Commuting probability in algebraic groups

Abstract: We introduce the notion of commuting probability, $p(G)$, for an algebraic group $G$. This notion is inspired by the corresponding notions in finite groups and compact groups. The computation of $p(G)$ for reductive groups is readily done using the notion of $z$-classes. We introduce two generalisations of this relation, $iz$-equivalence and $dz$-equivalence. These notions lead us naturally to the notion of a regular element in $G$. Finally, with the help of this notion of regular elements, we compute $p(G)$ for a connected, linear algebraic group $G$. We also compute the set of limit points of the numbers $p(G)$ as $G$ varies over the classes of reductive groups, solvable groups and nilpotent groups.

\section{Introduction}
\emph{What is the probability that two randomly chosen elements of a finite group commute?}

\vskip2mm
This was the question asked by Erd\"{o}s and Turan in \cite{ET} where they formulated the notion of commuting probability for a finite group.
If $C$ denotes the set of ordered pairs of commuting elements of a finite $G$ then $p(G)$, the commuting probability of $G$, is defined to be the ratio $|C|/|G \times G|$.
It is proved in the same paper that this number is equal to $k/|G|$ where $k$ is the number of conjugacy classes in $G$.
Almost immediately, Gustafson (\cite{G}), generalised the notion of commuting probability to compact groups where he used the Haar measure in the definition.
There has been a flurry of activity around this topic for many years since then.

The purpose of the present paper is to introduce the notion of commuting probability in the case of algebraic groups.
In algebraic geometry, the natural measure of a certain algebraic set is its dimension.
If $G$ is a linear algebraic group then we define the set $C(G)$ to be the set of ordered pairs of commuting elements in $G$, $C(G) := \{(a, b) \in G \times G: ab = ba\}$.
This is a Zariski closed subset of $G \times G$.
We define the commuting probability of $G$, denoted by $p(G)$, as follows
$$p(G) := \frac{\dim(C(G))}{\dim(G \times G)} = \frac{\dim(C(G))}{2\dim(G)} .$$
For a finite group $G$, which can be considered as an algebraic group with $\dim(G) = 0$, we define $p(G) = 1$.

We note a basic lemma which computes the commuting probability of a direct product.

\begin{lemma}\label{direct}
	If $G = H_1 \times H_2$ then
	$$p(G) = \dfrac{\dim(H_1)p(H_1) + \dim(H_2)p(H_2)}{\dim (H_1) + \dim(H_2)} .$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Since $G = H_1 \times H_2$, it follows that $C(G)$ is isomorphic to $C(H_1) \times C(H_2)$ and therefore $\dim(C(G)) = \dim(C(H_1)) + \dim(C(H_2))$ which further equals $2\dim(H_1)p(H_1) + 2\dim(H_2)p(H_2)$.
	As $\dim(G) = \dim(H_1) + \dim(H_2)$, the lemma now follows.
\end{proof}

If $G$ is a connected, linear algebraic group then so is $G \times G$ and then the dimension of every proper closed subset of $G \times G$ is smaller than $\dim(G \times G)$.
Hence for a connected $G$, $p(G) = 1$ if and only if $G$ is abelian.

If $G$ is not connected, then $p(G)$ can be 1 without $G$ being abelian.
Consider $G = G_1 \times G_2$ where $G_1$ is abelian and $G_2$ is a finite non-abelian group.
Then by the above lemma, $p(G) = 1$ but $G$ is not abelian.

To avoid such cases, we will work with connected groups in the remainder of this paper.
In any case, $p(G) = p(G^0)$, so we are not losing out on the generality.
We also choose to work over $\mathbb{C}$, though the results remain valid over an algebraically closed field, indeed over a perfect field.

We begin the study of $p(G)$ with the case of reductive groups in Section 2.
If $G$ is a reductive group of dimension $n$ and rank $r$ then we prove in Theorem \ref{reductive} that $p(G) = (n+r)/2n$.
We also list the numbers $p(G)$ for all simple groups.
These calculations are used later while computing the limit points of the set of the numbers $p(G)$.

The main tool used in the proof of Theorem \ref{reductive} is the notion of $z$-classes which is not useful in the case of a non-reductive connected $G$.
Hence we introduce the notions of $iz$-equivalence and $dz$-equivalence, generalising the $z$-equivalence in the third section.
We study the corresponding equivalence classes and make some interesting observations, which may be of independent interest.
These notions lead us to the notion of a regular element in $G$.

The dimension of the centralizer of a regular element in $G$ is called the regular rank of $G$.
We prove in Theorem \ref{general} that if $G$ is a connected, linear algebraic group with dimension $n$ and regular rank $r$ then $p(G) = (n+r)/2n$.
In this section, Section 4, we also list the numbers $p(U)$ where $U$ is the unipotent radical of a fixed Borel subgroup in a simple algebraic group.

By the Theorem \ref{general}, $p(G)$ is a rational number $> 1/2$.
In Section 5, we compute all rational numbers that can occur as $p(G)$ for various classes of $G$, namely the reductive groups, solvable groups and nilpotent groups.
As a consequence, we compute the limit points of these numbers for all these above classes.
The set of limit points in all these cases is equal to the interval $[1/2, 1]$.

We then compare the results on $p(G)$ for algebraic groups with the corresponding results in finite groups.
We point out some similarities and many differences between these two notions.
This occupies the Section 6.
In the seventh section, we point out the compatibilities of $p(G)$ for a semisimple group $G$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with the corresponding finite groups of Lie type, in the asymptotic sense.
We close the paper with some concluding remarks in the last section.
We also indicate some questions that may of interest to the community.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
It is a pleasure to thank Dipendra Prasad, Saurav Bhaumik, Anuradha Garge and Anupam Kumar Singh for many useful discussions.
Anupam, in particular, has been a catalyst for this paper in more than one ways.

\section{Reductive groups}
Let $G$ be a complex reductive group.
In this section, we compute the commuting probability $p(G)$ of $G$ in terms of the dimension and rank of $G$.
The rank of a reductive group is the dimension of a maximal torus in $G$.
Since we compute dimensions, it will be sufficient to work with the group $G(\mathbb{C})$.
In the computation, we will use the notion of a $z$-class.
Let us first recall it.

Two elements $g, h \in G(\mathbb{C})$ are said to be \emph{$z$-equivalent} if their centralisers, $Z_{G(\mathbb{C})}(g)$ and $Z_{G(\mathbb{C})}(h)$, are conjugate within $G(\mathbb{C})$.
This is an equivalence relation and the corresponding equivalence classes are called \emph{$z$-classes}.
This equivalence is weaker than the one given by the conjugacy relation.
Each $z$-class is a union of certain conjugacy classes.

It is known that if $G$ is a reductive group defined over $\mathbb{C}$ then the number of $z$-classes in $G(\mathbb{C})$ is finite.
The result is true in a more general setting and we refer the reader to \cite{GS} for a detailed discussion.
For the present paper, the finiteness result over $\mathbb{C}$ is sufficient.

\begin{theorem}\label{reductive}
Let $G$ be a complex reductive group with dimension $n$ and rank $r$.
The commuting probability of $G$, $p(G)$, is equal to
$$\frac{n + r}{2n} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{r}{2n}.$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We will be working throughout the proof with the set of $\mathbb{C}$-rational points without mentioning the field $\mathbb{C}$ explicitly.
So, whenever we talk about a subset of an algebraic set $X$, we will always mean a subset of $X(\mathbb{C})$.

Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote the set of conjugacy classes in $G$ and let $\mathfrak{c}$ be a conjugacy class in $G$.
The set $C(G)$ is equal to the set
$$\cup_{g \in G} \{g\} \times Z_G(g) = \bigcup_{\mathfrak{c} \in \mathcal{C}} \bigg(\cup_{g \in \mathfrak{c}} \big(\{g\} \times Z_G(g)\big)\bigg) = \bigcup_{\mathfrak{c} \in \mathcal{C}} C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}} .$$
If $g, h \in \mathfrak{c}$ then $Z_G(g)$ and $Z_G(h)$ are conjugate in $G$, in particular their dimensions are the same hence $\dim C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}$ is equal to $\dim(G)$ for each $\mathfrak{c} \in \mathcal{C}$.

Let $\mathcal{Z}$ denote the set of $z$-classes in $G$.
This is a finite set and
$$\mathcal{C} = \cup_{\mathfrak{z} \in \mathcal{Z}} \big(\mathfrak{z}/\mathfrak{c_{\mathfrak{z}}}\big)$$
where the set $\mathfrak{z}/\mathfrak{c_{\mathfrak{z}}}$ is the set of conjugacy classes in $\mathfrak{z}$.

Since $\mathcal{Z}$ is a finite set, there is one $z$-class in $G$ which is dense in $G$.
Indeed, the set of regular semisimple elements forms a $z$-class in $G$ which is dense in $G$.
We denote this $z$-class by $\mathfrak{z}_0$.
It then follows that $\bigcup_{\mathfrak{c} \subseteq \mathfrak{z}_0} C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}$ is dense in $C(G)$ and hence $\dim(C(G))$ is equal to the dimension of $\bigcup_{\mathfrak{c} \subseteq \mathfrak{z}_0} C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}$.

Let us fix a conjugacy class $\mathfrak{c}$ in $\mathfrak{z}_0$.
Then the dimension of $\bigcup_{\mathfrak{c} \subseteq \mathfrak{z}_0} C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}$ is equal to $\dim(\mathfrak{z}_0/\mathfrak{c}) + \dim(G)$.
Further, $\dim(\mathfrak{z}_0/\mathfrak{c})$ is $\dim(G) - \dim(\mathfrak{c})$ which is $\dim T$ for a maximal torus in $G$.
Hence $\dim(C(G)) = \dim (G) + \dim (T) = n + r$ and
$$p(G) = \frac{n + r}{2n} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{r}{2n}= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\mathrm{rank}(G)}{2\dim(G)}.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The analysis in the above proof implies that the dimension of the variety of conjugacy classes in a reductive $G$ is equal to the dimension of a maximal torus in $G$.
This is a well-known fact, see \cite[6.4]{St} for instance.
However, we have used $z$-classes because we use a generalisation of this notion in the general case.
The reason for that being that we have no information about the dimension of the variety of conjugacy classes in $G$ in the general case.
We do not even know if the set of conjugacy classes forms a (quasi-projective) variety.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{simple}
Using the above theorem, we note commuting probabilities of some groups, including all simple algebraic groups.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(GL_n) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2n^2} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2n} = \dfrac{n+1}{2n}$, for $n \geq 1$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(SL_n) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n-1}{2(n^2-1)} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2(n + 1)}$, for $n \geq 1$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(SO_{2n+1}) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2(2n^2 + n)} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2(2n + 1)}$, for $n \geq 2$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(Sp_{2n}) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2(2n^2 + n)} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2(2n + 1)}$, for $n \geq 3$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(SO_{2n}) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2(2n^2 - n)} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2(2n - 1)}$, for $n \geq 4$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(G_2) = \dfrac{4}{7}$, \hskip2mm $p(F_4) = p(E_6) = \dfrac{7}{13}$, \hskip2mm $p(E_7) = \dfrac{10}{19}$ and $p(E_8) = \dfrac{16}{31}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}

\section{Regular elements and regular rank}

We notice that the following three properties of $z$-classes have been crucial in the proof of Theorem \ref{reductive}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A $z$-class is a union of conjugacy classes,
\item a reductive $G$ contains a dense $z$-class, and,
\item the centralisers of two elements in a $z$-class (are conjugate within $G$, hence are isomorphic as abstract groups, and hence they) have the same dimensions.
\end{enumerate}

\begin{example}
A non-reductive $G$ need not contain a dense $z$-class.
Let $U$ denote the group of $3 \times 3$ upper triangular matrices over $\mathbb{C}$.
Then for
$$g = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & a & b \\ & 1 & c \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix},
\hskip5mm
Z_U(g) = \left\{\begin{pmatrix}
1 & x & y \\ & 1 & z \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix}: cx = az \right\} .$$
The group $U/Z(U)$ is abelian.
If two centralisers in $U$ are conjugate then their images in $U/Z(U)$ must be the same.
Thus, the $z$-classes in $U$ correspond to the ratios $\frac{a}{c} \in (\mathbb{C} \cup {\infty})$ along with the central $z$-class.

The dimension of each $z$-class is less than $3$.
In particular, there is no dense $z$-class in $U$.
\end{example}

Taking a cue from the above three properties we make the following two definitions generalising the notion of $z$-equivalence.

\begin{definition}
\noindent $(1)$ Two elements $x$ and $y$ in a group $G$ are called \emph{$iz$-equivalent} if the centralisers, $Z_G(x)$ and $Z_G(y)$, are isomorphic.

\noindent $(2)$ Two elements $x$ and $y$ in an algebraic group $G$ are called \emph{$dz$-equivalent} if the centralisers, $Z_G(x)$ and $Z_G(y)$, have the same dimension.
\end{definition}

The $iz$-equivalence is also introduced by Dilpreet Kaur and Uday Bhaskar Sharma.
We are borrowing the name, $iz$-equivalence, with their kind permission.

The above two relations are indeed equivalence relations.
The corresponding equivalence classes will be called $iz$-classes and $dz$-classes, respectively.
We have the following hierarchy in terms of the strengths of these equivalences:

\begin{itemize}
\item a $dz$-class is a union of $iz$-classes,
\item an $iz$-class is a union of $z$-classes and
\item a $z$-class is a union of conjugacy classes.
\end{itemize}

These equivalence relations are, in general, different as the following examples show.

\begin{example}
The $z$-class of central elements in a group is not always a single conjugacy class.
\end{example}

\begin{example}\label{iz-but-not-z}
We once again consider the group $U$ of $3 \times 3$ upper triangular matrices over $\mathbb{C}$.
If we take
$$x = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 \\ & 1 & 0 \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix},
y = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 \\ & 1 & 1 \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\hskip5mm
\mathrm{then}
\hskip5mm
Z_U(x) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & a & b \\ & 1 & 0 \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix},
Z_U(y) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & c \\ & 1 & d \\ & & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
as $a, b, c, d \in \mathbb{G}_a$.
These centralisers are isomorphic to $\mathbb{G}_a^2$.
But they are not conjugate as their images in the quotient $U/Z(U)$, which is abelian, are different one dimensional subgroups of $U/Z(U)$.

Thus, $x, y$ are $iz$-equivalent but not $z$-equivalent.
\end{example}

\begin{example}\label{dz-but-not-iz}
Finally, we take $x$ to be a regular semisimple element in $G = SL_2(\mathbb{C})$ and $y$ to be a regular unipotent element in the same group.
For instance, take
$$x = \begin{pmatrix}
\lambda & \\ & \lambda^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}, \lambda \ne 1,
\hskip5mm
\mathrm{and}
\hskip5mm
y = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\ & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
then the centraliser of $x$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{G}_m$ and the centraliser of $y$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{G}_a$.
Hence, $x$ and $y$ are $dz$-equivalent, $\dim(\mathbb{G}_m) = \dim(\mathbb{G}_a) = 1$, but not $iz$-equivalent as $\mathbb{G}_m$ and $\mathbb{G}_a$ are not isomorphic.
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
Note that in the Example \ref{iz-but-not-z}, the two centralisers are conjugate in $SL_3$, a bigger group than $U$.

There are two ways to see this.
The elements $x$ and $y$ are themselves conjugate in $SL_3$ and hence their centralisers are conjugate in $SL_3$ which, in this case, agree with their centralisers in $U$.
Alternatively, the two centralisers correspond to two different simple systems of roots in the root system $\Phi$ of $SL_3$, hence they are conjugate by a Weyl group element.

If we were to consider only abstract groups, then the celebrated HNN-theory tells us that two isomorphic centralisers in a group become conjugate in a bigger group.
\end{remark}

Emboldened by the above remark and especially the Example \ref{iz-but-not-z}, we ask

\begin{question}
If $G$ is a linear algebraic group and $H_1$, $H_2$ are two isomorphic subgroups of $G$, then is there a linear algebraic group containing $G$ in which $H_1$ and $H_2$ become conjugate?

Equivalently, if $H_1, H_2 \subseteq G$ are isomorphic then do we have an embedding of $G$ in some $GL_n$ such that $H_1, H_2$ become conjugate in $GL_n$?
\end{question}

Such a question for $iz$-equivalence vis-\'{a}-vis $z$-equivalence would be difficult to consider because, unlike Example \ref{iz-but-not-z}, the centralisers may change in a bigger group.
We therefore only ask how the $iz$-equivalence in $G$ behaves with respect to the embeddings of $G$ in bigger groups.
Do $iz$-equivalent elements in $G$ remain $iz$-equivalent in all such embeddings?
Do they become $z$-equivalent in some embedding?
What would be the situation for finite groups of Lie type?

Such questions will not make sense for other equivalences.
We may have a semisimple element $z$-equivalent to a unipotent element, in an abelian group for instance, but these two elements will never be conjugate in a bigger group.
Indeed, they may not remain $z$-equivalent in a bigger group.

Consider, for instance, the two distinct elements $1 = x, y$ in $B_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$, the Borel subgroup in $GL_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$.
Since the group $B_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$ is abelian, $x$ and $y$ are $z$-equivalent but they don't remain $z$-equivalent in bigger groups, in $B_2(\mathbb{F}_4)$ for instance.

Similarly, $x$ and $y$ in Example \ref{dz-but-not-iz} can never be $iz$-equivalent in a bigger group.

\begin{remark}
The number of $iz$-classes in group $U$ above is finite.
However, we do not know if this holds in general.
If we knew that the number of $iz$-classes in an algebraic group is finite, at least, for a class of groups (other than the reductive groups), then we would be able to generalise the proof of Theorem \ref{reductive} for this class of groups.
However, we have no such information at present.
We do not even know if there is a dense $iz$-class in a class of algebraic groups (other than the reductive groups).

Hence we consider the $dz$-classes, whose number is finite for every algebraic group.
It also follows that every algebraic group contains a dense $dz$-class.
\end{remark}

\begin{definition}\label{def-regular}
Let $G$ be a linear algebraic group.
An element $g \in G$ is called {\em regular} if the dimension of its centraliser, $Z_G(g)$, is minimum among such dimensions.

Equivalently, an element $g \in G$ is regular if its conjugacy class has the largest possible dimension.
\end{definition}

We note that the set of regular elements in a $dz$-class, which is open (and hence dense) in $G$ and the centralisers of two elements in this class have the same dimensions.
These were the three properties that we had listed at the beginning of this section.

\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a linear algebraic group.
The \emph{regular rank} of $G$ is the dimension of the centraliser of a regular element in $G$.
\end{definition}

We are now ready to prove the general version of Theorem \ref{reductive}.

\section{Non-reductive groups}
In this section, $G$ is a connected, linear algebraic group defined over $\mathbb{C}$.
The set of regular elements in $G$ is denoted by $G_{reg}$.

We note some basic results about the regular rank.
The proofs are omitted.

\begin{remark}\label{regular}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $G$ is reductive then the regular rank of $G$ is the same as its rank, the dimension of a maximal torus in $G$.
\item If $G_1 \subseteq G_2$ then the regular rank of $G_1$ is less than or equal to that of $G_2$.
\item The regular rank of $G_1 \times G_2$ is the sum of the regular ranks of $G_i$.
\item The regular rank of a semidirect product $G_1 \ltimes G_2$ need not be equal to the sum of the regular ranks of $G_i$.
We will see an example of this, a Borel in a semisimple group, in Lemma \ref{Borel}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{general}
Let $G$ be a complex, connected, linear algebraic group.
If the dimension of $G$ is $n$ and the regular rank of $G$ is $r$ then the commuting probability of $G$ is
$$\frac{n + r}{2n} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{r}{2n}.$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof develops on the similar lines as the proof of Theorem \ref{reductive}.

We note that $C(G)$ is equal to the union $\cup_{\mathfrak{c} \in \mathcal{C}} C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}$ where $\mathcal{C}$ is the set of conjugacy classes in $G$ and $
\dim(C(G)_{\mathfrak{c}}) = \dim(G)$ for every $\mathfrak{c} \in \mathcal{C}$.

Since the set $G_{reg}$ is dense in $G$ and is a union of conjugacy classes in $G$, we have that $\dim(C(G))$ is equal to $\dim(G_{reg}/\mathfrak{c}) + \dim(G)$
where the set $G_{reg}/\mathfrak{c}$ is the set of conjugacy classes in $G_{reg}$.
The dimension of $G_{reg}/\mathfrak{c}$ is equal to $\dim(G) - \dim(\mathfrak{c}) = \dim Z_G(g)$, where $g$ is a fixed element in $\mathfrak{c}$.
Thus, $\dim(G_{reg}/\mathfrak{c})$ is the regular rank of $G$.
Hence $\dim(C(G)) = n + r$ and
$$p(G) = \frac{n + r}{2n} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{r}{2n}.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For a connected linear algebraic group $G$, if the set $\mathcal{C}$ of conjugacy classes forms a variety in a natural way then it follows from the above proof that $\dim(\mathcal{C})$ is the same as the regular rank of $G$.
\end{remark}

We now compute the regular ranks of certain subgroups of semisimple groups.

\begin{lemma}\label{Borel}
Let $G$ be a complex semisimple group.
We fix a Borel subgroup $B$ in $G$ and let $U$ be the unipotent radical of $B$.
Then the regular rank of $U$ is equal to the rank of the group $G$.

The regular rank of a parabolic in $G$ is equal to the rank of $G$.
In particular, the regular rank of $B$ is equal to the rank of $G$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $u$ be a regular unipotent element of $G$ which belongs to $U$.
It is proved by Steinberg, \cite[$\S 4$]{St}, that such elements exist.
The dimension of $Z_G(u)$ is equal to the rank of $G$ which is bigger than or equal to the regular rank of $U$.
Further, since $u$ is in a unique Borel subgroup of $G$, it follows that $Z_G(u) = Z_U(u)$.
Hence the regular rank of $U$ is equal to the rank of $G$.

If $P$ is a parabolic in $G$ then, up to conjugacy in $G$, $U \subset P \subset G$.
It follows, from Remark \ref{regular} (2), that the regular rank of $P$ is also equal to the rank of $G$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be as in the above lemma with dimension $n$ and rank $r$, and let $U$ be as in the above lemma.
Then
$$p(U) = \frac{(\frac{n-r}{2}) + r}{n - r} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{r}{n-r} .$$
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Follows from the above two results and that $2 \dim(U) + r = n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{unipotent}
Using the above result, we note commuting probabilities of the unipotent radicals of Borel subgroups of all simple groups.
For a simple $G$, the corresponding unipotent radical is denoted by $U(G)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(U(SL_n)) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n-1}{n^2 - n} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{n + 1}$, for $n \geq 1$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(U(SO_{2n+1})) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2n^2} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2n}$, for $n \geq 2$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(U(Sp_{2n})) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2n^2} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2n}$, for $n \geq 3$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(U(SO_{2n})) = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{n}{2n^2 - 2n} = \dfrac{1}{2} + \dfrac{1}{2n - 2}$, for $n \geq 4$.
\vskip1mm
\item $p(U(G_2)) = \dfrac{2}{3}$, \hskip2mm $p(U(F_4)) = p(U(E_6)) = \dfrac{7}{12}$, \hskip2mm $p(U(E_7)) = \dfrac{5}{9}$ and \hskip2mm \noindent $p(U(E_8)) = \dfrac{27}{50}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}

\section{Limit points}

It follows from Theorem \ref{general} that $\frac{1}{2} < p(G) \leq 1$.
We also have that $p(G) = 1$ if and only if $G$ is abelian.
In this section, we investigate the possible values of $p(G)$ in $[\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ as $G$ varies over all linear algebraic groups.
We will also compute the limit points of these numbers.

\begin{lemma}\label{simplebounded}
\begin{enumerate}
\item An $\alpha \in [\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ is $p(G)$ for a simple $G$ if and only if $\alpha = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2m}$ for some $m > 1$.

