Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A survey reconstructs the Delta-system method from its 1960 origins through Füredi's structural theorem, with proofs of key results and applications.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A survey of the Delta-system (sunflower) method in extremal set theory, with proofs of key theorems and a broad literature review.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful classical survey with a broken r-spread definition that invalidates the modern sections as written. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20132 v1 pith:3BPE6L24 submitted 2025-08-26 math.CO cs.DM

Delta-system method: a survey

Andrey Kupavskii This is my paper
classification math.CO cs.DM MSC 05D0505C6505D10
keywords Delta-systemsunflowerextremal set theoryforbidden intersectionsTurán-type problemsFüredi structural theoremstabilitysupersaturation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The survey sets out to give a concise, proof-carrying account of the Delta-system method, a way of forcing large uniform set families to contain a sunflower, meaning a collection of sets whose pairwise intersections all coincide. Its central contention is that this single Ramsey-type observation, sharpened by a structural theorem stating that a constant fraction of any large family can be made homogeneous with respect to intersections, is enough to solve a wide range of extremal set problems, from forbidden intersection sizes to Turán-type hypergraph problems. The survey also marks the method's boundaries, comparing it with more recent junta, hypercontractivity, and spread-approximation approaches and cataloguing what remains open, including the original Erdős–Rado sunflower conjecture. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution to be a reliable reference that reconstructs proofs rather than merely listing results.

Core claim

The paper's contribution is a survey that reconstructs the Delta-system method from its origin in the 1960 Erdős–Rado theorem through Deza–Erdős–Frankl and Frankl–Füredi, with proofs for most key results, and identifies Füredi's structural theorem as the pivotal development. According to this account, every large k-uniform family contains a constant-fraction subfamily that is k-partite, has a single intersection structure, and has the property that every pairwise intersection is itself the kernel of a large sunflower. Once such a homogeneous substructure is found, extremal problems reduce to analyzing a finite intersection-closed set system; this reduction yields the forbidden-one-intersecti

What carries the argument

The central object is the Delta(s)-system, or sunflower: a family A1,...,As with Ai∩Aj equal to the common intersection for all i≠j; that common intersection is the core or kernel. The Erdős–Rado theorem guarantees a sunflower in any sufficiently large family of sets of size at most k. The method's engine is Füredi's structural theorem (Theorem 21): any k-uniform family contains a constant-fraction subfamily that is k-partite, has identical intersection structure across all its sets, and in which every pairwise intersection is the kernel of an s-sunflower inside the subfamily. This reduces global extremal questions to finite intersection-closed families M⊂2^[k], which then support the base/d

Load-bearing premise

The survey is only as reliable as the theorems it restates and two results it cites from not-yet-peer-reviewed work, namely an upcoming joint note and the author's own preprints; if those contain errors or are misrepresented, the survey's account of the modern state of the method is compromised.

