On colorings of the Boolean lattice avoiding a rainbow copy of a poset arxiv: v1 [math.co] 21 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 On coorings of the Booean attice avoiding a rainbow copy of a poset arxiv: v1 [math.co] 21 Dec 2018 Baázs Patkós Afréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Scinces H-1053, Budapest, Reátanoda u December 24, 2018 Abstract Let F(n,k) (f(n,k)) denote the maximum possibe size of the smaest coor cass in a (partia) k-cooring of the Booean attice B n that does not admit a rainbow antichain of size k. The vaue of F(n,3) and f(n,2) has been recenty determined exacty. We prove that for any fixed k if n is arge enough, then F(n,k),f(n,k) = 2 (1/2+o(1))n hods. We aso introduce the genera functions for any poset P and integer c P : et F(n,c,P) (f(n,c,p)) denote the the maximum possibe size of the smaest coor cass in a (partia) c-cooring of the Booean attice B n that does not admit a rainbow copy of P. We consider the first instances of this genera probem. Keywords: Set famiies, Rainbow Ramsey probems, forbidden subposet probems 1 Introduction In the area of extrema combinatorics, one addresses the probem of finding the argest or smaest structure that possesses a prescribed property. Ramsey-type probems dea with coorings and usuay ask for the maximum size of a structure that can be 2-coored (3-coored, 4-coored, k-coored) such that a fixed forbidden substructure does not appear in any of the coors (or the forbidden substructure might change from coor to coor). In some other cooring probems a rainbow copy of a substructure (a copy a eements of which receive distinct coors) is to be avoided. As rainbow copies can be avoided by simpy not using enough many coors, in these kind of probems, one has to pose additiona conditions on the cooring. In this note, we address probems of this ast type with respect to set famiies and incusion patterns. Let [n] denote the set of the first n positive integers and et B n be the Booean attice of dimension n, i.e. the set of eements of B n is the power set 2 [n] of [n] ordered by incusion. For 1

2 any finite poset P we say a set famiy G B n is a (strong/induced) copy of P if the subposet B n [G] of B n induced by G is isomorphic to P, i.e. there exists a bijection i : P G such that for any p,q P we have p P q if and ony if i(p) i(q). If the bijection i satisfies the weaker condition that p P q impies i(p) i(q), then we say that G is a weak / not necessariy induced copy of P. A famiy F of sets is induced P-free, if it does not contain any induced copy of P and F is weak P-free if it does not contain a copy of P. Forbidden subposet probems ask for the quantity La (n,p) (La(n,P)) the maximum size of an induced P-free (weak P-free) famiy F B n. This area of extrema combinatorics has been very active since the eary 1980 s, a recent survey on the topic is [7], and the interested reader might aso consut the appropriate chapter of the book [6]. The corresponding Ramsey-type probems can be formuated as foows: determine the maximum vaue N for which B N can be k-coored such that the famiy F i of sets of coor i is induced P i -free (weak P i -free) for a 1 i k. The maximum vaues are denoted by R (P 1,P 2,...,P k ) and R(P 1,P 2,...,P k ). They were studied recenty by Axenovich and Wazer [2] and Cox and Stoee [4]. In [3], Chang et a. considered mixed probems: for two posets P and Q what is the maximum dimension N such that B N can be coored (with as many coors as the painter wants) avoiding a monochromatic induced/weak copy of P in a coors and a rainbow induced/weak copy of Q. As an auxiiary probem they introduced