arxiv: v1 [math.co] 30 May 2016

Transcription

1 ENUMERATION OF DOMINO TILINGS OF AN AZTEC RECTANGLE WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS MANJIL P. SAIKIA Abstract. Helfgott and Gessel gave the number of domino tilings of an Atec Rectangle ith defects of sie one on the boundar of one side. In this paper e etend this to the case of domino tilings of an Atec Rectangle ith defects on all boundar sides. arxiv: v1 [math.co] 30 Ma Introduction Elkies, Kuperberg, Larsen and Propp in their paper [3] introduced a ne class of object hich the called Atec Diamonds. The Atec Diamond of order n (denoted b AD(n)) is the union of all unit squares inside the contour + = n + 1 (see Figure 1 for an Atec Diamond of order 3). A domino is the union of an to unit squares sharing an edge, and a domino tiling of a region is a covering of the region b dominoes so that there are no gaps or overlaps. The authors in [3] and [4] considered the problem of counting the number of domino tiling the Atec Diamond ith dominoes and presented four different proofs of the folloing result. Figure 1. AD(3), Atec Diamond of order 3 Theorem 1.1 (Elkies Kuperberg Larsen Propp, [3, 4]). The number of domino tilings of an Atec Diamond of order n is 2 n(n+1)/2. This ork subsequentl inspired lot of follo ups, including the natural etension of the Atec Diamond to the Atec rectangle (see Figure 2). We denote b AR a,b the Atec rectangle hich has a unit squares on the southestern side and b unit squares on the northestern side. In the remainder of this paper, e assume b a unless otherise mentioned. For a < b, AR a,b does not have an tiling b dominoes. The non-tileabilit of the region AR a,b becomes evident if e look at the checkerboard representation of AR a,b (see Figure 2). Hoever, if e remove b a unit squares from the southeastern side then e have a simple product formula found b Helfgott and Gessel [5] Mathematics Subject Classification. Primar 05A15, 52C20; Secondar 05C30, 05C70. Ke ords and phrases. Domino tilings, Atec Diamonds, Atec Rectangles, Kuo condensation, Graphical condensation, Pfaffians. Supported b the Austrian Science Foundation FWF, START grant Y463. 1

2 2 M. P. SAIKIA Figure 2. Checkerboard representation of an Atec Rectangle ith a = 4, b = 10 Theorem 1.2 (Helfgott Gessel, [5]). Let a < b be positive integers and 1 s 1 < s 2 < < s a b. Then the number of domino tilings of AR a,b here all unit squares from the southeastern side are removed ecept for those in positions s 1, s 2,..., s a is 2 a(a+1)/2 s j s i j i. 1 i<j a Tri Lai [7] has recentl generalied Theorem 1.2 to find a generating function, folloing the ork of Elkies, Kuperberg, Larsen and Propp [3, 4]. Motivated b the recent ork of Ciucu and Fischer [2], here e look at the problem of tiling an Atec rectangle ith dominoes if arbitrar unit squares are removed along the boundar of the Atec rectangle. This paper is structured as follos: in Section 2 e state our main results, in Section 3 e introduce our main tool in the proofs and present a slight generaliation of it, in Section 4 e look at tilings of some special cases hich are used in our main results. Finall, in Section 5 e prove the results described in Section 2. The main ingredients in most of our proofs ill be the method of condensation developed b Kuo [6] and its subsequent generaliation b Ciucu [1]. 2. Statements of Main Results In order to create a region that can be tiled b dominoes e have to remove k more hite squares than black squares along the boundar of AR a,b. There are 2b hite squares and 2a black squares on the boundar of AR a,b. We choose n + k of the hite squares that share an edge ith the boundar and denote them b β 1, β 2,..., β n+k (e ill refer to them as defects of tpe β). We choose an n squares from the black squares hich share an edge ith the boundar and denote them b α 1, α 2,..., α n (e refer to them as defects of tpe α). We consider regions of the tpe AR a,b \ {β 1,..., β n+k, α 1,..., α n }, hich are more general than the tpe considered in [5]. It is also knon that domino tilings of a region can be identified ith perfect matchings of its planar dual graph, so for an region R on the square lattice e denote b M(R) the number of domino tilings of R. We no state the main results of this paper belo. The first result is concerned ith the case hen the defects are confined to three of the four sides of the Atec

