How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Dual Spaces, Bilinear and Quadratic Forms, and Sylvester's Law of Inertia
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Graphs, Walks and Connectivity
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Inner Product Spaces, Gram-Schmidt, Projections and Adjoints
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
This page uses coordinate spaces over fields, the standard bilinear form, orthogonal complements, row reduction, rank-nullity and determinants to turn finite set systems into linear-algebra problems. It also uses multivariate polynomial degree, monomial coefficients and root bounds to make the polynomial method precise, so the page can move between incidence matrices, subspaces and grid polynomials inside one common algebraic language.
The development begins with incidence vectors and three independence criteria, then applies them to Oddtown, Eventown, Fisher's inequality and Graham-Pollak. It next defines shattering and proves Sauer-Shelah first by shifting and then by multilinear polynomials, with the inclusion matrix as a separate rank calculation. The polynomial-method half builds the multivariate identity lemma, the grid reduction lemma and the combinatorial Nullstellensatz, and uses them for Cauchy-Davenport, the hyperplane cover of the cube and the Frankl-Wilson intersection bound. The closing remarks mark exactly which hypotheses depend on the chosen field and which do not.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The incidence vector of a subset over a stated field
Definition
Fix a field , a natural number , and the standard basis of (The standard list with and for is an ordered basis of ; hence , and is the zero space with basis and dimension ).
For a subset , its incidence vector over is
Thus
The field is part of the datum and is written whenever two fields are being used at once. The same subset may therefore produce different vectors on this page: the coordinates are the same zero-one pattern, but the arithmetic happens in the chosen field.
The assignment is injective: if , then some coordinate lies in exactly one of them, so . In particular and whenever .
Remarks
- Everything below turns set-system questions into vector-space questions through this definition. Distinctness of sets becomes distinctness of vectors, parity questions become equalities in , and intersection sizes become bilinear-form values.
The standard bilinear form on
Definition
Fix a field and a natural number . The standard bilinear form on is
The symbol denotes the finite sum in the additive commutative group of the field : it is at and is obtained by successively adding the terms for .
This is a symmetric bilinear form in the sense of Bilinear forms, and symmetric, skew-symmetric, and alternating bilinear forms, and its matrix in the standard basis of is the identity matrix. Hence it is nondegenerate in the sense of The matrix, left and right radicals, rank, and nondegeneracy of a bilinear form on a finite-dimensional space.
When , the squaring law gives
So over the form detects parity and not positivity. It is not an inner product there, and the page never treats it as one.
Remarks
- The formula is the same over every field, but the consequences are not. The Oddtown and Eventown arguments use only bilinearity over ; the Fisher argument later uses the order and positivity of as well.
is the image of in ; over it is or according to the parity of
Statement
Let be a field, let , and let be their incidence vectors. Then
In particular:
- over one has ;
- over one has exactly when is odd, and it is exactly when is even;
- taking gives .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a natural number , and subsets .
The incidence vector satisfies when and otherwise (The incidence vector of a subset over a stated field).
The standard form is (The standard bilinear form on ).
Proof
For each index , the product equals when and equals otherwise.
Therefore the sum in [F2] contains exactly copies of and all remaining terms are , so .
The three stated consequences follow immediately: over the scalar is the integer itself, over it is or according to the parity of , and setting gives the final clause.
Remarks
- This is the page's basic dictionary item. Every parity or intersection-size hypothesis below is rewritten through this lemma before any linear algebra is applied.
A finite family of subsets of and its incidence matrix over
Definition
Fix a field and a natural number .
A set family on is a finite list
of pairwise distinct subsets of . Its incidence matrix over is the matrix
whose row indexed by is the incidence vector of .
If , define its Gram matrix to be the matrix whose entry is
so the Gram matrix records all pairings of the incidence vectors at once.
Remarks
- Distinctness of the sets is part of the definition because all the bounds on this page count sets, not repeated rows of a matrix.
If the incidence vectors of are linearly independent over then
Statement
Let be a field and let be a family of subsets of . If the incidence vectors are linearly independent in , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a natural number , and a family of subsets of whose incidence vectors are linearly independent in .
The standard basis of has vectors and spans (The standard list with and for is an ordered basis of ; hence , and is the zero space with basis and dimension ).
Every linearly independent subset of a vector space has size at most that of any finite spanning set (If has a spanning set with elements, then every linearly independent subset of is finite with at most elements; in particular has no linearly independent subset equinumerous with ).
Distinct subsets have distinct incidence vectors (The incidence vector of a subset over a stated field).
Proof
By [F1], the space is spanned by a finite set of vectors.
The linearly independent set therefore has at most elements by [F2].
Since [F3] identifies distinct subsets with distinct incidence vectors, the family itself has at most members.
Remarks
- This is the master lemma for the direct incidence-vector bounds, including Oddtown and Fisher's inequality. Other bounds on the page use subspace counts, shifting, or polynomial-function spaces instead.
Diagonal criterion: if and for , then are linearly independent
Statement
Let be a field, let be an -vector space, and let be a bilinear form. Suppose vectors satisfy
Then are linearly independent.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a vector space over , a bilinear form on , and vectors satisfying the displayed hypotheses.
A bilinear form is linear in each variable separately (Bilinear forms, and symmetric, skew-symmetric, and alternating bilinear forms).
A field has no zero divisors (Field).
Proof
Suppose . Pairing with and using linearity in the first variable from [F1] gives .
Every term with vanishes by hypothesis, so this reduces to . Since and a field has no zero divisors by [F2], we get .
The index was arbitrary, so every coefficient is . Hence are linearly independent.
Remarks
- The argument uses only bilinearity and the diagonal pattern. No positivity and no nondegeneracy is involved, which is why the criterion works over as well as over .
Triangular criterion: if and for , then are linearly independent
Statement
Let be a field, let be an -vector space, and let be a bilinear form. Suppose vectors satisfy
Then are linearly independent.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a vector space over , a bilinear form on , and vectors satisfying the displayed hypotheses.
A bilinear form is linear in each variable separately (Bilinear forms, and symmetric, skew-symmetric, and alternating bilinear forms).
