2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2001.08628
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The local dimension of suborders of the Boolean lattice

David Lewis

Abstract: We prove upper and lower bounds on the local dimension of any pair of layers of the Boolean lattice, and show that ldim Q n 1,⌊n/2⌋ ∼ n log 2 n as n → ∞. Previously, all that was known was a lower bound of Ω(n/ log n) and an upper bound of n.Improving a result of Kim, Martin, Masařík, Shull, Smith, Uzzell, and Wang, we also prove that that the maximum local dimension of an n-element poset is at least. We also show that there exist posets of arbitrarily large dimension whose dimension and local dimension are eq… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Kim et al [11] proved that, as n → ∞, there exist n-element posets with local dimension Ω n log n . Of course the same is true for local t-dimension for every t. The author [12] improved this lower bound by a constant factor, showing that there exists an n-element poset with local dimension (and hence local t-dimension for every t) at least n 4 log 3n for all n ≥ 2.…”
Section: Local 2-dimension and Complete Bipartite Edge-coverings Of G...mentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Kim et al [11] proved that, as n → ∞, there exist n-element posets with local dimension Ω n log n . Of course the same is true for local t-dimension for every t. The author [12] improved this lower bound by a constant factor, showing that there exists an n-element poset with local dimension (and hence local t-dimension for every t) at least n 4 log 3n for all n ≥ 2.…”
Section: Local 2-dimension and Complete Bipartite Edge-coverings Of G...mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…What is the exact value of ldim ⋆ t (n), for all integers n ≥ t ≥ 2? By an argument similar to the proof of Inequality 3 of Proposition 2 in [12], for any t ≥ 2 and all m, n ∈ N, ldim ⋆ t (mn) ≤ ldim ⋆ t (m) + ldim ⋆ t (n). It follows that, if ldim ⋆ t (m) < log t m for any m, then we can improve the trivial upper bound ldim ⋆ t (n) ≤ ⌈log t n⌉ by a constant factor for all n. However, we do not know of any examples of such m for any t.…”
Section: Open Questionsmentioning
confidence: 92%