Skip to main content

MATH 206A: Combinatorics - Course Review

· 16 min read
Xinyu Ma
Research Scientist @ Meta

This is a review and summary for course MATH 206A Combinatorics at UCLA, given by Prof. Igor Pak.

I try to make the flow more naturally, but also want to include brief description of important theorems.

Overview

The topics of 206A and 206B changes every year. This year, the professor decides to focus on poset, a set associated with a (strict) partial order <<. The lectures become a slice that goes across every subfield of combinatorics. We use tools from algebra, graph theory, analysis, geometry, probabilistic method, etc.

Chains & Antichains

The property of a set is highly related to the properties of its subsets. Therefore, when a set is associatesd with an order, the first thing we want to ask is what properties its subsets may have. A random subset is boring, because when we restrict the order to it we always get another poset. However, there are two special kinds of subsets — one that every two elements can be compared; one that every two elements cannot. They are called chains and antichains, resp.

Dilworth's theorem

The story starts with the basic properties, height and width, of a poset PP. Height is the maximum length of (maximal) chains h(P)=max{c1<c2<<ch}h(P) = \max |\{c_1< c_2< \ldots < c_h\}|; width is the maximum size of (maximal) antichains w(P)=max{a1,,aw:ai,aj incomparible}w(P) = \max |\{a_1, \ldots, a_w: a_i,a_j\text{ incomparible} \}| .

Dilworth's theorem states that

  • Height = size of smallest antichain partition
  • Weight = size of smallest chain partition

The first case is simple: we can define the height of an element xPx\in P to be the height of its principal ideal {yP:y<x}\{ y\in P: y< x \}, or equivalently, the longest path towards it. Then, the elements with the same height forms an antichain.

The second case is not so simple. There does not exists an obvious dual poset, so the width of an element is undefined. To prove it, we can pick a maximal antichain, and induct on the two subposets separated by this antichain.

Dilworth's theorem has several corollaries. One interesting result is Hall't marriage theorem: Given nn men and nn women, if any kk women has more than kk acceptable partners, then there exists an arrangement that everyone can be married; because the width of this graph is less than nn.

Dilworth's theorem can be considered as a special case of more general theorems. One by Gallai states that every directed graph has a path partition of vertices, whose size is less than the number of independent sets.

Boolean lattice

An important kind of posets is (finite) boolean lattices: Bn=(2[n],)B_n = (2^{[n ]}, \subsetneqq), where [n]={0,1,,n1}[n ] = \{0,1,\ldots, n-1\}. We tried to count the number of chains and antichains using enumerative method. For chain, the generating function is the same as the number of surjections. Greene-Kleitman shows that BnB_n can be partitioned into w(Bn)w(B_n) symmetric saturated chains. As a corollary, the width of each level is unimodal: (n0)(nn/2)(nn){n\choose 0} \leq \cdots \leq {n\choose n/2} \geq \cdots \geq {n\choose n}. G-K gives a bracket-sequence representation of these chains.

Two properties BnB_n satisfies are Bollobás's Two Families Theorem, LYM inequality, and Sperner property.

LYM inequality

Let ABnA\subset B_n be an antichain, then

aA(na)11\sum_{a\in A} {n\choose |a|}^{-1} \leq 1

In other words, the sum of probabilities, that each set is chosen out of the rank it lies in, is less than 1.

This can be proven by double counting the number of maximal chains: For each aAa\in A, there are a!(na)!|a|!(n- |a|)! maximal chains passing it; each chain cannot pass two elements in an antichain, so the sum of this thing is less than n!n!.

Sperner property

Sperner property argues that the largest antichain is the largest rank. This is a corollary of LYM: suppose AA is the largest antichain, then

1aA(na)1width(Bn)(nn/2)11 \geq \sum_{a\in A}{n\choose |a|}^{-1} \geq \mathrm{width}(B_n){n\choose n/2}^{-1}

Bollobás's theorem

Suppose A1,,Am,B1,,Bm[n]A_1,\ldots, A_m,B_1,\ldots, B_m \subseteq [n ] s.t. AiBj=A_i\cap B_j = \varnothing iff i=ji=j. Then.

i=1m(Ai+BiAi)11\sum_{i= 1}^{m} {|A_i|+|B_i| \choose |A_i|}^{-1} \leq 1

LYM inequality is a corollary of Bollobás's theorem.

