Bressoud Style Identities for Regular Partitions and Overpartitions

Abstract: We construct a family of partition identities which contain the following identities: Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities, Bressoud's even moduli generalization of them, and their counterparts for overpartitions due to Lovejoy et al. and Chen et al. We obtain unusual companion identities to known theorems as well as to the new ones in the process. The proof is, against tradition, constructive and open to automation.

\section{Introduction}
\label{secIntro}

Euler defined the integer partitions,
noticed their intimate connection with $q-$series,
and gave the first known identities in the field \cite[Ch. 16]{Euler}.
Afterwards, arguably the longest stride was made by Rogers, Ramanujan, and Schur
by independently discovering the Rogers-Ramanujan identities \cite{Rogers, Hardy, Schur}.
The first of the said identities is given below.

\begin{theorem}[the first Rogers-Ramanujan identity]
\label{thRR1}
  Given a non-negative integer $n$,
  the number of partitions of $n$ into distinct non-consecutive parts
  equals the number of partitions of $n$ into parts that are $\equiv \pm 1 \pmod{5}$.
\end{theorem}

Then, one of the significant generalizations was given by Gordon \cite{RRG}.

\begin{theorem}[Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities]
\label{thRRG}
  Let $k$ and $a$ be integers such that $k \geq 2$ and $1 \leq a \leq k$.
  Given a non-negative integer $n$,
  the number of partitions of $n$ in which
  the combined number of occurrences of any two consecutive parts is at most $k-1$
  and 1 can appear at most $a-1$ times
  equals the number of partitions of $n$ into parts
  that are $\not \equiv 0, \pm a \pmod{2k+1}$.
\end{theorem}

The Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities spawned fruitful research in the area.
One of the follow-up questions was whether or not there was an even moduli analogue.
This question was first addressed and partially solved by Andrews \cite{Andrews-RRG-evenmod-partial},
and finally settled by Bressoud \cite{Br-RRG-AllMod}.
The extension case of his theorem was as follows,
where $f_i$ denotes the number of occurrences of $i$ in a given partition.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thBressoud}
  Given integers $k$, $a$ such that $k \geq 2$ and $1 \leq a < k$,
  let $C_{k, a}(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ such that
  $f_1 < a$, $f_i + f_{i+1} < k$ for all $i$,
  and if $f_i + f_{i+1} = k-1$, then $if_i + (i+1)f_{i+1} \equiv a-1 \pmod{2}$;
  and $D_{k, a}(n)$ denote the number of partitions of $n$ into parts
  $\not\equiv 0, \pm a \pmod{2k}$.
  Then $C_{k, a}(n) = D_{k, a}(n)$.
\end{theorem}

Recently, Corteel and Lovejoy defined overpartitions \cite{Ctl-Lvj-overptn}.
An overpartition is a regular partition in which the first occurrence of each part may be overlined.
Then, a wave of results was the overpartition analogues of (regular) partition identities.

Lovejoy found two cases in Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities for overpartitions
\cite{Lvj-Gordon-overptn}, and then the theorem for all cases was given by
Chen, Sang and Shi \cite{Chen-etal-RRG-over}.
Then, Corteel, Lovejoy and Mallet extended Bressoud's theorem to overpartitions
in one case \cite{Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod}, and
Chen, Sang and Shi showed the identities in all cases \cite{Chen-etal-overptn-Bressoud}.

In this paper, we prove a theorem (Theorem \ref{thMain})
which contains all of the above theorems inside an infinite family of identities.
In particular, we derive a $\pmod{d}$ analogue of Bressoud's $\pmod{2}$ condition.
We show that the (regular) partition theorems naturally sit inside the overpartition theorems.
That is, the identities are not just stated in a single theorem, but they are proved simultaneously.

In all of the cited works,
the approach is to work with multiplicity conditions on partitions on the one hand,
and to work with variants of known series on the other hand,
and eventually arguing that the functional equations and the initial conditions match.
Two separate lines of computations are reconciled at the end.
Here in contrast, we construct series from scratch using those functional equations
that are implied by the recurrences that come from the definition of classes of partitions.
In other words, the construction is linear.
This is a modification of the method given in \cite{K-Andrews-Stayla}.

The construction gives unusual companion identities as well.
Unusual in the sense that while the known results assert equality between two partition counters,
the companion identities give equalities between \emph{combinations} of partition counters.

In Section \ref{secPrelim}, we collect all definitions for the sake of completeness,
give a few examples and some straightforward facts involving infinite series and products.
In Section \ref{secMain}, the main results are stated and proven.
Finally, in Section \ref{secFuture}, the construction is explained
in detail with its extent and shortcomings.
We conclude with some directions for future research and open questions.

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{secPrelim}

\begin{defn}
\label{defPtn}
  A partition of a non-negative integer $n$
  is a non-increasing sum of positive integers
  \begin{equation*}
    n = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \cdots + \lambda_m
  \end{equation*}
  where $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_m > 0$.
  The number of parts $m$ is also known as the length of the partition.

  Alternatively, one can write
  \begin{equation*}
    n = 1 f_1 + 2 f_2 + 3 f_3 + \cdots
  \end{equation*}
  for the same partition, where $f_i$ denotes
  the number of occurrences, or the frequency, of $i$
  among $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, \ldots, $\lambda_m$.
\end{defn}
Obviously, only finitely many of the $f_i$ can be nonzero.
For example the non-increasing sum
\begin{equation}
\label{exPtn}
  5+5+3+3+2+1+1+1
\end{equation}
is a partition of 21,
where
\begin{equation*}
  f_1 = 3, \quad f_2 = 1, \quad f_3 = 2, \quad f_4 = 0, \quad f_5 = 2, \quad
  \textrm{ and } f_i = 0 \textrm{ for } i \geq 6.
\end{equation*}

\begin{defn}
\label{defOverPtn}
  An overpartition of a non-negative integer $n$
  is a partition of $n$ in which the first occurrence of each part may be overlined.
  One can write
  \begin{equation*}
    n = 1 f_1 + 1 f_{\overline{1}} + 2 f_2 + 2 f_{\overline{2}} + 3 f_3 + 3 f_{\overline{3}} + \cdots
  \end{equation*}
  where $f_i$ denotes the number of occurrences, or the frequency, of $i$ (non-overlined),
  and $f_{\overline{i}}$ denotes that of $\overline{i}$ (overlined).
\end{defn}
Again, only finitely many of $f_i$ or $f_{\overline{i}}$s can be non-zero.
In addition, $f_{\overline{i}}$'s may be 0 or 1 only.
For example,
\begin{equation}
\label{exOverPtn}
  8+8+7+7+5+5+\overline{4}+3+3+\overline{2}+\overline{1}+1
\end{equation}
is an overpartition of 54 where
\begin{align*}
  & f_1 = 1, \;
  f_{\overline{1}} = 1, \;
  f_2 = 0, \;
  f_{\overline{2}} = 1, \;
  f_3 = 2, \;
  f_{\overline{3}} = 0, \;
  f_4 = 0, \;
  f_{\overline{4}} = 1, \;
  f_5 = 2, \;
  f_{\overline{5}} = 0, \; \\
  & f_6 = 0, \;
  f_{\overline{6}} = 0, \;
  f_7 = 2, \;
  f_{\overline{7}} = 0, \;
  f_8 = 2, \;
  f_{\overline{8}} = 0, \;
  \textrm{ and } f_i = f_{\overline{i}} = 0 \textrm{ for } i \geq 9.
\end{align*}

\begin{defn}
\label{defRhoStat}
  Given an overpartition and an arbitrary positive integer $i$
  that need not occur in the overpartition,
  \begin{equation*}
    \rho(i) = \sum_{j = 1}^i (-1)^j f_{\overline{j}}.
  \end{equation*}
  In other words, $\rho(i)$ is the signed sum of number of occurrences of
  overlined parts that are less than or equal to $i$.
\end{defn}
For instance, the overpartition \eqref{exOverPtn} has
\begin{equation*}
  \rho(1) = -1, \;
  \rho(2) = 0, \;
  \rho(3) = 0, \;
  \textrm{ and } \rho(i) = 1, \textrm{ for } i \geq 4.
\end{equation*}

The unsigned sum $V(i) = \sum_{j = 1}^i f_{\overline{j}}$ was
defined in \cite{Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod}
and used in \cite{Chen-etal-overptn-Bressoud, Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod}.
Again, as an example, the overpartition \eqref{exOverPtn} has
\begin{equation*}
  V(1) = 1, \;
  V(2) = 2, \;
  V(3) = 2, \;
  \textrm{ and } V(i) = 3, \textrm{ for } i \geq 4.
\end{equation*}

For ease of reference, we collected the partition counters
used in this paper in the following definition.

\begin{defn}
\label{defEnumerants}
  Let $n$, $m$, $k$, $a$, $d$, $s$ be non-negative integers such that
  \[
    k \geq 2, \quad
    1 \leq a \leq k, \quad
    1 \leq d \leq k, \quad
    0 \leq s \leq d-1.
  \]

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_dA_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      the number of partitions of $n$
      using parts $\not\equiv 0, \pm a \pmod{2k+2-d}$,
      unless $2a = 2k + 2 - d$.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_d\overline{A}_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
       number of overpartitions of $n$
       where non-overlined parts $\not\equiv 0, \pm a$ $\pmod{2k+1-d}$,
	if $2a \neq 2k+1-d$,

       number of overpartitions of $n$
       where all parts $\not\equiv 0 \pmod{k + (1-d)/2}$,
	if $2a = 2k+1-d$.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      number of partitions of $n$ such that
      $\quad f_i + f_{i+1} < k$,
      $\quad f_1 < a$,

      and for $\delta = 1, 2, \ldots, d-1$,
      if $f_i + f_{i+1} = k-\delta$,

      then $a + s - 1 - f_{\textrm{odd}} \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta-1 \pmod{d}$,

      where $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_i$ if $i$ is odd,
      and $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_{i+1}$ if $i$ is even.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      number of overpartitions of $n$ such that
      $\quad f_i + f_{\overline{i}} + f_{i+1} < k$,
      $\quad f_1 < a$,

      and for $\delta = 1, 2, \ldots, d-1$,
      if $f_i + f_{\overline{i}} + f_{i+1} = k-\delta$,

      then $a + s - 1 - f_{\textrm{odd}}  - \rho(i) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta-1 \pmod{d}$,

      where $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_i + f_{\overline{i}}$ if $i$ is odd,
      and $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_{i+1}$ if $i$ is even.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_db^s_{k, a}(m, n)$ & = &
      number of partitions of $n$ counted by ${}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)$
      which have exactly $m$ parts.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, a}(m, n)$ & = &
      number of overpartitions of $n$ counted by ${}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n)$
      which have exactly $m$ parts.
  \end{tabular}
\end{defn}
It is straightforward to check that
the partition \eqref{exPtn} is counted by ${}_4b^1_{5, 3}(8, 21)$,
and the overpartition \eqref{exOverPtn} is counted by ${}_4\overline{b}^1_{5, 3}(12, 54)$.