\item The number of simple groups $G$ with $p(G) > p/q > 1/2$ is finite.

\item The set of these numbers, from $(1)$ above, has only one limit point which is $\frac{1}{2}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The first part of the lemma is evident from Remark \ref{simple}.

The inequality $p(G) > p/q$ gives $1/2 + r/2n > p/q$ which gives $r/n > (2p-q)/q > 0$ and $n/r < q/(2p-q)$.
The number $n/r$ is an integer for a simple algebraic group and it follows, from Remark \ref{simple} for instance, that there are only finitely many simple $G$ whose $n/r$ is bounded above, for every bound.
Thus, there are only finitely many simple $G$ with $p(G) > p/q > 1/2$.

Finally, from (2) it follows that $1/2$ is the only possible limit point of the set of numbers $p(G)$ where $G$ varies over simple algebraic groups.
We see that $1/2$ is indeed a limit point, $\lim_{n \to \infty}p(SL_n) = 1/2$.
\end{proof}

If we consider the reductive groups, instead of only the simple ones, then the above lemma does not hold.
For example, if $G = GL_2 \times \mathbb{G}_m^a$ then $p(G) = \frac{3 + a}{4 + a}$ and the limit of these numbers is $1$!
In fact, we have the following result:

\begin{proposition}
Every rational number from the set $(\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ is $p(G)$ for some reductive group $G$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Assume that we have a rational number $1/2 < p/q \leq 1$.
Choose an $n$ with $1/2 < (n+1)/2n \leq p/q$.
This is possible as $\{(n+1)/2n\}$ is a decreasing sequence whose limit is $1/2$.

Let $G = GL_n^a \times \mathbb{G}_m^b$ where $a = q - p$ and $b = (2n^2p-n^2q - nq)/2$.

Here, $a \geq 0$ as $p/q \leq 1$.
Further, $b$ is an integer as $n^2 - n$ is always even and $b \geq 0$ if and only if $2np - (n+1) q \geq 0$ which holds as $(n+1)/2n \leq p/q$.

The rank of $G$ is equal to $an + b$ and the dimension is equal to $an^2 + b$.
Then
$$p(G) = \frac{(an^2 + b) + (an + b)}{2(an^2 + b)} = \frac{(n^2-n)p}{(n^2-n)q} = \frac{p}{q} .$$
\end{proof}

We have the same result for nilpotent groups.

\begin{proposition}
Every rational number from the set $(\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ is $p(G)$ for some nilpotent group $G$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The proof follows exactly in the similar way as the proof of the above proposition.
The role of $\mathbb{G}_m$ in the above proof will be played by $\mathbb{G}_a$ here.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{limit}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{p(G): G$ is reductive$\} = \{p(G): G$ is nilpotent$\} = \{p(G): G$ is solvable$\} =  \{p(G): G$ is a linear algebraic group$\} = \mathbb{Q} \cap (1/2, 1]$.
\item Every $\alpha \in [1/2, 1]$ is a limit point of each of the sets in $(1)$ above.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

\section{Comparisons with the finite case}

As mentioned in the introduction, the notion of $p(G)$ for finite groups has been studied extensively.
A review of whether the analogous results hold for our notion of $p(G)$ is in order.

\subsection{Simple groups}
If $G$ is a non-abelian finite simple group then $p(G) \leq 1/12$, as was observed by J. Dixon (\cite[Introduction]{GR}).
The probabilities $p(G)$ for simple algebraic groups are also well-behaved, Lemma \ref{simplebounded}.

\subsection{Direct products}
If $G_1$ and $G_2$ are finite groups then $p(G_1 \times G_2) = p(G_1) p(G_2)$.
However, in the case of algebraic groups $p(G_1 \times G_2)$ is almost never equal to $p(G_1)p(G_2)$.
One way to understand this is that $p(G)$ for an algebraic group is always bounded below by $1/2$.
The multiplicativity of $p(G)$ for direct products of algebraic groups would say that for a non-abelian $G$ and a sufficiently large integer $r$, $p(G^r) = p(G)^r < 1/2$ giving a contradiction.

\subsection{Solvable groups and non-solvable groups}
If $G$ is a finite group with $p(G) > 3/40$ then Guralnick and Robinson prove that $G$ is either solvable or is isomorphic to $A_5 \times T$ for an abelian group $T$ (\cite[Theorem 11]{GR}).
Thus, the numbers $p(G)$ for non-solvable groups are bounded above by $3/40$, except for $p(A_5) = 1/12$.
In contrast, the numbers $p(G)$ for non-abelian reductive (hence non-solvable) algebraic groups $G$ take all rational values in $(1/2, 1)$, Corollary \ref{limit} (1).

\subsection{Limit points}
If $G$ is a finite non-abelian group then $p(G) \leq 5/8$ (\cite[Introduction]{G}).
Further, there are gaps within the numbers $p(G)$.
However, the numbers $p(G)$ for algebraic groups take all rational values in $(1/2, 1]$, Corollary \ref{limit} (1).
As a result, every real number in $[1/2, 1]$ is a limit point of the set $\{p(G): G$ is algebraic$\}$ whereas the set of limit points in the finite case is a nowhere dense set of rational numbers (\cite[Corollary 1.3]{E}).

\subsection{Isoclinism}
Two groups $G$ and $H$ are called isoclic if there are isomorphisms $\phi:G/Z(G) \to H/Z(H)$ and $\psi:G' \to H'$ such that the diagram
$$\begin{tikzcd}
G/Z(G) \times G/Z(G) \arrow{r}{\phi \times \phi} \arrow[swap]{d}{\alpha_G} & H/Z(H) \times H/Z(H) \arrow{d}{\alpha_h} \\
G' \arrow{r}{\psi} & H'
\end{tikzcd}$$
is commutative, where $\alpha_G(aZ(G), bZ(G)) = aba^{-1}b^{-1}$ and $\alpha_H$ is defined analogously.

It is proved in \cite[Lemma 2.4]{L} that if $G$ and $H$ are finite isoclinic groups then $p(G) = p(H)$.

We can define isoclinism in exactly the same way as above for algebraic groups.
Then $GL_n$ and $SL_n$ are isoclinic groups with different commuting probabilities.

\section{Compatibility with the finite groups of Lie type}

It seems from the above section that there are more differences than similarities when we compare $p(G)$ for algebraic groups with the $p(G)$ for finite groups.
This is not surprising as our definition of $p(G)$ for algebraic groups uses the dimension, which is additive for direct products, and then we take the ratios of the dimensions.
This is the central reason for many differences noted in the previous section.
In spite of this, we contend that our notion of $p(G)$ is a natural notion by comparing it with $p(G)$ of the finite groups of Lie type.

Clearly, the characteristic of the field $\mathbb{C}$ played no role in the proofs of our results.
Hence the results stand good for groups defined over an algebraically closed field.
In fact, if $G$ is a connected, linear algebraic group defined over a perfect field $k$ then the dimension of $G$ and the regular rank of $G$ is defined over $k$.
Hence the results proved in the paper hold good over the field $k$ as well.

Let $k = \mathbb{F}_q$ be the finite field with $q$ elements and let $G$ be a semisimple group defined over $k$ of dimension $n$ and rank $r$.
We recall a result of Steinberg.

\begin{theorem}[Steinberg]\cite[14.11]{St1}
The number of semisimple conjugacy classes in $G(k)$ is equal to $q^r$.
\end{theorem}

Further, the number of all conjugacy classes in $G(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is $O(q^r)$ and the cardinality of $G(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is $O(q^n)$.
The commuting probability of the finite group $G(\mathbb{F}_q)$ is therefore $O(q^r)/O(q^n) = O(q^{n+r})/O(q^{2n})$ which is compatible with the commuting probability of the algebraic group $G$.

\section{Concluding remarks}

\subsection{Non-affine groups}
The set $C(G)$ makes sense even when $G$ is not an affine algebraic group and hence we can define $p(G)$ in exactly the same way for a non-affine $G$ as in the affine case.
Further, the notion of a regular element also makes sense for an algebraic group $G$, the set of regular elements is a dense subset of $G$ and hence our main result, Theorem \ref{general}, remains valid that $p(G) = (n+r)/2n$.
However, at this point, we do not have any computation of $p(G)$ for a non-affine algebraic group, except when $G$ is an abelian variety with $p(G) = 1$.

\subsection{Further possibilities}
While the set $C(G)$ of commuting pairs in a reductive group $G$ has been studied previously, no one seems to have introduced the notion of the commuting probability of $G$.
The notion in the case of finite groups has many applications and has been extensively investigated.
We hope that this notion also gets investigated.

There are many ways in which the probabilistic studies of algebraic groups can be done.
We list some possibilities below.
It is our hope that they will also be taken up.

\begin{question}
We prove in Section 5 that every rational number in $(1/2, 1]$ is $p(G)$ for a linear algebraic group $G$.
However, in the proof we have used groups that have a large abelian direct factor.
What are the value sets of $p(G)$ where $G$ has no abelian direct factor?
What are the limit points of this set?
\end{question}

\begin{question}
If $H$ is an algebraic subgroup of $G$ then we can define $p(G, H)$ as
$$p(G, H) = \frac{\dim(C(G, H))}{\dim(G \times H)} $$
where $C(G, H) = \{(g, h) \in G \times H: gh = hg\}$.
This $p(G, H)$ gives the probability that two randomly chosen elements $g \in G$ and $h\in H$ commute with each other.

Following the sections 2--4, it does not seem difficult to compute $p(G, H)$ when $H$ is a parabolic in a reductive $G$.
It would be interesting to study this notion in general, especially when $G$ and $H$ are unipotent.
We have no information on the difficulty level of this question in the unipotent case.
\end{question}

Group Theory (math.GR); Algebraic Geometry (math.AG)


Interval parking functions

Abstract: Interval parking functions (IPFs) are a generalization of ordinary parking functions in which each car is willing to park only in a fixed interval of spaces. Each interval parking function can be expressed as a pair $(a,b)$, where $a$ is a parking function and $b$ is a dual parking function. We say that a pair of permutations $(x,y)$ is \emph{reachable} if there is an IPF $(a,b)$ such that $x,y$ are the outcomes of $a,b$, respectively, as parking functions. Reachability is reflexive and antisymmetric, but not in general transitive. We prove that its transitive closure, the \emph{pseudoreachability order}, is precisely the bubble-sort order on the symmetric group $\Sym_n$, which can be expressed in terms of the normal form of a permutation in the sense of du~Cloux; in particular, it is isomorphic to the product of chains of lengths $2,\dots,n$. It is thus seen to be a special case of Armstrong's sorting order, which lies between the Bruhat and (left) weak orders.

