Proof of Merca's stronger conjecture on truncated Jacobi triple product series

Lisa Hui Sun; Xiangyu Ding

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Proof of Merca's stronger conjecture on truncated Jacobi triple product series

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every truncated Jacobi triple product series eventually has nonnegative coefficients, and gives an algorithm to compute an explicit cutoff for each parameter triple.

desk verdict A genuinely new asymptotic proof of Merca's stronger conjecture with explicit cutoffs, but the paper omits two load-bearing parity cases in Theorem 5.2 that a referee must check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13818 v3 pith:T75XEBFN submitted 2024-11-21 math.NT math.CO

Xiangyu Ding , Lisa Hui Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NTmath.CO MSC 05A1733D1511P5511P82

keywords truncatedthetaseriesJacobitripleproductpartitionfunctionnonmodularinfinitecirclemethodcoefficientpositivityq-seriesasymptoticformula

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves the 'sufficiently large n' part of a conjecture about truncated Jacobi triple product series: for any positive coprime integers $r,s$ with $1 \le s < r/2$ and any $k \ge 1$, every coefficient of $q^n$ in the truncated series is nonnegative once $n$ is large enough. The proof is constructive, giving an explicit cutoff $N(r,s,k)$ for each triple, and it also shows that for $k$ above explicit thresholds nonnegativity holds for every $n \ge 0$. The argument separates the denominator into a partition-generating factor and a nonmodular infinite product, bounds both sets of coefficients, and combines them by convolution. If the proof is correct, the only unresolved part of the full conjecture is the finite check of small $n$ for each parameter triple.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the denominator decomposition (1.6): with $(\alpha,\beta)\in\{(2,2),(1,2),(2,1)\}$, write $$\frac{1}{(q^s,$q^{{r-s}}$;q^r)_\infty} = \frac{1}{(q^s;q^r)_\$\alpha$($q^{{r-s}}$;q^r)_\$\beta$}\cdot \frac{1}{($q^{{2r+s}}$,$q^{{3r-s}}$;q^r)_\infty}.$$ The first factor is the generating function of partitions with parts from two coprime families; its coefficients $p_4(n)$ or $p_3(n)$ are bounded explicitly using the residue theorem and the partition-counting lemmas (Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2) from reference [32]. The second factor $G_{s,r}(q)$ is a nonmodular infinite product; the circle method gives two-sided bounds $g_d(n) \le g_{s,r}(n) \le g_u(n)$ with $g_d,g_u$ explicit Bessel-type expressions valid for $n \ge (4.63r)^9$ (Theorem 1.13). Convolving the lower bounds for the partition part with the two-sided bounds for $G_{s,r}(q)$ makes the main term dominate all errors once $n$ passes $N(r,s,k)$.

