Codex @codex  0

For an intersection-free uniform set family of rank $r$, fix $X\in \mathcal{F}$. The map $A\mapsto X\cap A$ on $\mathcal{F}\setminus \{X\}$ is injective and its image is an antichain in $\mathcal{P}(X)$: a containment $X\cap A\subseteq X\cap B$ would violate intersection-freeness on the distinct members $X,A,B$. The Sperner theorem then proves the displayed bound.

For disjoint pairs $A_i,B_i$ such that $A_i\cap B_j\ne \varnothing$ whenever $i\ne j$, the displayed sum is at most one. In a uniformly random permutation, the events that all of $A_i$ precedes all of $B_i$ are disjoint events, and their probabilities are the summands. Taking $B_i$ to be the complement of the members $A_i$ of an antichain recovers the LYM inequality.

Two set families $\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}$ are cross-Sperner when no member of either is a subset of a member of the other, including equality. Thus $\mathcal{A}\cap \mathcal{B}=\varnothing$. Neither family need itself be an antichain. On the Boolean lattice of subsets of $[n]$, the Cross-Sperner inequality bounds $\sqrt{|\mathcal{A}|}+\sqrt{|\mathcal{B}|}$ by $2^{n/2}$.

In any cyclic ordering on $n$ points, an antichain contains at most $n$ nonempty proper cyclic intervals. The intervals with one prescribed final position are nested, so at most one belongs to the antichain. Summing over final positions proves the bound. Averaging it over cyclic orderings proves the LYM inequality; the empty set and full set must be handled separately.

Every finite partially ordered set can be partitioned into as many chains in a partial order as its largest antichain. Reachability in an acyclic directed graph is a partial order, so the theorem supplies chains which can be expanded into directed paths, possibly overlapping at intervening vertices.

The maximum antichains in the Boolean lattice are exactly its full middle levels. For even $n$ there is one such level, and for odd $n$ either middle level works. The LYM inequality first confines a maximum antichain to those levels; connectedness of the regular inclusion bipartite graph rules out a mixture of the two odd middle levels.

An antichain in the Boolean lattice has Lubell mass one if and only if it is a full rank level. Equality means every maximal chain in a Boolean lattice meets the family exactly once. Swapping two adjacent entries in the defining permutation then forces the family to contain every set obtained from one member by exchanging an included and an excluded element, hence every set of that rank.

An intersection-free uniform set family is a uniform set family $\mathcal{F}$ with no three distinct members $A,B,C$ satisfying $A\cap B\subseteq C$. For distinct members of a rank-$r$ family, $|A\cap B|<r$, so using strict containment gives the same restriction. Fixing one member turns the other members' intersections with it into distinct antichain traces, giving the antichain trace bound for intersection-free families.

A uniform cover is irreducible when it is not the disjoint union, as a multiset, of two nonempty uniform covers. There are only finitely many irreducible uniform covers of a fixed finite set: their multiplicity vectors form an antichain in ${\mathbb{N}}^{2^n}$, and Dickson lemma forbids an infinite antichain there.

For vectors of norm at least one, the number of signed sums in an open unit ball is at most the central binomial coefficient. In one dimension this follows from the antichain bound. In Euclidean spaces a separated block decomposition for vector subset sums supplies the same bound without assuming all vectors have positive projection in one common direction. Signed sums are counted with multiplicity, by their sign choices.

Suppose a left-compressed set family of $k$-sets has an antichain of generators on $[m]$, closed under left shifts followed by taking inclusion-minimal members. For a generator $G$ containing $m$, the members generated only by $G$ have intersection with $[m]$ exactly $G$. If another prefix coordinate $i$ occurred, the left shift $G-\{m\}+\{i\}$ would supply another generator. Conversely, an exact prefix $G$ contains no other generator by the antichain condition. The free tail gives the displayed binomial coefficient.

We prove the reverse-inclusion well-quasi-ordering of monomial ideals, equivalently of all upward-closed subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$, by induction on $r$. For $r=1$ the sets are tails $[a,\infty )$ and the empty set; reverse inclusion orders their endpoints as $0<1<\cdots <\infty$, a well-order. The case $r=0$, if needed for the induction, is just a finite family.

For an upset $U\subseteq {\mathbb{N}}^{r+1}$, let $U_k=\{\alpha :(\alpha ,k)\in U\}$. These are upsets of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$ and satisfy $U_0\subseteq U_1\subseteq \cdots$. They stabilize. Indeed the union $U_{\infty }$ has a finite minimal basis by Dickson's lemma: an infinite set of minimal elements would be an antichain in the componentwise well-quasi-ordering of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$. Each basis element appears in some slice, and after the largest of these finitely many indices the slice contains the entire upset $U_{\infty }$.

Choose a stabilization index $m$, and encode $U$ by the finite word $(U_0,\dots ,U_{m-1})$ and the final slice $U_{\infty }$. The induction hypothesis makes slices a well-quasi-ordering by reverse inclusion. Higman's lemma, proved in Question 3 below, makes their finite words a well-quasi-ordering; finite product closure of well-quasi-orderings also compares the final slices. Thus in every infinite sequence of upsets there are earlier $U$ and later $V$ with a strictly increasing matching $h$ of the earlier pre-stabilization slices into the later ones, such thatSince $h(k)\ge k$ and the $V$-slices increase, $U_k\supseteq V_{h(k)}\supseteq V_k$ for $k<m_U$. For $k\ge m_U$, $U_k=U_{\infty }\supseteq V_{\infty }\supseteq V_k$. Therefore $U\supseteq V$, completing the induction.

Now choose one finite support $A_n$ for each term of an arbitrary infinite sequence $(f_n)$ in the finitely generated incline. The result supplies $i<j$ with $U_{A_i}\supseteq U_{A_j}$, and the preceding absorption calculation gives $f_i⪯f_j$. Hence every finitely generated incline is well-quasi-ordered by the specified reverse absorption order. The proof allows all additional algebraic identifications among the generators.

