Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / iii / Paper 11 / 1

The LYM inequality. For an antichain $\mathcal{F}$ in the Boolean lattice,To prove this by double counting, generate a maximal chain in a Boolean lattice from a permutation $\pi$ of $[n]$: its members are the first $j$ entries of $\pi$, for $0\le j\le n$. A particular $j$-set belongs to exactly $j!(n-j)!$ of the $n!$ resulting maximal chains in a Boolean lattice. Each such maximal chain in a Boolean lattice meets the antichain at most once. Counting pairs consisting of a member of $\mathcal{F}$ and a permutation whose associated maximal chain in a Boolean lattice contains it givesDivision by $n!$ proves the LYM inequality, including the empty antichain and the levels containing $\varnothing$ or $[n]$.

A symmetric chain decomposition of a Boolean lattice. A symmetric chain has one set at every size from $k$ to $n-k$, with consecutive members related by inclusion. Start with the single symmetric chain containing $\varnothing$ when $n=0$. Given a symmetric chainin a symmetric chain decomposition of a Boolean lattice on $[n]$, let $x=n+1$ and replace its two copies in the larger Boolean lattice byand, when it is nonempty, byThe endpoint sizes of the first symmetric chain sum to $n+1$; those of the second symmetric chain also sum to $n+1$. These symmetric chains partition the original symmetric chain together with its copy containing $x$. Thus this construction inductively partitions the entire Boolean lattice into symmetric chains. Each symmetric chain contains exactly one set of size $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, so the number of symmetric chains is

The proposed sum bound for cross-intersecting families is false. Take $n=3$ andBoth are antichains, and any member of one meets any member of the other. Nevertheless,The hypothesis permits the two antichains to coincide. Even if distinct antichains were wanted, taking $\mathcal{B}=\{\{1,2\},\{1,3\}\}$ gives $5>3$.