What would settle it

Take n large, k=2ℓ+3, and take F to be the family of all k-sets containing a fixed (ℓ+1)-set, then remove an ε-fraction and add an ε-fraction of sets designed to avoid intersection ℓ; Theorem 51 predicts the added sets are confined to O(ε^{(k−ℓ−1)/ℓ} n^{k−ℓ−1}), so a construction exceeding this bound would falsify the claimed stability theorem.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the survey's account is correct, the forbidden-one-intersection problem for k≥2ℓ+2 is solved exactly for large n, with the extremal family consisting of all k-sets containing a fixed (ℓ+1)-set.
  • The structural theorem reduces (n,k,L)-systems to finite intersection-closed families, yielding the O(n) versus Θ(n²) dichotomy, divisibility reductions, and the characterization of when the extremal size is linear.
  • Sunflowers with fixed kernel of size ℓ have asymptotics (φ(ℓ+1,s)+o(1)) binom(n−ℓ−1,k−ℓ−1) in the regime k≥2ℓ+3, giving a concrete subcase of the Duke–Erdős question.
  • The method delivers stability: near-extremal ℓ-avoiding families are concentrated on a fixed (ℓ+1)-set, with an explicit error term, and quantitative variants yield supersaturation results.
  • The method has known boundaries: it applies for n>n0(k) and cannot in its current form handle regimes where k grows with n or dense quasirandom settings, where other methods apply.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The stability derivation in Theorem 51 is modular: the same Kruskal–Katona shadow-comparison template could plausibly be applied to any forbidden configuration whose homogeneous structure has bounded rank, yielding explicit epsilon-dependence; this is my extrapolation, not stated in the survey.
  • The peeling-simplification procedure could develop into a general base-construction framework beyond t-intersecting families, since its spreadness condition is much weaker than sunflower-freeness; this is my inference from Section 1.7.
  • The survey's regime comparison suggests that combining the Delta-system method with sharp-threshold methods may be the natural route to the remaining open regimes, such as k proportional to n, rather than refining either approach alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a survey of the Delta-system/sunflower method in extremal set theory. It traces the method from the Erdős–Rado theorem through the early work of Deza, Erdős and Frankl, Füredi's structural theorem, the Frankl–Füredi results on forbidden intersections and exact Turán-type problems, and ends with recent spread-lemma and spread-approximation developments. The survey states and proves or sketches many of the key theorems, including Füredi's homogeneous-structure theorem (Theorem 21), the forbidden-one-intersection results (Theorems 27 and 31), and several stability and supersaturation results. The abstract promises a concise picture of the method and proofs of most key results.

Significance. If the presentation errors are fixed, this survey fills a genuine need: it collects a historically careful account of the Delta-system method with proofs, explicit attributions, and a useful bibliography. The included proofs of the classical results are mostly standard and correct, the survey is careful about credit, and the explicit stability theorem (Theorem 51) with its Kruskal–Katona argument is a valuable addition. However, the flawed definition of r-spread currently makes a substantial portion of the 'modern day' part vacuous, so the paper as it stands cannot serve as a reliable reference until that is corrected.