We follow the $q$-series notation in \cite{GR}.
Below, $n$ is a non-negative integer, $z$, $z_1$, $z_2$, \ldots $z_r$ are arbitrary indeterminates,
and $q$ is a complex number such that $\vert q \vert < 1$.
The condition on $q$ ensures the absolute convergence of all products and series in this note.
\begin{align*}
    (z; q)_n & = (1 - z)(1 - zq) \cdots (1 - zq^{n-1}),  \\
    (z; q)_\infty & = \lim_{n \to \infty} (z; q)_n,  \\
    (z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_r; q)_\infty & = (z_1; q)_\infty (z_2; q)_\infty \cdots (z_r; q)_\infty.
\end{align*}

\begin{prop}
\label{propInfProd}
  Let the parameters and enumerants be as in Definition \ref{defEnumerants}.  Then,
  \begin{align*}
    \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_dA_{k, a}(n) q^n & =
    \frac{ ( q^{a}, q^{(2k+2-d)-a}, q^{(2k+2-d)}; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty }
	{ ( q; q)_\infty }, \\
    \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a}(n) q^n & =
    \frac{ (-q; q)_\infty ( q^{a}, q^{(2k+1-d)-a}, q^{(2k+1-d)}; q^{(2k+1-d)})_\infty }
	{ ( q; q)_\infty }.
  \end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
  The only case entitled to justification is $2a = 2k+1-d$ in the second identity,
  the others being evident.
  In that case, let $\kappa = a = k + (1 - d)/2$ so that the infinite product
  on the right hand side becomes
  \begin{align*}
    & \frac{ (-q; q)_\infty ( q^{\kappa}, q^{\kappa}, q^{2 \kappa}; q^{2 \kappa} )_\infty }
	{ (q; q)_\infty }
    = \frac{(-q; q)_\infty  ( q^{\kappa}; q^{\kappa} )_\infty ( q^{\kappa}; q^{2 \kappa} )_\infty }
	    { (q; q)_\infty }
    = \frac{(-q; q)_\infty  ( q^{\kappa}; q^{\kappa} )_\infty }
	    { ( - q^{\kappa}; q^{\kappa} )_\infty (q; q)_\infty } \\
    = & \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_d\overline{A}_{k, k + (1 - d)/2}(n) \; q^n.
  \end{align*}
  We used Euler's identity in the penultimate equation \cite[equation (1.2.5)]{Andrews-bluebook}.
\end{proof}

\section{Main Results}
\label{secMain}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaRecurrences}
  Let the parameters and enumerants be as in Definiton \ref{defEnumerants}.  Then,
  \begin{align}
  \label{eqRecRegular}
    {}_db^s_{k, a}(m,n)
    = & {}_db^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(m,n) + {}_db^0_{k, k-a+1-s}(m-a+1,n-m), \\
  \label{eqRecOver}
    {}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, a}(m,n)
    = & {}_d\overline{b}^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(m,n) + {}_d\overline{b}^0_{k, k-a+1-s}(m-a+1,n-m) \\
  \nonumber
	& + {}_d\overline{b}^0_{k, k-a-s}(m-a,n-m),  \\
  \label{eqInitNoPart}
    {}_db^s_{k, a}(0,n) = & {}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, a}(0,n)
    = \begin{cases}
       1, & \textrm{ if } n = 0 \\
       0, & \textrm{ if } n > 0
      \end{cases}, \\
  \label{eqInitaEqZero}
    {}_db^s_{k, 0}(m,n) = & {}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, 0}(m,n) = 0.
  \end{align}
  In the right-hand-sides of equations \eqref{eqRecRegular} and \eqref{eqRecOver},
  the superscript $s$ is understood as a residue class modulo $d$,
  so when $s = d-1$, $s+1 = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Equation \eqref{eqInitNoPart} says that the only partition or overpartition with no parts
  is the empty partition or empty overpartition of zero.
  Equation \eqref{eqInitaEqZero} is true because there are no partitions or overpartitions
  where the number of occurrences of (non-overlined) 1 is strictly less than zero.
  A part cannot occur a negative number of times.

  We will prove equation \eqref{eqRecOver},
  and then argue that it implies equation \eqref{eqRecRegular}.

  Let
  \begin{align*}
   {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)
   = & \textrm{ the collection of overpartitions enumerated by } {}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, a}(m, n), \\
   \mathcal{U}
   = & \textrm{overpartitions in } {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)
    \textrm{ for which } f_1 < a-1, \\
   \mathcal{V}
   = & \textrm{overpartitions in } {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)
    \textrm{ for which } f_1 = a-1 \textrm{ and } f_{\overline{1}} = 0, \\
   \mathcal{W}
   = & \textrm{overpartitions in } {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)
    \textrm{ for which } f_1 = a-1 \textrm{ and } f_{\overline{1}} = 1. \\
  \end{align*}
  First, ${}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)$ is the disjoint union
  of $\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{V}$, and $\mathcal{W}$,
  because the conditions $f_1 < a$ and $f_{\overline{1}} = $ 0 or 1
  that are satisfied by all overpartitions in ${}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)$
  can be divided into the mutually exclusive and complementary cases
  stipulated by $\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{V}$, and $\mathcal{W}$.

  Next, an overpartition $\eta \in {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)$
  has $f_1 < a-1$ if and only if $\eta \in {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(m, n)$.
  In the condition involving $f_i + f_{\overline{i}} + f_{i+1} = k - \delta$,
  observe that the quantity $a + s \equiv (a - 1) + (s+1) \pmod{d}$ remains invariant.
  So, $\mathcal{U}$ is in one-to-one correspondence with ${}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(m, n)$.

  When an $\eta \in {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^s_{k, a}(m, n)$
  has $f_1 = a-1$, and $f_{\overline{1}} = 0$,
  we can produce $\widetilde{\eta}$ by deleting the 1's in $\eta$,
  and subtracting 1 from all other parts.
  Then $\widetilde{\eta}$ is an overpartition of $n-m$ with $m-a+1$ parts,
  since deleting 1's also correspond to subtracting 1 from them.

  In $\widetilde{\eta}$, call the frequencies of $i$ and $\overline{i}$
  $\widetilde{f_i}$ and $\widetilde{f_{\overline{i}}}$, respectively,
  so $\widetilde{f}_i = f_{i+1}$ and $\widetilde{f}_{\overline{i}} = f_{\overline{i+1}}$.
  $\widetilde{\eta}$ also satisfies $\widetilde{f}_i + \widetilde{f}_{\overline{i}} + \widetilde{f}_{i+1} < k$.
  Given that if $f_1 + f_{\overline{1}} + f_2 = k - \delta$ then
  $ a + s - 1 - f_1 - f_{\overline{1}} - \rho(1) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta - 1 \pmod{d}$;
  since $f_1 = a-1$, $f_{\overline{1}} = 0$, $\rho(1) = 0$ in $\eta$,
  $ s \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta - 1 \pmod{d}$.
  Because $s$ is fixed, $\delta$ can take values $s+1$, $s+2$, \ldots, $d-1$.
  In other words, $f_1 + f_2 = a-1 + f_2$ is allowed to take the values
  $k-s-1$, $k-s-2$, \ldots, $k-d-1$;
  so $f_2 = \widetilde{f}_1 < k-a+1-s$.
  This is why the latter lower index of the second summand on the right hand side of
  equation \eqref{eqRecOver} is $k-a+1-s$.

  Finally, $f_{i+1} + f_{\overline{i+1}} + f_{i+2} = k - \delta$ in $\eta$ whenever
  $\widetilde{f}_i + \widetilde{f}_{\overline{i}} + \widetilde{f}_{i+1} = k-\delta$ in $\widetilde{\eta}$.
  Moreover, $f_{odd} + \widetilde{f}_{odd} = k-\delta$.
  Because $f_{\overline{1}} = 0$ in $\eta$, $\widetilde{\rho}(i) = -\rho(i+1)$.
  $\widetilde{\rho}$ gives the $\rho-$statistic in $\widetilde{\eta}$.
  Subtracting 1 from parts switched parity, and thus switched the sign of the $\rho-$statistic.
  We are now down to showing
  \begin{equation}
  \label{eqEta}
    a + s - 1 - f_{odd} - \rho(i+1) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta - 1 \pmod{d}
  \end{equation}
  if and only if
  \begin{equation}
  \label{eqEtaTilde}
    (k-a+1-s) + 0 - 1 - \widetilde{f}_{odd} - \widetilde{\rho}(i) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta - 1 \pmod{d}
  \end{equation}
  for fixed $\delta$.  Making the substitutions per the above paragraph,
  congruence \eqref{eqEtaTilde} is equivalent to
  \begin{equation*}
    - a - s  + \delta + f_{odd} + \rho(i+1) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta - 1 \pmod{d},
  \end{equation*}
  which in turn is equivalent to congruence \eqref{eqEta} after multiplying by $-1$
  and adding $\delta-1$ to both sides.
  Consequently, $\widetilde{\eta} \in {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^0_{k, k-a+s-1}(m-a+1, m-n)$.

  Conversely, each such $\widetilde{\eta} \in {}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^0_{k, k-a+s-1}(m-a+1, m-n)$
  yields an $\eta \in \mathcal{V}$ by adding 1 to each part and appending $(a-1)$ extra 1's.
  This shows that there is a one-to-one correspondence
  between ${}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^0_{k, k-a+s-1}(m-a+1, m-n)$ and $\mathcal{V}$.

  This procedure shows a one-to-one correspondence between
  ${}_d\overline{\mathcal{B}}^0_{k, k-a+s}(m-a, m-n)$ and $\mathcal{W}$ as well.
  In this case, $\eta$ is losing $a$ parts, $(a-1)$ 1's and a $\overline{1}$;
  and $\rho(i+1) = 1 - \widetilde{\rho}(i)$.
  This establishes equation \eqref{eqRecOver}.

  To see equation \eqref{eqRecRegular}, simply observe that
  a (regular) partition is an overpartition with no overlined parts,
  hence $\mathcal{W}$ is empty, and $\rho(i) = 0$ for all $i$ in $\eta$.
\end{proof}

Making the reasonable assumption that ${}_db^{s}_{k, a}(m, n)$ and similar partition counters
are zero when $n$ or $m$ is negative,
one sees that the equations \eqref{eqRecRegular} - \eqref{eqInitaEqZero}
uniquely determine ${}_db^s_{k, a}(m,n)$'s and ${}_d\overline{b}^s_{k, a}(m,n)$'s.
We then have the following corollary.

