The number of intervals in the \(m\)-Tamari lattices (Q665767)

Tamari lattices \(\tau_n\) have appeared in many different formats over a variety of combinatorial objects equipped with certain appropriate orders. The lattice structure may be defined over the ballot paths or the Dyck paths of size \(n, \) or may manifest itself on the rooted binary trees of \(n\) nodes, or even over geometric domains such as planar triangulations or as the lattice of 1-skeletons of an associahedron. The Tamari lattices are extensions of Kreweras lattices and both can be extended to Stanley lattices. A ballot path of size \(n\) is a planar path defined on the square grid from \((0,0)\) to \((n,n)\), consisting of only up and right steps, such that it never goes below the line \(x=y.\) An \(m\)-ballot path of size \(n\) is defined similarly from \((0,0)\) to \((mn,n)\), but it can never go below the line \(x=my.\) The \(m\)-Tamari lattice is defined naturally over \(m\)-ballot paths of size \(n.\) The number of intervals in the latter lattice has appeared in algebraic geometry as the dimension of a certain quotient ring of polynomials, and then as a conjecture of Bergeron: The number of intervals in the \(m\)-Tamari lattice is \[ \frac{m+1}{n(mn+1)} \binom{(m + 1)^{2}n + m}{n-1}. \tag{1} \] And the case of \(m = 1\): The number of intervals in the Tamari lattices \(\tau_n\) is equal to \[ \frac{2}{n(n+1)} \binom{4n+1}{n-1}. \tag{2} \] The latter formula (2) was proved by F. Chapton. To prove the conjecture of Bergeron, formula (1), the authors begin with \(m\)-ballot paths, but then quickly move to Dyck paths of size \(n\) for the rest of the paper. They first show that \(m\)-Tamari lattice is an upper ideal of \(\tau_{mn}\), and then they associate a convenient distance function \(D_P\) to each Dyck path \(P,\) with the property that \(P \leq Q \) if and only if \(D_P \leq D_Q\) for any two Dyck paths \(P\) and \(Q\) in \(\tau_n\). Finally, the authors associate to an \(m\)-Tamari lattice a convenient generating function that satisfies a recursive functional equation. And then a guess-and-check method provides a solution to the functional equation that leads to the desired formula (1).