Applications of chains & antichains

As applications, we learnt Gray codes and universal sequences. The latter one contains every subset of [n][ n] as continuous subsequences.

Linear Algebra Methods

Perfect graphs

A perfect graph is a simple graph in which the chromatic number of every induced subgraph equals its the clique number.

  • Comparability graphs and incomparability graphs are always perfect.
  • Weak perfect graph conjecture: a graph is perfect iff its complement graph is perfect.
  • Strong perfect graph conjecture: a graph is perfect iff neither it nor its complement graph contains any (2n+1)(2n+1)-cycle as an induced subgraph, for all n2n\geq 2.
  • Replication lemma: If both GG and HH are perfect, then the result of replacing a vertex in GG with HH is perfect.
  • A graph is perfect iff the size of every induced subgraph is \leq its clique number times independent number.

To prove the last lemma, we use some argument on matrix rank.

Equal subset sums

Given a set SS of nn different positive real numbers, we want to count how many subsets of SS whose elements sum up to a given KK. We proved that:

  • The number is (nn/2)\leq {n\choose n/2}
  • (Erdős-Moser Conjecture) The number is not larger than the case where S={1,2,,n}S = \{1,2,\ldots, n\} and K=n(n+1)4K = \frac{n(n+1)}{4} equals half the sum of SS.

The proof idea is: let

Mn={(b1,,bn):0bin0=b1==bl<bl+1<<bn}M_n = \{(b_1,\ldots, b_n) : 0\leq b_i\leq n \wedge 0 = b_1 = \cdots = b_l < b_{l+1} < \cdots < b_n \}

and \leq on MnM_n defined by pointwise \leq. Then, MnM_n does not have symmetric saturated chain decomposition.

However, after embedding MnM_n into a linear spaces, we can still prove that MnM_n is unimodular and has Sperner property. The conjecture is equivalent to Sperner property, so it holds. The operations in MnM_n is somehow related to the representation of Lie group SL2\mathrm{SL}_2.

Combinatoric Optimization

Dilworth gives one longest chain / antichain, so now we want to generalize it to the largest union set of kk chains / antichains. This is the Greene-Kleitman theorem:

  • The largest kk chain union, αk\alpha_k, equals to the minimum AAmin{k,A}\sum_{A\in\mathcal{A}}\min\{k, |A|\}, where A\mathcal{A} is an antichain cover.
    • min{k,A}\min\{k, \|A\|\} is because every antichain can contribute at most kk elements to the kk chain union.
  • Dual is the largest kk antichain union βk\beta_k.
  • For any poset, αk\alpha_k and βk\beta_k are the sum of lengths of rows and columns of one specific standard Young diagram.
    • That is, let ak=αkαk1a_k = \alpha_k - \alpha_{k-1}, bk=βkβk1b_k = \beta_k - \beta_{k-1}. Then, there exists some λn\lambda\vdash n s.t. the kk-row is aka_k, the kk-column is bkb_k.

This is proven by transform the poset into a min-cost circulation problem, which is itself a linear programming and has some well-researched properties.

On the other hand, RSK correspondence also gives a bijection between an nn-permutation and a pair of nn standard Yound tableaux. The Young tableaux given by RSK also gives aka_k and bkb_k.

