arxiv:math/ v1 [math.pr] 20 Feb 2003

Transcription

1 JUGGLING PROBABILITIES GREGORY S. WARRINGTON arxiv:mat/ v [mat.pr] 20 Feb Introduction Imagine yourself effortlessly juggling five balls in a ig, lazy pattern. Your rigt and catces a ball and immediately trows it. One second later, it is your left and s turn to catc and trow a ball. Ten it is your rigt and s turn again.... Some of your trows may be low; some ig. Some balls go straigt up; oters cross over to te opposite and. At most times, one ball lands; occasionally a and remains empty. But te alternating cadence of your ands is unwavering. Suppose tat, wile you are juggling, we momentarily pause time. Certain balls are in te air you ave already trown tem. To avoid dropping te ball, you must make catces at certain times in te future. If your previous few trows were all low, peraps you are only committed at,2,4,6 and 7 seconds in te future. On te oter and, if you ad just vigorously launced a ball, you migt be committed at,2,3,4 and 0 seconds in te future. Te set of committed times is your landing state ( state for sort). As you juggle, you wander from state to state according to wat trow you ave most recently made. Our goal in tis paper is to answer te following Random Question. Wat fraction of te time is spent in any given state if every trow is cosen randomly? Te answer, of course, depends on ow we specify te following parameters:. te possible states, 2. te legal trows from a given state and 3. te probability of making eac legal trow. Tere are countless ways to make te above specifications, but we will begin our investigations wit te model tat most closely mirrors wat people envision as juggling. In te next section, we describe te juggling universe determined by tis standard model and answer our Random Question. In Section 3 we generalize te notion of a state in order to give a simple proof of our answer. Finally, in Section 4, we describe variations of our model. 2. Juggling states Jugglers ave been known to {toss, roll, spin, bounce, drop, kick} teir {balls, rings, clubs, flames, cairs} wile accompanying teir act wit {patter, music, dance, flourises}. We, owever, will strip juggling down to wat is (arguably) its essentials. Our juggler will juggle only balls and only in te air. He will not attempt jokes. Weter a and is under a leg or beind te back wen making a catc will not be noted. We only record te order in wic te balls are trown and caugt. Wile clearly ignoring muc of wat makes juggling visually intriguing, our single-mindedness will free us to igligt te inerently matematical nature of juggling. Our juggler will:. trow alternately from eac and, once a second, 2. trow a ball instantaneously upon catcing it, Date: July 8, 200. Te autor would like to tank Peter Doyle and J. Laurie Snell for teir substantial elp in simplifying te original proof of te main result of tis paper.

2 3. be assumed to ave always been (and be forevermore) juggling (tis allows us to avoid starting/stopping issues), 4. be named Magnus 2. Every ball Magnus trows lands some (integral) number of seconds in te future. By abuse of pysics, we will refer to tis parameter as te eigt of te trow. Until mentioned oterwise, we now fix some maximum eigt above wic Magnus is too weak to trow. In te introduction, we referred to a state as a set of future times at wic balls are landing. It will be more convenient trougout te paper to define a (landing) state ν as an -tuple in te alpabet {, }. Given a state ν, we will write ν t for its t-t component and write ν as ν = ν ν 2 ν. If ν t =, ten Magnus will catc a ball t seconds in te future. If ν t =, ten no ball lands t seconds in te future. We make tat convention tat ν t = for t >. To recover our original notion of a state from ν, take te set {t : ν t = }. We will denote te set of states tat are -tuples by St. Te subset St,f St will contain only tose states wit f s. As an example, consider te state ν = St 