\section{Introduction}

We begin by briefly recalling the theory of parking functions, introduced in various contexts in~\cite{KW,Pyke,Riordan}; see \cite{Yan} for a comprehensive survey.  Consider a parking lot with $n$ parking spots placed sequentially along a one-way street.  A line of $n$ cars enters the lot, one by one.  The $i^{th}$ car drives to its preferred spot $a(i)$ and parks there if possible; if the spot is already occupied then the car parks in the first available spot.  The list of preferences $a=(a(1),\dots,a(n))$ is called a \defterm{parking function} if all cars successfully park; in this case the \defterm{outcome} is the permutation $\outcome(a)=w=(w(1),\dots,w(n))$, where the $i^{th}$ car parks in spot $w(i)$.  It is well known that the number of parking functions for $n$ cars is $(n+1)^{n-1}$.  Parking functions are an established area of research in combinatorics, with connections to labeled trees, non-crossing partitions, the Shi arrangement, symmetric functions, and other topics.

In this paper, we study a generalization of parking functions in which the $i^{th}$ car is willing to park only in an interval $[a(i),b(i)]\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}$.  If all cars can successfully park then we say that the pair $(a,b)=( (a(1),\dots,a(n)), (b(1),\dots,b(n)) )$ is an \defterm{interval parking function}, or IPF.  (If $b(i)=n$ for all $i$, then we recover the classical case described above.)  It is easy to show that there are $n!(n+1)^{n-1}$ IPFs for $n$ cars, and that if $(a,b)$ is an IPF then the sequences $a$ and $b^*=(n+1-b(n),\dots,n+1-b(1))$ must both be parking functions, raising the question of the relationship between the permutations $\outcome(a)$ and $\outcome(b^*)$.

We say that a pair of permutations $(x,y)\in\mathfrak{S}_n\times\mathfrak{S}_n$ is \defterm{reachable}, written $x\unrhd_R y$, if there exists an IPF $(a,b)$ such that $x=\outcome(a)$ and $y^*=\outcome(b^*)$.  Reachability is \emph{not} a partial order on $\mathfrak{S}_n$ because it is not transitive; however, its transitive closure is a partial order, which we call \defterm{pseudoreachability}.  The main result of this paper is that pseudoreachability order on~$\mathfrak{S}_n$ is precisely the \emph{bubble-sorting order} on $\mathfrak{S}_n$ (see \cite[Example 3.4.3]{BB}), which in turn is an instance of the more general \defterm{sorting order} defined by Armstrong~\cite{Armstrong} for Coxeter systems.   In particular, pseudoreachability lies between Bruhat and (left) weak order in $\mathfrak{S}_n$, and it is a self-dual distributive lattice, poset-isomorphic to the product $C_2\times\cdots\times C_n$, where $C_i$ denotes the chain with $i$ elements.

The proof proceeds as follows.  The first significant result, Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat}, states that $(x,y)$ is reachable only if $x\geq_By$, where $\geq_B$ denotes Bruhat order.  By counting the fibers of the map $(a,b)\mapsto(x,y)$, we establish Theorem~\ref{thm:RC}, the Reachability Criterion, which is a key technical tool in what follows.  Using this criterion, we show in \S\ref{sec:pseudoreach-order} that pseudoreachability is no weaker than left weak order, and use this result to show that it is graded by length, just like the Bruhat and weak orders.  This grading is key for the proof in \S\ref{sorting} that pseudoreachability coincides with the bubble-sorting order.

Initially, we had hoped to characterize reachability of a pair $(x,y)$ in terms of pattern-avoidance conditions on $x$ and $y$.  This does not appear to be possible in general, but Section~\ref{sec:avoid} contains partial results in this direction: Theorems~\ref{thm:213-avoiding} and~\ref{thm:x} give sufficient conditions for a pair $(x,y)$ to be reachable, provided that $x\geq_By$.

The authors thank Margaret Bayer for proposing the study of interval parking functions to EC and JLM at the KU Combinatorics Seminar in the spring of 2019.  We are grateful to the Graduate Research Workshop in Combinatorics (GRWC) for providing the platform for this collaboration in 2019, and in particular we acknowledge helpful discussions with GRWC participants Sean English and Sam Spiro. We thank Bridget Tenner for her observant comments and Richard Stanley for his communications and suggestions for several directions of future investigation.

\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:notation}

Square brackets always denote integer intervals: For $m,n\in\mathbb{Z}$ we put $[m,n]=\{m,\,\dots,\,n\}$ and $[n]=[1,n]$.
Lists of positive integers (including permutations) will be regarded as functions: thus we will write $a=(a(1),\dots,a(n))$ rather than $a=(a_1,\dots,a_n)$.
Thus notation such as $x[a,b]$ means $\{x(a),x(a+1),\dots,x(b)\}$.
To simplify notation, we sometimes drop the parentheses and commas: e.g., $2431=(2,4,3,1)$.

Let $a=(a(1),\dots,a(n))$ and $b=(b(1),\dots,b(n))\in\mathbb{Z}^n$.  We write $a\leq_Cb$ if $a(i)\leq b(i)$ for all $i\in[n]$; this is the \defterm{componentwise partial order} on $\mathbb{Z}^n$.
The \defterm{conjugate} (or reverse complement) of $x\in[n]^n$ is the vector $x^* = (n+1-x(n), \dots, n+1-x(1))$.  Conjugation is an involution that reverses componentwise order.

If $\geq$ is a partial ordering on a set $S$, then $\gtrdot$ denotes the corresponding covering relation: $x\gtrdot y$ if $x>y$ and there exists no $z$ such that $x>z>y$.  It is elementary that if $\geq_1$ is a partial order at least as strong as $\geq_2$ (i.e., $x\geq_2y$ implies $x\geq_1y$), then $x>_2y$ and $x\gtrdot_1y$ together imply $x\gtrdot_2y$.

The symmetric group of all permutations of $[n]$ is denoted by~$\mathfrak{S}_n$.  We will as far as possible follow the notation and terminology for the symmetric group used in \cite{BB}.  We set $e=(1,\dots,n)$ (the identity permutation) and $w_0=(n,n-1,\dots,1)$.
The permutation transposing $i$ and $j$ and fixing all other values is denoted $t_{ij}$, and we set $s_i=t_{i,i+1}$; the elements $s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}$ are the \defterm{standard generators}.  Our convention for multiplication is right to left, which is consistent with treating permutations as bijective functions $[n]\to[n]$.  Thus $t_{ij}x$ is obtained by transposing the \textit{digits} $i,j$ wherever they appear in $x$, while $x t_{ij}$ is obtained by transposing the digits in the $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ \textit{positions}.

We list some standard facts from the theory of $\mathfrak{S}_n$ as a Coxeter system of type~A, with generators $S=\{s_1,\dots,s_{n-1}\}$; see \cite{BB} for details.  The \defterm{length} $\ell(x)$ of $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ is the smallest number $k$ such that $x$ can be written as a product $s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_k}$ of standard generators; in this case $s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_k}$ is called a \defterm{reduced word} for $x$.  It is a standard fact that length equals number of inversions:
\begin{equation} \label{length-inv}
\ell(x)=\{(i,j):\ 1\leq i<j\leq n,\ x(i)>x(j)\}.
\end{equation}

The \defterm{Bruhat order} is the partial order $>_B$ on $\mathfrak{S}_n$ defined as the transitive closure of the relations $x>t_{ij}x$ whenever $\ell(x)>\ell(t_{ij}x)$.  (Multiplying $x$ by $t_{ij}$ on the right rather than the left produces the same order, because $x t_{ij} x^{-1}$ is a transposition and $x t_{ij}=(x t_{ij} x^{-1})x$.)
The \defterm{(left) weak order} $>_W$ is the transitive closure of the relations $x>s_ix$ whenever $s$ is a standard generator and $\ell(x)>\ell(sx)$.  Both of these orders make $\mathfrak{S}_n$ into a graded poset with bottom element $e$ and top element $w_0$.

\section{Parking functions and interval parking functions} \label{sec:intro}

We begin by recalling the theory of parking functions, introduced in various contexts in~\cite{KW,Pyke,Riordan}; see \cite{Yan} for a comprehensive survey.
Let $a=(a(1),\,\dots,\,a(n))\in[n]^n$.  Consider a parking lot with $n$ parking spaces placed sequentially along a one-way street.  Cars 1,\,\dots,\,$n$ enter the lot in order and try to park.

{\bf Algorithm~A:} The $i^{th}$ car parks in the first available space in the range $[a(i),n]$.  If no space in the range $[a(i),n]$ is available, the algorithm fails.

If Algorithm~A succeeds in parking every car, then the preference vector $a$ is called a \defterm{parking function}.  The set of all parking functions $a=(a(1),\,\dots,\,a(n))$ is denoted $\PF_{n}$.  It is well known that $|\PF_n|=(n+1)^{n-1}$ and that
\[\PF_n = \{a\in[n]^n:\ \tilde a(i)\leq i\ \ \forall i\}\]
where $\tilde{a}$ is the unique non-decreasing rearrangement of $a$; in particular, every rearrangement of a parking function is a parking function.

The \defterm{outcome} of a parking function $a\in\PF_n$ is the permutation $x=\outcome(a)=(x(1),\,\dots,\,x(n))$, where $x(i)$ is the spot in which car $i$ parks given the preference list $a$.

We now modify Algorithm~A to obtain our central object of study.

{\bf Algorithm~B:} Let $a,b\in[n]^n$ with $a\leq_Cb$.  The $i^{th}$ car parks in the first available space in the range $[a(i),b(i)]$.  If no space in the range $[a(i),b(i)]$ is available, the algorithm fails.

\begin{definition}
If Algorithm~B succeeds in parking every car, then $\mathbf{c}=(a,b)$ is called an \defterm{interval parking function}, or IPF.  The set of all interval parking functions for $n$ cars is denoted $\IPF_n$.  The \defterm{feasible interval} for the $i^{th}$ car is $[a(i),b(i)]$.
\end{definition}

For example,
\[\IPF_2 = \{(11,12),\ (11,22),\ (12,12),\ (12,22),\ (21,21),\ (21,22)\}.\]
Unlike ordinary parking functions, IPFs are \emph{not} invariant under the action of $\mathfrak{S}_2$ by permuting cars.  For example, $(11,12)$ is an IPF but $(11,21)$ is not.

\begin{prop} \label{IPF-characterization} Let $a,b\in[n]^n$.  Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $a\in\PF_n$ if and only if $(a,(n,\dots,n))\in\IPF_n$.
\item $(a,b)\in\IPF_n$ if and only if $a\in\PF_n$ and $\outcome(a) \le_C b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For (1), if $b(i)=n$ for all $i$ then Algorithm~B is identical to Algorithm~A.
For (2), if the given conditions hold, then the execution of Algorithm~B mimics that of Algorithm~A.  On the other hand, if $a$ is not a parking function, then some car will not find a spot, while if $\outcome(a)\not\leq_Cb$ then some car will not find a spot in its own feasible interval.
\end{proof}

As a consequence of the proof of (2), the outcome $\outcome(\mathbf{c})$ of $\mathbf{c}=(a,b)$ is just $\outcome(a)$.  Moreover, for every $a\in\PF_n$, there are precisely $n!$ choices for $b$ such that $(a,b)\in\IPF_n$.  (This fact was first observed by Sean English.) In particular,
\begin{equation} \label{count-IPF}
\left|\IPF_{n}\right| = n!(n+1)^{n-1}.
\end{equation}

\begin{prop} \label{lots-of-facts}
Let $\mathbf{c} = (a,b)\in\IPF_n$.  Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $b^*\in\PF_n$.
\item $a \le_C \outcome(\mathbf{c}) \le_C b$ and $\outcome(b^*)^* \le_C b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
\noindent
\begin{enumerate}
\item From $\outcome(\mathbf{c}) \leq_C b$, one has $b^* \leq_C \outcome(\mathbf{c})^*$, the latter is a permutation. Hence $b^*$ is a parking function.
\item Evidently $a \le_C \outcome(\mathbf{c}) \le_C b$. By (1), $b^*$ is a parking function. Thus $b^* \le_C \outcome(b^*)$. Conjugation reverses the order $\leq_C$ and is an involution, so $\outcome(b^*)^* \le_C (b^*)^* = b$.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\section{The Bruhat property} \label{sec:Bruhat}

