The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Strange description of probabilistic proof of hook-length formula
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  

Posts: 780
Registered: 7/12/10
Strange description of probabilistic proof of hook-length formula
Posted: Dec 29, 2013 1:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

I have enjoyed reading the Greene-Nijenhuis-Wilf probabilistic proof of the hook-length formula, which is available here:

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:

Thank You,

Paul Epstein

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.