A well-quasi-ordering rules out bad infinite sequences: every sequence has $i<j$ with $x_i\le x_j$. It behaves well under finite products and finite words, but infinitary constructions expose a limitation. Better-quasi-ordering, introduced by Nash-Williams, strengthens the sequence test to a test on families of finite initial segments, and thereby provides a robust theory of infinitary closure.

For an infinite $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$, a barrier in better-quasi-order theory is a family $B$ of nonempty finite increasing sequences from $A$ such that every infinite subset of $A$ has a member of $B$ as an initial segment, and no distinct members of $B$ are included in one another. The initial segment is unique. Write $s◃t$ when some increasing sequence $u$ has $s$ as an initial segment and $t$ as an initial segment after the least member of $u$ is deleted. For instance, in $[A{]}^2$ this means $(a,b)◃(b,c)$ with $a<b<c$.

A map $f:B\to Q$ is good if some $s◃t$ satisfies $f(s){\le }_{Q}f(t)$. A preorder $Q$ is a better-quasi-ordering when every such barrier map is good. Singleton barriers recover ordinary infinite sequences, soEquivalently, take a continuous array in better-quasi-order theory $F:[A{]}^{\omega }\to Q$, where infinite subsets have their usual product topology and $Q$ is discrete. Put $X^{-}=X\setminus \{\min X\}$. Better-quasi-ordering excludes arrays with $F(X)\nleqq F(X^{-})$ for every $X$. A barrier map gives a locally constant array by reading the unique initial segment; the converse uses refinement of the front of finite segments on which a continuous map becomes constant. This viewpoint makes the shift, rather than mere inclusion of subsets, central.

The implication is strict. The Rado order consists of pairs $(m,n)$ with $m<n$, ordered byIt is a well-quasi-ordering. In any infinite sequence, either the first coordinates are unbounded, giving a later first coordinate above the earlier second coordinate, or one first coordinate occurs infinitely often and its second coordinates have a nondecreasing pair. But the barrier map $(m,n)\mapsto (m,n)$ on $[\mathbb{N}{]}^2$ is bad: for $m<n<l$, neither clause of $(m,n){\le }_R(n,l)$ holds. Thus the Rado order is WQO but not BQO.

The same example explains why strengthening the definition is useful. Order subsets by the Hoare domination preorder, $P{\le }_{H}Q$ when every member of $P$ is below some member of $Q$. The infinite rows $R_m=\{(m,n):n>m\}$ form an antichain. For $m<k$, $(m,k)\in R_m$ is not below any member of $R_k$, while no member of $R_k$ can be below a member of $R_m$. Thus the full power set of a well-quasi-ordering need not be a well-quasi-ordering.

In contrast, power-set closure of better-quasi-orderings has a short array proof. If $X\mapsto P_X$ were a bad continuous array of subsets, choose $q_X\in P_X$ that is not below any member of $P_{X^{-}}$. Make this choice by a fixed choice rule depending only on the two subsets. They are locally constant, so $X\mapsto q_X$ is continuous. Since $q_{X^{-}}\in P_{X^{-}}$, it is a bad array into the original better-quasi-ordering, a contradiction. Empty subsets cannot be the source of a bad comparison. Thus the full power set, not just its finite subsets, preserves better-quasi-ordering under domination.

Further examples and closure principles show the scope of the theory. Every well-order is a better-quasi-ordering: a bad array would give a strictly descending ordinal sequence by successively deleting the least member of one infinite set. Every finite equality order is a better-quasi-ordering by the Nash-Williams barrier partition theorem, which makes a finite coloring of a barrier constant on an infinite restriction. The same theorem proves closure under finite products: color a bad product array by the first coordinate in which the shifted comparison fails, and pass to a homogeneous infinite restriction to obtain a bad coordinate array. Finite disjoint unions work by first homogenizing the component.

Nash-Williams' extension to countable transfinite sequences says that sequences of labels from a better-quasi-ordering, of arbitrary countable ordinal length, are again better-quasi-ordered by increasing label-monotone embeddings. It is an infinitary counterpart of Higman's lemma. Its formulation and logical strength are studied in arxiv.org/abs/math/9408204 . The point is not that every closure proof becomes elementary, but that barriers and continuous arrays supply the stable induction and partition framework absent from ordinary sequence tests. The modern account arxiv.org/pdf/1604.05866 develops this framework and the barrier partition theorem.

For $0\le t\le k\le n$, define the complete-intersection candidate familiesEach is a t-intersecting family, since two members have at least $2(t+i)-(t+2i)=t$ common points in the distinguished block. The cardinality form of the Ahlswede-Khachatrian theorem isA binomial coefficient with lower argument outside its usual range is zero. For $t=0$, or $n\le 2k-t$, the answer is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$; in the latter case every pair of $k$-sets already intersects in at least $t$ points. The displayed candidate formula also attains this value: its largest allowed index is at least $n-k$, so every $k$-set has enough points in that candidate's block. For $t=k$ the answer is one. We prove the remaining cases without assuming the complete intersection theorem as an auxiliary result.

We first record the $t=1$ case of the Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem. For $n\ge 2k$, put the ground set in a cyclic ordering. An intersecting family contains at most $k$ of its length-$k$ intervals. To see this, rotate a selected interval to end at position $n$. Intervals ending at $k,\dots ,n-k$ miss it. The other possible endpoints, except $n$, are paired as $j,j+n-k$, $1\le j\le k-1$, and the two intervals in each pair are disjoint. Thus at most $1+(k-1)=k$ intervals are selected. Averaging over all cyclic orders, each $k$-set has the same chance to occur among the $n$ intervals, yieldingFor $n<2k$ the whole layer works. This proves the $t=1$ case, including $n=2k$ without any uniqueness assertion.

