Timeline for A conjecture related to Frankl's conjecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8 at 15:38 | vote | accept | Veronica Phan | ||
| S Dec 8 at 15:38 | history | bounty ended | Veronica Phan | ||
| S Dec 8 at 15:38 | history | notice removed | Veronica Phan | ||
| Dec 4 at 2:16 | answer | added | Alex Ravsky | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 3 at 20:27 | comment | added | mhum | Ah, I think I see. When $\mathcal{F} = 2^{[n]}$, then we can take $a_i = 2$ for all $i$ and the inequality is tight. | |
| Dec 3 at 19:54 | comment | added | Veronica Phan | @mhum count itself too | |
| Dec 3 at 19:45 | comment | added | mhum | do you count $S$ itself in the definition of $w(S)$ or is it just proper subsets of $S$? i.e.: are all the $w(S) \geq 2$ because every $S$ contains the empty set and $S$ itself? | |
| S Dec 3 at 10:30 | history | bounty started | Veronica Phan | ||
| S Dec 3 at 10:30 | history | notice added | Veronica Phan | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Dec 1 at 13:24 | history | edited | Veronica Phan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body; edited title
|
| Dec 1 at 13:22 | comment | added | Veronica Phan | @mathworker21 If my conjecture, together with the last inequality is true, then the Frankl's conjecture is true. In other way, if my conjecture is true, we just need to prove the last inequality to prove the Frankl's conjecture. | |
| Dec 1 at 13:12 | comment | added | mathworker21 | Wait, so you don't know if an affirmative answer to your question implies Frankl's conjecture? You need to prove something else as well? (Just making sure I understand.) | |
| Dec 1 at 10:23 | history | asked | Veronica Phan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |