Determinantal symmetry: proof requested












8












$begingroup$


Consider the determinantal function
$$F(a,b,c):=detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}.$$
I would like to ask:




QUESTION. Can you provide an argument, combinatorial or otherwise, to prove the symmetry
$$F(a,b,c)=F(c,a,b)=F(b,c,a)=F(a,c,b)=F(c,b,a)=F(b,a,c)$$
without actually computing the its values? I know how to justify this based on direct evaluation.




Example. The following are all equal: $F(2,3,4)=F(4,2,3)=F(3,4,2)$ or
$$detbegin{pmatrix} 10&15&21&28\20&35&56&84\35&70&126&210\56&126&252&462
end{pmatrix}=
detbegin{pmatrix} 15&35&70\21&56&126\28&84&210
end{pmatrix}=detbegin{pmatrix} 35&56\70&126
end{pmatrix}.$$






co.combinatorics linear-algebra determinants







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Rubey
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wildon
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    7 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$


Consider the determinantal function
$$F(a,b,c):=detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}.$$
I would like to ask:




QUESTION. Can you provide an argument, combinatorial or otherwise, to prove the symmetry
$$F(a,b,c)=F(c,a,b)=F(b,c,a)=F(a,c,b)=F(c,b,a)=F(b,a,c)$$
without actually computing the its values? I know how to justify this based on direct evaluation.




Example. The following are all equal: $F(2,3,4)=F(4,2,3)=F(3,4,2)$ or
$$detbegin{pmatrix} 10&15&21&28\20&35&56&84\35&70&126&210\56&126&252&462
end{pmatrix}=
detbegin{pmatrix} 15&35&70\21&56&126\28&84&210
end{pmatrix}=detbegin{pmatrix} 35&56\70&126
end{pmatrix}.$$






co.combinatorics linear-algebra determinants







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Rubey
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wildon
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    7 hours ago














8












8








8


2



$begingroup$


Consider the determinantal function
$$F(a,b,c):=detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}.$$
I would like to ask:




QUESTION. Can you provide an argument, combinatorial or otherwise, to prove the symmetry
$$F(a,b,c)=F(c,a,b)=F(b,c,a)=F(a,c,b)=F(c,b,a)=F(b,a,c)$$
without actually computing the its values? I know how to justify this based on direct evaluation.




Example. The following are all equal: $F(2,3,4)=F(4,2,3)=F(3,4,2)$ or
$$detbegin{pmatrix} 10&15&21&28\20&35&56&84\35&70&126&210\56&126&252&462
end{pmatrix}=
detbegin{pmatrix} 15&35&70\21&56&126\28&84&210
end{pmatrix}=detbegin{pmatrix} 35&56\70&126
end{pmatrix}.$$






co.combinatorics linear-algebra determinants







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider the determinantal function
$$F(a,b,c):=detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}.$$
I would like to ask:




QUESTION. Can you provide an argument, combinatorial or otherwise, to prove the symmetry
$$F(a,b,c)=F(c,a,b)=F(b,c,a)=F(a,c,b)=F(c,b,a)=F(b,a,c)$$
without actually computing the its values? I know how to justify this based on direct evaluation.




Example. The following are all equal: $F(2,3,4)=F(4,2,3)=F(3,4,2)$ or
$$detbegin{pmatrix} 10&15&21&28\20&35&56&84\35&70&126&210\56&126&252&462
end{pmatrix}=
detbegin{pmatrix} 15&35&70\21&56&126\28&84&210
end{pmatrix}=detbegin{pmatrix} 35&56\70&126
end{pmatrix}.$$






co.combinatorics linear-algebra determinants




co.combinatorics linear-algebra determinants






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago







T. Amdeberhan

















asked 9 hours ago









T. AmdeberhanT. Amdeberhan

17.4k229127




17.4k229127








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Rubey
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wildon
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    7 hours ago














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Rubey
    9 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wildon
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    7 hours ago








4




4




$begingroup$
Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
$endgroup$
– Martin Rubey
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
Did you try to express this as the number of tuples of non-intersecting lattice paths?
$endgroup$
– Martin Rubey
9 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
7 hours ago






$begingroup$
The easy symmetry swapping $a$ and $b$ still holds if we replace the binomial coefficients with $q$-binomial coefficients. I tried some small cases with $a=2$, $b in {1,ldots, 10}$ and $c=3$, swapping $a$ and $c$, and, up to a power of $q$, there was still equality. In light of Fedor's answer, could this be explained by a $q$-analogue of the Lindstrom–Gessel–Viennot Lemma?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wildon
7 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Or did you try anything low tech like column reduction and row reduction? Gerhard "Likes Easy To Understand Methods" Paseman, 2019.02.10.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

Use Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma for points $(-a, - j) $ (the first collection of points) and $(i, b) $ (the second collection), both $i, j$ vary from 0 to $c-1$. We see that the determinant counts the families of disjoint lattice paths starting in the points of the first collection and finishing in the second (allowed path directions are North and East).
Of course it may be possible only if we join respective points $(-a, - j) $ and $(j, b) $. For $j=0$ this path is a Young diagram $Y_1$ in $atimes b$ rectangle. For $j=1$ the first and the last steps must be East and North respectively, and intermediate steps form a Young diagram $Y_2$ in the $atimes b$ rectangle, and the assumption that the paths are disjoint is equivalent to the assumption that $Y_2$ is contained in $Y_1$ if we naturally identify the ground rectangles (shifting by the vector $(-1,1)$). Proceeding this way we see that the whole thing is the number of 3d Young diagrams in the $atimes btimes c$ box. Thus the symmetry.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    8












    $begingroup$

    Just for the record:



    In view of Fedor's nice reply, the interpretation gives away
    $$detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
    =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}
    frac{i+j+k+2}{i+j+k+1}.$$
    An apparent symmetry!



    As a follow-up to Mark Wildon's comment, let me add the below $q$-construction.



    Let $(q)_k=(1-q)(1-q^2)cdots(1-q^k)$ with $(q)_0:=1$. Also, define the $q$-binomial by
    $$binom{n}k_q=frac{(q)_n}{(q)_k(q)_{n-k}}.tag1$$
    Then, we may generalize the above identity (1) as
    $$detleft[q^{i^2+ai+bj}binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}_qright]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
    =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}frac{1-q^{i+j+k+2}}{1-q^{i+j+k+1}}.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "504"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322894%2fdeterminantal-symmetry-proof-requested%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      Use Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma for points $(-a, - j) $ (the first collection of points) and $(i, b) $ (the second collection), both $i, j$ vary from 0 to $c-1$. We see that the determinant counts the families of disjoint lattice paths starting in the points of the first collection and finishing in the second (allowed path directions are North and East).
      Of course it may be possible only if we join respective points $(-a, - j) $ and $(j, b) $. For $j=0$ this path is a Young diagram $Y_1$ in $atimes b$ rectangle. For $j=1$ the first and the last steps must be East and North respectively, and intermediate steps form a Young diagram $Y_2$ in the $atimes b$ rectangle, and the assumption that the paths are disjoint is equivalent to the assumption that $Y_2$ is contained in $Y_1$ if we naturally identify the ground rectangles (shifting by the vector $(-1,1)$). Proceeding this way we see that the whole thing is the number of 3d Young diagrams in the $atimes btimes c$ box. Thus the symmetry.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        11












        $begingroup$

        Use Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma for points $(-a, - j) $ (the first collection of points) and $(i, b) $ (the second collection), both $i, j$ vary from 0 to $c-1$. We see that the determinant counts the families of disjoint lattice paths starting in the points of the first collection and finishing in the second (allowed path directions are North and East).
        Of course it may be possible only if we join respective points $(-a, - j) $ and $(j, b) $. For $j=0$ this path is a Young diagram $Y_1$ in $atimes b$ rectangle. For $j=1$ the first and the last steps must be East and North respectively, and intermediate steps form a Young diagram $Y_2$ in the $atimes b$ rectangle, and the assumption that the paths are disjoint is equivalent to the assumption that $Y_2$ is contained in $Y_1$ if we naturally identify the ground rectangles (shifting by the vector $(-1,1)$). Proceeding this way we see that the whole thing is the number of 3d Young diagrams in the $atimes btimes c$ box. Thus the symmetry.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          11












          11








          11





          $begingroup$

          Use Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma for points $(-a, - j) $ (the first collection of points) and $(i, b) $ (the second collection), both $i, j$ vary from 0 to $c-1$. We see that the determinant counts the families of disjoint lattice paths starting in the points of the first collection and finishing in the second (allowed path directions are North and East).
          Of course it may be possible only if we join respective points $(-a, - j) $ and $(j, b) $. For $j=0$ this path is a Young diagram $Y_1$ in $atimes b$ rectangle. For $j=1$ the first and the last steps must be East and North respectively, and intermediate steps form a Young diagram $Y_2$ in the $atimes b$ rectangle, and the assumption that the paths are disjoint is equivalent to the assumption that $Y_2$ is contained in $Y_1$ if we naturally identify the ground rectangles (shifting by the vector $(-1,1)$). Proceeding this way we see that the whole thing is the number of 3d Young diagrams in the $atimes btimes c$ box. Thus the symmetry.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Use Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot lemma for points $(-a, - j) $ (the first collection of points) and $(i, b) $ (the second collection), both $i, j$ vary from 0 to $c-1$. We see that the determinant counts the families of disjoint lattice paths starting in the points of the first collection and finishing in the second (allowed path directions are North and East).
          Of course it may be possible only if we join respective points $(-a, - j) $ and $(j, b) $. For $j=0$ this path is a Young diagram $Y_1$ in $atimes b$ rectangle. For $j=1$ the first and the last steps must be East and North respectively, and intermediate steps form a Young diagram $Y_2$ in the $atimes b$ rectangle, and the assumption that the paths are disjoint is equivalent to the assumption that $Y_2$ is contained in $Y_1$ if we naturally identify the ground rectangles (shifting by the vector $(-1,1)$). Proceeding this way we see that the whole thing is the number of 3d Young diagrams in the $atimes btimes c$ box. Thus the symmetry.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 6 hours ago

























          answered 9 hours ago









          Fedor PetrovFedor Petrov

          49k5112229




          49k5112229























              8












              $begingroup$

              Just for the record:



              In view of Fedor's nice reply, the interpretation gives away
              $$detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
              =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}
              frac{i+j+k+2}{i+j+k+1}.$$
              An apparent symmetry!



              As a follow-up to Mark Wildon's comment, let me add the below $q$-construction.



              Let $(q)_k=(1-q)(1-q^2)cdots(1-q^k)$ with $(q)_0:=1$. Also, define the $q$-binomial by
              $$binom{n}k_q=frac{(q)_n}{(q)_k(q)_{n-k}}.tag1$$
              Then, we may generalize the above identity (1) as
              $$detleft[q^{i^2+ai+bj}binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}_qright]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
              =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}frac{1-q^{i+j+k+2}}{1-q^{i+j+k+1}}.$$






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                8












                $begingroup$

                Just for the record:



                In view of Fedor's nice reply, the interpretation gives away
                $$detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}
                frac{i+j+k+2}{i+j+k+1}.$$
                An apparent symmetry!



                As a follow-up to Mark Wildon's comment, let me add the below $q$-construction.



                Let $(q)_k=(1-q)(1-q^2)cdots(1-q^k)$ with $(q)_0:=1$. Also, define the $q$-binomial by
                $$binom{n}k_q=frac{(q)_n}{(q)_k(q)_{n-k}}.tag1$$
                Then, we may generalize the above identity (1) as
                $$detleft[q^{i^2+ai+bj}binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}_qright]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}frac{1-q^{i+j+k+2}}{1-q^{i+j+k+1}}.$$






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  8












                  8








                  8





                  $begingroup$

                  Just for the record:



                  In view of Fedor's nice reply, the interpretation gives away
                  $$detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                  =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}
                  frac{i+j+k+2}{i+j+k+1}.$$
                  An apparent symmetry!



                  As a follow-up to Mark Wildon's comment, let me add the below $q$-construction.



                  Let $(q)_k=(1-q)(1-q^2)cdots(1-q^k)$ with $(q)_0:=1$. Also, define the $q$-binomial by
                  $$binom{n}k_q=frac{(q)_n}{(q)_k(q)_{n-k}}.tag1$$
                  Then, we may generalize the above identity (1) as
                  $$detleft[q^{i^2+ai+bj}binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}_qright]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                  =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}frac{1-q^{i+j+k+2}}{1-q^{i+j+k+1}}.$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Just for the record:



                  In view of Fedor's nice reply, the interpretation gives away
                  $$detleft[binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}right]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                  =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}
                  frac{i+j+k+2}{i+j+k+1}.$$
                  An apparent symmetry!



                  As a follow-up to Mark Wildon's comment, let me add the below $q$-construction.



                  Let $(q)_k=(1-q)(1-q^2)cdots(1-q^k)$ with $(q)_0:=1$. Also, define the $q$-binomial by
                  $$binom{n}k_q=frac{(q)_n}{(q)_k(q)_{n-k}}.tag1$$
                  Then, we may generalize the above identity (1) as
                  $$detleft[q^{i^2+ai+bj}binom{i+j+a+b}{i+a}_qright]_{i,j=0}^{c-1}
                  =prod_{i=0}^{a-1}prod_{j=0}^{b-1}prod_{k=0}^{c-1}frac{1-q^{i+j+k+2}}{1-q^{i+j+k+1}}.$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 6 hours ago









                  Fedor Petrov

                  49k5112229




                  49k5112229










                  answered 8 hours ago









                  T. AmdeberhanT. Amdeberhan

                  17.4k229127




                  17.4k229127






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f322894%2fdeterminantal-symmetry-proof-requested%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Image
                      5 This question already has an answer here: How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? 3 answers There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt? magic-the-gathering probability share | improve this question asked Nov 23 '18 at 12:12 dan dan 152 4
                      Read more

                      Alcedinidae

                      Image
                      Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
                      Read more

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]

                      Image
                      9 $begingroup$ This question already has an answer here: What happens if we put together a proton and an antineutron? 2 answers Is it theoretically possible to make a "deuterium" atom containing a proton and an antineutron in its nucleus? Would the strong nuclear force cause attraction between a proton and an antineutron? Would such a nucleus be stable, or would the proton somehow annihilate the antineutron when close enough? nuclear-physics antimatter share | cite | improve this question asked yesterday
                      Read more