major comments (2)
  1. [§1.1.4] The definition of r-spread is internally inconsistent. A family F is defined to be r-spread if |F(X)| < r^{-|X|}|F| for each set X. Taking X = ∅ gives |F(∅)| = |F|, so the strict inequality fails for every nonempty F. Consequently Theorem 3 has an empty hypothesis, and the applications described immediately after it cannot fire. The same definition is used again in §1.7: Observation 58 asserts that if no G(X) is r-spread then |G| ≤ r^ℓ; under the stated definition the premise is automatically true for every G, so Observation 58 would imply that every ℓ-uniform family has size at most r^ℓ, which is false for the complete family on [n] when binom(n,ℓ) > r^ℓ. The intended definition should quantify over nonempty X or use a weak inequality (as in the original spread-lemma papers). This is a load-bearing error because the spread lemma, the peeling-simplification procedure, and the spread-appr
  2. [§1.6.1] The stability paragraph beginning 'Can this be extended further?' presents a result for Theorem 37 as an 'upcoming note with Noskov' and gives only a sketch. As written, this is an announcement, not a proof, and the claim in (1.15) is not independently verifiable from the manuscript. The survey should either provide the proof or explicitly mark this as a conjecture/future work. The same applies to the sentence in §1.9.4 referring to an 'in preparation' result of Noskov and the author. This is not an error in the classical part of the survey, but it affects the credibility of the claimed coverage of the current state of the method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.1.2, Observation 2] In the proof, the displayed cardinality is wrong: the text says |C| = φ(a,s)+φ(b,s), but from the construction C = {A⊔B : A∈A, B∈B} the correct value is |A|·|B| = φ(a,s)·φ(b,s). This is presumably a typo, but it should be fixed because the observation is used to justify lower bounds.
  2. [§1.1.4] The notation 'F(X)' in the spread definition is defined in §1.1.1 as {A\X : A∈F, X⊂A}, so F(∅)=F. The text should make explicit that the spread condition is only intended for nonempty X (or use a non-strict inequality), and the same convention must be used consistently in §1.7.
  3. [§1.2.2] In the proof of Theorem 5, the algebraic derivation after Lemma 7 is compressed: the chain '2(2q−1) ≥ ...' to '1/s_j + 1/(m−s_j+1) ≥ 1/q' is correct after rearranging, but a reader has to reconstruct the intermediate step. A one-line explanation would improve clarity.
  4. [§1.4.3] The text says 'We sketch the proof in that assumption' and later omits some technical details, e.g., the proof of the equality characterization in Corollary 30 is referenced to [54] rather than proved. This is acceptable for a survey, but it should be stated more explicitly which parts are sketches and which are complete proofs, especially since the abstract promises proofs of most key results.
  5. [§1.7, Claim 57] In the proof of Claim 57 the notation is a little sloppy: the family being summed is G, but the spread condition applies to G(X); the display should use G(X) and G(X∪{x}) rather than G and G(x). The argument is clear, but the notation should be aligned with the definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the survey's derivations are drawn from external results with proofs. Minor unpublished self-citations are not load-bearing. A separate definitional bug in r-spread (X=∅) makes modern spread sections vacuous as written, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The survey is expository: its main chain (Deza–Erdős–Frankl base construction, Füredi's Theorem 21, Frankl–Füredi forbidden-intersection and Turán-type applications) is presented with proofs and attributed to the original external papers ([26], [63], [54], [55]). No parameter fitting or prediction-from-fit occurs. The few announced items involving the author's own work are used as sources, not as the sole validation: Theorem 51 is explicitly 'essentially the same as in [54]'; the peeling-simplification procedure in §1.7 is stated with proofs (Claims 56–57, Observation 58, Lemma 60) even though attributed to [95,98]; §1.6.1's 'upcoming note with Noskov' is an announcement, not a load-bearing derivation. These self-citations therefore do not create circularity, though they justify at most a score of 2 for minor non-load-bearing self-citation/unpublished support. One serious issue found in the manuscript is not circular: in §1.1.4 and §1.7, F is called r-spread if |F(X)| < r^{-|X|}|F| 'for each set X' (and 'for any set X'). Taking X=∅ yields |F(∅)|=|F|, so the strict inequality is impossible for every nonempty F. Hence Theorem 3's hypothesis is empty and Observation 58 is vacuous as written; §1.7's peeling analysis and the spread-lemma sketch are built on this premise. This is a definitional/consistency flaw that should be repaired (e.g., quantifying over nonempty X or using ≤), but it does not reduce any claimed output to its input, so it does not constitute circularity under the requested analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no new free parameters or entities. Its inputs are standard background theorems plus the cited literature, including some unpublished or self-cited works, which are the main sources of uncertainty.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The surveyed theorems are correctly quoted from the original literature (e.g., Theorem 21 from [63], Theorem 40 from [55]).
    The survey does not prove every result independently; its credibility as a survey rides on the accuracy of its restatements.
  • standard math The Kruskal-Katona theorem (Theorem 36) is valid in Lovász's form.
    Used in Section 1.4.3 and Section 1.6 to compare shadow sizes and to derive exact bounds; not proved in the survey.
  • standard math The Erdős-Rado Δ-system theorem (Theorem 1), proved in the introduction, serves as the base of the method.
    Invoked throughout, e.g., in Lemma 14 and in bounding the base family; it is a classical result.
  • standard math The existence of near-perfect packings and designs (Rödl's nibble and Keevash's design theorem) is true as used in lower bound constructions.
    Invoked in Sections 1.4.1 and 1.5.1.1 to claim asymptotic tightness of the Steiner-type examples; not proved in the survey.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delta-system method: a survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BPE6L24