In this section, we prove another property of interval parking functions related to Bruhat order on permutations.  We use the following characterization of Bruhat order~\cite[Thm.~2.1.5, p.32]{BB}: $y\leq_Bx$ if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{bruhat-criterion}
y\langle i,j\rangle\leq x\langle i,j\rangle \qquad \forall i,j\in[n]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{angle-brackets}
u\langle i,j\rangle = \#\{k\in[i]:\ u(k)\geq j\}.
\end{equation}
(This quantity is notated $u[i,j]$ in \cite{BB}, but we reserve that notation for the image of an interval under a permutation.)
For later use, we observe that by pigeonhole, it is always the case that
\begin{equation} \label{bracket-ineq}
x\langle i,j\rangle\geq i-j+1.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\mathbf{c}=(a,b)$ is an IPF, and let $x=\outcome(a)$ and $y=\outcome(b^*)^*$.  Then $x\langle i,j\rangle$ is the number of cars $1,\,\dots,\,i$ that park at or after spot $j$ under the parking function $a$.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bruhat}
Suppose that $\mathbf{c} = (a,b)$ is an IPF.  Let $x=\outcome(a)$ and $y=\outcome(b^*)^*$.  Then $x\geq_By$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First, we may assume without loss of generality that $x=a$, because replacing $a$ with $x$ doesn't change the execution of Algorithm~B (the $i^{th}$ car will have to drive to spot $x(i)$ anyway, and it is able to park there because $\mathbf{c}$ is an IPF).

Fix $i,j\in[n]$, and let $p=x\langle i,j\rangle$ and $q=y\langle i,j\rangle$.  By~\eqref{bruhat-criterion} we wish to show that $p\geq q$.  By definition of $y\langle i,j\rangle$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{bruhat:1}
\Big|y[1,i]\cap[j,n]\Big|=q
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation} \label{bruhat:2}
\Big|y^*[n-i+1,n]\cap[1,n+1-j]\Big|=q.
\end{equation}
Therefore, when Algorithm~A is run on the parking function $b^*$ with outcome $y^*$, the first $n-i$ cars must leave open at least $q$ spaces in the range $[1,n+1-j]$, so they cannot fill as many as $(n+1-j)-q+1=n-j-q+2$ of them.  Therefore, $b^*[1,n-i]$ can contain no subset
$\{v(1),\,\dots,\,v^*(n-j-q+2)\}$ such that
\[(v(1),\,\dots,\,v^*(n-j-q+2))\leq_C (q,\,\dots,\,n+1-j).\]
Equivalently, $\{b(i+1),\,\dots,\,b(n)\}$ can contain no subset
$\{v(1),\,\dots,\,v(n-j-q+2)\}$ such that
\[(v(1),\,\dots,\,v(n-j-q+2))\geq_C (j,\,\dots,\,n-q+1).\]
It follows that when Algorithm~B is run on $\mathbf{c}$, no more than $n-j-q+1$ of the last $n-i$ cars will park in the spots $[j,n]$.  On the other hand, since $x=\outcome(\mathbf{c})$, no more than $p=x\langle i,j\rangle$ of the first $i$ cars can park in the spots $[j,n]$.  Therefore, the total number of cars that park in $[j,n]$ is at most
\[(n+1-j-q)+p = |[j,n]|+(p-q).\]
On the other hand, exactly $|[j,n]|$ cars park in $[j,n]$.  It follows that $p\geq q$, as desired.
\end{proof}

Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat} asserts that there is a well-defined \defterm{bioutcome} function
\begin{equation} \label{define-bioutcome}
\begin{array}{llll}
\bioutcome:&\IPF_n&\to&\{(x,y)\in\mathfrak{S}_n\times\mathfrak{S}_n:\ x\geq_By\}\\
&(a,b)&\mapsto&(\outcome(a),\outcome(b^*)^*).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We say that a pair $(x,y)\in\mathfrak{S}_n\times\mathfrak{S}_n$ is \defterm{reachable} if it is in the image of $\bioutcome$; in this case we write $x\unrhd_R y$.  (We use this notation rather than $x\geq_R y$ because reachability is not a partial order on $\mathfrak{S}_n$, as we will discuss shortly.)
Then Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat} asserts that all reachable pairs are related in Bruhat order.

\begin{remark} \label{unreachable}
If $a$ and $b^*$ are parking functions such that $\outcome(a)\geq_B\outcome(b^*)^*$, it does \emph{not} follow that $\mathbf{c}=(a,b)$ is an IPF.  For example, if $a=w_0$ and $b$ is a permutation, then certainly $a=\outcome(a)\geq_B\outcome(b^*)^*=b$, but $(a,b)$ is an IPF only if $b=w_0$ as well.

Moreover, if $x,y\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ with $x\geq_By$, there does not necessarily exist any IPF $\mathbf{c}=(a,b)$ such that $\bioutcome(\mathbf{c})=(x,y)$.  For example, when $n=3$, take $(x,y)=(321,213)$, so that $y^*=132$.  Then $a=321$ is the only parking function with $\outcome(a)=x$.  By Prop.~\ref{lots-of-facts}(2) we must have $b\geq_Ca$, so $b\in\{321,331, 322, 332, 323,333\}$ and $b^*\in\{321,311,221,211,121,111\}$.  But none of these parking functions have outcome $y^*=132$.
\end{remark}

The relation of reachability is reflexive (because $\bioutcome(x,x)=(x,x)$ for all $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$) and antisymmetric (as a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat}).  However, it is not transitive: for example,
$321\mkern-1mu\not\mathrel{\mkern1mu\unrhd_R}\mkern1mu 213$, as just shown, but $(321,312)=\bioutcome(312,322)$ and $(312,213)=\bioutcome(312,313)$ are reachable.  This observation motivates the following definition.

\begin{definition} \label{def-pseu}
We say that $(x,y)$ is \defterm{pseudoreachable}, written $x\geq_P y$, if there is a sequence $x=x_0\unrhd_R x_1\unrhd_R\cdots\unrhd_R x_k=y$.  That is, pseudoreachability is the transitive closure of reachability.  As such, it is a partial order on $\mathfrak{S}_n$, which by Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat} is no stronger than Bruhat order.
\end{definition}

For reference, we summarize the various order-like relations that we will consider.
\medskip
\begin{center} {\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{lll} \hline
$a\geq_C b$ & Componentwise order & on $\mathbb{Z}^n$\\
$x\geq_B y$ & Bruhat order &  \rdelim\}{4}{1em}[\ on $\mathfrak{S}_n$] \\
$x\geq_W y$ & Left weak order\\
$x\unrhd_R y$ & Reachability (not transitive)\\
$x\geq_P y$ & Pseudoreachability\\ \hline
\end{tabular} }
\end{center}
\medskip

\section{Reachability via counting fibers of the bioutcome map} \label{sec:reachable}

Fix a pair of permutations $(x,y)\in\mathfrak{S}_n\times\mathfrak{S}_n$. How can we determine if $(x,y)$ is reachable?  More generally, what is the number $\phi(x,y)=|\bioutcome^{-1}(x,y)|$ of IPFs $(a,b)$ with bioutcome~$(x,y)$?

We can answer this enumerative question quickly, although the resulting formula is recursive and somewhat opaque.  First, for each $i$, the number of possibilities $\mathsf{c}_i=\mathsf{c}_i(x,y)$ for $a(i)$ is the size of the largest block of spaces ending in $x(i)$ that are all occupied by one of the first $i$ cars.
That is,
\[\mathsf{c}_i=\mathsf{c}_i(x,y) = \max\left\{ j \in [1, x(i)]: x^{-1}(x(i)-k) \le i \text{ for all } 0 \le k \le j-1 \right\}.\]

Second, given $a(1),\dots,a(i)$, the number of possibilities for $b(i)$ is $\mathsf{d}_i=\mathsf{d}_i(x,y) = \#\mathsf{D}_i(x,y)$, where
\[\mathsf{D}_i(x,y)=\{k\in[0,J_i-1]:\ y(i) + k \ge x(i)\}\]
and
\[J_i =\max\{j\in[1,n+1-y(i)]:\ y^{-1}(y(i)+s) \ge i \text{ for all }0 \le s \le j-1\}.\]

The definition of $J_i$ is analogous to that of $\mathsf{c}_i$: it is the size of the largest block of spaces ending in $n+1-y(i)$ that are all occupied by one of the first $n+1-i$ cars, so it is the number of possible values for $b^*_i$ under which $\outcome(b^*)=y^*$.
The additional condition $y(i)+k\geq x(i)$ in the definition of $\mathsf{D}_i$ ensures that $(a,b)$ is an IPF because the upper bound on $x(i)$ given by $b(i)$ does not conflict with where the $i^{th}$ car parks under Algorithm~B.

The sequences $\mathsf{c}=(\mathsf{c}_1,\dots,\mathsf{c}_n)$ and $\mathsf{d}=(\mathsf{d}_1,\dots,\mathsf{d}_n)$
then determine the size of the fibers of $\bioutcome$:
\begin{equation}
\phi(x,y)=\left|\bioutcome^{-1}(x,y)\right| = \prod_{i=1}^{n} \mathsf{c}_i\mathsf{d}_i.
\end{equation}

\begin{example}
Let $x = 361245$ and $y = 341256$. Then $\mathsf{c}=(1,1,1,2,4,5)$ and $\mathsf{d}=(4,1,2,1,2,1)$, so there are $2^34^25^1=640$ IPF's with bioutcome $(x,y$).
\end{example}

It is clear from the definition that $1\leq\mathsf{c}_i\leq i$ for all $i$.  On the other hand, one or more $\mathsf{d}_i$ may be zero.  The pair $(x,y)$ is reachable if and only if $\mathsf{d}_i>0$ for all $i$; we refer to this as the \textbf{Count Criterion} for reachability.

Evidently, the largest fiber occurs when $x$ and $y$ both equal the identity permutation in $\mathfrak{S}_n$.  In this case $\mathsf{c}=(1,2,\dots,n)$ and $\mathsf{d}=(n,n-1,\dots,1)$, and the fiber size is $(n!)^2$.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, if $x=y=(n,\dots,1)$, then $\phi(x,y) = 1$.

Perhaps a better way to think about reachability is the following criterion. If we are solely interested in reachability and not the number of IPFs that achieve a given outcome, we can rephrase reachability more directly in terms of the permutations $x$ and $y$.

\begin{theorem}[\textbf{Reachability Criterion}]\label{thm:RC}
Let $x,y\in\mathfrak{S}_n$.  Then
\begin{equation}\label{RC}
x\unrhd_R y \quad\iff\quad [y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n] \quad \forall\, i \in [n].\tag{\textbf{RC}}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $i\in[n]$.  We will show that $\mathsf{d}_i(x,y)>0$ if and only if $[y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n]$.

Suppose that $[y(i),x(i)] \setminus y[i,n]\neq \emptyset$.  That is, there is some $m\in[y(i),x(i)]$ such that $y^{-1}(m)<i$. Thus $J_i \leq m-y(i)$, so $y(i)+k<m\leq x(i)$ for all $k<J_i$, so $\mathsf{d}_i(x,y)=0$.