A field has no zero divisors (Field).
Proof
Suppose with some coefficient nonzero, and let be the least index with .
Pairing with and using [F1] gives . The terms with vanish by the choice of , and the terms with vanish by the triangular hypothesis, so only remains.
Since and a field has no zero divisors by [F2], this forces , contradicting step 1.1. Therefore are linearly independent.
Remarks
- The direction of the triangular hypothesis matters. The proof chooses the least nonzero coefficient, so it kills the terms below the diagonal by minimality and the terms above it by hypothesis.
Determinant criterion: if the matrix is invertible then both and are linearly independent
Statement
Let be a field, let be an -vector space, and let be a bilinear form. If the matrix
is invertible, then both lists and are linearly independent.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the vectors and the matrix above.
Square matrices form a ring, so matrix multiplication is associative and has identity ( is a ring under entrywise addition and matrix multiplication, including the zero ring ). An invertible matrix has a two-sided inverse with (Invertible matrices and the general linear group ).
The form is linear in each variable separately (Bilinear forms, and symmetric, skew-symmetric, and alternating bilinear forms).
Proof
Suppose . Pairing with each and using [F2] gives for every , which is the matrix equation .
Since is invertible, multiply on the right by and use [F1] to obtain . So , and the vectors are linearly independent.
If , pairing with each and using linearity in the second variable gives . Multiplying on the left by and using [F1] gives . Thus are linearly independent as well.
Remarks
- This is the matrix version of the diagonal and triangular criteria: there the matrix is visibly diagonal or triangular, while here only invertibility is assumed.
Oddtown: distinct with every odd and every () even satisfy
Statement
Let be distinct subsets of . If every is odd and every intersection with is even, then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: distinct subsets with every odd and every even for .
Over , the pairing is exactly when is odd and exactly when it is even ( is the image of in ; over it is or according to the parity of ).
If vectors in a bilinear space satisfy and for , then the vectors are linearly independent (Diagonal criterion: if and for , then are linearly independent).
A family with independent incidence vectors has at most members (If the incidence vectors of are linearly independent over then ).
Proof
Work over , which is a field by [F1]. Then [L1] turns the parity hypotheses into
This is exactly the diagonal criterion with , so the vectors are linearly independent over by [L2].
The master lemma [L3] now gives .
Remarks
- The argument uses the standard bilinear form on , not an inner product. Bilinearity and the diagonal pattern are enough.
The singletons form an Oddtown family, so the bound is attained for every
Statement
For every natural number , the singleton family
is an Oddtown family on . Hence the bound of Oddtown: distinct with every odd and every () even satisfy is sharp.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number .
Distinct subsets of whose sizes are odd and whose pairwise intersections have even size number at most (Oddtown: distinct with every odd and every () even satisfy ).
Proof
Each singleton has odd size , and any two distinct singletons meet in the empty set, whose size is even. So the family satisfies the hypotheses of [L1].
The family has exactly members, so it attains the bound of [L1].
Remarks
- This is the standard extremal example, and the companion page uses it to refute the false improvement .
A -dimensional vector space over a field with elements has exactly elements
Statement
Let be a finite field with elements, and let be a -dimensional -vector space. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a finite field with elements, and a -dimensional vector space over .
Choosing an ordered basis of length gives a unique coordinate vector in for every element of (A finite list is an ordered basis if and only if every equals for exactly one ; those scalars are the coordinates of in that ordered basis).
The set of functions from a -element set to a -element set has cardinality (The set of functions between finite sets is finite, with , Exponentiation of natural numbers, , and its agreement with the integer power in ).
Proof
By [F1], an ordered basis of identifies bijectively with .
Since has elements, [F2] gives . Transporting cardinality along the bijection of step 1.1 gives .
Remarks
- The boundary case is included: the zero-dimensional vector space has one element and .
For a subspace , , where
Statement
Let be a field, let be a subspace, and define
Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a natural number , and a subspace .
A finite-dimensional subspace has a basis, and its dimension is at most (If and is a linear subspace of , then is finite-dimensional, , and if and only if ).
Row rank equals column rank (Row rank equals column rank, and both equal the number of pivots).
Rank-nullity gives for a linear map (Rank-nullity: ).
The standard form is (The standard bilinear form on ).
Proof
Let be a basis of , where , and define the linear map by .
By definition, . The matrix of has the vectors as its rows, so its row rank is because those rows are independent; hence its column rank is also by [F2], and therefore .
Rank-nullity [F3] now gives , so .
Remarks
- The cases and are included automatically: then and respectively.
Eventown: distinct with every and every even satisfy
Statement
Let be distinct subsets of . If every is even and every intersection with is even, then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: distinct subsets with every even and every even for .
Over , the standard-form values of all the incidence vectors vanish against one another and against themselves ( is the image of in ; over it is or according to the parity of ).
For a subspace , one has (For a subspace , , where ).
A -dimensional vector space over has elements (A -dimensional vector space over a field with elements has exactly elements).
Proof
Work over , and let be the span of the incidence vectors . By [L1], every pairing is .
Bilinearity then gives for all , so .
Writing , the inclusion of step 2.1 and [L2] give . Hence , so .
The distinct incidence vectors lie in , so . By [L3], , and therefore .
Remarks
- The floor enters only because is an integer and . The proof is otherwise the same in both parities of .
An Eventown family that no further set can be added to has exactly members
Statement
Let be an Eventown family on that is maximal under inclusion among Eventown families on . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a maximal Eventown family on .
Every Eventown family has at most members (Eventown: distinct with every and every even satisfy ).
For a subspace , one has (For a subspace , , where ).
A -dimensional vector space over has elements (A -dimensional vector space over a field with elements has exactly elements).
If is a nonzero linear map on a finite-dimensional -vector space, then (Rank-nullity: ).
Proof
The family contains and is closed under symmetric difference: if , then is even, and for every the intersection has even size as well; maximality therefore forces .
Hence the set is a subspace of . Every has even size, so the all-ones vector is orthogonal to every and therefore lies in . The Eventown hypotheses give for every ; bilinearity then gives for all . Consequently and .