@misc{pith2026250820132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delta-system method: a survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BPE6L24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20132}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In 1960 Erd\H os and Rado published a paper that, in retrospect, became one of the most influential papers in extremal set theory. They proved a result of Ramsey theoretic flavour, stating that in any sufficiently large family of sets of bounded size there is a homogeneous substructure, called a $\Delta$-system (also known under the name of a sunflower). For many qualitative results in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, this has become a very powerful tool to analyze complex set families. Extremal set theory flourished in the 1970's--80's, and many exciting developments happened then. One of them was the development of the $\Delta$-system method in the works of Frankl and F\"uredi. In this survey, we try to give a concise picture of this method starting from its early stages and to the modern day. We also tried to present the proofs of most of the key results. On top of this, we survey the literature on the problems that the Delta-systems was applied to.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Complete Intersection Theorem for Large Permutation Groups

    math.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Proves that for sufficiently large n the maximum t-intersecting families in S_n are the fixed-point families F_{n,t,r}, resolving the Deza-Frankl problem asymptotically.

  2. Structure of $t$-Intersecting Families of Vector Spaces

    math.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large t-intersecting families of k-subspaces in n-space (n ≥ 2k+1) admit a low-dimensional governing structure, enabling analogues of several classical extremal results.

  3. On the maximum number of vectors in $\{0,\pm1\}^n$ with forbidden inner products

    math.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The maximum cardinality of a set M of vectors in {0,±1}^n with (m,m)=4 and pairwise inner products restricted to {-4,-3,-2,-1,0,3} is determined for all sufficiently large n.

  4. Short proofs of three combinatorial results in the Johnson scheme

    math.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Short proofs are supplied for three results on (n,k,L)-systems in the Johnson scheme, the central one being a proof of the Aljohani-Bamberg-Cameron conjecture that complementary systems whose sizes multiply to binom(n...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H. L. Abbott, D. Hanson, and N. Sauer, Intersection theorems for systems of sets, J. Combi- natorial Theory 12 (1972), 381–389

    1972

  2. [2]

    Ahlswede and L.H

    R. Ahlswede and L.H. Khachatrian, The Complete Intersection Theorem for Systems of Finite Sets, European Journal of Combinatorics. 18 (1997), 125–136

    1997

  3. [3]

    N. Alon, P. Frankl, L. Lov ´asz, The chromatic number of Kneser hypergraphs , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 298 (1986) 359–370

    1986

  4. [4]

    Alon, R.B

    N. Alon, R.B. Boppana, The monotone circuit complexity of boolean functions, Combinatorica 7 (1987) 1–22

    1987

  5. [5]

    Improved bounds for the sunflower lemma

    R. Alweiss, S. Lovett, K. Wu, and J. Zhang, Improved bounds for the sunflower lemma , arXiv:1908.08483 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  6. [6]

    Babai, P

    L. Babai, P. Frankl, Note on set intersections, J. Combin. Theory A 28 (1980), 103–105

    1980

  7. [7]

    T. Bell, S. Chueluecha and L. Warnke, Note on sunflowers, Discrete Math., 344 (2021), N7

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bermond, P

    J.C. Bermond, P. Frankl, On a conjecture of Chv ´atal on 𝑚-intersecting hypergraphs, Bull. London Math. Sot 9 (1977), 310-312

    1977

  9. [9]

    Bollob ´as, On generalized graphs, Acta Math

    B. Bollob ´as, On generalized graphs, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 16 (1965), 447–452

    1965

  10. [10]

    Bollob ´as and I

    B. Bollob ´as and I. Leader, Set systems with few disjoint pairs , Combinatorica 23 (2003), 559–570

    2003

  11. [11]

    Bollob ´as, A.G

    B. Bollob ´as, A.G. Thomason, Threshold functions, Combinatorica 7 (1987) 35–38

    1987

  12. [12]

