the study of random combinatorial objects is an amazing success story , which grew from ad hoc problems and simple ideas to a flourishing field of its own , with many astonishing results , advanced tools and important applications ( see e.g.  @xcite ) . since the early work of erds and collaborators
, it has long been known that the `` typical '' objects often have an interesting and unexpected structure often worth exploring .
some such random combinatorial objects such as various classes of random graphs are understood to a remarkable degree ( see e.g.  @xcite ) , while others , such as random finite groups remain largely mysterious ( see e.g.  @xcite ) . _
random integer partitions _ occupy the middle ground , with a large mix of known results and open problems ( cf .
section  [ final : remarks ] ) , and are a subject of this paper .
_ partition theory _ is a classical subject introduced by euler nearly three hundred years ago , which has strong connections and applications to a variety of areas ranging from number theory to special functions , from group representation theory to probability and statistical physics .
a _ partition _ of  @xmath0 is an integer sequence @xmath1 , such that @xmath2 and @xmath3 .
much of this paper is concerned with asymptotic analysis of various classes of partitions , some known and some new .
let us begin by noting that already the number @xmath4 of integer partitions of  @xmath0 is a notoriously difficult sequence ; it is not even known if it is equidistributed modulo  @xmath5 .
there are several specialized tools , however , which allow a detailed information about random partitions .
first , the analytic tools by hardy  ramanujan and rademacher give a precise asymptotics of  @xmath4 , see e.g.  @xcite .
second , the _ boltzmann sampling _ , in this case invented earlier by fristedt  @xcite , allows a uniform sampling of random partitions of  @xmath0 with a high degree of independence between part sizes .
this paper introduces a new combinatorial tool , which is best used in conjunction with these
.    our main emphasis will be not on enumeration of various classes of partitions , but on the limit shapes of random such partitions .
it is a well known phenomenon that random combinatorial objects , e.g.  random graphs , tend to have unusually interesting parameters , of interest in both theory and applications . when represented geometrically ,
these random objects illuminate the underlying 0/1 laws of their asymptotic behavior ; examples included various _ arctic circle _ shapes for domino tilings and perfect matchings ( see e.g.  @xcite ) , and for alternating sign matrices ( see  @xcite ) .
note that there are many different notions of the _ limit shape _ , which differ depending on the context and the geometric representation .
first , one needs to be careful in the choice of the _ scaling _ , by which combinatorial objects of different sizes are compared to each other . in this paper
we use different scaling for different classes of partitions .
second , there is more than one notion of convergence to the limit shape , some stronger than others . roughly speaking ,
they describe how close are the random objects to the limit shape . here
we work with two different notions , convergence in expectation , which we refer to as the _ weak notion of the limit shape _ , and convergence in probability , which we refer to as the _ strong notion of the limit shape _ , which is implied by a stronger large deviation result as well as a local central limit theorem ( see below ) .
as we mentioned earlier the main result of the paper is the computation of limit shapes for several well known classes ( _ ensembles _ ) of random partitions for which this was neither known nor even conjectured before .
most our results are not obtainable by previously known techniques .
we postpone the precise formulation of our results until the next subsection ; for now let us briefly survey the long history of ideas leading to this work .
arguably , partition theory began with euler s work establishing equality for the number of partitions in different classes by means of algebraic manipulation of generating functions .
the next crucial step was made by sylvester and his students which introduced _ partition bijections _ and used them to prove many results by euler and others .
roughly speaking , a partition is represented as a _ young diagram _ and the squares are rearranged accordingly .
we refer to  @xcite for a detailed survey of this approach .
the study of the number @xmath6 of partitions of @xmath0 with at most @xmath7 parts goes back to cayley , sylvester and macmahon .
hardy and ramanujan obtained a remarkable asymptotic formula , further refined by others
. the first result on limit shapes is the _ erds  szekeres theorem _ , which can be formulated as follows : @xmath8 \. = \.
\beta \sqrt{n}\ts \bigl(1+o(1)\bigr ) , \quad \text{where } \ \ e^{-\alpha c } + e^{-\beta c } \.= \.1 \ \ \ , \text{and } \ \ c = \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{6}}\ .. \ ] ] these results were strengthened and extended in a number of papers , see e.g.  @xcite .
there are two prominent types of partition classes considered in the literature , which are essentially conjugate to each other .
the classes are defined by restrictions on parts  @xmath9 , and those with restriction on the number of times @xmath10 part @xmath11 appear in the partition , with no restrictions relating parts to each other .
for example , the set of partitions into odd numbers fits into the latter class , which corresponds to a restriction of the form @xmath12 for all @xmath11 even .
sometimes this is less obvious , for example , for partitions into distinct parts , the restriction is that each part appears at most once , i.e. , @xmath13 , rather than the fact that they are distinct , i.e. , @xmath14 .
there is an extensive body of research related to limit shapes of integer partitions for which the restrictions are solely placed on the multiplicities @xmath10 . in this paper
we consider restrictions on part sizes , such as the _ convex partitions _ , which satisfy @xmath15 these are equinumerous with partitions into triangular parts @xmath16 , i.e. , @xmath12 whenever @xmath11 is not a triangular number , which have a well understood limit shape .
the bijection between these two classes of partitions is also well known  @xcite , and we demonstrate how to obtain one limit shape from the other .
the idea of this paper is to use partition bijections to transfer the limit shape results from one class of partitions onto another .
making this formal is rather subtle . in  @xcite
, the second author introduces a necessary formalism essentially allowing such transfer , with the aim of proving that there is no natural proof of the classical _ rogers
ramanujan identities_. this paper continues this approach , but can be read independently of  @xcite and other earlier work .
@xmath17    to understand the notion of the limit shape , we start with a geometric interpretation of an integer partition .
each integer partition can be visualized as a curve in the first quadrant of @xmath18 , with a height function determined by the part sizes ; see figure  [ young : diagram ] . by simultaneously plotting all of the young diagrams of every integer partition of a very large fixed size  @xmath0 ,
for each @xmath0 one observes empirically a curve which is close to most of the diagram functions , namely , @xmath19 normalizing the @xmath20- and @xmath21-axes by @xmath22 , a single curve emerges in the limit as @xmath23 .
this curve is a law of large numbers for the joint distribution of part sizes in a random integer partition .
our definition of a limit shape , made precise in  [ diagram functions ] , is a limit _ in probability _ as @xmath23 , of appropriately scaled part sizes of a uniformly random integer partition of size  @xmath0 .
the main technique for finding and proving the form of the limit shape is via a probabilistic model .
the joint distribution of part sizes in a random integer partition of size  @xmath0 is approximated by a certain joint distribution of _ independent _ random variables , which produces a random integer partition of random size .
a weak notion of a limit shape is the convergence in expectation of the joint distribution of the independent random variables .
it is easy to calculate the limit shape in this setting , as the calculation simplifies to a riemann sum .
we show in section  [ sect prob ] that the weak notion of a limit shape agrees with the usual limit shape in the context of integer partitions .
this is also known as the _ equivalence of ensembles_.    we start with two pivotal results in the field of limit shapes of integer partitions : the classical limit shape , and the limit shape of partitions into distinct parts .
there is a long and rather involved history involving limit shapes , which is confounded by the weak and strong notions of limit shapes ; see  [ history ] for a more detailed account .
we denote the limit shape of unrestricted integer partitions by @xmath24 .
[ unrestricted : limit : shape ] let @xmath25 denote the limit shape of integer partitions . then : @xmath26    a similar result is true for the limit shape of integer partitions into distinct parts , which we denote by  @xmath27 .
let @xmath28 denote the limit shape of integer partitions into distinct parts .
then : @xmath29    one can also place certain types of restrictions on the part sizes in an integer partition , and ask whether or not a limit shape exists .
we assume the part sizes are restricted to a set @xmath30 , where @xmath31 for some @xmath32 and @xmath33 ( subject to other technical assumptions , see   [ credit ] ) .
then , analogously as before , most partitions of size  @xmath0 are close to a certain curve , which satisfies @xmath34 and @xmath35 is a constant which makes the area under the curve equal to one . in this case , the scaling of the @xmath20-axis is by @xmath36 and the scaling of the @xmath21-axis is by @xmath37 .    [
rb : theorem ] let @xmath38 denote the limit shape of integer partitions with part sizes restricted to @xmath39 , with @xmath31 for some @xmath32 and @xmath33 .
denote by @xmath40 the derivative of @xmath21 with respect to @xmath20 .
then : @xmath41 where @xmath35 is given by equation  .
a similar generalization holds for partitions into distinct parts from a set @xmath39  .
an alternative parameterization is by andrews  @xcite , who defined the restrictions on part sizes of an integer partition by a sequence @xmath42 , where the multiplicity of the parts of size@xmath43 is restricted to be strictly less than @xmath44 .
for example , the set of unrestricted partitions corresponds to the sequence @xmath45 , and partitions into distinct parts corresponds to @xmath46 . when parts sizes are restricted to @xmath39 .
, this corresponds to the sequence @xmath47 , @xmath48 , and @xmath49 for @xmath50 .
there are , however , certain restrictions on integer partitions for which a limit shape does not exist . for example , if we consider the sequence @xmath51 , @xmath48 , and @xmath52 if @xmath53 is not a power of 2 , then there is exactly one integer partition for each @xmath0 ; namely , the base-2 representation of the number @xmath0 .
for another example , let @xmath54 for @xmath55 , and @xmath56 for @xmath57 for some positive @xmath58 .
this sequence corresponds to partitions of @xmath0 with largest part at most @xmath58 . for @xmath58
fixed , the number of such partitions only grows polynomially with @xmath0 , and there is no limit shape .
in contrast , the case @xmath59 was handled by romik  @xcite , as well as vershik and yakubovich  @xcite , and the limit shape does indeed exist .
there are other classes of partitions which can not be described by andrews s parameterization .
in particular , for the example of convex partitions described above , it is not immediately clear whether or not a limit shape exists , or if it does , what is the proper scaling .
nevertheless , we show in   [ convex ] that indeed the limit shape of convex partitions exists and demonstrate how to compute it .
the goal of this paper is to obtain new limit shapes for integer partitions with restrictions which do not fit into the usual framework described above .
the form of the restrictions given by andrews is a subset of restrictions called _ multiplicative restrictions _ by vershik  @xcite , owing to the form of the generating function as a product of terms ; it also refers to the fact that under the weak form of the limit shape , part sizes are treated as independent , and so probabilities factor according to part sizes .
our first example is an application of the various geometric transformations defined in  @xcite .
let @xmath60 denote the set of partitions @xmath61 with consecutive parts @xmath62 for even part sizes @xmath63 , and @xmath64 for all odd part sizes @xmath63 , @xmath65 let @xmath66 denote the limit shape of  @xmath60 , and let @xmath67 , and @xmath68 .
then the limit shape satisfies @xmath69    let @xmath70 denote the set of partitions into distinct parts which are congruent to  @xmath71 or  @xmath5 modulo  @xmath72 . we demonstrate in section  [ lebesgue ] how to apply these transformations to obtain the limit shape of  @xmath60 .
moreover , once we have the limit shape , certain statistics immediately follow .    [
number : of : parts : cor ] let @xmath73 denote the number of parts in a random partition of size  @xmath0 in @xmath60 .
we have @xmath74 where @xmath75 denotes convergence in probability .
the durfee square of a partition @xmath76 is the number of @xmath77 such that @xmath78 .
it is a well - known statistic which plays a fundamental role in some of the bijections exploited in this paper , and is also described as the largest square which can fit entirely inside the young diagram of an integer partition .
[ durfee : square : cor ] let @xmath79 denote the size of the largest durfee square in a random partition of size  @xmath0 in @xmath60 .
