Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Subsets of posets minimising the number of chains

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1708.02436 v1 pith:AIFLI4H5 submitted 2017-08-08 math.CO

Subsets of posets minimising the number of chains

classification math.CO
keywords subsetslengthnumberchainscollectionelementfamiliessmallest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A well-known theorem of Sperner describes the largest collections of subsets of an $n$-element set none of which contains another set from the collection. Generalising this result, Erd\H{o}s characterised the largest families of subsets of an $n$-element set that do not contain a chain of sets $A_1 \subset \dotsc \subset A_k$ of an arbitrary length $k$. The extremal families contain all subsets whose cardinalities belong to an interval of length $k-1$ centred at $n/2$. In a far-reaching extension of Sperner's theorem, Kleitman determined the smallest number of chains of length two that have to appear in a collection of a given number $a$ of subsets of an $n$-element set. For every $a$, this minimum is achieved by the collection comprising $a$ sets whose cardinalities are as close to $n/2+1/4$ as possible. We show that the same is true about chains of an arbitrary length $k$, for all $a$ and $n$, confirming the prediction Kleitman made fifty years ago. We also characterise all families of $a$ subsets with the smallest number of chains of length $k$ for all $a$ for which this smallest number is positive. Our argument is inspired by an elegant probabilistic lemma from a recent paper of Noel, Scott, and Sudakov, which in turn can be traced back to Lubell's proof of Sperner's theorem.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.