\begin{cor}
\label{corFuncEq}
  Let the parameters and enumerants be as in Definition \ref{defEnumerants}.
  Set
  \begin{align*}
    {}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = & \sum_{m, n \geq 0}
      {}_db^{s}_{k, a}(m, n) x^m q^n, \\
    {}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = & \sum_{m, n \geq 0}
      {}_d\overline{b}^{s}_{k, a}(m, n) x^m q^n.
  \end{align*}
  Then,
  \begin{align*}
    {}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)  - {}_dF^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(x; q)
    = & (xq)^{a-1} {}_dF^{0}_{k, k-a+1-s}(xq; q), \\
    {}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)  - {}_d\overline{F}^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(x; q)
    = & (xq)^{a-1} {}_d\overline{F}^{0}_{k, k-a+1-s}(xq; q)
      + (xq)^{a} {}_d\overline{F}^{0}_{k, k-a-s}(xq; q), \\
    {}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(0; q)
    = & {}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(0; q) = 1, \\
    {}_dF^{s}_{k, 0}(x; q)
    = & {}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, 0}(x; q) = 0.
  \end{align*}
  The listed functional equations and initial conditions uniquely determine
  ${}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$'s and ${}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$'s.
\end{cor}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaSeries}
  Let the parameters be as in Definition \ref{defEnumerants}.  Set
  \begin{align*}
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = \sum_{n \geq 0}
	  {}_d\alpha[s]_n(x; q) q^{-na} + {}_d\beta[s]_n(x; q) (xq^{n+1})^{a},  \\
    {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = \sum_{n \geq 0}
	  {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s]_n(x; q) q^{-na} + {}_d\overline{\beta}[s]_n(x; q) (xq^{n+1})^{a},
  \end{align*}
  where
  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\alpha[s]_n(x; q)
    = & \; \frac{ ((xq)^d; q^d)_\infty }{ (xq; q)_\infty } \; (-1)^n \;
      \frac{ x^{(k+1-d)n} \; q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} }{ (q^d; q^d)_n \; ( (xq^{n+1})^d; q^d )_\infty } \\
    & \times (q^{-n})^s \left( q^{dn} \; (xq)^{d-s} \frac{(1 - (xq)^s)}{(1 - (xq)^d)}
      + \frac{(1 - (xq)^{d-s})}{(1 - (xq)^d)} \right),  \\
    {}_d\beta[s]_n(x; q)
    = & \; - \; \frac{ ((xq)^d; q^d)_\infty }{ (xq; q)_\infty } \; (-1)^n \;
      \frac{ x^{(k+1-d)n} \; q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} }{ (q^d; q^d)_n \; ( (xq^{n+1})^d; q^d )_\infty } \\
    & \times (q^{-n})^{d-s} \left( \frac{(1 - (xq)^s)}{(1 - (xq)^d)}
      + q^{dn} \; (xq)^{s} \; \frac{(1 - (xq)^{d-s})}{(1 - (xq)^d)} \right),
  \end{align*}
  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s]_n(x; q)
    = & \; \frac{ ((xq)^d; q^d)_\infty }{ (xq; q)_\infty } \; (-1)^n \;
      \frac{ x^{(k+1-d)n} \; q^{(2k+1-d)n(n+1)/2} }{ (q^d; q^d)_n \; ( (xq^{n+1})^d; q^d )_\infty }
      \; (-q; q)_n \; (-xq^{n+1}; q)_\infty \\
    & \times (q^{-n})^s \left( q^{dn} \; (xq)^{d-s} \frac{(1 - (xq)^s)}{(1 - (xq)^d)}
      + \frac{(1 - (xq)^{d-s})}{(1 - (xq)^d)} \right), \\
    {}_d\overline{\beta}[s]_n(x; q)
    = & \; - \; \frac{ ((xq)^d; q^d)_\infty }{ (xq; q)_\infty } \; (-1)^n \;
      \frac{ x^{(k+1-d)n} \; q^{(2k+1-d)n(n+1)/2} }{ (q^d; q^d)_n \; ( (xq^{n+1})^d; q^d )_\infty }
      \; (-q; q)_n \; (-xq^{n+1}; q)_\infty \\
    & \times (q^{-n})^{d-s} \left( \frac{(1 - (xq)^s)}{(1 - (xq)^d)}
      + q^{dn} \; (xq)^{s} \; \frac{(1 - (xq)^{d-s})}{(1 - (xq)^d)} \right).
  \end{align*}
  Then,
  \begin{align}
  \label{eqSeriesFuncEqReg}
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)  - {}_dG^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(x; q)
    = & (xq)^{a-1} {}_dG^{0}_{k, k-a+1-s}(xq; q), \\
  \nonumber
    {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)  - {}_d\overline{G}^{s+1}_{k, a-1}(x; q)
    = & (xq)^{a-1} {}_d\overline{G}^{0}_{k, k-a+1-s}(xq; q)
      + (xq)^{a} {}_d\overline{G}^{0}_{k, k-a-s}(xq; q), \\
  \nonumber
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(0; q)
    = & {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(0; q) = 1, \\
  \label{eqSeriesInitaEqZero}
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, 0}(x; q)
    = & {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, 0}(x; q) = 0
    \quad \textrm{ ( if } 2s \equiv 0 \pmod{d} \textrm{ )}.
  \end{align}
  Here again, $s$ in the superscripts is understood as a residue class modulo $d$,
  so when $s = d-1$, $s+1 = 0$ in the superscripts.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  One verifies the following functional equations:
  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\alpha[s]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a} - {}_d\alpha[s+1]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\beta[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a+1-s}, \\
    {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a} - {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s+1]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\overline{\beta}[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a+1-s} \\
      & + \; (xq)^{a} \; {}_d\overline{\beta}[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a-s}, \\
    {}_d\beta[s]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a} - {}_d\beta[s+1]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\alpha[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (q^{-n})^{k-a+1-s}, \\
    {}_d\overline{\beta}[s]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a} - {}_d\overline{\beta}[s+1]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\overline{\alpha}[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (q^{-n})^{k-a+1-s} \\
      & + \; (xq)^{a} \; {}_d\overline{\alpha}[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (q^{-n})^{k-a-s}
  \end{align*}
  for $s = 0, \ldots, d-2$, and
  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\alpha[d-1]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a} - {}_d\alpha[0]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\beta[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a+2-d}, \\
    {}_d\overline{\alpha}[d-1]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a} - {}_d\overline{\alpha}[0]_n(x; q) \; (q^{-n})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\overline{\beta}[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a+2-d} \\
      & + \; (xq)^{a} \; {}_d\overline{\beta}[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{k-a+1-d}, \\
    {}_d\beta[d-1]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a} - {}_d\beta[0]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\alpha[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (q^{-n})^{k-a+2-d}, \\
    {}_d\overline{\beta}[d-1]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a} - {}_d\overline{\beta}[0]_n(x; q) \; (xq^{n+1})^{a-1}
    = & \; (xq)^{a-1} \; {}_d\overline{\alpha}[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (q^{-n})^{k-a+2-d} \\
      & + \; (xq)^{a} \; {}_d\overline{\alpha}[0]_{n}(xq; q) \; (xq^{-n})^{k-a+1-d}.
  \end{align*}
  These are straightforward calculations.
  The two groups of recurrences are separated for emphasis on how $s$ is interpreted.
  Then one verifies the following:
  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\alpha[s]_0(0; q) = & {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s]_0(0; q) = 1, \\
    {}_d\alpha[s]_n(x; q) = & - {}_d\beta[s]_n(x; q), \\
    {}_d\overline{\alpha}[s]_n(x; q) = & - {}_d\overline{\beta}[s]_n(x; q).
  \end{align*}
  The last two identities hold only when $s = 0$ or $2s = d$, hence
  the condition $2s \equiv 0 \pmod {d}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
\label{corSeriesGenFunc}
  Let ${}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$, ${}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$,
  ${}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$, and ${}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$
  be given as in Corollary \ref{corFuncEq} and Lemma \ref{lemmaSeries}.
  Then,
  \begin{equation*}
    {}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)
  \end{equation*}
  when $2(a+s) \equiv 2 (k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$, and
  \begin{equation*}
    {}_d\overline{F}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q) = {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)
  \end{equation*}
  when $d = 1$ or $d = 2$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
  Since ${}_dF^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$ and ${}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$ satisfy
  the same functional equations and same initial conditions
  when
  \begin{equation*}
   2(a+s) \equiv 0 \pmod{d} \textrm{, and } 2(k-a+1-s + 0) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}
  \end{equation*}
  the first identity follows.
  The latter congruence is necessary because
  the series on the right hand side of equation \eqref{eqSeriesFuncEqReg}
  is subject to the same initial conditions.

  Similar considerations for ${}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$
  bring
  \begin{equation*}
   2(a+s) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}, \;
   2(k-a+1-s + 0) \equiv 0 \pmod{d} \textrm{, and }
   2(k-a-s + 0) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}.
  \end{equation*}
  The last two congruences imply $2 \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$,
  forcing $d = 1$ or $d = 2$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{propJTP}
  Let the parameters be as in Definition \ref{defEnumerants},
  and ${}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$ and ${}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(x; q)$
  be defined as in Lemma \ref{lemmaSeries}.  Then,
  \begin{align*}
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(1; q) = & \;
      \frac{ (q^{d-s} - q^{d}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( q^{a+s-d}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(a+s-d)}, q^{(2k+2-d)}; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty }{ (q; q)_\infty } \\
    & + \frac{ (1 - q^{d-s}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( q^{a+s}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(a+s)}, q^{(2k+2-d)}; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty }{ (q; q)_\infty } \\
    = & \;
      \frac{ (q^{a+s} - q^{a}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( q^{d-a-s}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(d-a-s)}, q^{(2k+2-d)}; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty }{ (q; q)_\infty } \\
    & + \frac{ (1 - q^{d-s}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( q^{a+s}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(a+s)}, q^{(2k+2-d)}; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty }{ (q; q)_\infty }, \\
    {}_d\overline{G}^{s}_{k, a}(1; q) = & \;
      \frac{ (q^{d-s} - q^{d}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( -q; q)_\infty \; ( q^{a+s-d}, q^{(2k+1-d)-(a+s-d)}, q^{(2k+1-d)}; q^{(2k+1-d)})_\infty }
	  { (q; q)_\infty } \\
    & + \frac{ (1 - q^{d-s}) }{ (1 - q^d) } \;
      \frac{ ( -q; q)_\infty \; ( q^{a+s}, q^{(2k+1-d)-(a+s)}, q^{(2k+1-d)}; q^{(2k+1-d)})_\infty }
	  { (q; q)_\infty }.
  \end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
  We will demonstrate the former string of identities only,
  the latter is completely analogous.
  \begin{align*}
    {}_dG^{s}_{k, a}(1; q) = & \sum_{n \geq 0}
	  {}_d\alpha[s]_n(1; q) q^{-na} + {}_d\beta[s]_n(1; q) (q^{n+1})^{a}
  \end{align*}
  \begin{align*}
    = \frac{ 1 }{ (1 - q^d) \; ( q; q)_\infty } \;
    & \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{-an}
      \; \left[ q^{-sn} \left( q^{dn+d-s} (1 - q^s) + (1 - q^{d-s}) \right) \right] \\
    - & (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{a(n+1)}
      \; \left[ q^{-n(d-s)} \left( (1 - q^s) + q^{dn+s} (1 - q^{d-s}) \right) \right]
  \end{align*}
  \begin{align*}
    = \frac{ 1 }{ (1 - q^d) \; ( q; q)_\infty } \;
    & \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{-an}
      \; \left[ q^{-n(s-d)} (q^{d-s} - q^d) + q^{-ns} (1 - q^{d-s}) \right] \\
    - & (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{a(n+1)}
      \; \left[ q^{(n+1)(s-d)} (q^{d-s} - q^d) + q^{(n+1)s} (1 - q^{d-s}) \right]
  \end{align*}
  \begin{align*}
    = \frac{ 1 }{ (1 - q^d) \; ( q; q)_\infty } \;
     \bigg\{ & (q^{d-s} - q^d) \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{-n(a+s-d)} \\
     + & (q^{d-s} - q^d) \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{(n+1)(a+s-d)} \\
     + & (1 - q^{d-s}) \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \; q^{-n(a+s)} \\
     + & (1 - q^{d-s}) \sum_{n \geq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n+1)/2} \;  q^{(n+1)(a+s)} \bigg\}
  \end{align*}
  Now substitute $n \leftarrow -n$ in the first and third sums,
  $n \leftarrow n-1$ in the second and the fourth.
  \begin{align*}
    = \frac{ 1 }{ (1 - q^d) \; ( q; q)_\infty } \;
     \bigg\{ & (q^{d-s} - q^d) \sum_{n \leq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \; q^{n(a+s-d)} \\
     + & (q^{d-s} - q^d) \sum_{n \geq 1} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \; q^{n(a+s-d)} \\
     + & (1 - q^{d-s}) \sum_{n \leq 0} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \; q^{n(a+s)} \\
     + & (1 - q^{d-s}) \sum_{n \geq 1} (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \;  q^{n(a+s)} \bigg\}
  \end{align*}
  \begin{align*}
    = \frac{ 1 }{ (1 - q^d) \; ( q; q)_\infty } \;
     \bigg\{ & (q^{d-s} - q^d) \sum_{n = -\infty}^\infty (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \; q^{n(a+s-d)} \\
     + & (1 - q^{d-s}) \sum_{n = -\infty}^\infty (-1)^n q^{(2k+2-d)n(n-1)/2} \;  q^{n(a+s)} \bigg\}
  \end{align*}
  Finally use Jacobi's triple product identity \cite[equation (1.6.1)]{GR}
  to obtain the first identity in the former string of equations.