Now assume that $[y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n]$. We wish to show that $\mathsf{D}_i\neq\emptyset$. If $y(i)\geq x(i)$, then $0\in\mathsf{D}_i$.  On the other hand, if $y(i)<x(i)$, then $m=x(i)-y(i)>0$, and for all $0 \leq k \leq m$ we have $y^{-1}(y(i)+k) \ge i$.  Therefore $J_i > m$ and $m\in\mathsf{D}_i$.
\end{proof}

It is worth emphasizing that the Reachability Criterion is sufficient, but not necessary, for showing that $x\geq_Py$.  For example, the pair $(x,y)=(321,213)$ fails~\eqref{RC} for $i=2$, but nonetheless $x\geq_Py$.
\begin{prop} \label{cf-df-facts}
The sequence $\mathsf{d}(x,y)$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph{enumi})]
\item\label{dfone} $\mathsf{d}_1\geq1$.
\item\label{dfi} For each $i$, if $y(i)\geq x(i)$, then $\mathsf{d}_i\geq1$.
\item\label{dfn} If $x\geq_By$, then $\mathsf{d}_n=1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}  The first two assertions are direct consequences of~\eqref{RC}.  For~\ref{dfone}, we have $[y(1),x(1)] \subseteq [n] = y[n]$, and for~\ref{dfi}, if $y(i)\geq x(i)$ then $[y(i),x(i)]\subseteq\{y(i)\}\subseteq y[i,n]$.

For~\ref{dfn}, if $y\leq_B x$, then $y(n) \ge x(n)$ (a consequence of the inequalities~\eqref{bruhat-criterion} for $i=n-1$ and all $j$), so $\mathsf{d}_n>0$ by part~\ref{dfi}.  Observe that
\[J_n =\max\{j:\ y(n)+k\leq n \text{ and } y^{-1}(y(n)+k) \ge n \text{ for all }0 \le k \le j-1\} = 1\]
because the conditions are true for $k=0$ but false for $k>0$.  Therefore, $\mathsf{D}_n=\{k\in[0,0]:\ y(n)\geq x(n)\}=\{0\}$ and $\mathsf{d}_n=\#\mathsf{D}_n=1$.
\end{proof}

\section{Pseudoreachability order is graded} \label{sec:pseudoreach-order}

In this section, we prove that the pseudoreachability order $\geq_P$ on $\mathfrak{S}_n$ is graded by length, just like the Bruhat and weak orders.

Temporarily, we will use the notation $x{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\, y$ to mean that $x\unrhd_R y$ and $\ell(x) = \ell(y) + 1$.  Note that if $x{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\, y$ then $x\gtrdot_Py$ (because $x\gtrdot_By$).  Our goal is to prove the converse of the last statement, which will imply that pseudoreachability is graded by length.

We have already shown that pseudoreachability order is no stronger than Bruhat order $\geq_B$.  We next show that it is no weaker than left weak order $\geq_W$.

\begin{prop} \label{lem:inv-1}
If $x\gtrdot_Wy$, then $x{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\, y$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\gtrdot_Wy$, i.e., that $x=s_ay$, where $j=y^{-1}(a)<y^{-1}(a+1)=k$.  Then Prop.~\ref{cf-df-facts}\ref{dfi} implies that $\mathsf{d}_i(x,y)>0$ for all $i\in[n]\setminus\{j\}$.  Meanwhile $[y(j),x(j)]=\{a,a+1\}=\{y(j),y(k)\}\subseteq[y(j),y(n)]$, so~\eqref{RC} implies that $\mathsf{d}_j(x,y)>0$ as well.
\end{proof}

For each $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$, let $\hat x$ be the permutation in $\mathfrak{S}_{n-1}$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{hats-on}
\hat x(i) = \begin{cases} x(i) & \text{ if } x(i)<x(n),\\ x(i)-1 & \text{ if } x(i)>x(n).\end{cases}
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:proj}
Let $x,y \in \mathfrak{S}_n$ with $x(n) = y(n)$.
Then $x\unrhd_R y$ if and only if $\hat x\unrhd_R\hat y$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By~\eqref{RC}, the proof reduces to showing that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation} \label{reach-xy}
[y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n] \qquad \forall i\in[n]
\end{equation}
if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{reach-proj}
[\hat y(i),\hat x(i)] \subseteq \hat y[i,n] \qquad \forall i\in[n-1].
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}

($\implies$) Assume that~\eqref{reach-xy} holds.  Let $i\in[n-1]$ and $a \in [\hat y(i),\hat x(i)]$.  There are two cases to consider.

\textit{Case 1a}:  $a < y(n)$. Then
$\hat y(i)\leq a<y(n)$, so $\hat y(i)=y(i)$ (since~\eqref{hats-on} implies that if $\hat y(i)=y(i)-1$ then $\hat y(i)\geq y(n)$).
Thus
\[ [\hat y(i),a] = [y(i),a] \subseteq [y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n] \]
because $a\leq\hat x(i)\leq x(i)$, and by~\eqref{reach-xy}.
Therefore $a = y(k)=\hat y(k)$ for some $k\in[i,n-1]$.

\textit{Case 1b}: $a \geq y(n)$. Then, since $\hat y(i) \geq y(i) - 1$ and $x(i) \geq \hat x(i) \geq y(n)$, $a \in [\hat y(i),\hat x(i)]$ implies that $a \in [y(i)-1,x(i)-1]$, i.e., $y(i) \leq a+1 \leq x(i)$.
By~\eqref{reach-xy} there is some $k\in[i,n]$ such that $a+1 = y(k)$.  In fact $k\neq n$ (since $a+1>y(n)$), so $\hat y(k) = y(k) - 1 = a$ and so $a \in \hat y[i,n-1]$.

In both cases we have proved~\eqref{reach-proj}.
\medskip

($\impliedby$) Assume that~\eqref{reach-proj} holds.  It is immediate that~\eqref{reach-xy} holds when $i=n$, so fix $i\in[n-1]$ and $a \in [y(i),x(i)]$.  We wish to show that $a=y(k)$ for some $k\in[i,n]$.  This is clear if $a=y(n)$, so assume $a\neq y(n)$.

\textit{Case 2a}:  $a < y(n)$. Since $a\in[y(i),x(i)]$, either $a = x(i)$ or $a < x(i)$. If $a = x(i)$, then $a = x(i) = \hat x(i)$. If $a < x(i)$, then $a \leq \hat x(i)$ since $\hat x(i) \geq x(i) - 1$. In either case,
\[ [y(i),a] = [\hat y(i),a] \subseteq [\hat y(i),\hat x(i)] \subseteq \hat y[i,n-1]. \]
Thus $a=\hat y(k)=y(k)$ for some $k\in[i,n-1]$.

\textit{Case 2b}: $a > y(n)$.  Since $a\in[y(i),x(i)]$, either $a = y(i)$ or $a > y(i)$. If $a = y(i)$, then $a - 1 = y(i) - 1 = \hat y(i)$ since $y(i) > y(n)$. If $a > y(i)$, then we know that $a-1 \geq \hat y(i)$ since $y(i) \geq \hat y(i)$. It follows that $a-1\in[\hat y(i),\hat x(i)]$, so, by~\eqref{reach-proj}, there is some $k\in[i,n-1]$ such that $a-1 = \hat y(k)\geq y(n)$. Therefore, $a = y(k)$.

In both cases we have proved~\eqref{reach-xy}.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:rcover}
Let $x,y \in \mathfrak{S}_n$ with $x(n) = y(n)$.
Then $x{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\, y$ if and only if $\hat x{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\,\hat y$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The definition of $\hat x$ implies that
\begin{equation} \label{hat-inv}
\ell(\hat x) = \ell(x)-(n-x(n)),
\end{equation}
which together with Lemma~\ref{lem:proj} produces the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop} \label{reachable-graded}
Let $x,y\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ such that $x\unrhd_R y$, and let $m=\ell(x)-\ell(y)$.  Then there exists a chain
\begin{equation} \label{desired-chain}
x_0=y{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, x_1{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\,\cdots{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, x_m=x.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
The proof proceeds by double induction on $n$ and $m$.  The conclusion is trivial when $n\leq2$ or $m\leq1$.  Accordingly, let $n>2$ and $m>1$, and assume inductively that the theorem holds for all $(n',m')<_C(n,m)$.

First, suppose that $x(n) = y(n)$.  Then $\hat{x}\unrhd_R\hat{y}$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:proj} where $\hat x,\hat y$ are defined by~\eqref{hats-on}.  Moreover,
$\ell(\hat{x}) - \ell(\hat{y}) = \ell(x) - \ell(y) = m$ by~\eqref{hat-inv}. Therefore, by the induction hypothesis, there is a chain
$\hat{y} = \hat x_0 {\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, \hat x_1 {\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, \cdots {\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, \hat x_m = \hat{x}$
in $\mathfrak{S}_{n-1}$,
which by Corollary~\ref{cor:rcover} can be lifted to a chain of the form~\eqref{desired-chain}.

Second, suppose that $x(n) \neq y(n)$. Since $x\geq_By$ by Theorem \ref{thm:bruhat}, in fact $x(n) < y(n)$ (as noted in the proof of Prop.~\ref{cf-df-facts}\ref{dfn}).
Let $p=y(n)-1$; then $p\in[1,n-1]$, so we may set $q=y^{-1}(p)$ and $z=s_py=y t_{q,n}$.
Then $z\gtrdot_Wy$ and so $z{\,\mathrlap{\gtrdot}\rhd}_R\, y$ by Prop.~\ref{lem:inv-1}.  We will show that $x\unrhd_R z$ using~\eqref{RC}.

\textit{Case 1}: $1\leq i\leq q$.  Then $[z(i),x(i)]\subseteq[y[i],x(i)]$ and $y[i,n]=z[i,n]$, so $\mathsf{d}_n(x,y)\geq1$ implies $\mathsf{d}_n(x,z)\geq1$.

\textit{Case 2}: $q<i<n$.
Then $p=y(q)\not\in y[i,n]$, so by~\eqref{RC} $p\not\in[y(i),x(i)]$.  Thus $p+1\not\in[y(i)+1,x(i)+1]$,
and certainly $p+1=y(n)\neq y(i)$.  Thus $[y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n]\setminus\{y(n)\}=y[i,n-1]$ and
\[[z(i),x(i)] = [y(i),x(i)] \subseteq y[i,n-1]=z[i,n-1]\subseteq z[i,n]\]
so again $\mathsf{d}_n(x,z)\geq1$.

\textit{Case 3}: $i=n$.  Then $x(n) \leq  y(n)-1 =z(n)$, so $\mathsf{d}_{n}(x,z) \geq 1$ by Prop.~\ref{cf-df-facts}\ref{dfi}.