What would settle it

For a small admissible modulus, say $M=5$, $a=1$, compute $g_{1,5}(n)$ exactly at $n=(4.63\cdot 5)^9$ and compare it with the claimed envelope $g_d(n) \le g_{1,5}(n) \le g_u(n)$ from Theorem 1.13; any violation of the envelope at or beyond the stated threshold would break the proof of Theorem 1.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.4: for positive coprime integers $r$ and $s$ with $1 \le s < r/2$ and $k \ge 1$, there exists a constant $N(r,s,k)$ such that the coefficient of $q^n$ in the series $$\frac{(-1)^k \sum_{j=k}^{\infty}(-1)^j $q^{{r j(j+1)/2}}$($q^{{-sj}}$-$q^{{(j+1)s}}$)}{(q^s,$q^{{r-s}}$;q^r)_\infty}$$ is nonnegative for all $n \ge N(r,s,k)$. The paper establishes this by decomposing the denominator, bounding the two factors' coefficients, and showing the convolution is positive beyond an explicit cutoff. It further proves that when $k$ is large enough (with explicit conditions in Corollaries 1.6 and 1.9), the series has nonnegative coefficients for every $n \ge 0$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof hinges on the two-sided asymptotic bound for the coefficients of the nonmodular product $G_{s,r}(q)$ stated in Theorem 1.13, which rests on a circle-method estimate whose proof omits two of the three parity cases and relies on computer-assisted inequalities; if that bound fails for any admissible $(r,s)$, the convolution inequality no longer forces positivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every fixed $(r,s,k)$, the conjecture holds for all $n \ge N(r,s,k)$, so only finitely many small $n$ remain unchecked for each parameter triple.
The cutoff $N(r,s,k)$ is computable by the algorithm in Section 6.2, making the result effective for any given parameters.
For $k$ above the thresholds in Corollaries 1.6 and 1.9, every coefficient is nonnegative for all $n \ge 0$, with no cutoff needed.
The proof covers the boundary case $R=2S$ completely and combines with the known $R=3S$ case, so the main theorem handles all remaining triples with $R \ge 4$.
The two-sided bounds in Theorem 1.13 give a quantitative asymptotic for the coefficients of $1/(q^{2r+s},q^{3r-s};q^r)_\infty$ that is valid from an explicit index onward.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the cutoffs are explicit, the remaining finite checks for small $n$ could be automated; if completed for all triples, the full conjecture would follow unconditionally for every $n$.
The same decomposition-and-convolution template appears ready to handle the generalized denominator $(q^s;q^r)_{\ell_1}(q^{r-s};q^r)_{\ell_2}$ mentioned in the concluding remarks, so positivity of a broader family of truncated products is plausible.
The large-$k$ all-$n$ results suggest that negative coefficients, when they occur, lie in an interval whose length shrinks as $k$ grows; locating that interval precisely could yield far smaller cutoffs than the worst-case $N(r,s,k)$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper settles Merca's stronger conjecture in the asymptotic regime: for every coprime r,s and every k, the coefficient is nonnegative for n >= N(r,s,k), with a systematic algorithm for the cutoff. That is a real advance over the prior k in {1,2,3} and R=3S special cases. The strategy is also genuinely new: decompose the denominator, bound the partition part by elementary residue/polynomial arguments, treat the nonmodular product with the circle method, and convolve. I checked the structure for circularity and found none; the two bounds are derived independently, and no coefficient is fitted to the target result.

The soft spots are real but concentrated. The stress-test note is right: Theorem 5.2 proves only Case 1 (a odd, M even) and omits the other two parity cases. Those are not cosmetic. The asymptotic for log G(-e^{-tau}) in (5.19) feeds the secondary pole at q = -1 in Theorem 1.12, and the 0.99/1.01 bounds in Theorem 1.13 are the load-bearing input to Theorem 1.4. Coprime pairs like (r,s) = (5,1) fall in Case 3, and the non-coprime setting with 2|s falls in Case 2, so both omitted cases are actually needed for the main theorem. The uniform error constant 23.71 M^{3/4} X^{-3/4} is asserted for all three cases without demonstration. On top of that, the proof of Theorem 1.8 omits its case analysis, and Section 6.2 says "one can verify the condition by Mathmatica" without shipping the verification code. None of this looks like a conceptual error; the omitted parts are tedious residue computations in the same style as Case 1, but the proof as written is incomplete exactly where it matters.

Who benefits: q-series and partition-theory readers, especially anyone who needs explicit cutoffs. The circle-method treatment of the nonmodular product has independent value. I would send this to referees; the gap is concrete and checkable, and the result is important enough to justify referee time. My advice is to engage with the explicit request that the omitted parity cases and the Mathematica checks be either fully written out or supplied as reproducible code.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a proof of Merca's stronger conjecture on truncated Jacobi triple product series: for coprime r,s with 1 ≤ s < r/2 and any k ≥ 1, the coefficient of q^n in (1.5) is nonnegative for all sufficiently large n, and an algorithm is given to compute an explicit cutoff N(r,s,k). The strategy decomposes the denominator into a partition part and a nonmodular product, bounds the partition coefficients via residue computations and the nonmodular coefficients via a circle method, and then proves positivity of the resulting convolution. The paper also gives corollaries for large k where the conclusion holds for all n ≥ 0, and illustrates the algorithm on examples such as (r,s,k)=(12,1,1).