3 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 3 rectangle (defects do not occur on one of the sides ith shorter length), and provides a Pfaffian epression for the number of tilings of such a region, ith each entr in the Pfaffian being given b a simple product or b a sum or product of quotients of factorials and poers of 2. The second result gives a nested Pfaffian epression for the general case hen e do not restrict the occurence of defects on an boundar side. The third result deals ith the case of an Atec Diamond ith arbitrar defects on the boundar and gives a Pfaffian epression for the number of tilings of such a region, ith each entr in the Pfaffian being given b a simple sum of quotients of factorials and poers of 2. We define the region AR k a,b to be the region obtained from AR a.b b adding a string of k unit squares along the boundar of the southeastern side as shon in Figure 3. We denote this string of k unit squares b γ 1, γ 2,..., γ k and refer to them as defects of tpe γ. b a k Figure 3. AR k a,b ith a = 4, b = 9, k = 5 Theorem 2.1. Assume that one of the to sides on hich defects of tpe α can occur does not actuall have an defects on it. Without loss of generalit, e assume this to be the southestern side. Let δ 1,..., δ 2n+2k be the elements of the set {β 1,..., β n+k } {α 1,..., α n } {γ 1,..., γ k } listed in a cclic order. Then e have (2.1) 1 M(AR a,b \{β 1,..., β n+k, α 1,..., α n }) = [M(AR k a,b)] n k+1 Pf[(M(ARk a,b\{δ i, δ j })) 1 i<j 2n+2k ], here all the terms on the right hand side are given b eplicit formulas: (1) M(AR k a,b) is given b Theorem 1.1, (2) M(AR k a,b \ {β i, α j }) is given b Proposition 4.9 if β i is on the south-eastern side and not above a γ defect; otherise it is 0, (3) M(AR k a,b \ {β i, γ j }) is given b Theorem 1.1 if β i is above a γ defect; it is given b Proposition 4.8 if the β defect is in the northestern side at a distance of more than k 1 from the estern corner; it is given b Propositions 4.3 if the β dent is on the southeastern side; otherise it is 0, (4) M(AR k a,b\{β i, β j }) = M(AR k a,b\{α i, α j }) = M(AR k a,b\{α i, γ j }) = M(AR k a,b\{γ i, γ j }) = 0.

4 4 M. P. SAIKIA Theorem 2.2. Let β 1,..., β n+k be arbitrar defects of tpe β and α 1,..., α n be arbitrar defects of tpe α along the boundar of AR a,b. Then M(AR a,b \ {β 1,..., β n+k, α 1,..., α n }) is equal to the Pfaffian of a 2n 2n matri hose entries are Pfaffians of (2k + 2) (2k + 2) matrices of the tpe in the statement of Theorem 2.1. In the special case hen the number of defects of both tpes are the same, that is hen k = 0 e get an Atec Diamond ith arbitrar defects on the boundar and the number of tilings can be given b a Pfaffian here the entries of the Pfaffian are eplicit, as stated in the theorem belo. Theorem 2.3. Let β 1,..., β n be arbitrar defects of tpe β and α 1,..., α n be arbitrar defects of tpe α along the boundar of AD(a), and let δ 1,..., δ 2n be a cclic listing of the elements of the set {β 1,..., β n } {α 1,..., α n }. Then (2.2) M(AD(a)\{β 1,..., β n, α 1,..., α n }) = 1 [M(AD(a))] n 1 Pf[(M(AD(a)\{δ i, δ j })) 1 i<j 2n ], here the values of M(AD(a) \ {δ i, δ j })) are given eplicitl as follos: (1) M(AD(a) \ {β i, α j })) is given b Proposition 4.9, (2) M(AD(a) \ {β i, β j })) = M(AD(a) \ {α i, α j })) = A result on Graphical Condensation The proofs of our main results are based on Ciucu s generaliation [1] of Kuo s graphical condensation [6] hich e state belo. The aim of this section is also to present our small generaliation of Ciucu s result. Let G be a eighted graph, here the eights are associated ith each edge of G, and let M(G) denote the sum of the eights of the perfect matchings of G, here the eight of a perfect matching is taken to be the product of the eights of its constituent edges. We are interested in graphs ith edge eights all equaling 1, hich corresponds to tilings of the region in our special case. Theorem 3.1 (Ciucu, [1]). Let G be a planar graph ith the vertices a 1, a 2,..., a 2k appearing in that cclic order on a face of G. Consider the ske-smmetric matri A = (a ij ) 1 i,j 2k ith entries given b (3.1) a ij := M(G \ {a i, a j }), if i < j. Then e have that (3.2) M(G \ {a 1, a 2,..., a 2k }) = Pf(A) [M(G)] k 1. Although Theorem 3.1 is enough for our purposes, e state and prove a slightl more general version of the theorem belo. It turns out that our result is a common generaliation for the condensation results in [6] as ell as Theorem 3.1 hich follos immediatel from Theorem 3.2 belo if e consider a 1,..., a 2k V(G). We also mention that Corollar 3.3 of Theorem 3.2, does not follo from Theorem 3.1. To state and prove our result, e ill need to make some notations and concepts clear. We consider the smmetric difference on the vertices and edges of a graph. Let H be a planar graph and G be an induced subgraph of H and let W V(H). Then e define G + W as follos: G + W is the induced subgraph of H ith verte set V(G + W ) = V(G) W, here denotes the smmetric difference of sets. No e are in a position to state our result belo.