  For the second identity there,
  one just needs to notice that
  \begin{equation*}
    (q^{d-s} - q^d) (1 - q^{a+s-d}) = (q^{a+s} - q^a)(1 - q^{d-(s+a)})
  \end{equation*}
  implies
  \begin{align*}
    & \frac{(q^{d-s} - q^d)}{(1 - q^d)} \;
    ( q^{(a+s-d)}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(a+s-d )} ; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty \\
    & = \frac{(q^{s+a} - q^a)}{(1 - q^d)} \;
    ( q^{(d-a-s)}, q^{(2k+2-d)-(d-a-s)} ; q^{(2k+2-d)})_\infty.
  \end{align*}
\end{proof}

We had better recall part of Definition \ref{defEnumerants} in the main result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thMain}
  Let $n$, $m$, $k$, $a$, $d$, $s$ be non-negative integers such that
  \[
    k \geq 2, \quad
    1 \leq a \leq k, \quad
    1 \leq d \leq k, \quad
    0 \leq s \leq d-1.
  \]

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_dA_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      the number of partitions of $n$
      using parts $\not\equiv 0, \pm a \pmod{2k+2-d}$,
      unless $2a = 2k + 2 - d$.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_d\overline{A}_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
       number of overpartitions of $n$
       where non-overlined parts $\not\equiv 0, \pm a$ $\pmod{2k+1-d}$,
	if $2a \neq 2k+1-d$,

       number of overpartitions of $n$
       where all parts $\not\equiv 0 \pmod{k + (1-d)/2}$,
	if $2a = 2k+1-d$.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      number of partitions of $n$ such that
      $\quad f_i + f_{i+1} < k$,
      $\quad f_1 < a$,

      and for $\delta = 1, 2, \ldots, d-1$,
      if $f_i + f_{i+1} = k-\delta$,

      then $a + s - 1 - f_{\textrm{odd}} \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta-1 \pmod{d}$,

      where $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_i$ if $i$ is odd,
      and $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_{i+1}$ if $i$ is even.
  \end{tabular}

  \begin{tabular}{rcp{13cm}}
    ${}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n)$ & = &
      number of overpartitions of $n$ such that
      $\quad f_i + f_{\overline{i}} + f_{i+1} < k$,
      $\quad f_1 < a$,

      and for $\delta = 1, 2, \ldots, d-1$,
      if $f_i + f_{\overline{i}} + f_{i+1} = k-\delta$,

      then $a + s - 1 - f_{\textrm{odd}}  - \rho(i) \equiv 0, 1, \ldots, \delta-1 \pmod{d}$,

      where $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_i + f_{\overline{i}}$ if $i$ is odd,
      and $f_{\textrm{odd}} = f_{i+1}$ if $i$ is even.
  \end{tabular}

  Then, in case $s = 0$,
  \begin{equation}
  \label{eqMainResultNiceReg}
    {}_dA_{k, a}(n) = {}_dB^0_{k, a}(n)
  \end{equation}
  when $2a \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$,

  \begin{equation*}
    {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a}(n) = {}_d\overline{B}^0_{k, a}(n)
  \end{equation*}
  when $d = 1$ or $d= 2$,

  and in case $s \neq 0$,
  \begin{align}
  \label{eqMainResultUglyRegI}
    & {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n) - {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n - (d-s))
    + {}_dA_{k, a+s-d}(n-(d-s)) - {}_dA_{k, a+s-d}(n-d) \\
    \nonumber
    & = {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n) - {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n-d)
  \end{align}
  when $2(a+s) \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$, $2(a+s) \neq 2k + 2 + d$,
  and $d < a + s$,

  \begin{align*}
    {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n) - {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n - (d-s))
    = {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n) - {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n-d)
  \end{align*}
  when $2(a+s) \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$, $2(a+s) \neq 2k + 2 + d$,
  and $d = a + s$,

  \begin{align*}
    & {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n) - {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n - (d-s))
    + {}_dA_{k, d-a-s}(n-(a+s)) - {}_dA_{k, d-a-s}(n-a) \\
    & = {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n) - {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n-d)
  \end{align*}
  when $2(a+s) \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$, $2(a+s) \neq 2k + 2 + d$,
  and $d > a + s$,

  \begin{align*}
    & {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s}(n) - {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s}(n - (d-s))
    + {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s-d}(n-(d-s)) - {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s-d}(n-d) \\
    & = {}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n) - {}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n-d)
  \end{align*}
  when $d = 1$ or $d = 2$,
  and $d < a + s$,

  \begin{align*}
    {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s}(n) - {}_d\overline{A}_{k, a+s}(n - (d-s))
    = {}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n) - {}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n-d)
  \end{align*}
  when $d = 1$ or $d = 2$,
  and $d = a + s$.
\end{theorem}

The case $d > a+s$ is vacuous for $d =$ 1 or 2,
and $s \neq 0$.

\begin{proof}
  Observe that equations \eqref{eqMainResultNiceReg} and \eqref{eqMainResultUglyRegI}
  are equivalent to the identity of the generating functions
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{(q^{d-s} - q^{d})}{(1 - q^d)} \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_dA_{k, a+s-d}(n)
    + \frac{(1 - q^{d-s})}{(1 - q^d)} \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_dA_{k, a+s}(n)
    = \sum_{n \geq 0} {}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)
  \end{equation*}
  which is a consequence of Proposition \ref{propInfProd},
  Corollary \ref{corSeriesGenFunc}, and Proposition \ref{propJTP} combined.
  The same line of reasoning applies to other equations \emph{mutatis mutandis}.
\end{proof}

\section{Discussion and Further Research}
\label{secFuture}

When $d = 1$, the condition $\pmod{1}$ is vacuous,
so Theorem \ref{thMain} yields Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities \cite{RRG} (Theorem \ref{thRRG}),
and Gordon's theorem for overpartitions \cite{Chen-etal-RRG-over, Lvj-Gordon-overptn}.

For $d = 2$ and $s = 0$, the condition $2a \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$
is satisfied by any $k$ or $a$.
Also, the only possible value of $\delta$ is 1.
So we just need to show the equivalence of
\begin{equation*}
  i f_i + i f_{\overline{i}} + (i+1) f_{i+1} \equiv V(i) + a - 1 \pmod{2}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
  a - 1 - f_{\textrm{odd}} - \rho(i) \equiv 0 \pmod{2}.
\end{equation*}
when $i f_i + i f_{\overline{i}} + (i+1) f_{i+1} = k-1$.
This is a consequence of $1 \equiv -1 \pmod{2}$,
and $i f_i + i f_{\overline{i}} + (i+1) f_{i+1} \equiv f_{\textrm{odd}} \pmod{2}$.
We can switch to (regular) partitions from overpartitions
as described in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemmaRecurrences}.
So we recover Bressoud's all-moduli generalization of
Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities \cite{Br-RRG-AllMod} (Theorem \ref{thBressoud}),
and that for overpartitions \cite{Chen-etal-overptn-Bressoud, Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod}
via Theorem \ref{thMain}.

For all other combinations of $d$ and $s$, the results are new.
The reader may find obtaining the $d = 2$, $s = 1$ cases
from the $d = 2$, $s = 0$ cases of Theorem \ref{thMain} an amusing combinatorial exercise.

The construction of the series in Lemma \ref{lemmaSeries}
is a little different from the construction in \cite{K-Andrews-Stayla}.
There, the construction progresses linearly
from the definition to the series.
Here in contrast, one begins with Bressoud's extension of
Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon identities \cite{Br-RRG-AllMod}
or its counterpart for overpartitions \cite{Chen-etal-overptn-Bressoud, Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod},
and reasons that there must be a companion identity.

For demonstration purposes, let's work with (regular) partitions.
In the extension of Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon due to Bressoud \cite{Br-RRG-AllMod},
the extra condition
\begin{equation*}
  f_{i} + f_{i+1} = k-1
  \quad \Rightarrow \quad
  i \, f_i + (i+1) f_{i+1} \equiv a - 1 \pmod{2}
\end{equation*}
on top of Gordon's condition has the obvious companion
\begin{equation*}
  f_{i} + f_{i+1} = k-1
  \quad \Rightarrow \quad
  i \, f_i + (i+1) f_{i+1} \not\equiv a - 1 \pmod{2}.
\end{equation*}
Then, one labels generating functions for
partitions satisfying the former condition
and partitions satisfying the latter condition.
These are ${}_2F^0_{k, a}(x; q)$ and ${}_2F^1_{k, a}(x; q)$, respectively,
in our notation (cf. the equivalence of conditions at the beginning of this section).
After that, one constructs series ${}_2G^0_{k, a}(x; q)$ and ${}_2G^1_{k, a}(x; q)$
as instructed in \cite[sec. 4]{K-Andrews-Stayla}.
One of the matrix equations one gets is
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{bmatrix} q^{-n} & -1 \\ -1 & q^{-n} \end{bmatrix} \;
  \begin{bmatrix} {}_2\alpha[0]_n(x; q) \\ {}_2\alpha[1]_n(x; q) \end{bmatrix}
  = (xq^{n+1})^k \; {}_2\beta[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \;
  \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ (xq^{n+1})^{-1} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
Those matrix equations have nice solutions that yield
compatible series with the Jacobi's triple product identity \cite[equation (1.6.1)]{GR},
and one has the $d = 2$ case for (regular) partitions in Theorem \ref{thMain}.

At this point, one has two choices.
The first is to try and find general conditions $\pmod{d}$ which reduce to
the conditions above when $d = 2$.
And then, use (not automated so far) machinery of \cite{K-Andrews-Stayla}
to construct series for partition generating functions.
One always gets some series, but they may or may not be product identity friendly.
This path has not been very fruitful in this setting.

The other choice is, try and find product-identity friendly series first,
which coincide with the known series in $d = 1$ and $d = 2$ cases
(together with their functional equations),
and then set those series as a departure point to produce the definitons.
The above matrix equation may be extended to larger sizes as
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{bmatrix} q^{-n} & -1 & & \\ & q^{-n} & -1 & \\
      & & \ddots & \\ -1 & & & q^{-n} \end{bmatrix}
  \begin{bmatrix} {}_d\alpha[0]_n(x; q) \\ {}_d\alpha[1]_n(x; q) \\
      \vdots \\ {}_d\alpha[d-1]_n(x; q) \end{bmatrix}
  = (xq^{n+1})^k \; {}_d\beta[0]_{n-1}(xq; q) \;
  \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ (xq^{n+1})^{-1} \\ \vdots \\ (xq^{n+1})^{-(d-1)} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{bmatrix} xq^{n+1} & -1 & & \\ & xq^{n+1} & -1 & \\
      & & \ddots & \\ -1 & & & xq^{n+1} \end{bmatrix}
  \begin{bmatrix} {}_d\beta[0]_n(x; q) \\ {}_d\beta[1]_n(x; q) \\
      \vdots \\ {}_d\beta[d-1]_n(x; q) \end{bmatrix}
  = (q^{-n})^k \; {}_d\alpha[0]_{n-1}(xq; q)
  \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ q^{n} \\ \vdots \\ q^{(d-1)n} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
These matrix equations together with the initial conditions set in Lemma \ref{lemmaSeries}
produce the product identity friendly series ${}_dG^s_{k, a}(x; q)$,
which reduce to the known series for $d = 1$ and $d = 2$, $s = 0$.

Then we use Corollary \ref{corSeriesGenFunc} to identify the series as partition generating functions,
and the equivalence of Corollary \ref{corFuncEq} and Lemma \ref{lemmaRecurrences}
gives us recurrences \eqref{eqRecRegular}, \eqref{eqInitNoPart} and \eqref{eqInitaEqZero}.
Now, one stipulates that these are induced by conditions $\pmod{d}$ that pertain to
frequencies of two consecutive parts.
One already has Gordon's conditions, namely $f_i + f_{i+1} < k$ and $f_1 < a$.
Also, the recurrence \eqref{eqRecRegular} relates two partitions
one of which is obtained from the other by deleting 1's and subtracting 1 from the remaining parts.
It is fairly easy to get the rest of the definition of ${}_db^s_{k, a}(m, n)$,
and hence, of ${}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)$.

Same route with overpartitions brings the definition of the $\rho-$statistic
(Definition \ref{defRhoStat}) as well, used in the definition of ${}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n)$.
Incidentally, the $\rho-$statistic reduces to the $V-$statistic for overpartitions
\cite{Chen-etal-overptn-Bressoud, Ctl-etal-overptn-RR-evenmod} in cases $d = 1$ and $d = 2$,
and one has to be content with the companion identity to Bressoud's theorem for overpartitions.
However, the point is, although we do not have infinite product representations for $d > 2$,
there is more to the multiplicity condition side than it meets the eye.

The bottleneck in the construction is the initial condition \eqref{eqSeriesInitaEqZero}.
This initial condition alone brings the extra unpleasant conditions
$2(a+s) \equiv 2(k+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{d}$ or $d = 1$ or $d = 2$
in Theorem \ref{thMain}.

Thus, a problem for future investigation is:
Can one find another condition $\pmod{d}$ on the multiplicity side
for overpartitions on top of Gordon's condition
which reduce to Bressoud type generalization for overpartitions when $d = 2$,
and still yield congruence conditions on the right hand side for $d \geq 3$?
In other words, can one have a nicer condition $\pmod{d}$ which brings infinite products,
or some combination of infinite products as generating functions on the right hand side?

Rogers-Ramanujan-Gordon theorem and their extensions go hand in hand with
Andrews-Gordon type identities.
In other words, some of the partition counters in Definition \ref{defEnumerants}
have their generating functions expressed as multiple sums.
Known examples are the Andrews-Gordon identities themselves \cite{Andrews-Gordon},
their counterpart for Bressoud's all-moduli generalization \cite{Br-Andrews-Gordon},
Andrews-Gordon identities for overpartitions \cite{Chen-etal-RRG-over},
and their Bressoud style generalization for overpartitions \cite{Sang-Shi-AndrewsGordon-Overptn}.
These constitute multiple series generating functions for
${}_1B^0_{k, a}(n)$, ${}_2B^0_{k, a}(n)$, ${}_1\overline{B}^0_{k, a}(n)$, and ${}_2\overline{B}^0_{k, a}(n)$.