the foowing two functions F(n,k) and f(n,k) as F(n,k) is the maximum vaue m such that there exists a k-cooring c : B n [k] that does not admit a rainbow antichain of size k (the poset of k pairwise incomparabe eements wi be denoted by A k ) and a coor casses F i = c 1 ({i}) are of size at east m, f(n,k) is the maximum vaue m such that there exists a partia k-cooring c : B n [k] that does not admit a rainbow antichain of size k and a coor casses F i = c 1 ({i}) are of size at east m. By definition, we have F(n,k) f(n,k) and the foowing theorem was proved. Theorem 1.1 (Chang et a [3]). For any even n 2 we have f(n,2) = 2 n/2 1, for any odd n 3 we have f(n,2) = 2 n/ Furthermore, if n is arge enough, then F(n,3) = f(n,2) hods. In [3], a construction was given to show (og 2 k o(1))2 n/2 f(n,k) F(n,k + 1) thus F(n,k) im k iminf n =, but no genera upper bound was estabished. The main resut of 2 n/2 the present paper determines for every fixed k the asymptotics of the exponent of the functions f(n,k) and F(n,k). Theorem 1.2. For any k 2 there exists n 0 = n 0 (k) such that if n n 0, then we have F(n,k) f(n,k) k 2 n/2+2ogn n. One can coor B n with more than k coors. Then avoiding a rainbow antichain of size k is even harder. Aso, one coud be interested in avoiding rainbow strong copies of other posets. So 2

3 for any positive integer and finite poset P we define F(n,,P) to be the maxima vaue of m such that there exists an -cooring c : B n [] that does not admit a strong rainbow copy of P and a coor casses of c have size at east m. If in the definition we aow partia coorings c, then we obtain f(n,,p) and thus F(n,,P) f(n,,p) hods for any and P. So the functions F(n,k) and f(n,k) are by definition equa to F(n,k,A k ) and f(n,k,a k ). It woud benatura to introduce the corresponding functions for weak copies ofp, but instead et us consider forbidding rainbow strong copies of a famiy P of posets. In this way, we obtain the functions F(n,,P) and f(n,,p). Observe that for any poset P we can define P P = {P : P is a weak copy of P} and then F(n,,P P ) and f(n,,p P ) are just the not necessariy induced versions of F(n,,P) and f(n,,p). Let us remark that by definition for < we have f(n,,p) f(n,,p) and F(n,,P) F(n,,P) and for any integer and poset P the inequaity f(n,,p) 2n hods triviay. Probem 1.3. Characterize those posets P for which f(n, P,P) = 2n hods provided n is P arge enough. By a simpe cooring we wi show that the diamond poset D 2 on four eements a,b,c,d with a b, c d possesses this property. This might be somewhat surprising to forbidden subposet experts as D 2 is the smaest poset P for which the asymptotics of La(n,P) and La (n,p) are both unknown. Let us continue with the order of magnitude of F(n,,P) and f(n,,p). It turns out that antichainsareexceptions. WesaythatasubsetC ofaposetp isacomponentofp ifc ismaxima withrespect tothepropertythatforanyp,q C thereexists asequence p 1,p 2,...,p k ofeements in C such that p = p 1, q = p k andp i and p i+1 arecomparabe for every i = 1,2,...,k 1. A poset is connected if it has one component. The posets k, k both have k+1 eements a,b 1,b 2,...,b k with a k b i and b i k a for a 1 i k. Proposition 1.4. (i) For any positive integer and set P of posets that does not contain antichains we have f(n,,p) 2 n m(), where m() is the smaest integer m such that ( ) m m/2 hods. (ii) Let be a positive integer and P be a famiy of posets such that if P P has a singe component C of size at east 2, then C is not k nor s. Then we have F(n,,P) 2 n m( 1). Proof. To prove (i) et us fix sets S 1,S 2,...,S ( ) [m()] m()/2 and consider the famiies Fi 2 [n] defined