Talk:Permanent (mathematics)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tensor product#Exterior and symmetric algebra|symmetric tensors]] The anchor (#Exterior and symmetric algebra) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

Do permanents have anything to do with Bose statistics? I mean is there something analogous to the Slater determinant using permanents?

yes and yes. Permanents of one-particle wave functions span the Fock space (i.e., the space in which n-particle wave functions live) for bosonic particles. This is completely analogous to the Fermionic case where Slater determinants take the identical role.

Note that unlike determinants, permanents do not vanish if multiple linear dependent vectors are inserted (if viewed as multi-linearform). Thus you can occupy orbitals an arbitrary number of times (i.e., put the same orbital multiple times into a permanent) to obtain non-vanishing n-body states. 129.69.55.52 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how to compute[edit]

I'm unfamiliar with the concept of groups, and the more with symmetry-groups. Would it be possible for me to compute the "permanent" anyway?

Say, I'm already familiar with the implementation of an algorithm to compute the determinant, with a recursive method using pivot elements; and stepping from the size 2x2-definition to a 3x3-definition and higher recursively. Also I know that there are shortcuts for the 3x3-matrix (but say this would be a special cases only applicable for computing determinants). Then how could I compute the permanent of a 3x3 after I have the (simple) definition of a permanent of a 2x2 matrix? With a 3x3-determinant of

a0 b0 c0
a1 b1 c1
a2 b2 c2

I can compute the determinant via the subdeterminants like

 a0 * det(b1,c2,c1,b2) - b0*det(c1,a2,c2,a1) + c0*det(a1,b2,b1,a2)

(don't know exactly about the signs at the moment)

Is there any way to compute the permanent similar without refering to the "symmetric group"-concept? (if I started learning about groups and symmetric groups I assume I would have a lot of errors in the beginning and would not be able to determine the permanent correctly). Thanks -

--Gotti 10:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Complexity[edit]

"The permanent is also more difficult to compute than the determinant."

Is this known to be true or is it based on an unproven assumption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepmath (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current article explains this now; its a result from complexity theory for the #P subset of NP. 99.153.64.179 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applications added by 128.206.20.161[edit]

This edit added a number of applications of the permanent to this section, nicely explained and with references. In principle, this addition is welcome, but I‘d never heard of them. An (admittedly rushed) glance at Google Scholar brings up little evidence that these things have had a considerable impact (I may be wrong.) Anonymous IP, could you provide a secondary source that motivates their inclusion? (It sounds really interesting, and I’d be happy to keep it around.) Also, could you please state if you have any conflict of interest in including these results (see WP:COI for Wikipedia’s policies)? Let me stress that the contributions of experts are very welcome, but it helps other editors to be open about such conflicts in order to ascertain what kind of weight is to be given to various contributions. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reverted the anonymous edit. I’m happy to put it back if somebody, such as 128.206.20.161, makes a case for the relevance of these additions. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm the one who added the Applications section. I want to say from the outset how much I appreciate efforts to maintain the quality of Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that Wikipedia is supposed to be a general reference more like a traditional encyclopedia than a technical resource for pure research. If a high school student looks up "Permanent" I think there would be interest in knowning why the permanent is worthy of being defined and how it is applied. A reference to its applications to Sudoku - especially one undertaken by high school students - motivates interest in the topic and helps provide understanding of the utility of the permanent how it may apply in other contexts. The same is true for the engineering references although there may be better examples.

In the Editor’s statement forewording the 1982 monograph Permanents by Minc [28], Gian-Carlo Rota wrote the following words: “A permanent is an improbable construction to which we might have given little chance of survival fifty years ago. Yet numerous appearances it has made in physics and in probability betoken the mystifying usefulness of the concept, which has a way of recurring in the most disparate circumstances.” (I found the above in MATRIX PERMANENT AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT OF PERMUTATION INVARIANT STATES by Wei and Severini at arxiv)

As the article stands right now there is hardly any hint at all that the permanent is anything but an abstract entity of purely academic interest. I think objections to having an applications section because they are not areas of active research as indicated by Google Scholar is somewhat too narrow of a perspective. My main knowledge of the permanent comes from its appearance when calculating the likelihood that certain molecular compounds will be produced in solution, but so far as I know there is no reference to this in the literature. It's just a tool that is used. I work with two colleagues who apply the permanent similarly in engineering contexts, which is how I know of those references.