@xmath80 denote the real  valued solution to @xmath81 then we have : @xmath82 where @xmath75 denotes convergence in probability .
there are , however , certain bijections which are not covered by pak s geometric transformation approach .
recall the example of convex partitions , which are partitions which satisfy @xmath83 let @xmath84 denote the set of convex partitions of size  @xmath0 .
let @xmath85 denote the set of partitions of size  @xmath0 with parts in the set @xmath86 , @xmath87 , with unrestricted multiplicities .
[ andrews : convex ] we have @xmath88 for all @xmath89 .
the limit shape of @xmath90 is a special case of theorem  [ rb : theorem ] , using @xmath91 and @xmath92 .
it is thus natural to ask if it is possible to obtain the limit shape of @xmath93 from the limit shape of @xmath90 .
the answer is affirmative , as witnessed in section  [ sect r ] , _ due to the form of the bijection_. in fact , corollary  [ convex : corollary ] below is a special case of a much larger class of partition bijections which map limit shapes continuously , which we describe in  [ transfer : theorems ] .
[ convex : corollary ] let @xmath94 denote the limit shape of  @xmath90 , and let @xmath95 denote the the limit shape of  @xmath93
. then we have @xmath96 where @xmath97 is the compositional inverse of @xmath98 .
romik s unpublished manuscript  @xcite contains an example which uses a single geometric transformation to obtain the limit shape of the set of partitions whose parts differ by at least 2 .
it is a specialization of pak s geometric transformations , and requires a further refinement , in that it maps partitions of size  @xmath0 with exactly @xmath58 parts .
let @xmath99 denote the set of partitions whose parts differ by at least 2 , and denote its limit shape by @xmath100 . for @xmath101 , let @xmath102 , @xmath103 , and @xmath104 , where @xmath105 , and @xmath35 is a normalizing constant .
then , the limit shape satisfies @xmath106      the rest of the paper is organized as follows .
we start with three motivating examples : partitions with no consecutive parts , self - conjugate partitions , and convex partitions .
then we make precise all of the necessary notions of limit shapes , bijections , and asymptotic stability in section  [ sect notation ] , and state the new limit shape theorems in section  [ sect special cases ] .
we then present several examples demonstrating the application of the theorems . in section  [ sect r ]
, we present a generalization of convex partitions .
section  [ sect odd ] presents various applications of the theorems to euler s classical odd - distinct bijection , including a generalization due to stanton .
sections  [ lebesgue ]  and  [ diff d ] demonstrate step - by - step how to apply pak s geometric transformations in two important cases .
section  [ sect further ] contains examples where the number of summands is restricted .
section  [ sect prob ] contains the formal probabilistic setting and proofs of the main lemmas , including a large deviation principle .
section  [ sect main ] contains the proof of the main results .
finally , section  [ sect remarks ] contains historical remarks , and section  [ final : remarks ] is a collection of final remarks .
we first consider romik s example , which demonstrates the utility of considering bijections between classes of partitions .
[ romik : theorem ] let @xmath107 denote the set of partitions such that no parts differ by exactly 1 , and there are no parts of size 1 .
let @xmath108 , and let @xmath109 denote the limit shape of @xmath107 .
then we have @xmath110    the _ existence _ of the limit shape of @xmath107 in theorem  [ romik : theorem ] follows by considering the set of partitions which are conjugate to those in @xmath107 .    let @xmath111 denote the set of partitions of size  @xmath0 such that no parts differ by exactly 1 , and there are no parts of size 1 .
let @xmath112 denote the set of partitions of size  @xmath0 such that no part has multiplicity 1 .
the conjugation map gives a bijection between partitions @xmath113 and @xmath114 for each @xmath89 .
the limit shape of @xmath99 , the set of partitions such that no part has multiplicity  1 , has a restriction which is multiplicative , and its form follows in a straightforward manner from theorem  [ special unrestricted ] .
let @xmath99 denote the set of partitions such that no part has multiplicity 1 .
let @xmath108 .
then : @xmath115    as was noted by romik  @xcite , even though the limit shapes satisfy @xmath116 , @xmath117 , it is not straightforward to compute the explicit form of @xmath109 using algebraic techniques , even with a computer algebra system .
a general approach of finding limit shapes via a class of continuous transformations was developed in  @xcite , where many well - known partition bijections are presented as certain geometric transformations acting on young diagrams , which also act continuously on the corresponding limit shapes .
an example where the limit shape is apparent in a weak sense , but lacks a rigorous argument , is the set of _ self - conjugate partitions _
@xmath118 , consisting of all partitions @xmath76 such that @xmath119 implies also @xmath120 .
[ sylvester ] let @xmath118 denote the set of partitions which are self - conjugate .
the limit shape of @xmath118 satisfies equation  .
one can reason heuristically that the limit shape of @xmath118 should coincide with the limit shape of unrestricted integer partitions , however , we are unaware of any simple , rigorous methods to do so .
the first difficulty is that the number of self - conjugate partitions of size  @xmath0 is of an exponentially smaller proportion than the number of unrestricted partitions of size  @xmath0 .
the second difficulty is that we lose the asymptotic independence between part sizes .
there are several different ways to obtain a rigorous proof of theorem  [ sylvester ] , starting with the following bijection .
let @xmath111 denote the number of partitions of @xmath0 into odd , distinct parts .
let @xmath121 denote the number of self - conjugate partitions of @xmath0 .
we have @xmath122 for all @xmath89 .
one construction of the bijection is to break the principle hooks ( see  ( * ? ? ?
* figure  13 ) ) and stretch them out .
when the partition @xmath76 is self - conjugate , each of the principle hooks must necessarily consist of an odd number of squares , and each principle hook consists of at least two squares more than the previous principle hook . in this instance
, we have an explicit formula for the map which sends partitions @xmath119 to partitions @xmath61 into distinct , odd parts , namely , @xmath123 where @xmath124 is the size of the largest durfee square in the partition @xmath76 .
a formal procedure to obtain theorem  [ sylvester ] from this bijection is as follows , see  ( * ? ? ?
* section  7 ) . for the remainder of this section , @xmath125 .
let @xmath126 denote the limit shape of partitions into odd , distinct parts , which is given by theorem  [ rb : theorem ] using @xmath127 and @xmath128 .
we shall need the explicit form of the limit shape in the calculations that follow , which is given by @xmath129 recall also that the limit shape of unrestricted integer partitions is given by the explicit formula @xmath130    denote by @xmath131 the limit shape of self  conjugate partitions , which exists by ( * ? ? ?
7.1 ) . after an appropriate scaling by @xmath22 , by equation   we have @xmath132 by rearranging and solving for @xmath133
, we obtain @xmath134 for @xmath135 .
the value @xmath136 is precisely the value for which @xmath137 , @xmath138 , which cuts the limit shape in half via the line @xmath139 .
thus , for @xmath140 , we can invoke the symmetry of self  conjugate partitions about the line @xmath139 and conclude that @xmath141 for all @xmath138 .
this solution is uncharacteristically simple , and most bijections are not as obliging as to allow for elementary algebraic manipulations of their part sizes .
fortunately , this bijection can also be defined by a natural geometric bijection , and we next demonstrate each step in the process of mapping the limit shape from one set of partitions to another .
figure  [ parallel : mapping : young ] demonstrates how a geometric bijection from @xcite acts on the young diagrams , and figure  [ parallel : mapping : limit ] demonstrates how a geometric bijection acts on the limit shapes
.    0.3 @xmath142 \mbox{\begin{tabular}{c}\includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi1.pdf } \\
\mbox{\large $ \phi(t)$ } \end{tabular } }   \ar[dr ] & \\ \ar[d]\mbox{\begin{tabular}{c}\includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi2b.pdf}\\\mbox{\large $ p\phi(t)$ } \end{tabular } } & & \mbox{\begin{tabular}{c}\includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi2a.pdf}\\\mbox{\large $ q\phi(t)$}\end{tabular } } \ar[d ] \\ \ar[ddr]\mbox{\begin{tabular}{c } \mbox{\large $ p\phi(t)-t$ }
\\ \includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi3b.pdf}\\   \mbox{\large $ \phi_1(t)$}\end{tabular } } & & \mbox{\begin{tabular}{c } \mbox{\large $ \left((q\phi(t))^{\langle -1\rangle } - t\right)^{\langle -1\rangle}$ } \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi3a.pdf } \\
\mbox{\large $ \phi_2(t)$ }   \end{tabular } }    \ar[ddl ]   \\ & \mbox{\large $ \phi_1(t ) + \phi_2(t)$ } &   \\
& \mbox{$\begin{array}{c } \includegraphics[scale=0.282]{phi4.pdf } \\
\mbox{\large $ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi\left(\frac{t}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$ } \end{array}$ } & } } \ ] ]    .9 in    0.3 @xmath143 \mbox{\begin{tabular}{c}\ydiagram[*(red ) ] { 1 + 0,2 + 0,2 + 0,2 + 0,2 + 1,1 + 5,0 + 7 } * [ * ( blue)]{1,2,2,2,2,2,1 } \\ \\   \mbox{\huge cut }
\end{tabular } } \ar[dr ] & \\ \ydiagram[*(blue)]{1,2,2,2,2,1 } \ar[ddd]|-{\mbox{\huge shift } } &   &   \ydiagram[*(red)]{2 + 1,1 + 5,7 } \ar[ddd]|-{\mbox{\huge shift } } \\ \\ \\ \ydiagram[*(blue)]{1,1,2,2,2,2 } \ar[ddddd ] &   & \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ydiagram[*(red)]{1,5,7}\ar[dddd]|-{\mbox{\huge transpose } }   \hskip .85 in \\
\\ \\ \\   & & \ydiagram[*(red)]{1,1,2,2,2,2,3 } \ar@*{[thicker]}[dll ] \\
\mbox{\begin{tabular}{cc } \ydiagram[*(red ) ] { 0 + 1,0 + 1,0 + 1,0 + 1,0 + 2,0 + 2,0 + 2,1 + 1,1 + 1,2 + 0,2 + 0,2 + 0,2 + 1 } * [ * ( blue)]{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,2,2,2,2 } & \mbox{\huge add } \end{tabular } } & & } } \ ] ]    we summarize the steps of figure  [ parallel : mapping : limit ] by the following set of mappings : @xmath144 the first map splits the curve into two curves of the same shape but scaled to half the original area .
the next map shifts the coordinates up so that the functions evaluated at the point @xmath145 are equal to @xmath146 .
the third map reflects the first coordinate about the line @xmath139 , so that the curves now lie in complementary regions in the first quadrant .
finally , the last map pastes together the functions at @xmath147    the mappings defined above are presented in a way which emphasizes how the height functions are transformed with respect to the axes , whereas they are actually transforming regions in the plane . from a technical point of view
, the mappings should be considered as transformations on the plane , as they are presented in @xcite , but for the purpose of finding explicit formulas for limit shapes , one can very often more simply track how the mappings transform the height functions and their inverses directly .
our last example of this section exemplifies another class of bijections , those which can be realized as a linear transformation of multiplicities of part sizes .
consider the set @xmath148 of all _ convex _ partitions , i.e. , partitions whose parts @xmath149 also satisfy the convexity condition : @xmath150 .
this set of partitions does not exclude any particular set of sizes , nor does there appear to be any simple , a priori transformation , e.g. , conjugation , to such a set .
nevertheless , we find the limit shape of convex partitions .
[ conj convex ] let @xmath95 denote the limit shape of convex partitions @xmath148 . then : @xmath151    computing this limit shape requires several steps .
first , recall andrews s theorem  [ andrews : convex ] , that there is a bijection between partitions into parts of sizes @xmath86 , @xmath152 and convex partitions . simply knowing a bijection exists is not sufficient , however , and it is in fact the particular form of this bijection which allows us to find the limit shape .
recall @xmath90 denotes the set of partitions into parts with sizes in @xmath39  , with @xmath153 .
let @xmath154 denote the number of parts of size @xmath155 in a partition @xmath156 , @xmath152 .
the following map @xmath157 was defined in  @xcite .