by F i = {F [n] : F [m] = S i }. As the famiies F i i = 1,2,..., are pairwise incomparabe, ifsetsinf i receive coori, thenanyrainbowsystem ofsetsmustformanantichain, and therefore there does not exist any rainbow copy of any P P. Simiary, to prove (ii) et us fix sets S 1,S 2,...,S 1 ( [m( 1)] m( 1)/2 ) and consider the famiies F i 2 [n] defined by F i = {F [n] : F [m] = S i } for i = 1,2,..., 1 and F = 2 [n] \ 1 i=1 F i. As the famiies F i i = 1,2,..., are pairwise incomparabe, a rainbow set of sets must be the disjoint union of an antichain and a k or of an antichain and a s. 3

4 Observe that if we want to avoid a rainbow copy of s, then as [n] contain a other sets, the other coor casses cannot create a rainbow antichain of size s. Therefore, by Theorem 1.2, F(n,, s ) f(n, 1,A s ) 2 n/2+o(n) hods. Proposition 1.5. If P = 1 +A k the disjoint union of a comparabe pair and an antichain of size k, then for k +2 we have F(n,, 1 +A k ) F(n,k +2, 1 +A k ) 2 h(c 0)n+o(n), where h(x) = xog 2 x (1 x)og 2 (1 x) is the binary entropy function and 1/3 c 0 1/2 is the root of the equation h(x) = (1 x)h( 1 2x 1 x ). Proof. If a coor casses of a (k + 2)-cooring of B n has size at east 2 (h(c0)+ε)n, then a coor casses contain at east 1 2 2(h(c 0)+ε)n sets from M := {F [n] : c 0 n F (1 c 0 )n}. So we can find a comparabe pair of sets F 1, F 2 of different coors (as otherwise a sets in M woud beong to the same coor cass). Then we can greediy add the antichain of size k: if M 1 M 2 and M 1,M 2,...M j form a rainbow copy of 1 + A j, then as any set M M is comparabe to at most (1 2c 0 )n( (1 c0 ) )n (1 c h=0 h = 2 0 )h( 1 2c 0 1 c )n+o(n) 0 = 2 h(c0)n+o(n) other sets of M, so an unused coor cass contains at east 1 2 2(h(c 0)+ε)n j2 h(c0)n+o(n) sets from M that are incomparabe to a M 1,M 2,M 1,M 2,...,M j. We conjecture that for any poset P to which Proposition 1.4 (ii) does not appy, the order of magnitude of F(n,,P) is ess than 2 n. Conjecture 1.6. Forany k,s and k+s+1 we have F(n,, s +A k ) = F(n,, s +A k ) = o(2 n ). The most natura non-antichain posets are chains (totay ordered sets). The chain on k eements is denoted by P k. Ahswede and Zhang [1] proved (in a different context) f(n,2,p 2 ) = 2 n 2. It is not very hard to see that f(n,,p ) = 2n hods for 4. We conjecture f(n,3,p 3 ) = 2 n 2 for a n 3. Moreover, we wi present a singe cooring that shows 2 n 2 f(n, 2,3),f(n,3, 3 ),f(n,3,p 3 ) and prove the foowing theorem. Theorem 1.7. For any n 3, we have f(n,3,{,,p 3 }) = 2 n 2. The structure of the paper is as foows: in Section 2 we prove Theorem 1.2, determine f(n,,a 2 ) for any and present a construction for a ower bound on f(n,,a k ) for genera k. Section 3 contains the proof of Theorem 1.7 and a comments and remarks on F-functions of non-antichain posets. Notation. For two sets F,G we denote by [F,G] the interva {H : F H G}. Simiary, (F,G] = {H : F H G}, [F,G) = {H : F H G} and (F,G) = {H : F H G}. For any set F [n] we write D F = [,F], U F = [F,[n]] and I F = D F U F. 4

5 2 Antichains Proof of Theorem 1.2. We proceed by induction on k with the base case k = 2 being covered by Theorem 1.1. Let c : B n {1,2,...,k + 1} be a partia (k + 1)-cooring of B n that does not admit a rainbow antichain of size k + 1 and et F i = {F : c(f) = i} denote the coor casses i = 1,2,...,k+1. Let us define a maxima sequence of k-tupes such that (F 1 1,F1 2,...,F1 k ),(F2 1,F2 2,...,F2 k ),...,(Ft 1,Ft 2,...,Ft k ) F j i F i \{F h i : h < j}, for a i = 1,2,...,k and 1 j t, for any j the sets F j 1,Fj 2,...,Fj k form an antichain of size k, k i=1 F i \{F j i : 1 j t,1 i k} does not contain a rainbow A k. By the