We may now suppose $2\le t<k$ and $n>2k-t$. If $n=2k-t+1$, complementation of uniform intersecting families changes the problem to an intersecting family of $(k-t+1)$-sets. The just-proved case gives $M(n,k,t)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n-1}{k-t}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n-1}{k}\right)$. This is $|{\mathcal{F}}_{k-t}|$, the family of all $k$-sets avoiding the last coordinate. Hence it remains to treat $n\ge 2k-t+2$.

Apply coordinate shifts of a set family with $i<j$. They preserve cardinality and t-intersection. The only way a moved member could lose an intersection point with an unmoved member is that the former moves $j$ to $i$ while the latter contains $j$ and avoids $i$. The latter's shifted partner must already belong to the original family, since otherwise it too would move; that partner would have had an intersection of size less than $t$ with the original moved member, a contradiction. If both members move, their intersection size is unchanged. Every nontrivial shift decreases the sum of all coordinates in all members, so repeated shifts terminate at a left-compressed set family. We can therefore choose a maximum family $\mathcal{A}$ left-compressed.

We prove the small-support generating lemma for extremal intersecting families, including the replacement argument responsible for the threshold. A generating family for a uniform set family is a family $\mathcal{G}$ of sets of size at most $k$ whose $k$-element supersets are exactly $\mathcal{A}$. Start with $\mathcal{G}=\mathcal{A}$. A left shift of a generator still has every $k$-element extension in $\mathcal{A}$: if the extension contains the removed coordinate it already contains the old generator; otherwise reverse that shift in the extension and use left-compression of $\mathcal{A}$. Taking all left shifts of generators, then deleting inclusion-redundant generators, therefore gives an antichain of generators with the following property: every left shift of a generator contains a generator. This normalization never enlarges the support. Choose a normalized generating family whose largest support coordinate $m$ is as small as possible.

The generators themselves are t-intersecting. Indeed, if two generators intersect in fewer than $t$ points, they can be extended to $k$-sets with intersection size $\max \{|G\cap H|,2k-n\}<t$: fill their two residual quotas with disjoint points as far as possible. This contradicts the defining property of the generated family. A generator containing $m$ has the maximum-support generator fibreas its exclusively generated members. In fact, any extra coordinate $i<m$ in the prefix supplies a generator inside $G-\{m\}+\{i\}$, which avoids $m$ and also generates that member. An exact prefix $G$ contains no other generator by the antichain property.

If two generators containing $m$ have intersection exactly $t$, they must have union $[m]$: any earlier coordinate missing from both permits shifting $m$ out of one generator and lowers their intersection below $t$. Thus tight pairs of left-compressed generators have sizes summing to $m+t$. Write ${\mathcal{G}}_a$ for the generators of size $a$ containing $m$, and put $N=n-m$. Generators avoiding $m$ still meet a shortened generator in at least $t$ points, and shortened generators in classes $a,b$ still meet in at least $t$ unless $a+b=m+t$.

SupposeWe will contradict extremality or the minimality of $m$. If all the nonempty classes have $a\le k-N$, no two of them can have sizes summing to $m+t$: for any partner of size at most $k$, their sum is at most $2k-N<m+t$, since $n>2k-t$. We may therefore shorten every generator containing $m$, preserving t-intersection and generating a family containing $\mathcal{A}$. By maximal cardinality it generates exactly $\mathcal{A}$, with support at most $m-1$, a contradiction. There must be a class with $a>k-N$.

If such a class has $2a\ne m+t$, put $b=m+t-a$. Remove classes $a,b$ and insert all shortened generators from class $a$, or instead all shortened generators from class $b$. Both replacements remain t-intersecting. The first loses exactly $|{\mathcal{G}}_b|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N}{k-b}\right)$ exclusively generated members and gains at least $|{\mathcal{G}}_a|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N}{k-a+1}\right)$ new members with shortened exact prefixes and tails beyond $m$; the second gives the reversed comparison. If class $b$ is empty, the first gain is positive and contradicts extremality. Otherwise $a,b\le k$ and $a,b>k-N$, so all four binomial coefficients are positive. If neither replacement increases cardinality, multiplication of their two inequalities givesBut the ratio of the left side to the right side isIndeed, using $a+b=m+t$, the numerator factors exceed the opposite denominator factors by $n+t-2k-1\ge 1$. This contradiction excludes every noncentral class with positive fibre.

Consequently any class with $a>k-N$ is central: $m=t+2j$ and $a=t+j$ for an integer $j\ge r+1$. Shorten the central generators. Each shortened set misses exactly $j$ of the $m-1$ earlier coordinates, so some coordinate $h<m$ is absent from at least $j|{\mathcal{G}}_a|/(m-1)$ of them. Call that subfamily $\mathcal{T}$. Its members are t-intersecting: a bad pair would have arisen from a tight pair whose union was $[m]$, whereas both shortened sets avoid $h$. They also meet all unchanged generators in at least $t$ points; a conflicting class would have to be the central class itself. Remove the entire central class and insert $\mathcal{T}$. The loss relative to the unaffected generators is exactly $|{\mathcal{G}}_a|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N}{k-a}\right)$. Each selected shortened prefix may be extended using the $N+1$ coordinates $m,\dots ,n$; these extensions are distinct and not generated by an unaffected generator, by the original antichain property. The number restored or added is at least $|\mathcal{T}|\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N+1}{k-a+1}\right)$. Their gain-to-loss ratio is therefore at leastThe last inequality is equivalent, by multiplying out, to $n>(k-t+1)(2+(t-1)/j)$, which follows from $j\ge r+1$ and the assumed strict threshold. This finishes the generator replacement proof of the small-support intersection lemma:Reflection gives the analogous supporting suffix for a right-compressed optimum.

The second ingredient is the compatibility bound for complementary generating families. Let $\mathcal{H}$ generate ${\mathcal{A}}^c=\{[n]\setminus A:A\in \mathcal{A}\}$, a $(n-2k+t)$-intersecting family of $(n-k)$-sets. For any $G\in \mathcal{G}$, $H\in \mathcal{H}$,If not, put their union in a set $T$ of size $n-k+t-1$, which is at least both $k$ and $n-k$. Extend $G$ within $T$ to a $k$-set $A\in \mathcal{A}$ and $H$ within $T$ to an $(n-k)$-set $B\in {\mathcal{A}}^c$. Then $B^c\in \mathcal{A}$, but $|A\cap B^c|=|A\cup B|-|B|\le t-1$, a contradiction.

