## A NEW REFINEMENT OF EULER NUMBERS ON COUNTING ALTERNATING PERMUTATIONS

## MASATO KOBAYASHI ∗

Abstract. We often encounter surprising interactions with two topics from seemingly different areas. At a crossroads of calculus and combinatorics, the generating function of secant and tangent numbers (Euler numbers) provides enumeration of alternating permutations. In this article, we present a new refinement of Euler numbers to answer the combinatorial question on some particular relation of Euler numbers proved by Heneghan-Petersen, Power series for up-down min-max permutations, College Math. Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (2014), 83-91.

## Contents

| 1.         | Introduction                            |   1 |
|------------|-----------------------------------------|-----|
| 1.1.       | calculus, combinatorics, power series   |   1 |
| 1.2.       | alternating permutations, Euler numbers |   2 |
| 2.         | min-max and max-min permutations        |   3 |
| 3.         | New refinement of Euler numbers         |   5 |
| 4.         | Theorem                                 |   7 |
| 5.         | Backstage                               |   9 |
| 6.         | Final remarks                           |  10 |
| References | References                              |  11 |

## 1. Introduction

1.1. calculus, combinatorics, power series. We often encounter surprising interactions with two topics from seemingly different areas. One such example is a connection between power series in calculus and enumeration in combinatorics. On calculus side, we study Maclaurin series ; they are convergent power series in

Date : November 17, 2020.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary:05A05;Secondary:11B68.

Key words and phrases. alternating permutations, Euler numbers, formal power series, secant numbers, tangent numbers.

*Department of Engineering, Kanagawa University, Japan.

the form ∞ ∑ n =0 a x n n with ( a n ) a sequence of real numbers. Many real-variable differential functions are expressible in this way.

A simple example is a geometric series with a n = 1 for all n :

$$F ( x ) = 1 + x + x ^ { 2 } + x ^ { 3 } + \cdots, \ \ | x | < 1.$$

On combinatorics side, we study a formal power series ; it is a formal sum of the form ∞ ∑ n =0 a x n n with ( a n ) a sequence of real numbers (often integers). Take, again, this as an example:

$$F ( x ) = 1 + x + x ^ { 2 } + x ^ { 3 } + \cdots$$

with a n = 1 for all n . Formally F x ( ) is a 'rational function' as follows:

$$\Phi _ { \Phi } & \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Phi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi_ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ {\Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Philon } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi } \Psi _ { \Phi }$$

$$\overline { 1 - x }.$$

In this computation, we do not need to worry about convergence (which indeed makes perfect sense mathematically; see Wilf [3] for such details). An important class of such series is exponential generating functions :

$$F ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } a _ { n } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! }. \\ \text{e interactions between}$$

In this article, we revisit the interactions between two particular trigonometric functions (sec x , tan x ) and enumeration of alternating permutations as a followup of Heneghan-Petersen [2].

- 1.2. alternating permutations, Euler numbers. A permutation of degree n is a bijection σ : { 1 , . . . , n } → { 1 , . . . , n } . By S n we denote the set of all permutations of degree n . Say σ ∈ S n is up-down if

$$\sigma ( 1 ) < \sigma ( 2 ) > \sigma ( 3 ) < \sigma ( 4 ) > \cdots.$$

Say σ is down-up if

$$\sigma ( 1 ) > \sigma ( 2 ) < \sigma ( 3 ) > \sigma ( 4 ) < \cdots.$$

↦

Further, σ is alternating if it is either up-down or down-up; in particular, we understand σ : { } → { } 1 1 , 1 → 1 is alternating. Let A n denote the set of all alternating permutations of degree n . Note that some researchers call precisely one of up-down and down-up permutations 'alternating'. As mentioned above, we mean both throughout.

Table 1. secant and tangent numbers

|   E 0 |   E 2 |   E 4 |   E 6 |   E 8 | · · ·   |   E 1 |   E 3 |   E 5 |   E 7 |   E 9 | · · ·   |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|---------|
|     1 |     1 |     5 |    61 |  1385 | · · ·   |     1 |     2 |    16 |   272 |  7936 | · · ·   |

Clearly, there is a one-to-one correspondence σ ↔ σ ∗ between up-down and down-up permutations of degree n where σ ∗ ( ) i = n -σ i ( ) + 1. For example, σ = 2514376 (one-line notation: σ (1) = 2 , σ (2) = 5 , . . . ) while σ ∗ = 6374512.