Poset Arithmetic & Lattice

Poset operations

We can define several arithmetic operations on poset:

  • Sum: P+QP+Q contains all elements of PP,QQ. Any pPp\in P and qQq\in Q are incomparable.
  • Product (noncommutative): PQP\cdot Q contains PP, QQ. p>qp > q for all pPp\in P, qQq\in Q.
    • A poset obtained from single-points via sum and product is series-parallel. A poset is series-parallel iff it does not contain N={a<c,a<d,b<d}N = \{a< c, a < d, b < d\} as an induced subposet.
  • Cartesian product: P×QP\times Q contains every pair (p,q)(p, q), with pointwise order: (p1,q1)(p2,q2)(p_1,q_1)\leq (p_2,q_2) iff p1q1p2q2p_1\leq q_1 \wedge p_2 \leq q_2.
    • Boolean lattice BnB_n is the cartesian product of nn B1B_1.
  • Power poset: QPQ^P contains all functions f:PQf:P\to Q that preserve the order. The order of functions fgf\leq g is defined pointwise.
    • P×(Q+R)=P×Q+P×RP\times (Q+R) = P\times Q + P\times R; PQ+R=PQ×PRP^{Q+R} = P^Q\times P^R
  • For a poset PP, let J(P)J(P) be the poset of lower sets of PP, with order \subset.
    • J(P)J(P) is a distributive lattice with =\wedge = \cap, =\vee = \cup.

Distributive lattice

A lattice is a poset L=(X,<)L = (X, <), closed under operations meet \wedge and join \vee:

  • Meet aba\wedge b is the greatest (universal) lower bound, infimum.
  • Join aba\vee b is the least (universal) upper bound, supremum.

Lattice satisfies many propositions as basic logic B1={True,False}B_1 = \{ True, False \}:

  • A finite lattice always has one greatest element (top) \top or 11, and one least element (bottom) \bot or 00.
    • a0=a1=aa\vee 0 = a \wedge 1 = a.
  • Meet and join are associative, commutative, and satisfies absorption laws: a(ab)=a(ab)=aa\wedge(a\vee b) = a\vee(a\wedge b) = a
  • Idempotent laws: aa=aa=aa\wedge a = a\vee a = a.

A filter on a poset is a non-empty upper sets that does not contain \bot and is closed under finitely many meets \wedge. Dually, idealideal. A maximal filter is called a ultrafilter. A ultrafilter of the form Fy={xL:xy}F_y = \{ x\in L: x \leq y \} is principal.

A lattice is distributive if meet is distributive over join and vice versa.

Fundamental theorem of finite distr. lat.: Every finite distributive lattice LL is isomorphic to some J(P)J(P).

  • An element is join-irreducible if it is not the join of two other elements.
  • Every element has a unique factorization as a join of a set of join-irreducible elements.
  • Let PP be the subposet containing all join-irreducible elements, then L=J(P)L=J(P).

The Stone representation theorem: If a (possibly infinite) distributive lattice has well-defined \top, \bot and ¬\neg (a¬a=a\vee\neg a = \top, a¬a=a\wedge\neg a = \bot), then it is isomorphic to a field of sets.

  • Let SS be the set of ultrafilters of LL.
  • Let f:L2Sf: L\to 2^S be defined as f(x)={US:xU}f(x) = \{U\in S: x\in U\}.
    • ff is not necessarily be surjective if LL is infinite.

A lattice is distributive iff it admits cancallation: for all x,y,zx,y,z, if zx=zyz\wedge x = z\wedge y and zx=zyz\vee x = z\vee y, then z=yz = y.

A lattice is distributive iff it does not contain induced sublattice isomorphic to diamond M3M_3 or pentagon N5N_5.

Linear Extensions

The set of linear extensions of a poset PP is the set of maps P[n]P\to [ n] that preserves the order, denoted by α(P)\alpha(P) Let e(P)=α(P)e(P) = \|\alpha(P)\| denote the number of linear extensions of PP.

  • e(PQ)=e(P)e(Q)e(P\cdot Q) = e(P)e(Q); e(P+Q)=e(P)e(Q)(P+QP)e(P+Q) = e(P)e(Q){\|P\| + \|Q\|\choose \|P\|}
  • e(P)e(P) of a tree is P!\|P\|! divided by the product of sizes of all subtrees.
  • e(P)e(P) of a 2×m2\times m-square is the Catalan number CmC_m.
  • The hook length formula computes e(P)e(P) for standard Young diagrams.
  • e(Pσ)e(P_{\sigma}) is the number of permutations less than or equal to σ\sigma under Bruhat order.

