that $(x_T){T'} = x{T'}$ (some natural transitivity of restriction), and that $x(T'\to i) = x(T\to i)\circ_i x_T(T'\to i)$, so $T(T'\to i)$, the set obtained by contracting $T'$ to a point in $T$, is an edge set of $x(T'\to i)$, as required. – Pedro Feb 04 '18 at 21:04
  • @PedroTamaroff Are you saying we can replace axiom (iii) with something else? It seems like you are using some form of transitivity for contraction. The original definition is probably not optimal. – Jair Taylor Feb 04 '18 at 22:23
  • 1
    @PedroTamaroff If you think you know the right way to re-write the definitions in terms of operads and prove Theorem 2.1 using this language I'd be interested to see it. – Jair Taylor Feb 04 '18 at 22:24
  • @JairTaylor I'm saying that axiom follows from the others you have. Regarding the operad business, as soon as I have something concrete I will let you know, but I think it is definitely doable and all the hard work and the crucial step is already contained in the Claim inside your proof of Theorem 2.1. The translation should not be complicated. – Pedro Feb 04 '18 at 22:43
6

An equivalent problem is to show the positivity of the connection factors $c^1_{i,j}$ in the expansions

$$p_i(t)p_j(t) = \sum^{i+j}_{n=1}\; c^n_{i,j}p_n(t),$$

where $p_n(t)$ are cycle index partition polynomials of the symmetric groups (A036039) with the indeterminates $x_n = (-1)^{n-1}h_{n-1}t \;$ and $h_n$ are the complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials with all of their indeterminates positive. The $c^1_{i,j}$ are essentially the coefficients of the FGL expansion Strickland displays. With $(a.)^n = a_n = f^{(n)}(0)\; $ and $\phi_n= n!t_n = e_n$, the elementary symmetric polynomials,

$$c^1_{j,k} = p_j(a.)p_k(a.)= p_j(t)p_k(t)|_{t^n=a_n}.$$

Jair, in your Sage computations, if the coefficients of f(x) are expressed as its Taylor series coefficients, i.e., they are normalized by the factorials, it is easier to recognize them as A145271, the refined Eulerian numbers. Same for your polynomials p, and if the coefficients of p are grouped together by powers of t and expressed as the elementary symmetric polynomials/functions $e_n=n!t_n=n!\phi_n \;$, it is easy to see they are signed A036039 with the appropriate determinates given above, e.g., $3! p_3 = 2(e_1^2-e_2)t - 3e_1t^2+t^3 = 2h_2t-3h_1t^2+t^3$.

See "Formal group laws and binomial Sheffer sequences" for details and examples.

Edit (Feb. 8, 2018):

The computations seem better characterized in terms of $f^{-1}(x)= x - (c_2x^2+c_3x^3+\cdots)$. Then $f(x)=e^{a.x}, \;$ where $a_n/n!$ are the refined face polynomials of the Stasheff associahedra (positive coefficients of A133437) and $p_n(t)$ are the refined Lah / Laguerre polynomials of A130561 with indeterminates $(x_1,x_2,x_3,..)= (t,-c_2t,-c_3t,..)\;,$ related to the elementary Schur polynomials. Then again $p_n(a.)=0$ and $c^1_{j,k}=p_j(a.)p_k(a.).$

Edit (Feb. 12, 2018):

Further to a conjecture by Majer,

$$f[f^{-1}(x)+f^{-1}(y)]=\exp[f^{-1}(y) \cdot \phi(x)D_x]x = \exp[y \cdot p.(\phi(x)D_x)]x,$$

so

$$\psi_n(x) = p_n(\phi(x)D_x)x.$$

The iterated infinitesimal generator is given in terms of $t_n$ by A139605 (the Comtet A polynomials), which acting on $x$ gives A145271 (the refined Eulerian polynomials, call them $a_n(x)$) all with integer coefficients. The polynomials $p_n(x)$ may be expressed as the the refined Stirling polynomials of the first kind (cycle index polynomials for $S_n$), noted above, or as numerous other composition partition polynomials. Then indeed we have the integer coefficients as Majer feels for

$$\psi_n(x) = p_n(a.(x))$$

with $\psi_n(0)=\delta_{n-1}.$

These polynomials and operators can be represented as various combinatoric structures, so with nice combinatorial interpretations of compositions can the ultimate constructs.

Edit (Apr 9, 2018): Here's an excerpt from an email to me from Nigel Ray in 2014 concerning Rota's interest in this topic:

"I'm afraid that "Extensions of UC (I)" long predates latex, but here's a link to the Advances

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001870886900654

(so long as you have permission). It was Gian-Carlo Rota who suggested I write this up, when I bumped into him one day in Berkeley - he was intrigued by the connection with formal group laws. When I got the chance to explain this to him in more detail (I think it was in Boston) he homed in on the fact that it explained the unresolved question he had always had with binomial sequences - namely how to express their products as linear combinations of themselves. I still think of UC as "formal group laws via Hurwitz Series" (ie divided formal power series), and hope there remains scope for developing that viewpoint."

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
  • The FGL for $\phi(x)=(1+ax)(1+bx)= 1+e_1x+e_2x^2$ is given in the OEIS entry for the Eulerian numbers https://oeis.org/A008292 in my 2014 formulas. – Tom Copeland Feb 02 '18 at 16:21
  • Corrected $x_1=h_0t=t$. – Tom Copeland Feb 03 '18 at 15:33
  • @Jair Taylor, btw, positivity is not necessary for combinatorial interpretations; e.g., recall the Euler formula, see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/272583/lodays-characterization-and-enumeration-of-faces-of-associahedra-stasheff-poly and the ref to Hope monoids there in my comments, and note interpretations of the Vandermonde determinant. Negative signs seem to point to topological combinatorial interpretations. – Tom Copeland Feb 25 '18 at 19:51