bio | website | math.uchicago.edu/~vigleik |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 5 years, 5 months |
seen | Apr 1 '11 at 18:11 | |
stats | profile views | 407 |
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 |