    Buci ´c, N

    M. Buci ´c, N. Dragani´c, B. Sudakov, T. Tran,Unavoidable hypergraphs, Journal of Combina- torial Theory, Series B 151 (2021), 307–338

    2021

  13. [13]

    Tur\'{a}n numbers of sunflowers

    D. Brada ˇc, M. Buci ´c, B. Sudakov, Tur´an numbers of sunflowers , (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.11319

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.11319 2021

  14. [14]

    Bushaw, N

    N. Bushaw, N. Kettle, Tur´an numbers for forests of paths in hypergraphs , SIAM J. Discree Mathematics, 28 (2014), 711–721

    2014

  15. [15]

    D. K. Ray-Chaudhuri and R. M. Wilson, On𝑡-designs, Osaka J. Math. 12 (1975), 737–744

    1975

  16. [16]

    On set systems without singleton intersections

    D. Cherkashin, On set systems without singleton intersections, (2024), arXiv:2408.00484

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Chung, Unavoidable stars in 3-graphs, J

    F.R.K. Chung, Unavoidable stars in 3-graphs, J. Comb. Theory A 35 (1983), 252–262

    1983

  18. [18]

    Chung, P

    F.R.K. Chung, P. Erd ˝os, On unavoidable hypergraphs, Journal of Graph Theory 11 (1987), 251–263

    1987

  19. [19]

    Chung, P

    F.R.K. Chung, P. Frankl, The maximum number of edges in a 3-graph not containing a given star, Graphs and Combinatorics 3 (1987) 111–126

    1987

  20. [20]

    Chv ´atal, An extremal set-intersection theorem, J

    V. Chv ´atal, An extremal set-intersection theorem, J. London Math. Soc. 9 (1974), 355–359. 62

    1974

  21. [21]

    Currier, On the 𝑑-cluster generalization of Erd ˝os-Ko-Rado, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 182 (2021), 105464

    G. Currier, On the 𝑑-cluster generalization of Erd ˝os-Ko-Rado, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 182 (2021), 105464

    2021

  22. [22]

    Currier, New Results on Simplex-Clusters in Set Systems , Combinatorica 41 (2021), 495–506

    G. Currier, New Results on Simplex-Clusters in Set Systems , Combinatorica 41 (2021), 495–506

    2021

  23. [23]

    S. Das, W. Gan and B. Sudakov, The minimum number of disjoint pairs in set systems and related problems, Combinatorica 36 (2016), 623–660

    2016

  24. [24]

    Deza, Solution d’un probl`eme de Erd˝os-Lov´asz, J

    M. Deza, Solution d’un probl`eme de Erd˝os-Lov´asz, J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B 16 (1974) 166-67

    1974

  25. [25]

    Deza, Une propri´et´e extr´emale des plans projectifs dans une classe de codes´equidistants, Discrete Math

    M. Deza, Une propri´et´e extr´emale des plans projectifs dans une classe de codes´equidistants, Discrete Math. 6 (1973), 343–352

    1973

  26. [26]

    M. Deza, P. Erd ˝os, P. Frankl,Intersection Properties of Systems of Finite Sets, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 36 (1978), N3, 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3- 36.2.369

    doi:10.1112/plms/s3- 1978

  27. [27]

    M. Deza, P. Erd ˝os and N.M. Singhi, Combinatorial problems on subsets and their intersec- tions, Studies in foundations and combinatorics, Advances in Math. Suppl. Stud. 1 (1978), 259–265

    1978

  28. [28]

    M. Deza, P. Frankl, Every large set of equidistant (0,+1,−1)-vectors forms a sunflower , Combinatorica 1 (1981) 225–231

    1981

  29. [29]

    Dubinin, E.A

    N.A. Dubinin, E.A. Neustroeva, A.M. Raigorodskii, Y.K. Shubin, Lower and upper bounds for the minimum number of edges in some subgraphs of the Johnson graph , Sb. Math. 215 (2024) 634–657