5 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 5 Theorem 3.2. Let H be a planar graph and let G be an induced subgraph of H ith the vertices a 1, a 2,..., a 2k appearing in that cclic order on a face of H. Consider the ske-smmetric matri A = (a ij ) 1 i,j 2k ith entries given b (3.3) a ij := M(G + {a i, a j }), if i < j. Then e have that (3.4) M(G + {a 1, a 2,..., a 2k }) = Pf(A) [M(G)] k 1. Corollar 3.3. [6, Theorem 2.4] Let G = (V 1, V 2, E) be a bipartite planar graph ith V 1 = V 2 + 1; and let,, and be vertices of G that appear in cclic order on a face of G. If,, V 1 and V 2 then (3.5) M(G {}) M(G {,, }) + M(G {}) M(G {,, }) = M(G {}) M(G {,, }) + M(G {}) M(G {,, }). Proof. Take n = 2, a 1 =, a 2 =, a 3 =, a 4 = and G = H \ {a 1 } in Theorem 3.2. The proof of Theorem 3.1 follos from the use of some auillar results. In the vein of those results, e need the folloing proposition to complete our proof of Theorem 3.2. Proposition 3.4. Let H be a planar graph and G be an induced subgraph of H ith the vertices a 1,..., a 2k appearing in that cclic order among the vertices of some face of H. Then (3.6) M(G) M(G + {a 1,..., a 2k }) + k M(G + {a 1, a 2l 1 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2l 1 }) l=2 = k M(G + {a 1, a 2l }) M(G + {a 1, a 2l }), here {a i, a j } stands for the complement of {a i, a j } in the set {a 1,..., a 2k }. l=1 Our proof follos closel that of the proof of an analogous proposition given b Ciucu [1]. Proof. We recast equation (3.6) in terms of disjoint unions of cartesian products as follos (3.7) and (3.8) M(G) M(G + {a 1,..., a 2k }) M(G + {a 1, a 3 }) M(G + {a 1, a 3 })... M(G + {a 1, a 2k 1 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2k 1 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2 }) M(G + {a 1, a 4 }) M(G + {a 1, a 4 })... M(G + {a 1, a 2k }) M(G + {a 1, a 2k }) here M(F ) denotes the set of perfect matchings of the graph F. For each element (µ, ν) of (3.7) or (3.8), e think of the edges of µ as being marked b solid lines and that of ν as being marked b dotted lines, on the same cop of the graph H. If there are an edges common to both then e mark them ith both solid and dotted lines. We no define the eight of (µ, ν) to be the product of the eight of µ and the eight of ν. Thus, the total eight of the elements in the set (3.7) is same as the left hand side of equation (3.6) and the total eight of the elements in the set (3.8) equals the right hand side of equation