If , then the subset with incidence vector has even size and even intersection with every member of , so maximality forces and thus . Therefore .
Let . If is odd, then while step 2.1 gives , so the linear map given by is nonzero and has kernel . Hence step 3.1, [L2] and [L4] give , so . If is even, then the whole set has even size and even intersection with every member of , so maximality forces and therefore . Every then satisfies , hence ; step 3.1 gives , and [L2] yields , so . In both cases .
The subspace has elements by [L3], and step 1.1 identified those elements with the members of . The upper bound [L1] is therefore attained by every maximal Eventown family.
Remarks
- Maximality is used only once, in step 3.1, to turn the orthogonality conditions back into actual set membership.
If satisfy for and , they are linearly independent
Statement
Let and let . Suppose
Then are linearly independent.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: vectors satisfying the displayed hypotheses.
The standard inner product is bilinear (The standard formulas on and on are inner products).
A sum of nonnegative real numbers is only when every summand is (Positive and negative definiteness, the inertia , rank , and signature of a real symmetric bilinear or quadratic form).
Proof
Suppose . Taking the inner product of this vector with itself and expanding bilinearly gives
Each summand on the right is nonnegative: by hypothesis and . Therefore [F2] forces every term to vanish, and hence every is .
So the only linear relation is the trivial one, and the vectors are linearly independent.
Remarks
- This is the one place in the page where the order and positivity of are load-bearing. That is exactly what fails over .
Fisher's inequality, nonuniform form: distinct nonempty with for all satisfy
Statement
Let be distinct nonempty subsets of . If there is a natural number such that
then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: distinct nonempty subsets and a natural number with for every .
If real vectors have a common pairwise inner product and larger diagonal entries, then they are linearly independent (If satisfy for and , they are linearly independent).
For incidence vectors over , the pairing is the intersection size ( is the image of in ; over it is or according to the parity of ).
A family with independent incidence vectors has at most members (If the incidence vectors of are linearly independent over then ).
Proof
First suppose that some set, say , has size exactly . Then because the sets are nonempty. For every , the equality forces , so the differences are nonempty. If were nonempty for , then would properly contain , contradicting . Thus these differences are pairwise disjoint, so there are at most of them and therefore at most indices . Hence .
Now suppose every . By [L2], the incidence vectors in satisfy for and . So [L1] makes them linearly independent.
The master lemma [L3] then gives . Together with step 1.1, this proves the theorem in every case.
Remarks
- The two-case split is essential. If some set has size , the linear-algebra argument does not apply because the diagonal entry is not larger than the off-diagonal one.
A -uniform family on with all pairwise intersections of size has at most members
Statement
Let be distinct subsets of , each of size , and suppose
Then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a -uniform family with every pairwise intersection of size .
The nonuniform Fisher inequality gives for distinct nonempty sets with constant pairwise intersection size (Fisher's inequality, nonuniform form: distinct nonempty with for all satisfy ).
Proof
Every set in the family has size , so the hypotheses place the family in the second case of [L1].
Applying [L1] to that case gives .
Remarks
- This is the design-theoretic reading of Fisher's inequality, stated without importing any block-design terminology onto the page.
A decomposition of a graph's edge set into complete bipartite subgraphs
Definition
Let be a finite simple graph. A complete bipartite decomposition of is a list
of pairs of disjoint nonempty subsets of such that:
- for each , every pair with and is an edge of ; and
- every edge of lies in exactly one of those complete bipartite edge sets.
So the decomposition is of the edge set of , not of its vertex set. The unions need not cover all vertices.
Remarks
- The phrase "exactly one" is the key point: the Graham-Pollak argument counts edges through those parts and needs a genuine partition of the edge set.
Graham–Pollak: a complete bipartite decomposition of has at least parts
Statement
Let
be a complete bipartite decomposition of the complete graph . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a complete bipartite decomposition of .
In such a decomposition every edge of lies in exactly one of the complete bipartite graphs (A decomposition of a graph's edge set into complete bipartite subgraphs).
A homogeneous linear system with fewer equations than unknowns has a nonzero solution (The system is consistent if and only if , Reduced row echelon form detects consistency and parametrises every solution by the nonpivot variables).
Proof
Suppose, for contradiction, that . Then the homogeneous real system has equations in the unknowns , so [F2] gives a nonzero real solution .
Because each edge of lies in exactly one part by [F1], one has
Substituting the solution into step 1.2 gives on the right, because every displayed sum over an is by step 1.1. On the left, since by step 1.1 and not all are . This contradiction shows that .
Remarks
- The lower bound is sharp: the star decomposition of into the graphs , , and so on uses exactly parts.
Shattering and the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of a set family
Definition
Let and let .
The trace of on is
The family shatters when
The VC dimension of is the greatest integer such that some subset with is shattered. For the empty family we set by convention.
This maximum is well defined: every shattered set is a subset of the finite set , so its size lies in , and for any nonempty family the empty set is shattered because every trace on is .
Remarks
- A one-element family has VC dimension : it shatters and no singleton.
The down-shift of a set family at a point
Definition
Let and let .
For a set , define
The down-shift of at is
Also define the weight
The next lemma shows that has the same number of members as and never larger weight.
Remarks
- The family is shifted only when the lower set is not already present. That is the clause that keeps the operation from collapsing two sets to one.
, and with equality only when
Statement
Let and let . Then
- the map is injective on , and therefore ;
- ;
- equality holds in part 2 exactly when .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a family and an index .
By definition, only when and ; otherwise (The down-shift of a set family at a point ).
Proof
Suppose with . Then at least one of or is shifted. If both were shifted, then and adding back gives , impossible. So exactly one is shifted, say , and then because is not shifted. But [F1] says precisely that when is shifted, a contradiction. Therefore is injective.
Since the map is injective, it is a bijection from the finite set onto its image , so .
Every shifted set loses the element and every unshifted set keeps its size, so . Equality holds exactly when no set is shifted, and that is exactly the condition .
Remarks
- The proof uses only the two clauses of the definition. Nothing about shattering enters yet.
Every set shattered by is shattered by
Statement
Let , let , and let . If is shattered by , then is shattered by .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a family , an index , and a set shattered by .