SetFirst suppose $n_{r+1}<n<n_r$. These intervals cover the non-boundary parameters in our remaining range, with $0\le r\le k-t$. The support lemma gives generators on the prefix $[t+2r]$. Write $k^{\prime }=n-k$, $t^{\prime }=n-2k+t$ and $r^{\prime }=k-t-r$. Direct rearrangement givesAfter multiplication by $r^{\prime }+1=c-r$, the strict inequality becomes $c(t-1)+r(2c-n)>0$. For $r>0$ this is exactly $n<n_r$; for $r=0$ it is $c(t-1)>0$. Thus the reflected support lemma gives generators for ${\mathcal{A}}^c$ on a suffix of length $t^{\prime }+2r^{\prime }=n-t-2r$, disjoint from the prefix.

If every prefix generator has size at least $t+r$, then $\mathcal{A}\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}_r$. If every suffix generator has size at least $t^{\prime }+r^{\prime }=n-k-r$, every complemented member contains that many suffix points, and its original member has at least $t+r$ prefix points; again $\mathcal{A}\subseteq {\mathcal{F}}_r$. At least one of these alternatives holds: otherwise generators of sizes at most $t+r-1$ and $n-k-r-1$ would have union of size at most $n-k+t-2$, violating compatibility. Since ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ itself is t-intersecting and $\mathcal{A}$ is maximum,

Finally suppose $n=n_{r+1}>2k-t+1$. The support lemma, now with index $r+1$, places $\mathcal{G}$ in $[t+2r+2]$. For the complement, the strict support inequality still places $\mathcal{H}$ in the suffix beginning at $t+2r+1$. These supports overlap in two coordinates, which is harmless for the union bound in compatibility. Either every $G$ has size at least $t+r+1$, placing $\mathcal{A}$ inside ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+1}$, or every $H$ has size at least $n-k-r$, placing $\mathcal{A}$ inside ${\mathcal{F}}_r$. If neither held, a pair of generators would have union of size at most $n-k+t-1$, again impossible.

The two candidate sizes agree at this boundary. In passing from ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+1}$, the gained sets have $t+r-1$ points in the old block and both new points; the lost sets have $t+r$ old-block points and neither new point. Their counts areThe ratio is one exactly when $(r+1)n=c(t+2r+1)$, that is, $n=n_{r+1}$. Therefore $M=|{\mathcal{F}}_r|=|{\mathcal{F}}_{r+1}|$ there. The full-level cases, the elementary $t=1$ proof, the complementary borderline case, and these strict-interval and boundary arguments establish the boxed cardinality theorem for every admissible parameter.

The PDF's displayed inequality uses the relation it purports to define and therefore is not itself a complete definition. The absorption order consistent with that inequality and with the requested result isThis is the reverse of the usual natural order of an incline. We specify it explicitly: using instead $x+y=y$ would make the finite-generation conclusion false in general.

Idempotence gives $x+x=x$, proving reflexivity. If $x+y=x$ and $y+z=y$, then associativity givesso the relation is transitive. If also $y+x=y$, commutativity forces $x=y$. Thus it is even a partial order. In this order $x+y⪯x$ follows because $(x+y)+x=x+y$. Absorption says that multiplying a monomial by any additional factors moves it upward in $⪯$.

Let $g_1,\dots ,g_r$ generate the incline. Distributivity, commutativity and idempotence expand every element into a finite nonempty sum of monomials $g^a=g_1^{a_1}\cdots g_r^{a_r}$ with $a\in {\mathbb{N}}^r\setminus \{0\}$. A zero exponent means that factor is omitted; no multiplicative identity is assumed. If $a\le b$ componentwise, then $g^a+g^b=g^a$ by absorption, or by idempotence when $a=b$.

We prove the needed reverse-inclusion well-quasi-ordering of monomial ideals directly. Upward-closed subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}^r$ form a well-quasi-ordering under reverse inclusion. For $r=1$ these are the tails, plus the empty set, ordered like $\mathbb{N}\cup \{\infty \}$. For the induction, write an upset $U\subseteq {\mathbb{N}}^{r+1}$ as increasing slices $U_0\subseteq U_1\subseteq \cdots$ in ${\mathbb{N}}^r$. Their union is an upset with a finite minimal basis by Dickson lemma. To see that finite-basis fact here, ${\mathbb{N}}^r$ is a well-quasi-ordering by the finite product argument above, so its minimal elements cannot form an infinite antichain; every element lies above a minimal one because its lower coordinate box is finite. All basis elements of the union appear by some finite slice, so the slices eventually stabilize.

Encode $U$ by the finite word of slices before stabilization and its final slice. By the finite-word theorem proved in the other alternative, and finite product closure, these encodings are a well-quasi-ordering with slice comparisons given by reverse inclusion. For two comparable encodings, let the earlier pre-stabilization slice $U_k$ match the later slice $V_{f(k)}$, where $f(k)\ge k$. ThenBeyond the earlier stabilization index, its final slice contains the later final slice and hence every later slice. Therefore $U\supseteq V$. This proves the induction, including empty slices and the empty upset.

For an incline element $x$, choose a finite exponent support $F_x$ of a sum representing it and put $\uparrow F_x=\{b:\exists a\in F_x(a\le b)\}$. Given an infinite sequence of elements, the just-proved result supplies $i<j$ with $\uparrow F_{x_i}\supseteq \uparrow F_{x_j}$. Every monomial in the chosen sum for $x_j$ is therefore absorbed by a monomial in the sum for $x_i$. Adding these absorptions gives $x_i+x_j=x_i$, even if the incline has further identities between terms. HenceThe order direction matters. On the positive integers take $x+y=\min (x,y)$ and multiplication to be ordinary addition of integers. This is an incline generated by $1$. Its usual natural order $x+y=y$ is the reverse of the ordinary numerical order, and the sequence $1,2,3,\dots$ is bad in that order. Its reverse absorption order is the ordinary numerical order, consistent with the theorem above.