6 6 M. P. SAIKIA (3.6). To prove our result, e have to construct a eight-preserving bijection beteen the sets (3.7) and (3.8). Let (µ, ν) be an element in (3.7). Then e have to possibilities as discussed in the folloing. If (µ, ν) M(G) M(G + {a 1,..., a 2k }) e note that hen considering the edges of µ and ν together on the same cop of H, each of the vertices a 1,..., a 2k is incident to precisel one edge (either solid or dotted depending on the graph G and the vertices a i s), hile all the other vertices of H are incident to one solid and one dotted edge. Thus µ ν is the disjoint union of paths connecting the a i s to one another in pairs, and ccles covering the remaining vertices of H. We no consider the path containing a 1 and change a solid edge to a dotted edge and a dotted edge to a solid edge. Let this pair of matchings be (µ, ν ). The path e have obtained must connect a 1 to one of the even-indeed vertices, if it connected a 1 to some odd-indeed verte a 2i+1 then it ould isolate the 2i 1 vertices a 2, a 3,..., a 2i from the other vertices and hence e do not get disjoint paths connecting them. Also, e note that the end edges of this path ill be either dotted or solid depending on our graph G and the vertices a i s. So (µ, ν ) is an element of (3.8). If (µ, ν) M(G + {a 1, a 3 }) M(G + {a 1, a 3 }), then e map it to a pair of matchings (µ, ν ) obtained b reversing the solid and dotted edges along the path in µ ν containing a 3. With a similar reasoning like above, this path must connect a 3 to one of the even-indeed vertices and a similar argument ill sho that indeed (µ, ν ) is an element of (3.8). If (µ, ν) M(G + {a 1, a 2i+1 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2i+1 }) ith i > 1, e have the same construction ith a 3 replaced b a 2i+1. The map (µ, ν) (µ, ν ) is invertible because given an element in (µ, ν ) of (3.8), the pair (µ, ν) that is mapped to it is obtained b shifting along the path in µ ν that contains the verte a 2i, such that (µ, ν ) M(G + {a 1, a 2i }) M(G + {a 1, a 2i }). The map e have defined is eight-preserving and this proves the proposition. No e can prove Theorem 3.2, hich is essentiall the same proof as that of Theorem 3.1, but no uses our more general Proposition 3.4. Proof of Theorem 3.2. We prove the statement b induction on k. For k = 1 it follos from the fact that ( ) 0 a Pf = a. a 0 For the induction step, e assume that the statement holds for k 1 ith k 2. Let A be the matri 0 M(G + {a 1, a 2 }) M(G + {a 1, a 3 }) M(G + {a 1, a 2k }) M(G + {a 1, a 2 }) 0 M(G + {a 2, a 3 }) M(G + {a 2, a 2k }) M(G + {a 1, a 3 }) M(G + {a 2, a 3 }) 0 M(G + {a 3, a 2k }).... M(G + {a 1, a 2k }) M(G + {a 2, a 2k }) M(G + {a 3, a 2k }) 0 B a ell-knon propert of Pfaffians, e have (3.9) Pf(A) = 2k i=2 ( 1) i M(G + {a 1, a i }) Pf(A 1i ). No, the induction hpothesis applied to the graph G and the 2k 2 vertices in {a i, a j } gives us (3.10) [M(G)] k 2 M(G + {a 1, a i }) = Pf(A 1i ),.

7 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 7 here A 1i is same as in equation (3.9). So using equations (3.9) and (3.10) e get (3.11) Pf(A) = [M(g)] k 2 i=2 2k( 1) i M(G + {a 1, a i }) M(G + {a 1, a i }). No using Propositition 3.4, e see that the above sum is M(G) M(G + {a 1,..., a 2k }) and hence equation (3.11) implies (3.4). 4. Some famil of regions ith defects In this section, e find the number of tilings b dominoes of certain regions hich appear in the statement of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.3. We define the binomial coefficients that appear in this section as follos ( ) c := d Our formulas also involve hpergeometric series. parameters a 1,..., a r and b 1,..., b s is defined as c(c 1) (c d + 1), if d 0 d!. 0, otherise [ ] a1,..., a r rf s ; = b 1,..., b s k=0 We recall that the hpergeometric series of (a 1 ) k (a r ) k k (b 1 ) k (b s ) k k!. We also fi a notation for the remainder of this paper as follos, if e remove the squares labelled 2, 4, 7 from the south-eastern boundar of AR 4,7, e denote it b AR 4,7 (2, 4, 7). In the derivation of the results in this section, the folloing to corollaries of Theorem 1.2 ill be used. Corollar 4.1. The number of tilings of AR a,a+1 (i) is given b ( ) a 2 a(a+1)/2. i 1 Corollar 4.2. The number of tilings of AR a,b (2,..., b a + 1) is given b ( ) b 1 2 a(a+1)/2. a 1 Proposition 4.3. Let 1 a b be positive integers ith k = b a > 0, then the number of domino tilings of AR a,b (j) ith k 1 squares added to the southeastern side starting at the second position (and not at the bottom) as shon in the Figure 4 is given b ( )( ) a + k 1 j 2 (4.1) 2 a(a+1)/2 j 1 k 1 [ ] 1, 1 j, 1 k 3F 2 2 j, 1 a k ; 1. Proof. Let us denote the region in Figure 4 b AR k 1,j a,b and e ork ith the planar dual graph of the region AR k 1,j a,b and count the number of matchings of that graph. We first notice that the first added square in an tiling of the region in Figure 4 b dominoes has to possibilities marked in gre in the Figure 5. This observation allos us to rite the number of tilings of in terms of the folloing recursion AR k 1,j a,b (4.2) M(AR k 1,j a,b hich can be verified from Figure 6. ) = M(AR k 2,j 1 a,b 1 ) + M(AR a,b (2, 3,..., k, j)).