The down-shift is defined by the two cases in The down-shift of a set family at a point .
A set is shattered when its trace is the whole power set (Shattering and the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of a set family).
Proof
Suppose first that . Then every trace of on is also a trace of on , because removing or keeping changes nothing on the set . Since is shattered by , it is shattered by as well.
Now suppose that , and let be arbitrary. Since is shattered by , both and occur as traces of shifted sets. The second clause of [F1] implies that whenever appears as a trace with removed, the original family already contains a set realising or a set realising ; applying this to the two traces and shows that realises both. Hence every subset of is a trace of , so is shattered by .
The two cases cover all possibilities for , so no new shattered set is created by the down-shift.
Remarks
- The case is where the clause "and " does real work. Without it the conclusion would fail.
Applying down-shifts until none changes the family terminates, and the result is closed under taking subsets
Statement
Starting from a finite family and repeatedly applying effective down-shifts eventually stops. The final family is closed under taking subsets.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a finite family .
The weight is a natural number (The down-shift of a set family at a point ).
An effective shift strictly decreases the weight and preserves the number of sets (, and with equality only when ).
Proof
Every effective shift strictly decreases the natural number by [L1]. Therefore there cannot be an infinite sequence of effective shifts, so the process terminates.
Let be a family on which every down-shift is ineffective. If and , then the definition of an ineffective shift forces .
By repeatedly removing one element at a time and using step 1.2, every subset of every member of also lies in . So the terminal family is downward closed.
Remarks
- The proof spends no order on the points of beyond the ability to choose which shift to apply next; any effective shift decreases the same weight.
If is closed under taking subsets then shatters every
Statement
Let be closed under taking subsets. Then every member is shattered by .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a downward-closed family and a set .
A set is shattered when every subset of it occurs as a trace (Shattering and the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of a set family).
Proof
If , then by downward closure and . So every subset of is a trace of on .
Hence , and is shattered by .
Remarks
- This is the step that converts the structural output of shifting into the size bound of Sauer-Shelah.
Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members
Statement
Let have VC dimension at most . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a family with .
Iterated down-shifting terminates in a downward-closed family (Applying down-shifts until none changes the family terminates, and the result is closed under taking subsets).
Down-shifting preserves the number of sets (, and with equality only when ).
Down-shifting creates no new shattered set (Every set shattered by is shattered by ).
A downward-closed family shatters each of its members (If is closed under taking subsets then shatters every ).
The -element subsets of are counted by (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Proof
Apply [L1] to obtain a downward-closed family by iterated shifting from .
By [L2], the shift process preserves the number of sets, so ; and by [L3], the VC dimension does not increase, so .
Because is downward closed, [L4] says that every member of is shattered. Since , every member of therefore has size at most .
So is a subset of the union of the layers , whose total size is by [F1]. Using step 2.1, the same bound holds for .
Remarks
- The argument is purely combinatorial. The page later gives a second proof through multilinear polynomials, but this theorem itself uses only shifting.
For a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members
Statement
Let . If has VC dimension at most , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a family with and .
Sauer-Shelah gives (Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members).
For , increasing enumeration injects the -element subsets of into the words of length over , so ; for , (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient , The set of functions between finite sets is finite, with ).
In , the binomial theorem gives (The binomial theorem in : ), and for the coefficient is at least because the initial segment is one -element subset (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Proof
By [L1], it suffices to bound the sum .
Each summand satisfies : use the injection in [F1] for , and its zero clause for . Hence .
By [F2], viewed in every summand appears in the expansion of with coefficient at least , so . Since both sides are natural numbers, the same inequality holds in the present setting. Combining with step 2.1 proves the claim.
Remarks
- The hypothesis matters only to avoid the trivial constant case. The companion page's false statement replaces by , which already fails at , .
The inclusion matrix of -sets against -sets
Definition
Let . The inclusion matrix
is the matrix over whose rows are indexed by the -element subsets of , whose columns are indexed by the -element subsets of , and whose entry is
The rank of this matrix does not depend on the ordering of the index sets, since changing the order only permutes rows or columns.
Two boundary cases are immediate:
The matrices compose by counting intermediate subsets:
Indeed, the entry of the product counts the -subsets with , and there are exactly of them when , and none otherwise.
Remarks
- The point case is the only rank statement this page proves. The next remark records what is left open here for general .
for
Statement
Let . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a natural number and an index with .
The row of indexed by records membership of the point in each -set (The inclusion matrix of -sets against -sets).
Proof
Suppose , where is the row indexed by . Looking at the column indexed by a -set gives the equation .
Let . Because , there is a -set containing but not ; replacing by gives another -set. Subtracting the two equations from step 1.1 yields .
All coefficients are therefore equal to some common value . Choosing any -set in step 1.1 gives , and since in this forces . So the rows are linearly independent, and there are of them.
Remarks
- The range is sharp. At the matrix has one column and rank , while at there is no point row at all.
What is and is not proved about on this page
Remarks
This page proves the composition identity for the matrices and the rank formula for the point case in for . It does not prove the general rank formula throughout the full stable range.
The reason is mathematical, not clerical. The natural induction on through block decomposition loses one unit of the range at each step, and the boundary case is equivalent to the nonsingularity of the disjointness matrix. Standard proofs there use eigenvalues of the Johnson scheme or Gottlieb's construction, and neither belongs to this page's declared prerequisites. So the page records the point case and stops there.
Monomials, coefficients, degree in each variable and total degree in
Definition
Let be a field. Every polynomial in the iterated ring has a unique finite expansion
over finitely many multi-indices .
For such an index, the scalar is the coefficient of the monomial .
The degree in is the largest with , and the total degree is the largest value of with . For the zero polynomial, every degree is left undefined.
Evaluation at a point is the iterated substitution supplied by the universal property of the polynomial ring.
Remarks
- The page uses this expansion constantly. The Nullstellensatz and the grid reduction need both the separate variable degrees and the total degree, and neither is visible in the bare iterated-ring construction unless it is named here.
If for each and vanishes on , then
Statement
Let be a field, let , and let finite sets satisfy
If vanishes at every point of , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , finite subsets , and a polynomial with for every , vanishing on .