@xmath158    map @xmath159 is a bijection between @xmath160 and @xmath161 for each @xmath89 .
each @xmath162 , with @xmath163 parts of size  @xmath164 , corresponds to a @xmath165 with part sizes given by @xmath166    we can immediately write the weak form of the limit shape by appealing to riemann sums . in this case , the number of parts of size  @xmath11 , @xmath48 , is generated from independent geometric random variables @xmath167 with parameter @xmath168 , where @xmath169 .
the constant @xmath35 is given by equation   with @xmath170 , @xmath92 , and @xmath171 .
in this case , however , we set @xmath172 if @xmath173 .
it will also be apparent in the calculation below that we need two different , but complementary , scaling functions .
we have : @xmath174 & \ , = \ , \frac{\b}{n}\ , \sum_{j \ts\geq\ts \b \ts x } \. ( j - x\,\b+1)\ , \e\left[z_{\binom{j+1}{2}}\right ] \\     & \ , = \ , \frac{\b}{n}\ , \sum_{j \ts\geq\ts \b \ts x } \ , \bigl(j - x\,\b+1\bigr ) \
, \frac{\exp\left(-c\ , \frac{\binom{j+1}{2}}{\a}\right)}{1-\exp\left(-c\ , \frac{\binom{j+1}{2}}{\a}\right)}\ .. \end{aligned}\ ] ] we let @xmath175 satisfy @xmath176 . hence ,
@xmath177 , @xmath178 , and @xmath179 the final limit is valid if and only if @xmath180 , and @xmath181 , thus we obtain scaling factors @xmath171 and @xmath182 .
there is one final step , however , since the calculation above only implies the formula given in equation   satisfies _ the weak notion of a limit shape_. we need some form of concentration result , i.e. , large deviations , to claim that the above formula is indeed the limit shape for the set of partitions .
as we shall see , however , the same concentration results valid for the limit shape of  @xmath183 also apply immediately to the image  @xmath148 , see   [ concentration ] .
the bijection @xmath159 is a special case of a more general example discussed in section  [ sect r ] .
in addition , this example is typical of a general method to find limit shapes described in  [ transfer : theorems ] .
we denote the set of positive real numbers by @xmath184 .
the set of all probability measures absolutely continuous with respect to lebesgue measure on the positive real line is denoted by @xmath185 .
let @xmath186 denote the set of real  valued operators on the banach space of real  valued , countable sequences .
we think of transformations in @xmath186 as infinite  dimensional , real  valued matrices .
the expression @xmath187 means @xmath188 we denote the positive part of @xmath20 by @xmath189 the ceiling function , or smallest integer larger or equal to @xmath20 , is denoted by @xmath190 let @xmath191 denotes the _ gamma function _ , and @xmath192 the _ riemann zeta function_.    define the family of constants @xmath193^{r/(1+r ) } \quad \text{for all } \ \. a \geq 2 , \
r \geq 1 , \ b>0\ts.\ ] ] we also define @xmath194 the letter @xmath35 is not restricted to a single value , but will be defined locally .    given a sequence @xmath195 , @xmath196 , we denote the forward difference operator by @xmath197 we also define the @xmath198 difference recursively as @xmath199    the row vector @xmath200 has a transpose given by a column vector and is denoted by @xmath201 .    from this point on
, we adopt the notation that matrix indices are always integers , i.e. , @xmath202    for a given limit shape @xmath203 , we denote its compositional inverse by @xmath204 , or simply @xmath205 when the context is clear . in our setting ,
the domain and range of a limit shape is always the positive real numbers , and limit shapes are always monotonically decreasing , hence @xmath204 is also a function .
an integer partition of a positive integer @xmath0 is an unordered list of nonnegative integers whose sum is @xmath0 .
it is standard notation to list the parts in descending order , @xmath149 , and we denote the number of parts by @xmath206 .
we say that @xmath207 is an integer partition of _ size _
@xmath0 if @xmath208 .
each partition @xmath76 has a unique _ conjugate _
partition @xmath209 that satisfies @xmath210 , @xmath211 .
we denote by @xmath212 the set of partitions of size  @xmath0 , and @xmath213 denotes the set of partitions of all sizes .
a subset of partitions @xmath214 is defined similarly , with @xmath215 .
each partition @xmath216 has a corresponding ferrers diagram , which is a collection of points on a two - dimensional lattice corresponding to parts in the partition ; see figure [ ferrers ] and see also  @xcite for a further explanation .
we note , in particular , that the ferrers diagram for @xmath209 is a reflection of the ferrers diagram for @xmath76 about the line @xmath217 .
let @xmath218 denote the multiplicity of parts of size @xmath11 , where @xmath48 .
there is a natural one - to - one correspondence between partitions @xmath219 and sequences @xmath220 with @xmath221 . when there are no restrictions on the multiplicities of parts , we call such a partition _
unrestricted_.    we define @xmath222 to be the set of partitions where parts of size @xmath11 can occur at most @xmath223 times , where @xmath224 , @xmath225 $ ] , @xmath48 .
the case @xmath226 for all @xmath48 corresponds to distinct part sizes , and the case @xmath54 for all @xmath48 corresponds to unrestricted integer partitions .
we use the term _ andrews class partitions _ to refer to sets @xmath227 .
0.3 @xmath228    0.3 @xmath17      we consider sequences @xmath229 where @xmath230 are strictly monotone increasing and are polynomials in @xmath58 ; that is , @xmath231 we can , in fact , consider more general sequences , however , there are added technical conditions which unnecessarily complicate the statement of our theorems , and since all of our examples take the simpler form in  , we forego this added generality .
see   [ ingham form ] for a discussion on the consequences of such generalizations .    when gcd@xmath232 , then in what follows , by @xmath233 we mean taking @xmath0 to infinity through integer multiples of @xmath234 .
[ ingham : theorem ] assume the set @xmath235 satisfies  , for some @xmath236 , and let @xmath237 and @xmath238 . let @xmath239 denote the number of partitions of @xmath0 into part sizes in @xmath235 .
then we have @xmath240}{c_1\ , n^{\frac{b\,r + e}{b(r+1)}+\frac{1}{2}}}\ts,\ ] ] where @xmath241 is a constant , and where @xmath242 denotes the negatives of the roots of @xmath243 .
[ rothszekeres ] assume the set @xmath235 satisfies   for some @xmath32 , and let @xmath237 and @xmath238 . let @xmath244 denote the number of partitions of @xmath0 into distinct parts from @xmath235
. then we have @xmath245}{c_2\ , n^{\frac{b\,r + e}{2b(r+1)}+1}}\ts,\ ] ] where @xmath246 is a constant .
whereas only the leading two coefficients of @xmath243 are relevant for theorem  [ rothszekeres ] above , the values of the roots of @xmath243 are also needed in theorem  [ ingham : theorem ] . however , in terms of limit shapes only the exponent  @xmath7 and leading coefficient @xmath237 will play a fundamental role .
a set of partitions @xmath247 taking parts only from the set @xmath235 will be called _ with parameters @xmath7 and @xmath248 _ if the multiplicities of parts is unrestricted and @xmath235 satisfies   with @xmath249 .
a set of partitions @xmath247 taking parts only from the set @xmath235 will be called _ restrictedly smooth with parameters @xmath7 , @xmath248 and @xmath250 _ if the multiplicity of each part size is strictly bounded from above by @xmath250 and @xmath235 satisfies   with @xmath251 .      for each @xmath216 ,
the _ diagram function _ of @xmath76 is a right - continuous step function @xmath252 defined as @xmath253 define a _ scaling function _ to be any positive , monotonically increasing function @xmath254 , such that @xmath255 as @xmath233 .
we define the _
@xmath256-scaled diagram function _ of @xmath76 as @xmath257    our definition of limit shape is from @xcite , and is as follows .
let @xmath258 denote a family of measures on subsets of partitions @xmath259 , where @xmath89 . in this paper
we consider only @xmath260 , the uniform distribution .
suppose there exists a scaling function @xmath261 and a piecewise continuous function @xmath262 such that @xmath263 .
suppose further that for any finite collection @xmath264 of continuity points of @xmath265 , and any @xmath266 , @xmath267 we say that @xmath265 is the _ limit shape of _
@xmath268 under scaling function @xmath261 .
similarly , define the _ conjugate diagram function _
@xmath269 , such that @xmath270 we similarly define the _ @xmath256-scaled conjugate diagram function _
@xmath271 suppose there exists a scaling function @xmath261 and a piecewise continuous function @xmath262 such that @xmath272 .
suppose further , that for any finite collection @xmath273 of continuity points of  @xmath265 , and any @xmath266 , we have @xmath274 then we say that @xmath275 is the _ conjugate limit shape of _
@xmath268 under scaling function  @xmath261 .
the scaling function @xmath261 in the definition of limit shape is not unique , since it can be replaced with any scaling function @xmath276 such that @xmath277 .
one could consider an equivalence class of scaling functions in order to uniquely specify such a class of functions , but we do not pursue this further . in either case , when the limit shape of @xmath278 exists , it is unique since it must integrate to 1 .    following @xcite , define the space @xmath279 of triples @xmath280 , and nonnegative monotonically decreasing functions @xmath281 , such that @xmath282 one can think of @xmath283 as the set of measures on @xmath284 of the form @xmath285 , where @xmath124 and @xmath286 are point masses at  0 and  @xmath287 .
note that @xmath288 for all @xmath289 and scaling functions  @xmath261 , and similarly , @xmath290 for all @xmath289 and scaling functions  @xmath261 .
the space  @xmath283 is closed , so all limits of diagram functions exist in  @xmath283 , even when limit shapes do not exist .    [ vanishing : mass]sometimes the limit shape does not exist , even though there is a scaling for which a limit _ curve _ exists . consider , as in  ( * ? ? ?
* example  3.4 ) , the set of partitions @xmath291 , @xmath152 , consisting of a @xmath292 square block and a @xmath293 tail . for each @xmath0 of the form @xmath294
, there is exactly one partition in @xmath268 of size  @xmath0 .
in fact , one can take the limit of the scaled diagram function through values of @xmath0 indicated , and obtain the limit _ curve _ @xmath295 which does not have unit area .
this corresponds to the element @xmath296 .
all other scaling functions would send the scaled diagram function to either @xmath297 or @xmath298 in the limit .
the theorems below indicate the types of limit shape results already known , which we shall use to obtain new ones .
they are specializations of  ( * ? ? ?
.  8) .
[ special unrestricted ] suppose @xmath247 is with parameters @xmath299 and @xmath33 .
let @xmath300 .
then the limit shape of @xmath247 under scaling function @xmath301 exists and is denoted by @xmath302 , and we have @xmath303    theorem  [ special unrestricted ] above covers a large class of examples of interest in our present setting .
it is also the starting point for finding limit shapes of partitions with non - multiplicative restrictions in  [ transfer : theorems ] .
we will also need another particular specialization , which is when all multiplicities of allowable part sizes are strictly bounded from above by some fixed number @xmath304 .
typically the value @xmath305 , i.e. , distinct parts , is sufficient , but   [ od general ] contains an example where we need further generality .
[ special distinct ] suppose @xmath247 is with parameters @xmath306 @xmath307 and @xmath304 .
let @xmath308 .
then the limit shape of @xmath107 under scaling function @xmath301 exists and is denoted by @xmath309 , and we have @xmath310    in particular , by taking @xmath311 and @xmath312 , respectively , in  ( * ? ? ?
