Let S = { 1 , 2 , 3 , … 1 2 } and T 1 , T 2 , … T a be subsets of S such that T i ⊂ T j ∀ i = j . What is the maximum possible value of a ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
This was the only correct solution submitted.
Most solutions took for granted that the sets must all be the same size, which is not obvious.
The result of this question is a direct consequence of Sperner's Theorem (not to be confused with Sperner's Lemma) and can be easily proved using this theorem.
Many people seem to be assuming that all the sets are of equal cardinality. In fact, we can take an algorithmic approach and design a "trickling process" that keeps the size of the antichain strictly increasing while pushing the sets to the "central size". A nice corollary is that we can characterize all extremal families- and they indeed consist of sets of equal cardinality! :D
The details are found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QyOg5Kp1eHRnlfbXJibTI0X1E/view?usp=sharing
One interesting aspect of this proof is that it avoids the LYM inequality, and in a sense is easier to "visualize."
Since 1 2 C k is maximum for k = 6 , hence dividing 1 2 elements into the sets such that each element contains exactly 6 elements, is the best way to maximize a
One thing that I am not able to prove mathematically is :- Why won't any a > 9 2 4 would violate the subset condition. Someone Kindly help me out ^_^
Well, so far I can only get that in order not to violate T i ⊄ T j , if we include a set T i of size n , we cannot include ( n − 1 1 2 ) subsets. For instance, if we try to include a larger set in T 6 , (remember that we want to make it like larger ) then that would be a superset of a subset of T 6 , violating the subset conditions.
Not quite sure whether it is correct though.
Log in to reply
The proof is not immediately obvious on how to proceed. In your construction, it's possible for distinct T i to share the same subset, and hence we cannot easily extend it. What we want is to relate T i to something that is uniquely determined.
This is actually a result known as Sperner's Theorem, which is a special case of Dilworth's Theorem, which is a special application of the Pigeonhole Principle.
Log in to reply
a result known as Sperner's Theorem
Hmm I proved this theorem using Lubell-Yamamoto-Meshalkin inequality. Refer to LYM inequality .
Indeed, finding 924 lower bound is very easy (took me half a minute) but proving that there is no better solution seems to be hard. I didn't manage to do it yet after trying 5 different approaches based on induction, representing the subsets as binary numbers and much more. I think the most promising approach is somehow to show that any collection having n subsets eliminates at least n 6-element subsets (I call a set eliminated if it either contains or is contained in some subset of the collection). This seems believable and if correct, it proves that 924 is also an upper bound.
Anyway, the combination of the two facts -- very easy to guess the solution but hard to prove it -- make this a very poor problem for brilliant in my opinion...
Log in to reply
This is a poor problem for use as a pure integer answer question, but your activity on Brilliant is so much more than "Can I guess the answer?". Many other problems are also 'easily guessed in 3 tries', but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should not be used as problems. We do our best to work within the limitations of the system.
This question does illustrate a well known theorem, that can be difficult to approach if you do not know what to do. We felt that the Brilliant community should be exposed to this beautiful piece of mathematics.
Log in to reply
Thanks for your explanation. I agree with you that it's worthwhile to introduce people to stuff like this (I looked up the references you mentioned in the other comment -> amazing) but here the main problem is that nobody really bothered to write down a proper solution (or indeed, most people don't even know it, since they just guessed the answer).
That means that until you came around and mentioned those references, I didn't learn from this problem anything at all. Could there be a way to remedy this? E.g. posting an official (i.e. by you) solution for interested readers? Or, if that's too much work, at least those references to set people on the right track.