A nonzero univariate polynomial over a domain has at most as many distinct roots as its degree (A nonzero polynomial of degree over an integral domain has at most distinct roots, A polynomial ring in finitely many indeterminates over an integral domain is an integral domain).
Every polynomial has a finite monomial expansion, so in particular one may write with (Monomials, coefficients, degree in each variable and total degree in ).
Proof
[base] If , then is a univariate polynomial of degree below vanishing at every point of . By [F1] a nonzero polynomial of that degree cannot have so many roots, so .
[ih] Assume the statement is known for polynomials in variables.
Write as in [F2], where .
Fix . Then the univariate polynomial has degree at most and vanishes on all of , so [F1] gives . Therefore every coefficient is .
Since the point was arbitrary, every coefficient polynomial vanishes on . Its degree in each variable is still below the corresponding , so the induction hypothesis gives for every . Hence .
Remarks
- The inequalities are strict. The companion page's counterexample is exactly the boundary case where equality holds in one variable.
Reducing modulo lowers each below , preserves the values on the grid, and preserves any top-degree coefficient whose exponents stay below the grid sizes
Statement
Let be a field, let , and let finite nonempty sets . Put
Then there is a polynomial such that:
- either , or for every and ;
- for every ;
- if and the monomial has top total degree with each , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , finite nonempty subsets , and a polynomial .
The total degree and the separate degrees are taken from the monomial expansion (Monomials, coefficients, degree in each variable and total degree in ).
Division by a monic polynomial in one variable over a commutative ring gives a quotient and remainder with smaller degree in that variable (Division by a monic polynomial over a commutative ring).
For every , the factor appears in , so .
Proof
Set . For each , view as a polynomial in with coefficients in . Since is monic of degree , [F2] gives with or . Because involves only , this subtraction leaves all previously obtained bounds for unchanged; and every nonleading term of has smaller -degree than its leading term, so the division step introduces no monomial of larger total degree. Therefore satisfies part 1.
Let . For each , step 1.1 gives , and [F3] gives because . Hence for every , so chaining these equalities yields .
In the situation of part 3, fix a stage . Any monomial of total degree in must use the leading term of , because every other term of has smaller total degree. So every top-degree monomial of has -exponent at least . Since the target monomial has exponent for every , no stage changes its coefficient. Therefore .
Remarks
- Part 3 is the clause that the Nullstellensatz actually uses. The degree reduction and grid agreement alone do not see the top coefficient.
Alon's Combinatorial Nullstellensatz: if , the coefficient of in is nonzero, and , then for some
Statement
Let be a field, let , and let finite sets . Suppose
- ;
- the coefficient of in is nonzero; and
- for every .
Then there is a point with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a polynomial , finite subsets , and exponents satisfying the three hypotheses above.
The reduction lemma gives a polynomial with , agreeing with on the whole grid and preserving the top coefficient of (Reducing modulo lowers each below , preserves the values on the grid, and preserves any top-degree coefficient whose exponents stay below the grid sizes).
A polynomial with separate degrees below the grid sizes that vanishes on the whole grid is the zero polynomial (If for each and vanishes on , then ).
Proof
Suppose, for contradiction, that vanishes at every point of . Apply [L1] to obtain the reduced polynomial .
By [L1], the polynomial still vanishes on the whole grid and satisfies for every , so [L2] gives .
But [L1] also says that the coefficient of is the same in as in , hence nonzero. That contradicts . Therefore some grid point satisfies .
Remarks
- The top-coefficient hypothesis is load-bearing. The companion page carries the false statement obtained by deleting it.
If is prime and then
Statement
Let be prime. If , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a prime number and integers with .
The closed formula gives ( for ; hence , the quotient is a natural number, and )
For a nonzero integer , exactly when (For a prime and a nonzero integer : and ; holds exactly for ; exactly when ; ; and ).
The -adic valuation is additive on products of nonzero integers ( for nonzero integers , and whenever , and are all nonzero).
Proof
The identity of [F1] gives
Every factor in each of , , and lies strictly between and , so [F2] gives valuation for each factor. Repeated additivity from [F3] therefore gives
Substituting step 1.2 into step 1.1 gives , which is exactly the statement that .
Cauchy–Davenport: for prime and nonempty ,
Statement
Let be prime and let be nonempty. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a prime number and nonempty subsets .
The quotient ring is a field when is prime (For every prime , the two operations on make it a field, The congruence class and the quotient set ).
Over a field, if , the coefficient of is nonzero, and , then is nonzero at some point of (Alon's Combinatorial Nullstellensatz: if , the coefficient of in is nonzero, and , then for some ).
If , then (If is prime and then ).
Proof
If , then the claimed lower bound is . In that case every class has a representation with and : otherwise the translate would be disjoint from , so the two subsets and of the -element set would have total size at most , contradicting . Hence and the theorem holds.
Now assume , and suppose toward contradiction that . Choose a set with and , and consider the polynomial
The total degree of is with and . The coefficient of is , and this is nonzero in by [L2] because the top is below .
The polynomial vanishes at every point of , because for every and . But [L1] and step 2.1 say that no polynomial with these degree data and this nonzero top coefficient can vanish on all of . This contradiction proves the theorem.
Remarks
- Primality is load-bearing twice: it makes a field, and it keeps the critical binomial coefficient nonzero there.
Covering minus the origin by affine hyperplanes avoiding the origin needs at least of them
Statement
For , let be nonzero, let be nonzero, and put
If every nonzero vertex of the cube lies on at least one , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: nonzero vectors and nonzero scalars , with the hyperplanes covering every nonzero cube vertex.
Over a field, if , the coefficient of is nonzero, and for every , then is nonzero at some point of (Alon's Combinatorial Nullstellensatz: if , the coefficient of in is nonzero, and , then for some ).
The standard bilinear form is (The standard bilinear form on ).
Proof
Suppose, for contradiction, that , and define
The polynomial vanishes on every vertex of . At the origin, the two terms are equal by construction, so they cancel. At any nonzero cube vertex, the first product vanishes because some coordinate equals , and the second vanishes because that vertex lies on one of the hyperplanes.