* th .  8) , we recover theorem  [ special unrestricted ] and theorem  [ special distinct ] .
two subsets of partitions @xmath313 are called equinumerous if @xmath314 for all @xmath89 . for sets @xmath315 , @xmath316 @xmath317 , we consider one - to - one correspondences @xmath318 which can be expressed as a real  valued linear transformations .
we define ( multiplicities to parts ) to be a one - to - one correspondence that maps , using a linear transformation , multiplicities of parts of partitions @xmath319 to parts of partitions @xmath320 for all @xmath0 .
the transformation has the form @xmath321 for some set of coefficients  @xmath322 such that @xmath323 to avoid excessive subscripting we have opted for the functional notation of indices , i.e. , @xmath324 instead of @xmath325 .
similarly , we define ( multiplicities to multiplicities ) to be a one - to - one correspondence @xmath326 that maps , using a linear transformation , multiplicities of parts of partitions @xmath319 to multiplicities of parts of partitions @xmath320 .
define the vector  @xmath327 , with @xmath328    denote the multiplicities of @xmath61 by @xmath329 , then the transformation has the form @xmath330 and the vector  @xmath331 is a left eigenvector of the matrix  @xmath332 with eigenvalue  1 .
we define @xmath333 when the correspondence @xmath334 is an or with coefficients  @xmath332 , to emphasize the role of @xmath332 in the bijection , and to distinguish s and s from general one - to - one correspondences between sets of partitions ( see for example  @xcite ) .
we next extend the notion of and to countable sequences . in this setting ,
the matrix of coefficients  @xmath335 lies in @xmath186 , which we recall is the set of real  valued operators on the banach space of real  valued , countable sequences .
define also the vector  @xmath336 , with @xmath337    for s , we have @xmath338    similarly , for s , we have the vector  @xmath339 is a left eigenvector of matrix  @xmath332 with eigenvalue  1 .
note that it is not necessary for every entry of @xmath340 to be nonnegative .
suppose @xmath214 denotes a set of partitions which is with parameters @xmath341 @xmath342 we denote the limit shape of @xmath268 by @xmath343 and , furthermore , we define @xmath344 as the continuous function @xmath345 which satisfies @xmath346 suppose there exists an or between a set of partitions @xmath268 and some other set of partitions @xmath347 , with coefficients  @xmath332 .
since partitions in @xmath268 only have parts in @xmath235 , the nonzero values of coefficients @xmath332 are of the form @xmath348 , @xmath48 , @xmath152 .
we require a condition on the coefficients @xmath332 as follows .
we let @xmath349 so that @xmath350    we say the coefficients @xmath332 are  if there exists a bounded and piecewise continuous function @xmath351 such that for all @xmath138 and @xmath352 we have @xmath353    similarly , we say the coefficients @xmath332 are  if there exists a bounded and piecewise continuous function @xmath351 such that for all @xmath138 and @xmath352 we have @xmath354    we say the coefficients @xmath332 are  if there exists a bounded and piecewise continuous function @xmath351 such that for all @xmath138 and @xmath352 we have @xmath355    similarly , we say the coefficients @xmath332 are  if there exists a bounded and piecewise continuous function @xmath351 such that for all @xmath138 and @xmath352 we have @xmath356    when an @xmath159 is defined by an  set of coefficients @xmath332 , we say that bijection @xmath159 is , and we denote the limit shape of @xmath357 by @xmath358 . similarly ,
when an @xmath159 is defined by an  set of coefficients  @xmath332 , we say that bijection @xmath159 is , and we denote the limit shape of @xmath357 by @xmath359 .
a bijection defined in terms of linear combinations of multiplicities of part sizes acts as a markov operator on the diagram function ; see for example ( * ? ? ?
* section 2.3.39 ) .
recall that a markov operator p is a linear operator that sends functions @xmath360 to @xmath361 and is such that    1 .
@xmath362 for @xmath363 , and 2 .
@xmath364 .
the coefficients @xmath332 in equation   correspond to an explicit form of the operator p. note that while we must have @xmath365 for all @xmath366 , there is no restriction that each entry @xmath324 be nonnegative .
most noteworthy , however , is the fact that markov operators are linear contractions , and hence preserve a form of the large deviation principle , which we revisit in   [ concentration ] .
not all bijections give a means to compute the limit shape .
for example , it is not apparent how to utilize dyson s iterated map for odd - distinct parts to compute limit shapes  @xcite
. a more natural example would be the _ garsia
milne involution principle _ bijections of rogers  ramanujan identities  @xcite ( see also  @xcite ) .
both sides have a limit shape , however , we are not aware of any way to draw conclusions about one limit shape from the other using the involution , as it would seem to be difficult to do in general  @xcite .
we now state our key technical theorems , which specify conditions under which the limit shapes map continuously , and provide the means for computing an explicit formula .    [
mt unrestricted ] suppose @xmath247 is with parameters @xmath299 and @xmath33 .
let @xmath367 .    1 .
if there exists a set of partitions @xmath368 and an @xmath369 that is , then the limit shape of @xmath357 under scaling function @xmath370 is given by @xmath371 2 .
if there exists a set of partitions @xmath368 and an @xmath369 that is , then the conjugate limit shape of @xmath357 under scaling function @xmath370 is given by @xmath372    note that the integrand function @xmath373 in the theorem is not necessarily multiplicative with respect to its final argument , as it is in the case of convex partitions in  [ convex ] ; see also section  [ sect r ] .
it is more generally a distribution ( in the analysis sense ) on @xmath374 , and we present an explicit example demonstrating the need for this generality in  [ sect ohara ] .
an analogous result holds for partitions with multiplicities all strictly bounded by some @xmath304 .
[ thm dist ] suppose @xmath247 is with parameters @xmath306 @xmath33 , @xmath375 let @xmath376 .    1 .
if there exists a set of partitions @xmath377 and an @xmath369 , defined by a set of coefficients @xmath378 that is , then @xmath379 is the limit shape under scaling function @xmath370 .
2 .   if there exists a set of partitions @xmath377 and an @xmath369 , defined by a set of coefficients @xmath378 that is , then @xmath380 is the conjugate limit shape under scaling function @xmath370 .
the case @xmath305 is most common , corresponding to partitions into distinct parts , but the analysis is the same for any @xmath304 , and we shall utilize the full generality in  [ od general ] .      in @xcite , a general paradigm for representing partition bijections is presented involving the composition of transformations acting on the young diagram of an integer partition .
these transformations map points in the plane via a bijection @xmath381 in such a way that under certain conditions , the limit shape along with certain other statistics of interest are mapped continuously via these transformations .
this property is referred to as _ asymptotic stability _ , and the limit shape is the statistic of the young diagram corresponding to the boundary .
we briefly recount the transformations as they pertain to the mapping of the limit shape , and defer the interested reader to the more comprehensive treatment in  @xcite .
for example , _ stretch and paste _ corresponds to combining several components , say with boundaries @xmath382 , which exist on the same domain and with the same area , by taking the sum with an appropriate scaling to keep the sum of the resulting expression constant .
we think of this operation as a shuffle , which corresponds to @xmath383    _ conjugation _ is equivalent to taking a functional inverse : @xmath384 .
_ move _ adds a constant : @xmath385 .
_ shift _ adds a linear function @xmath386 : @xmath387 .
_ shred _ and move acting together on @xmath7 components effectively splits up the limit shape into @xmath7 pieces , each having shape scaled by @xmath7 with area @xmath388 , which corresponds to @xmath389    a _ union _ , or _
sort _ , between two components corresponds to the addition @xmath390 .
the _ + _ operator between two components corresponds to the inverse to the addition of the inverses : @xmath391 .
a _ cut _ is somewhat more complicated , and requires treating the limit shape as defining a region in the positive quadrant of  @xmath392 , which can be split in two pieces , one of which is a piecewise function , the other being the inverse of a piece - wise function ; see for example , figure  [ parallel : mapping : limit ] .
it partitions the curve into two curves , say via projections @xmath393 and @xmath394 , as @xmath395    a paste _ by itself _ corresponds to combining two curves whose domains partition some region in @xmath392 into a single curve . under appropriate conditions , paste acts as the inverse to a cut , i.e. , @xmath396 .
[ transformations ]    the geometric transformations on integer partitions correspond to the following transformations on limit shapes . +    [ cols="<,<",options="header " , ]
throughout this section , @xmath7 is any fixed integer , @xmath398 .
[ nonneg ] let @xmath399 denote the set of partitions with parts that have nonnegative @xmath397 differences ; i.e. , @xmath400 , @xmath48 for each @xmath401 .
the conjugate limit shape of @xmath399 under scaling function @xmath370 is given by @xmath402 with explicit formula @xmath403    when @xmath91 , we obtain corollary  [ conj convex ] .
a similarly defined set of partitions with multiplicative restrictions is utilized to obtain this result .
[ r - th triangular ] let @xmath404 denote the set of partitions into parts of sizes given by @xmath405 , @xmath406 .
the limit shape of @xmath404 under scaling function @xmath407 is given by @xmath408 .
we now define the bijection @xmath409 in @xcite , which is a straightforward generalization to the one in  [ convex ] . for each @xmath410 , let @xmath411 denote the number of parts of size  @xmath412 in  @xmath76
. then @xmath413 is given by @xmath414    [ rth lemma ] the bijection @xmath415 is an .
moreover , @xmath415 is @xmath416 , with @xmath417    for @xmath418 and @xmath419 , we have @xmath420 , and 0 otherwise .
we have @xmath421 with @xmath422 , @xmath423 , we have @xmath424 so @xmath425 hence , @xmath426 where @xmath427 , and @xmath428 which implies the result .
let @xmath429 denote the set of partitions with all parts odd and @xmath430 denote the set of partitions with all parts distinct .
we show in this section that glaisher s bijection @xmath431 is an , and present several extensions .
recall the following classical result .    for each @xmath89 , we have @xmath432 .
glaisher s bijection @xmath157 is defined as follows .
start with @xmath433 .
replace each part of size @xmath434 with @xmath435 parts of size @xmath436 , for all @xmath437 and @xmath436 odd .
define the sets @xmath438odd parts with multiplicities @xmath439 and @xmath440distinct parts not divisible by @xmath441 .
the bijection @xmath431 , restricted to @xmath442 and @xmath443 , shows that @xmath444 for all @xmath299 .
the limit shapes of @xmath443 and @xmath442 exist , and the bijection between them was shown to be a geometric bijection @xcite .
an informal calculation in @xcite derives the limit shape of @xmath429 using the limit shapes @xmath442 for all @xmath299 .
below we formalize this calculation by showing that glaisher s bijection @xmath157 is an .
glaisher s bijection @xmath445 is an for all @xmath446 .
furthermore , glaisher s bijection @xmath431 is an .    for clarity of exposition ,
we first show cases @xmath447 then we show in full generality .    in the case
@xmath448 , @xmath449 and @xmath450 , the identity transformation .
the transformation matrix is given by @xmath451 for all @xmath452 , and 0 otherwise .
in the case @xmath91 , @xmath453 consists of parts of odd size and even parts not divisible by 4 .
the transformation is given by @xmath454    the general case @xmath455 has transformation given by @xmath456 it follows that @xmath457 is a transformation matrix for an for all @xmath152 .
using pointwise convergence in @xmath186 , we have @xmath458 as @xmath459 , where @xmath460 it is easy to verify that @xmath461 has a left eigenvector of @xmath462 corresponding to eigenvalue  1 .
thus , glaisher s bijection @xmath431 is an .
we will refer to the transformation @xmath461 from equation   as _ glaisher s linear transformation_.      a generalization to euler s theorem was given by andrews @xcite ( see also @xcite ) . for vectors @xmath463 and @xmath464 , let @xmath315 and @xmath316 denote the andrews class partitions @xmath227 and @xmath465 of size  @xmath0 , respectively .
define @xmath466 to be the set of all @xmath48 such that @xmath467 .
we say that @xmath468 if there exists a bijection @xmath469 such that @xmath470 for all @xmath471 .