    2024

  30. [30]

    Duke and P

    R.A. Duke and P. Erd ˝os, Systems of finite sets having a common intersection, in Proc. 8th S-E Conf. Combinatorics, Graph Theory Computing (1977), 247–252

    1977

  31. [31]

    Ellis, Intersection Problems in Extremal Combinatorics: Theorems, Techniques and Ques- tions Old and New, Surveys in combinatorics (2022), 115-173

    D. Ellis, Intersection Problems in Extremal Combinatorics: Theorems, Techniques and Ques- tions Old and New, Surveys in combinatorics (2022), 115-173

    2022

  32. [32]

    Ellis, N

    D. Ellis, N. Keller, and N. Lifshitz, Stability for the Complete Intersection Theorem, and the Forbidden Intersection Problem of Erd ˝os and S ´os, Journal of the European Mathematical Society 12 (2019), 3857–3902

    2019

  33. [33]

    Erd ˝os, Extremal problems in graph theory, Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Proc

    P. Erd ˝os, Extremal problems in graph theory, Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Proc. Sympos. Smolenice, 1963) , pp. 29–36, Publ. House Czech. Acad. Sci., Prague, 1964

    1963

  34. [34]

    Erd ˝os, A problem on independent r-tuples, Ann

    P. Erd ˝os, A problem on independent r-tuples, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. 8 (1965) 93–95

    1965

  35. [35]

    Erd ˝os, Topics in combinatorial analysis, in Proc

    P. Erd ˝os, Topics in combinatorial analysis, in Proc. Second Louisiana Conj on Comb., Graph Theory and Computing (R. C. Mullin et al., Eds.) 2–20, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge 1971

    1971

  36. [36]

    Erd ˝os, Problems and results in graph theory and combinatorial analysis , Proc

    P. Erd ˝os, Problems and results in graph theory and combinatorial analysis , Proc. Fifth British Combinatorial Conference, 1975, 169–172 (University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 1975. Congressus Numerantium, 15. Utilitas Mathematica, Winnipeg, 1976)

    1975

  37. [37]

    Erd ˝os and D.J

    P. Erd ˝os and D.J. Kleitman, On coloring graphs to maximize the proportion of multicolored 𝑘-edges, J. Combin. Theory 5 (1968), 164–169

    1968

  38. [38]

    Erd ˝os, C

    P. Erd ˝os, C. Ko, and R. Rado, Intersection theorems for systems of finite sets, The Quart. J. Math. 12 (1961), N1, 313–320

    1961

  39. [39]

    Erd ˝os, L

    P. Erd ˝os, L. Lov ´asz, Problems and results on 3-chromatic hypergraphs and some related questions, Infinite and finite sets (Colloq., Keszthely, 1973; dedicated to P. Erd ˝os on his 60th birthday), Vol. II; Colloq. Math. Soc. J ´anos Bolyai, Vol. 10, 609–627, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975

    1973

  40. [40]

    Erd ˝os and R

    P. Erd ˝os and R. Rado, Intersection theorems for systems of sets , J. London Math. Soc. 35 (1960), N1, 85–90

    1960

  41. [41]

    Frankl, Sperner systems satisfying an additional condition , J

    P. Frankl, Sperner systems satisfying an additional condition , J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 20 (1976), 1–11

    1976

  42. [42]

    Frankl, On families of finite sets no two of which intersect in a singleton , Bull

    P. Frankl, On families of finite sets no two of which intersect in a singleton , Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 17 (1977), N1, 125–134

    1977

  43. [43]

    Frankl, A constructive lower bound for some Ramsey numbers, Ars Combinatoria, 3 (1977), 297–302

    P. Frankl, A constructive lower bound for some Ramsey numbers, Ars Combinatoria, 3 (1977), 297–302

    1977

  44. [44]

    Frankl, On intersecting families of finite sets, J

    P. Frankl, On intersecting families of finite sets, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 24 (1978), 146–161. 63

