Evaluating the generalized Buchshtab function and revisiting the variance of the distribution of the smallest components of combinatorial objects

Abstract

Let n≥ 1 and Xn be the random variable representing the size of the smallest component of a random combinatorial object made of n elements. A combinatorial object could be a permutation, a monic polynomial over a finite field, a surjective map, a graph, and so on. By a random combinatorial object, we mean a combinatorial object that is chosen uniformly at random among all possible combinatorial objects of size n. It is understood that a component of a permutation is a cycle, an irreducible factor for a monic polynomial, a connected component for a graph, etc. Combinatorial objects are categorized into parametric classes. In this article, we focus on the exp-log class with parameter K=1 (permutations, derangements, polynomials over finite field, etc.) and K=1/2 (surjective maps, 2-regular graphs, etc.) The generalized Buchstab function K plays an important role in evaluating probabilistic and statistical quantities. For K=1, Theorem 5 from PanRic2001smallexplog stipulates that Var(Xn)=C(n+O(n-ε)) for some ε>0 and sufficiently large n. We revisit the evaluation of C=1.3070… using different methods: analytic estimation using tools from complex analysis, numerical integration using Taylor expansions, and computation of the exact distributions for n≤ 4000 using the recursive nature of the counting problem. In general for any K, Theorem 1.1 from BenMasPanRic2003 connects the quantity 1/K(x) for x≥ 1 with the asymptotic proportion of n-objects with large smallest components. We show how the coefficients of the Taylor expansion of K(x) for x ≤ x < x+1 depends on those for x-1 ≤ x-1 < x. We use this family of coefficients to evaluate K(x).

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…