8 8 M. P. SAIKIA k-1 j Figure 4. Atec rectangle ith k 1 squares added on the southeastern side and a defect on the j-th position shaded in black; here a = 4, b = 10, k = 6, j = 8 Figure 5. AR k 1,j a,b ith the possible choices for the first added square in a tiling; here a = 4, b = 10, k = 6, j = 8 Repeatedl using equation (4.2) k 1 times on succesive iterations, e shall finall obtain k 2 (4.3) M(AR k 1,j a,b ) = M(AR a,b l (2, 3,..., k l, j l)) + M(AR a,a+1 (j k + 1)). l=0 No, plugging in the values of the quantities in the right hand side of equation (4.3) from Theorem 1.2 and Corollar 4.1 e shall obtain equation (4.1).

9 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 9 Figure 6. Choices for the tilings of AR k 1,j a,b ith forced dominoes; here a = 4, b = 10, k = 6, j = 8 One of the main ingredients in our proofs of the remaining results in this section are the folloing results of Kuo [6]. Theorem 4.4. [6, Theorem 2.3] Let G = (V 1, V 2, E) be a plane bipartite graph in hich V 1 = V 2. Let,, and be vertices of G that appear in cclic order on a face of G. If, V 1 and, V 2 then M(G {, }) M(G {, }) = M(G) M(G {,,, }) + M(G {, }) M(G {, }). Theorem 4.5. [6, Theorem 2.5] Let G = (V 1, V 2, E) be a plane bipartite graph in hich V 1 = V Let the vertices,, and appear in that cclic order on a face of G. Let,,, V 1, then M(G {, }) M(G {, }) = M(G {, }) M(G {, }) + M(G {, }) M(G {, }). The folloing proposition does not appear eplicitel in the statement of Theorem 2.1, but it is used in deriving Proposition 4.8. Proposition 4.6. Let 1 a be a positive integer, then the number of tilings of AR a,a+2 ith a defect at the i-th position on the southeastern side counted from the south corner and a defect on the j-th position on the northestern side counted from the est corner is given b [( )( ) ( )( )] a a a a (4.4) 2 a(a+1)/2 +. i 2 j 1 i 1 j 2 Proof. If j = 1 or j = a + 2, then the region e ant to tile reduces to the tpe in Theorem 1.2 and it is eas to see that the epression (4.4) is satisfied in these cases. B smmetr, this also takes care of the cases i = 1 and i = a + 2. In the rest of the proof, e no assume that 1 < i, j < a + 2 and let us denote the region e are interested in b O(a) i,j. We no use Theorem 4.5 ith the vertices as indicated in Figure 7 to obtain the folloing identit (Figure 8).

10 10 M. P. SAIKIA a + 2 a Figure 7. An a (a + 2) Atec rectangle ith some labelled squares; here a = 5 (4.5) M(AD(a)) M(O(a) i,j ) = M(AR a,a+1 (i 1)) M(AR a,a+1 (j)) + M(AR a,a+1 (j 1)) M(AR a,a+1 (i)). No, using Theorem 1.1 and Corollar 4.1 in equation (4.5) e get (4.4). Remark 4.7. Ciucu and Fischer [2], have a similar result for the number of loenge tiling of a heagon ith dents on opposite sides (Proposition 4 in their paper). The also make use of Kuo s condensation result, Theorem 4.4 and obtain the folloing identit OPP(a, b, c) i,j OPP(a 2, b, c) i 1,j 1 = OPP(a 1, b, c) i 1,j 1 OPP(a 1, b, c) i,j OPP(a 1, b 1, c + 1) i,j 1 OPP(a 1, b + 1, c 1) i 1,j here OPP(a, b, c) i,j denotes the number of loenge tilings of a heagon H a,b,c ith opposite side lengths a, b, c and ith to dents in position i and j on opposite sides of length a, here a, b, c, i, j are positive integers ith 1 i, j a. In their use of Kuo s result, the take the graph G to be OPP(a, b, c) i,j, but if e take the graph G to be H a,b,c and use Theorem 4.4 ith an appropriate choice of labels, e get the folloing identit OPP(a, b, c) i,j H(a 1, b, c) = H(a, b, c) OPP(a 1, b, c) i,j + H(a, c 1, b + 1, a 1, c, b) i H(a, c, b, a 1, c + 1, b 1) a j+1 here H(a, b, c) denotes the number of loenge tilings of the heagon ith opposite sides of length a, b, c and H(m, n, o, p, q, r) k denotes the number of loenge tilings of a heagon ith side lengths m, n, o, p, q, r ith a dent at position k on the side of length m. Then, Proposition 4 of Ciucu and Fischer [2] follos more easil ithout the need for contigous relations of hpergeometric series that the use in their paper. Proposition 4.8. Let 1 a, i b be positive integers ith k = b a > 0, then the number of domino tilings of AR a,b (2, 3,..., k) ith a defect on the northestern side in the i-th position counted from the est corner as shon in the Figure 9 is given b