    1978

  45. [45]

    Frankl, An extremal problem for 3-graphs , Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32 (1978), 157–160

    P. Frankl, An extremal problem for 3-graphs , Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32 (1978), 157–160

    work page 1978

  46. [46]

    Frankl, Extremal Problems and Coverings of the Space, European Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1980) 101–106

    P. Frankl, Extremal Problems and Coverings of the Space, European Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1980) 101–106

    work page 1980

  47. [47]

    Frankl, Families of finite sets with prescribed cardinalities for pairwise intersections, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35 (1980) 351–360

    P. Frankl, Families of finite sets with prescribed cardinalities for pairwise intersections, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35 (1980) 351–360

    work page 1980

  48. [48]

    Frankl, On a problem of Chv ´atal and Erd ˝os on hypergraphs containing no generalized simplex, J

    P. Frankl, On a problem of Chv ´atal and Erd ˝os on hypergraphs containing no generalized simplex, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 30 (1981), 169–182

    work page 1981

  49. [49]

    Frankl, An extremal set theoretical characterization of some Steiner systems, Combinatorica, 3 (1983), N2, 193–199

    P. Frankl, An extremal set theoretical characterization of some Steiner systems, Combinatorica, 3 (1983), N2, 193–199

    work page 1983

  50. [50]

    Frankl, Families of finite sets with three intersections, Combinatorica 4 (1984) 141–148

    P. Frankl, Families of finite sets with three intersections, Combinatorica 4 (1984) 141–148

    work page 1984

  51. [51]

    Frankl, All rationals occur as exponents , Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 42 (1986) 200–206

    P. Frankl, All rationals occur as exponents , Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 42 (1986) 200–206

    work page 1986

  52. [52]

    Frankl, Antichains of fixed diameter, Moscow J

    P. Frankl, Antichains of fixed diameter, Moscow J. Combin. Number Theory 7 (N3) (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Frankl and Z

    P. Frankl and Z. F¨ uredi,A new generalization of the Erd˝os-Ko-Rado theorem, Combinatorica 3 (1983), 341–349

    work page 1983

  54. [54]

    Frankl and Z

    P. Frankl and Z. F¨ uredi,Forbidding just one intersection, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 39 (1985), 160–176

    work page 1985

  55. [55]

    Frankl and Z

    P. Frankl and Z. F¨ uredi,Exact solution of some Tur´an-type problems, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 45 (1987), 226–262

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    Frankl and G.O.H

    P. Frankl and G.O.H. Katona, If the intersection of any𝑟 sets has a size≠𝑟− 1, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 14 (1979), 47–49

    work page 1979

  57. [57]

    Frankl, A

    P. Frankl, A. Kupavskii, The Erd ˝os Matching Conjecture and Concentration Inequalities , Journal of Comb. Theory Ser B. 157 (2022), 366–400

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Frankl, K

    P. Frankl, K. Ota, N. Tokushige, Exponents of Uniform𝐿-Systems, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 75 (1996) 23–43

    work page 1996

  59. [59]

    Frankl and V

    P. Frankl and V. R¨odl, Forbidden intersections, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 300 (1987), 259–286

    work page 1987

  60. [60]

    Frankl, N

    P. Frankl, N. Tokushige, Extremal problems for finite sets, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2018

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Frankl and R.Wilson, Intersection theorems with geometric consequences, Combinatorica 1 (1981), 357–368

    P. Frankl and R.Wilson, Intersection theorems with geometric consequences, Combinatorica 1 (1981), 357–368

    work page 1981

  62. [62]

    F¨ uredi,Erd˝os–Ko–Rado type theorems with upper bounds on the maximum degree , Col- loquia Math

    Z. F¨ uredi,Erd˝os–Ko–Rado type theorems with upper bounds on the maximum degree , Col- loquia Math. Soc. J. Bolyai 25, Szeged, 1978, pp. 177–207

    work page 1978

  63. [63]