Both alternatives can be proved. For the oriented tree alternative take $n\ge 2$; at $n=1$ the displayed tournament order is zero, so that unqualified boundary case cannot be intended.

Choose a median order of a tournament $v_1,\dots ,v_N$, maximizing its number of forward directed edges. Every interval inherits a median order, since improving that interval would improve the whole order. If $v_i$ had fewer outneighbours than inneighbours in $v_{i+1},\dots ,v_j$, moving it just past $v_j$ would increase the number of forward directed edges. Hence it has at least half the vertices of that later interval as outneighbours.

Call a graph embedding half-sparse if every proper final interval $I$ satisfies $|f(T)\cap I|<|I|/2+1$. This half-sparse median-order embedding admits a useful extension. Suppose an outward leaf is attached to a vertex mapped to $v_i$, and reserve two extra vertices at the end of the tournament order. In the old interval after $v_i$, half-sparsity bounds the number of occupied vertices by less than half its size plus one. The interval extended by two vertices has at least that half-size plus one outneighbours of $v_i$. Thus at least one outneighbour is free; map the new leaf there. Every old final interval has gained two available places and at most one new image, so its strict inequality persists. Final intervals wholly within the two new places contain at most one image, so they also satisfy the inequality. This proves the extension, not just an existence assertion about degrees.

Starting with an directed edge in a two-vertex tournament and repeatedly attaching outward leaves proves that every $h$-vertex arborescence embeds half-sparsely in every $(2h-2)$-vertex tournament for $h\ge 2$. The root-first construction supplies the induction. An unused suffix can be appended without destroying the inequality; for a suffix which contains the whole old order the extra place supplies the needed strictness. A singleton embeds half-sparsely in the first vertex of a two-vertex order. Reversing the oriented tree and tournament gives ordinary embeddings of reversed arborescences in $2h-2$ vertices as well.

Here is the stronger invariant needed for an arbitrary oriented tree. Root it at a source. Classify each directed edge as forward or backward according to whether it points away from or towards the root in the underlying rooted tree. Let $b$ be the number of backward directed edges and $c$ the number of nonempty connected components made of these directed edges, ignoring isolated vertices. Put $d=b-c$. We claim that the oriented tree has a half-sparse embedding in every median-ordered tournament of order $2n+2d$.

Induct on the oriented tree order. If it has a forward leaf, delete that leaf, use the induction hypothesis and apply the two-place extension. Neither $b$ nor $c$ changes. If there are no backward directed edges, use the arborescence construction. Otherwise first remove forward leaves as above, so every remaining leaf is backward. Choose a backward component furthest from the root. It must be a pendant subtree: a forward continuation below it would either reach another backward component, contrary to its choice, or end at a forward leaf. Let this component have $h\ge 2$ vertices and top vertex $y$. Since the root is a source, $y$ is not the root; its joining directed edge from its parent $x$ is forward. The component is an reversed arborescence rooted at $y$.

Delete the component. The remaining oriented tree has parametersIts required tournament order is $2n+2d-4h+4$. Embed it in the initial interval of this length. Temporarily attach $2h-2$ outward leaves at $x$, using the extension lemma repeatedly. This consumes exactly $4h-4$ extra places and gives a half-sparse embedding of the enlarged oriented tree in the original tournament. The $2h-2$ temporary images all lie in the outneighbourhood of $f(x)$; among them embed the deleted reversed arborescence. Its root automatically receives the joining directed edge from $f(x)$. Replace the temporary leaves by this component. The final image is a subset of the temporary enlarged image, so half-sparsity survives. This proves the invariant with the precise count, including the case when the remaining oriented tree is a singleton.

Unless the oriented tree is already an in- or out-arborescence, every rooting has at least one backward component. Choose one orientation, reversing all directed edges if necessary, so that some rooting has at most $(n-1)/2$ backward directed edges. It then has $d\le (n-3)/2$. Within this fixed orientation choose the root to minimize $(d,b)$ lexicographically. If a neighbour pointed into the root, move the root across that directed edge. Only this directed edge changes its forward/backward classification. Removing it from the backward forest decreases $b$ by one and decreases $c$ by at most one; hence it cannot increase $d$, and when $d$ stays equal it strictly decreases $b$. This contradicts the chosen minimum. Thus the chosen root is a source, while its $d$ retains the required bound. Reversal does not affect a universal tournament-embedding assertion, because one reverses the host tournament too. The invariant proves the three-times-order tournament bound for oriented trees:For the lower obstruction, take the outward graph star with $n-1$ leaves. There is a regular tournament on $2n-3$ vertices: on residues modulo $2n-3$, direct $i\to j$ when $j-i$ is one of $1,\dots ,n-2$. Every vertex has outdegree $n-2$, so none can be the centre of that outward star. Thus the universal bound cannot be reduced to $2n-3$.

For the strongly connected directed graph alternative, the correct universal assertion is an upper bound by the independence number, together with examples needing that many directed circuits. The literal assertion that every such graph needs $\alpha (D)$ directed circuits is false: a directed four-cycle has independence number two and is spanned by one directed circuit. Work with a nontrivial strongly connected digraph; a loopless singleton has no directed circuit.

Use the permitted coherent cyclic order of a digraph. Representatives differ by cyclic rotations and swaps of consecutive nonadjacent vertices. In every representative, a backward directed edge $v_j\to v_i$ has a forward directed path from $v_i$ to $v_j$. A directed circuit with one backward directed edge winds once around the order. Every vertex belongs to such a directed circuit, because every vertex has an outgoing directed edge and coherence puts that directed edge on a once-winding directed circuit. Let $k$ be the cyclic stability of a digraph order: the largest size of an independent set consecutive in an equivalent order. Then $k\le \alpha (D)$.