11 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 11 Figure 8. Some forced dominoes in the proof of Proposition 4.6 here the vertices e remove are labelled ( )( ) a + k 2 2 a(a+1)/2 a k 1 a i + k [ ] 1, k 1, i a k 3F 2 i k + 1, 2 a k ; 1. Proof. Our proof ill be b induction on b = a + k. The base case of induction ill follo if e verif the result for a = 2, k = 1 in hich case b = 3. We also need to check the result for i = 1 and i = b. If i = 1 e have man forced dominoes and e get the region shon in Figure 10, hich is AD(a). Again, if i = b, then also e get a region of the tpe in Theorem 1.2. In both of these cases the number of domino tilings of these regions satisf the formula mentioned in the statement. To check our base case it is no enough to verif the formula for a = 2, k = 1, i = 2 as the other cases of i = 1 and i = 3 are alread taken care of. In this case, e see that the

12 12 M. P. SAIKIA i k 1 Figure 9. An a b Atec rectangle ith defects marked in black; here a = 4, b = 9.k = 5, i = 5 region e obtain is of the tpe as described in Corollar 4.1 and this satisfies the statement of our result. Figure 10. Forced tilings for i = 1 in Proposition 4.8 From no on, e assume b > 3 and 1 < i < b. We denote the region of the tpe shon in Figure 9 b AR i a,b,k 1. We use Theorem 4.5 here, ith the vertices,, and marked as shon in Figure 11, here e add a series of unit squares to the northeastern side to make it into an a (b + 1) Atec rectangle. Note that the square in the i-th position to be removed is included in this region and is labelled b. The identit e no obtain is the folloing (see Figure 12 for forcings) (4.6) M(AD(a)) M(AR i a,b+1,k) = M(AD(a)) M(AR i a,b,k 1) + Y M(AR a,b (2, 3,..., k, k + 1)) here (4.7) Y := { 0, if i k M(AR a,a+1 (a + k + 2 i), if i k + 1. Using equation (4.7) in equation (4.6), e can simplif the relation further to the folloing

13 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 13 Figure 11. Labelled a (b + 1) Atec rectangle; here a = 4, b = 9 (4.8) M(AR i a,b+1,k) = M(AR i a,b,k 1) + Z M(AR a,b (2, 3,..., k + 1)) here 0, if i k (4.9) Z := M(AR a,a+1 (a + k + 2 i), M(AD(a)) if i k + 1. It no remains to sho that the epression in the statement satisfies equation (4.7). This is no a straightforard application of the induction hpothesis and some algebraic manipulation. Proposition 4.9. Let a, i, j be positive integers such that 1 i, j a, then the number of domino tilings of AD(a) ith one defect on the southeastern side at the i-th position counted from the south corner and one defect on the northeastern side on the j-th position counted from the north corner as shon in Figure 13 is given b ( )( ) a 1 a 1 2 a(a 1)/2 i 1 j 1 [ ] 1, 1 i, 1 j 3F 2 1 a, 1 a ; 2. Proof. We use induction ith respect to a. The base case of induction is a = 2. We ould also need to check for i = 1, j = 1, i = a and j = a separatel. If a = 2, then the onl possibilities are i = 1 or i = a and j = 1 or j = a, so e do not have to consider this case, once e consider the other mentioned cases.