Given, S={1,2,3,…12} and T1,T2,…Ta are its subsets S such that Ti⊄Tj for all i≠j. so we must either chose subsets from S such that no subset is a subset of the other if we choose all subsets with size 1 we cant chose subsets with size 2. if we choose all subsets with size 1 we cant chose subsets with size 3. and so on Number of subsets of size r from a set of size n is nCr we need to find to find the maximum value of nCr if n=12 max value of 12Cr is when r=12/2=6 number of subsets = 12C6=924
The total number of subsets that can be formed out of the superset
S
which meets the below the criteria
→
T
i
⊂
T
j
∀
i
=
j
can be denoted as
( R N )
where R indicates cardinality of each subset and R can take values from 1 t o N . N denotes the cardinality of the superset S .
In the given problem where N = 1 2 the maximum possible value of ( R 1 2 ) needs to be evaluated. This turns out to be when R = 6 . Hence the total number of subsets is ( 6 1 2 ) = 9 2 4
We want to have the greatest number of subsets of S that are not subsets of other subsets of S. To accomplish this, we must have the most number of elements in each set to ensure diversity. The best way to do this is to have subsets with the same number of elements such that all of these combinations are unique. Since there are twelve elements, the greatest number of combinations is 12C6 or 12C7 (same value). These will then define the greatest possible number of subsets. Solving, we get 924.
(sorry for my english mistakes) There is a very famous theorem known as "sperner theorem" that I'll prove in the next lines : Let A and B be two "weird" sets if A is not a subset of B nor B is a subset of A. Let X be a family of subsets of {1,2,...,n} such that these subsets are all weird one with other. Then : \sum_{A is a element of X}^{a} {n \choose |A|}^{-1} \le 1
We want the maximum number of disjoint subsets of S. If the number of elements in T i is less than the number of elements in T j , then T i can potentially be a subset of T j . Therefore we want all T i 's to have the cardinality (number of elements). This is maximized when we select subsets with cardinality 6 . This is because ( 6 1 2 ) > ( n 1 2 ) , where n = 6 . Therefore our answer is ( 6 1 2 ) = 9 2 4 .
A typical combination problem. From the pascal triangle,the 12Cr with the biggest value is when r is in the middle of 0-12.Hence, 12C6 is the answer.
We can consider a set of primes P = { p 1 , p 2 , p 3 , . . . , p 1 2 } . We will find as many products (of elements of P ) that are mutually coprime as possible. It should be intuitive that the products consist of the same number of primes, for instance taking all possible products of three primes we will have p 1 p 2 p 3 , p 2 p 3 p 4 , p 3 p 4 p 5 , etc. Now we should not find a product of more than 3 primes since two or more of the products of 3 primes will always be factors, and products of less than 3 primes will also be factors of two or more of the products of 3 primes. Introducing products of different number of primes will at least sacrifice one product from the count. Then, we simply look for all the possible ways to find a certain number n of primes from P to multiply together, that is ( n 1 2 ) = n ! ( 1 2 − n ) ! 1 2 ! . It has a maximum when n = 6 , ( n 1 2 ) = 9 2 4 . The original problem should behave similarly, when we consider the factor of 1 to prime numbers as the subset of ∅ to sets.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let T = { T 1 , T 2 , … , T a } , ∣ T i ∣ = k i , i = 1 , a .
Note that there are n ! permutations of the elements of S .
We will say that a permutation π of the elements of S begins with T i if the first k i members of π are the elements of T i in some order. The number of permutations beginning with T i must be k i ! ( 1 2 − k i ) ! .
Because of T i ⊈ T j , ∀ i = j , no permutation can begin with two different sets in T ; therefore permutations beginning with different sets in T are distinct.
Therefore: i = 1 ∑ a k i ! ( 1 2 − k i ) ! ≤ 1 2 ! or i = 1 ∑ a ( k i 1 2 ) 1 ≤ 1 .
We have ( k i 1 2 ) ≤ ( 6 1 2 ) , so a ≤ ( 6 1 2 ) = 9 2 4
Consider T 1 , T 2 , … , T 9 2 4 ⊂ S such that ∣ T i ∣ = 6 , ∀ i . It's easy to look that this subsets such that T i ⊈ T j , ∀ i = j .