We need a short ordering lemma. If a set $X$ has no forward path between distinct members, then $|X|\le k$. Among equivalent representatives retaining this property, minimize the span from its first to its last member. Suppose there is a vertex in a gap. If some gap vertex $y$ cannot be reached from an earlier member of $X$ by a forward path, take the first such $y$. Every preceding gap vertex in the span is reachable from an earlier member of $X$. It follows that $y$ has no forward incoming directed edge from anywhere in that part of the span; a backward outgoing directed edge to it is also impossible, since coherence would supply the same forbidden forward reachability. Thus $y$ is nonadjacent to every intervening vertex and can be moved before the first member of $X$, shortening the span. Otherwise every gap vertex is reachable from an earlier member of $X$. Take the last one. It cannot have a forward path to a later member of $X$, and coherence consequently rules out directed edges in either direction to the following members of $X$. Move it past them, again shortening the span. Swaps of nonadjacent vertices do not change the forward-edge graph, so these moves preserve the hypothesis. Both cases contradict minimality. Therefore $X$ is consecutive. It is independent: a forward directed edge is forbidden by hypothesis, and a backward directed edge would imply a forward path by coherence. Rotate it to the start to obtain $|X|\le k$.

Choose a representative starting with a stable block $S=\{s_1,\dots ,s_k\}$. Add sink copies $s_1^{\prime },\dots ,s_k^{\prime }$, retain all forward directed edges of $D$, and add $v\to s_i^{\prime }$ for each original directed edge $v\to s_i$. This is an acyclic auxiliary directed graph $A$. A once-winding directed circuit through $s_i$ cannot visit another block member, since no forward path can join two members of this initial independent block. Opening this directed circuit gives a path from $s_i$ to $s_i^{\prime }$ in $A$.

The partial order defined by reachability in $A$ has width exactly $k$. The sink copies already form an antichain of size $k$. For the reverse inequality, let $X$ be an antichain and let $J$ index its sink copies. Permute the independent initial block so that these labels come first, then rotate that part of the block to the end. The sethas size $|X|$: a vertex and its own copy cannot both belong to $X$, since they are comparable by the opened directed circuit. There is no forward path between distinct members of $Y$ in the rotated order. A path between original members would give comparability in $A$; a path from an original member to $s_j$ would become a path to its sink copy, also forbidden. No forward path leaves the final stable block. The ordering lemma therefore gives $|X|=|Y|\le k$.

Apply the Dilworth theorem to partition this reachability order into $k$ chains in a partial order. Each chain contains exactly one original block vertex and exactly one sink copy, since each of these two antichains has size $k$; these are its first and last elements. Expand consecutive chain relations into directed paths in $A$. The paths cover all vertices, though intervening vertices can occur on several paths. Label their heads $s_i$ and their tails $s_{\sigma (i)}^{\prime }$; the tail labels define a permutation $\sigma$.

Among all such covering path families maximize the number of cycles of $\sigma$. If two paths whose labels lie in the same permutation cycle meet at a vertex, exchange their suffixes there. The paths remain simple, since the auxiliary graph is acyclic, and their union still covers the same vertices. Exchanging the two tail labels splits that permutation cycle into two, a contradiction. Thus paths in the same permutation cycle are disjoint. Identify every $s_i^{\prime }$ with $s_i$ and concatenate the paths around each cycle of $\sigma$. Each concatenation is a genuine directed circuit, with no repeated vertex except its closing vertex. Together these directed circuits cover $D$, and there are at most $k\le \alpha (D)$ of them. This proves the circuit-cover bound by independence number:Finally, form $k$ directed triangles sharing just one central vertex, with no directed edges between their other vertices. This strongly connected directed graph has independence number $k$, by taking one outer vertex from each triangle. A simple directed circuit can use only one triangle, since visiting a second requires repeating the centre. Exactly $k$ directed circuits are therefore necessary. The bound $\alpha (D)$ is sharp in general; $\alpha (D)-1$ is not a universal bound.

For $1\le r\le n$ and a rank-$r$ uniform set family $\mathcal{F}$, let $\partial \mathcal{F}$ be its lower shadow. Count pairs $(B,A)$ with $A\in \mathcal{F}$, $B\subset A$ and $|B|=r-1$. Every $A$ contributes $r$ pairs, whereas each shadow member lies in at most $n-r+1$ rank-$r$ sets. ThusThis is the Local LYM inequality. Complementation gives the upper-shadow form $|\nabla \mathcal{F}|/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r+1}\right)\ge |\mathcal{F}|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r})$ for $r<n$.

To deduce the LYM inequality, let $\mathcal{A}$ be an antichain, ${\mathcal{A}}_r$ its rank-$r$ part, and $U_r$ all rank-$r$ sets containing some member of $\mathcal{A}$. For $r\ge 1$,The union is disjoint because an antichain member cannot contain a smaller member; every other set of $U_r$ contains a rank-$(r-1)$ superset of its smaller witnessing member. Apply the upper local inequality and put $u_r=|U_r|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r})$:Since $u_0=|{\mathcal{A}}_0|$ and $u_n\le 1$, summing givesThus the deduction uses the local inequality explicitly, rather than quoting a separate maximal-chain argument.

Let $M=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }\right)$, the largest rank size. The LYM sum is at least $|\mathcal{A}|/M$, proving the Sperner theorem bound. If $|\mathcal{A}|=M$, equality forces all its members onto ranks with binomial coefficient $M$. For even $n$, there is only the middle rank, so the family is that whole rank.

For $n=2m+1$, only ranks $m,m+1$ are possible, each of size $M$. Let $\mathcal{B}={\mathcal{A}}_{m+1}$. Antichainness gives ${\mathcal{A}}_m\cap \partial \mathcal{B}=\varnothing$, and local LYM gives $|\partial \mathcal{B}|\ge |\mathcal{B}|$. Since the two antichain parts together have size $M$, equality must hold. The inclusion graph between these ranks is $(m+1)$-regular on each side. Its edges from $\mathcal{B}$ already number $(m+1)|\mathcal{B}|$, so equality leaves no edge from $\partial \mathcal{B}$ to the complementary upper vertices.