Using Gordon marking for partitions \cite{K-gordonmarking}, it is possible to have
a multiple series generating function for ${}_2B^1_{k, a}(n)$,
and using Gordon marking for overpartitions \cite{Chen-etal-RRG-over}, it must be possible
to have a multiple series generating function for ${}_2\overline{B}^1_{k, a}(n)$.
This takes care of all cases when $d = 1$ or $d = 2$.

Another open question, therefore,
is the possibility of construction of multiple series generating functions for
${}_dB^s_{k, a}(n)$ and ${}_d\overline{B}^s_{k, a}(n)$ for $d \geq 3$.
Gordon marking for either (regular) partitions or overpartitions
behaves nicely with parity, but does not seem to do so with higher moduli.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}


Pfaffians, hafnians and products of real linear functionals

Abstract: We prove pfaffian and hafnian versions of Lieb's inequalities on determinants and permanents of positive semi-definite matrices. We use the hafnian inequality to improve the lower bound of Révész and Sarantopoulos on the norm of a product of linear functionals on a real Euclidean space (this subject is sometimes called the `real linear polarization constant' problem).

\section*{-1.  Introduction}
The contents of this  paper are as follows. In Section 0, we sketch one
part of
the
historic background: classical inequalities on determinants
and
permanents of
positive
semi-definite matrices. In Section~\ref{new}, we prove pfaffian and hafnian
versions of these inequalities, and we formulate Conjecture~\ref{conj}, another
hafnian inequality.
In Section~\ref{prod}, we apply the hafnian inequality of
Theorem~\ref{spec} to our main goal: improving
the lower bound of R\'ev\'esz and Sarantopoulos
on the norm of a product of  linear functionals on a real Euclidean space (this subject is
sometimes called the `real linear polarization constant' problem, its history
is sketched at the end of the paper). This is achieved in
Theorem~\ref{polar}. We point out that Conjecture~\ref{conj} would be
sufficient to completely settle  the real linear polarization constant problem.

\section*{0.  Old inequalities on determinants
and permanents}\label{old}
 Recall that the determinant and the permanent of an $n\times
n$ matrix $A=(a_{i,j})$ are defined by $$\det
A=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak S_n}(-1)^\pi\prod_{i=1}^na_{i,\pi(i)},\qquad\qquad\mathrm {per}\; A=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak S_n}\prod_{i=1}^na_{i,\pi(i)},$$
where $\mathfrak S_n$ is the symmetric group on $n$ elements. Throughout this
section, we assume that  $A$
is a positive semi-definite Hermitian $n\times n$ matrix (we
write $A\ge 0$). For such $A$,  Hadamard  proved that $$\det
A\le\prod_{i=1}^na_{i,i},$$ with equality if and only if  $A$ has a zero row or is a
diagonal matrix.
Fischer  generalized this to $$\det A\le\det A'\cdot\det A''$$ for
\begin{equation}\label{bl}A=\left(\begin{matrix}
      A'&B\\B^*&A''\end{matrix}\right)\ge 0,\end{equation}
 with equality if and only if $\det
  A'\cdot\det A''\cdot B=0$.

Concerning the permanent of a positive semi-definite matrix, Marcus [Mar1, Mar2] proved that
 \begin{equation}\label{M}\mathrm {per}\; A\ge \prod_{i=1}^na_{i,i},\end{equation}
 with equality if and only if  $A$ has a zero row or is a
diagonal matrix. Lieb [L] generalized this to \begin{equation}\label{L}
\mathrm {per}\; A\ge\mathrm {per}\; A'\cdot \mathrm {per}\;
A''\end{equation}
for  $A$ as in \eqref{bl},  with equality if and only if  $A$ has a zero row or $B=0$.
Moreover, he proved that in the polynomial $P(\lambda)$ of degree $n'$ (=size
of $A'$) defined by
$$P(\lambda)=\mathrm {per}\;\left(\begin{matrix}
      \lambda A'&B\\B^*&A''\end{matrix}\right)=\sum_{t=0}^{n'}c_t\lambda ^t,$$
  all coefficients $c_t$ are real and non-negative. This is indeed a stronger
theorem since it implies $$\mathrm {per}\; A=P(1)=\sum_{t=0}^{n'} c_t\ge c_{n'}=\mathrm {per}\; A'\cdot\mathrm {per}\; A''.$$
\DJ okovi\'c [D, Mi] gave a simple proof of Lieb's inequalities, and showed also that
if $A'$ and $A''$ are positive definite then $c_{n'-t}=0$ if and only if all
subpermanents of $B$ of order $t$ vanish. Lieb [L]
also states an analogous (and analogously provable) theorem for determinants:
for $A$ as in \eqref{bl}, let  $$D(\lambda)=\det\left(\begin{matrix}
      \lambda A'&B\\B^*&A''\end{matrix}\right)=\sum_{t=0}^{n'}d_t\lambda ^t.$$
If $\det A'\cdot\det A''=0$, then $D(\lambda)=0$. If $A'$ and $A''$ are positive
definite, then $(-1)^td_{n'-t}$  is
  positive for $t\le\mathrm {rk}\; B$ and is zero for $t>\mathrm {rk}\; B$.

\bigskip

\bf Remark. \rm In all of Lieb's inequalities mentioned above,
the condition that the matrix $A$ is positive semi-definite can be replaced by
the weaker condition that the diagonal blocks $A'$ and $A''$ are positive semi-definite.
The proof goes through virtually unchanged. Alternatively, this stronger form
of the inequalities can be easily deduced from the seemingly weaker form above.

\section{New inequalities on pfaffians and hafnians}\label{new}
For an $n\times n$ matrix $A=(a_{i,j})$ and subsets $S$,  $T$ of $N:=\{1,\dots, n\}$, we write $A_{S,T}:=(a_{i,j})_{i\in
  S, j\in T}.$
If $|T|=2t$ is even, we write
$$(-1)^T:=(-1)^{t+\sum_{j\in T}j}.$$

\subsection{Pfaffians} As far as the applications in Section~\ref{prod} are
concerned, this subsection may be skipped.

 Recall that the pfaffian  of a $2n\times
2n$ antisymmetric matrix $C=(c_{i,j})$ is  defined by $$\mathrm {pf}\;
C=\frac 1{n!2^n}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak S_{2n}}(-1)^\pi
c_{\pi(1),\pi(2)}\cdots c_{\pi(2n-1),\pi(2n)}.$$ We have
$\left(\mathrm {pf}\; C\right)^2=\det C$.

For antisymmetric $A$ and symmetric $B$, both of size $n\times n$,
we consider the polynomial $$(-1)^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
\mathrm {pf}\; \left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda A & B\\ -B &A
  \end{matrix}\right)=\sum_{t=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor} p_t\lambda ^t.$$

\begin{theorem}\label{pf} Let $A$ and $B$ be  real
  $n\times n$ matrices with $A$ antisymmetric and $B$ symmetric.
If $B$ is positive semi-definite, then $p_t\ge 0$
for all $t$. If $B$ is positive definite, then $p_t>0 $ for $t\le (\mathrm {rk}\; A)/2$
and  $p_t=0 $ for $t> (\mathrm {rk}\; A)/2$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} If  $B=(b_{i,j})$ is positive semi-definite, then
there exist vectors
$x_1$, \dots, $x_n$ in a real
Euclidean space $V$ such that $(x_i,x_j)=b_{i,j}.$ Recall that in the exterior
tensor algebra $\bigwedge V$ a positive definite inner product (and the
corresponding Euclidean norm) is defined by
$$\left(\bigwedge v_i,\;\bigwedge w_j\right):=\det ((v_i,w_j)).$$
We have \begin{align*}
p_t=\sum_{|S|=2t}\sum_{|T|=2t}(-1)^S(-1)^T\mathrm {pf}\; A_{S,S}\cdot
\mathrm {pf}\; A_{T,T}\cdot\det B_{N\setminus S,N\setminus T }= \\
=\sum_{|S|=2t}\sum_{|T|=2t}\left((-1)^S\mathrm {pf}\; A_{S,S}\cdot \bigwedge_{i\not\in
    S}x_i
,\;  (-1)^T\mathrm {pf}\; A_{T,T}\cdot \bigwedge_{j\not\in
    T}x_j\right)=\\
=\left|\sum_{|S|=2t}(-1)^S\mathrm {pf}\;
  A_{S,S}\cdot\bigwedge_{i\not\in S}x_i\right|^2\ge 0.\end{align*}
Assume that $B$ is positive definite. Then the vectors $x_i$ are linearly independent. It
follows that the tensors $\bigwedge_{i\not\in S}x_i$ are also linearly
independent as $S$ runs over the subsets of $N$. Thus $p_t=0$ if and only if  $\mathrm {pf}\; A_{S,S}=0$
for all $|S|=2t$, i.e., if and only if $2t>\mathrm {rk}\; A$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{pfspec} Let $A$ and $B$ be  real
  $n\times n$ matrices with $A$ antisymmetric and $B$ symmetric.
Let $\lambda\ge 0$.
If $B$ is positive semi-definite, then   $$(-1)^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
\mathrm {pf}\; \left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda A & B\\ -B &A
  \end{matrix}\right)\ge\det B.$$
If $B$ is positive definite, then equality occurs if and only if     $\lambda A=0$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The left hand side is $$p_0+p_1\lambda+\dots+p_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
\lambda^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}.$$ The
  right hand side is $p_0$.
\end{proof}

I am grateful to the anonymous referee of this paper for the idea of the
following alternative proof of Theorems~\ref{pf} and \ref{pfspec}.  We may
assume $B>0$, since every positive semi-definite matrix is a limit of positive
definite ones.  The matrix $B^{-1/2}AB^{-1/2}$ being real and antisymmetric,
there exists a unitary matrix $U$ such that $D:=U^{-1}B^{-1/2}AB^{-1/2}U$ is
diagonal with purely  imaginary eigenvalues $a_1\sqrt{-1}$, \dots,
$a_n\sqrt{-1}$.
The real multiset $\{a_1,\dots, a_n\}$ is invariant under $a\leftrightarrow
-a$.
We have \begin{align*}
\left(\sum p_t\lambda ^t\right)^2
=\det
\left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda A & B\\ -B &A
  \end{matrix}\right)
=\det
\left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda \sqrt BUDU^{-1} \sqrt B & B\\ -B &\sqrt BUDU^{-1}
    \sqrt B
  \end{matrix}\right)=\\
=\det\left(\left(\begin{matrix} \sqrt BU & 0\\ 0
      &\sqrt BU
  \end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda D & \bf 1 \\ -\bf 1  &D
  \end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix}U^{-1} \sqrt B & 0\\ 0 &U^{-1}
    \sqrt B
  \end{matrix}\right)\right)=\\
=\det\sqrt B^4\cdot\prod_{i=1}^n\det\left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda a_i\sqrt{-1} & 1\\ -1 &a_i\sqrt {-1}
  \end{matrix}\right)=\det B^2\cdot\prod_{i=1}^n(1+a_i^2\lambda).\end{align*}
Extracting square roots, and choosing the sign in accordance with $p_0=+\det
B$, we get $$\sum p_t\lambda ^t=(-1)^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
\mathrm {pf}\; \left(\begin{matrix} -\lambda A & B\\ -B &A
  \end{matrix}\right)=\det B\cdot\prod_{a_i>0}(1+a_i^2\lambda),$$ whence
both theorems immediately follow, since $\det B > 0$.