0. Assuming tat Magnus as just trown out of is left and, at and 7 seconds in te future e will be (instantaneously) trowing/catcing out of is rigt and; at 2,4,6 and 8 seconds in future e will be (instantaneously) trowing/catcing out of is left and. Wen te first element of our state ν is, we will often refer to wat Magnus does during te next second as making a eigt 0 trow. Upon making a trow (even a 0), Magnus commits imself to a (usually different) new state ω:. If te trow is a 0, ω = ν 2 ν 3 ν. 2. If te trow is of eigt t, ten ω = ν 2 ν 3 ν, were te is placed in te t-t position (replacing ν t+ ). As an example, below we illustrate successive trows of eigt 2, 0 and 6 from an initial state in wic balls are landing at, 4 and 6 seconds in te future: In Figure, we sow all possible states and transitions wen Magnus as 3 balls and is not able to trow anyting iger tan a Figure. Juggling 3 balls wit maximum eigt 4. Te edges are labeled wit te trow eigt. Remark. In tis section, we ave introduced te fundamentals of siteswap notation albeit in an untraditional form. As wit many great ideas, te provenance of siteswap notation is somewat murky. However, we can safely say tat tis notation was introduced (independently, and in various forms) in te mid 980s by Paul Klimek; Colin Wrigt and members of te Cambridge Juggling Club; and Bengt Magnusson and Bruce Tiemann. For a more leisurely introduction and a bibliograpy of papers relating to 2 After Magnus Nicolls, a juggler prominent during te early 900s. He is reputed to be te first person to juggle five clubs. Reliable details of is life are outclassed by fascinating stories. 2

3 siteswap notation, te reader sould consult [4]. General internet resources on juggling include [] and [2]. A recent book devoted to te matematics of juggling is [8]. Bot as a useful notation for juggling and for interesting enumerative combinatorics, it is preferable to introduce siteswap notation by defining patterns as repeating sequences of trows. Suc patterns correspond to cycles in certain graps; suc a grap can be found in Figure. Many computer programs ave been written to animate tese patterns. See [3] for one cowritten by te autor, or [2] for a compreensive list. To answer our Random Question, we need an explicit description of te set of possible states Magnus can pass troug and of te possible transitions among tem. To describe tese transitions, we introduce a family of trowing operators Θ j acting on tese states. Intuitively, Θ 0 corresponds to Magnus waiting wen no ball lands and Θ j corresponds to Magnus making a eigt j trow wen a ball does land. Precisely, { ν2 ν, if j = 0, () Θ j (ν) = ν 2 ν j ν j+2 ν, if j > 0. For te remainder of tis and te next section, we will fix > 0 and 0 f. We are now ready to define te directed grap wic specifies te possible states for Magnus along wit is possible transitions. Informally, te valid transitions correspond eiter to waiting or to making trows to empty landing times. Definition 2. Te state grap G,f is te directed grap wit. Vertices indexed by St,f. 2. An edge from ν to ω wenever (a) ω = Θ j (ν) for some j wit j, ν = and ν j+ = ; or (b) ω = Θ 0 (ν) and ν =. Te set of all edges is denoted Edges(G,f ). If (ν, ω) Edges(G,f ), ten we will refer to ν as a precursor of ω. Figure 2 illustrates G 5,2. Figure 2. Let us revisit te scenario introduced at te beginning of te paper (tis time wit Magnus juggling). Wen we freeze te action, Magnus is in a particular state e is committed to making certain catces. If no ball is landing in one second, e is forced to wait. If a ball is landing, owever, e can trow to any eigt ( ) tat will not lead to two balls landing at te same time. Our assumption in te following is tat Magnus cooses, wit equal probability, one of tese trows. In tis manner, Magnus is taking a random walk on te grap G,f. Having now prased te question in a precise manner, we need only give two definitions to state te answer. Definition 3. Te Stirling number of te second kind, { a b}, counts te number of ways of partitioning an a-element set into b blocks (irrespective of order). For example, { 4 2} = 7 as we can partition {A, B, C, D} into two parts in seven ways: 3