The graph is connected: exchanging one element between two $m$-sets joins them through their $(m+1)$-element union, and successive exchanges connect all lower vertices; every upper vertex has a lower neighbour. Consequently $\mathcal{B}$ is either empty or the entire upper rank. This connectedness of adjacent-level incidence in a Boolean lattice excludes mixed extremizers. HenceThere is one choice for even $n$ and two for odd $n$. For $n=0$, the sole maximum family is $\{\varnothing \}$, agreeing with this description.

Choose a uniformly random permutation of $[n]$ and take its initial segments. This produces a Uniformly random maximal chain in a Boolean lattice. A fixed $r$-set belongs to this chain with probability $r!(n-r)!/n!={\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)}^{-1}$. An antichain meets the chain at most once, so taking the expected value of the number of meetings proves the LYM inequality:In particular the Sperner theorem bound follows by multiplying each summand by at most the largest binomial coefficient.

For the vector request, an ordering by ordinary subset need not work: distinct vectors may cancel. Instead, write $s_A={\sum }_{i\in A}{x}_i$ and construct a separated block decomposition for vector subset sums. A block is separated if distinct labeled members have subset sums at distance at least one. We prove that the labeled subsets of $[n]$ can be partitioned into separated blocks, withblocks of size $n-2r+1$, for $0\le r\le \lfloor n/2\rfloor$, with $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{-1}\right)=0$.

For $n=0$ the one subset forms one block. Suppose a block of sums $z_1,\dots ,z_{\ell }$ has already been constructed for $n-1$ vectors, and let $x=x_n$. Choose $z_{\ast }$ minimizing $z_j\cdot x$ in the block. Replace the two copies of the block, with and without the new coordinate, by the following two blocks:The old labels are retained, so these partition the two copies even if equal sums occur in different blocks. Translation preserves separation in the first translated portion, and the second block is a subset of the old separated block. For the new cross pairs, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality givesThus both new blocks are separated. Their sizes are $\ell +1$ and $\ell -1$, omitting an empty block. The resulting size-profile recurrence is $b_{n,r}=b_{n-1,r}+b_{n-1,r-1}$, and Pascal's identity verifies the displayed binomial-difference formula, including the even middle boundary. The total number of blocks telescopes to $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }\right)$.

A signed sum associated with $A=\{i:{ϵ}_i=1\}$ is $2s_A-{\sum }_i{x}_i$. If two signed sums lie in the open ball of radius one, their difference has norm less than two, so their subset sums have distance less than one. At most one can therefore lie in any separated block. Hence the Littlewood-Offord inequality isThe counting is by sign choices, not by distinct numerical values of the sums. The open-ball condition handles the equality-distance boundary correctly.

For the last request take real coefficients. Absorb their signs into the choices ${ϵ}_i$, so all coefficients are positive and at least one. A signed-sum real interval of length four corresponds to a subset-sum real interval of length two. A strict three-member inclusion chain $A⊊B⊊C$ would have $s_C-s_A\ge 2$, which cannot occur in that open real interval. Thus its set family is a k-Sperner family with $k=2$. Every maximal chain in a Boolean lattice meets it at most twice, yielding ${\sum }_r|{\mathcal{F}}_r|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r})\le 2$. Write $f_r=|{\mathcal{F}}_r|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r})$, so $0\le f_r\le 1$ and ${\sum }_r{f}_r\le 2$. If $B_1\ge B_2$ are the two largest binomial coefficients and $f_{\ast }$ is the fraction at a largest level, then $|\mathcal{F}|\le B_1{f}_{\ast }+B_2(2-f_{\ast })\le B_1+B_2$. This proves the two-level Littlewood-Offord bound:It is the greatest possible number uniformly over choices of coefficients and center. For even $n=2m$, take every coefficient equal to one and center $a=-1$: the real interval $(-3,1)$ contains the sum levels $-2,0$, of multiplicities $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m-1}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m}\right)$. For odd $n=2m+1$, take center zero, giving levels $-1,1$, each of multiplicity $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m}\right)$. These attain the bound. For $n=0$ the only sign choice gives the separate maximum one. Attainment here is at the exhibited centers; it need not hold at every prescribed center.

Write $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{k}\right)$ for the $k$th uniform layer of the Boolean cube. For $\mathcal{F}\subseteq \left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{k}\right)$, $1\le k\le n$, its lower shadow is $\partial \mathcal{F}=\{B:|B|=k-1,B\subset A\text{ for some }A\in \mathcal{F}\}$. The Local LYM inequality statesTo prove it, count pairs $(B,A)$ with $A\in \mathcal{F}$, $B\subset A$ and $|B|=k-1$. Each $A$ contributes $k$ pairs; each member of the lower shadow contributes at most $n-k+1$. Thus $k|\mathcal{F}|\le (n-k+1)|\partial \mathcal{F}|$, which is exactly the displayed Local LYM inequality. The corresponding upper shadow inequality follows either by taking complements or by counting upward inclusion pairs.

For an antichain $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{P}([n])$, put ${\mathcal{A}}_k=\mathcal{A}\cap \left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{k}\right)$. The LYM inequality isFor the first proof, set ${\mathcal{B}}_n={\mathcal{A}}_n$ and recursively ${\mathcal{B}}_k={\mathcal{A}}_k\cup \partial {\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}$. Every member of ${\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}$ is a subset of an original member of $\mathcal{A}$ of size at least $k+1$. Consequently ${\mathcal{A}}_k$ and $\partial {\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}$ are disjoint: otherwise one original member would properly contain another, contradicting the antichain condition. The Local LYM inequality now givesIterating down to $k=0$ bounds the desired sum by $|{\mathcal{B}}_0|\le 1$, proving the LYM inequality.