ast property and induction we have min F i f(n,k)+t k 2 n/2+ogn n +t. (1) 1 i k On the other hand, as c does not admit a rainbow A k+1, we must have F k+1 t j=1 k i=1 I F j. i (1) impies that if t 2 n/2+ogn n, then we are done. So suppose t 2 n/2+ogn n. Then for any string x = x 1 x 2...x a of ength at most n with x b [k] for a 1 b a we define recursivey an index j x, a pair (S x,b x ) of sets and a downset or an upset M x as foows: for the empty string ε we have S ε =, B ε = [n] and M ε =, if S x B x and B x \S x n/2+ 1 ogn n, then et j 2 x t be an index such that for any i [k] either F jx i n/2 and F jx i \S x n or F jx i n/2 and B x \F jx i n. In the former case, we et S xy := S x Fy jx, B xy := B x, M xy := D F jx y case we et S xy := S x,b xy := B x Fy jx, M xy := U F jx y. whie in the former if S x,b x are defined and B x \S x n/ ogn n or S x B x, then for any y [k] we define S xy := S x and B xy := B x, Caim 2.1. Whenever S x B x and B x \ S x n/ ogn n hod, one can pick an index j x t with the above properties. Proof of Caim. The condition B x \S x n/2+ 1 ogn n impies that S 2 x n/2 1 ogn n 2 and B x n/2 + 1 ogn n hod. Therefore the number of subsets G with G \ S 2 x n or B x \G n is at most 2 ( ) n n 2 n/2 1 2 ogn n 2 n/2+3 4 ogn n. So the number of indices for which the desired properties do not hod is at most k 2 n/2+3 4 ogn n < t, so there exists an index j x as required. 5

6 Caim 2.2. For any a n we have F k+1 [S x,b x ] x =a x a M x. Proof of Caim. Induction on a with base case a = 0 being cear as [S ε,b ε ] = 2 [n]. So suppose the statement of the caim is proved for a and et us consider a set F F k+1. If F beongs to x a M x, then so it does to x a+1 M x. Otherwise F x =a [S x,b x ] hods, so et x 0 be a string with F [S x0,b x0 ] (in particuar, we have S x0 B x0 ). If B x0 \S x0 n/2+ 1 ogn n, 2 then F [S x0,b x0 ] = [S x0 y,b x0 y] for any y [k]. Finay, if B x0 \ S x0 n/2 + 1 ogn n, 2 then by Caim 2.1 the index j x0 is we defined. Therefore, as c does not admit a rainbow A k+1, we have F I jx F 0 I jx 1 F 0 I jx 2 F 0, and thus for some y [k] we must have F I jx k F 0. If y either F jx 0 y n/2 and F F jx 0 y or F jx 0 y n/2 and F F jx 0 y, then F M x0 y hods. If either F jx 0 y n/2 and F F jx 0 y or F jx 0 y n/2 and F F jx 0 y, then F [S x0 y,b x0 y] hods. This proves the inductive step. To bound the size of F k+1 we use Caim 2.2. The number of strings x of ength at most n is not more than k n+1 and each M x is of size at most 2 n/2 1 2 ogn n, therefore we have x n M x 2 n/2 1 4 ogn n if n is arge enough. Observe that as ong as S x B x and the interva does not stabiize, we have B xy \ S xy B x \ S x n for any string x and y [k]. Therefore, by the time our strings reach the ength of n, the intervas stabiize with B x \S x n/2+ 1 ogn n. Thus 2 x = n [S x,b x ] k n+1 2 n/2+1 2 ogn n 2 n/2+3 4 ogn n hods. According to Caim 2.2 we have F k+1 [S x,b x ] + M x 2 n/2+3 4 ogn n +2 n/2 1 4 ogn n 2 n/2+ogn n. x = n x n Conjecture 2.3. For any integer k 2 there exists a constant C k such that f(n,k,a k ) C k 2 n/2 hods. Construction 2.4. We define a partia (k 1)-cooring c of B n in the foowing way such that a coor casses have size 2 n/+o(n) : et us fix k 1 chains C j = {C j 1 C j 2 C j 1 } such that C j i \Cj i 1 = n +o(n) for a 1 j k 1 and 1 i 1 with C j 0 = for any j. We et C j = [n] for a j and for a coor m = (j 1)+i with 1 j k 1, 1 i we define its coor cass by F m = c 1 ({m}) = (C j i 1,Cj i ]\ (C j h 1,Cj h ]. j <j h=1 6