Now, let us introduce the sequence ( E n ) ∞ n =0 : First, we formally set E 0 = 1. For n ≥ 1, let

$$E _ { n } & = | \left \{ \text{up-down permutations in } S _ { n } \right \} | \\ & = | \left \{ \text{down-up permutations in } S _ { n } \right \} |.$$

Observe that | A 1 | = E 1 = 1 and | A n | = 2 E n for n ≥ 2.

The following surprising result goes back to Andr´ [1] in 1879: e

In particular,

$$\lambda \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = \sec x + \tan x.$$

$$\text{in particular,} \\ \sec x & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 n } \frac { x ^ { 2 n } } { ( 2 n )! } = 1 + 1 \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2! } + 5 \frac { x ^ { 4 } } { 4! } + 6 1 \frac { x ^ { 6 } } { 6! } + 1 3 8 5 \frac { x ^ { 8 } } { 8! } + \cdots, \\ \tan x & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 n + 1 } \frac { x ^ { 2 n + 1 } } { ( 2 n + 1 )! } = 1 x + 2 \frac { x ^ { 3 } } { 3! } + 1 6 \frac { x ^ { 5 } } { 5! } + 2 7 2 \frac { x ^ { 7 } } { 7! } + 7 9 3 6 \frac { x ^ { 9 } } { 9! } + \cdots \\ \text{are its odd and even part, respectively. For this reason, positive integers (E _ { 2 n } ) _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty }.$$

are its odd and even part, respectively. For this reason, positive integers ( E 2 n ) ∞ n =0 are called secant numbers and ( E 2 n +1 ) ∞ n =0 tangent numbers . Together, we call ( E n ) ∞ n =0 Euler numbers .

## 2. min-max and max-min permutations

How can we understand Euler numbers? One simple idea is a refinement of E n ; Recently, Heneghan-Petersen in 2013 introduced the refinement by just two sequences ( E ↗ n ) n ≥ 2 , ( E ↖ n ) n ≥ 2 under the name of min-max and max-min permutations:

Definition 2.1. Say an alternating permutation σ ∈ S n ( n ≥ 2) is min-max if

$$\sigma ^ { - 1 } ( 1 ) < \sigma ^ { - 1 } ( n ).$$

Say it is max-min if

$$\sigma ^ { - 1 } ( n ) < \sigma ^ { - 1 } ( 1 ).$$

## MASATO KOBAYASHI

Table 2. The refinement of Euler numbers in [2]

| n     | 0   | 1   |   2 |   3 |   4 |   5 |   6 |   7 |    8 |    9 | · · ·   |
|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|------|---------|
| E n   | 1   | 1   |   1 |   2 |   5 |  16 |  61 | 272 | 1385 | 7936 | · · ·   |
| E ↗ n | -   | -   |   1 |   1 |   3 |   8 |  33 | 136 |  723 | 3968 | · · ·   |
| E ↖ n | -   | -   |   0 |   1 |   2 |   8 |  28 | 136 |  662 | 3968 | · · ·   |

More informally, this means in one-line notation

$$\sigma & = \cdots 1 \cdots n \cdots \quad ( \min \text{-max} ), \\ \sigma & = \cdots n \cdots 1 \cdots \quad ( \max \text{-min} ).$$

Define E ↗ n , E ↖ n to be the number of min-max, max-min up-down permutations of degree n , respectively.

Each alternating permutation σ ∈ A n ( n ≥ 2) is either min-max or max-min so that those two numbers give a refinement of E n :

$$E _ { n } = E _ { n } ^ { \nearrow } + E _ { n } ^ { \kappa }.$$

Heneghan-Petersen further introduced generating functions

$$E ^ { \nearrow } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E ^ { \nearrow } _ { n + 2 } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! }, \quad & E ^ { \kappa } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E ^ { \kappa } _ { n + 2 } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! }. \\ \text{ved [2. Section 4] that as a formal power series. we have}$$

They proved [2, Section 4] that as a formal power series, we have

$$E ^ { \nearrow } ( x ) = \sec x \cdot \sec x ( \sec x + \tan x ),$$

$$E ^ { \kappa } ( x ) = \sec x \cdot \tan x ( \sec x + \tan x ).$$

Moreover, they showed the following relations:

$$E _ { 2 n + 1 } ^ { \nearrow } - E _ { 2 n + 1 } ^ { \kappa } = 0, \\ E _ { 2 n } ^ { \nearrow } - E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = E _ { 2 n - 2 }. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

Although they did prove these equalities, they said at the end:

We are left with a tantalizing combinatorial question: Is there a bijective explanation for

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \nearrow } - E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = E _ { 2 n - 2 }?$$

Our goal is to answer this question. For this purpose, we will introduce another refinement of E n and then discuss its details.