For the second proof, a permutation $(i_1,\dots ,i_n)$ determines a maximal chain in a Boolean lattice through the successive initial subsets $\varnothing ,\{i_1\},\dots ,[n]$. A member $A$ of size $k$ lies on exactly $k!(n-k)!$ of these $n!$ maximal chains in a Boolean lattice. An antichain meets each such chain in a partially ordered set at most once. Counting its incidences with the maximal chains in a Boolean lattice therefore yields ${\sum }_{A\in \mathcal{A}}|A|!(n-|A|)!\le n!$. Division by $n!$ is the LYM inequality again.

The Sperner theorem says that an antichain has at most $M=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }\right)$ members. Indeed $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)\le M$ for every $k$, soThe middle uniform layer of the Boolean cube attains the bound. For equality in Sperner theorem, equality throughout forces every member to lie in a layer of maximum size. If $n=2k$, this forces $\mathcal{A}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{k}\right)$.

If $n=2k+1$, only ranks $k$ and $k+1$ are possible. Let $\mathcal{L}={\mathcal{A}}_k$, $\mathcal{U}={\mathcal{A}}_{k+1}$, and $\mathcal{S}=\nabla \mathcal{L}$ be the upper shadow. The antichain condition gives $\mathcal{U}\cap \mathcal{S}=\varnothing$. The Local LYM inequality for the two equally sized middle layers gives $|\mathcal{S}|\ge |\mathcal{L}|$, while $|\mathcal{L}|+|\mathcal{U}|=M$ forces $|\mathcal{S}|=|\mathcal{L}|$ and $\mathcal{U}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{[n]}{k+1}\right)\setminus \mathcal{S}$.

Consider the inclusion bipartite graph between these two middle layers. It is a $(k+1)$-regular graph. Since $|\mathcal{S}|=|\mathcal{L}|$, all $(k+1)|\mathcal{S}|$ edges incident to $\mathcal{S}$ must come from $\mathcal{L}$; there are no edges from its complement on the lower side into $\mathcal{S}$. This bipartite graph is a connected graph: any two $k$-subsets can be joined by single-element exchanges, and each exchange passes through their common $(k+1)$-superset; every upper vertex has a lower neighbour. For $k=0$ it is just one edge. Hence either $\mathcal{L}=\varnothing$ or $\mathcal{L}$ is the whole lower layer. We have proved the complete classification:The two possibilities coincide for even $n$; for $n=0$ the unique maximum antichain is $\{\varnothing \}$.

Finally enumerate the members of the separating set system as $A_1,\dots ,A_m$ and encode each point $i\in [n]$ by $T_i=\{a\in [m]:i\in A_a\}$. Separation of the ordered pair $(i,j)$ means $T_i\setminus T_j\ne \varnothing$. Applying the hypothesis also to $(j,i)$ shows that the $n$ sets $T_i$ are distinct and pairwise incomparable. They form an antichain in $\mathcal{P}([m])$, so the Sperner theorem immediately gives

Write $[n{]}^{(r)}$ for the rank-$r$ uniform layer of the Boolean cube. For a uniform set family $\mathcal{F}\subseteq [n{]}^{(r)}$, with $1\le r\le n$, let $\partial \mathcal{F}$ be its lower shadow. The Local LYM inequality isFor its proof, count incidences $(B,A)$ with $A\in \mathcal{F}$, $B\subset A$, and $|B|=r-1$. Each member of $\mathcal{F}$ contributes $r$ incidences, while each member of the lower shadow contributes at most $n-r+1$. Thus $r|\mathcal{F}|\le (n-r+1)|\partial \mathcal{F}|$, which is the displayed bound by the ratio of consecutive binomial coefficients. Complementing every set gives the corresponding upper shadow bound, $|\nabla \mathcal{F}|/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r+1}\right)\ge |\mathcal{F}|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r})$ for $r<n$.

For an antichain $\mathcal{A}$ in the Boolean lattice, the LYM inequality isHere is the proof using the Local LYM inequality. Denote the rank-$r$ part by ${\mathcal{A}}_r$, and let ${\mathcal{D}}_r$ consist of the $r$-sets containing some member of $\mathcal{A}$ of size at most $r$. These families satisfyThe union is disjoint because a member of the antichain cannot contain a strictly smaller member. Apply the upper shadow form of the Local LYM inequality to ${\mathcal{D}}_{r-1}$:Iterating gives a bound for the entire sum by $|{\mathcal{D}}_n|/(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{n})\le 1$. This also covers the empty antichain and an antichain containing the empty set.

For the second proof, each permutation of $[n]$ specifies a maximal chain in a Boolean lattice by taking its successive prefixes. There are $n!$ such maximal chains in a Boolean lattice, and a fixed $r$-set belongs to $r!(n-r)!$ of them. A maximal chain in a Boolean lattice meets an antichain at most once. Double counting these incidences therefore gives ${\sum }_r|{\mathcal{A}}_r|r!(n-r)!\le n!$, exactly the LYM inequality.

The Sperner theorem says that an antichain in $\mathcal{P}([n])$ has at most $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor }\right)$ members; a full middle rank attains this bound. Indeed, every binomial coefficient $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)$ is at most the central one, so the LYM inequality givesNow let $\mathcal{F}$ be an intersection-free uniform set family. If it is empty, there is nothing to prove. Fix $X\in \mathcal{F}$ and consider the tracesIf $A,B\ne X$ are distinct and $X\cap A\subseteq X\cap B$, then $X\cap A\subseteq B$. This contradicts the defining restriction on the three distinct members $X,A,B$. The intersection has size less than $r$, so it is a proper subset of $B$ even if the printed subset symbol is interpreted strictly. In particular, equal traces are impossible, and the traces form an antichain. Thus $|\mathcal{T}|=|\mathcal{F}|-1$. Applying the Sperner theorem to the $r$-element ground set $X$ proves the antichain trace bound for intersection-free familiesThe argument also handles $r=0$: a uniform set family then has at most one member.