[ andrews theorem ] if @xmath468 , then @xmath314 for all @xmath89 .
we have : @xmath472 where we assume the convention that @xmath473 .
the following algorithm , see  @xcite , performs the bijection given by andrews classes of partitions , and is known as _
s algorithm_. for sets of partitions @xmath227 and @xmath465 , suppose @xmath474 .
start with @xmath475 .
replace @xmath44 parts of size @xmath11 with @xmath476 parts of size @xmath53 , where as before @xmath471 , @xmath65 repeat until @xmath477 for all @xmath65 in its full generality , ohara s algorithm is not asymptotically stable , and may require exponentially many steps , see  @xcite . in the special case below , however , the algorithm is in a sense monotonic , and gives a valid alternative approach to obtaining glaisher s linear bijection .
consider @xmath478 , @xmath479 and @xmath480 , @xmath481 , with @xmath482 .
ohara s algorithm exchanges each even part for two parts of half the size .
this is repeated until all parts are odd .
denote by @xmath483 the linear transformation of one step in ohara s algorithm .
then @xmath484    each step in ohara s algorithm corresponds to multiplication of the vector of multiplicities by the matrix @xmath483 .
let @xmath485 denote @xmath58 steps in ohara s algorithm .
we have : @xmath486    using pointwise convergence in @xmath186 , we have : @xmath487 where @xmath488      let @xmath489 denote the integrand for the limit shape of partitions into distinct parts .
[ glaisher : relation ] glaisher s linear transformation is  for @xmath490 with @xmath491    moreover , the limit shapes satisfy @xmath492    note first that @xmath493 , so @xmath494 next , we split the terms @xmath495 according to the integer  @xmath58 for which we have .
this gives @xmath497    note that @xmath461 corresponds to a markov operator p acting on the diagram function @xmath498 , with @xmath499 let @xmath500 for all @xmath501 , so that @xmath502 , and take the limit of the expectation , as @xmath233 .
we obtain : @xmath503 \ , =   \ , \sum_{i\geq 1 } \.
\frac{\a^2}{2n } \. \sum_{j : y_j \geq t/2^{i-1 } } 2^{i-1 } \e z_{y_j \a 2^{i-1 } } \delta y_j \ , \.
\longrightarrow \ , \.
\frac{1}{2 } \.
\sum_{i \geq 1 } \psi\mts\left(t/ 2^{i-1}\right ) , \quad t>0\. , \ ] ] which is finite for each @xmath138 if and only if @xmath504 .
finally , note that also directly we have @xmath503 \to \sqrt{2 } \.
\phi\left(t\.\sqrt{2}\right),\ ] ] which is the standard expression for the limit shape of partitions into odd parts .
this example also demonstrates that the function @xmath373 in equation   is not always multiplicative with respect to its final argument .
another way to understand the connection between the limit shapes of @xmath505 and @xmath506 is via the construction of a geometric bijection . in this case ,
the bijection is more complicated , see ( * ? ? ?
* figure  16 ) , but the same rules apply to the limit shape .
a summary of the mappings is below .
note that instead of mapping the diagram function at each stage , we have instead chosen to demonstrate how the bijection acts on the conjugate diagram function .
we have : @xmath507where the final equality comes from a straightforward rearrangement of terms .      in this section , @xmath32 , and @xmath508 are integers .
the following is a generalization of theorem  [ glaisher : relation ] .
[ stanton : relation ] let @xmath268 denote the set of partitions into perfect @xmath397 powers with multiplicity at most @xmath509 , with limit shape given by @xmath510 .
let @xmath357 denote the set of partitions into perfect @xmath397 powers not divisible by @xmath511 , with limit shape given by @xmath512 then we have @xmath513    note that the limit shapes of @xmath268 and @xmath357 in theorem  [ stanton : relation ] follow from theorem  [ special unrestricted ] and theorem  [ special distinct ] , respectively .
the relation in equation   is obtained from the following generalization of euler s theorem .
[ q prop]let @xmath514 be a sequence of distinct positive integers , and let @xmath515 be an integer . if @xmath516 is an integer for all @xmath58 , then the number of integer partitions of @xmath0 into parts of sizes avoiding @xmath517 is equal to the number of integer partitions of @xmath0 into parts of size @xmath514 , where @xmath243 has multiplicity at most @xmath518 .
theorem  [ q prop ] also follows by andrews s theorem [ andrews theorem ] using the mapping @xmath519 .
the generalization of glaisher s bijection in this case is replacing parts of size @xmath520 into @xmath521 parts of size @xmath243 . when @xmath522 and @xmath523 , we obtain glaisher s bijection .
stanton s @xmath524-bijection _ @xmath525 as follows .
replace parts of size @xmath526 into @xmath527 parts of size @xmath528 , for all @xmath152 not divisible by @xmath511 .
stanton s @xmath524-bijection @xmath529 is an .
stanton s @xmath524-bijection can be written using the transformation matrix @xmath530 with entries @xmath531 for all @xmath152 not divisible by @xmath511 and @xmath532 .
theorem  [ stanton : relation ] then follows from equation   in a similar fashion as the proof of theorem  [ glaisher : relation ] .
in this section , we use a bijection due to bressoud , see  @xcite , to obtain the limit shape below .    [
lebesgue : theorem ] let @xmath533 .
let @xmath534 denote the set of partitions @xmath61 into parts congruent to @xmath535 or @xmath536 mod @xmath58 such that parts differ by at least @xmath58 , and parts congruent to @xmath536 mod @xmath58 differ by at least @xmath537 .
the limit shape of @xmath534 is given by @xmath538 , \quad t \geq 0\. .\ ] ]    let @xmath315 denote the set of partitions of size  @xmath0 into distinct parts which are congruent to  @xmath539 or  @xmath5 modulo  @xmath72 .
let @xmath540 denote the set of partitions @xmath61 of size  @xmath0 with consecutive parts @xmath62 for even part sizes @xmath63 and @xmath64 for all odd part sizes @xmath63 , @xmath48 .
recall _ bressoud s bijection _
@xmath541 illustrated in figure  [ bressoud ] ( see  @xcite ) .
the bijection @xmath157 is used in  @xcite to prove lebesgue s identity , given below .
we have : @xmath542    , the set of partitions @xmath61 with consecutive parts @xmath62 for even part sizes @xmath63 and @xmath64 for all odd part sizes @xmath63 , @xmath366 . ]
the proof of theorem  [ lebesgue : theorem ] , using @xmath543 and @xmath544 for simplicity , is explicitly worked out below , and a plot appears in figure  [ lebesgue : plot ] . whereas the value of @xmath536 is an important aspect of the bijection , the limit shape is invariant to the particular value of @xmath536 chosen .
let @xmath268 denote the set of partitions into distinct parts which are congruent to @xmath539 or  @xmath5 modulo  @xmath72 .
let  @xmath60 denote the set of partitions  @xmath61 with consecutive parts @xmath545 for even part sizes @xmath63 and @xmath64 for all odd part sizes  @xmath63 , @xmath366 . by theorem  [ special distinct ]
, the limit shape of @xmath268 is given by @xmath546 since the bijection to  @xmath60 is given by a geometric bijection , see  ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 10.2 ) , the limit shape of @xmath60 exists , and we now derive its explicit form .
we are unaware of its explicit form appearing in the literature .    in figure  [ bressoud ] , each non - blue square is the equivalent of two dots side by side , and each blue square is the equivalent of one dot .
asymptotically , this distinction is negligible , but for the bijection it is essential .
the first step in the bijection is to separate all of the parts divisible by three ; call this partition @xmath547 , and the partition consisting of the remaining parts by @xmath548 .
the first step of the bijection , see remark  [ stable : remark ] below , is the map @xmath549 which corresponds to separating the limit curves of @xmath550 and @xmath547 , respectively , in figure  [ bressoud ] .
note that since @xmath551 , we have @xmath552 . .
0.3     0.3     0.3     the next step in the bijection is to separate out partitions @xmath256 and @xmath553 from @xmath548 .
the bijection places all parts in @xmath554 which are @xmath555 in @xmath553 , and leaves the rest in @xmath256 . since @xmath556 is an asymptotically stable statistic , with @xmath557 , we may further separate limit curves @xmath558 corresponding to @xmath559 as follows : @xmath560 where @xmath561 @xmath562 for @xmath563 , and @xmath564    we also need the following inverses : @xmath565    the limit curve of @xmath566 is given by @xmath567    the limit curve of @xmath568 is the line @xmath569 , for @xmath570 .
we let @xmath571 now we subtract out the staircase by defining @xmath572 and @xmath573 .
denote the limit curve of @xmath574 by @xmath575 and the limit curve of @xmath576 by @xmath577 .
we have @xmath578     ( red ) , @xmath568 ( black ) , and @xmath574 ( blue ) . ]    next , we sort the parts of partitions @xmath574 and @xmath576 , which corresponds to a union of parts ; call this partition @xmath579 , with corresponding limit curve @xmath580 .
first , we have @xmath581 and @xmath582 note that @xmath583 for @xmath584 .
therefore , @xmath585    the last step of the bijection adds partitions @xmath579 and @xmath568 , and corresponds to the conjugate limit shape of @xmath60 .
namely , @xmath586    we can also invert to obtain the limit shape of  @xmath60 . to obtain the inverse ,
we solve for @xmath587 in @xmath588 where @xmath589 , and @xmath590 .
the positive solution for positive @xmath587 is of the form @xmath591 the limit shape of @xmath60 is thus given by @xmath592 this completes the proof of theorem  [ lebesgue : theorem ] .
[ stable : remark]note that the limit shapes of @xmath547 and @xmath593 do not follow from any of the transformations defined in
[ geometric transformations ] . instead , the limit shapes exist in the stated form by section  [ sect prob ] .
first , the expected number of parts divisible by three over any collection of @xmath594 parts , @xmath595 , in the joint distribution of independent random variables exists and is given by @xmath596 .
appealing again to section  [ sect prob ] , we see that the pointwise convergence of expectation of the independent random variables is sufficient to guarantee convergence in probability for the set of integer partitions .      from the limit shape given in equation  ,
we can now obtain various statistics .
for example , the expected number of parts in a random partition in @xmath60 is given by @xmath597 , which corresponds to equation   in corollary  [ number : of : parts : cor ] .    to obtain corollary  [ durfee : square : cor ] , we solve either for @xmath598 or @xmath599 .
in this case , solving for @xmath600 using equation   is the simpler calculation , from which equation   follows .
in this section , let @xmath601 denote a fixed positive integer , i.e.  @xmath602 .    [
diff : d : theorem ] let @xmath603 denote the set of partitions @xmath61 in which @xmath604 ; that is , parts are at least @xmath601 apart and there is no restriction on the number of parts .
let @xmath605 denote the limit shape of @xmath603 .
then we have @xmath606 , \qquad x>0\.,\ ] ] where @xmath607 where @xmath608 is the unique solution to @xmath609 in the interval @xmath610 , and @xmath35 is the solution to @xmath611    here @xmath612 is the usual _ dilogarithm function _ , which for positive real - valued inputs @xmath20 is defined as @xmath613    it is easy to obtain a minimal difference @xmath601 partition : take any partition @xmath614 and apply the transformation @xmath615 , for all @xmath616 .
this mapping , however , is not size - preserving , as it is between unrestricted partitions of @xmath0 into exactly @xmath58 parts , and minimal difference @xmath601 partitions of @xmath617 into exactly @xmath58 parts .
geometrically , we are adding a right triangle with slope @xmath601 whose right angle lies at the origin to the _ conjugate _ limit shape .