## 3. New refinement of Euler numbers

Let σ be an alternating permutation in S n ( n ≥ 2). To emphasize ups and downs of such permutations, we introduce special notation, a boxed two-row expression as follows:

σ

=

5

7

6

4

3

1

2

for σ = 5371624. Besides, let us prepare little terminology for convenience.

Definition 3.1. By the upper row of an up-down permutation σ we mean even positions { 2 i | 1 ≤ 2 i ≤ n } . For a down-up permutation, it means odd positions { 2 i +1 | 1 ≤ 2 i +1 ≤ n } .

Observation 3.2. n , the largest number, must appear in the upper row of σ .

This is clear. More important is the following:

Observation 3.3. n -1, the second largest number, must appear either in the upper row of σ , or at the extremal position(s) in the lower row; for n even, it means the 1st position and for n odd, 1st and n -th positions. This is because there does not exist two numbers in { 1 2 , , . . . , n } which are strictly greater than n -1. Note also that n must appear right next to n -1 (at the second or ( n -1)-st position) in all such cases.

For n even:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-722c362b-ec53-4f33-bbc8-497d19ac2942.jpg)

Definition 3.4. Let σ be an alternating permutation in S n . Say σ is 2nd-maxupper if n -1 appears in its upper row; σ is 2nd-max-lower if n -1 appears in its lower row. Now for n ≥ 2, define

E ↑ = |{ up-down 2nd-max-upper permutations in S n }| ,

E = |{ up-down 2nd-max-lower permutations in S n }| , n ↓ n

These numbers give another refinement of E n :

$$E _ { n } = E _ { n } ^ { \uparrow } + E _ { n } ^ { \downarrow }.$$

Observation 3.5. Up to positions of n -1 and n , there are two kinds of 2ndmax-upper permutations:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-6254b027-375f-420e-957b-07e6326706ed.jpg)

Via the transposition n -1 ↔ n , we see that numbers of those two kinds of permutations are equal. Hence, E ↑ n are all even.

Lemma 3.6. We have E ↑ 2 = 0 and

$$E _ { n } ^ { \uparrow } = 2 \cdot ( n - 2 )! \sum _ { \substack { i, j, k \geq 0 \\ ( 2 i + 1 ) + ( 2 j + 1 ) + k = n - 2 } } \frac { E _ { 2 i + 1 } } { ( 2 i + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { 2 j + 1 } } { ( 2 j + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { k } } { k! }.$$

for n ≥ 3.

Proof. Suppose σ is an up-down 2nd-max-upper permutation. Suppose further, for the moment, n -1 appears to the left of n . Let ( i, j, k ) be a triple of nonnegative integers such that (2 i +1) + (2 j +1) + k = n -2. Now, σ looks like this:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-63239ba8-71cd-491a-830b-dee926832758.jpg)

$$\sum _ { ( 2 i + 1 ) + ( 2 j + 1 ) + k = n - 2 } \binom { n - 2 } { 2 i + 1 } E _ { 2 i + 1 } \binom { ( n - 2 ) - ( 2 i + 1 ) } { 2 j + 1 } E _ { 2 j + 1 } E _ { k }$$

︸ ︷︷ ︸ ︸ ︷︷ ︸ ︸ ︷︷ ︸ Each part is alternating itself. For the first part, there are ( n -2 2 +1 i ) E 2 +1 i choices. Similarly, for the second part, there are ( ( n -2) -(2 +1) i 2 +1 j ) E 2 +1 j choices, and for the third, E k . Altogether, we have

$$= ( n - 2 )! \sum _ { \substack { i, j, k \geq 0 \\ ( 2 i + 1 ) + ( 2 j + 1 ) + k = n - 2 } } \frac { E _ { 2 i + 1 } } { ( 2 i + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { 2 j + 1 } } { ( 2 j + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { k } } { k! }.$$