    F¨ uredi,On finite set-systems whose every intersection is a kernel of a star, Disc

    Z. F¨ uredi,On finite set-systems whose every intersection is a kernel of a star, Disc. Math. 47 (1983), 129–132

    work page 1983

  64. [64]

    F¨ uredi,Set systems with three intersections, Combinatorica 5 (1985), N1, 27–31

    Z. F¨ uredi,Set systems with three intersections, Combinatorica 5 (1985), N1, 27–31

    work page 1985

  65. [65]

    F¨ uredi,Tur´an Type Problems, in: A.D

    Z. F¨ uredi,Tur´an Type Problems, in: A.D. Keedwell (Ed.), Surveys in Combinatorics, 1991, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press (1991), 253–300

    work page 1991

  66. [66]

    F¨ uredi,Linear trees in uniform hypergraphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 35 (2014) 264–272

    Z. F¨ uredi,Linear trees in uniform hypergraphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 35 (2014) 264–272

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    F¨ uredi, D

    Z. F¨ uredi, D. Gerbner, Hypergraphs without exponents , Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 184 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    F¨ uredi, T

    Z. F¨ uredi, T. Jiang, Hypergraph Tur´an numbers of linear cycles , Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 123 (2014), N1, 252–270

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Tur\'an numbers of hypergraph trees

    Z. F¨ uredi, T. Jiang, Tur´an numbers of hypergraph trees , (2015), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.03210

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.03210 2015

  70. [70]

    F¨ uredi, T

    Z. F¨ uredi, T. Jiang, A. Kostochka, D. Mubayi, J. Verstra¨ete, Extremal problems for hypergraph blowups of trees SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 37 (2023), N4, 2397–2416

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    F¨ uredi, T

    Z. F¨ uredi, T. Jiang, R. Seiver,Exact solution of the hypergraph Tur´an problem for𝑘-uniform linear paths Combinatorica, 34 (2014), 299–322

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    F¨ uredi, R

    Z. F¨ uredi, R. Luo,Induced Tur´an problems and traces of hypergraphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 111 (2023)

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    F¨ uredi, L

    Z. F¨ uredi, L. ¨Ozkahya, Unavoidable subhypergraphs: a-clusters, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 118 (2011), 2246–2256. 64

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Gerbner, B

    D. Gerbner, B. Patk ´os. Extremal finite set theory, Chapman and Hall/CRC (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    org/web/20220502190641/https://theorydish.blog/2021/05/19/ entropy-estimation-via-two-chains-streamlining-the-proof-of-the-sunflower-lemma/

    Lunjia Hu, Entropy Estimation via Two Chains: Streamlining the Proof of the Sunflower Lemma (2021) https://web.archive. org/web/20220502190641/https://theorydish.blog/2021/05/19/ entropy-estimation-via-two-chains-streamlining-the-proof-of-the-sunflower-lemma/

    arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Sunflowers and Ramsey problems for restricted intersections

    B. Janzer, Z. Jin, B. Sudakov, K. Wu, Sunflowers and Ramsey problems for restricted inter- sections (2025), arXiv.2504.15264

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Jiang, S

    T. Jiang, S. Longbrake, On the number of 𝐻-free hypergraphs , (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.06810

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.06810 2024

  78. [78]

    Jiang, O

    T. Jiang, O. Pikhurko, Z. Yilma, Set Systems without a Strong Simplex , SIAM J. Discrete Math. 24 (2010), 1038–1045

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    Jukna, Extremal Combinatorics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011

    S. Jukna, Extremal Combinatorics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    Katona, A theorem of finite sets, Theory of Graphs, Proc

    G.O.H. Katona, A theorem of finite sets, Theory of Graphs, Proc. Coll. Tihany 1966, Akad, Kiado, Budapest, 1968; Classic Papers in Combinatorics (1987), 381–401

    work page 1966

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.