Bounded-size transversal kernel 2026-10-05
If the members of a possibly infinite set family have size at most , there is a finite subset of size at most with exactly the same hitting sets of size at most . Use mathematical induction on . For nonempty , choose . When this one member suffices. Otherwise, for each , retain an inductive kernel for at parameter , and take their set union together with . Its size is at most . A hitting set for this kernel meets at some ; meets the kernel for , hence all of , while meets the other members of . If is empty no hitting set exists, and if is empty its kernel is empty. Only finite branching is used, so no finiteness assumption on is needed.
For cross-intersecting families with member sizes at most respectively, there is a finite set with such that for every . Take a bounded-size transversal kernel preserving hitting sets of size at most and set . For each , the set is a hitting set for , hence for all of . This proves the assertion even for infinite set families; if either family is empty, take .
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 109 2 ii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
A bounded-size transversal kernel gives a finite intersection witness for cross-intersecting families, even when the two set families are infinite. We first prove the kernel statement: for any set family whose members have size at most , and any integer , there is a finite subset withsuch that every set of size at most is a hitting set for if and only if it is a hitting set for .
Use mathematical induction on . If is empty, take . For and nonempty , choose any one member: the only possible is empty and is a hitting set for neither family. For the induction step, choose . For each apply the inductive statement towith parameter , obtaining . Put . Its size is at most . If is a hitting set for , choose . Every member of avoids , so is a hitting set for and hence for . Members of containing already meet . Thus is a hitting set for all of . The reverse implication follows from inclusion. If , no is a hitting set for either family, so the implication remains valid. This finite branching proof never assumes is finite.
Apply the kernel statement with and define . For each , the cross-intersecting family condition ensures that meets every member of , since these members lie inside . As , it therefore meets every . We obtainIn particular, a positive-integer-valued choice valid whether or not isHere the constant term of the sum is , including when . If either set family is empty, suffices. If both are nonempty, the cross-intersecting family condition rules out or .