The uniform modular Frankl-Wilson theorem states the following. Let be prime, let have size , and let be a rank- family on , with . Assume and for every distinct . Then
The restrictions concern distinct pairs; the diagonal size residue is explicitly excluded from .
For each member , over form the intersection polynomial
At the characteristic vector , its value vanishes when and is nonzero when . Thus these functions are linearly independent on the whole rank- layer: evaluate any linear relation at each family member in turn. Replacing every positive power of by preserves all Boolean evaluations, so the functions are restrictions of multilinear polynomials of degree at most .
We need the sharp low-degree evaluation rank on a uniform layer, not the larger whole-cube dimension . Let be the integer incidence matrix with rows indexed by subsets of size at most , columns by rank- sets , and entries . Over the rationals, if , then
This coefficient counts the possible inside each containing column set and is positive because . Consequently the degree- rows span all rows over , giving rank at most . Every larger square minor is therefore the integer zero. Reducing those minors modulo shows the rank over is also at most . This transfer avoids dividing by a binomial coefficient that might vanish modulo . The independent functions lie in this row space, so their number is at most its rank. This proves the theorem in full.
For the requested forbidden-intersection application, split into sets containing coordinate one and sets avoiding it. In the first part, delete one. Distinct original sets have intersection size between one and , excluding . Their reduced intersections therefore lie between zero and , excluding , so their residues belong to . The reduced set size is , whose residue is . Frankl-Wilson on the ground set of size bounds this part by .
For the avoiding part, first complement every set. The complements contain one, retain size , and satisfy
Delete one and apply the same argument. The complement splitting for forbidden midpoint intersections yields the stronger bound
The split is essential: a family may contain complementary pairs with intersection zero, preventing direct use of on the original layer.
The Borsuk conjecture asserted that a bounded subset of of positive diameter can be partitioned into subsets of strictly smaller diameter. Here is the Kahn-Kalai counterexample to the Borsuk conjecture, implemented by balanced cut vectors. For each , define whose coordinate indexed by an unordered pair is one when exactly one endpoint lies in , and zero otherwise. Complementary sets give the same cut. Choose the representative with , obtaining exactly
distinct points: a cut determines its two parts, and fixing the side containing one removes its only ambiguity. Every cut has occupied coordinates, so all points lie in the affine hyperplane with coordinate sum . Its dimension is
We can identify this hyperplane isometrically with ; no claim of full affine span is needed.
For two side sets with , their symmetric difference has points. The two cuts disagree exactly on pairs with one endpoint in that symmetric difference, giving the balanced cut-vector distance formula
The diameter is , attained exactly when ; such pairs exist even among representatives containing one. Thus a smaller-diameter part contains no pair with side intersection . Since all representative sets already contain one, deleting that common coordinate and applying the preceding Frankl-Wilson argument bounds each part by . There is no extra factor two at this step. This is the cut construction described in the original Kahn-Kalai paper; the distance and part-size calculations above give the required justification directly.
An explicit choice is . The point set lies in dimension
The exact counts are
Their ratio requires at least smaller-diameter parts, exceeding . In particular,
Rescaling the point set to diameter one changes none of these partition counts. Therefore the Borsuk counterexample in dimension 1325 is fully explicit. This is a concrete dimension, not a claim that it is the smallest possible counterexample dimension.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.