[ theorem diff d k ] let @xmath618 denote the set of partitions @xmath61 into exactly @xmath58 parts , in which @xmath604 for @xmath619 .
suppose @xmath620 . , and @xmath602 .
let @xmath621 denote the limit shape of @xmath618 .
then we have @xmath622 , \qquad x>0\. , \ ] ] where @xmath623 .
let @xmath624 denote the set of minimal difference @xmath601 partitions of @xmath0 into exactly @xmath58 parts .
let @xmath625 denote the set of unrestricted partitions of @xmath0 into exactly @xmath58 parts .
we have @xmath626 , so we must tilt the distribution of the random size of the partition to have expected value @xmath627 and exactly @xmath58 parts .    by conjugation
, each partition in @xmath625 corresponds to an unrestricted partition with largest part at most @xmath58 .
hence , for @xmath628 @xmath629 , we may generate the conjugate limit shape of @xmath630 which we denote by @xmath631 , directly using the method of section  [ sect prob ] .
let @xmath632 denote the limit shape of @xmath625 for @xmath633 , @xmath634 .
we have @xmath635 where @xmath35 is the constant defined by the equation @xmath636 in  @xcite , it is shown that the constant @xmath35 satisfies @xmath637    however , rather than tilt the distribution of a random partition to have expected size  @xmath0 , we instead tilt the distribution so that the expected size of the partition is @xmath638 .
this changes the limit shape from @xmath632 to a limit curve , say @xmath639 , given by @xmath640 where @xmath641 is such that @xmath642 the final step is to add the triangle of slope @xmath601 , i.e. , the curve @xmath643 , to @xmath639 . rearranging the terms yields equation  .
theorem  [ diff : d : theorem ] then follows by the result below , c.f .
[ romik : mistake ] .    a random partition in @xmath603 has number of parts asymptotic to @xmath644 , where @xmath547 is given by equation  .
this section presents a bijection which requires one additional transformation before applying the conjugation transformation , see figure  [ stretch ] .    , the set of partitions into even parts such that the largest part has size @xmath646 , and @xmath647 , the set of partitions into even parts such that the number of parts is @xmath645 . ]
[ ank][bb : theorem ] let @xmath647 denote the set of partitions into even parts such that the number of parts is @xmath645 .
suppose @xmath648 , and let @xmath649 .
then the limit shape of @xmath650 is given by @xmath651 where @xmath35 is the constant such that @xmath652 .
let @xmath653 denote the set of partitions into even parts such that the largest part has size @xmath646 .
the map @xmath654 given in ( * ? ? ?
* section 5 ) is defined as follows : divide each part of @xmath655 by 2 , double the resulting multiplicities , and take the conjugate .    for each @xmath89 and @xmath656 ,
the map @xmath334 is a bijection between sets @xmath653 and @xmath647 .
bijection @xmath334 is an .
the bijection @xmath334 corresponds to the transformation matrix @xmath657 furthermore , this transformation @xmath483 can also be realized as a composition of two transformations , @xmath658 , where @xmath659 @xmath660 we have @xmath661 is the conjugate transformation , and @xmath662 is the transformation @xmath663 defined above .
suppose @xmath664 .
let @xmath665 and let @xmath666 .
the bijection @xmath667 is  with @xmath448 , @xmath668 , scaling function @xmath504 , and @xmath669 for @xmath670 and  0 otherwise .
[ ab : theorem ] suppose @xmath648 , and let @xmath671 .
the limit shape of @xmath672 under scaling function @xmath504 is given by @xmath673 where @xmath35 is the constant such that @xmath674 .
in fact , as written , the constant @xmath35 in theorem  [ ab : theorem ] and the constant @xmath35 in theorem  [ bb : theorem ] coincide .      for any @xmath508 and @xmath32 , let @xmath675 denote the set of partitions of @xmath0 into parts from the set @xmath235 with @xmath676 ,
with largest part having size at most @xmath677 let @xmath678 denote the set of partitions of @xmath0 into parts from the set @xmath235 with @xmath676 and number of summands @xmath645 .
the bijection @xmath679 is as follows : divide each part of @xmath680 by @xmath511 , multiply the resulting multiplicities by @xmath511 , and take the conjugate .
define @xmath681 and similarly @xmath682 .
suppose @xmath683 .
let @xmath681 and similarly let @xmath682 .    1 .
( cf .   [ history ] ) the limit shape of @xmath684 under scaling function @xmath685 is given by @xmath686 where @xmath35 is a constant such that @xmath687 .
the bijection @xmath688 is  with @xmath689 , scaling function @xmath685 , and @xmath690 for @xmath691 and 0 otherwise .
the limit shape of @xmath692 under scaling function @xmath693 is given by @xmath694 where @xmath35 is the constant such that @xmath695 .
in this section we introduce the probabilistic tools used in the proofs of the theorems .
denote by @xmath696 a random partition of size @xmath0 , where each partition is equally likely .
similarly , denote by @xmath697 the number of parts of size @xmath11 in the random partition @xmath696 , so that @xmath698 is satisfied with probability  1 .
the diagram function ( see  [ diagram functions ] ) for a random partition of size  @xmath0 is given by @xmath699    [ convergence lemma ]    let @xmath700 denote a sequence of _ independent _ , but not identically distributed , geometrically distributed random variables with parameters @xmath168 , @xmath211 , where @xmath701 , @xmath702 , @xmath703 .
we write @xmath704 and @xmath705 when the parameters are understood by context .
the diagram function @xmath706 of equation is constrained to have fixed total area for a given @xmath0 , corresponding to a partition of fixed size @xmath0 , for @xmath707 .
the random variables @xmath708 and @xmath709 are related by , for all @xmath703 , @xmath710 see @xcite ; see also @xcite .
here , equality means in distribution .
we next introduce a sequence of random variables @xmath711 , where @xmath712 is defined as the value of @xmath713 conditional on @xmath714 , @xmath48 , @xmath715 , @xmath703 ; that is , @xmath716 we also allow for the case when @xmath717 , in which case we have @xmath718 .
denote by @xmath719 a random partition of fixed size @xmath0 from an unrestrictedly smooth or restrictedly smooth set of partitions with parameters @xmath32 and @xmath33 .
let @xmath720 denote the number of parts of size @xmath11 in the random partition @xmath719 , @xmath211 .
then @xmath721 for @xmath722 and @xmath723 , @xmath724 .
an analogous result to holds , namely , for all @xmath703 , @xmath725    for a given scaling function @xmath261 and constant @xmath35 , define the _ tilting parameter _
we define the _ independence diagram function _
by @xmath727 it has the same form as the diagram function @xmath728 , except it is a sum of independent random variables .
the tilting parameter @xmath729 tilts the distribution , and we choose @xmath35 so that the expected area of @xmath730 is @xmath0 . in this particular case , the tilt given in equation also maximizes the probability that the area of @xmath730 is @xmath0 ( see ( * ? ? ? * section  5 ) ) .
we also define the _ scaled independence diagram function _ as @xmath731      in this section , we formalize the intuition that the weak notion of a limit shape , i.e. , the pointwise convergence in expectation of the scaled independence diagram function , coincides with the limit shape of a certain set of integer partitions .
[ distribution is sufficient ] let @xmath732 denote the scaled independence diagram function corresponding to a set of partitions @xmath247 which is either restrictedly smooth or unrestrictedly smooth .
suppose there exists a piecewise continuous function @xmath733 , such that , @xmath734\ \longrightarrow\ \phi(t ) \qquad \text { for each continuity point \,\. $ t>0$}.\ ] ] then the limit shape of @xmath268 is given by @xmath265 .
the same kind of result holds in our setting as well .
note that an or @xmath735 induces a continuous , bijective map @xmath736 . for diagram functions , we have @xmath737    [ distribution : sufficient : bijection ] let @xmath732 denote the scaled independence diagram function corresponding to a set of partitions @xmath247 which is either restrictedly smooth or unrestrictedly smooth with parameters @xmath32 and @xmath33 .
suppose there exists a piecewise continuous function @xmath733 , such that , @xmath738\ \longrightarrow\ \phi(t ) , \quad \text { for each continuity point \,\. $ t>0$}.\ ] ] suppose further there exists a set of partitions @xmath357 and an or @xmath739 that is .
suppose there exists a piecewise continuous function @xmath740 , such that , @xmath741\ \longrightarrow\ \phi_k(t ) , \quad \text { for each continuity point \,\. $ t>0$}.\ ] ] then the limit shape of @xmath357 is given by @xmath742 .
the proof is straightforward , but requires several technical lemmas , so we present it in the section below .
the analogous theorem , valid for geometric transformations , is stated below .
[ geo distr ] let @xmath732 denote the scaled independence diagram function corresponding to a set of partitions @xmath247 which is either restrictedly smooth or unrestrictedly smooth .
suppose there exists a piecewise continuous function @xmath733 , such that , @xmath743\ \longrightarrow\ \phi(t ) \qquad
\quad \quad   \text { for each continuity point \,\. $ t>0$}.\ ] ] suppose further there exists a set of partitions @xmath357 and a geometric bijection @xmath744 .
then the limit shape of @xmath357 exists and can be found via the application of transformations in theorem  [ transformations ] .
in addition , each geometric transformation is asymptotically stable .
each geometric transformation is a continuous injection in the space @xmath185 , and thus the contraction principle applies to each transformation individually .
the proof has two steps .
the first establishes an exponential concentration , and the second is an example of  overpowering the conditioning " ( see  ( * ? ? ? * section  10 ) ) ; that is , that the conditioning on the event @xmath745 is not too strong .
let @xmath746 denote the pointwise limit of the expected value of a scaled independence diagram function .
a well - known and key calculation is the following : @xmath747 this formalizes the intuition that it is sufficient to have a large deviation which is little - o of the probability of hitting the target .
first , we note that it is sufficient to find a concentration inequality for the _ independence _ diagram , as long as we have some bound on the probability of hitting the target of interest .
fortunately , in the case of integer partitions , much is already known .
[ large deviation ] suppose @xmath748 is the independence diagram function for a set of partitions @xmath247 that is either unrestrictedly smooth or restrictedly smooth with parameters @xmath299 and @xmath33 .
assume @xmath749 for all continuity points @xmath138 of @xmath265 .
then for every @xmath266 , there exists @xmath750 such that for all @xmath0 large enough we have @xmath751 where @xmath752 is a constant that does not depend on @xmath0 .
[ local bound ] suppose @xmath235 is with parameters @xmath32 and @xmath33 , and @xmath753 ; or , @xmath235 is with parameters @xmath32 and @xmath33 for some @xmath754 , and @xmath755 .
then , there exists an @xmath756 such that @xmath757 where @xmath758 is a constant that does not depend on @xmath0 .    under the assumptions of theorem  [ distribution : sufficient : bijection ] , for every @xmath266 , there exists @xmath759 such that for all @xmath0 large enough , we have @xmath760 where @xmath761 is a constant that does not depend on @xmath0 .    equation   follows by the contraction principle for continuous bijections , see  ( * ? ? ?