Taking n -1 ↔ n into account, E ↑ n is equal to the double of this. /square

Example 3.7. Let n = 8. All triples ( i, j, k ) satisfying (2 i +1) + (2 j +1) + k = n -2 = 6 are

$$( 1, 1, 4 ), ( 1, 3, 2 ), ( 1, 5, 0 ), ( 3, 1, 2 ), ( 3, 3, 0 ), ( 5, 1, 0 ).$$

Therefore, we have

$$& \i n e r e r o r e, \, \text{we have} \\ & E _ { 8 } ^ { \uparrow } = 2 \times 6! \left ( \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 4 } } { 4! } + \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 3 } } { 3! } \frac { E _ { 2 } } { 2! } + \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 5 } } { 5! } \frac { E _ { 0 } } { 0! } + \frac { E _ { 3 } } { 3! } \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 2 } } { 2! } + \frac { E _ { 3 } } { 3! } \frac { E _ { 3 } } { 3! } \frac { E _ { 0 } } { 0! } + \frac { E _ { 5 } } { 5! } \frac { E _ { 1 } } { 1! } \frac { E _ { 0 } } { 0! } \right ) \\ & \quad = 2 ( 1 5 0 + 1 2 0 + 1 2 0 + 9 6 + 8 0 + 9 6 ) \\ & \quad = 1 3 2 4. \\ & \quad \vdots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon \end{array}.$$

This does not seem so elegant at a glance. However, we will see in Section 5 that { E ↑ n } has the nice expression in terms of formal power series with sec x and tan x .

Lemma 3.8. For k ≥ 1, we have

$$\begin{cases} E _ { 2 k } ^ { \downarrow } = E _ { 2 k - 2 }, \\ E _ { 2 k + 1 } ^ { \downarrow } = 2 E _ { 2 k - 1 }. \end{cases}$$

Proof. Suppose σ is an up-down 2nd-max-lower permutation in S n . If n = 2 , k then n -1 must appear at the first position together with n right after it:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-c9473b5f-6876-44c7-a5ce-b83c57f0da15.jpg)

Thus, E ↓ 2 k = E 2 k -2 . If n = 2 k + 1, then n -1 must appear at the first position likewise or at the last right after n :

or

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-ffaa6bab-3658-4dc1-9297-fa940aaac39a.jpg)

Thus, E ↓ 2 k +1 = 2 E 2 k -1 .

## 4. Theorem

/square

## Theorem 4.1.

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \nearrow } - E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = E _ { 2 n - 2 } \ \ ( n \geq 1 )$$

Although Heneghan-Petersen proved this using power series, here we give a bijective explanation. Let us put it in this way:

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \nearrow } = E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } + E _ { 2 n - 2 }.$$

## Lemma 4.2.

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \uparrow } = 2 E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } \quad \text{for } n \geq 1.$$

MASATO KOBAYASHI Table 3. Another refinement of Euler numbers

| n     | 0   | 1   |   2 |   3 |   4 |   5 |   6 |   7 |    8 |    9 | · · ·   |
|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|------|---------|
| E n   | 1   | 1   |   1 |   2 |   5 |  16 |  61 | 272 | 1385 | 7936 | · · ·   |
| E ↗ n | -   | -   |   1 |   1 |   3 |   8 |  33 | 136 |  723 | 3968 | · · ·   |
| E ↖ n | -   | -   |   0 |   1 |   2 |   8 |  28 | 136 |  662 | 3968 | · · ·   |
| E ↑ n | -   | -   |   0 |   0 |   4 |  12 |  56 | 240 | 1324 | 7392 | · · ·   |
| E ↓ n | -   | -   |   1 |   2 |   1 |   4 |   5 |  32 |   61 |  544 | · · ·   |

Table 4. E ↑ 4 = 4 , E ↓ 4 = 1 , E ↑ 5 = 12 , E ↓ 5 = 4 .

| n = 4   | 2nd-max-upper   |   2nd-max-lower |
|---------|-----------------|-----------------|
| up-down | 1324 1423       |            3412 |
| up-down | 2314            |            3412 |
| up-down | 2413            |            3412 |

| n = 5   |   2nd-max-upper |   2nd-max-upper |   2nd-max-upper |   2nd-max-lower |
|---------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
| up-down |           14253 |           24153 |           34152 |           13254 |
| up-down |           14352 |           24351 |           34251 |           23154 |
| up-down |           15243 |           25143 |           35142 |           45132 |
| up-down |           15342 |           25341 |           35241 |           45231 |