7 Observe that if F 1,F 2,...,F k are coored, then two of them F i1,f i2 are defined using the same chain C j and if they are coored differenty, then F i1,f i2 are comparabe. Therefore c does not admit a rainbow copy of A k. As for any j and i we have (C j i 1,Cj i ] = 2n/+o(n), a we need to show is that we can choose the chains C j in such a way that other intervas meet (C j i 1,Cj i ] in o(2 n/ ) sets. First note that it is enough to ensure that C j i Cj i (i 1)n + 2 n 3 1 i 1 and 1 j j k 1. Indeed, if this is satisfied, then C j i 1 Cj and C j i Cj i (i 1)n + 2 n impy 3 (C j i 1,Cj i ] (Cj i 1,Cj i ] = 2 Cj i Cj i Cj i 1 Cj i 1 2 (i 1)n +2 3 ((i 1)n +1 3 ) = hods for a i 1 (i 1)n Aso, if i i, then C j i = i n + o(n) impies (Cj i 1,Cj i (C j i 1,Cj i ] = 2 o(n). Therefore F m = (C j i 1,Cj i ]\ j <j (Cj i 1,Cj i ] 2n/ o(n) (k 2)2 1 n 3 k2 o(n). Finay, we caim that if the chains C j are generated in the foowing simpe random way, then the condition C j i Cj i (i 1)n + 2 n hods for a 1 i 1 and 1 j j k 1 with 3 probabiity tending to 1: We et C j 0 = for a 1 j k 1 and set p i := 1 i+1 for a 1 i 1. Once Cj i 1 is defined, then we incude every x [n]\c j i 1 to Dj i with probabiity p i independenty of a other y [n]\c j i 1 and et Cj i := Dj i Cj i 1. Observe that D j i is a binomiay distributed random variabe Bi(n Cj i 1,p i), [n]\(c j i Cj i ) is a binomiay distributed random variabe Bi(n, i h=1 (1 p h) 2 ). So by any correation inequaity (Chernoff, Chebyshev) we obtain that with probabiity tending to 1, for a ( ) k 1 2 ( 1) tripes j,j,i we have C j i Cj i = (1 i h=1 (1 p h) 2 )n+o(n). Simiary, as p i (1 i 1 ) = 1, we obtain that with probabiity tending to 1, for any pair j,i we have C j i = i h=1 Dj h = in + o(n). So the condition on the sizes of Cj i s is satisfied and with probabiity tending to 1 we have ( [ C j i Cj i = 2i i n 1 (1 p h ) )n+o(n) 2 2i i ( ) 2 h = + 1] n+o(n). h+1 h=1 So we need to show that 2i + i ( h ) 2 h=1 h+1 1 i 1 or equivaenty 3 h=1 n. n f(,i) := i + i h=1 ( ) 2 h 1 1 h+1 3 (2) 7

8 hodsforanyiand. Observethatf(,i+1) f(,i) = 1 +[( i 1 ) 2 1] i i h=1 ( h h+1 )2. Introducing (i+1) := [1 ( i 1 ) 2 ] i i h=1 ( h h+1 )2, we can see that (i+1) (i) = 1 ( i 1 ) 2 ( ) 2 i i < 1. 1 ( i 2 i 1 )2 i+1 This shows that (i) is decreasing in i and therefore f(,i) is convex in i so it takes its maximum either at i = 1 or at i = 1. The right hand side of (2) is constant in i, so it is enough to check if f(,1) and f(, 1) are both at most 1 1. We have 3 f(,1) = 1 ( ) = 2 +1 < 2 /3 = For f(, 1) = h=1 ( h h+1 )2 1 1 we need g() := 1 3 h=1 ( h h+1 )2 2. This hods true 3 for = 2. As g( +1) = 2 g(), we see that g(+1) = 2 < (+1) 2 g() (+1) decreases quicker in than 2, so our required inequaity hods for a = 2 3(+1), we obtain that g() The conjecture beow states that for any fixed k and Construction 2.4 is not far from being optima. Conjecture 2.5. For any integers ( 1)(k 1) < c (k 1) we have f(n,c,a k ) = 2 (1/+o(1))n. We end this section by determining the vaue of f(n,c,a 2 ) for a n and c. We wi use the foowing emma first proved by Ahswede and Zhang [1] that appeared in this form in [3]. Lemma 2.6. Let F 1,F 2,...,F m 2 [n] be famiies such that for any 1 i j m and F i F i,f j F j the sets F i and F j are comparabe. Then there exists a chain C = { = C 0 C 1 C t = [n]} such that the set [t] = {1,2,...,t} can be partitioned into m sets T 1,T 2,...,T m with F i C h T i (C h 1,C h ). Theorem 2.7. Let og 2 n be positive integers and et a be the integer with 1 a and a n ( mod ). Then f(n,,a 2 ) = 2 n/ a hods. Proof. First observe that a is the number of parts of size n in an equipartition of [n] into parts. Let us consider the cooring showing f(n,,a 2 ) 2 n/ Let = C a 0 C 1...C 1 C = [n] such that C i \ C i 1 = n+i 1 hods for a i = 1,2,...,. According to the previous observation the first a of these sets have size n, the others n +1. So if we et c(h) = i if H (C i 1,C i ) and distribute the +1 C j s among the a sma coor casses eveny, then the smaest coor casses wi have size 2 n/ as required. a To see the upper bound et c be a partia -cooring of B n that does not admit a rainbow pair of incomparabe sets. Then the coor casses F i = c 1 ({i}) (i = 1,2,...,) satisfy the conditions 8

