Bijection between skew partitions and skew diagrams

Definition. We begin with the following notation:

• Let us denote by K the set of all skew partitions. For every λ/µ in K, we define
D(λ/µ) := {(i, j) ∈ N2 : µi < j ≤ λi },
and,
• for every x, y ∈ N2 define
R(x, y) := {z ∈ N2 : x ≤ z ≤ y}.

Example. The diagram associated to the partition (6, 4, 3, 1)/(3, 1, 1) is

/ =

In this paper we prove the following result:

Proposition. Let A be a finite and non-void subset of N2 . If
∀x, y ∈ A(R(x, y) ⊆ A),
then, there exists a skew partition λ/µ such that D(λ/µ) = A.
We introduce further notation:
Definition. Let A ⊆ N2 be finite and non-void, F = {i ∈ N : ∃j ∈ N((i, j) ∈ A)}, m = min F,
M = max F. That is to say, F is the index set of rows of A. We define the right sequence or right border
of A as follows: for all every positive integer i

max {j ∈ N : (i, j) ∈ A} if i ∈ F
bi (A) =
0 if i ̸∈ F.

We also define the left sequence or left border of A as


min{j ∈ N : (i, j) ∈ A} if i ∈ F
ai (A) =
+∞ if i ̸∈ F.

Because of its usefulness, we define a0 as max bi (A). If context is clear, we will omit writing (A) in
m≤i≤M
this notation.

1
Remark. Note that, under the same notation in the definition above, we have

bi = 0 ⇔ i ̸∈ F ⇔ ai = +∞

Lemma 1. Let A ⊆ N2 be non-void and finite, F = {i : ∃j ∈ N((i, j) ∈ A)}, M = max F and

(ai )M M
i=1 , (bi )i=1 the left and right borders of A, respectively. If, for all x, y ∈ A

R(x, y) ⊆ A,

then,
1. for all i, j ∈ F such that j ≥ i we have that aj ≤ ai , bj ≤ bi ;

2. if i ∈ F, then
∀k ∈ N((ai ≤ k ≤ bi ) ⇒ (i, k) ∈ A)

Proof. We begin by proving the former. We proceed by contradiction. Let us suppose that there
exists i, j ∈ F such that i ≤ j and aj > ai . We then deduce that

(i, ai ) ≤ (j, aj ) ⇒ (j, ai ) ∈ A

because R((i, ai ), (j, aj )) ⊆ A. By properties of the minimum function, we must have ak ≤ ai ,

which is a contradiction. In an analogue way, suppose bj > bi . Then,

(i, bi ) ≤ (j, bj ) ⇒ (i, bj ) ∈ A,

from which we get that bj ≤ bi . Therefore, bj ≤ bi .

The latter is deduced from the following fact:

(i, ai ) ≤ (i, bi ) ⇒ R((i, ai ), (i, bi )) ⊆ A.

Proposition 1. Let A ⊆ N2 be non-void and finite. Under the notation and hypotheses of the lemma
above, there exists a skew partition λ/µ such that D(λ/µ) = A.
Proof. As the figure shows, A could have “gaps” and still be a skew diagram.

2
To tackle this difficulty, we make the next definitions: µ0 := a0 and, for all positive integers i
such that i ≤ M

µi := min {a0 , a1 − 1, . . . , ai−1 − 1},

λi := max {bi , µi }.

Note that µi is decreasing: µi−1 ≥ min {ai − 1, µi−1 } = µi . To prove that λi is decreasing, we split
by cases. If bi ̸= 0,then λi = bi and µi = ai − 1. Therefore, we obtain

µi+1 = min{ai − 1, µi },

thus µi+1 = ai − 1. By lemma 1, we have the following deduction:

bi > µi+1 & bi ≥ bi+1 =⇒ λi ≥ λi+1 .

If bi = 0, then λi = µi . We notice that, if bi+1 = 0, we will have λi+1 = µi+1 and µi+1 = µi .
Consequently
µi = λi+1 .
In the case in which bi+1 ̸= 0, we have that µi+1 = µi . We now assert that µi ≥ bi+1 . Suppose
µi ≤ bi+1 for the sake of contradiction. Then, by lemma 1, we get that

R((i, µi ), (i + 1, bi+1 )) =⇒ (i, µi ) ∈ A !.

Contradiction being obtained since we have deduced that A has an element in “row” i. In both
cases we get
µi ≥ max {µi+1 , bi+1 },
therefore λi ≥ λi+1 .
Let us define
λ = (λ1 , . . . , λM ), µ = (µ1 , . . . , µM ).
Concluding, we prove that D(λ/µ) equals A. Note that, if j is a positive integer such that j ̸∈ F
and j ≤ M, then there does not exist an integer k such that µj < k ≤ λj , because, in such case

λj = µj ,

therefore,

D(λ/µ) = {(i, j) ∈ N2 : µi < j ≤ λi , i ∈ F}

= {(i, j) ∈ N2 : ai − 1 < j ≤ bi }
= {(i, j) ∈ N2 : ai ≤ j ≤ bi }
=A