4.2.1 ) .      in @xcite , a large deviation principle ( ldp ) is presented for a general class of measures over a process of _ independent coordinates _ , which is stronger than theorem  [ large deviation ] .
in particular , the authors of  @xcite let @xmath762 denote a sequence of non - negative integers , and say that @xmath763 is of type @xmath764 whenever @xmath765 in this more general context , @xmath766 denotes the number of different kinds of parts of size @xmath58 ; for example , we can give each part of size 1 any of @xmath767 colors , each part of size  2 can be any of @xmath768 colors , etc .
in this paper , we consider only the case @xmath769 for all @xmath58 .
in particular , for a sequence @xmath770 , this corresponds to @xmath771 then , as in @xcite , we let @xmath772 denote the positive , @xmath773finite measure on @xmath774 which has density @xmath775 .
then the corresponding limit shapes given in @xcite , namely , @xmath776 and @xmath777 , correspond to our @xmath778 and @xmath779 .    in our setting ,
the ldp is an asymptotic expression , both upper and lower bounds , governing the exponential rate at which a sequence of measures , say @xmath780 , assigns probability to a given measurable event as @xmath781 .
for example , a typical event is of the form @xmath782 , and we say that measure @xmath780 satisfies the ldp with rate @xmath261 and good rate function @xmath783 if it has the form @xmath784 this is equivalent to @xmath785 and is stronger than the inequality in theorem  [ large deviation ] .
there are further details which pertain to the topology of convergence , a weakening of the limit as a @xmath786 and @xmath787 , and the precise form of the rate function @xmath788 .
these details are relevant in order to distinguish between limit shapes of andrews partitions with unrestricted multiplicities of allowable part sizes , where the expected number of parts grows like @xmath789 , and andrews partitions with bounded multiplicities of allowable part sizes , where the expected number of parts grows like @xmath790 . in the former case
, we only obtain pointwise convergence . in the latter case ,
the ldp is obtained in the topology of uniform convergence .
we are only able to prove a ldp when the allowable part sizes have bounded multiplicity , see theorem  [ our ldp ] below .
let @xmath791 denote an interval , and let @xmath792 be the space of all functions @xmath793 that are left - continuous and have right limits .
let @xmath794 denote the subset of @xmath795 of non - increasing absolutely continuous functions @xmath796 which satisfy @xmath797 , and let @xmath798 } \subset \mathcal{ac}_{\infty}$ ] denote the set of functions with derivatives which are lebesgue - a.e . in the interval
@xmath799 $ ] .
we write the lebesgue decomposition of @xmath796 as @xmath800 , where @xmath801 denotes the absolutely continuous part of @xmath796 , and @xmath802 denotes the singular part .
let @xmath803 denote the derivative of a function @xmath804 with respect to @xmath805 .
we write @xmath601 instead of @xmath806 just for equation   below .
define @xmath807 for all @xmath808 and @xmath809 , otherwise . here
@xmath810 denotes the relative entropy between functions @xmath796  and  @xmath804 .
[ our ldp ] suppose the set of partitions @xmath247 is with parameters @xmath299 and @xmath33 and @xmath754
. then the diagram functions @xmath811 satisfy the large deviation principle in @xmath812 ( equipped with the topology of uniform convergence ) , with speed @xmath813 and good rate function @xmath814 , given by equation  .    for partitions without any restrictions on allowable part sizes
, there is an area transformation that allows one to conclude that the ldp for the independent process also applies to the dependent process .
when restrictions like @xmath770 are imposed , this area transformation is no longer defined .
we now supply an appropriate area transformation and prove the above claim , _ which only covers the case when the multiplicity of each part size is bounded_. our treatment closely mimics @xcite .
let @xmath815 denote the size of the partition @xmath76 .
we define the transformation @xmath816 by    1 .   if @xmath817 , then @xmath818 .
2 .   if @xmath819 , then 1 .
if there exists a set of partitions of size @xmath58 consisting of parts from @xmath820 , with each part size having multiplicity strictly less than @xmath250 , for @xmath821 then @xmath816 adds the parts of the partition which has the least number of parts to @xmath76 ; in the case of a tie , we choose the partition which is lower in lexicographic order ; 2 .
if there does not exist a set of partitions of size  @xmath58 consisting of parts from @xmath820 , then @xmath816 is the partition of @xmath0 in @xmath247 with the least number of parts .
we now note the following properties of the transformation
@xmath822 :    1 .
for some fixed @xmath823 that does not depend on @xmath0 , and for @xmath0 large enough , we have @xmath824 for all @xmath825 .
2 .   for any @xmath76 with @xmath817 , we have @xmath826 3 .
let @xmath827 , which we will choose later .
for any @xmath828 with @xmath829 , and for @xmath0 sufficiently large , we have @xmath830 where @xmath831 is some real  valued constant which does not depend on @xmath0 .
in addition , @xmath832 + where @xmath833 is some
real  valued constant which does not depend on @xmath0 .
next , we define the sets @xmath834 define @xmath835 . then @xmath0 can be taken sufficiently large , so that we have @xmath836    thus , for such sufficiently large @xmath0 , we have @xmath837 \.     \exp\bigl(c\ , \delta\ , n^{1/(r+1)}\bigr )
\. \pr(n^{-1}n(\lambda)=1 , \dhat_\lambda
\in b_{\phi,\delta_r } ) ,   \end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath838 \. \exp(c\ , \delta\ , n^{\eta - r/(r+1 ) } ) \.     \pr(n^{-1}n(\lambda)=1 , \dhat_\lambda \in b_{\phi,\delta_r } ) .   \end{aligned}\ ] ]    thus , for any @xmath827 , we have @xmath839 where @xmath840 is given by equation  .
the rest of the proof is straightforward ; the only ingredient previously missing was the area transformation @xmath841 and the inequality given by equation  , which holds under the assumption that @xmath235 is with parameters @xmath842 , @xmath33 , and any @xmath843 .
finally , we note that our transformation @xmath841 does not apply for integer partitions into unrestricted part sizes , as our proof relies on the total number of parts in a typical partition to be @xmath844 as @xmath781 .
for @xmath845 and @xmath304 , let @xmath846 @xmath366 , @xmath847 , and @xmath848 be defined as in
[ convergence lemma ] .
define @xmath849 $ ] , which has explicit form given by @xmath850 note that @xmath851 .
similarly , when multiplicities are unrestricted , we define @xmath852    we are now ready to state and prove our general theorem regarding limit shapes .
we assume for the rest of the section that the set @xmath235 is such that @xmath247 is or with parameters @xmath299 , @xmath33 , @xmath304 .
let @xmath195 be such that as @xmath23 , we have @xmath853 , @xmath854 . then as @xmath233 , we have @xmath855 & = \frac{n^{r/(1+r)}}{n } \sum_{k\in u : k\geq t \a } \e [ z_k ]   \\ & \sim \ , \begin{cases } \sum_{y_k \geq ( t / b)^{1/r } } e\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y_k^r}\right ) \delta y_k \to \phi(t ; r , b ) , & \text{for theorem~\ref{special unrestricted } } , \\ \sum_{y_k \geq ( t / b)^{1/r } } e_a\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y_k^r}\right ) \delta y_k \to \phi(t ; r , b , a ) , & \text{for theorem~\ref{special distinct}}. \end{cases}\end{aligned}\ ] ] by theorem  [ distribution is sufficient ] , this calculation is sufficient to establish the limit shape .
we continue to use the notation from
[ proof special distinct ] . in the case of an , we have @xmath856 taking expectation , and applying equation   and equation  , as @xmath23 we have @xmath857 & = \frac{\b}{n } \sum_{y_k \geq 0 } v({\b t,\a b\ , y_k^r})\ , \mathbb{e}\left[z_{b\th y_k^r \a}\right ] \\ & \longrightarrow    \begin{cases }      \int_0^\infty k\left(t , y , e\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y^r}\right ) \right)\ , dy , & \text{for theorem~\ref{mt unrestricted } , } \\
\int_0^\infty k\left(t , y , e_a\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y^r}\right ) \right)\ , dy , & \text{for theorem~\ref{thm dist}. }      \end{cases}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in the case of an , similarly by equation   and equation  , as @xmath23 we have @xmath858   & = \frac{\b}{n } \sum_{i \geq t \b } \sum_{k \geq 1 } v ( { \b t , u_k})\ , \e z_{u_k } \\   & \longrightarrow \begin{cases }       \int_0^\infty k\left(t , y , e\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y^r}\right)\right)\ , dy , & \text{for theorem~\ref{mt unrestricted } , }   \\
\int_0^\infty k\left(t , y , e_a\left(e^{-c\ , b\ , y^r}\right)\right)\ , dy , & \text{for theorem~\ref{thm dist}. }      \end{cases } \end{aligned}\ ] ] by theorem  [ distribution : sufficient : bijection ] , the proof is complete .
[ [ history ] ] ~    the probabilistic model utilized for integer partitions goes back to khinchin  @xcite .
the explicit form of the limit shape curve @xmath746 for unrestricted integer partitions was derived via heuristic arguments by temperley  @xcite .
he applied the method of steepest descents to the generating function for @xmath4 , the number of partitions of size  @xmath0 , in order to describe the equilibrium state of crystalline structures .
several decades later , kerov and vershik  @xcite found and proved the limit shape for integer partitions under the _ plancherel measure _ , which weights each partition of size  @xmath0 by the squared dimension @xmath859 of the corresponding irreducible representation of  @xmath860 .
its formula ( rotated by @xmath861 ) is given by @xmath862 we refer to  @xcite for a thorough and well written proof of this result and its applications .
let us mention that the final section of  @xcite states without proof that the approach used also gives the limit shape of integer partitions under the uniform measure . a followup paper by vershik  @xcite states the strong notion of a limit shape for uniformly random integer partitions , but leaves out the essential details which imply the strong version from the weak one , sometimes referred to as  equivalence of ensembles " in the statistical mechanics literature .    in parallel to the probabilistic notions of a limit shape
, there was an early interest in understanding the joint distribution of part sizes , which appears to begin with the work of erds and lehmer on the largest part size  @xcite , later extended by erds and szalay  @xcite to the largest @xmath805 part sizes , where @xmath138 is fixed .
a significant improvement occurred with the work of fristedt  @xcite , who extended many but not all of the results to the largest @xmath863 part sizes .
pittel fully resolved the strong notion of a limit shape in  @xcite .
the proof starts by confirming a conjecture of arratia and tavare  @xcite governing the total variation distance between the joint distribution of component sizes and the joint distribution of appropriately chosen independent random variables , precisely those defined in section  [ sect prob ] , and essentially extending fristedt s results to the largest @xmath864 part sizes .
the _ total variation distance _ between two distributions , say @xmath865 and @xmath866 , is defined as @xmath867 where @xmath868 is a borel subset of  @xmath869 .
there are two initial , complementary results , governing the smallest part sizes and the largest part sizes .
? * th .  1 ) ) in the definitions from section  [ sect prob ] ,
let @xmath870 , with @xmath871 , and suppose @xmath872 is a geometric random variable with parameter @xmath168 , for @xmath366 , where all @xmath873 are mutually independent .
let @xmath697 denote the number of parts of size  @xmath11 in a random integer partition of size  @xmath0 .
then : @xmath874    thus , one may treat both small and large part sizes as approximately independent , which was utilized in  @xcite , for example , to resolve several conjectures for integer partitions involving statistics localized on the largest part sizes .
pittel also showed in  ( * ? ? ?
* th .  1 ) , that if we include in the joint distribution of part sizes those parts which are at most @xmath875 , for some @xmath138 , then this joint distribution converges to a non - trivial limit which is the total variation distance between two
appropriately defined normal distributions . however , total variation distance is a considerably strong metric , since one can take any measurable function of the random variables and the resulting total variation distance is guaranteed not to increase , whereas a limit shape is one particular statistic .
thus , by a more detailed analysis of the component sizes , specifically for the limit shape statistic , pittel was able to show that the limit shape of random integer partitions is indeed close in probability to the limit shape @xmath265 indicated by the weaker notions of convergence , thus formally establishing the equivalence of ensembles .
the reason why the weaker notion of the limit shape , i.e. , convergence in expectation of random - size partitions with independent part sizes , coincides with the strong notion of the limit shape , i.e. , convergence in probability of integer partitions of a fixed size , is due to the exponential concentration of the limit shape statistic .
this has traditionally been handled either via a martingale technique , or via more direct methods like markov s inequality , and demonstrates an unsurprising exponential concentration around the expected value which could be considered implicit in the work of vershik  @xcite . as noted in
[ sect : ld ] , an ldp is not just an upper bound on the rate of exponential concentration , as is often all that is needed to prove the strong notion of a limit shape from the weak notion , it is also an asymptotic expression for the rate of concentration .    while pittel s work proved the limit shape of unrestricted partitions , the large deviation results by dembo , vershik , and zeituni in  @xcite provided the limit shape of integer partitions into distinct parts , and made their connection with the ldp explicit .
in addition , ( * ? ? ? * section  6.2 ) states the form of the limit shape for partitions with restrictions of the form @xmath876 and provides the ldp for the _ independent _ process in both cases of unrestricted multiplicities and distinct part sizes . combining the ldp with classical asymptotic enumeration formulas , e.g. , those in for example  @xcite , it is straightforward to derive the equivalence of ensembles under these restrictions via the inequality in equation  .
we have provided the ldp for the _ dependent _ process with bounded multiplicities , i.e. , the process governing random partitions of fixed size  @xmath0 , in  [ sect : ld ] .