9 of Lemma 2.6, so et the chain C = { = C 0 C 1 C t = [n]} and the sets T 1,T 2,...,T of the partition of [t] as in the emma. Observe that F i = h T i (2 C h\c h 1 2)+c i where c i is the number of sets in C with coor i, so i=1 c i = t+1. Our aim is to appy some trasformations to C such that the correspnding new coorings smaest coor cass size does not decrease and finay we obtain the cooring of the first paragraph. First, C can be changed such that the T i s consist of consecutive eements of [t]. Indeed, we can create C = { = C 0 C 1 C t = [n]} such that if T 1 = {h 1,h 2,...,h s1 }, then T 1 = {1,2,...,s 1 } and C j \ C j 1 = C hj \ C hj 1 and the coor of C h equas the coor of C h. Next we can assume that if c i > 0, then T i is a singeton. Indeed, if not, then T i contains h,h + 1 for some h and we can assume that the coor of C h is i (maybe after exchanging the coors of C h and that set of C that was coored i). Then removing C h from the chain stricty increases the coor cass i as 2 a 2+2 b +1 < 2 a+b 2 hods for a positive integers a,b. Simiary, if c i = 0, then with the exception of at most one h T i, we have C h \C h 1 = 1 (if h,h+1 T i with C h \C h 1, C h+1 \C h 2, then we can change C h to have size C h 1 +1 without changing the coor C h and stricty increasing the size of the coor cass F i). So far we have obtained that coor casses containing some C h s have one interva (C h 1,C h ), whie those not containing any eements of C can have one arge interva and possiby some others of dimension 1. But observe that in this atter case, if h,h + 1 T i with C h \ C h 1 = 1 and c(c h ) = j,c(c h 1 ) = j, then (C h 1,C h ) is empty, so C h 1 can be removed from C and an extra 1 can be added to the dimension of the interva beonging to coor j. This increases the coor cass of j and does not change the size of any other coor casses. With these changes one make sure that a T i s are singetons, i.e. t =. Suppose we have a coor cass, say coor 1, the interva of which has dimension stricty smaer than n/. Then there is another coor cass, say coor 2, the interva of which has dimension at east n/ + 1. Then to have F 1 2 n/ + /a, the coor cass F 1 must contain at east 2 n/ 1 + /a sets of C. The assumption og 2 n impies 2 n/ 1 /a, so decreasing the dimension of the interva of F 2 and increasing the interva of F 1 and possiby recooring /a sets of C from coor 1 to coor 2 wi yied an even better cooring. So we can assume that a intervas have dimension at east /a. The minimum number of these coors is a, so if we distribute the +1 sets of C among them eveny, the best we can get is 2 n/ as caimed. a 3 Other posets Among non-antichain posets et us consider first chains. First observe that if c is a tota - cooring of B n that does not admit a rainbow copy of P k and c( ) = i, then the partia cooring c obtained from c by omitting the coor cass F i does not admit a rainbow copy of P k 1, so we have F(n,,P k ) f(n, 1,P k 1 ). F(n,2,P 2 ) = 0 as if c does not admit a rainbow P 2, then a sets must share the coor of. By the above observation F(n,3,P 3 ) f(n,2,p 2 ). Ahswede and Zhang proved [1] that the atter equas 2 n 2 and the foowing construction shows 9