4 A B C D B A C D C A B D D A B C A B C D A C B D A D B C Table. Stirling numbers of te second kind { a b}. Let ν St. For eac integer t wit t, define { {t < j : ν j = (2) φ t (ν) = }, if ν t =, 0, if ν t =. Definition 4. Te weigt of a state ν, (ν), is given by te formula (3) (ν) = ( + φ t (ν)). t= Te weigt (our terminology) arises wen counting permutations wit restricted positions. See, e.g., [9, 2.4]. We are finally in a position to answer our Random Question. Teorem 5. If Magnus is juggling b balls and is able to trow tem to eigts at most = b + f, ten over te long term e spends (4) of is time in te state ν St,f. (ν) } { + f+ Example 6. Below we present te vector α wose ν-t component specifies te fraction of te time Magnus spends in eac state ν of Figure 2 wile juggling 3 balls at a maximum trow eigt of 5. α = { 6 ), ( ), ( ), 3}( ( ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( )) = (27, 8, 9, 2, 6, 3, 8, 4,2, ). 90 From α, we see tat for not quite one tird of te time, Magnus finds imself in te state corresponding to te usual tree ball cascade juggling pattern. Remark 7. For oter contexts in wic te Stirling numbers of te second kind arise in conjunction wit siteswap notation, see [5, 6]. A related class of numbers, te Eulerian numbers, also arise in te enumeration of siteswap patterns (see [4]). 4

5 3. Proof of Teorem 5 Te proof of Teorem 5 is not ard once we model te act of juggling randomly as a Markov cain: A discrete-time random process in wic te transition probabilities depend only on te current state. To describe a Markov cain, we need to know te possible states Ω and te possible transitions among tem. Te latter we encode in a transition matrix P. We will denote tis pair by MC(Ω, P). Te (i, j)-t entry of te matrix P is to be interpreted as te probability of transitioning from te i-t state to te j-t state in one step. In describing Magnus as taking a random walk on te states St,f wit trows cosen uniformly randomly, we ave already described one Markov cain: MC(St,f, P) were P = (p ν,ω ) ν,ω St,f wit, if (ν, ω) Edges(G,f ) and ν =, (5) p ν,ω = f+, if (ν, ω) Edges(G,f) and ν =, 0, else. Suppose we ave a Markov cain wit states {ω,..., ω r } and transition matrix P = (p i,j ) suc tat te l-t power P l = (p (l) i,j ) of P satisfies p(l) i,j > 0 for l 0. Tis condition on te matrix P means tat, no matter ow long Magnus as been juggling, e still as te opportunity to visit every state of St,f. MC(St,f, P) satisfies tis condition. A probability vector is a vector for wic te sum of te entries is. Te standard teorem of Markov cains we sall use is te following: Teorem 8. ([7, 4..4]) Given a Markov cain as above:. Tere exists a matrix A wit lim l P l = A. 2. Eac row of A is te same vector α = (α,..., α r ). 3. Eac α i > Te vector α is te unique probability vector satisfying αp = α. 5. For any probability vector π, πp l α as l. Te number α i can be interpreted as te fraction of time te Markov cain is expected to spend in te i-t state. Hence, Teorem 8 tells us ow to answer our question: To find te fraction of time tat Magnus is in state ω, we need only calculate te ω-t entry of te (normalized) left eigenvector for P wit eigenvalue! Example 9. We illustrate tese ideas using te grap G 4, given in Figure. Te transition matrix P simply consists of a /2 for every edge except te unique edge leaving, wic must be taken. Notice tat te sum of te entries in a row is. Below we list P and two of its powers. P = P 2 = P 5 = /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /4 /4 /2 /4 /4 3/4 /4 /2 /2 7/32 9/32 /8 /6 7/32 /4 5/32 /6 7/32 /4 /8 3/32 9/6 /4 /8 /6 5