\subsection{Hafnians}
 Recall that the hafnian  of a $2n\times
2n$ symmetric matrix $C=(c_{i,j})$ is  defined by $$\mathrm {haf}\;
C=\frac 1{n!2^n}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak S_{2n}} c_{\pi(1),\pi(2)}\cdots
c_{\pi(2n-1),\pi(2n)}.$$
For symmetric $A$ and $B$, both of size $n\times n$,
we consider the polynomial $$\mathrm {haf}\; \left(\begin{matrix} \lambda A & B\\ B &A
  \end{matrix}\right)=\sum_{t=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
h_t\lambda ^t.$$

\begin{theorem}\label{haf} Let $A$ and $B$  be symmetric  real
  $n\times n$ matrices.
If $B$ is positive semi-definite, then $h_t\ge 0$
for all $t$. If $B$ is positive definite, then $h_t=0$ if and only if all
$2t\times 2t$ subhafnians of  $A$ vanish.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} If  $B=(b_{i,j})$ is positive semi-definite,  then
there exist vectors
$x_1$, \dots, $x_n$ in a real
Euclidean space $V$ such that $(x_i,x_j)=b_{i,j}.$ Recall [Mar1, Mar2, MN, Mi]
 that in the symmetric
tensor algebra $S V$ a positive definite inner product (and the
corresponding Euclidean norm) is defined by
$$\left(\prod v_i,\prod w_j\right):=\mathrm {per}\; ((v_i,w_j)).$$
We have \begin{align*}h_t=\sum_{|S|=2t}\sum_{|T|=2t}\mathrm {haf}\; A_{S,S}\cdot
\mathrm {haf}\; A_{T,T}\cdot\mathrm {per}\; B_{N\setminus S,N\setminus T }= \\
=\left|\sum_{|S|=2t}\mathrm {haf}\;
  A_{S,S}\cdot\prod_{i\not\in S}x_i\right|^2\ge 0.\end{align*}
Assume that $B$ is positive definite. Then the vectors $x_i$ are linearly independent. It
follows that the tensors $\prod_{i\not\in S}x_i$ are also linearly
independent as $S$ runs over the subsets of $N$. Thus $h_t=0$ if and only if  $\mathrm {haf}\; A_{S,S}=0$
for all $|S|=2t$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{spec}
 Let $A$ and $B$  be symmetric  real
  $n\times n$ matrices. Let $\lambda\ge 0$.
If $B$ is positive semi-definite, then
$$\mathrm {haf}\;\left(\begin{matrix} \lambda
A&B\\ B&A\end{matrix}\right)\ge\mathrm {per}\; B.$$ If $B$ is
  positive definite, then equality occurs if and only if $A$ is a diagonal
  matrix
or $\lambda=0$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} The left hand side is $$h_0+h_1\lambda+\dots+h_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}
\lambda ^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}.$$ The
  right hand side is $h_0$.
\end{proof}

Setting $A=B$ and $\lambda =1$, and combining with Marcus's inequality \eqref{M},
we arrive at case $p=1$ of

\begin{conj}\label{conj} If $A=(a_{i,j})$ is a positive semi-definite symmetric real $n\times n$
  matrix, then the hafnian of the $2pn\times 2pn$
matrix consisting of $2p\times
  2p$ blocks $A$ is at least ${(2p-1)!!}^n\prod a_{i,i}^p,$ with equality if and only if
  $A$ has  a zero row or is a  diagonal matrix.
\end{conj}

\section{Products of real linear functionals}\label{prod}
In this section,  we apply Theorem~\ref{spec} to products of jointly normal
random variables and then to products of real linear
functionals, which was the main motivation for this work.
The ideas in this section are analogous to those that
 Arias-de-Reyna [A] used in
the complex case.

Let $\xi_1$, \dots, $\xi_d$
 denote  independent random  variables with standard
Gaussian distribution, i.e., with
joint density function
$(2\pi)^{-d/2}\exp({-|\xi|^2/2})$, where $|\xi|^2=\sum\xi_k^2.$
We write $Ef(\xi)$ for the expectation
of a function $f=f(\xi)=f(\xi_1,\dots, \xi_d)$.
Recall that
$$
E\xi_k^{2p}=(2p-1)!!=(2p-1)(2p-3)\cdots 3\cdot 1$$ for $k=1,\dots, d$ (easy inductive proof via integration
by parts), and thus $$E\prod_{k=1}^d
\xi_k^{2p_k}=\prod_{k=1}^d (2p_k-1)!!.$$

On $\mathbb R^d$, we write
$(\cdot,\cdot)$
for the standard Euclidean inner product.
We recall the well-known [B2, G, S, Z]

\bigskip\noindent {\bf Wick formula.}\; \it
Let $x_1$, \dots, $x_n$ be vectors in $\mathbb R^d$ with Gram matrix $A=((x_i,x_j)).$ Then \begin{equation}\label{Sigma}
E\prod_{i=1}^n (x_i,\xi)=\mathrm {haf}\; A.
\end{equation}
\rm
(For odd $n$, we define $\mathrm {haf}\; A=0$.)
\begin{proof}
Both sides are multilinear in the $x_i$, so we may assume
that each $x_i$ is an element of the standard orthonormal basis $e_1$, \dots,
$e_d$. If there is an $e_k$
that occurs an odd number of   times among the $x_i$, then
both sides are zero. If each  $e_k$
occurs $2p_k$ times, then the left hand side is $E\prod_{k=1}^d
\xi_k^{2p_k}$, and the right hand side is
$\prod_{k=1}^d (2p_k-1)!!$, which are equal.
\end{proof}

The following  theorems are easy corollaries of  Theorem~\ref{spec}
together with the Wick formula~\eqref{Sigma} and Marcus's theorem \eqref{M}.

\begin{theorem}\label{mom} If $X_1$, \dots, $X_n$ are jointly normal random
  variables with zero expectation, the

$$E\left( X_1^2\cdots X_n^2\right)\ge EX_1^2\cdots EX_n^2.$$
Equality holds  if and only if they are independent or at least one of them is almost
surely zero.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} The variables can be written as $X_i=(x_i,\xi)$ with $\xi$  of standard
normal distribution and the $x_i$ constant vectors with a positive
semi-definite Gram matrix $A=(a_{i,j})=((x_i,x_j))$.
Then \begin{align*}E\prod _{i=1}^n X_i^2=E\prod _{i=1}^n (x_i,\xi)^2=\\
=\mathrm {haf}\;\left(\begin{matrix} A&A\\
      A&A\end{matrix}\right)\ge\mathrm {per}\;
  A\ge\prod_{i=1}^na_{i,i}=\\
=\prod_{i=1}^nE(x_i,\xi)^2=\prod_{i=1}^nEX_i^2,\end{align*} with equality if and
  only if $A$
  is a diagonal matrix or has a zero row, i.e., the $x_i$ are pairwise
  orthogonal or at least one of them is zero.
\end{proof}

The generalization of Theorem~\ref{mom} to an arbitrary even exponent $2p$ is
equivalent to Conjecture~\ref{conj}.

\newcommand{\ii}{\'{\i}}

\begin{theorem}\label{average} For any $x_1,\dots, x_n\in\mathbb R^d$, $|x_i|=1$, the average of $\prod
(x_i,\xi)^2$ on the unit sphere $\{\xi\in\mathbb R^d\;:\; |\xi|=1\}$ is at least
$$\frac{\Gamma
  (d/2)}{2^n\Gamma (d/2+n)}=\frac {(d-2)!!}{(d+2n-2)!!}=\frac 1{d(d+2)(d+4)\dots
(d+2n-2)},$$ with equality  if and only if the vectors $x_i$
are pairwise orthogonal.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} The average on the unit sphere is the constant in the theorem
  times the expectation w.r.t.\ the standard Gaussian measure (see e.g.\ [B1]). By
  Theorem~\ref{mom}, the latter expectation  is minimal if and only if  the $x_i$ are pairwise orthogonal,
  in which case it is 1.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{polar} For real linear functionals $f_i$ on a real Euclidean space,
  $$||f_1\cdots f_n||\ge \frac{||f_1||\cdots
  ||f_n||}{\sqrt{n(n+2)(n+4)\cdots (3n-2)}}.$$
\end{theorem}
Here $||\cdot ||$ means supremum of the absolute value on the unit sphere.
In the infinite-dimensional case, functionals with infinite norm may be
allowed. Then the convention $0\cdot\infty=0$ should be used on the right hand
side.

\begin{proof} We may assume that the space is $\mathbb R^d$ with $d\le n$,  and the functionals are given by
  $f_i(\xi)=(x_i,\xi)$ with $||f_i||=|x_i|=1.$ Then  $||f_1\cdots f_n||^2$
is at least the average of $\prod f_i^2(\xi)=\prod (x_i,\xi)^2$ on the unit sphere, which by
Theorem~\ref{average} and $d\le n$
is at least $1/(n(n+2)(n+4)\cdots (3n-2)).$
\end{proof}

It is   an unsolved problem, raised by Ben\ii tez, Sarantopoulos and Tonge
[BST] (1998),
whether Theorem~\ref{polar} is  true
with $n^n$ under the square root sign
in the denominator on the right hand side. This is called the `real linear
polarization constant' problem. In the complex case, the affirmative answer
was proved by Arias-de-Reyna [A] in 1998, based on  the complex analog of the
Wick formula [A, B2, G] and on Lieb's inequality \eqref{L}.\footnote{The
 referee of the present paper called my attention to the fact that
  Arias-de-Reyna used only the special case of \eqref{L} where the matrix $A'$
  is
of rank 1. This is much simpler than \eqref{L} in general, it can be proved
essentially
by the argument Marcus used in [Mar1, Mar2] to prove the
 even more special case $n'=1$, which still implies
inequality~\eqref{M}.} Keith Ball [Ball] gave another proof of the affirmative
answer in the complex case by solving the
complex plank problem.

In the real case, the affirmative answer
for $n\le 5$ was proved by Pappas and R\'ev\'esz [PR] in 2004.
For general $n$, the best estimate  known before the present
paper was that of R\'ev\'esz and Sarantopoulos
[RS] (2004), based on results of [MST],
with $(2n)^{n}/4$ under the square root sign.
See [Mat1, Mat2, MM, R] for accounts on this and
related questions.
Note that \begin{align*}
{n(n+2)(n+4)\cdots (3n-2)}=\\
=\exp\left(\log n+\log (n+2)+\log (n+4)+\dots+\log
(3n-2)\right)<\\
<\exp\left({\frac12\int_n^{3n}\log u\cdot {\rm d}u}\right)=\\
=\exp\left(
 [u(\log u
-1)]_n^{3n}/2\right)=\exp ((3n\log {3n}-3n
-n\log n+n)/2)=\\
=\exp {\frac {n(2\log n+3\log 3 -2)}2}
=\left(\frac{3\sqrt 3}en\right)^n,\end{align*}
 and $3\sqrt
3/e<3\cdot 1.8/2.7=2$, so Theorem~\ref{polar} is an improvement.
Note also that the statement with $n^n$
under  the square root sign
would follow from
Conjecture~\ref{conj}.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful to P\'eter Major, M\'at\'e Matolcsi and  Szil\'ard R\'ev\'esz
for
helpful discussions, and to  the  anonymous referee for useful comments.

\section*{References}
\noindent
[A] J.\ Arias-de-Reyna, Gaussian variables, polynomials and permanents, Lin.\
Alg.\ Appl.\ 285 (1998), 107--114.

\bigskip\noindent
[Ball] K.\ M.\ Ball, The complex plank problem, Bull.\ London.\ Math.\ Soc.\
33 (2001), 433--442.

\bigskip\noindent
[B1] A.\ Barvinok, Estimating $L^\infty$ norms by $L^{2k}$ norms for functions
on orbits, Found.\ Comput.\
Math.\ 2 (2002), 393--412.

\bigskip\noindent
[B2] A.\ Barvinok, Integration and optimization of multivariate polynomials by
restriction onto a random subspace, arXiv preprint:
math.OC/0502298

\bigskip\noindent
[BST] C.\ Ben\ii tez, Y.\ Sarantopoulos, A.\ Tonge, Lower bounds for norms of
products of polynomials, Math.\ Proc.\ Camb.\ Phil.\ Soc.\ 124 (1998),
395--408.

\bigskip\noindent
[D] D.\ \v Z.\ \DJ okovi\'c, Simple proof of a
theorem on permanents, Glasgow
Math.\ J.\ 10 (1969), 52--54.

\bigskip\noindent
[G] L.\ Gurvits, Classical complexity and quantum entanglement,  J.\ Comput.\
 System Sci.\  69  (2004),  no. 3, 448--484.

\bigskip\noindent
[L] E.\ H.\ Lieb, Proofs of some conjectures on permanents, J.\ Math.\ Mech.\
16 (1966), 127--134.

