Lattice approach: Difference between revisions

From Polymath Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "This is an approach to proving (weak) FUNC in the lattice formulation by distinguishing various regimes of lattices. Let <math>\mathcal{A}</math> be a finite lattice containin..."
 
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
== Case 1: Short maximal chains ==
== Case 1: Short maximal chains ==


If <math>\mathcal{A}</math> has a maximal chain of length <math>l</math>, then a Knill-type argument will establish the existence of a join-irreducible element with relative abundance of at most <math>1-\frac{1}{l-1}</math>.
If <math>\mathcal{A}</math> has a maximal chain of sufficiently small length <math>l</math>, then a Knill-type argument establishes the existence of a join-irreducible element with relative abundance of at most <math>1-\frac{1}{l-1}</math>.


== Case 2: Equal maximal chains ==
== Case 2: Equal maximal chains ==

Revision as of 08:18, 10 March 2016

This is an approach to proving (weak) FUNC in the lattice formulation by distinguishing various regimes of lattices. Let [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] be a finite lattice containing [math]\displaystyle{ m }[/math] join-irreducibles, and write [math]\displaystyle{ n=|\mathcal{A}| }[/math].

Throwing in a new atom below every join-irreducible creates a new lattice in which abundances differ by less than a factor of 2. So for the purposes of weak FUNC, it should be possible to assume wlog that [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] is atomistic.

Case 1: Short maximal chains

If [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] has a maximal chain of sufficiently small length [math]\displaystyle{ l }[/math], then a Knill-type argument establishes the existence of a join-irreducible element with relative abundance of at most [math]\displaystyle{ 1-\frac{1}{l-1} }[/math].

Case 2: Equal maximal chains

The opposite extreme is that all maximal chains have equal length, i.e. that [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] satisfies the Jordan-Dedekind chain condition. In this case, [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] is graded. We distinguish two subcases depending on the height [math]\displaystyle{ h }[/math] and the width [math]\displaystyle{ w }[/math]; since [math]\displaystyle{ (h-1)(w-1)\geq n-1 }[/math], they can't both be too small. Using the JD chain condition, do arguments along the lines of Dilworth's theorem or Mirsky's theorem give more information?

Case 2a: large height

The height of [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] can be at most [math]\displaystyle{ h=m+1 }[/math]. If this value is reached, then [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A} }[/math] has a prime element by the dual of Theorem 15 in this paper, and we are done since every prime element is rare.

Case 2b: large width

In this case, can try to choose a large maximal antichain and a join-irreducible element [math]\displaystyle{ x }[/math] such that [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A}_x }[/math] contains as few elements of the antichain as possible.