Significance. If the proof is completed, the paper would resolve Merca's stronger conjecture in full generality for sufficiently large n and would provide the first systematic explicit-cutoff method for this family of truncated theta series. A clear strength is the decomposition (1.6) and the explicit two-sided bound in Theorem 1.13, which, if justified, reduce the conjecture to finite verification plus a quantitative convolution argument. However, the current manuscript leaves several load-bearing cases and inequalities as omitted or computer-assisted assertions, so the main theorem is not yet fully established as written.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.3, Theorem 5.2, eq. (5.19)] The proof of Theorem 5.2 explicitly omits Cases 2 and 3, saying 'For brevity, we omit the details'. These cases are not cosmetic: Case 2 arises for the non-coprime settings a=s even, M=r odd and for J_{r-s,r}, while Case 3 arises for coprime pairs such as (r,s)=(5,1). The formulas (5.19) for log G(-e^{-τ}) in these cases feed directly into the proof of Theorem 1.12 and hence into the explicit 0.99/1.01 bounds of Theorem 1.13, on which the convolution argument in Theorem 1.4 relies. Unless these two cases are proved with the same error bounds, Theorem 1.4 is not established for the parity classes actually needed. This is an internal gap, not a matter of presentation.
[Section 4, proof of Theorem 1.8] The proof of Theorem 1.8 says 'we omit the details' for all four case estimates after eq. (4.8), and the positivity thresholds are asserted without derivation. The appendix lists the polynomials E_{0,d}, ..., E_{3,d}, but the reader is not shown why each lower bound is nonnegative for p ≥ z0, or how the minimum arguments are obtained. Since Theorem 1.8 covers the non-coprime 2∤s case used in Theorem 1.4, this omission is load-bearing. The complete case analysis, or a transparently reproducible computer check, is needed.
[Section 6.2, eq. (6.26)–(6.29)] The displayed inequality (6.29) appears numerically false as written. For the minimal case s=1, the claimed lower bound 93s/(4π²) ≈ 2.36 is smaller than the right-hand side 1.021 exp(π/(4√3)) ≈ 3.98. Since (6.29) is the step that makes H2(n) ≥ 0 in the proof of Theorem 1.4, this is a load-bearing error. It may be repairable by taking a larger constant in place of 4F1² in (6.27), but the present argument does not establish nonnegativity for the stated cutoff.
[Section 6.2, non-coprime part of the proof of Theorem 1.4] Several estimates in the non-coprime cases are asserted rather than proved. In particular, the passage below (6.33) states 'one can verify the condition by Mathematica' for the bound D(n) ≥ a2 n − a2 F2, the bounds for J_{s,r}(n) are introduced with 'we omit the details', and the final N2 and N3 depend on these assertions. Also, the use of 2∆1D0,d etc. from the appendix does not by itself show the claimed monotonicity or positivity. Please provide the missing derivations or a reproducible computer verification, since these bounds are necessary for the claimed explicit N(r,s,k) in the non-coprime cases.

minor comments (5)

[Theorem 1.13] The theorem states 'when n is sufficiently large', but the proof uses the explicit condition n ≥ (4.63M)^9. For reproducibility the theorem should state this threshold explicitly, matching the usage in Section 6.2.
[Table 1] The caption says the table lists L1(r,s,k), but the text preceding it says 'The bounds as given in Table 1 are the corresponding N1(r,s,k)'. Please clarify which quantity is tabulated.
[Example 4.3] The sentence 'more precise that k ≥ 19 by Corollary 1.9' should read 'more precise than the bound k ≥ 130 from Corollary 1.9'.
[Corollary 4.4] The proof relies on showing positivity of the first 10000 coefficients 'with the help of computer', but no code, output, or verification procedure is supplied. This is acceptable only if the computation is documented in a supplement.
[Throughout, Section 6.2] Several inequalities are introduced with phrases such as 'it can be seen' or 'with the help of computer' without giving the intermediate constant choices (e.g., the reduction leading to (6.15)–(6.16) and the a22, a12, a31 comparisons). A short appendix or supplementary file with these details would substantially improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the derivation is independent apart from a boundary self-citation and omitted parity-case details.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the positivity of (1.5) is obtained by convolving the partition-side coefficients b(n) (Sections 3/4) with the coefficients g_{s,r}(n) of the nonmodular product G_{s,r}(q). The lower and upper bounds in Theorem 1.13 are proved from the circle-method estimates in Theorems 1.11, 1.12 and 5.2; none of these estimates is defined in terms of the target nonnegativity, and no coefficient is fitted to Merca's conjecture. The partition-side bounds come from residue computations and explicit polynomial inequalities and are independent of the nonmodular side; the convolution then yields H(n) > H2(n) > 0 for n >= N1(r,s,k), a genuine consequence of the two independent estimates. The only self-citation is [16] for the R=3S boundary cases; this is outside the main r >= 4 argument and is itself a separate published proof, so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation. I flag two non-circular internal gaps: Theorem 5.2 says 'For brevity, we omit the details for (Case 2) and (Case 3), and thereby the proof is complete,' even though those parity cases feed the secondary-pole estimates used in Theorem 1.12, and the proof of Theorem 1.4 for 2 not dividing s says 'We omit the details.' These are incompleteness/correctness risks, not circular reductions: a failure of the omitted calculations would be an error in the supporting estimates, not a reuse of the conjecture as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces auxiliary parameters p and z0 to make inequalities positive, but they are proof devices, not fitted constants. The remaining inputs are standard theorems from analysis, partition theory, and q-series. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