Estimations of linear extensions

Computing e(P)e(P) is generally ♯P-complete. However, we can estimate it.

  • e(P)A1!An!e(P) \geq \|A_1\|!\cdots\|A_n\|! for any antichain partition {A1,,An}\{A_1,\ldots, A_n\}.
  • n!/e(P)C1!Cn!n!/e(P) \geq \|C_1\|!\cdots\|C_n\|! for any chain partition {C1,,Cn}\{C_1,\ldots, C_n\}.
  • e(P)width(P)ne(P) \leq \mathrm{width}(P)^n.

Operations on linear extensions

  • Jeu-de-taquin acts on skew Young tableau.
  • Schützenberger Promotion
    • ψ\psi:
      • Starting from 11, replacing every element with its least child; go down the path till the maximal element.
      • Remove the maximal element; shift every element by 11 and fill in the blank by nn.
    • ψ\psi is a bijection on linear extensions.
  • Evacuation:
    • η\eta: similar to promotion
    • η\eta is also a bijection. η2=1\eta^2 = 1.
  • Coxeter group:
    • The infinite group generated by τ1,,τn1\langle\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_{n-1}\rangle.
      • τi\tau_i means swap ii and i+1i+1 if possible in PP.
      • τi2=(τiτj)2=1\tau_i^2 = (\tau_i\tau_j)^2 = 1, for non-adjacent i,ji,j.
    • ψ\psi and η\eta can be expressed in Coxeter group.

Domino tableaux

  • There is a bijection between domino diagrams and a pair of standard Young diagrams: ϕ(λ)=(μ,ν)\phi(\lambda) = (\mu, \nu).
  • The number of domino tableaux in shape λ\lambda is (μ+νμ)#SYT(μ)#SYT(ν){\|\mu\|+\|\nu\|\choose \|\mu\|}\#SYT(\mu)\#SYT(\nu).

We also proved the Hook length formula by poset sorting and PP-partition theory.

Poset Polytopes

Poset polytopes are the application of geometry methods on posets. For each post PP, we can define two kinds of polytopes: the order polytope and the chain polytope.

Order polytope

  • The order polytope Op\mathcal{O}_p contains real functions f:P[0,1]f: P\to [0, 1] that preserves the order.
  • Facets of Op\mathcal{O}_p are f(x)=0f(x) = 0 for xx minimal; f(y)=1f(y) = 1 for yy maximal; f(x)=f(y)f(x)=f(y) for xx covers yy in the Hasse diagram.
  • Vertices of Op\mathcal{O}_p are characteristic functions of upper sets.
  • Its volume is e(P)/n!e(P)/n!.

Chain polytope

  • The chain polytope Cp\mathcal{C}_p contains real functions f:P[0,1]f: P\to [0, 1] that the sum of any chain is 1\leq 1.
  • Vertices of Cp\mathcal{C}_p are characteristic functions of antichains.
  • Its volume is also e(P)/n!e(P)/n!.
    • Proven by build a continuous, pointwise linear, volume preserving bijection between Op\mathcal{O}_p and Cp\mathcal{C}_p.
    • Corollary: e(P)e(P) depends only on the comparability graph.

Ehrhart polynomial

Given an nn-d integral polytope QQ and NNN\in\mathbb{N}, then the integral points contained by NQNQ is L(Q,N)=NQZnL(Q,N) = \|NQ\cap \mathbb{Z}^n\| is a polynomial of NN of degree nn, and the leading coefficient is the volume of QQ.

Let aP(m)a_P(m) be order preserving functions from PP to [m][m ]. Then, aP(m)a_P(m) is a polynomial of mm, with its leading coeff = e(P)/(m1)!e(P)/(m-1)!.

Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality

Suppose Q0Q_0, Q1Q_1 are convex polytopes in Rn\mathbb{R}^n. Let Q=conv{Q0,Q1}Q = conv\{Q_0, Q_1\} be the polytope that continuously vary from Q0Q_0 to Q1Q_1. Then, the volume of QλQ_{\lambda} is

voln1(Qλ)=i=0n1(n1i)Vi(Q0,Q1)λi(1λ)n1i\mathrm{vol}_{n-1}(Q_{\lambda}) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{n-1 \choose i}V_i(Q_0, Q_1)\lambda^i(1-\lambda)^{n-1-i}

Where Vi2(Q0,Q1)Vi1(Q0,Q1)Vi+1(Q0,Q1)V_i^2(Q_0, Q_1) \geq V_{i-1}(Q_0, Q_1)V_{i+1}(Q_0, Q_1).

Given a poset PP, let αj(x)\alpha_j(x) denote the number of linear extensions that maps xx to jj. Then, αj(x)2αj1(x)αj+1(x)\alpha_j(x)^2\geq \alpha_{j-1}(x)\alpha_{j+1}(x) is log concave. Log concavity implies unimodularity.

Let βi(x,y)\beta_i(x,y) denote number of linear extensions where the images of xx and yy differs by ii. Then, βi(x)\beta_i(x) is also unimodular.

If ai/(ni)a_i/{n\choose i} is log concave, then aia_i is ultra log concave. The convolution ci=k(nk)akbikc_i = \sum_k{n\choose k}a_k b_{i-k} of two ultra log concave sequences is ultra log concave. Thus, for a series parallel poset PP, aia_i is ultra log concave.

Brightwell-Tetali theorem

Suppose h:P{R}_{+}h: P\to \mathbb\{R\}\_\{+\} s.t. the sum over any antichain is less than 11. Then, e(P)xP1/h(x)e(P)\leq \prod_{x\in P} 1/h(x).

As a corollary, for all ranked PP with LYM property, e(P)k=1h(P)(rk)rke(P) \leq \prod_{k=1}^{h(P)} (r_k)^{r_k}

Correlation Results

Pick x,y,zPx,y,z\in P pairwise incomparable and a linear extension σ\sigma. Then, if σ(x)<σ(z)\sigma(x) < \sigma(z), then σ(y)<σ(z)\sigma(y) < \sigma(z) will be generally higher. Because these two events are positive correlated. There are exceptions like trees and series parallel posets, where these events are independent.

Generate a random graph GG. Then, GG being planar and being Hamiltonian are negative correlated. Intuitively, planarity is downward closed but Hamiltonianity is upward closed. These two examples inspire us correlations widely exist in posets.

Four functions theorem

Kleitman

Let L,UBnL,U\subseteq B_n s.t. LL is lower set and UU is upper set. Then, LUBnLU\|L\cap U\|\cdot\|B_n\|\leq \|L\|\cdot\|U\|.

Four functions theorem

Suppose α,β,γ,δ\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta are four functions from 2[n]2^{[ n]} to R+\mathbb{R}_+ s.t. A,B2[n]\forall A,B\in 2^{[ n]},

α(A)β(B)γ(AB)δ(AB)\alpha(A)\beta(B) \leq \gamma(A\cup B)\delta(A\cap B)

Then for all set family A,B2[n]\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}\subset 2^{[ n]},

α(A)β(B)γ(AB)δ(AB)\alpha(\mathcal{A})\beta(\mathcal{B}) \leq \gamma(\underline{\mathcal{A}\cup \mathcal{B}})\delta(\underline{\mathcal{A}\cap \mathcal{B}})

where the underlined intersection and union means pairwise intersection and union.

This can be extended to any finite distributive lattice. For example,

ABABAB|A|\cdot |B| \leq |A\wedge B|\cdot |A\vee B|

FKG inequality

Let LL be a distributive lattice. A nonnegative function μ\mu is log supermodular if for all x,yLx,y\in L

μ(x)μ(y)μ(xy)μ(xy)\mu(x)\mu(y)\leq \mu(x\wedge y)\mu(x\vee y)

A nonnegative function ff is increasing if it preserves the order.