The total degree of is , and the coefficient of is : the first product contributes that coefficient, while the second product has degree and contributes nothing to that top monomial.
Apply [L1] to the coordinates indexed by , taking and for every . Step 2.1 says that vanishes on the whole grid , but step 2.2 says its top coefficient is nonzero and the degree hypothesis is exactly the required one. This contradiction proves .
Remarks
- The constant in the first term is chosen only to force cancellation at the origin. That check is the one place where a sign error can hide.
Multilinear polynomials and the reduction on the cube
Definition
A polynomial is multilinear when , or when
Equivalently, is a linear combination of the monomials
For a multi-index , let . The multilinear reduction of is the unambiguously defined polynomial
Equivalently, each monomial is reduced by replacing every positive power by . Thus is multilinear, including when it is the zero polynomial. The next lemma proves that it is the unique multilinear polynomial agreeing with on the cube, and that if then its total degree does not exceed that of .
Remarks
- The reduction is a cube phenomenon. It is not an algebra homomorphism on all of ; it is the canonical representative for restricting a polynomial to .
is multilinear, agrees with at every point of , is degree-nonincreasing when nonzero, and is the unique multilinear polynomial with that agreement
Statement
For every polynomial , its multilinear reduction is multilinear, agrees with at every point of the cube , satisfies whenever , and is the unique multilinear polynomial with that agreement.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a polynomial .
The multilinear reduction replaces each monomial by the squarefree monomial (Multilinear polynomials and the reduction on the cube).
A polynomial with each variable degree below that vanishes on the whole cube is the zero polynomial (If for each and vanishes on , then ).
Proof
For and every positive integer , . Hence each monomial and its reduction have the same value at , so summing the monomials in [F1] gives . Every reduced monomial is squarefree and has degree , so is multilinear and has no larger total degree than whenever the two are nonzero.
If is another multilinear polynomial agreeing with on the cube, then is multilinear and vanishes on the cube. By [L2], it is the zero polynomial. So , proving uniqueness.
Remarks
- Uniqueness is what later turns a pointwise identity on the cube into a linear independence statement about multilinear monomials.
The functions obtained from with are linearly independent, so they span a space of dimension
Statement
Fix . The functions obtained by restricting the multilinear monomials with are linearly independent. Consequently they span a vector space of dimension
Facts & Assumptions
Given: an integer with .
A multilinear polynomial agreeing with the zero function on the cube is the zero polynomial ( is multilinear, agrees with at every point of , is degree-nonincreasing when nonzero, and is the unique multilinear polynomial with that agreement).
The monomial expansion of a polynomial is unique (Monomials, coefficients, degree in each variable and total degree in ).
The subsets of of size at most number (The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient , The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition).
Proof
Suppose a linear combination of the restricted functions with vanishes on the whole cube. The same coefficients then define a multilinear polynomial vanishing on the cube, so [L1] makes that polynomial the zero polynomial.
By uniqueness of monomial expansion [F1], every coefficient in that polynomial is . Hence the restricted functions are linearly independent.
Their number is the sum in [F2], so the span has exactly that dimension.
-intersecting families
Definition
Fix and let be finite. A family of subsets of is -intersecting when
No condition is imposed on the sizes of the individual sets.
Remarks
- The case is the constant-intersection situation of Fisher's inequality. The Frankl-Wilson theorem treats several allowed intersection sizes at once.
An -intersecting family on with has at most members
Statement
Let be an -intersecting family on , where is finite with . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: an -intersecting family on , ordered so that , with .
The multilinear monomials of total degree at most span a space of dimension on the cube (The functions obtained from with are linearly independent, so they span a space of dimension ).
Over , incidence vectors satisfy ( is the image of in ; over it is or according to the parity of ).
The power set of has elements, and when ( for finite , The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Proof
If , then [F1] makes the claimed right-hand side , so the bound follows from . Hence suppose . Work over , and for each define This is a polynomial of total degree at most .
Evaluating at , [L2] gives , so every factor in is a positive integer and therefore .
If , then and also . Equality with would force and then , impossible. So is an element of strictly below , and [L2] makes the corresponding factor of equal to .
Let be the multilinear reduction of . By the cube-agreement lemma, and for . If and is the least index with , evaluation at kills the terms with index larger than by the vanishing just proved and kills the earlier ones by minimality, leaving , a contradiction. Thus the functions are linearly independent.
Each is multilinear of total degree at most , so [L1] places all of them in a vector space of dimension . Since they are independent, there can be at most that many of them. Hence .
Remarks
- The ordering by size is the one-sided feature that removes the need for a uniformity hypothesis.
If does not shatter then agrees on with a combination of the for
Statement
Let be a field, let , and let . If does not shatter , then on the set of incidence vectors the monomial
agrees with a -linear combination of the monomials with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , a family , and a set that is not shattered by ; incidence vectors and polynomials are taken over .
Since is not shattered, there is some subset that is not realised as by any member of (Shattering and the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of a set family).
The incidence vector has coordinate exactly on the elements of (The incidence vector of a subset over a stated field).
Proof
Choose as in [F1], and define
For any , the value is exactly when , and it is otherwise. Since no member of realises the trace , step 1.1 gives for every .
Expanding the product in step 1.1 gives Since step 2.1 says is the zero function on the incidence vectors of , this rearranges there to an expression of as a linear combination of the with .
A second proof of Sauer–Shelah, from the multilinear polynomial space
Statement
If has VC dimension at most , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a family with .
Over , if is not shattered, then on the incidence vectors of the monomial is a linear combination of the monomials for (If does not shatter then agrees on with a combination of the for ).
For , the multilinear monomials of degree at most span a space of dimension on the cube (The functions obtained from with are linearly independent, so they span a space of dimension ).
Proof
Let be the vector space of all functions . For , put At an incidence vector , this polynomial is when and otherwise. Therefore every is represented on the incidence vectors of by the multilinear polynomial , so the restrictions of all squarefree monomials span .