[ [ credit ] ] ~    it is difficult to credit limit shape results like theorem  [ special unrestricted ] precisely , owing to the connection between asymptotic enumeration and concentration , and the precise conditions which are assumed and utilized .
the weak form of the limit shape in theorem  [ special unrestricted ] is easily calculated via the statistical models in khinchin  @xcite , and more explicitly by kerov and vershik  @xcite ; the same ones utilized by fristedt  @xcite and pittel  @xcite .
the limit shape then follows by concentration and a local central limit theorem , or equivalently , asymptotic enumeration , via the inequality in equation  ; see also  @xcite .
ingham  ( * ? ? ?
2 ) provided quite general asymptotic enumeration formulas for partitions satisfying the following conditions : let @xmath877 denote the number of elements in @xmath235 less than or equal to @xmath878 .
suppose there are constants @xmath879 , @xmath880 , and function @xmath881 such that @xmath882 and for some @xmath883 and @xmath884 we also have @xmath885 define @xmath886^{1/\beta}.\ ] ] then , _ as long as @xmath239 is monotonically increasing _ , we have @xmath887 similarly , under the slightly weaker assumption that @xmath888 and again assuming _
@xmath889 is monotonically increasing _ , with @xmath890 , we have @xmath891    erds and bateman in  ( * ? ?
6 ) simplified the monotonically increasing assumption for @xmath239 to be more simply that the greatest common divisor of @xmath235 is  1 .
it is unknown whether or not a corresponding condition exists for partitions into distinct parts , and it would be interesting to find such necessary and sufficient conditions .
roth and szekeres provide a partial answer , at least one detailed enough for our purposes .
they demand the elements @xmath243 satisfy more generally @xmath892 in addition , they also assume the following condition , which is sufficient for the asymptotic enumeration results to hold : @xmath893 ^ 2 \right\ } \to \infty \ \ { \rm as } \ \ k\to \infty,$}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath894 $ ] denotes the closest integer to @xmath20 and the infinum is taken over @xmath895 $ ] .
they also show that when @xmath7 is small , condition  @xmath896 is not necessary .
@xmath897    there are also several classes of sequences @xmath235 presented in the introduction in  @xcite which cover many cases of interest ; namely ,    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * @xmath898 where @xmath899 is the @xmath198 prime number .
* @xmath900 , where @xmath901 is a polynomial which takes only integral values for integral @xmath20 and has the property that corresponding to every prime @xmath902 there exists an integer @xmath20 such that @xmath903 .
* @xmath904 , where @xmath901 is a polynomial which takes only integral values for integral @xmath20 and has the property that corresponding to every prime @xmath902 there exists an @xmath20 such that @xmath905 .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    in particular , they specialize their main theorem in the case when @xmath906 and @xmath243 satisfies
( ii ) , which prevents any gaps in @xmath244 ; this is theorem  [ rothszekeres ] .
we have dropped the final condition that for every prime @xmath902 there exists an integer @xmath20 such that @xmath903 , requiring instead that should such a @xmath902 exist then we take @xmath0 to infinity through multiples of the gcd of @xmath235 , as is required for the corresponding limit shape .    one could also argue that theorem  [ special unrestricted ] follows from pittel s analysis  @xcite , in that it requires no new ideas other than generalizing the analysis appropriately . however , there are certain estimates utilized which must be carefully adapted , and a priori require some kind of technical conditions similar to the ones initially imposed by ingham and others .
one may also be tempted to attribute theorem  [ special unrestricted ] to dembo , vershik , and zeituni  @xcite . in  (
* section 6.2 ) , they state explicitly an ldp for an independent process of random variables , which is sufficient to prove concentration , but as stated the sequence @xmath235 consists of multiples of perfect powers .
this is similar to the work in goh and hitczenko  @xcite , whose extra technical assumption is the existence of four @xmath907 s which are relatively prime .
canfield , corteel , and wilf  @xcite provide all of the ingredients for theorem  [ special unrestricted ] , even including the restriction that @xmath243 is the image of a polynomial , which is the special case we have adopted .
[ [ section ] ]    we have decided to describe the growth conditions on sets @xmath235 in terms of the growth of  @xmath243 , where @xmath196 .
meinardus  @xcite , granovski , stark and erlihson  @xcite , hwang  @xcite , and bogachev  @xcite , for example , impose conditions directly on the corresponding generating functions .
yakubovich  @xcite , goh and hitczenko  @xcite , and ingham  @xcite , on the other hand , have described growth conditions on the inverse function @xmath908 .
our choice is natural for this setting since our sets of partitions and bijections have traditionally been written in the form of allowable part sizes .    [
[ ingham form ] ] ~    the original form of the growth conditions in ingham s ( * ? ? ?
* th .  2 ) is particularly elegant , even though it is not ideal for our setting . rather than requiring a condition on the greatest common divisor of allowable part sizes , the result
is instead stated in terms of sums of partition numbers .
formally , let @xmath239 denote the number of partitions of @xmath0 into parts from the set  @xmath235 .
ingham defines for real @xmath909 @xmath910 then , he proves an asymptotic result for @xmath911 _ and _ @xmath912 under the condition that @xmath913 is increasing for every fixed @xmath914 .
when @xmath915 , we can choose @xmath916 .
then , _ for every _
@xmath909 , the number @xmath913 is precisely one of @xmath917 for some @xmath918 , and , since @xmath919 , it thus captures the asymptotic rate of growth of @xmath239 , without needing to specify , as we have done , that @xmath23 through multiples of  @xmath250 .
[ [ section-1 ] ]    the conditions of meinardus  @xcite and yakubovich  @xcite are related to condition  , and apply more generally to partitions where each part size can have multiple versions ( for example , three different types of 1s ) .
these conditions are used by hwang  @xcite , for example , where the distribution of the number of summands ( taken without multiplicities ) follows a central and local limit theorem .
there is also a central limit theorem proved by madritsch and wagner in  @xcite , concerning partitions whose base-@xmath234 representation only contains digits from some given set .
this type of condition is natural given the fact that the bits in a geometric random variable are independent , a property which was also exploited in , e.g. ,  @xcite for the purpose of random sampling of integer partitions .
[ [ fixed : summands ] ] ~    the asymptotic number of partitions with part sizes restricted to be less than some @xmath920 , was studied by romik  @xcite .
the limit shape of the conjugate set of partitions , i.e. , the set of partitions with a fixed number of summands @xmath875 , was studied by yakubovich and vershik  @xcite .
this is another example , see  [ romik : example ] , where a bijection involving conjugation is used to obtain the limit shape of a non - multiplicative set of restrictions . a more detailed saddle point analysis counting the number of partitions of @xmath0 into exactly @xmath436 summands under further restrictions like those in   [ further : example :
generalization ] are contained in  @xcite .
[ [ romik : mistake ] ] ~    another proof of theorem  [ theorem diff d k ] appears in the last section of the unpublished preprint  @xcite .
this was used to obtain  ( * ? ? ?
* th .  1 )
. unfortunately , there appears to be a mistake , as the formula given for the limit shape does not have unit area .
[ [ section-2 ] ] ~    in this paper we consider only @xmath260 , the uniform distribution ; see , however , @xcite for limit shapes under plancherel measure , and e.g.  @xcite for other types of measures on partitions .
[ [ natural : generalization ] ] ~    the next natural generalization of our theorems would be the one considered by canfield and wilf  @xcite : partitions of size  @xmath0 with part sizes in set @xmath235 and with multiplicities in set @xmath921 . in our setting @xmath922 , and
in  [ romik : example ] we have @xmath923 .
it would be interesting to investigate conditions on @xmath921 and @xmath235 such that the limit shape exists .
our approach does not extend to compute the limit shape for classes of partitions for which no bijection to andrews class partitions is known .
one notable example is the partitions into powers of  @xmath5 , which are equinumerous with certain _ cayley compositions _ ( see  @xcite and  ( * ? ? ?
* http://oeis.org/a000123[a000123 ] ) ) .
in this case the usual notion of a limit shape does not exist and an alternative notion is required .
fristedt s method  @xcite in section  [ sect prob ] defines a random sampling algorithm for andrews class partitions of a fixed size  @xmath0 .
namely , we sample independent geometric random variables @xmath924 , where @xmath873 has parameter @xmath168 , @xmath703 , @xmath48 , and check whether @xmath925 , repeating the sampling of @xmath924 until the condition is satisfied .
the expected number of times that we resample is given by @xmath926 , where @xmath927    an application of probabilistic divide - and - conquer ( pdc ) , introduced in  @xcite , see also  @xcite , uses von neumann s rejection sampling  @xcite to obtain a speedup .
the algorithm is to sample repeatedly from @xmath928 and @xmath235 , uniform on @xmath610 , until @xmath929 the expected number of times that we resample this procedure is @xmath930 , see  ( * ? ? ?
* table  1 ) , a considerable speedup .    more generally , consider the set of partitions with parts in the set @xmath235 , where @xmath931 . the pdc deterministic second half algorithm to generate a random integer partition of size  @xmath0 with parts in the set @xmath235 is to sample repeatedly rom @xmath932 and @xmath235 , uniform on @xmath610 , until @xmath933 the speedup in this case is given by @xmath934 hence , the expected number of rejections before a single accepted sample via the pdc deterministic second half algorithm is asymptotically @xmath935 .
there are also bijections defined as linear transformations by corteel and savage  @xcite , and corteel , savage , and wilf  @xcite , which correspond to partitions which satisfy various inequality conditions on the part sizes , in a sense generalizing the set @xmath936 of partitions with nonnegative @xmath397 differences in section  [ sect r ] .
a further generalization was demonstrated by pak  @xcite ; most of those examples involve sets @xmath235 where @xmath243 grows exponentially in @xmath58 , and so our theorems do not apply .    of particular note
is that our linear transformations are only assumed to act as markov operators on the diagram function , so it is not necessary that the coefficients of the matrix transformation @xmath332 each be nonnegative ; matrix @xmath332 simply needs to map positive coordinates to positive coordinates .      for self - conjugate partitions , it would be interesting to define a coupling over the set of random variables governing the part sizes , although this has many apparent difficulties .
we hope to return to this problem in the future .
we showed earlier in remark  [ vanishing : mass ] that the limit shape of @xmath268 under scaling function @xmath22 does not exist , since the scaled diagram function converges to @xmath939 for @xmath940 , which does not have unit area .
the limit shape of @xmath357 exists and is equal to @xmath941 for @xmath942 .
consider the ( non - bijective ) transformation @xmath943 , which sends partitions in @xmath268 to @xmath357 . even though there is a transformation , and each set of partitions tends to some limiting curve , there is no connection implied about the limit curves since the transformation is not even a bijection .
the authors are grateful to ken alexander , richard arratia , quentin berger , amir dembo , alejandro morales , greta panova , dan romik , bruce rothschild , richard stanley and damir yeliussizov for helpful discussions .
the second author was partially supported by the nsf .
d.  romik , identities arising from limit shapes of constrained random partitions ; preprint ( 2003 ) , 15  pp . ; available at .