14 14 M. P. SAIKIA Figure 12. Forced dominoes in the proof of Proposition 4.8 here the vertices e remove are labelled

15 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 15 j i Figure 13. Atec Diamond ith defects on adjacent sides; here a = 6, i = 4, j = 4 Figure 14. Atec Diamond ith some labelled squares; here a = 6 We no note that hen either i or j is 1 or a, some dominoes are forced in an tiling and hence e are reduced to an Atec rectangle of sie (a 1) a. It is eas to see that our formula is correct for this. In the rest of the proof e assume a 3 and 1 < i, j < a. Let us no denote the region e are interested in this proposition as AD a (i, j). Using the dual graph of this region and appling Theorem 4.4 ith the vertices as labelled in Figure 14 e obtain the folloing identit (see Figure 15 for details), (4.10) M(AD a (i, j)) M(AD(a 1)) = M(AD(a)) M(AD a 1 (i 1, j 1)) + M(AR a 1,a (j)) M(AR a 1,a (i)). Simplifing equation (4.10), e get the folloing ( )( ) a 1 a 1 (4.11) M(AD a (i, j)) = 2 a M(AD a 1 (i 1, j 1)) + 2 a(a 1)/2 j 1 i 1 here e used Theorem 1.1 and Corollar 4.1.

16 16 M. P. SAIKIA Figure 15. Forced dominoes in the proof of Proposition 4.9 here the vertices e remove are labelled No, using our inductive hpothesis on equation (4.11) e see that e get the epression in the proposition. Remark Ciucu and Fischer [2], have a similar result for the number of loenge tiling of a heagon ith dents on adjacent sides (Proposition 3 in their paper). The make use of the folloing result of Kuo [6]. Theorem 4.11 (Theorem 2.1). [6] Let G = (V 1, V 2, E) be a plane bipartite graph ith V 1 = V 2 and,,, be vertices of G that appear in cclic order on a face of G. If, V 1 and, V 2 then M(G) M(G {,,, }) = M(G {, }) M(G {, }) + M(G {, }) M(G {, }). The obtain the folloing identit ADJ(a, b, c) j,k ADJ(a 1, b, c 1) j,k = ADJ(a, b, c 1) j,k ADJ(a 1, b, c) j,k + ADJ(a 1, b + 1, c 1) j,k ADJ(a, b 1, c) j,k here ADJ(a, b, c) j,k denotes the number of loenge tilings of a heagon H a,b,c ith opposite side lengths a, b, c ith to dents on adjacent sides of length a and c in positions j and k respectivel, here a, b, c, j, k are non-negative integers ith 1 j a and 1 k c. In their use of Theorem 4.11, the take the graph G to be ADJ(a, b, c) j,k, but if e take the graph G to be H a,b,c and use Theorem 4.4 ith an appropriate choice of labels e obtain the folloing identit

17 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 17 H(a 1, b, c) ADJ(a, b, c) j,k = H(a, b, c) ADJ(a 1, b, c) j,k + H(c, a 1, b + 1, c 1, a, b) k H(b 1, c + 1, a 1, b, c, a) j ith the same notations as in Remark 4.7. Then, Proposition 3 of Ciucu and Fischer [2] follos more easil ithout the need for contigous relations of hpergeometric series that the use in their paper. 5. Proofs of the main results Figure 16. Removing the forced dominoes from AR k a,b; here a = 5, b = 10, k = 5 Proof of Theorem 2.1. We shall appl the formula in Theorem 3.1 to the planar dual graph of our region AR k a,b, and the vertices δ 1,..., δ 2n+2k. Then the left hand side of equation (3.2) becomes the left hand side of equation (2.1), and the right hand side of equation (3.2) becomes the right hand side of (2.1). We just need to verif that the quantities epressed in equation (2.1) are indeed given b the formulas described in the statement of Theorem 2.1. The first statement follos immediatel b noting that the added squares on the south eastern side of AR k a,b forces some domino tilings. After removing this forced dominoes e are left ith an Atec Diamond of order a as shon in Figure 16, hose number of tilings is given b Theorem 1.1. The possibilities in the second statement are as follos. If an β square shares an edge ith some γ l, then the region cannot be covered b an domino as illustrated in the right image of Figure 17. Again, if β i is on the northestern side at a distance of atmost k from the estern corner, then the strips of forced dominoes along the sourthestern side interfere ith the β i and hence there cannot be an tiling in this case as illustrated in the left image of Figure 17. If neither of these situation is the case, then due to the squares γ 1,..., γ k on the southeastern side, there are forced dominoes as shon in Figure 18 and then β i and α j are defects on an Atec Diamond on adjacent sides and then the second statement follos from Proposition 4.9. To prove the validit of the third statement, e notice that if an β and γ defect share an edge then, there are to possibilities, either the β defect is above the γ defect in hich case e have some forced dominoes as shon in the left of Figure 20 and e are reduced to finding the number of domino tilings of an Atec Diamond; or the β-defect is to the left of a γ-dent, in hich case, e get no tilings as shon in the left of Figure 19 as the forced dominoes interfere in this case.