Taken together, the three cases imply $x\unrhd_R z$.  By induction there is a chain $x_1=z{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\,\cdots{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, x_m=x$, and appending $x_0=y$ produces a chain of the form~\eqref{desired-chain}.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \label{pseudoreachable-graded}
Pseudoreachability order is graded by length.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The definition of pseudoreachability as the transitive closure of reachability order implies that if $x_0<_P\cdots<_Px_m$ is a maximal chain, then in fact each $x_{i-1}\unlhd_R x_i$ for all $i$.  Now, maximality together with Prop.~\ref{reachable-graded} implies in turn that in fact $x_{i-1}{\,\mathrlap{\lessdot}\lhd}_R\, x_i$.
\end{proof}

For comparison, the Hasse diagrams of Bruhat, pseudoreachability, and left weak orders on $\mathfrak{S}_3$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s3}, together with the
reachability relation (which is reflexive and antisymmetric, but not transitive).  The three partial orders on $\mathfrak{S}_4$  are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:s4}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\newcommand{4.5}{4.5}
\begin{scope}[shift={(0,0)}]
	\draw[black] (0,0)--(-1,1)--(-1,2)--(0,3)--(1,2)--(1,1)--cycle;
	\draw[black] (-1,1)--(1,2) (-1,2)--(1,1);
	\foreach \times/\y/\w in {0/0/123, -1/1/132, 1/1/213, -1/2/231, 1/2/312, 0/3/321} \node[fill=white] at (\times,\y) {\sf\w};
	\node at (0,-.5) {Bruhat order $\geq_B$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(4.5,0)}]
	\draw[black] (0,0)--(-1,1)--(-1,2)--(0,3)--(1,2)--(1,1)--cycle;
	\draw[black] (-1,1)--(1,2);
	\foreach \times/\y/\w in {0/0/123, -1/1/132, 1/1/213, -1/2/231, 1/2/312, 0/3/321} \node[fill=white] at (\times,\y) {\sf\w};
	\node at (0,-.5) {Pseudoreachability $\geq_P$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(2*4.5,0)}]
	\draw[black] (0,0)--(-1,1)--(-1,2)--(0,3)--(1,2)--(1,1)--cycle;
	\foreach \times/\y/\w in {0/0/123, -1/1/132, 1/1/213, -1/2/231, 1/2/312, 0/3/321} \node[fill=white] at (\times,\y) {\sf\w};
	\node at (0,-.5) {Left weak order $\geq_W$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(3*4.5,0)}]
	\foreach \p in {(-1,1), (1,1), (-1,2), (1,2), (0,3)} \draw[black] (0,0)--\p;
	\foreach \p in {(-1,2), (1,2), (0,3)} \draw[black] (-1,1)--\p;
	\draw[black] (1,1)--(1,2)--(0,3)--(-1,2);
	\foreach \times/\y/\w in {0/0/123, -1/1/132, 1/1/213, -1/2/231, 1/2/312, 0/3/321} \node[fill=white] at (\times,\y) {\sf\w};
	\node at (0,-.5) {Reachability $\unrhd_R$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Bruhat, pseudoreachability, left weak order, and reachability on $\mathfrak{S}_3$\label{fig:s3}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
															\coordinate (p4321) at (0,6);
									\coordinate (p3421) at (-1.5,5);	\coordinate (p4231) at (0,5);	\coordinate (p4312) at (1.5,5);
			\coordinate (p2431) at (-3,4);	\coordinate (p3241) at (-1.5,4);	\coordinate (p3412) at (0,4);	\coordinate (p4132) at (1.5,4);	\coordinate (p4213) at (3,4);
			\coordinate (p1432) at (-3.5,3);	\coordinate (p2341) at (-2.25,3); \coordinate (p3142) at (-.75,3);	\coordinate (p2413) at (.75,3);	\coordinate (p3214) at (2.25,3);	\coordinate (p4123) at (3.5,3);
			\coordinate (p1342) at (-3,2);	\coordinate (p1423) at (-1.5,2);	\coordinate (p2143) at (0,2);	\coordinate (p2314) at (1.5,2);	\coordinate (p3124) at (3,2);
									\coordinate (p1243) at (-1.5,1);	\coordinate (p1324) at (0,1);	\coordinate (p2134) at (1.5,1);
															\coordinate (p1234) at (0,0);
\draw[very thick] (p1243)--(p1234) (p1324)--(p1234) (p1342)--(p1243) (p1423)--(p1324) (p1432)--(p1423) (p1432)--(p1342) (p2134)--(p1234) (p2143)--(p1243) (p2143)--(p2134) (p2314)--(p1324) (p2341)--(p1342) (p2413)--(p1423) (p2413)--(p2314) (p2431)--(p1432) (p2431)--(p2341) (p3124)--(p2134) (p3142)--(p2143) (p3214)--(p3124) (p3214)--(p2314) (p3241)--(p3142) (p3241)--(p2341) (p3412)--(p2413) (p3421)--(p3412) (p3421)--(p2431) (p4123)--(p3124) (p4132)--(p4123) (p4132)--(p3142) (p4213)--(p4123) (p4213)--(p3214) (p4231)--(p4132) (p4231)--(p3241) (p4312)--(p4213) (p4312)--(p3412) (p4321)--(p4312) (p4321)--(p4231) (p4321)--(p3421);
\draw[thick,blue] (p1243)--(p1423) (p1324)--(p3124) (p1342)--(p3142) (p1423)--(p4123) (p1432)--(p3412) (p1432)--(p4132) (p2143)--(p4123) (p2413)--(p4213) (p2431)--(p4231) (p4132)--(p4312);
\draw[red] (p1324)--(p1342) (p2134)--(p2314) (p2143)--(p2341) (p2143)--(p2413) (p2314)--(p2341) (p2413)--(p2431) (p3124)--(p3142) (p3142)--(p3412) (p3214)--(p3241) (p3214)--(p3412) (p3241)--(p3421) (p4213)--(p4231);
\foreach \name/\loc in {1234/p1234, 1243/p1243, 1324/p1324, 1342/p1342, 1423/p1423, 1432/p1432, 2134/p2134, 2143/p2143, 2314/p2314, 2341/p2341, 2413/p2413, 2431/p2431, 3124/p3124, 3142/p3142, 3214/p3214, 3241/p3241, 3412/p3412, 3421/p3421, 4123/p4123, 4132/p4132, 4213/p4213, 4231/p4231, 4312/p4312, 4321/p4321} \node at (\loc) [rectangle,draw,fill=white] {\sf\scriptsize\name};
\draw[very thick] (5,3.5)--(6,3.5); \node at (7,3.5) {$\geq_B,\ \geq_P,\ \geq_W$};
\draw[thick, blue] (5,3)--(6,3); \node at (6.7,3) {$\geq_B,\ \geq_P$};
\draw[red] (5,2.5)--(6,2.5); \node at (6.44,2.5) {$\geq_B$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Bruhat, pseudoreachability, and left weak order on $\mathfrak{S}_4$\label{fig:s4}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Pseudoreachability order and bubble-sorting order}\label{sorting}

The theory of normal forms in a Coxeter system was introduced by du~Cloux~\cite{duCloux} and is described in~\cite[\S3.4]{BB}.  We sketch here the facts we will need; see especially~\cite[Example 3.4.3]{BB}, which describes normal forms in the symmetric group in terms of bubble-sorting.  Let $\sigma_k=s_1\cdots s_k$ and $\omega_n=\sigma_{n-1}\cdots\sigma_1$; then $\omega_n$ is a reduced word for $w_0\in\mathfrak{S}_n$.  Every $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ has a unique \textbf{conormal form}: a reduced word $N(w)$ of the form $v_{n-1} v_{n-2} \cdots v_2 v_1$, where $v_k=s_j s_{j+1}\cdots s_k$ is a suffix of $\sigma_k$.  The conormal form is the reverse of the lexicographically first reduced word for $x^{-1}$ (that is, of the normal form of $x^{-1}$, as described in~\cite{BB}).  Thus $x$ is characterized by the sequence
\[\lambda(x)=(\lambda_{n-1}(x),\dots,\lambda_1(x))=(|v_{n-1}|,\dots,|v_1|)\in[0,n-1]\times[0,n-2]\times\cdots\times[0,1].\]

Armstrong~\cite{Armstrong} defined a general class of \emph{sorting orders} on a Coxeter system $(W,S)$: one fixes $w\in W$ and chooses a reduced word $\omega$ (the ``sorting word'') for $w\in W$, then partially orders all group elements expressible as a subword of~$\omega$ by inclusion between their lexicographically first such expressions.  Armstrong proved that for every reduced word for the top element of a finite Coxeter group, the sorting order is a distributive lattice intermediate between the weak and Bruhat orders.  In the case that $W=\mathfrak{S}_n$ and $\omega=\omega_n$, the sorting order is equivalent to comparing $\lambda(x)$ and $\lambda(y)$ componentwise, hence is isomorphic to $C_2\times\cdots\times C_n$, where $C_i$ denotes a chain with $i$ elements.

\begin{prop} \label{v-reduction}
Let $x,y\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ with $x(n)=y(n)=n$, and let $v=s_j s_{j+1} \cdots s_{n-1}$ be a suffix of $s_1 \; \cdots \; s_{n-1}$.
Then $x\unrhd_R y$ if and only $vx\unrhd_R vy$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
If $v=e$, there is nothing to prove.  Otherwise, by~\eqref{RC}, it suffices to show that for every $i\in[n]$, we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation} \label{RC-for-xy}
[y(i),x(i)]\subseteq y[i,n]
\end{equation}
if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{RC-for-v}
[(vy)(i),(vx)(i)]\subseteq vy[i,n].
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
This is clear if $i=n$, so we assume henceforth that $i\neq n$.  Moreover,
\[v(k)=\begin{cases}
k &\text{ if } k<j,\\
k+1 &\text{ if } j\leq k<n,\\
j &\text{ if } k=n\end{cases}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
v^{-1}(k)=\begin{cases}
k &\text{ if } k<j,\\
n &\text{ if } k=j,\\
k-1 &\text{ if } k>j.\end{cases}
\]
In particular, if $i\neq n$, then $x(i)>y(i)$ if and only if $v(x(i))>v(y(i))$.  We assume henceforth that these two equivalent conditions hold, since if both fail then~\eqref{RC-for-xy} and~\eqref{RC-for-v} are both trivially true.
The proofs of the two directions now proceed very similarly.
\medskip

$\eqref{RC-for-xy}\implies\eqref{RC-for-v}$:\quad There are three cases.

\emph{Case 1a: $j>x(i)$.}  Then $v$ fixes $[1,x(i)]$ pointwise, so $[(vy)(i),(vx)(i)]=v[y(i),x(i)]\subseteq vy[i,n]$ (applying $v$ to both sides of~\eqref{RC-for-xy}).

\emph{Case 1b: $y(i) < j \leq x(i)$.}
Then $(v x)(i) = x(i) + 1$ and $(v y)(i) = y(i)$, so
\begin{align*}
[(vy)(i),(vx)(i)] &= [y(i),j-1]\cup\{j\}\cup[j+1,x(i)+1]\\
&= v[y(i),j-1]\cup\{v(n)\}\cup v[j,x(i)]\\
&= v\left( [y(i),x(i)]\cup \{y(n)\}\right)\\
&\subseteq vy[i,n]
\end{align*}
establishing~\eqref{RC-for-v}.

\emph{Case 1c: $j \leq y(i)$.}  Similarly to Case~1a, we have $[(vy)(i),(vx)(i)] = [y(i)+1,x(i)+1] = v[y(i),x(i)]\subseteq vy[i,n]$, as desired.

$\eqref{RC-for-v}\implies\eqref{RC-for-xy}$:\quad
Applying $v^{-1}$ to both sides of~\eqref{RC-for-v} gives
$v^{-1}[vy(i),vx(i)]\subseteq y[i,n]$,
so in order to prove~\eqref{RC-for-xy} It is enough to show that
\begin{equation} \label{enough}
[y(i),x(i)]\subseteq v^{-1}[vy(i),vx(i)]
\end{equation}

Moreover, the earlier assumption $i\neq n$ implies that $vx(i)\neq j$ and $vy(i)\neq j$.

\emph{Case 2a: $j > vx(i)$.} Then $v^{-1}$ fixes the set $[1,vx(i)]$ pointwise, so in particular $[y(i),x(i)] = [vy(i),vx(i)] = v^{-1}[vy(i),vx(i)]$, establishing~\eqref{enough}.

