bio | website | math.uchicago.edu/~vigleik |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 5 years, 10 months |
seen | Apr 1 '11 at 18:11 | |
stats | profile views | 425 |
Feb
12 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Jan
19 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct
14 |
awarded | Yearling |
Jul
5 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Oct
15 |
awarded | Yearling |
Sep
23 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Oct
15 |
awarded | Yearling |
Feb
12 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Nov
28 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Nov
28 |
answered | Intuitive explanation to Probability question |
Oct
29 |
awarded | Scholar |
Oct
29 |
comment |
Bound on cardinality of a union
Thanks, this gives a much better estimate; maybe this is all one can reasonably say. As for motivation, an answer to this question gives an upper bound for Ramsey numbers, see the tag. (In some cases it is very close, though not better, than the best known upper bound.) |
Oct
29 |
accepted | Bound on cardinality of a union |
Oct
29 |
awarded | Student |
Oct
28 |
comment |
Bound on cardinality of a union
This bound might be negative. More generally, if the double intersections all have size N_2 that might force at least some of the triple intersections to be nonempty. |
Oct
28 |
comment |
Bound on cardinality of a union
A straightforward application of inclusion-exclusion, ignoring the terms of the wrong sign, gives a lower bound. But it will generally be far from optimal. |
Oct
28 |
asked | Bound on cardinality of a union |
Oct
26 |
answered | (how) are vector bundles and homotopy groups related? |
Oct
23 |
awarded | Supporter |
Oct
23 |
awarded | Teacher |