If , then is not shattered. Hence [L1] expresses the restriction of on as a combination of the restrictions of the monomials with . Inducting on shows that every monomial restriction is in the span of those with degree at most .
Therefore the restrictions of the monomials with already span . Put ; no subset of has size above , so this is the same spanning family as the one with . By [L2], there are at most of them. If this is already ; if , then for , so the same sum is also . Hence is at most . This is the same numerical bound as Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members, proved by a genuinely different route.
Remarks
- The shifting proof works with families of sets; this proof works with a span of monomial functions. The shared bound is the conclusion, not the method.
The shifting proof of Sauer–Shelah uses no field and no vector space
Remarks
The proof of Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members uses only the down-shifts, the weight function, the shattered-set definition and a count of subsets. No incidence vector, field, bilinear form or dimension appears there.
By contrast, A second proof of Sauer–Shelah, from the multilinear polynomial space does use the page's linear-algebra machinery: it works in a polynomial function space, compares spans of monomials, and closes by a dimension count. The page keeps both proofs because the bound belongs in this topic, but only one of the two routes spends the linear-algebra apparatus built here.
Which field each bound is proved over, and what changes when it is replaced
Remarks
Oddtown and Eventown are proved over , and they use only the bilinear form and dimension facts available there. Fisher's inequality and Graham-Pollak are proved over , because each uses the fact that a sum of nonnegative squares vanishes only termwise.
The combinatorial Nullstellensatz is field-generic: the proof uses only the polynomial ring over a field and the strict degree bounds. Cauchy-Davenport is the specialised finite-field application where the field is , and primality is the step that makes that field available and keeps the decisive binomial coefficient nonzero.
The companion-page false statements test these hypotheses alongside sharpness and boundary claims: changing the field or losing positivity breaks some linear arguments, deleting the top coefficient breaks the Nullstellensatz, while the Oddtown and Sauer--Shelah examples test whether their numerical bounds can be strengthened.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
An Oddtown family of four clubs on four citizens, and why a fifth cannot be added
Example
Take the four singletons on :
Their incidence matrix over is the identity matrix
so .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the four singleton sets above.
Oddtown families have at most members (Oddtown: distinct with every odd and every () even satisfy ).
The singleton family attains that bound (The singletons form an Oddtown family, so the bound is attained for every ).
Verification
Each singleton has odd size , and any two distinct singletons meet in the empty set of even size , so the family satisfies Oddtown.
The displayed incidence matrix has pairwise orthogonal rows and , exactly as the Oddtown proof predicts.
A fifth set cannot be adjoined: by [L1] an Oddtown family on four points has at most four members, and [L2] says the bound is attained already.
The pairing construction gives an Eventown family of size
Example
For , group the points into the pairs and . The family
is Eventown. For the same four sets, viewed as subsets of , are still Eventown and still maximal.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the two families above.
Eventown families have at most members (Eventown: distinct with every and every even satisfy ).
Maximal Eventown families have exactly that many members (An Eventown family that no further set can be added to has exactly members).
Verification
In both displayed families every set has even size, and the intersection of any two displayed sets is again , , or , hence even.
For there are four sets, which is ; for there are again four sets, which is .
The family is maximal by [L2], so the floor in the general bound is visible already in the first odd case.
The seven lines of the Fano plane meet pairwise in one point, and Fisher's bound is tight
Example
The seven lines of the Fano plane may be written as the translates modulo of :
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the seven three-element sets above.
A -uniform family on whose distinct members have constant intersection size has at most members (A -uniform family on with all pairwise intersections of size has at most members).
Verification
Each displayed set has size .
Let . Its nonzero differences are , that is, every nonzero residue modulo exactly once. Hence for distinct translates and , an element lies in their intersection exactly when and both lie in , equivalently when is a nonzero difference of two elements of ; that determines uniquely. So any two distinct displayed sets meet in exactly one point.
So the family has subsets on points with constant pairwise intersection size , and [L1] gives . The bound is therefore tight.
decomposed into three complete bipartite graphs, and no decomposition into two
Example
The complete graph has the edge decomposition
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the three complete bipartite graphs above.
Every complete bipartite decomposition of has at least parts (Graham–Pollak: a complete bipartite decomposition of has at least parts).
Verification
The three displayed graphs cover the edges ; then ; then , so every edge of is covered exactly once.
Hence has a complete bipartite decomposition with three parts. Since , [L1] says that no decomposition into two parts can exist.
All subsets of of size at most : VC dimension and exactly members
Example
Let be the family of all subsets of of size at most :
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the family above.
Sauer-Shelah bounds a VC-dimension- family by (Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members, The set of -element subsets and the binomial coefficient ).
Verification
The set is shattered: every one of its subsets appears as a trace of the displayed family.
No three-element subset is shattered, because the three-element set itself is missing from the family and therefore cannot appear as a trace on that triple. Hence .
The family has exactly members, matching the bound of [L1].
written out, and its rank computed
Example
Ordering the rows by the points and the columns by the pairs , one has
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the matrix above.
The point-inclusion matrix has rank ( for ).
Verification
Row operations reduce the matrix to a row-echelon form with four pivot rows, so its rank is .
This agrees with [L1].
Direct multiplication also gives since every pair contains exactly two points.
in : the sumset has five elements and the bound is tight
Example
Let .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the set in .
Cauchy-Davenport gives (Cauchy–Davenport: for prime and nonempty , ).
Verification
The sumset is since the nine sums reduce to modulo .
Therefore , so the lower bound of [L1] is attained.
The other branch of the theorem is also visible: if and , then .
Applying the Nullstellensatz by hand to over
Example
Let
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the polynomial and the sets above.
If , the coefficient of is nonzero, and , then is nonzero at some point of (Alon's Combinatorial Nullstellensatz: if , the coefficient of in is nonzero, and , then for some ).
The grid-reduction lemma reduces degrees without changing the values on the grid (Reducing modulo lowers each below , preserves the values on the grid, and preserves any top-degree coefficient whose exponents stay below the grid sizes).
Verification
The total degree of is , and the coefficient of is . Since and , [L1] applies.
Indeed , so the theorem's conclusion is visible directly.
Reducing modulo replaces by , so on the grid the polynomial agrees with , illustrating [L2].