\bigskip\noindent
[Mar1]  M.\ Marcus, The permanent analogue of the Hadamard determinant theorem,
Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 69 (1963), 494--496.

\bigskip\noindent
[Mar2] M.\ Marcus, The Hadamard theorem for permanents, Proc.\ Amer.\ Math.\
Soc.\ 15 (1964), 967--973.

\bigskip\noindent
[MN] M.\ Marcus, M.\ Newman, The permanent function as an inner product,
Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 67 (1961), 223--224.

\bigskip\noindent
[Mat1] M.\ Matolcsi, A geometric estimate on the norm of  product of functionals,
Lin.\ Alg.\ Appl.\ 405 (2005), 304--310.

\bigskip\noindent
[Mat2] M.\ Matolcsi, The linear polarization constant of $\mathbb R^n$, Acta Math.\
Hungar.\ 108 (2005), no.\ 1-2, 129--136.

\bigskip\noindent
[MM] M.\ Matolcsi, G.\ A.\ Mu\~noz, On the real linear polarization constant
problem, Math.\ Inequal.\ Appl.\ 9 (2006), no.\ 3, 485--494.

\bigskip\noindent
[Mi] H.\ Minc, Permanents, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications,
Add\-is\-on-Wesley, 1978

\bigskip\noindent
[MST]
 G.\ A.\ Mu\~noz, Y.\ Sarantopoulos, A.\ Tonge, Complexifications of real
 Banach spaces, polynomials and multilinear maps, Studia Math.\ 134 (1999),
 no.\ 1, 1--33.

\bigskip\noindent
[PR] A.\ Pappas, Sz.\ R\'ev\'esz, Linear polarization constants..., J.\ Math.\
Anal.\ Appl. 300 (2004), 129--146.

\bigskip\noindent
[R] Sz.\ Gy.\
R\'ev\'esz, Inequalities for multivariate polynomials, Annals of the Marie
Curie Fellowships 4 (2006), {\tt http:/\!/www.mariecurie.org/annals/},
arXiv preprint: math.CA/0703387

\bigskip\noindent
[RS] Sz.\ Gy.\
R\'ev\'esz, Y.\ Sarantopoulos, Plank problems, polarization and Chebyshev
constants, J.\ Korean Math.\ Soc.\ 41 (2004) 157--174.

\bigskip\noindent
[S] B.\ Simon,
The P$(\phi)_2$ Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory, Princeton Series in Physics,
Princeton University Press, 1974

\bigskip\noindent
[Z] A.\ Zvonkin, Matrix integrals and map enumeration: an accesible
introduction, Combinatorics and physics (Marseille, 1995), Math.\ Comput.\
Modelling 26 (1997), 281--304.
\end{document}

Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Probability (math.PR)


The Three Hat Problem

Abstract: In this paper we study the Three Hat Problem which appeared in Puzzle Corner of the Technology Review magazine. This puzzle gives a scenario in which three players wearing hats are sitting together and each hat can be seen by everyone except the player that is wearing that hat. Each player is told that all of the hats contain a positive integer and that two of the integers add to the third. In an ordered, turn-wise, modular fashion, each player truthfully states whether or not he knows his integer. We give a strategy which allows for one of the players to solve for his integer for all possible integer configurations of the puzzle and prove it is the optimal such strategy.

\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Many classical puzzles involve hats. The general setting for these puzzles is a game in which
several players are each given a hat to wear.  Associated with each hat is either a color or a number.
Each player can see the color of or number on the other players' hats, but cannot see his own.
The objective of the players is to figure out the colors or the numbers on
their own hats. The Three Hat Problem is one of such puzzles.

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf The Three Hat Problem.}  Three players are each given a hat to wear. Written on each hat is
a positive integer. Any player can see the two numbers on the other players' hats, but not his own.
It is known that one of the numbers is the sum of the other two.
Individually, each player takes a turn in which he either identifies his number or passes if he cannot.  If each player fails to identify his number on his first turn, the players start the turn-wise process over again using the same order from the previous round.  The process ends when one of the players is able to correctly identify his number.
One popular example of the puzzle gives the following scenario:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] Player A:~~Pass.
\item[] Player B:~~Pass.
\item[] Player C:~~Pass.
\item[] Player A:~~My number is 50.
\end{itemize}
The question is: What are the other numbers?

There is also a more complex version of the above problem in which the players take longer to reach a solution.  It proceeds as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item[] Player A:~~Pass.
\item[] Player B:~~Pass.
\item[] Player C:~~Pass.
\item[] Player A:~~Pass.
\item[] Player B:~~Pass.
\item[] Player C:~~Pass.
\item[] Player A:~~Pass.
\item[] Player B:~~Pass.
\item[] Player C:~~My number is 60.
\end{itemize}
Again the question is: What are the other numbers?

The most general form of the Three Hat Problem would have numbers $a, b, a+b$. In this general
setting, one may ask: (a) Will the players be able to determine their numbers, and (b) if so, how will the players
proceed in doing so?

As far as we know, both puzzles were proposed by Donald Aucamp in
the {\em MIT Technology Review}, see
\cite{TR03},\cite{TR04},\cite{TR06}.  Although by no means
trivial, the first puzzle is readily within grasph of most enthusiasts who have some
familiarity with these type of puzzles. The solution is Player B has 20 and Player C has 30.
To see why these two numbers work, we proceed with the following observation.  Player A on his first turn obviously doesn't know whether his
number is 50 or 10. Similarly neither Player B nor Player C can immediately figure out their numbers.
However, on his second turn Player A can reason: {\em If mine is a 10, then Player C would know
his number is either 10 or 30. If it is 10 Player B would immediately know his number is 20.
But he didn't know. So Player C should know his number is 30. Now since Player C didn't know,
my number must be 50.} With this kind of reasoning we can also rule out all other
combinations. So $[50, 20, 30]$ is the only solution to the first puzzle.
In a private communication Aucamp mentioned that he received no solution to the second
puzzle from the readers \cite{Auc-pri}. As it turns out, our study shows that the second
puzzle has eight solutions! They are
$[25,35,60]$, $[35,25,60]$, $[42, 18, 60]$, $[18, 42, 60]$, $[10, 50, 60]$, $[50, 10, 60]$,
$[44, 16, 60]$, $[16, 44, 60]$.

The Three Hat Problem is among the more challenging hat puzzles. However, as
we shall see, many of these hat puzzles can be solved using the
same principles and techniques as the Three Hat Problem. To illustrate, we list two classical hat puzzles.

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf The Two Hat Problem.} Two players are each given to wear a hat with a positive integer
written on it. Assume that the two numbers are consecutive integers.
Each player can see the other player's number but not his own.
They take turns to either identify their numbers or pass if they cannot.
Will the players be able to identify their numbers, and if so, what will they proceed in doing so?

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf The Color-Hat Problem.} Several players are each given either a red or a blue
hat to wear. Each player can see all other hats but not his own. They are also told that there is
at least one red hat. The game proceeds by rounds. In each round, every player will either
identify the color of his hat or pass, but all players do so {\em simultaneously}. The game
ends when one or more players have correctly identified their colors while
none of the players responds with the incorrect color. What will happen? This puzzle takes on many popular forms, one of
which is the {\em Muddy Face Problem} analyzed in Tanaka and Tsujishita \cite{TaTs95}.

A very challenging variation of the Color-Hat Problem was due to Todd Ebert \cite{Ebe98}
and was reported
in an article in the New York Times \cite{NYT01}. In this variation, the players are
allowed to collaborate as a team and decide on a strategy before the game starts.
However, the players have only one chance to identify their colors. They win
if at least one player correctly names the color of his hat while no one is wrong. The
question is: How well can they do? What is their optimal strategy? This problem has an
interesting connection to coding theory.

Interestingly enough, each of the hat puzzles mentioned here can have a similar {\em collusion version}
that is phrased as a game of strategy. Suppose that we say the players win if at least one player makes a correct identification while none of the other players makes an incorrect identification attempt. Then each aforementioned hat puzzle can be viewed as a problem of finding the strategy for the players to win with the least
number of go-arounds.

Although this paper is concerned with the Three Hat Problem, a main additional objective is
to show that these type of puzzles can be analyzed easily if we first treat them as games
of strategies. Once optimal strategies are found we can often easily show that the
non-collusion version and the collusion version for those games are equivalent, and therefore
they will end in exactly the same fashion. One of the main advantages of
presenting these puzzles as games of strategy is that we can avoid invoking the
so-called {\em super-rationality assumption} (see Hofstadter \cite{Hofs-book}), namely
each player has unlimited mental capacity to process all informations available to them, including
long chains of
reasonings such as ``I know player B knows player C knows I know player C knows ....''
Such an assumption can be confusing even to mathematicians without venturing deeply into
the realm of set theory and mathematical logic.
The Three Hat Problem is an excellent example to illustrate this point.

\section{Optimal Strategy for the Three Hat Problem}

We now discuss a strategy for the collusion version of the Three Hat Problem. We say a strategy is
{\em viable} if it always leads to a win for the players; in otherwords, the players need not resort to guessing at any stage.  A viable strategy is {\em optimal} if it requries the least number of turns (go-arounds) to
end the game successfully regardless what the numbers are on the three hats. Of course, while all optimal strategies must be viable, not all viable strategies are optimal. In theory it is also possible that an optimal
strategy does not exist, in which case a strategy may be the best for some configurations but no strategy is the best for all configurations.  For the Three Hat Problem, there does exist an optimal strategy which is given herein.
The optimality of the strategy is proven in the next section.

The optimal strategy we describe here is a reduction scheme involving a chain of vectors with postive integer
entries. Throughout this paper we assume that the game begins with Player A, Player B, and Player C taking turns respectively in that order.  Further, this order remains in all subsequent rounds until the game ends. The numbers $a,b,c$ for Players A, B and C respectively are represented by the vector $[a,b,c]$.
Such a vector is called a {\em Three Hat configuration}, or simply just a {\em configuration}.

Let ${\mathcal H}$ denote the set of all triples ${\mathbf s} =[a,b,c]$ where $a,b,c$ are positive
integers such that the largest of which is the sum of the other two. ${\mathcal H}$ represents the
set of all possible configurations of the Three Hat Problem. Define a map
$\sigma: {\mathcal H} \longrightarrow {\mathcal H}$ as follows: For ${\mathbf s} =[a,b,c]\in{\mathcal H}$, if two of the entries are
identical then $\sigma({\mathbf s})={\mathbf s}$; otherwise the largest entry is replaced by the
difference of the other two entries. For example, $\sigma([3,10, 7])=[3,4,7]$,
$\sigma([10,1, 9])=[8,1,9]$, and $\sigma([3,3, 6])=[3,3,6]$. We shall call ${\mathbf s}\in{\mathcal H}$
a {\em base configuration} if ${\mathbf s}$ contains two identical entries, or equivalently
$\sigma({\mathbf s})={\mathbf s}$. Note that in the base configuration, the player with the largest
number can immediately declare that his number is the sum of the other two numbers.  Although, we must note that in this situation, the aforementioned player may choose not to initially identify his number in order to obey his strategy.

Our strategy for the Three Hat Problem involves a chain of configurations for each player.
For any ${\mathbf s}\in {\mathcal H}$ we otain a sequence of configurations ${\mathbf s}, \sigma({\mathbf s}), ...
\sigma^n({\mathbf s})$ where $n\geq 0$ is the smallest power such that $\sigma^n({\mathbf s})$ is
a base configuration. For example, for ${\mathbf s}=[3,10,7]$ the sequence is
$$
   [3,10,7],[3,4,7],[3,4,1], [3,2,1], [1,2,1].
$$
We call the sequence in reverse order the {\em configuration chain} associated with ${\mathbf s}$.
So in the above example ${\mathbf s}=[3,10,7]$ the associated configuration chain is
$$
   [1,2,1], [3,2,1],[3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7].
$$
Given a configuration,  we say that a player has
the {\em cue} if his number is the sum of the other two.
For example, for the configuration $[3,10,7]$ Player B has
the cue.