6 Already for P 5 we see tat te rows appear to be converging to te same vector. And, indeed, by Teorem 8 tis vector is: α = { 5 2} ( ( ), ( ), ( ), ( )) = (8, 4, 2, ). 5 Just over alf of Magnus time will be spent in te state. In fact, tis geometric distribution is wat one would expect by examination of te grap G 4,. One can certainly prove Teorem 5 by guessing te vector α and ten proving tat it satisfies te conditions of Teorem 8. However, as is often te case in matematics, keeping track of additional information enables us to write a simpler and more illuminating proof. So, we will construct an augmented Markov cain tat is easy to analyze and from wic we can obtain our original Markov cain by grouping states. We will augment our states by specifying wic balls are landing wen. To tis end, define a Trowing/Landingstate ( TL-state ) to be an -tuple ν = ν ν 2 ν {,, 2,...,} suc tat for eac j, k, t, (6) ν t t or ν t = and (7) if j k, ten ν j j ν k k. Te first condition ensures tat any ball currently slated to land as, in fact, already been trown. Te second condition ensures tat Magnus did not ave to trow two balls at once in order to get into is current TL-state. As is te case for states, we interpret ν t = to mean tat no ball lands t seconds in te future. We interpret ν t = i as meaning tat te ball trown i t seconds in te past will land t seconds in te future. (Alternatively, te ball landing t seconds in te future will ave been in te air i seconds by te time it lands.) A TL-state completely captures te current status of Magnus. Let Ŝt denote te set of all TL-states of lengt and Ŝt,f te subset of TL-states wit f s. Te trowing operators Θ j are extended in te obvious manner to act on TL-states. Of course, eac TL-state determines some landing state simply by forgetting ow long eac ball as been in te air. So, define a map π : Ŝt St by π ( ν) = ν ν 2 ν were (8) ν t = {, if ν t =,, if ν t {, 2,...,}. In addition to MC(St,f, P), we now ave anoter natural Markov cain to consider: MC(Ŝt,f, P) were P = ( p ν, ω ) ν, ω Ŝt,f wit, if ω = Θ 0 ( ν) and ν =, (9) p ν, ω = f+, if ω = Θ j( ν) for some j wit j, ν = and ν j+ =, 0, else. Our approac to proving Teorem 5 will be to analyze tis latter Markov cain. Te first step will be to find te vector β of steady-state probabilities for MC(Ŝt,f, P). Te second step will be to sow tat lumping states of tis cain recovers our original cain MC(St,f, P). By analyzing tis lumping process carefully, it will be clear ow to obtain te result of Teorem 5 from our knowledge of te vector β. Lemma 0. Te vector of all s (of lengt Ŝt,f ) is a left eigenvector for P. Proof. To prove tis, we need simply sow tat te transition matrix P is doubly stocastic (i.e., tat te rows and columns sum to ). Tere are two cases to consider. In te first, eiter ν t = or ν t > t for every t wit t. In tis case, Magnus waited during te most recent beat. Tat means tat te only precursor of ν is ν ν. On te oter and, if ν t = t for some t, ten e just made a eigt t trow. Since Magnus trows at most 6

7 one ball at any given time, tere is at most one suc t. By te discussion in te proof of Lemma 4 given below, te previous arc of tis ball could ave been any of f + different eigts. Eac of tese different eigts leads to a different precursor. Since te out-degree of any state ν wit ν is f +, eac of tese edges as weigt f+. Tis proves tat te columns of P also sum to. In order to fully describe te vector β for MC(Ŝt,f, P), we need to calculate Ŝt,f. Lemma. Ŝt,f = { + f+}. Proof. We proceed by constructing a bijection between elements of Ŝt,f and partitions wit f + blocks of te set [ + ] := {, 2,..., + }. An example of te correspondence we construct is illustrated in Figure 3. We start by associating a grap Γ ν wit vertex set [ + ] to eac ν Ŝt,f. For t < i +, we set {t, i} to be an edge of Γ ν if and only if tere was a ball trown + i seconds in te past tat will be landing t seconds in te future. In terms of ν, tis means simply tat ν i = + + t i. Let λ( ν) be te set partition of [ + ] corresponding to te connected components of Γ ν. Our goal is to sow tat te map ν λ( ν) is a bijection onto partitions of [ + ] wit f + blocks. To begin, we examine te connected components of Γ ν. Suppose tat {a, b}, {a, c} are distinct edges of Γ ν. As tey are bot incident to te vertex a, all of a, b and c must be in te same connected component. It cannot be true tat a < b, c as ten Magnus would be planning to catc two balls a seconds from now. Nor can it be true tat b, c < a as tis would imply tat a seconds ago Magnus trew two balls at once. We conclude tat eiter b < a < c or c < a < b. Tis implies tat Γ ν is a disjoint union of cains. Te number of edges in Γ ν is f since tere is an edge for eac j wit ν j. So, te number of connected components in Γ ν is te number of vertices ( + ) decreased by te number of edges ( f). Tis yields f + connected components. Hence, λ( ν) is a partition of [ + ] into f + blocks as desired Figure 3. On te left we sow te edges of Γ ν for te TL-state ν = On te rigt is te corresponding partition λ( ν). Now suppose tat λ is a (set) partition of [+]. We will associate a TL-state ω(λ) = ω(λ) ω(λ) to λ. Consider a block {α, α 2,..., α m } (indexed suc tat α i < α j if i < j) of λ. If m =, ten set ω(λ) α =. Oterwise, set ω(λ) αl = + + α l α l+ for eac l wit l < m. Since α l < α l+ + for eac l, ω(λ) is certainly an -tuple in {,, 2,...,}. Tat (6) is satisfied follows from te inequalities α l < α l+ +. Tat ω(λ) satisfies (7) follows from te definition of ω(λ) αl along wit te fact tat our blocks are disjoint. Hence, ω(λ) is, in fact, a TL-state. Furtermore, it can be cecked tat λ ω(λ) is te inverse of te map ν λ( ν). Terefore, every partition of [ + ] into f + blocks is obtained as a λ( ν) for a unique ν Ŝt,f. Tis completes te proof. Corollary 2. In te process MC(Ŝt,f, P), te fraction of time Magnus finds imself in state ν is { + f+}. We ave sown tat, wen juggling randomly, Magnus is as likely to find imself in one TL-state as anoter. We will now consider a new random process running in parallel wit MC(Ŝt,f, P). For ν St,f, define [ν] = π (ν) Ŝt,f. Wen MC(Ŝt,f, P) is in state ν, we define our new process to be in te state [π ( ν)]. It follows tat its states are {[ν]} ν St,f. Tis is a lumped process derived from MC(Ŝt,f, P) by grouping togeter certain states. Certainly Magnus wanders randomly among te states of tis new process. We do not yet know, owever, tat tis new process is a Markov cain. In particular, it is not clear tat te probability of transitioning 7

8 from [ν] to [ω] is independent of ow long Magnus as been in [ν]. If it were dependent, ten te transition probabilities would depend on previous states as well as te current state. Or, stated anoter way, te transition probability from [ν] to [ω] would depend on wic state µ of [ν] Magnus is currently in. For eac µ [ν], let p µ,[ω] denote te probability of MC(Ŝt,f, P,) transitioning from µ to some element of [ω]. Our above discussion suggests (see [7, 6.3.2] for a proof) tat our new process will be a Markov cain if te probabilities p µ,[ω] are equal for eac µ [ν]. Furtermore, te transition probabilities r [ν],[ω] of our new process will be tese common values p µ,[ω]. Lemma 3. Fix ν, ω St,f. Wit te notation above, p µ,[ω] = p ν,ω for eac µ [ν]. Proof. If p ν,ω = 0, ten certainly all of te p µ,[ω] are 0 too. Also, if p ν,ω =, ten Magnus must wait after any state µ [ν]; ence p µ,[ω] =. So te only case to consider is wen p ν,ω = f+. In tis case, ω = Θ j (ν) for some j wit j and ν =. In particular, tere is some j wit j for wic ν j+ = and ω j =. Suppose tat Magnus transitions from µ to a particular ω [ω]. Te previous equalities imply tat µ j+ = and ω j = j. It follows tat ω is obtained from µ by making a eigt j trow. Tis will be one of f + possible trows for Magnus as µ ; ence e will take tis coice wit probability f+. As we ave considered all cases, tis completes te proof of te lemma. Define a matrix R = (r [ν],[ω] ) ν,ω St,f by setting r [ν],[ω] = p ν,ω. By te above lemma, we ave obtained a new stocastic process MC({[ν]} ν St,f, R) tat can be identified in te obvious manner wit MC(St,f, P). It follows from Corollary 2 tat te fraction of te time Magnus finds imself in a state ν wit respect to te process MC(St,f, P) is [ν] { + f+}. Hence, Teorem 5 follows from Lemma [ ] [ ] [ ] Figure 4. Te Markov cain MC(Ŝt 3,, P) along wit te lumped process. Lemma 4. (0) [ν] = (ν) = ( + φ t (ν)). Proof. Let ν Ŝt,f and ν St,f suc tat π ( ν) = ν. Suppose ν t = and tat we know te value of ν i for eac i > t. How do tese values constrain te possibilities for ν t? To start, note tat te ball landing t seconds in te future was trown at most t seconds in te past. As Magnus must ave already trown tis ball, tere are at most t + possibilities for ν t. In addition, any ball landing more tan t seconds in te future must ave been trown fewer tan t seconds in te past as ν St. Combining tese two observations, we see tat te number of possibilities for ν t is reduced precisely by te number of balls landing after it. In particular, te possible values for ν t depend only on te ν i for i > t. In conclusion, te number of possible values for ν t wen ν t = is t= t + {i > t : ν i = }, wic is just ( + φ t (ν)). Taking te product over all t yields te desired answer. 8

9 Tis completes te proof of Teorem 5. Remark 5. Consideration of te powers of te transition matrix P migt lead to new asymptotic formulae for te Stirling numbers of te second kind: Consider G,f and te associated transition matrix P wit te last row indexed by te state ω = St,f. We ave already seen tat te rows of P l converge to a probability vector α wit α ω = / { + f+}. Hence, for eac state µ St,f, we get a sequence tat converges to / { + f+}. (p µ,ω, p (2) µ,ω,...) 4. Oter models By now (unless you are a very fast reader), Magnus is getting tired. He is going to drop occasionally. Certainly any realistic juggling model sould accommodate transitions to states wit fewer balls. Of course, if we allow Magnus to juggle indefinitely, and e drops occasionally, e will eventually run out of balls. To keep tings interesting, we will give is assistant, Spagnum, te option of inserting a ball into Magnus pattern wenever Magnus as a wait. We will explore two suc models in tis section. In bot models, Magnus can simply fail to catc a ball. Wen tis appens, Magnus transitions from a state in St,f to one in St,f+. Te difference between te two models lies in wat is considered to be a legal trow. In te first model, Magnus (or is assistant) will only trow to eigts tat would not lead to two balls landing at te same time. In te second model, owever, we allow tis eventuality. Of course, as Magnus is well-known to ave small ands, e cannot catc two at once, so e will ave to ignore one of te balls. Suc a trow will, in terms of transitions, be treated no differently tan a drop. Tese canges are easily incorporated into te framework we ave developed. Now we define te state graps corresponding to te aforementioned add-drop model (well known to college students) and anniilation model.. Add-drop juggling generalizes standard juggling by always allowing trows of eigt 0 and removing te restriction on ν = for trows of positive eigt. (Te trows of eigt 0 correspond to Magnus dropping or waiting; tose of positive eigt wen ν = correspond to Spagnum elping.) So, our grap G a d as (a) Vertices indexed by St. (b) An edge from ν to ω wenever (i) ω = Θ j (ν) for some j, j suc tat ν j+ = ; or (ii) ω = Θ 0 (ν). Figure 5 illustrates G3 a d. Figure 5. Solid arrows are regular trows; dased are drops; dotted are insertions by Spagnum. 9