Proof. We first confirm that E ↑ 2 = 0 and

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = ( 2 n - 2 )! \sum _ { \substack { i, j, k \geq 0 \\ ( 2 i + 1 ) + 2 j + ( 2 k + 1 ) = 2 n - 2 } } \frac { E _ { 2 i + 1 } } { ( 2 i + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { 2 j } } { ( 2 j )! } \frac { E _ { 2 k + 1 } } { ( 2 k + 1 )! }.$$

Suppose σ is a max-min permutation of degree 2 n . It splits into three parts:

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00701v2-figure-43484bc5-bbc4-490d-a0ce-d7f062d946bf.jpg)

︸ ︷︷ ︸ 2 +1 i ︸ ︷︷ ︸ ︸ ︷︷ ︸ For the first part, there are ( 2 n -2 2 +1 i ) E 2 +1 i choices, for the second part, ( (2 n -2) -(2 +1) i 2 j ) E 2 j choices, and for the third part, E 2 k +1 . Notice that this enumeration is quite similar to the one for E ↑ n above; that is, replacing n by 2 n and k by 2 k and interchanging j and k , we see that E ↑ 2 n and 2 E ↖ 2 n satisfy exactly the same recurrence with E ↑ 2 = 0 = 2 E ↖ 2 . Thus,

$$E _ { 2 n } ^ { \uparrow } = 2 E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } \quad \text{for } n \geq 1.$$

It follows from this and Lemma 3.8 that

$$E _ { 2 n } = E _ { 2 n } ^ { \nearrow } + E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = \left ( E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } + E _ { 2 n - 2 } \right ) + E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } = 2 E _ { 2 n } ^ { \kappa } + E _ { 2 n - 2 } = E _ { 2 n } ^ { \uparrow } + E _ { 2 n } ^ { \downarrow }. \\ \intertext { m o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o }$$

Hence E ↗ 2 n -E ↖ 2 n = E 2 n -2 was equivalent to ths idea of our refinement for E 2 n . All the essence is in Observations 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5. Very simple! /square

## 5. Backstage

Let us understand our result in terms of power series. Since E ↗ n , E ↖ n make sense for only n ≥ 2, Heneghan-Petersen introduced the power series

$$E ^ { \nearrow } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E ^ { \nearrow } _ { n + 2 } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! }, \quad E ^ { \kappa } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E ^ { \kappa } _ { n + 2 } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } \\ \mu \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \Dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots\delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \ dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \delta \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \ dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \ dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \ dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta \dots \delta$$

with two steps shifted. They proved that

$$E ^ { \nearrow } ( x ) = \sec ^ { 2 } x ( \sec x + \tan x ), \ \ E ^ { \intercal } ( x ) = \sec x \tan x ( \sec x + \tan x ).$$

As an analogy of this, it is natural to define power series

$$E ^ { \uparrow } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n + 2 } ^ { \uparrow } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = 0 + 0 + 4 \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2! } + 1 2 \frac { x ^ { 3 } } { 3! } + 5 6 \frac { x ^ { 4 } } { 4! } + 2 4 0 \frac { x ^ { 5 } } { 5! } + \cdots,$$

$$E ^ { \downarrow } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \dots } E ^ { \downarrow } _ { n + 2 } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = 1 + 2 \frac { x } { 1! } + 1 \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2! } + 4 \frac { x ^ { 3 } } { 3! } + 5 \frac { x ^ { 4 } } { 4! } + 3 2 \frac { x ^ { 5 } } { 5! } + \cdots.$$

$$E ^ { \uparrow } ( x ) & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n + 2 } ^ { \uparrow } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = 0 + 0 + 4 \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2! } + 1 2 \frac { x ^ { 3 } } { 3! } + 5 6 \frac { x ^ { 4 } } { 4! } + 2 4 0 \frac { x ^ { 5 } } { 5! } + \cdots, \\ E ^ { \downarrow } ( x ) & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n + 2 } ^ { \downarrow } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = 1 + 2 \frac { x } { 1! } + 1 \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2! } + 4 \frac { x ^ { 3 } } { 3! } + 5 \frac { x ^ { 4 } } { 4! } + 3 2 \frac { x ^ { 5 } } { 5! } + \cdots.$$