18 18 M. P. SAIKIA Figure 17. Choices of β-defects that lead to no tiling of AR k a,b Figure 18. Choice of β-defect, not sharing an edge ith some γ l If β i and γ j share no edge in common, then e get no tiling if the β-defect is on the northestern side at a distance of atmost k 1 from the estern corner as illustrated in the right of Figure 19. If the β-defect is in the northestern side at a distance more than k 1 from the estern corner then the situation is as shon in the right of Figure 20 and is described in Proposition 4.8. If the β-defect is in the southeastern side then the situation is as shon in the middle of Figure 20 and is described in Proposition 4.3. The fourth statement follos immediatel from the checkerboard draing (see Figure 2) of an Atec rectangle and the condition that a tiling b dominoes eists for such a board if and onl

19 AZTEC RECTANGLES WITH BOUNDARY DEFECTS 19 Figure 19. Choices of β and γ-defects that lead to no tiling of AR k a,b Figure 20. Choices of β and γ-defects that lead to tiling of AR k a,b if the number of hite and black squares are the same. In all other cases, the number of tilings is 0. Proof of Theorem 2.2. Let AR be the region obtained from AR k a,b b removing k of the squares β 1,..., β n+k. We no appl Theorem 3.1 to the planar dual graph of AR, ith the removed squares choosen to be the vertices corresponding to the n β i s inside AR and to α 1,..., α n. The left hand side of equation (3.2) is no the required number of tilings and the right hand side of equation (3.2) is the Pfaffian of a 2n 2n matri ith entries of the form M(AR \ {β i, α j }), here β i is not one of the unit squares that e removed from AR k a,b to get AR. We no notice that M(AR\{β i, α j }) is an Atec rectangle ith all its defects confined to three of the sides. So, e can appl Theorem 2.1 and it gives us an epression for M(AR \ {β i, α j })

20 20 M. P. SAIKIA as the Pfaffian of a (2k + 2) (2k + 2) matri of the tpe described in the statement of Theorem 2.1. Proof of Theorem 2.3. We shall no appl Theorem 3.1 to the planar dual graph of AD(a) ith removed squares choosen to correspond to β 1,..., β n, α 1,..., α n. The right hand side of equation (3.2) is precisel the right hand side of equation (2.2). If δ i and δ j are of the same tpe then AD(a) \ {δ i, δ j } does not have an tiling as the number of black and hite squares in the checkerboard setting of an Atec Diamond ill not be the same (see Figure 2). Finall, the proof is complete once e note that AD(a) \ {β i, α j } is an Atec Diamond ith to defects removed from adjacent sides for an choice of β i and α j and is given b Proposition 4.9. References 1. M. Ciucu, A generaliation of Kuo condensation, J. Comb. Th. A, 124 (2015), M. Ciucu and I. Fischer, Loenge tilings of heagons ith arbitrar holes, Adv. Appl. Math., 73 (2016), N. Elkies, G. Kuperberg, M. Larsen and J. Propp, Alternating-Sign Matrices and Domino Tilings (Part I), J. Alg. Comb., 1 No. 2 (1992), N. Elkies, G. Kuperberg, M. Larsen and J. Propp, Alternating-Sign Matrices and Domino Tilings (Part II), J. Alg. Comb., 1 No. 3 (1992), H. A. Helfgott and I. Gessel, Enumeration of Tilings of Diamonds and Heagons ith Defects, Elec. J. Comb., 6 No. 1, R16 (1999), 21 pp. 6. E. Kuo, Applications of graphical condensation for enumerating matchings and tilings, Theoret. Comput. Sci., 319 (2004), T. Lai, Generating Function of the Tilings of an Atec Rectangle ith Holes, Graphs. Comb., 32 No. 3 (2015), Universität Wien, Fakultät für Mathematik, Oskar-Morgenstern-Plat 1, 1090 Wien, Austria address: manjil.saikia@univie.ac.at