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf Chain Reduction Strategy for the Three Hat Problem.}~~For the Three Hat Problem with
configuration ${\mathbf s}=[a,b,c]$, let ${\mathbf s}_A=[b+c,b,c]$, ${\mathbf s}_B=[a,a+c,c]$ and ${\mathbf s}_C=[a,b,a+b]$.
These are the {\em working configurations} for Players A, B, and C respectively.
Each player now writes down the configuration chain associated with his working configuration.
It is important to note that the chains differ only at the end. The players with the two smaller
numbers have longer chains by one configuration, which may differ for these two players. The remainder of
the chains are identical.

When the game begins, the players are assigned the first configuration in their respective
configuration chain and proceed with the following reduction scheme:

At each turn, a player looks at the configurations remaining on his configuration chain. If it
contains only one configuration, he declares that his number is the sum of the other two numbers ending the game; otherwise, he will pass. Each player will now examine his assigned configuration (which is identical for all
the players before the game ends). If and when the player with the cue for the current configuration passes, all the players will cross out or exclude the current configuration from his chain and assign himself the next configuration
in the chain.  Otherwise, he keeps his currently assigned configuration and his chain intact.  The game continues until a player declares his number.
\hfill\rule{2.2mm}{3.0mm}

\vspace{2mm}
The following two examples will facilitate the understanding of the strategy.

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf Example 1.} The numbers for Players A, B, C are $60, 36, 24$, respectively. In this case
the working configurations are ${\mathbf s}_A=[60, 36,24]$, ${\mathbf s}_B=[60, 84, 24]$ and
${\mathbf s}_C=[60, 36, 96]$.
The configuration chains are
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
    \text{Player A}: &  [12,12,24],[12,36,24],[60,36,24] \\
    \text{Player B}:&  [12,12,24],[12,36,24],[60,36,24],[60,84, 24] \\
    \text{Player C}: & [12,12,24],[12,36,24],[60,36,24],[60,36, 96]
\end{array}
$$
At the start of the game, all players are assigned the configuration $[12,12,24]$.
Player A will pass, as will Player B and Player C. But Player C has the cue. So
after Player C has passed the configuration $[12,12,24]$ is crossed out by all players from
their chain. The new configuration chains are
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
    \text{Player A}: &  [12,36,24],[60,36,24] \\
    \text{Player B}: &  [12,36,24],[60,36,24],[60,84, 24] \\
    \text{Player C}: &  [12,36,24],[60,36,24],[60,36, 96]
\end{array}
$$
All three players are now assigned the configuration $[12,36,24]$.
Player A and Player B will pass again. But since Player B has the cue, after his pass
all three players will cross out $[12,36,24]$ from their chain and assign themselves the
next configuration, which is $[60,36,24]$ for everyone. The new configuration chains are
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
    \text{Player A}: & [60,36,24] \\
    \text{Player B}: & [60,36,24],[60,84, 24] \\
    \text{Player C}: & [60,36,24],[60,36, 96]
\end{array}
$$
It is Player C's turn and he will pass.
Now Player A has only one configuration left on his chain, namely $[60, 36, 24]$.
So he declares his number to be the sum of the other
two numbers, which is 60. The game ends with a win for the players.
\hfill\rule{2.2mm}{3.0mm}

\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
{\bf Example 2.} The numbers for Players A, B, C are $3, 10, 7$, respectively. In this case
the working configurations are ${\mathbf s}_A=[17, 10, 7]$, ${\mathbf s}_B=[3, 10 ,7]$ and
${\mathbf s}_C=[3, 10, 13]$. The following shows the configuration chains and the action at
each turn. Players with the cue are denoted by a $*$.
$$
\begin{array}{lcl}
\text{Player A:} & \text{Pass} & [1,2,1], [3,2,1],[3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7], [17,10,7]\\
\text{Player B*:} & \text{Pass} & [1,2,1], [3,2,1],[3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7] \\
\text{Player C:} & \text{Pass} & [3,2,1],[3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7], [3, 10, 13] \\
\text{Player A*:} & \text{Pass} & [3,2,1],[3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7], [17, 10, 7] \\
\text{Player B*:} & \text{Pass} & [3,4,1], [3,4,7], [3, 10,7] \\
\text{Player C*:} & \text{Pass} & [3,4,7], [3, 10,7], [3,10,13] \\
\text{Player A:} & \text{Pass} &  [3, 10,7], [17,10,7] \\
\text{Player B*:} & \text{\em I have 10} &  [3, 10,7].
\end{array}
$$
The game ends successfully for the players.
\hfill\rule{2.2mm}{3.0mm}

Using this strategy, the player with the sum of the other two
numbers will always be the one to declare his number correctly
to end the game. This is quite easily shown. Since his chain is a
subchain of the other two players, and by the time his chain is down to
only one configuration the other players still have two. Moreover, since he
holds the cue at that stage the other players cannot reduce the chain further without
waiting for him to act. But when he does act he will declare his number. So he is always
the first to identify his number.

\section{Optimality of the Chain Reduction Strategy}

We will now prove that the above strategy is optimal for the Three Hat Problem in the sense that
no other viable strategy will be able to end the game with fewer turns for all configurations.
Before proceeding further we first notice that because $\gcd (a,b) = \gcd (a,c) = \gcd (b,c)$
the players can always divide out the numbers by the greatest common divisor of the two numbers
they see. So we may without loss of generality assume that all numbers in the three hat game are pairwise
coprime. In the coprime case the only base configurations are $[1,1,2]$, $[1,2,1]$ and $[2,1,1]$.

\begin{prop}  \label{prop-1}
     No matter what viable strategy the players use for the Three Hat Problem, the
player whose number is the sum of the other two is always the first player to declare his number.
\end{prop}
\noindent {\bf Proof.~~} Assume that in the Three Hat Game a player declared his number on the very first turn of
the game. It is easy to see that this can happen only if we have a base
configuration and this player has the sum of the other two numbers. No other cases allow the game
to end on the very first turn without guessing.
For instance, even in the base configuration $[1,2,1]$ Player A cannot declare his number
on his first turn without guessing, for he can have both $1$ or $3$.

If the proposition is false then we have a game with configuration $[a,b,c]$ that ends
on the $n$-th turn, with $n>1$, with a player who does not have the sum of the two numbers.
Without loss of generality, we assume that Player C declares his number to end the game, and
he does not have the sum. This gives that $c=|a-b|$; but if so, Player C must have concluded on the
$n$-th turn that his number is not $c=a+b$. This is equivalent to saying that had his number
been $c=a+b$ the game would have ended earlier, with another player declaring his number.
Therefore the strategy the players use allows them to end the
three hat configuration $[a,b,a+b]$ in
$k<n$ turns by a player other than Player C. This player does not have
the sum of the other two numbers.

We can repeat this reasoning. In the end, we deduce that using their strategy the players
can end a non-base configuration game in one turn by a player whose number is not the sum of the other two numbers. This is a contradiction.
\hfill\rule{2.2mm}{3.0mm}

\begin{theo} \label{theo-2}
The Chain Reduction Strategy is the optimal strategy for the Three Hat Problem.
\end{theo}
\noindent {\bf Proof.~~} For the Three Hat Problem with the configuration $[a,b,c]$ let $r([a,b,c])$
denote the number of turns needed to end the game using the Chain Reduction Strategy. We
prove that one cannot end the game in fewer turns using any other strategy.

Assume that the players are using another viable strategy such that the game ends in
$f([a,b,c])$ turns. Our objective is to show $f([a,b,c]) \geq r([a,b,c])$.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $a,b,c$ are pairwise coprime. We will prove the optimality
of the Chain Reduction Strategy by induction on $\max (a, b, c)$.

For $\max(a,b,c)=2$ we have the base case. It is clear that
the Chain Reduction Strategy is optimal, $f([a,b,c]) \geq r([a,b,c])$.
Now assume that $f([a,b,c]) \geq r([a,b,c])$ whenever $\max(a,b,c) <M$. We now prove that
$f([a,b,c]) \geq r([a,b,c])$ if $\max (a,b,c)=M$.

We shall examine the case $a=b+c$ and $b>c$, so $a=M$. The other cases are proved in virtually
identical fashion so we shall omit them. Note that by Proposition \ref{prop-1} the game
will end with Player A declaring his number regardless of the strategy. With this in mind
we need only to examine what happens before Player A declares his number. Clearly from
his perspective Player A knows he has either $a=b+c$ or $a=b-c$. He is not
able to declare his number until he rules out $a=b-c$, regardless of the strategy the players
are using. Now since all strategies end with
the player with the sum declaring his number, Player A knows that if his number is
$a=b-c$ Player B will declare his number first on the $n$-th turn, where $n=
f([b-c,b,c])$. But by the $n$-th turn Player B will pass because he does not have the
sum, and after it the earliest Player A can declare his number is after Player C's pass.
Thus,
$$
	f([a,b,c]) \geq 2+ f([b-c,b,c]).
$$
Note that here we do not get equality in general because we do not assume the strategy is
optimal. By the induction hypothesis, since $\max(b-c, b, c) = b<a =M$ we have
$f([b-c,b,c]) \geq r([b-c,b,c])$, and hence $f([a,b,c]) \geq 2+ r([b-c,b,c])$.
We argue that $r([a,b,c]) = 2+r([b-c,b,c])$. This can be seen easily if we compare the
configuration chains for $[b-c,b,c]$ and those for $[a,b,c]$. For all three players the
former is a sub-chain of the latter with one less configuration. On the $r([b-c,b,c])$-th
turn, Player B has the cue and will pass. So $[b-c,b,c]$ is crossed out from
eveyone's chain, leaving Player A with only one configuration on his chain, namely
$[a,b,c]$. After Player C passes Player A is able to declare his number as
$a=b+c$ using the Chain Reduction Strategy.
Thus $f([a,b,c]) \geq 2+r([b-c,b,c])=r([a,b,c])$. This proves the optimality
of the Chain Reduction Strategy.
\hfill\rule{2.2mm}{3.0mm}

One may wonder whether there are indeed non-optimal viable strategies for the Three Hat
Problem. One such strategy is the following: Players will note the larger of the two
numbers they see, call these $n_A$, $n_B$, and $n_C$ respectively. Unless another
player has already declared his number, Player A will pass until his $n_A$-th turn,
when he will declare his number to the the sum of the two other numbers; further, Players B and C
do likewise. This is clearly a viable strategy but by no means an optimal one.

\section{Equivalence of Collusion and No-Collusion Versions}

We now argue that under the super-rationality assumption the no-collusion
version of the Three Hat Problem will end exactly the same way as if the players are colluding using the Chain Reduction Strategy.  Specifically, we assert that if there exists an optimal strategy
then a super-rational player is able to obtain this result. Clearly, from this perspective,
if an optimal strategy exists then the players need not collude. The super-rationality
assumption suffices to gurantee that all players will be able to find it and use it with
the knowledge that other players will do likewise. Collusion is helpful only when
there exists no single optimal strategy. This is the case when for any one strategy there
is another strategy that is better for some configurations.  If so
the players need to collude to decide on one strategy.
Note that two strategies for the Three Hat Problem are considered to be the same if they
lead to exactly the same solution for all configurations.
In this sense the Chain Reduction Strategy is clearly the unique optimal strategy. By the above argument we have

\begin{theo}  \label{theo-3}
     The no-collusion Three Hat Problem is equivalent to the collusion Three Hat Problem
     using the Chain Reduction Strategy.
\end{theo}

By establishing the equivalence of collusion and no-collusion versions we can also
solve the other two hat problems easily. For the Two Hat Problem, the no-collusion version
is equivalent to players using the following strategy: Each player will pass until on his
$n$-th turn, when he will declare his number to be $n+1$,
where $n$ is the number written on the other player's hat. The game ends when one player
declares his number. For the Color-Hat Problem, the no-collusion version
is equivalent to this strategy: Players will each note how many red hats he sees. Say a
player sees $n$ red hats. He will then pass in the first $n$ rounds, but declares his hat
to be red on the $(n+1)$-th round. The games ends when some players declare their numbers.
These strategies are easily shown to be optimal by similar arguments for the Three Hat
Problem.

\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgement.} The authors would like to thank Ian Fredenburg and Don Aucamp for
very helpful discussions. This work was part of the NSF sponsored REU project
at Georgia Institute of Technolgy in the summer of 2006 for the first author.
During the completion of this project the second author was serving as
a program director at the Division of Mathematical Sciences
of the National Science Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors,
and they do not necessarily represent the views of NSF.

The Three Hat Problem