10 2. In Anniilation juggling, we take te same state grap G ann = G a d difference will be in ow we assign probabilities to te edges. as in te previous case. Te Wit our state graps now defined, we can define te corresponding transition matrices. For ν St,f, set f ν = {t : 2 t and ν t = }.. For G a d, set Q = (q ν,ω ) ν,ω St wit q ν,ω = { f ν +2, 0, else. if (ν, ω) Edges(Ga d ), Te denominator above comes from te fact tat Magnus can eiter drop/wait or trow to any occurring at ν 2 or later. So ere, again, Magnus cooses uniformly from te available edges. 2. For G ann, set R = (r ν,ω ) ν,ω St wit f ν +, if (ν, ω) Edges(Gann ) and Θ 0 (ν) = ω, r ν,ω = +, if (ν, ω) Edges(Gann ) and Θ 0 (ν) ω, 0, else. Here, you sould envision Magnus (possibly wit te elp of Spagnum) trowing to any eigt ( ) at random, regardless of weter or not a ball as just landed. If tere is already a ball landing at te time e is trowing to, te latter ball gets anniilated. In order to describe te steady-state probabilities for te add-drop model, we must introduce te Bell numbers. Te -t Bell number, B, is defined by B = { i=0 i}. For tese two models, te analogue of Teorem 5 is Teorem 6. Let ν St,f.. In te add-drop model, Magnus spends of is time in state ν. 2. In te anniilation model, Magnus spends of is time in state ν. (ν) B +! ( f)! (ν) ( + ) As te denominators for our probabilities in te standard and add-drop model ave natural combinatorial interpretations, te reader may be wondering if suc an interpretation exists for te ( + ) occurring in te anniilation model. Indeed, ( + ) counts te number of labeled rooted trees wit nodes (see [0, 5.3.2] for details). Example 7. Below we give te transition matrix for G a d 3 : /2 /2 /3 /3 /3 /3 /3 /3 /2 /2 /4 /4 /4 /4 /3 /3 /3 /3 /3 /3 /4 /4 /4 /4 From Teorem 6., we obtain te probability vector α = (, 4, 2,, 3, 2,, ). 5 0

11 Tis gives te fraction of te time Magnus spends in eac of te eigt possible states (te ordering of α is te same as tat of te transition matrix). As te steps in te proof of Teorem 6 are analogous to tose found in te proof of Teorem 5, we do not detail tem ere. As a consolation to te reader, toug, we mention two oter families of juggling models wic, altoug peraps less pysically realistic tan te ones we ave described, do lead to interesting answers to our Random Question.. Multiplex juggling: Tere is no real reason (assuming you find a juggler wit bigger ands) to disallow te catcing and trowing of more tan one ball at a time. Te standard and add-drop models can bot be reinterpreted wit tis condition relaxed. 2. Infinite juggling: Again, given a juggler in better sape tan Magnus, tere is no reason to place a maximum on legal trow eigts. In te standard juggling model, placing a probability of (p )/p j for te trow to te j-t next available eigt yields tractable calculations for any p >. Rater tan coosing geometric weigts for te trows, one could coose probabilities from any convergent infinite series. For example, wy not coose 6/(π 2 j 2 ) for te j-t available trow eigt? Or even 90/(π 4 j 4 )? Te sky s te limit. 5. Acknowledgements I would like to tank Micael Scneider for elpful advice on Markov cains and Joe Buler for elp in sorting out wo sould be credited wit te idea of siteswap notation. References [] ttp:// [2] ttp://directory.google.com/top/arts/performing_arts/circus/juggling/software/. [3] ttp:// [4] Joe Buler, David Eisenbud, Ron Graam, and Colin Wrigt. Juggling Drops and Descents. Amer. Mat. Montly, 0:507 59, 994. [5] R. Erenborg and M. Readdy. Juggling and applications to q-analogues. In Proceedings of te 6t Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (New Brunswick, NJ, 994), volume 57, pages 07 25, 996. [6] L. Kamstra. Juggling polynomials. Tecnical report, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, 200. [7] J. Kemeny and J. Snell. Finite Markov cains. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 960. [8] Burkard Polster. Te Matematics of Juggling. Spring Verlag, [9] R. Stanley. Enumerative Combinatorics, volume. Wadswort & Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 986. [0] Ricard P. Stanley. Enumerative combinatorics. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 999.