\emph{Case 2b: $vy(i) < j < vx(i)$.} Then $y(i) = vy(i)$ and $x(i) = vx(i)-1$, so
\begin{align*}
[y(i),x(i)] &= [vy(i),j-1] \cup [j,vx(i)-1] \\
&= v^{-1}[vy(i),vy(n)-1] \cup v^{-1}[vy(n)+1,vx(i)] \\
&\subseteq v^{-1}[vy(i),vx(i)].
\end{align*}

\emph{Case 2c: $j < vy(i)$.} Then $[y(i),x(i)] = [vy(i)-1,vx(i)-1] = v^{-1}[vy(i),vx(i)]$, again implying~\eqref{enough}.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:same}
The pseudoreachability order coincides with the bubble-sorting order.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that the two partial orders have the same covering relations, i.e., that
\[x\gtrdot_P y \quad\iff\quad \lambda(x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(y).\]

We induct on $n$; the base case $n=1$ is trivial.  Let $x,y\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ with $n>1$, and let their conormal forms be
\[
x = u\bar x = (s_i\cdots s_{n-1}) \bar x,\qquad
y = v\bar y = (s_j\cdots s_{n-1}) \bar y
\]
where $i=x(n)=n-\lambda_{n-1}(x)$ and $j=y(n)=n-\lambda_{n-1}(y)$.
\medskip

($\impliedby$)\quad Suppose that $\lambda(x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(y)$.  Then either $i=j-1$ or $i=j$.  If $i=j-1$, then $\lambda(\bar x)=\lambda(\bar y)$, so $\bar x=\bar y$ and $x=s_iy$, which by Prop~\ref{lem:inv-1} implies $x\gtrdot_P y$.  If $i=j$, then $\lambda(\bar x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(\bar y)$.  Then $\bar x\gtrdot_P\bar y$ by induction, so $v\bar x\gtrdot_P v\bar y=y$
by Prop.~\ref{v-reduction}.
\medskip

($\implies$)\quad Suppose that $x\gtrdot_Py$. Then $x \gtrdot_B y$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat}, so $i\leq j$ (as noted in the proof of Prop.~\ref{cf-df-facts}).

If $i<j$, then $v$ is a proper suffix of $u$. By the definition of Bruhat order it must be the case that $x=yt_{a,b}$ for some $a<b$; in fact $b=n$ (otherwise $x(n)=y(n)$).  Then $x(n)=y(a)$ and $x(a)=y(n)$, and $x(k)=y(k)$ for $k\not\in\{a,n\}$.  Moreover, $y(a)<x(a)$ (since $x \gtrdot_B y$ and not vice versa).  On the other hand, if $y(a)\leq x(a)-2$, so that $y(a)<c<x(a)=y(n)$ for some $c$, then by~\eqref{RC} $c=y(k)$ for some $k\in[a+1,n-1]$, and in particular $x$ has at least three more inversions than $y$ --- not only $(a,n)$, but also $(a,k)$ and $(k,n)$, which contradicts the assumption $x\gtrdot_Py$.  Therefore $y(a)=x(a)-1$, i.e., $x(n)=y(n)-1$.  We conclude that $x=s_iy$, so $\lambda(x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(y)$ using the conormal forms above.

If $i=j$, then $u=v$, so $\bar x\gtrdot_P\bar y$ by Prop.~\ref{v-reduction}.  By induction $\lambda(\bar x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(\bar y)$, and prepending $n-i$ gives
$\lambda(x)\gtrdot_C\lambda(y)$ as well.
\end{proof}

\section{Pattern avoidance and reachability} \label{sec:avoid}

In this section, we establish two sufficient conditions for reachability using pattern avoidance. (It is dubious whether pattern avoidance conditions can completely characterize reachability.)

Let $\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ and $\sigma\in\mathfrak{S}_m$, where $m\leq n$.  A \defterm{$\sigma$-pattern} is a subsequence $\pi(i_1),\dots,\pi(i_m)$ in the same relative order as $\sigma$, i.e., such that $1\leq i_1<\cdots<i_m\leq n$ and $\pi(i_j)<\pi(i_k)$ if and only if $\sigma(j)<\sigma(k)$.  If $\pi$ contains no $\sigma$-pattern then we say that $\pi$ \defterm{avoids} $\sigma$.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:213-avoiding}
If $x\geq_By$ and $y$ avoids $213$, then $x\unrhd_R y$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\geq_By$ and $y$ avoids $213$, but $x\mkern-1mu\not\mathrel{\mkern1mu\unrhd_R}\mkern1mu y$.
Let $i$ be any index such that $\mathsf{d}_i(x,y) = 0$.  By Prop.~\ref{cf-df-facts} we know that $1<i<n$ and that $y(i) < x(i)$.  In particular, $m\neq i$, where $m = y^{-1}(x(i))$; that is, $y(m)=x(i)$.

First, suppose that $m > i$.  We claim that there exists some $u<i$ such that $y(i) < y(u) < y(m)$.  Otherwise, $J_i\geq y(m)-y(i)+1$, and then $k=y(m)-y(i)$ has the properties $k<J_i$ and $y(i)+k=y(m)=x(i)$, so $k\in\mathsf{D}_i(x,y)$, contradicting the assumption $\mathsf{d}_i(x,y) = 0$.  Therefore $y(u), y(i), y(m)$ is a 213-pattern.

Second, suppose that $m < i$. If $y(k) > y(m)$ for some $k>i$, then $y(m),y(i),y(k)$ is a 213-pattern. On the other hand, suppose that $y(k) < y(m) = x(i)$ for all $k > i$ (hence for all $k \ge i$).
Then
\[\{k\in[i,n]:\ y(k)<x(i)\}=[i,n]~\supsetneq~[i+1,n]\supseteq\{k\in[i,n]:\ x(k)<x(i)\}\subseteq[i+1,n]\]
so
\begin{align*}
\#\{k\in[i,n]:\ y(k)<x(i)\} &> \#\{k\in[i,n]:\ x(k)<x(i)\}\\
\therefore\quad \#\{k\in[1,i-1]:\ y(k)<x(i)\} &< \#\{k\in[1,i-1]:\ x(k)<x(i)\}\\
\therefore\quad \#\{k\in[1,i-1]:\ y(k)\geq x(i)\} &> \#\{k\in[1,i-1]:\ x(k)\geq x(i)\}.
\end{align*}
That is, $y\langle i-1,x(i)\rangle>x\langle i-1,x(i)\rangle$, contradicting the assumption $x\geq_By$.
\end{proof}

Theorem~\ref{thm:213-avoiding} partially answers the question of when the converse of Theorem~\ref{thm:bruhat} holds, i.e., which Bruhat relations are also relations in pseudoreachability order. We next study if there is an analogous condition on $x$, rather than $y$, that suffices for reachability.  One such condition that allows us to restrict $x$ instead of $y$ is to ensure that only very few entries $x(i)$ are large with respect to $i$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:x1}
Let $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$.  The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x^{-1}(i) \leq i+1$ for all $i\in[n]$.
\item $x\langle j,j\rangle = 1$ for all $j \in [n]$.
\item $x$ avoids both 231 and 321.
\item $x$ is of the form $s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_k}$, where $n-1\geq i_1>\cdots>i_k\geq1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The number of these permutations is $2^{n-1}$, which is easiest to see from condition~(4).
Conditions~(1) and~(3) were mentioned respectively by J.~Arndt (June 24, 2009) and M.~Riehl (August 5, 2014) respectively in the comments on sequence A000079 in \cite{OEIS}.
Accordingly, we will call a permutation satisfying the condition of Lemma~\ref{lem:x1} an \defterm{AR permutation} (for Arndt--Riehl).

\begin{proof}
$(1)\iff(2)$: Formula~\eqref{angle-brackets} implies that
\begin{align*}
\forall j\in[n]:\ x\langle j,j\rangle = 1
&\iff \forall j\in[n]:\ [1,j-1]\subseteq x[1,j]\\
&\iff \forall j\in[n]:\ x^{-1}[1,j-1]\subseteq [1,j]\\
&\iff \forall i\in[n]:\ x^{-1}[1,i]\subseteq [1,i+1]
\end{align*}
since the last two statements differ only by the trivially true cases $i=0$ and $i=n$.

$(3)\iff(1)$: Condition~(3) holds if and only if no digit $i\in[n]$ occurs later than position $i+1$, but this is precisely condition (1).

$(4)\iff(1)/(3)$: Let $Y_n$ be the set of permutations in $\mathfrak{S}_n$ satisfying the equivalent conditions~(1) and~(3), and let $Z_n$ be the set satisfying condition (4).  For $n\leq2$ we evidently have $Y_n=Z_n=\mathfrak{S}_n$.  For $n\geq 3$, we proceed by induction.  Observe that $Z_n=Z_{n-1}\cup s_{n-1}Z_{n-1}$, and that left-multiplication by $s_{n-1}$ (i.e., swapping the locations of $n-1$ and $n$) does not affect condition (1), which is always true for $i\in\{n-1,n\}$.  Therefore $Z_n\subseteq Y_n$.

On the other hand, if $w\in Y_n$ then $w_n\in\{n-1,n\}$, otherwise $w_n$, together with the digits $n-1$ and $n$, would form a 231- or 321-pattern.  Therefore, $w'_n=n$, where either $w'=w$ or $w'=s_{n-1}w$.  By induction $w'\in Z_{n-1}$, so $w\in Z_n$ as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:arn-bru}
If $x$ is AR and $y\leq_Bx$, then $y$ is AR as well.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:x1} asserts that $x\langle i,i\rangle = 1$ for all $i \in [n]$. Since $y\leq_Bx$, $y\langle i,i\rangle = 1$ or $0$, but the latter could not happen by the pigeonhole principle.
\end{proof}

An \defterm{exceedance} of a permutation $x\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ is an index $k\in[n]$ such that $x(k)>k$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:x2}
Let $x \in \mathfrak{S}_{n}$ be an AR permutation.  Suppose that $k$ is an exceedance of $x$, and let $i=x(k)$.  Then $x(j)=j-1$ for all $j\in[k+1,i]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The argument of Lemma~\ref{lem:x1} implies that $[1,k-1]\subseteq x[1,k]$; however, since $x(k)>k$ we have in fact
$[1,k-1]=x[1,k-1]$.

Now let $j\in[k+1,i]$.  Lemma~\ref{lem:x1} also asserts that $x\langle j,j\rangle=\#A_j=1$, where $A_j=\{m\in[j]:\ x(m)\geq j\}$.  Certainly $k\in A_j$, so $j\not\in A_j$, that is, $x(j)<j$.  But since $x(j)\geq k$ for each such $j$, we can infer in turn that $x(k+1)=k$, $x(k+2)=k+1$, \dots, $x(i)=i-1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:x}
If $x\geq_By$ and $x$ is AR, then $x\unrhd_R y$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $x\geq_By$ and $x$ is AR, but $x\mkern-1mu\not\mathrel{\mkern1mu\unrhd_R}\mkern1mu y$.
Let $i$ be some index such that $\mathsf{d}_{i}(x, y) = 0$.
By~\eqref{RC}, there exists $j < i$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{banana}
y(i) < y(j) \le x(i).
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:x1}, $x\langle i,i\rangle = 1$; that is, there exists some (unique) $k \leq i$ such that $x(k) \ge i$.

First, suppose that $k=i$.  Then $x\langle i-1,i\rangle = 0$, and $y\langle i-1,i\rangle = 0$ as well because $y \leq_B x$.  Hence $y[1,i-1]=[i-1]$.  But then~\eqref{banana} implies that $y(i)<y(j)\leq i-1$ as well, a contradiction.

Second, suppose that $k < i$.  Then $y(i)<x(i)<i$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:x2}, so $y(i)\leq i-2$.
Set $p=y(i)$; then $y^{-1}(p)=i\geq k+2$.  But then $y$ is not AR, which violates Corollary~\ref{cor:arn-bru}.
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Interval parking functions