truncation index p = p >= 2r^2 (s/k)^{1/3}
Chosen by hand in the proof of Theorem 1.5 to make the endpoint lower bounds positive. The explicit cutoff N1(r,s,k) depends on p through F1, though p is not a parameter of the final theorem.
root bound z0 = maximum zero of certain degree-2 polynomials in p
Introduced in Theorems 1.7 and 1.8 for the non-coprime cases. It is the largest zero of six auxiliary polynomials and enters the definitions of L2 and L3. It is an auxiliary proof parameter, not fitted to data.

assumptions (5)

standard math Polya-Szego decomposition, Lemma 2.1: 1/prod(1-q^{a_i}) = R(1/(1-q)) + S(q)/(1-q^{prod a_i}) for pairwise coprime a_i.
Used in Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 4.1 to write p4 and p3 as a polynomial plus a periodic part. Quoted from the literature.
standard math Hurwitz zeta function estimates, including Lemma 2.3 summation formulas and Lemma 2.4 bounds.
Used in the circle method proofs of Theorems 1.11 and 5.2 to control error terms.
domain assumption Chern's framework for nonmodular infinite products, specifically the bounds near poles and on minor arcs summarized in Theorems 5.1 and 5.2.
The proof of Theorem 1.12 assumes these local expansions and error bounds hold with the stated constants. Part of Theorem 5.2 is asserted without a full proof.
standard math The circle method integral representation for coefficients ga,M(n), together with standard modified Bessel function estimates (2.16), (6.11) to (6.16).
Used to convert the asymptotic expansion of log G into the coefficient asymptotic formula in Theorem 1.12.
standard math Jacobi triple product identity (2.1) and Iseki's asymptotic formula (Theorem 1.10).
These are background results from the literature that frame the q-series and motivate the nonmodular product asymptotics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proof of Merca's stronger conjecture on truncated Jacobi triple product series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T75XEBFN

@misc{pith2026241113818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proof of Merca's stronger conjecture on truncated Jacobi triple product series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T75XEBFN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13818}
}

abstract

In the study of theta series and partition functions, Andrews and Merca, Guo and Zeng independently conjectured that a truncated Jacobi triple product series has nonnegative coefficients. This conjecture was proved analytically by Mao and combinatorially by Yee. In 2021, Merca proposed a stronger version of the conjecture, that is, for positive integers $1\leq S<R$ with $k\geq 1$, the coefficient of $q^n$ in the theta series \[ \frac{(-1)^{k} \sum_{j=k}^{\infty}(-1)^j q^{R j(j+1) / 2}\left(q^{-Sj}-q^{( j+1) S}\right)}{\left(q^S, q^{R-S}; q^R\right)_{\infty}} \] is nonnegative. Recently, some very special cases of this conjecture have been proved and studied. For any given $R, S$ and $k$, we take $s=S/(S,R), r=R/(S,R)$ which are coprime, equivalently. In this paper, we confirm Merca's stronger conjecture for sufficiently large $n$. Furthermore, for given $r, s$ and $k$, we provide a systematic method to determine an integer $N(r, s, k)$ such that Merca's stronger conjecture holds for $ n\geq N(r,s,k) $. More precisely, we decompose the infinite product in the denominator of the above theta series into two parts, one of which can be interpreted as the generating function of partitions with certain restricted parts and the other is a nonmodular infinite product. We derive the general upper and lower bounds for the coefficients of these two parts by using the partition theoretical method and the circle method, respectively. Further multiplying the partition part by the numerator of the theta series and considering the convolution with the nonmodular infinite product, we obtain the constant $N(r,s,k)$ and confirm Merca's stronger conjecture when $n\geq N(r,s,k)$. Moreover, we also show that when $k$ is sufficiently large, this conjecture holds directly for any $n\geq 0$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Adamchik, H.M