The six -subsets of are -intersecting, and the bound holds
Example
The six -subsets of are
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the six pairs above.
An -intersecting family with has at most members (An -intersecting family on with has at most members).
Verification
Any two distinct displayed sets meet in either or point, so the family is -intersecting.
The family has six members, and [L1] gives the upper bound .
For example, the polynomial attached to over is It is nonzero at , where its value is , and vanishes at every other displayed pair, whose intersection with has size or .
The hyperplanes cover except the origin, so the Alon–Füredi bound is tight
Example
For each , let
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the hyperplanes .
Covering by hyperplanes missing the origin needs at least hyperplanes (Covering minus the origin by affine hyperplanes avoiding the origin needs at least of them).
Verification
Every nonzero vertex of the cube has some coordinate equal to , so it lies on at least one of the hyperplanes . The origin has no coordinate equal to , so it lies on none of them.
Thus the hyperplanes cover exactly the nonzero cube vertices. By [L1], no smaller family can do so.
FALSE: an Oddtown family on has at most members
Statement
False claim: every Oddtown family on has at most members.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the singleton family on .
The singleton family is an Oddtown family of size exactly (The singletons form an Oddtown family, so the bound is attained for every ).
Refutation
By [L1], the family is an Oddtown family with members.
Since is not at most , the false claim fails for every .
FALSE: distinct nonempty whose pairwise intersections all have the same parity satisfy
Statement
False claim: if distinct nonempty subsets of have pairwise intersections all of the same parity, then there are at most of them.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the seven nonempty unions of the three pairs , and .
An Eventown family consists of distinct sets whose own sizes and pairwise intersection sizes are even (Eventown: distinct with every and every even satisfy ).
Refutation
Each chosen set and each pairwise intersection is a union of some of the three disjoint pairs, hence has even size. Thus the family satisfies the Eventown conditions of [L1], and all pairwise intersections have the same parity.
The family has distinct nonempty members on points. Since , it satisfies every hypothesis of the false claim and violates its conclusion.
Remarks
- The broken step is the real-positivity argument in Fisher's proof. Over there is no ordered notion of sum of squares.
FALSE: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members
Statement
False claim: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the family on .
Sauer-Shelah gives the exact bound at , (Sauer–Shelah: a family on of VC dimension at most has at most members).
Refutation
The family has VC dimension : it shatters and nothing larger.
It has two members, while . So the false claim already fails at , .
Remarks
- The true polynomial estimate on the page is , not .
FALSE: makes an inner product space
Statement
False claim: the standard form on is an inner product.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the vector .
Over , one has (The standard bilinear form on ).
Refutation
The vector is nonzero, but [L1] gives in .
An inner product cannot vanish on a nonzero vector, so the false claim fails.
Remarks
- What remains true is that the form is symmetric and bilinear. That is all the page ever uses over .
FALSE: if and then is nonzero somewhere on
Statement
False claim: the combinatorial Nullstellensatz remains true if the hypothesis that the top monomial coefficient is nonzero is deleted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the polynomial and the grid .
The theorem requires the top coefficient to be nonzero (Alon's Combinatorial Nullstellensatz: if , the coefficient of in is nonzero, and , then for some ).
Refutation
The polynomial has total degree , and each grid has size .
But . So the conclusion of the false claim fails.
The missing hypothesis is exactly the coefficient of , which is here. That is why [L1] does not apply.
A set family whose incidence vectors are dependent over and independent over
Statement refuted
Changing the field can change linear independence. Take
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the three subsets above.
Their incidence vectors are , and (The incidence vector of a subset over a stated field).
Counterexample
Over , the three incidence vectors sum to , so they are linearly dependent.
Over , suppose . The three coordinates give , , and . Hence and the last equation gives , so . Thus the vectors are linearly independent over .
In the sets have , below the Cauchy–Davenport bound
Statement refuted
The Cauchy-Davenport lower bound can fail for a composite modulus.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the modulus and the set .
For prime and nonempty , Cauchy--Davenport gives (Cauchy–Davenport: for prime and nonempty , ).
Counterexample
The four sums are , , and , so and therefore .
The Cauchy-Davenport lower bound would be , so the inequality fails for this composite modulus.
The failure occurs outside the theorem's prime-modulus hypothesis: here the modulus is , not a prime , so [L1] does not apply.
vanishes on although
Statement refuted
The strict inequality in the polynomial identity lemma cannot be weakened to equality.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: a field , the polynomial , and the set .
Over a field, if a polynomial has degree in each variable strictly below the size of the corresponding finite grid set and vanishes on the whole grid, then it is the zero polynomial (If for each and vanishes on , then ).
Counterexample
The polynomial is nonzero and has degree .
Yet and , so vanishes on all of .
Therefore the conclusion of [L1] fails when the strict inequality is replaced by equality.
Sources
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §1.1
- J. Matousek, Thirty-three Miniatures, Miniature 3
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §2.3.1
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §§1.1, 2.3.1
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §2.4
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, Chapter 1
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §2.1.4
- O. Pikhurko, An Introduction to Combinatorics, §4.1
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §2.3.2
- O. Pikhurko, An Introduction to Combinatorics, §4.2
- J. Matousek, Thirty-three Miniatures, Miniature 4
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §4.1
- O. Pikhurko, An Introduction to Combinatorics, §3.2
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §1.4
- J. Matousek, Thirty-three Miniatures, Miniature 8
- O. Pikhurko, An Introduction to Combinatorics, §3.3
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §7.4
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §7.5
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §7.1
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, Lemma 2.1
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, proof of Theorem 1.2
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, Theorem 1.2
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, proof of Theorem 3.2
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, Theorem 3.2
- O. Pikhurko, An Introduction to Combinatorics, §11.1
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, Theorem 6.3
- J. Matousek, Thirty-three Miniatures, Miniature 16
- J. Matousek, Thirty-three Miniatures, Miniature 17
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §4.3
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics
- N. Alon, Combinatorial Nullstellensatz
- L. Babai and P. Frankl, Linear Algebra Methods in Combinatorics, §§2.3.2, 4.1