10 F(n,3,P 3 ) = 2 n 2 : c(f) = 1 if 1 F,2 / F, c(f) = 2 if 1 / F,2 F, c(f) = 3 otherwise. As mentioned above Ahswede and Zhang proved f(n,2,p 2 ) = 2 n 2. They considered famiies F 1,F 2,...,F with the property that for any F i F i and F j F j with i j the sets F i and F j are incomparabe. They caed these famiies coud antichains, ater Gerbner et a [5] studied them under the name of cross-sperner famiies. The upper bound on f(n,2,p 2 ) foows from the foowing theorem. Theorem 3.1 (Ahswede, Zhang[1], Gerbnereta[5]). If F 1,F 2 2 [n] are famiies such that any pair F 1 F 1,F 2 F 2 is incomparabe, then F 1 F 2 2 2n 4. In paricuar, min{ F 1, F 2 } 2 n 2. If k 4, then by definition we have f(n,k,p k ) 2n and considering two famiies F k 1 {F : 1 F,2 / F}, F 2 {F : 1 / F,2 F} with F 1 = F 2 = 2n and an arbitrary cooring k of the remaining sets with equa coor casses shows f(n,k,p k ) = 2n. So the ony vaue for k which f(n,k,p k ) is unknown is k = 3. By the above we have 2 n 2 f(n,3,p 3 ) 2n and 3 we conjecture the ower bound to be tight. Furthermore, we aso conjecture that f(n,3, 2 ) = f(n,3, 2 ) = 2 n 2 hods. The foowing proposition gives coorings showing the ower bound of this conjecture. Proposition 3.2. For any n 3 we have (i) f(n,3,{p 3, 2, 2 }) 2 n 2, (ii) F(n,4,D 2 ) = f(n,4,d 2 ) = 2 n 2. Proof. Let us define first a 4-cooring c of 2 [3] by etting c ({1}) = c ({1,2}) = 1,c ({2}) = c ({2,3}) = 2,c ({3}) = c ({1,3}) = 3,c ( ) = c ([3]) = 4. Let us then write F i = {F 2 [n] : c (F [3]) = i}. The 3-cooring with coor casses F 1,F 2,F 3 does not admit rainbow copies of P 3, 2 and 2 as c ({i}) = c ({i,i+1}) where addition is moduo 3. This aso impies that the 4-cooring with coor casses F 1,F 2,F 3,F 4 does not admit a rainbow copy of D 2. NowweproveTheorem1.7thatstatesifweforbidrainbowcopiesofP 3, 2, 2 simutaneousy, then the above construction gives the vaue of f(n,3,{p 3, 2, 2 }). Proof of Theorem 1.7. Let c : B n [3] be a 3-cooring that avoids rainbow copies of 2, 2 and P 3. For 1 i j 3 we define F j i := {F : c(f) = i, G c(g) = j,f is comparabe to G}. Let us observe that 1. for any distinct i,j,k we have F j i Fk i = as if c(f) = i is comparabe to G 1 and G 2 with c(g 1 ) = j,c(g 2 ) = k, then F,G 1,G 2 form a rainbow copy of either 2 or 2 or P 3, 2. foranydistincti,j,k thefamiies(f i \F k i ) (F j\f k j )andf k arecross-sperner bydefinition. 10

11 The atter observation and Theorem 3.1 impy ( F i \F k i + F j \F k j ) F k 2 2n 4 for any distinct i,j and k. If F k 2 n 2 for some k = 1,2,3, then we are done. Otherwise for any pair 1 i j 3 we have F i \F k i + F j \F k j 2n 2. Summing this for a three pairs i,j and appying the first observation above we obtain F i ( F i \Fi k + F j \Fj k ) 3 2n 2. i=1,2,3 k=1,2,3 This impies that at east one of the F i s have size at most 2 n 2. References [1] Ahswede, R., and Zhang, Z. On coud-antichains and reated configurations. Discrete Mathematics 85 (1990), [2] Axenovich, M., and Wazer, S. Booean attices: Ramsey properties and embeddings. Order 34, 2 (2017), [3] Chang, F.-H., Gerbner, D., Li, W.-T., Methuku, A., Nagy, D., Patkós, B., and Vizer, M. Rainbow ramsey probems for the booean attice. arxiv preprint arxiv: (2018). [4] Cox, C., and Stoee, D. Ramsey numbers for partiay-ordered sets. Order 35, 3 (2018), [5] Gerbner, D., Lemons, N., Pamer, C., Patkós, B., and Szécsi, V. Cross-sperner famiies. Studia Scientiarum Mathematicarum Hungarica 49, 1 (2011), [6] Gerbner, D., and Patkos, B. Extrema Finite Set Theory. CRC Press, [7] Griggs, J. R., and Li, W.-T. Progress on poset-free famiies of subsets. In Recent Trends in Combinatorics. Springer, 2016, pp