I think the article needs discussion of applications, and I also think the Sudoku example is especially worthy of inclusion to impress the fact that the permanent is of interest beyond pure mathematics research and can even be useful to know about as early as the high school level. That's just personal opinion, of course. Anyway that's my two-cents worth. Thanks for monitoring this article and taking the time to consider these kinds of issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.20.161 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The added text appears here: [1] and its about the joint assignment matrix. The added text is rather long and perhaps should be used to start the JAM article instead. 99.153.64.179 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

I'm just curious. Given that the permanent is related to the determinant and the immanant, is the correct spelling permanent or permanant? 70.247.173.254 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct spelling is permanent. The terms permanent and determinant both appear in Cauchy in 1812 with their modern definitions, but each had appeared earlier in unrelated forms. Thus their spellings are not related. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Permanent (mathematics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There's a book by Henryk Minc called "Permanents" entirely on this one subject. It appears to be a pretty definite account. The first chapter even covers the historical development of the subject. RobHar (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of Touchard's Formula[edit]

Having implemented in APL Ryser's algorithm for the Permanent, I tested that algorithm against the two formulae given in the section on "Permanents of (0,1) matrices". In the case of the ménage problem, it appears that the statement of the number of solutions to that problem (Touchard's formula on the right hand side) is correct, but that $\operatorname {perm} (J-I-I')$ actually produces ménage numbers, that is Touchard's formula without the leading 2×n!. As the equation as it currently stand mixes these two concepts, I'm not sure how to reword it to make sense, and am hoping that you folks who are more familiar with the topic will suggest something. Sudleyplace (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. There is ambiguity about what people mean when they say "the ménage problem" (whether the original seating problem or the simplified permutation problem), and so I think that removing the extra factor 2×n! from the formula in the article leaves something that is not wrong and also understandable (as opposed to the current "wrong and understandable"). --JBL (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent → Permanent (mathematics)
Permanent (disambiguation) → Permanent

– The term "permanent" is such a common word used in other ways than the mathematics concept that forwarding readers to the mathematics concept is a total WP:SURPRISE. For one, readers looking up this term are probably looking for a more general usage of the word "permanent", but since that would probably be a WP:DICDEF, the best place to direct readers would be the disambiguation page since a {{Wiktionary}} template can be placed there to direct readers to the Wiktionary entry. In addition, third party search engines seem to be returning results primarily for Permanent (film) and not the mathematics concept. Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support should be a dab In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support such a common word should be a dabVpab15 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support And merge with permanence. There doesn't seem to be a need for 2 separate disambiguation pages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: See Special:WhatLinksHere/Permanent: All or most incoming links are from maths-related names and hundreds of incoming links would have to be changed. I have added a hatlink to wikt:permanent and wikt:permanence. Permanent (disambiguation) lists merely minor miscellanea: entertainment, sport, a hairstyling process, a Buddhist term, and not about permanance in general. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: you do have a point and tempted to reconsider. Of the 15 internal links one was Yoko Ono, I've fixed that. Is there any tool which allows us to Google search for what off-Wikipedia websites link to a given Wikipedia article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I have asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 58#Finding what external pages link to a particular Wikipedia article?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, math concept name derives from the general concept and there is no primary. Incoming wikilinks can be easily fixed, and that should not discourage a legitimate move request as to do otherwise would be an appeal to first-mover advantage or inertia. Also, don't stress at all about google results - their algorithms will swiftly change over to follow the article -that's what they are built to do. I've seen page moves updated the same day in Google results. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why did Gyires not get a prize for his proof of the Van der Waerden conjecture?[edit]

I see that Gyires published a proof of Van der Waerden's conjecture before two others who got a prize for theirs. Does anyone know why? It seems odd and a little unfair, and quite likely to be worth a mention here! I could only access Egorychev's proof, and saw nothing about Gyires in the references. PJTraill (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure speculation, but I would guess that the obscure venue of Gyires’s publication played a role — quite possibly, nobody else relevant knew about it. JBL (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent-on-top conjecture is false[edit]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2015.10.034

I think this has relevance for the actual physics of photon bunching, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.01306.pdf

Worth pointing out a physics discovery resulting from a math proof 156.40.187.164 (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]