FKG inequality states than given μ\mu log supermodular and f,gf,g increasing,

(xLμ(x)f(x))(xLμ(x)g(x))(xLμ(x)f(x)g(x))(xLμ(x))\left(\sum_{x\in L}\mu(x)f(x)\right)\left(\sum_{x\in L}\mu(x)g(x)\right) \leq \left(\sum_{x\in L}\mu(x)f(x)g(x)\right)\left(\sum_{x\in L}\mu(x)\right)

Suppose μ\mu is a probability measure, such as a ultrafilter, then,

E(f)E(g)E(fg)\mathbb{E}(f) \mathbb{E}(g) \leq \mathbb{E}(fg)

indicates that two increasing functions are positive correlated.

Shepp's XYZ Theorem

Given x,y,zPx,y,z\in P pairwise incomparable, then for AA varying over all linear extensions,

P[A(x)A(y)]P[A(x)A(z)]P[A(x)A(y),A(x)A(z)]\mathbb{P}[A(x)\leq A(y)]\cdot \mathbb{P}[A(x)\leq A(z)] \leq \mathbb{P}[A(x)\leq A(y), A(x)\leq A(z)]

Or equivalently,

P(A(x)A(y))P(A(x)A(y)A(x)A(z))\mathbb{P}(A(x)\leq A(y)) \leq \mathbb{P}(A(x)\leq A(y)\mid A(x)\leq A(z))

Winkler's theorem

Suppose PP and QQ are two posets on the same base set XX but with different orders. If for all x,yXx,y\in X,

PP[A(x)A(y)]PQ[B(x)B(y)]\mathbb{P}_P[ A(x)\leq A(y) ] \leq \mathbb{P}_Q[ B(x)\leq B(y) ]

Then, QQ can be obtianed by refining PP.

Comparisons via linear extensions

Winkler's canonical linear ordering

Let hP(x)h_P(x) be the average rank of xx over all linear extensions of PP.

Suppose x,yPx,y\in P are incomparable, P=P(x>y)P' = P\cup (x> y) and P=P(x<y)P' = P\cup (x< y). Then, hP(x)hP(x)h_{P'}(x) \geq h_{P}(x) and hP(x)1+hP(x)h_{P'}(x) \geq 1 + h_{P''}(x).

hPh_P is not always linear, but always well-defined.

Preferential ordering

Before Winkler, people doing social choice tried xyx\triangleright y if xx less than yy happens more often, i.e. P[A(x)<A(y)]>12\mathbb{P}[A(x) < A(y)] > \frac{1}{2}.

However, \triangleright is not always a partial order. Because in a poset there may exist 3 elements that are amazingly correlated. Fishburn constructs a set where xyzxx\triangleright y\triangleright z \triangleright x.

Intransitive dice

Let three dice A=[2,2,4,4,9,9]A = [2,2,4,4,9,9 ], B=[1,1,6,6,8,8]B = [1,1,6,6,8,8 ], C=[3,3,5,5,7,7]C = [3,3,5,5,7,7 ]. Then, P[A>B]=P[B>C]=P[C>A]=59P[A> B ] = P[B> C ] = P[C> A ] = \frac{5}{9}.

1/3-2/3 Conjecture

This conjecture has not been proven yet. It states for all non-chain poset PP, there exist two elements x,yPx,y\in P such that the probability x>yx > y is within [13,23][\frac{1}{3}, \frac{2}{3} ].

Some special cases are proven.

Summary

By focusing on poset, this course touched nearly every fields of combinatorics:

  • Graph Theory: matching, path covering, perfect graph.
  • Probabilistic Method: random graphs, correlated inequalityes.
  • Combinatoric Optimization: min-cost flow.
  • Geometric Combinatorics: poset polytopes, permutohedron.
  • Enumerative Combinatorics: standard Young diagrams, evacuation, P-partition.
  • Analytic Combinatorics: generating functions, asymptotic methods.
  • Algebraic Combinatorics: Coxeter group, RSK.
  • Arithmetic Combinatorics
    • Extremal Combinatorics: Sperner property, subsets with equal sums.
  • Discrete Geometry: Integral polytope.
  • Complexity

The most impressive thing I feel is that, different branches of math are highly related. After changing to a different point of view, some concepts, ideas, methods that previously looked totally unrelated can conctribute a lot.