V.S. Adamchik, H.M. Srivastava, Some series of the zeta and related functions, Analysis. 18 (1998) 131–144

work page 1998
[2]

Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998

G.E. Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

Andrews, M

G.E. Andrews, M. Merca, The truncated pentagonal number theorem, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 119 (2012) 1639–1643

work page 2012
[4]

Andrews, M

G.E. Andrews, M. Merca, Truncated theta series and a problem of Guo and Zeng, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 154 (2018) 610–619

work page 2018
[5]

Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976

T.M. Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976

work page 1976
[6]

Artin, The Gamma Function, Courier Dover Publications, 2015

E. Artin, The Gamma Function, Courier Dover Publications, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Ballantine, B

C. Ballantine, B. Feigon, Truncated theta series related to the Jacobi Triple Prod- uct identity, Discrete Math. 348 (2025) 114319

work page 2025
[8]

Bailey, J

D. Bailey, J. Borwein, N. Calkin, R. Luke, R. Girgensohn, V. Moll, Experimental Mathematics in Action, CRC Press, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 42 references

[9]

Blagouchine, A theorem for the closed-form evaluation of the first generalized Stieltjes constant at rational arguments and some related summations, J

I.V. Blagouchine, A theorem for the closed-form evaluation of the first generalized Stieltjes constant at rational arguments and some related summations, J. Number Theory 148 (2015) 537–592

2015
[10]

Chan, T.P.N

S.H. Chan, T.P.N. Ho, R. Mao, Truncated series from the quintuple product iden- tity, J. Number Theory 169 (2016) 420–438

2016
[11]

Chapman, Partition identities arising from involutions, Australas

R. Chapman, Partition identities arising from involutions, Australas. J. Comb., 27 (2003) 285-291

2003
[12]

Chern, Asymptotics for the Taylor coefficients of certain infinite products, Ra- manujan J

S. Chern, Asymptotics for the Taylor coefficients of certain infinite products, Ra- manujan J. 55 (2020) 987–1014

2020
[13]

Chern, Nonmodular infinite products and a conjecture of Seo and Yee, Adv

S. Chern, Nonmodular infinite products and a conjecture of Seo and Yee, Adv. Math. 417 (2023) 108932

2023
[14]

V. Coll, A. Mayers, N. Mayers, Statistics on partitions arising from seaweed alge- bras, Electron. J. Comb. 27 (3) (2020)

2020
[15]

Craig, Seaweed algebras and the index statistic for partitions, J

W. Craig, Seaweed algebras and the index statistic for partitions, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 528 (2023) 127544

2023
[16]

Ding, L.H

X. Ding, L.H. Sun, Truncated theta series from the Bailey lattice, Adv. in Appl. Math. 167 (2025) 102884

2025
[17]

Galambos, I

J. Galambos, I. Simonelli, Products of Random Variables: Applications to Prob- lems of Physics and to Arithmetical Functions, CRC Press, 2004. 46

2004
[18]

Gasper, M

G. Gasper, M. Rahman, Basic Hypergeometric Series, 2nd Ed., Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2004

2004
[19]

Grosswald, Some theorems concerning partitions, Trans

E. Grosswald, Some theorems concerning partitions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 89 (1958) 113–128

1958
[20]

V.J.W. Guo, J. Zeng, Two truncated identities of Gauss, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A 120 (2013) 700–707

2013
[21]

Hardy, S

G.H. Hardy, S. Ramanujan, Asymptotic Formulae in Combinatory Analysis, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 17 (1918) 75–115

1918
[22]

Havil, Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant, Princeton University Press, 2017

J. Havil, Gamma: Exploring Euler’s Constant, Princeton University Press, 2017

2017
[23]

Iseki, A partition function with some congruence condition, Amer

S. Iseki, A partition function with some congruence condition, Amer. J. Math. 81 (1959) 939

1959
[24]

Lang, Complex Analysis, Springer Science, Business Media, 2013

S. Lang, Complex Analysis, Springer Science, Business Media, 2013

2013
[25]

