Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Paul
Posts:
411
Registered:
7/12/10


Strange description of probabilistic proof of hooklength formula
Posted:
Dec 29, 2013 1:11 PM


I have enjoyed reading the GreeneNijenhuisWilf probabilistic proof of the hooklength formula, which is available here: http://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/website/Probabilistic%20proof.pdf
A later paper describes this proof as consisting of a "short but delicate induction argument." I agree that the proof is short and that the argument is by induction, but I'm confused by the word "delicate" in this context. I thought that "delicate" in this context meant "computationally complex" and the proof is anything but that.
Does anyone else think the GNW probabilistic proof is "delicate", and, if so, why?
To see the full context, the later paper is available here: http://www.math.umn.edu/~ciocan/papers/FPSAC.pdf
Thank You,
Paul Epstein