It then follows that

$$\text{It then follows that} \\ E ^ { \uparrow } ( x ) & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n + 2 } ^ { \uparrow } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } \\ & = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } 2 \cdot n! \left ( \sum _ { \substack { i, j, k \geq 0 \\ ( 2 i + 1 ) + ( 2 j + 1 ) + k = n } } \frac { E _ { 2 i + 1 } } { ( 2 i + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { 2 j + 1 } } { ( 2 j + 1 )! } \frac { E _ { k } } { k! } \right ) \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } \\ & = 2 \left ( \sum _ { i = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 i + 1 } \frac { x ^ { 2 i + 1 } } { ( 2 i + 1 )! } \right ) \left ( \sum _ { j = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 j + 1 } \frac { x ^ { 2 j + 1 } } { ( 2 j + 1 )! } \right ) \left ( \sum _ { k = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { k } \frac { x ^ { k } } { k! } \right ) \\ & = 2 \tan x \cdot \tan x ( \sec x + \tan x ).$$

= 2 tan x · tan x (sec x +tan x . )

$$E ^ { \downarrow } ( x ) = \sum _ { n = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { n + 2 } ^ { \downarrow } \frac { x ^ { n } } { n! } = \sum _ { k = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 k } \frac { x ^ { 2 k } } { ( 2 k )! } + 2 \sum _ { k = 0 } ^ { \infty } E _ { 2 k + 1 } \frac { x ^ { 2 k + 1 } } { ( 2 k + 1 )! } = \sec x + 2 \tan x. \\ \intertext { A f t e r a d i n } \underline { ( 2 l ) } \lim \text{v question was: } \text{```what do the coefficients of the formal owner}$$

After reading [2], my question was: 'what do the coefficients of the formal power series

$$\tan x \cdot \tan x ( \sec x + \tan x )$$

count?' Looking at these three factors thoughtfully, I came up with the idea of 2ndmax-upper permutations and then proved subsequent results such as E ↑ 2 n = 2 E ↖ 2 n (the even part of E ↑ ( x ) is 2 sec x tan 2 x while the one of E ↖ ( x ) is sec x tan 2 x . Equate the coefficients of x 2 n -2 / (2 n -2)! of these power series.) Using formal power series, it is often easy to predict relations of sequences and give a bijective proof. This is a 'powerful' method.

## 6. Final remarks

This is not the end of the story; any topic in mathematics has its subsequence. We leave two remaining problems on such enumeration.

$$\begin{array} { c } \rangle \, \begin{array} { c } \rangle \\ \bullet \, \text{Heneghan-Petersen proved } \lim _ { n \to \infty } \frac { E _ { n } ^ { \kappa } } { E _ { n } ^ { \wedge } } = 1. \, \text{What is } \lim _ { n \to \infty } \frac { E _ { n } ^ { \downarrow } } { E _ { n } ^ { \uparrow } }? \\ \bullet \, \text{Let} \end{array}$$

- · Let

D ↑ n = |{ down-up 2nd-max-upper permutations in S n }| ,

D ↓ n = |{ down-up 2nd-max-lower permutations in S n }| .

Then E n = D ↑ n + D ↓ n . Try computing the first couple of values of D ↑ n , D ↓ n . What are exponential generating functions of these sequences?

## References

- [1] Andr´ e, D´veloppement de sec e x et tan x , C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 88 (1879), 965-967.
- [2] Heneghan-Petersen, Power series for up-down min-max permutations, College Math. J., Vol. 45 2 (2014), 83-91.
- [3] Wilf, generatingfunctionology, 3rd ed., A K Peters, Wellesley MA, 2006.

Department of Engineering, Kanagawa University, 3-27-1 Rokkaku-bashi, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan.
Masato Kobayashi
A new refinement of Euler numbers on counting alternating permutations
At a crossroads of calculus and combinatorics, the generating function of
secant and tangent numbers (Euler numbers) provides enumeration of alternating
permutations. In this article, we present a new refinement of Euler numbers to
answer the combinatorial question on some particular relation of Euler numbers
proved by Heneghan-Petersen, Power series for up-down min-max permutations,
College Math. Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (2014), 83-91.