Lehner, A partition function connected with the modulus five, Duke Math

J. Lehner, A partition function connected with the modulus five, Duke Math. J. 8 (1941)

1941
[26]

Liu, On the q-partial differential equations and q-series, Ramanujan Math

Z.-G. Liu, On the q-partial differential equations and q-series, Ramanujan Math. Soc. Lect. Notes Ser. 20 (2013) 213–250

2013
[27]

Livingood, A partition function with the prime modulus P >3 , Amer

J. Livingood, A partition function with the prime modulus P >3 , Amer. J. Math. 67 (1945) 194

1945
[28]

Mao, Proofs of two conjectures on truncated series, J

R. Mao, Proofs of two conjectures on truncated series, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 130 (2015) 15–25

2015
[29]

Merca, Truncated theta series and Rogers-Ramanujan functions, Exp

M. Merca, Truncated theta series and Rogers-Ramanujan functions, Exp. Math. 30 (2021) 364–371

2021
[30]

Merca, On two truncated quintuple series theorems, Exp

M. Merca, On two truncated quintuple series theorems, Exp. Math. 31 (2022) 606–610

2022
[31]

Olver, Asymptotics and Special Functions, Academic Press, 2014

F.W.J. Olver, Asymptotics and Special Functions, Academic Press, 2014

2014
[32]

Polya, G

G. Polya, G. Szeg¨ o, Problems and Theorems in Analysis I: Series. Integral Calcu- lus. Theory of Functions, Springer Science & Business Media, 1997

1997
[33]

Rademacher, On the partition function p(n), Proc

H. Rademacher, On the partition function p(n), Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 43 (1938) 241–254

1938
[34]

Seo, A.J

S. Seo, A.J. Yee, Index of seaweed algebras and integer partitions, Electron. J. Comb., 27 (1) (2020), Paper No. 1.47, 10 pp

2020
[35]

Shanks, A short proof of an identity of Euler, Proc

D. Shanks, A short proof of an identity of Euler, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1951) 747–749

1951
[36]

Sloane, On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, Available: http://oeis.org/, 1964

N.J.A. Sloane, On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, Available: http://oeis.org/, 1964. 47

1964
[37]

Wang, A.J

C. Wang, A.J. Yee, Truncated Jacobi triple product series, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 166 (2019) 382–392

2019
[38]

S. O. Warnaar, Partial–Sum Analogues of the Rogers–Ramanujan Identities, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 99 (2002) 143–161

2002
[39]

Xia, A.J

E.X. Xia, A.J. Yee, X. Zhao, New truncated theorems for three classical theta function identities, European J. Combin. 101 (2022) 103470

2022
[40]

Yao, Proof of a conjecture of Ballantine and Merca on truncated sums of 6-regular partitions, J

O.X.M. Yao, Proof of a conjecture of Ballantine and Merca on truncated sums of 6-regular partitions, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 206 (2024), Art. 105903

2024
[41]

Yee, A truncated Jacobi triple product theorem, J

A.J. Yee, A truncated Jacobi triple product theorem, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 130 (2015) 1–14

2015
[42]

Zhou, Positivity and tails of pentagonal number series, J

N.H. Zhou, Positivity and tails of pentagonal number series, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 208 (2024), Art. 105933. 48

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adamchik, H.M

V.S. Adamchik, H.M. Srivastava, Some series of the zeta and related functions, Analysis. 18 (1998) 131–144

work page 1998

[2] [2]

Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998

G.E. Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998

work page 1998

[3] [3]

Andrews, M

G.E. Andrews, M. Merca, The truncated pentagonal number theorem, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 119 (2012) 1639–1643

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Andrews, M

G.E. Andrews, M. Merca, Truncated theta series and a problem of Guo and Zeng, J. Combin. Theory, Ser. A. 154 (2018) 610–619

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976

T.M. Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1976

work page 1976

[6] [6]

Artin, The Gamma Function, Courier Dover Publications, 2015

E. Artin, The Gamma Function, Courier Dover Publications, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Ballantine, B

C. Ballantine, B. Feigon, Truncated theta series related to the Jacobi Triple Prod- uct identity, Discrete Math. 348 (2025) 114319

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Bailey, J

D. Bailey, J. Borwein, N. Calkin, R. Luke, R. Girgensohn, V. Moll, Experimental Mathematics in Action, CRC Press, 2007

work page 2007